Talk about blending fuel...

An India based company says by blending "petrol", ethanol, and diesel, you can have a fuel with the same btu ( or 99% ) as regular gasoline.

Clips:

"In a major breakthrough in the bio-fuel production business, Pune-based Praj Industries has devised a method to produce ethanol from ligno-cellulosic feedstock like straw, grasses and wood chips."

"Praj Industries, involved in non-conventional energy sector, has also designed a new ethanol blend, which is high-energy fuel, to be blended with petrol and diesel."

"Praj has discovered a "high-energy-content ethanol", a new blend that matches the energy levels of petrol. If we consider, petrol delivers 100 per cent energy, the newly discovered blend of ethanol bridges this gap between ethanol and diesel to provide almost 99 per cent energy, said Inamdar. Praj has also patented this ethanol blend and the commercialisation of the same would be achieved with the help of oil companies."

 

Right. Coming to a gas station near you - soon.

 

I've been having great fun doing my own E85 blending study. It has really made driving interesting again!

I have a 98 Saturn SL2 with about 105k miles. I have run five tanks so far of various blends of ethanol. The regular average mileage before the study was 29.9 mpg. Here are my results:

Blend mileage petroleum mileage
------- --------- ---------------------
E25 28.6 38.6
E25 31.0 35.3
E28 26.3 36.7
E28 26.8 40.1
E32 27.4 40.6

When I started, I slowly ramped up the ethanol percentage. The mileage dropped slightly, which you can see more clearly on the Greenhybrid mileage chart in the link in my signature below. But, nothing dramatic, just a few percent, and well within normal driving variations. And, as expected, the mileage expressed as miles per gallon of petroleum is dramatically higher. So, maybe we should all do this to avoid buying 30% of the oil we import? Oh yeah, the E85 pump is still marked $3.19, and E0 here (Rockville, MD) is about $3.50.

As for performance, it drives exactly as before. No difference. And, believe me, on the first tank, you are listening for any little noise or hesitation.....

The remaining unknown is long-term performance. I just happen to be taking it in for service in about a thousand miles, and I'm going to let them know what I've been doing and ask them to inspect the fuel line (but could they see anything anyway?). It might be that the "damage" takes longer to manifest itself. But, according to the original studies that motivated all this, there shouldn't be a problem.

Any more systematic real world experiences out there?

Cheers,
rumpole!

 

Very nice report Scott! Thanks for sharing!

Price of ethanol is going up since the price to transport it is going up.
Corn price is a little higher, but not dramatically higher. ( unlike crude )
In Minnesota, E85 is going for about $2.59 to $2.69 a gallon.
How would you like to get your hands on some of that!?

A few places in Nebraska have it for lower than that, but you have to hunt it down in small towns.

-John

 

Keep it coming John. I love this type of information.

 

The Argonne National Laboratory has released a report that shows the efficiency of ethanol production facilities continues to rise. Argonne analyzed industry data from 2001 to 2006 and found that in addition to the rapid growth of ethanol production, the industry has cut its use of resources, benefiting the environment.

In that five-year span ethanol production jumped 276% from 1.77 billion gallons to 4.9 billion gallons. At the same time water consumption, electricity and total energy used by ethanol facilities dropped dramatically. Facilities use 26.6% less water, 15.7% less grid electricity, and 21.8% less total energy in manufacturing ethanol compared to just a few years ago.

"America's ethanol industry has come a long way in a few short years, as has the efficiency and productivity of the corn farmers that provide the raw materials for this dynamic industry," says Illinois Corn Growers Association President Art Bunting. "There continues to be a lot of outdated or just plain wrong information circulating regarding the ethanol production chain, so this is a welcome study."

Corn yield has risen from 35 bushels per acre in 1950 to over 160 bushels per acre in 2000. Fertilizer use per bushel has been reduced by 70% since 1980. 200 bushels per acre is possible in the future.

Argonne also found that in 2007 carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions from the nation's automobile fleet were reduced by 10 million tons due to the use of 6.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Additionally the analysis found that nearly 25% of ethanol facilities are capturing their carbon dioxide emissions for use in dry ice production and carbonated beverage bottling, and over a third of distillers grain is being sold in wet form, therefore reducing energy needed to dry and transport the product. These trends are making ethanol more efficient and environmentally friendly.

 

I was having a conversation with this lady about E85. She was one of those "E85 is bad, it takes 5 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of E85" type people. She wouldn't even listen to me. It seems like the mainstream media only reports on negative things, so it has been staying away from the advances of E85 unless they begin talking about Brazil's rainforest being chopped down for fuel. Did they mention all the people we are killing for fuel? I don't think that either is okay, but they shouldn't be bashing biofuels and supporting foreign oils.

 

I would ask, "Really, I didn't know that. Does that mean E85 costs five times more than gasoline? How do you think they do that?"

Bob Wilson

 

According to Argonne National Labs ( in a 2005 powerpoint ) it took:

0.74 million btu to put 1 million btu of ethanol at the retail pump.
( dirt farm to pump - the distillery takes about .39 )

while it takes,

1.24 million btu to put 1 million btu of gasoline at the retail pump.

also, it takes,

2.34 million btu to deliver 1 million btu (equiv) of electricity to your house.

Assuming ethanol plants built post-2005 ( which is half of them ) are more energy efficient that those early ones ( and I know they are ) it's taking considerably less than 0.74 btu of fossil fuel per btu of ethanol today.

People are making ethanol because it is cheap to make, and they can profit from it.
"Good for the Planet" is not their primary motive!

 

A consulting firm working for the American Farm Bureau says ethanol is holding the price of gas down by 10 cents a gallon.

The Wall Street Journal reports on how biofuels are keeping oil and gas priced 15% lower than otherwise.

A U.S. DOE official says “transportation energy, is now the No. 1 issue facing the United States”; “ The U.S. economy is completely dependent on transportation.”

Drought in Australia cut global wheat production. Floods in Bangladesh affected rice. The world’s population is growing and demanding more and varied foodstuffs. Economic growth in countries such as China results in changing eating patterns. Traditional diets based on grain staples are expanding to include luxury items like beef and pork. …and then there is the ethanol and biofuel effect…

If you just went by the headlines, you’d think that the solution to end world hunger is to stop making ethanol. So if you imagine a world with no ethanol, who’s to say food prices in developing countries might not be higher?

A 2007 study estimated that for every 30 percent increase in the price of corn, retail food prices increased by only about 1 percent… There was 2 cents of corn in a 1 pound box of corn flakes in 2001. Now double the price of corn. Now there is 4 or 5 cents of corn in every 1 pound box of corn flakes. There's 5 cents of corn ( at today's prices ) in a 1 pound package of tortillas. The rest of the cost for the food is for manufacturing, marketing, and transporting the food.

Quite the eye opener in my opinion.

-John