[Diy_efi] Is E85 worth it?

[Bernd Felsche]

On Saturday 26 August 2006 10:18, Steve Ravet wrote:
> Klaus Allmendinger wrote:

> > I have done some research recently into ethanol as fuel. From
> > the various studies and test results the conclusion I came to
> > is that ethanol is a superior fuel for engines compared to
> > gasoline, PROVIDED the engines are designed around ethanol fuel.

[snip]

> If you don't mind, I'd like to see the sources you have studied,
> because what I've read is far in the opposite direction, like 7
> gallons of petroleum to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.

I doubt that that is the case in alcohol economies such as Brazil
where much of the processing occurs on site using "waste" products
such as the cane straw to fuel the burners for distillation.  Once
the initial distillate is produced, a much smaller volume and mass
has to be transported for further refinement and distribution.

It requires special consideration of the whole process. 

There is research into direct production of ethanol by microbes
that would thrive in salt water. All the oceans could be potential
aquaculture areas, but more likely tropical and sub-tropical coastal
waters and inland salt lakes. At the very least, that could make
swimming in the sea more enjoyable.  :-)

The main reason for that approach is to reduce the pressure on land
use. Hundred of millions of people live in flood-prone areas and as
global population increases requring more land to grow food,
available land for fuel-cropping diminishes.

It requires approximately a hectare of land to produce a nett of
1000 litres of biodiesel using reasonably high-yield crops; more if
you grow sunflowers. That's enough to run a "small" car for a year.
A square kilometre would fuel 100 such cars for a year.

The same land can feed a lot more people.  That's why you have to
compromise.

> All resources are finite.  The price of most fall with time, and the
> availability of most increase with time, due to increased efficiency in
> use and production.  The price of oil and gasoline would certainly
> follow this trend if they weren't interfered with politically.

Your assumption about reduced demand doesn't take into account the
500 million or so more cars that will be on the roads in Asia over
the next two decades. Consider it a doubling of present demand.

Political means can be used to depress the demand for fuel,
especially in China. High tax rates, such as in the UK where the
nett rate on fuel is well over 100% of the "crude cost", will
invariable reduce the amount of discretionary travel by personal
motor vehicle and therefore total demand.

The dynamic between demand and price is well known but in a free
economy, remains a dynamic where the slightest perturbation can
cause rapid excursions from the "norm".

A primary driver of crude price (before governments apply duties,
excise and taxes by any other name) is demand vs perceived
availability.  Especially so for high-volume commodities.

As alternative fuel options become available, it will tend to
depress prices. If dependency is eliminated, then the price will
float to nearer actual production costs, plus/minus the remaining
market pressures.

> Human production of CO2 at about 5 gigatons per year is a tiny fraction
> of the CO2 already in the atmosphere (over 700 GT), and dwarfed by the
> carbon transport mechanisms between atmosphere, surface ocean, marine
> biosphere, land biosphere, and deep ocean.

Shhh... you're taking the hot air out of an argument. :-)
Next you'll point out that water vapour provides 90% of the
"greenhouse" in which we've evolved and need to survive.

-- 
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
 X   against HTML mail     |  they threaten."
/ \  and postings          | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.