E85 is, indisputably, a less efficient energy source than normal gas. (In other words, you get less miles per tank with E85 than non-E85 fuel.) According to a study based on EPA data by the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics at Ohio State University, the "E85 penalty" varies according to vehicles and vehicle types, and city or highway driving. "The mean fuel economy of E85 in city driving is 73.42% that of gasoline, with a range of 66.89% to 81.33%. In highway driving, the mean fuel economy is 73.4% that of gasoline, with a range of 67.61% to 81.53%." OK, so the American Automobile Association tracks fuel prices for both blends. "Over the course of time that AAA has been tracking adjusted E85 prices, they’ve never fallen below the daily price of regular gasoline," The Wall Street Journal reports. "Since early October, adjusted E85’s price spread over regular gasoline has varied widely, between 4% and 12%, suggesting there’s at least some potential for improvement. However, Trilby Lundberg, publisher of the Lundberg Survey newsletter… says it’s 'extremely unlikely' that the adjusted E85 price can ever fully close the gap with retail gasoline." I dunno. E85 is already heavily subsidized from the field to the pump; what's the bet that [more of] your tax dollars "help" close that gap?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Maybe they can use the funds from increased gasoline taxes to close the gap.
I’ve never even seen an E85 pump, yet I keep hearing that ethanol is the source of environmental and economic disaster. It costs more to produce, and costs more to buy, and gets less return on every measure. Who thinks this stuff is a good idea again?
–chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
As long as petroleum companies and their jobbers are setting the prices, Ethanol will never be cheaper than gasoline. Diesel is the same in the opposite direction. Whatever the efficiency difference is between fuels we should expect the price to follow proportionately. What we need is a new way to distribute and sell Ethanol. Maybe Wallmart or Starbucks could start selling it. For it to work, they’ll need to sell only E85. Personally, I think we should resolve to the fact that E85 is good for only one thing, at least until we have cellulosic sources, and that’s high octane. Unfortunately, the OEMs have failed us in not introducing flex-fuel high performance vehicles to the market. Who would ever put this stuff in their Taurus?
Who thinks this stuff is a good idea again?
People who think gasoline is the root of all evil.
The ethanol hucksters have to work hard to hide the fuel economy issue, but the evidence is overwhelming.
The energy content of E85 is about 28% lower. Car and Driver, Consumer reports, the EPA all report about 28% lower economy. Now a corn-state based group also says 28% less.
Despite this the ‘renewable’ fuel crowd continues to release deliberately mis-leading studies. These usually involve small sample size (few cars) and only includes blends up to ~30% ethanol.
Regarding ethanol being “cheaper”: you can make anything look cheaper with enough subsidy, but some day our kids will have to pay back the deficit, no need to make it bigger. There is no free lunch.
The E85 deal is a fantasy so that struggling big3 can make 5,500 lb SUV’s, and people can drive them around getting 10 mpg on subsidized fuel, pretending to “save money”.
Those who produce ethanol do not set the price at the pump. The distributors and retailers set the price. The price is high because evidently that is what the market will pay.
Some, especially in the Midwest where E85 is more available, buy it because it helps the local economy. Others grow corn and like running around in a new Silverado burning E85 even if it costs more.
The price should be lower than gas to reflect the lower energy content and the lower price of ethanol compared to gasoline, especially when the blenders credit is taken into account.
But even in the Midwest which has a glut of ethanol, the price, while cheaper than gas, does not reflect the lower energy content like it should. I blame this on greedy gas distributors who know that if E85 were priced appropriately they would lose business to ethanol.
They don’t sell much E85 but they make big bucks on what they do sell and the market for gasoline is protected. They only need to sell enough to collect a blender’s credit to offset their income taxes. It’s as simple as that IMO.
Who thinks this stuff is a good idea again?
Iowa corn farmers.
Robert Farago
“Since early October, adjusted E85’s price spread over regular gasoline has varied widely, between 4% and 12%, suggesting there’s at least some potential for improvement.
Hmm, lets see – You can’t move E85 via regular pipe lines, because the ethanol will clean the pipe lines for you. So, you have to move it via tanker truck. Who are paying +$4/gallon now…
Yep, sounds like E85 is a resounding victory every which way you look at it.
What a frelling mess. Isn’t a bought government just the cats meow?
Bruce
Can we get rid of the luvneverends commercial, please?
Once again I’ll rue the layers of subsidies. If there were no subsidies (corn, oil, ethanol, sugar, etc etc) the market would be able to sort out the math pretty efficiently.
I note here in the rural area of SW Ontario there is a new Country store starting up and there Gas Tanks look like they intend to sell E-85 at this location! The owner is a local Farmer, so I see the connetion!
Up to now the nearest E-85 was near Guelph, Ontario there are not too many places willing to sell E-85, its a crazy world!
There are two points that aren’t considered:
The http://www.fuelgaugereport.com website (part of AAA) lists national average price for regular gasoline at $3.59 per gallon and E85 price at $3.02 but adjusted price of $3.97.
(1) E85 has a higher octane rating even than premium, so you should instead compare E85 to the $3.95 national average price of premium. And, since the E85 has even higher octane still (and many premium fuels are a mere 91 octane), the E85 might be a superior product for some engines even though it costs roughly the same even after adjusting for the lower energy content. Naturally, this will only be a reasonable comparison if your vehicle can take advantage of the higher octant. I’d love E85 at $4/gallon energy-adjust price; I’m currently paying $4.15 for a fuel that is well below the design spec of the engine.
(2) On the flip side, the “national average” notation leaves something to be considered. Gasoline is sold everywhere in the country, but E85 is sold only in a few places. E85 is not sold in a bunch of places that are naturally high-priced… Alaska, Hawaii, California (for the most part), etc. While national average of regular gasoline might be $3.59, it’s only $3.50 in Sioux City Iowa, where you could expect E85 pumps. What would be the cost of E85 here in Sunnyvale California if it had to be trucked 1800 miles (because there are no pipelines capable of handling E85).
The problem is that we don’t have the engines out there to handle the compression ratio requirements that can make ethanol more “competitive” (all of the problems with input/output CO2 debate aside; I leave food prices out because our government does so much to manipulate prices anyway that if it weren’t ethanol, they’d do something else). We take conventional gas engines and make sure the engine controls understand it is E85, but nothing about the spark timing or intake/exhaust process changes that much between regular gas and E85 operation.
Ford has a technology on the horizon that can “level” the playing field for ethanol: Ecoboost. Because compression ratio is “variable” to an extent on that engine, you can push the gas farther with good timing and intake/exhaust/boost management – and ethanol can take it. As a result, at equal inputs, ethanol puts out significantly more power than regular gas. At constant power, the defficiency in ethanol is almost completely eliminated.
Now, Ford is not the first company with a TDI engine going into their line-up (VW comes to mind), but, they are the first to explicitly build the engine controls to work with ethanol blends up to E85. That change, plus sourcing ethanol from other vegetation besides just corn in the future (maybe even from some forms of biomass), and maybe ethanol can work.
The problem is our government decided that the best way to help Midwest farmers (and look “eco” all that the same time!!) was by subsidizing corn-based ethanol as opposed to the general development of ethanol from all different forms of vegetation/waste and a broader infrastructure to support it.
Stupid politicians…
I still love the fact that the car companies are (were) hyping ethanol burning engines as some modern solution to our oil addiction, when my Ranger with it’s Reagan-era Vulcan Iron V-6 burns E85 just fine (or would if the closest E85 station to Jersey weren’t 200 miles away).
Corn based alcohol production is proving to be a massive mistake. It isn’t reducing oil imports.
Yah, lets burn our food, great plan!
“Ranger with it’s Reagan-era Vulcan Iron V-6 burns E85”
That was one heck of a motor. I know a fellow who has over 225,000 miles on his ’95 Taurus with that engine still running strong and delivering 25 MPG overall fuel economy in his mix of local and highway driving. Strong, simple and efficient. Darn good motor.
I agree with the points on octane. It’s known on Subaru forums that even though ethanol has less energy/gallon, mileage doesn’t drop proportionally on the turbo models. So you actually get better mileage for the amount of energy that’s there in ethanol. And to some extent that makes sense because ethanol burns faster and more thoroughly than gasoline.
That said, ethanol isn’t for everybody. Yet the government still insists on shoving it down our throats while making us pay for it.
…plus sourcing ethanol from other vegetation besides just corn in the future (maybe even from some forms of biomass), and maybe ethanol can work.
Here’s a better idea: take that other vegetation besides just corn and convert it into regular gasoline and diesel, as the German company CHOREN is doing.
Leave the ethanol for its intended use: Cheers!