Secrets of the City

According to the Times Saturday, (and a U of M researcher,) bullshit is unfortunately not the answer to our gas problems either.

That’s too bad! We seem have an unlimited supply of BS, both locally and in Washington, DC!

Ethanol cannot fuel all of our vehicles.

A poor band-aid to a huge problem.

Plus, the lower price comes from government subsidy, as soon as ethanol would actually become popular, the price would shoot up to the same price as gas is anyways.

Beyond that, ethanol is not solving consumption problems. Gasoline-style engines run less efficiently on ethanol. So your 20MPG SUV will probably get 16 or 17 on ethanol.

Biodiesel, while still not the best solution, is better in this aspect. Diesel engines sip fuel compared to their gas counterparts. It’s really too bad the EPA is regulating diesels out of the market.

If you want to try out E85, be sure to check if you’re vehicle will take it. My don’t.

Here’s the list:
E85 Flexible Fuel Vehicles

I love the head in the sand arguments. If this technology doesn’t solve all our problems why should we even think of wasting our time on it.

It’s a pretty stupid way to look at things. If we replaced 10% of the oil that we import that would eliminate almost all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia and the middle east.

Maybe we could use that genetically altered corn to make hyper yields from our existing farms.

Who knows? It least people are looking for alternatives.

We at ALAMN support biodiesel, too. Things are not so bleak for biodiesel as you paint them — remember, we are the only state where every gallon of diesel sold contains two percent biodiesel. A small step, perhaps, but years ahead of the rest of the US. We also sell and use a lot of higher percentage biodiesel blends (B5, B10, B20, even some B100) at stations and co-ops all across Minnesota.

You are right that we need more efficient FFVs like those used in Europe and South America. The most exciting of these is the Saab BioPower FFV sedan, which (Saab says) gets better milage on E85 than gasoline!

One other quick thing.
With out the ethanol plants in Minnesota they would have never started the Shakers brand of vodka.
Mmmmmmmmmm steel cut wheat vodka!

Or maybe crap actually is the answer.

I’d like to see the numbers behind that, since I was under the impression that E85 has less stored potential energy than normal gas, meaning that no engine could get better mileage. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Rich: I’m a clean air expert, not a car expert, but from what I understand the BioPower 9-5 uses turbocharging to take advantage of E85’s higher octane (105!) to squeeze more energy out of the corn squeeze fuel, E85.

Keep in mind all the info I have seen on this vehicle comes from Saab, not an independent source. Furthermore, these vehicles are not yet sold in the USA. Still, it sounds very cool and I want the first test drive here.

Interesting…but the turbocharging alone would boost mileage for the standard gas too, though not as significantly as it would for a higher octane fuel. I’m curious if that boost applies across the board for any turbocharged car.

Frankly, I’m amazed American car manufacturers haven’t embraced turbocharging more. It’s fairly common practice across the Atlantic, but the big three just keep on making bigger engines to boost performance, rather than turbo a smaller engine for more power and efficiency.

i love it when people make the subsidy argument… that ethanol and biodiesel require too much federal subsidization. You have any idea how subsidized the trad oil/gas industry is? Read the news lately about the royalty-free industry that is making record historic profits and closing in on $70 per barrel, without paying the American public a red cent of royalty for a natural resource held in public trust? (it’s a little like giving away our forests to timber concerns–so you get to pay twice for what was yours to begin with.) you think we’re not subsidizing dozens and dozens of exploratory projects looking for more dinasaur shit wherever we can find it? second, most industry estimates put the gas mileage difference on ethanol in gas engines at 1 to 3 percent lower mileage. finally, most studies now show that ethanol production is a net energy gain. while it costs energy from some other source to produce ethanol, the net result is positive– and at the present time the energy needed to convert corn to ethanol can be provided by non-oil, domestic sources like coal.

anyway, there’s subsidization and then there’s subsidization. rather than prolonging the inevitable peak-oil crash, our government SHOULD be subsidizing renewable energy sources. (and they should be taxing the hell out of trad oil/gas producers and consumers to do it.)

also, wanted to add an interesting contrarian note: biodiesel produces a lot more smog than trad gas. not the greenhouse gases kind, apparently, but the yellow-haze-of-Los-Angeles type of smog.

My dad told me today his corn is trading at about $1.85. Ethanol isn’t just an investment in our automobiles.

Richg-

The reason the US has fewer turbochargers is because of the drive-cycle the EPA uses to test emissions. The Europeans use a blocky, unnatural combination of acceleration and breaking, on a test bench, while measuring the exhaust for emissions. Americans use a combination of accelerations and brakings which are meant to resemble driving around California one afternoon, I think. I can’t remember. But we figured it out in the 70s I think, and the auto companies aren’t real fond of it, especially since they have to tune engines differently for the US and for Europe.

The short of it is that the US drive cycle disfavors turbo-chargers, because it has long periods of hot exhaust, which causes the formation of NOx. You need to get NOx emissions down in the US. It may be that the bio-power Saab does this.

In other bonehead news, what’s up with D-rock pushing corn gas so heavy, with no good cars to burn it?!? About the only steed in the GM stable I’d buy is the 9-3.

Biodiesel produces more particulates than gas, but less NOx.

It’s a tradeoff. We don’t have smog problems here in MN so the particulate issue is kinda moot. That and the fact that PM filters are just about ready for full production use makes diesels a viable alternative to gassers.

And turbos FTW. I’m addicted to boost.

Strange test. Is it supposed to simulate highway driving? Tooling around the city? Given that most turbochargers don’t even spin up until you accelerate with some serious purpose, I’m still quite curious about the ins and outs of it all.

Actually, I could swear we had some particulate warnings last summer…

We do have problems with ground-level ozone (which leds to smog) and particulate air pollution in Minnesota, just not a severe as in other regions. We only just started measuring the particulates, which is perhaps why some have not heard of the problem. Our (relatively) clean skies are due largely to a fortunate combination of weather and geography, yet there are things we can all do to reduce outdoor air pollution in Minnesota beyond biofuels.

We should also remember that we can also reduce pollution by car-sharing, limiting or bundling trips, riding the bus or light rail, and even using bikes and feet when possible.

the turbo in my wrx doesn’t seem to help with fuel efficiency much. it helps putting a smile on my face when i floor it, though!

I think it might be the flooring it that leads to your troubles with fuel economy.

You guys need a quality used bike, tuned up by us !!!!
Save the earth