E-85, the Gas of the Future?

The Detroit News
A new blend arrives to ease cost of driving

When Eric Callahan fills up his 2005 Nissan Titan pickup, he not only saves 30 cents a gallon, but also feels as though he’s doing his part to reduce American dependence on foreign oil.

The Garnett, Kan., house framer doesn’t have to buy gasoline. He can use E-85, a blend of ethanol and gas being promoted as an elixir to save oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create new markets for farmers.

Once the realm of a few researchers and alternative-fuel junkies, flex-fuel cars and trucks, which can run on either ethanol or gasoline, are becoming more common, especially in the Midwestern corn belt.

Callahan got the idea to buy his flex-fuel truck after seeing a big ethanol plant built in his town of 3,000 people. His parents bought a flex-fuel Chevy Suburban. He figures he knows about 20 people around town with them, folks only too glad to burn corn-based ethanol to support the local economy.

The wave is now hitting Detroit. Last month, Citgo opened two filling stations that sell E-85, an ethanol-gasoline blend. They are the first two places in the metropolitan area where owners of flex-fuel vehicles, which can run on either pure gasoline or E-85, have the flexibility to forego gas.

With gas prices still high, the search for alternatives has become more frenzied than any time since the 1970s. In the 1980s, the nation flirted with gasohol. In the 1990s, natural gas was the alternative fuel of choice.

About 6 million cars and trucks on the road can run on ethanol in any mixture up to 85 percent. A complete list of the models can be found online at www.e85fuel.com.

But there are about 500 nationwide out of a possible 180,000 filling stations.

Now the goal is to give automakers even more incentive to produce flexible-fuel vehicles that run on either ethanol or gasoline, and give oil companies incentives to sell the alternative fuel.

In the latest effort, Ford Motor Co. is partnering with South Dakota ethanol producer VeraSun to increase the number of E-85 pumps. Ford has pledged to sell up to 250,000 flex-fuel vehicles in 2006, including ethanol-burning versions of the F-150, Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car.

Because E-85 burns at higher octane levels than gasoline, there’s a horsepower boost. Callahan says he thinks his truck is one-half second faster going 0 to 60 mph.

"You can tell the difference," he said. "If you’re pulling a trailer, it’s got more power for sure."

Automakers have been selling flexible fuel vehicles for years, mainly in an attempt to bank credits to comply with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program. Under the federal fuel economy program, an automaker’s cars must average 27.5 mpg, and its truck fleet must average 21.6 miles per gallon. With the government’s complicated accounting rules, each flex-fuel vehicle sold helps offset a higher-mileage vehicle.

That has made environmental groups less than enthusiastic about embracing flex-fuel vehicles. Some studies estimate that in years past, the sale of flex-fuel vehicles has resulted in a net increase of 80,000 barrels of oil per year in the United States.

"We have to remember their dirty little secret," said Jason Mark, clean vehicles director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Every flex-fuel vehicle allows them to sell another gas guzzler elsewhere in their fleet."

However, automakers see the flex-fuel option in a much different light. Unlike other alternatives, flex-fuel technology is cheap and already established. For a few hundred dollars a shot, automakers can add the metal fuel tanks, bigger fuel injectors and software needed for conventional vehicles to run on either ethanol or gasoline.

General Motors Corp.’s offers nine flex-fuel vehicles and has sold 1.5 million units to date. It has the capacity to build 450,000 more per year.

"If you compare a vehicle using E-85 to a typical hybrid vehicle, the hybrid may get better gas mileage but the E-85-powered vehicle saves hundreds more gallons of gas per vehicle per year," GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said. "Only 15 percent of what you put in the tank is gasoline, compared with 100 percent in the hybrid’s tank."

Article Source: http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=52113&cat=Hybrid

 

Currently doesn't it take more energy to produce ethanol than you get out of it? I thought that was one of the major drawbacks.

 

This is not quite true, despite popular opinion. Ethanol DOES burn at a higher octane ( mostly from a higher flash point ) and MUCH cleaner than gasoline.......without carbon deposits....but its BTU energy content is only about half of gasoline, necessitating much larger fuel tanks to get the same HP and cruising range, and it can damage fuel system parts designed for gasoline. Cars that run on pure alcohol....like in Brazil.....only get about half the mileage of gas.

Here in the U.S. most new vehicles can safely run on a roughly 90-10 gas-alcohol mix.....any more can damage the fuel system and void the warranty.

 

It depends on which study you read last(and who sponsored the study). As a chemical engineer who has worked in the distilling industry my opinion is that gasahol currently is a welfare program for midwest farmers. Brazil can power upwards of 50% of their cars with ethanol because the raw material is so cheap-sugar cane and mill waste-and because wages are so much lower. There is also a gov. subsidy there.

For different opinions and studies click here

 

What about in states like California, who add up to 15% of ethanol to their fuel, and Minnesota who wants to add 20%?

 

Because of the chronic smog in the L.A. basin, ( much better now than it used to be ) CA-certified engines in many cases are already different from other ones...that is why their HP figures, as well as emissions, are often lower. It brings up question why we don't just have one type of engine for all 50 states.

For the others, I think that automakers are working with both the EPA and state governments to address this question....at this point I don't know how it will be resolved. ( If any of you CL members have any news on this, let us know ) Automakers in the U.S. market up to now would not warranty non-CA engines and fuel systems for anything beyond 10% alcohol, but of course changes in engine and fuel-system design in the future could address this. Less clear, however, is how existing vehicles would be affected.

 

An interesting viewpoint from a chemist and someone in the alcohol buisness ...but let me ask you this: Would you rather see a welfare system for our own hard-working farmers.....or for OPEC? IMO I say give it to the farmers. They not only help us run our cars but they feed us as well...we can thank them for most of our meals.

But while we're on this subject, it brings up another interesting question: If we start devoting large supplies of Midwestern corn and grain to gasohol and F-85 production, what will become of the general food supply? Farm animals and poultry have to eat, too, not just us....we could see spot shortages of some grains....or dairy products, meats, and poultry if farmers have to stop raising animals to conserve grain.

 

I grew up on a farm in Kentucky so I am certainly not anti-farmer or anti-farm subsidy. I was only trying to add some reality to the thoughts of those who think we can come anywhere close to replacing imported oil with with energy from corn and soybeans.

Don't worry about running out of land to grow these crops either. If a decent market were available we could easily increase production by as much as 100%. We just need buyers willing to pay a good price. On our farm, even in the boom years of the fifties and sixties, we never once produced half our true capacity-we didn't care to work for no pay.