E85 to E100 - Anyone using Ethanol?

[AndyH]

The ONLY reason people use chemical ag processes is because they're afraid to do anything else - because they only know how to manage industrial farm methods. And because the ag chemical salespeople are so deeply entrenched in the system.

You sure its not because it saves labor?.. there is a reason for industrial farming methods. I have no issues with genetically modified crops, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.. I trust the farmers to know what they are doing since many of them go to school to learn how to do it, plus it is their land and to their interest to preserve it.

Herm, Sorry if some of my posts seem snarky or brusque. I'm trying to really show that there are options - and that the options work better AND get us where we want. If all we're going to do is take sides across a tug-of-war rope, there's no point. I'll just go back to learning and practicing permaculture and eating chemical-free fresh tomatoes from the window in my 'back bedroom' and you can go back to enjoying your daily dose of untested GMO corn with a side of atrazine. :lol:

I really get what you're saying about farmers - and I'm not trying to disparage farming or farmers. But this is not the only way, and it's not even the BEST way if we factor in food quality, sustainability, efficient use of fertilizer, soil maintenance, and the health of the consumer. I speak to this from two different directions. First, I use natural and organic fertilizers as I transition my understanding to full permaculture methods. I've worked with friends here that grow and sell grass fed beef and others with smaller ranches with horses and/or chickens. I've sampled soil, looked at current practices, and have tried to overcome the DEEPLY entrenched habits.

Here's a real example of the 'knowledge and training' of which you speak: I did side-by-side test plots for a friend with horses and a coastal hay field - current 'big ag' fertilizer/herbacide/pestacide treatment next to organic liquid treatments with no herbacides or pestacides. The natural test plot took less work, was about half the price for products, and grew a superior mineral-rich and protein-rich hay. In the end the friend chose to stay with the chemical process - even though it took more time, more money, and produced a lower quality and less drought tolerant harvest because the local fertilizer shop had 'free' tank trailers for the ammonia and would mix all the chemicals for pickup. The customer already owns a tank and sprayer - all they had to to was dump liquids in the tank, fill it with water, and drive the field to apply the product.

Here's another example - from Cape Cod this time. Earlier I quoted the harvests from the New Alchemy Institute's gardens. Here's more of the story:

As productivity continued to improve over the seasons, Hilde summarized her results as follows: "On one plot of less than an acre we grew one serving each of a raw vegetable, a green cooked vegetable, and a root or other nongreen cooked vegetable for ten people for every day of the year with some surplus." Such abundance led her to postulate: "Gardening intensively on a small acreage, using such practices as extending the season with cloches and solar-heated greenhouses, selecting local plant varieties for pest and disease resistance and for suitability to soil and climate, improving soil fertility, establishing food-producing forests, and animal husbandry are all strategies within our reach..."

Because Hilde was pleased with our increasingly abundant harvests, she became interested in local agricultural history and decided to do a bit of research. Curious to know whether she might expect such bounty regularly, she called the local agricultural extension agent to ask about average yields of vegetables and grains on Cape Cod. "I'm sorry," the agent told her, "but I can't give you any such data. The Cape cannot produce anything but cranberries and some strawberries." Hilde tried again. "Maybe you have records on crops grown here twenty years or so ago." His reply was again negative; he had not seen anything else growing successfully in the twenty years he had been on the job. Hilde persisted. "What about a long time ago, the turn of the century or before?" Another negative answer: "Lady, you don't want to know about those figures because what they called high yields back then, we call a poor yield now." Hilde noted, "If I hadn't already grown an abundance of vegetables on our land, I should have stopped gardening and gone into the construction business." Yet once again, by the end of that season, the garden had surpassed its previous record. Hilde and her crew had grown more food with less work and less irrigation than the previous year.

Source: A Safe and Sustainable World: The Promise of Ecological Design, Nancy Jack Todd, pages 25/26

Farmers are not stupid - at all! But the information they have available to them easily, and the information provided by the ag support structure, are deeply focused on one type of farming. And it's very difficult for these very conservative folks to 'take a chance' on anything 'new' even if they've seen it with their own eyes. And that's before we get into seed companies sending squads to intimidate farmers that choose to not use GMO seed and want to use old methods of seed-saving for next year's planting.

Our 'mainstream' ag processes are NOT sustainable and cannot provide us with both food and fuel. But there are other ways that have been proven repeatedly to work and work well. And no, it's not about labor.

edit... I just stumbled across this that might make the conventional ag/organic ag comparison even easier to see. Again, it's from an alcohol processing and permaculture perspective.

Let's grow corn on typical depleted farmland. Plant seeds, add required supplements of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Later we harvest and send the corn off the farm for processing. Some of the nutrients have left the farm - we start the next cycle with a deficit and need again to supplement with NPK. Earthworms, fungi, and other soil organisms are nearly non-existent from the fertilizer and pesticides/herbacides used.

Organic/permaculture corn: Start with the same soil. Plant the corn, supplement as required with NPK from non-chemical sources. Harvest the crop and turn 100% into ethanol. The ethanol is made only from the CO2 and water the plant used - everything the corn took from the soil is still in the stalks and 'leftover' distillers grain. If we put the distillers grain back on the field along with the stalks, we have 100% of the nutrients the next crop needs, plus an additional 10% provided by the subsurface life that supported the corn plant.

One process continually rebuilds the soil, while the other system continually depletes the soil and requires dependence on an ag industry to supply the supplements.

 

[Herm]

Herm, Sorry if some of my posts seem snarky or brusque. I'm trying to really show that there are options - and that the options work better AND get us where we want.

I have very thick skin about internet conversations.. I would not respond if I felt insulted.

One process continually rebuilds the soil, while the other system continually depletes the soil and requires dependence on an ag industry to supply the supplements.

But the fermentation by-products are FOOD, they should not be buried in the field (or burned for heat) to help along the next generation of plants.. I even have trouble feeding it to animals but there is little demand for human consumption otherwise.. just make sure you collect the manure from that animal husbandry and put it back on the field, same with human sewage and why not?.. its not intended for human consumption. Ideally the cattle and swine lots should be placed near the corn mills. The Asians have practiced sustainable agriculture for a long time, using human manure.. Prior to Columbus, Indians used the sustainable "3 sisters" method with good results.

In Brazil the sugarcane fields are burned prior to harvesting, this returns some nutrients back to the soil, the sugarcane is harvested then taken to the mill, the juices are squeezed out and the resulting bagasse is then burned for process heat.. I hope the ashes are also returned to the field. They still have to use synthetic fertilizers because sugarcane is very hungry.

I am sure farmers get alarmed when someone with a gleam in their eye talks to them about sustainable permaculture farming methods.. you need to convince them that it pays to do so. Apparently we have lots of NG to make fertilizer with. You need to set an example. I know food produced with your methods will taste better and probably will be healthier.. but I dont want to work in a farm to grow that food, I prefer if an industrialized farm did the work for me.

 

[AndyH]

But the fermentation by-products are FOOD, they should not be buried in the field (or burned for heat) to help along the next generation of plants..

That's just it - they can be food - but they're also fertilizer and herbacide and a base stock for biomethane and... Using 5% for an animal feed supplement and another 5% for biomethane still leaves 90% for fertilizer and herbacide - and we've got 100% of the nutrition covered for the next crop - more if we add some manure to the methane reactor and put the rest in the fields.

We'll hopefully evolve past corn, though, as there are much better feedstocks available. Just one staring squarely in the 'food vs. fuel' myth is mesquite down here in the hot/dry areas. One number I've heard suggests there's as many acres in mesquite as we have in corn. The mesquite is wild, doesn't require any cultivation, and we can get more ethanol and byproducts per acre from the seedpods than from corn. And nobody will confuse some of this ground for 'prime farmland' anytime soon! :lol:

With the rest I agree - from humanure to keeping critters on the farm and other ways to close the resource loops - but we're not doing much of that in this country. We used to before petrochemicals though. We just have to remember.

Ain't this fun?

 

[Herm]

can mesquite harvesting be automated?.. desert lands are very delicate.. perhaps we can irrigate them.

 

[AndyH]

can mesquite harvesting be automated?.. desert lands are very delicate.. perhaps we can irrigate them.

I'll try to respond with three questions:

Automation: What's our unemployment rate again?
Desert-delicate: "Delicate" is a matter of degree. Maybe we shouldn't plan on harvesting from the cab of a bulldozer? I wonder how they harvest pecans all over the south without making the countryside look like the moon?
Irrigate: Does anyone think we can increase plankton growth rates with irrigation? Mesquite's growing here because this is where it's adapted to grow best - without interference from the planet's bipedal troublemakers.

 

[Smidge204]

can mesquite harvesting be automated?.. desert lands are very delicate.. perhaps we can irrigate them.

I'll try to respond with three questions:

Automation: What's our unemployment rate again?

*Devil's Advocate hat*

There is already a shortage of farm workers. Apparently Americans are too good for those jobs.

Desert-delicate: "Delicate" is a matter of degree. Maybe we shouldn't plan on harvesting from the cab of a bulldozer? I wonder how they harvest pecans all over the south without making the countryside look like the moon?

They almost don't...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbKhnp0wH0[/youtube]

It helps that harvesting something like Pecans is not destructive to the producing plant. This is tougher for mesquite, which is often harvested for the wood itself. Though if you can make a business case that growing it *just* for the beans...

Ideally you'd want something that grows fast, is resistant to insect damage, can be grown on non-arable land (ie rocky, sandy soils) with minimal maintenance. Normally these are called "weeds." :lol:

Irrigate: Does anyone think we can increase plankton growth rates with irrigation? Mesquite's growing here because this is where it's adapted to grow best - without interference from the planet's bipedal troublemakers.

Using the right crop for the region is crucial for sustainability. Irrigation requires fresh water which itself is a limited resource, and that's one of the main concerns with biofuels in general. It's also why I prefer some ocean based solution or salt-tolerant plants since we can forgo wasting our precious fresh water running our machines instead of ourselves.
=Smidge=

 

[AndyH]

edit...

There is already a shortage of farm workers. Apparently Americans are too good for those jobs.

One possibility, since the plan is small-scale local production, is the WWOOF movement. There are more and more people that travel the country working on organic farms to support and learn. http://www.wwoof.org/
/edit

Though if you can make a business case that growing it *just* for the beans...

Pre-Cisely! That's all one needs to make more ethanol per acre than corn.

Add buffalo gourds among the trees and get another ethanol feedstock (the root) and an oil crop (gourd seeds) sufficient to fuel the harvesting equipment and provide the process heat to distill the alcohol.

Ideally you'd want something that grows fast, is resistant to insect damage, can be grown on non-arable land (ie rocky, sandy soils) with minimal maintenance. Normally these are called "weeds." :lol:

Weeds...interesting choice of words. :lol:

http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87606/pdf_2718.pdf?sequence=1

Historically, mesquite has had many uses including firewood, fence posts, food (beans only), wood for furniture and flooring, and shade for livestock... Today, many think of mesquite as only a pest.

But this can be little more than 'extra production' since we can fuel the country a couple times over with cattails growing in ponds after every waste water treatment plant in the country.

 

[ksnogas2112]

Here the only use of mesquite is in BBQ

 

[etracing]

I have used E85 in several cars as well as a 1929 Model A street rod. No Problems. (South Carolina)

It works GREAT if you understand it. It makes plenty of HP and has no issues if you plan for
what it as....ethanol.

 

[Electric4Me]

Nice model A Ed!

I use e85 almost exclusively in my tuned Subaru. It may have it's issues, but I think it's better to fund this industry than gasoline. Hopefully a better method of production will evolve in large scale. Of course, the Leaf is logging most of my miles...

Oh, and as far as fuel economy goes, I only get a slight drop in mileage and e85 is almost a dollar cheaper per gallon around here.

 

[etracing]

"I think it's better to fund this industry than gasoline."


Absolutely!!!!!!!!!



+12

 

[AndyH]

Cellulosic ethanol is in commercial production and on the road - in Denmark:

http://www.bio4bio.dk/For_partners/Annual_seminars/~/media/Bio4bio/presentations/MaiOHaven.ashx

Design spec (annual):

Input: 30,000 tonnes of straw
Output: 4,300 tonnes ethanol, 13,000 tonnes of biopellets, and 11,100 tonnes of animal feed

 

[lkkms2]

"I think it's better to fund this industry than gasoline."


Absolutely!!!!!!!!!



+12

After I saw the movie called "Freedom" it opened my eyes. We realized my Mom's 2005 Ford Taurus was designed to run on E85 and have been using it.

Recently I bought a conversion kit for my 2001 Toyota Camry and we have just started adding E85. I agree with the above sentiment!

 

[AndyH]

"I think it's better to fund this industry than gasoline."

Amen!

After I saw the movie called "Freedom" it opened my eyes.

Freedom - been waiting for that...wait - no -- "The Big Fix." What was Freedom? (Google...)

We realized my Mom's 2005 Ford Taurus was designed to run on E85 and have been using it.

Recently I bought a conversion kit for my 2001 Toyota Camry and we have just started adding E85. I agree with the above sentiment!

Apparently, any US car/truck from at least 2001 onward can handle E50 just as easily as straight 'gas' (E10 in many parts of the country). My non-flex Ranger is on it's second tank of ~E50 - next tank will be E85. It appears the entire fuel system on the '08 truck is the same as the flex fuel trucks from '03/'04.

How did you convert your Camry? How is it working?

I have used E85 in several cars as well as a 1929 Model A street rod. No Problems. (South Carolina)...

Beautiful car! (And great bikes!)

 

[AndyH]

After I saw the movie called "Freedom" it opened my eyes.

THANK YOU lkkms2!

General Wesley Clark from episode 4:

You're against the biggest industry in the world - oil. You are a threat to that industry. So, they're spending much more money lobbying against ethanol than they are on taxes to the United States of America, to be honest with you. And it's going to be a fight. The only way we're going to win that fight is with public support.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dZcrdta7KM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRSV_QR-uO0[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psCqOAk2ZnU[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoxKFJPccec[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alZCtRFAJjs[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74vfoqNfR2o[/youtube]

 

[AndyH]

Filled my Ranger with E85 but had a few gallons of E50 in the tank. I figure it's at least E80 now. The ScanGauge is showing short and long-term fuel trim and so far the truck seems to be adjusting to the fuel perfectly. No error codes, better power, and it doesn't downshift as quickly going up hill.

Those with ethanol experience suggest that if the truck doesn't get upset with long-term fuel trim and set the check engine light after 100-150 miles, it probably won't. In that case, we have flex-fuel performance with no add-on adapter.

It's too soon to check fuel economy as I'm enjoying the power too much and haven't yet dropped back to normal driving.

I'm still working thru Blume's book, as well as Black's "Internal Combustion" and the back-story with ethanol appears almost identical to the anti-electric crusade - up to and including market manipulation and disinformation intended to push consumers to fossil fuel.

 

[Herm]

Filled my Ranger with E85 but had a few gallons of E50 in the tank. I figure it's at least E80 now. The ScanGauge is showing short and long-term fuel trim and so far the truck seems to be adjusting to the fuel perfectly. No error codes, better power, and it doesn't downshift as quickly going up hill.

Congratulations, if you do get an error light just tweak down the ethanol a bit.

 

[AndyH]

Filled my Ranger with E85 but had a few gallons of E50 in the tank. I figure it's at least E80 now. The ScanGauge is showing short and long-term fuel trim and so far the truck seems to be adjusting to the fuel perfectly. No error codes, better power, and it doesn't downshift as quickly going up hill.

Congratulations, if you do get an error light just tweak down the ethanol a bit.

Thanks!

No need, apparently - the short term fuel trim is handling things fine and the long term trim hasn't changed. I finished the full tank of approx E80 this afternoon and filled the 19 gallon tank with 18 gallons of E85 (at $2.929!). The trim numbers didn't change for the subsequent 70 miles.

The truck returned the best fuel economy I've yet seen - 22.9 - on the E80 mix. I didn't get over 19.7 on a tank of "G90".

In GM Volt efficiency terms I'm getting 100 MPG on the little bit of gasoline I'm using - more if I add the EV motorcycle miles. :lol:

 

[Herm]

What did you get on regular gasoline?

 

[AndyH]

What did you get on regular gasoline?

Best tank was 19. Not a fair comparison, though, as I've been swapping all the fluids for long-drain synthetics. Now that all the fluids are swapped and the 'configuration' is stable, I'll run three tanks of E85, then three "G90" and see what happens. I don't care though as the overall plan is to remove as much petroleum as possible.

I was ready to add a fuel heater, injectors, maybe a reprogrammed computer - this is almost...boring! In a good way! :lol: