E-15 was tested today

[Slide]

Re: E-15 was tested today

I put 20,000 miles on my truck each year. I don't see electric working for me. Also, I never hear the Chevy Volt commercial say what it will cost to charge an electric car that is driven the average 12,000 miles per year.

Also, are there any electric boat motors on the horizon? I'd hate to think that I'd be run over on the lake by a boat that I never heard.

TexasVet

The new EPA stickers for EVs show the average estimated power cost much as they currently show the estimated fuel cost for a gas-powered car. Generally the cost is less than half per mile as compared to a gasoline engine.

EVs are a great idea; the process of producing electricity is far more efficient than an internal combustion engine. If your electricity comes from a hydroelectric or nuclear plant it is 100% zero-emission transportation. Even if you're on coal, those plants all run at a baseline level, so your increase in electricity usage does not create a corresponding increase in plant emissions. The hang-up occurs when so many people run EVs that the plants are forced to increase output. Hopefully, when that day comes, we finally start modernizing our grid and switching to more nuclear power plants.

If I was a city commuter I'd buy an EV in a heartbeat.

 

[texasvet54]

Re: E-15 was tested today

Certain radio and TV personalities are good at skewing facts to suite their agenda, and they do so very convincingly.

Ahhh, you must be referring to Al Gore, eh?

As far as dino's and dead plant material being the source of oil, I offer the following article: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/read/42108

 

[tschmidty]

Re: E-15 was tested today

As far as I could see that article doesn't say where oil comes from, just that they don't think it comes from plants. Some of the other stuff is non sequitors, 'Have recovered 5 tons for every 3 tons consumed'. That statement has no bearing on how much is out there or where it comes from.

The big thing in my mind is that the world's oil CONSUMERS are going to go way up as China and India start raising their economies and more people want to drive. That is more of the problem then how much oil there is.

An odd place to discuss though, since boats are going to be one of the last places that electric becomes practical since the boats generally consume so much more energy per hour. But I'm all for it.

 

[metriccrescentwrench]

Re: E-15 was tested today

As far as dino's and dead plant material being the source of oil, I offer the following article: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/read/42108

That "article" only references some obscure Russian scientist from 1951. That's hardly "proof" of anything.

You say its false and I say its true. What is your source? My source is a research Phd for solar arrays at UCLA. What's yours?

For starters I have degrees in Chemical and Electrical Engineering. Most of those studies about how much energy it takes to produce solare panels, batteries, or whatever fail to account for how much recycled material goes into the product and assume that every last bit of final product was produced from material that was newly mined. Besides, it's exceedingly difficult to get accurate numbers for the amount of energy expended in mining the material required to make one unit of finished product - there's just a lot of guesswork involved in that.

Think about this. You can purchase a 200 Watt solar cell for around $450. Depending on location etc. that solar cell can produce roughly 2 kw-hr (or around 20 cents worth) of electricity per day. At that rate it pays for itself in 2250 days (6.2 years). These solar panels should last 20 to 30 years, so you're getting way more energy dollars out of them than what they cost. The people that manufacture them are in business to make a profit, as are the distributors and retailers who handle them, so if it took more energy to make them than they can produce they'd cost far far more than they do.

OK - I'm ready to get back to discussing boats.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: E-15 was tested today

Silvertip, I can't believe you're saying NASCAR uses it so the old clunker should be just fine. But somewhere there is someone who will say just about anything ... :facepalm:

You apparently didn't read my original post on this topic very carefully. I said nothing about it being ok for the "old clunker". I did say that some precautions were necessary. To be more specific, non-ethanol tolerant rubber parts and gaskets, and in some cases plastic carb parts may need to be changed. The engine itself could care less what goes into it. Fuel delivery system parts are the major issue and there are work arounds for that.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: E-15 was tested today

If you drive a gasoline vehicle that gets 30 miles per gallon, with $3 gas you're paying 10 cents per mile for fuel. A typical electric car will cost around 3 to 3.5 cents per mile for electricity.

Don't forget to factor the charging station equipment that must be added to your home. Depending on the vehicle that is no small expense nor are the charging stations 100% efficient.

And then there is the issue of battery or individual cell replacement. If under warranty there is no issue. If out of warranty -- I hope ya'll have a thick wallet.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: E-15 was tested today

Think about this. You can purchase a 200 Watt solar cell for around $450. Depending on location etc. that solar cell can produce roughly 2 kw-hr (or around 20 cents worth) of electricity per day. At that rate it pays for itself in 2250 days (6.2 years). These solar panels should last 20 to 30 years, so you're getting way more energy dollars out of them than what they cost. The people that manufacture them are in business to make a profit, as are the distributors and retailers who handle them, so if it took more energy to make them than they can produce they'd cost far far more than they do.

OK - I'm ready to get back to discussing boats.[/QUOTE]

Solar panels and their use also applies to boats so it should be part of the discussion (even though this thread originally started out as an E-15 topic). Solar panels are a viable alternative in certain applications. As I mentioned earlier there is a solar powered airplane in current testing and there is an available battery powered boat which has been linked to this forum a time or two. However, when one looks at high power panel cost, one also needs to consider the battery bank and associated charging/regulation/inverter equipment as well. Again -- no small investment. In time a battery bank or an equivalent will come along. All the developments that lead up to that day are merely stepping stones. Some will work, some will not. When we get to that day, E-10, E-15, E-85, diesel, geothermal, radiated energy, nuclear etc may all disappear as power sources for our toys.

 

[bruceb58]

Re: E-15 was tested today

Think about this. You can purchase a 200 Watt solar cell for around $450. Depending on location etc. that solar cell can produce roughly 2 kw-hr (or around 20 cents worth) of electricity per day. At that rate it pays for itself in 2250 days (6.2 years).

You are way off on your calculations. Besides the fact that you don't even take into account the 30% loss that it takes to convert the DC output of the solar panel to AC, the amount of watts that you get from a day's sun exposure is WAY off.

Let's say you live in Los Angeles which has a pretty good rating of 5.62 for solar insolation(Google it if you don't know what that means). 200 x 5.62 = 1124 Watts/day. With 30% reduction due to AC conversion you get 787 watts which is considerably lower than the 2Kw you are stating. Most solar panel installers claims it takes between 20 to 30 years for the solar panel to produce the equivalent cost of electricity. Not counting government subsidies, the time cost of money then becomes a huge cost factor which pushes the amount saved way past the life of the solar array.

Basically, if they really were worth it, you wouldn't need government subsidies to get people to do it. Applies to solar panels as well as bio fuels.

Solar panel technology will get better, we just aren't there yet. At UCLA researchers are working on film that can be applied to the sides of buildings that can act as solar arrays.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: E-15 was tested today

You are way off on your calculations. Besides the fact that you don't even take into account the 30% loss that it takes to convert the DC output of the solar panel to AC, the amount of watts that you get from a day's sun exposure is WAY off.

Let's say you live in Los Angeles which has a pretty good rating of 5.62 for solar insolation(Google it if you don't know what that means). 200 x 5.62 = 1124 Watts/day. With 30% reduction due to AC conversion you get 787 watts which is considerably lower than the 2Kw you are stating. Most solar panel installers claims it takes between 20 to 30 years for the solar panel to produce the equivalent cost of electricity. Not counting government subsidies, the time cost of money then becomes a huge cost factor which pushes the amount saved way past the life of the solar array.

Basically, if they really were worth it, you wouldn't need government subsidies to get people to do it. Applies to solar panels as well as bio fuels.

Solar panel technology will get better, we just aren't there yet. At UCLA researchers are working on film that can be applied to the sides of buildings that can act as solar arrays.

Hey Bruce -- I'm with you. I botched the quote from whoever made that estimate on solar panel output vs cost. I was just adding the cost of the battery bank and related electronics.

 

[bruceb58]

Re: E-15 was tested today

Gotcha.

I am not a solar panel advocate where a utility is able to serve you. If you are in a remote area and you are relying on local generation then that might be another story. Whenever the government is involved in boosting the use of something by subsidies, you know the underlying technology does not make economic sense. On the other hand, often government subsidies encourages manufacturers to do research to make things more efficient which in turn drives the cost down enough that a technology will be able to stand alone on its merits alone which is a good thing.

I have a connection into the goings on of where federal money is being funded to various research projects. Solar is a huge area that is being funded. Its just not there yet.

 

[26aftcab454]

Re: E-15 was tested today

26aftcab454,

Since I see that you are in Grapevine, do you ever listen on Saturday mornings to "Wheels" with Ed Wallace on KLIF 570? For years he has been saying that 10% ethanol is the limit on putting ethanol in a car engine not designed for more than 10%. I've even heard master mechanics on his show say that they see an increase in cars coming into the shops that are running rough when winter comes and ethanol content creeps over 10%.

I can't help but think that my Mercruiser would run worse with a higher ethanol content. Then again, maybe since it doesn't have all the computer monitoring that my 2010 Suburban has, maybe I won't notice a difference.

TXVET-Yes- I have heard the show from time to time .I am not much of a motorhead--

BACK TO BOATS!
I have an 95 gal tank that when I refill when gauge says "EMPTY " holds about 65gals . When I change my fuel/water filter once a year. I have never run the tank completely empty, but was thinking of carrying 12 gals in 2-6gal. cans and run it all out. It is not more than 8miles to gas anywhere on lake. Then re-fill with marina gas & install new filter.
IS THIS A BAD IDEA??? anyone?

 

[jkust]

Re: E-15 was tested today

I live in MN where we have had ethanol thrust upon us for years now. I wouldn't even know where to start with this topic as corn based ethanol is pure politics. I will simply say cut the ethanol subsidies, let the free market take over and see what happens. Let that same situation play out for all green energy. I believe each would fail miserably. Boating magazine did an article on ethanol several months ago and the results came down on the side of ethanol for performance and fuel efficiency. I believe they used an OB engine.