<VV> E85 fuel (NO CORVAIR)

[FrankCB at aol.com]

    While I see some value in considering NET energy, isn't the SELLING PRICE 
per unit of energy what really matters?  If the oil producing countries 
decide to raise the price per barrel from the current $60 to say $100 the NET 
energy won't change at all.  After all,  they raised the price 35 years ago from $3 
to $30.
    I see a similar thing happening with the current prices for natural gas 
and electricity.  For many years, the price I paid for natural gas was about 
1/4 of the price for electricity based on energy content.  Recently, however, 
the natural gas price is nearly HALF of the electric price.  Taking into account 
the relative efficiencies (my old gas-fired furnace is probably sending 40% 
of the natural gas energy up the chimney while electric heat is 100% efficient 
since NO energy goes up the chimney) it's nearly getting to the point where 
electric heat is approaching natural gas heat on a PRICE basis.
    Since E-85 has about 70% of the energy value of gasoline (on a gallon 
basis), E-85 at $2 per gallon is equivalent to $2/70% = $2.86 for a gallon of 
gasoline.  This is assuming the same engine burns either fuel.  If the engine is 
modified (higher CR or higher boost or more timing, et al.) to benefit from 
the higher octane of E-85, it will do a more efficient job of utilizing E-85's 
lesser energy content to narrow the mpg difference between the 2 fuels.  In 
addition, the much greater cooling effect of evaporating E-85 in the intake tract 
would serve to produce an intercooling effect on a boosted engine.  Sort of 
like water-alcohol injection but without the water.<GGGG>  
    The governor of NY State (George Pataki) has recently announced a program 
to put alternative energy fuels like E-85 at service stations along the NY 
State Thruway.  In addition, plans are underway to construct a ethanol fuel 
plant in southern NJ, so maybe we will finally begin to see some E-85 for sale in 
the Northeast.
    Frank "prefers to give my $ to Joe Corncob than to Osama Muhammed" 
Burkhard     

In a message dated 2/23/06 9:20:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
airvair at richnet.net writes:
I just finished a book entitled "What Energy Sources Should Be Pursued?"
published by Greenhaven Press (www.gale.com/greenhaven or
www.thomson.com). It's an anthology of several articles by
well-credentialed people in several fields such as wind and solar power
and alternate fuels.

The BIG problem as one of them points out is NET ENERGY. To use his
illustration, if you only had a gallon of gas in your car, and it took a
gallon of gas to get to the gas station and back, but they only had a
gallon to sell you, then it wouldn't be worth going after. Hence, that
is what net energy is about. Once we reach the point where it takes more
energy to get the fossil fuels (such as oil, in crude, shale oil, etc.)
than we get out of going after it, then the ballgame's over. Sure, we
have potentially enough fossil fuels to last hundreds of years, but what
nobody wants to talk about is the very REAL fact that we have reached
the point of negative net energy.

Then there's the problems with electric, hydrogen, wind, solar, water,
and even biofuel power. All have dubvious net energy issues, not to
mention environmental problems that are often overlooked. All of these
are further impacted by increasing population. Once there is no energy
to produce enough food, the world's population will peak by virtue of
starvation. And electric is incapable of powering large farm machinery
or for that matter, passenger jets. Game over!

I found the book very worthwile reading. It certainly makes one think.

-Mark

Dennis & Debbie PLEAU wrote:
> 
> It's my understanding and I'm no expert that it takes 1 BTU of energy to 
make 1 BTU of ethanol, by the time you grow the corn, haul it to the still and 
then get it to the tank farm.  You can ship petro all the way around the world 
and have a net gain in energy.