Indiana police department abandons E85 test for cost reasons
In spite of all the promotion from General Motors of E85 as an alternative fuel, the reality for most people has been that is simply doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. As the West Lafayette, Indiana police department found out last summer, the numbers didn't add up. There is of course the issue of fuel consumption. Due to its lower energy content, a normally aspirated flex-fuel engine gets about 10-20 percent worse fuel efficiency on E85 than on gasoline. Much of this differential can actually be made up with an engine optimized for E85, particularly if it's turbocharged, but most current engines don't fall into this category.
The West Lafayette Police also had to go to the one station in the area that offered up E85, meaning they wasted time and fuel driving out of their way to get ethanol. Even with the $1 per gallon difference between E85 and gas, there just weren't any savings to be had. Now that gasoline is substantially cheaper than it was last summer, the problem is even worse. Until we have flex-fuel vehicles optimized for ethanol and greater biofuel availability, it simply won't make a lot of sense. Then there is the whole issue of well-to-wheel emissions, but that's another story.
[Source: JC Online]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ra Conteur 11:11AM (12/24/2008)
Probably doesn't make sense to fleet test a fuel if you don't put the fueling depot near the fleet. And if you don't use equipment optimized for the fuel. Obviously the West Lafayette PD refused to think this through before they began a "test."
But then they should go back to regular gasoline. That way West Lafayette taxpayers will continue to finance the people who kill their sons and daughters in the Middle East.
Reply
Seth 11:46AM (12/24/2008)
Thank you for acknowledging that the fuel mileage issue is a wash in the real world.
As a municipality, where do they fuel their fleet? Around town or at a central location? They can easily convert the rest of the vehicle fleet (besides police vehicles) with a piggy back fuel controller and fill up on e85 when in the central location and put regular gas in the tank when in the field. The cars can run on any blend of ethanol (from any source) this way. If a few stations got on the bandwagon and ordered ethanol because they knew they could get guaranteed business from the municipality the public would see more stations with the fuel and possibly use it in the various models of domestic cars that are already flex fuel.
Reply
Charlie W 6:31PM (12/24/2008)
"Much of this differential can actually be made up with an engine optimized for E85"
Source? My understanding is that most of that difference comes simply from ethanol having a lower energy content by volume than petrol. I understand that engines can be designed to take advantage of the higher octane ratings of ethanol by running at higher compression ratios, which are more efficient, but I doubt it can come close to making up the difference between ~125,000 btu/gallon for gasoline and ~84,000 btu/gallon for ethanol energy content. More likely to me would be that engines specifically designed for ethanol are a small amount, maybe 2% to 5% more efficient at converting the energy content of their fuel into mechanical energy.
Reply
Nixon 1:58AM (12/25/2008)
Charlie,
There is an interesting side effect of the much higher octane rating of E85. If you have an engine that can take advantage of this octane, you can get more power out of every gallon of E85. E85 Optimized turbo engines can do this. None of the E85 cars sold in the US can do this, so the benefit of the higher octane goes to waste. More octane in a turbo car means MUCH more power than more octane in an NA engine.
The interesting thing is how to convert this added power into better fuel efficiency. Saab (GM) figured out how to do this in Europe, but none of these cars have come here to the US.
Just like with hybrids, there are two ways you can go with building E85 cars. You can make a performance E85 car, where you take the same engine displacement and put out more power, at the cost of fuel economy. OR you can make an economy E85 car. Where you use a smaller displacement engine to get the same amount of power (compared to a larger displacement gas engine) while getting better fuel economy.
Saab goes both ways with their BioPower line of cars in Europe. Compare these engines in rank for both horsepower and fuel efficiency from top to bottom:
2.3t Biopower 210hp (E85)
210 hp/310 Nm torque
0-100km 7.9 sec
12.8/6.6/8.9 l/100km fuel consumption (lower numbers indicate better consumption)
2.3t 185hp (same displacement, but less power on premium gas)
185 hp/280 Nm torque
0-100km 8.3 sec
12.8/6.6/8.9 l/100km fuel consumption (same as E85 engine, but with less power)
2.0t Biopower 180hp (Smaller displacement E85 engine)
180 hp/280 Nm torque
0-100km 8.5 sec
12.1/6.6/8.6 l/100km fuel consumption (better gas mileage with nearly the same power as the larger 2.3t straight gas engine)
Note that the gas engine loses to the E85 engines on both ends. Either it makes less power than an E85 engine for the same fuel consumption, or it gets worse fuel consumption numbers for the same amount of power. But you can't get these kinds of numbers without a turbo. And there isn't a single TURBO flex-fuel vehicle sold in the US. So the entire fleet of current flex-fuel vehicles in the US makes E85 look bad by failing to take full advantage of the power or fuel economy benefits that E85 fuel has to offer. Ford is in the same situation with turbo Volvo's that they sell in Europe, but not in the US.
So do you blame the fuel (E85) for the current issues with fuel economy in the US when running E85? Or do you blame the car makers for selling crappy E85 cars in the US (like GM) when they ALREADY build turbo E85 cars in Europe that offer better gas mileage/power ratios than similar gas engines?
I don't think you can rightly blame E85 for GM and Ford's refusal to market their cars in the US that can actually get good power and mpg numbers on E85.
Since this study was run with crappy US non-turbo cars, it really says very little about E85. All it really proves is that we are being sold the wrong E85 cars here in the US.
Reply
MikeW 5:44PM (12/25/2008)
Actually Ford says the 4.6 makes slightly more power on E70 fuel.
250hp 297ft-lbs vs 239hp 287ft-lbs.
Reply
Nixon 11:42PM (12/25/2008)
Yes, but the key word there is "slightly". It's less than 4% more power. If it were a turbo, Ford could get MUCH more horsepower out of it, taking full advantage of the higher octane. Double digit percent gains if they did it right. Or, they could get the same amount of power out of a turbo 6-cyl, and get a quite a bit better fuel efficiency than running E85 in the V8.
Ford just can't take full advantage of the higher octane the way a turbo can. That's not a problem because of E85, that's a problem with their choice of engines they sell. That's the point I was trying to make.
MikeW 11:03AM (12/26/2008)
But it is a chicken-egg scenario.
There isn't an installed infrastructure to support nation wide usage of E70/85 fuel.
What would happen to an optimized naturally aspirated gasoline engine (say 15:1 compression ratio) if you couldn't find E70 or higher ethanol fuel?
or a turbo engine (12.5:1)
Most companies won't bother. (no one is going to, sorry)
Look at Audi, 12.5:1 compression ratio naturally aspirated, thank you direct injection, and about 10:1 turbocharged.
So optimizing via compression ratio ruled out, the only way the potential benefits of E70/85 can used is in turbo engines.
More ethanol=more boost (or greater timing)
We will see if Ford's 3.5 'ecoboost' twin turbo V6 makes 375hp when using E70 fuel, and 325hp on regular.
bob bigglesworth 2:23AM (12/26/2008)
I agree, you cannot blame Ethanol on the stupidity of some GED-educated policemen (and women)...not only did these fools not use the right technology with the fuel, but they are also missing the big picture...GREEN FUEL....
Ethanol's lower energy content, when pitted against gasoline, is true, but so what, as others have said, in this example and MANY others the testers arent using the technology available to recognize the benefit....if they did, the disparity wouldnt be so big...
Lastly, Ethanol is here to stay, unlike other methods of alternative fuel (hydrogen hoax)...Brazil uses it and has been for years....they are a model for the USA, its works people....The only thing left to do is work on the lobbyists in the government to stop taxing brazilian ethanol so much (because the US gov. wastes billions, yes billions, supporting corn growers), and we need to further fund ethanol-from-trash projects which are coming along nicely...
Reply
Brn 11:15AM (12/26/2008)
"you cannot blame Ethanol on the stupidity of some GED-educated policemen "
I'm not sure why you need to turn this into an attack against police officers. I doubt that the street cop had anything to do with the decision. I was likely the City Manager that instigated the experiment. The cops just did as they were instructed.
Btw: Most cops where I live have Bachelor degrees, not GEDs.
bob bigglesworth 5:49PM (12/26/2008)
Its only attack if you make it one...however I will take back the comment's specificity and blame the city/state governments for pulling the funds out from under the police department (as you mentioned)
AND I would like to see some statistics to back up your claim about most cops in your area, or ANY area for that matter, having bachelors degrees...
Raul 6:18PM (12/28/2008)
"...but I doubt it can come close to making up the difference between ~125,000 btu/gallon for gasoline and ~84,000 btu/gallon for ethanol energy content."
Can someone help me with this? I understand these BTU measurements to be right, but I read several years ago that gasoline loses near 50% of it's energy to heat in the combustion process. Is this right? If so, is the 125 K BTU's net or gross?
I also understand that ethanol burns at a lower temperature than gas. Does this mean that it loses less heat/energy during combustion, too?
Put these together and there's a far more competative energy output. If gas is burning with much less efficiency, then ethanol may be as powerful/more powerful in modified engines. But I don't have a science/engineering background--can someone help here? Thanks.
Reply
Carney 1:16PM (12/31/2008)
I'd say ethanol's higher octane rating would be helpful in pursuit situations, but with our lawsuit crazy culture many PDs have explicit orders to let fleeing suspects go rather than give chase.
The problems (cost, availability) given here can be remedied, but not at the municipal level.
If we drop our tariffs on Brazilian and other foreign ethanol, which is much cheaper, the cost will plummet.
As for availability, although flex fuel cars, at 3% of the current market, outsell the far more overhyped hybrids several fold, they still don't have nearly the market share to convince gas station owners to provide an alcohol pump. With so few alcohol pumps, both institutions and individual consumers, will see little point in going out of their way to buy a flex fuel vehicle, aside from the extremely environmentally or geo-strategically conscious.
The solution to that is simple: mandate that all new cars sold (not just made) in America have flex fuel capability as a standard feature, like seat belts. It's a $100 per car expense, but would produce 50 million alcohol-capable cars on the streets in 3 years. Make sure that the mandate includes methanol (inherently dirt cheap) and again that our stupid ethanol tariff is gone, and the low price of alcohol fuel will cause customers to demand it. Gas station owners till leap to undercut their rivals and the process of transforming our economy into an alcohol rather than a petroleum one will begin, with enormous environmental and geo-strategic benefits.
Reply