Al Gore's Ethanol Epiphany

Just thinking said:
Well, yes ... that's all true. But one can achieve higher octane with pure gasoline also --- say, by using premium 93. And 93 gasoline will have more energy than 93 10% gasohol. So I ask again, how does having 10% ethanol in my gasoline deliver more torque?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, except as it matches the octane required by a particular engine.
 
Just thinking said:
Evidence? Diluted gasoline (10% alcohol/ethanol) has less energy per volume. Yes, it yields higher octane, but that's not more energy.
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure if you were asking me or ServiceSoon. I don't know about the torque issue. I was taking him at his word. I do know that gas mileage is worse with ethanol in the gas. Here is an article about E10 and gas mileage

E10 (also called “gasohol”) is a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline sold in many parts of the country. All auto manufacturers approve the use of blends of 10% ethanol or less in their gasoline vehicles. However, vehicles will typically go 3–4% fewer miles per gallon on E10 than on straight gasoline.1
Click to expand...
 
Note that Gore has only denounced "first generation" ethanol. Turns out there's a good (well, good for Al Gore) reason for that:

If we turn to the investment portfolio of the venture capital firm of Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers (KPCB) where Al Gore is a partner, we find that KPCB has invested in Mascoma Corporation, whose business is cellulosic ethanol.
Click to expand...
 
Region Rat said:
I wasn't sure if you were asking me or ServiceSoon. I don't know about the torque issue. I was taking him at his word. I do know that gas mileage is worse with ethanol in the gas. Here is an article about E10 and gas mileage
Click to expand...

Yes, I knew about the lower mileage ... I guess it was your use of the word sure in response to his torque claim that made me think you agreed with him because you knew that to be true as well. Honestly, I just can't see that happening with a lower energy content fuel --- assuming of course that one has met all the proper fuel/octane requirements using both regular gasoline vs. 10% gasohol.
 
ServiceSoon said:
Because I can make 20% more torque in my car than std gasoline?
Click to expand...

Are you are willing to pay the full unsubsidized cost (something like an extra 66 cents per gallon) for that sort of fuel over regular gasoline?

If so, and if there are others like you, there may be a market for it even without government subsidies.
 
Just thinking said:
Correct ... but how does that raise torque over using straight gasoline? (Given of course that the engine/gasoline octane are properly set-up and metered to eliminate knocking.)
Click to expand...

High octane means a slower burn which translates into more torque (if memory serves). The same way diesel produces more torque. The expansion is slower but over more of the stroke, a long push instead of a quick punch.

I don't think it's 20% though.
 
Almo said:
Um... doesn't corn take tons of fossil fuel (generating fertilizer and farm machinery) to harvest?
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. Which is why it hardly reduces carbon emissions, and may increase them. I'm sure the math is pretty complicated on this, but one estimate is that with corn it only reduces carbon emissions by 10%-20%. I don't know if that truly factors in everything that is affected though, including secondary influences, like the need to replace the lost food production with other food production.

BenBurch said:
Once you have an octane high enough for your engine, there is no significant further improvement by going to a higher octane.
Click to expand...

A good thing to know. I used to think that higher octane meant better performance or something. I've probably wasted some money in my life on more expensive gas than I needed.
 
3bodyproblem said:
High octane means a slower burn which translates into more torque (if memory serves). The same way diesel produces more torque. The expansion is slower but over more of the stroke, a long push instead of a quick punch.
Click to expand...

As to the first part, yes. But higher octane can be achieved with 100% gasoline (meaning, sans alcohol). As for the second part, torque has the same units as energy, and the energy content of higher octane gasoline is actually very slightly less than regular. But basically, so many joules of energy can translate to only so may N-m of torque. Now, Diesel fuel actually has more joules of energy per unit of fuel over gasoline, and certainly over gasohol, which has less than gasoline. And Diesel engines burn all of the fuel on the down-stroke, unlike gasoline engines which ignite a few degrees before the piston reaching top-dead-center.

I don't think it's 20% though.
Click to expand...

And here we agree 1000%

;)
 
Higher octane should allow for greater compression. The greater the compression the more efficient you can make the engine. Of course you don't have a lot of cars that can vary their compression rates based on the fuel used.

Sooner rather than later oil will be gone so you'll need batteries or ethanol.
 
Puppycow said:
Welcome to the college of converts, Mr. Vice President. "It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Al Gore told a gathering of clean energy financiers in Greece this week. The benefits of ethanol are "trivial," he added, but "It's hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Anyone wanna bet the subsidies will be in place long after people not yet born have gone to the grave?


Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
 
daenku32 said:
Higher octane should allow for greater compression. The greater the compression the more efficient you can make the engine. Of course you don't have a lot of cars that can vary their compression rates based on the fuel used.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but turbo charged cars can do something similar. True, they can't vary their compression, that's fixed, but they can effectively cram more air/fuel into the cylinder, which when compressed is like having the same air/fuel density of a higher compression engine. And this turbo boost can vary by metering the detonation tendency of the fuel being used.
 
Just thinking said:
As to the first part, yes. But higher octane can be achieved with 100% gasoline (meaning, sans alcohol). As for the second part, torque has the same units as energy, and the energy content of higher octane gasoline is actually very slightly less than regular. But basically, so many joules of energy can translate to only so may N-m of torque. Now, Diesel fuel actually has more joules of energy per unit of fuel over gasoline, and certainly over gasohol, which has less than gasoline. And Diesel engines burn all of the fuel on the down-stroke, unlike gasoline engines which ignite a few degrees before the piston reaching top-dead-center.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you were asking if it "all comes out in the wash"? I believe the answer is no, the torque increase doesn't offset the hp loss and gasohol is less efficient than gasoline tank for tank.

I've only run 94 Ultra in my high compression (10:1 or better) motorcycles with liquid cooling. In them it makes a noticeable difference in power, but it really isn't worth the money for street use. I've always avoided mixed gasoline in my bikes as well.
 
Beerina said:
Anyone wanna bet the subsidies will be in place long after people not yet born have gone to the grave?


Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Click to expand...

But I thought that the Tea Party wanted a smaller government.

Are you saying that once in power they won't do what they promised to do? :eek:
 
3bodyproblem said:
Oh, so you were asking if it "all comes out in the wash"? I believe the answer is no, the torque increase doesn't offset the hp loss and gasohol is less efficient than gasoline tank for tank.
Click to expand...

Yes ... which is why I'm still wondering why we are still diluting gasoline with the stuff. Leave what works best alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom