Industriainfo.com reports on the largest-ever ethanol industry hoe-down in Nashville. Reading between the lines, the corn-fuel folks are feeling the heat from their critics. Lucky for us, the Renewable Fuels Association blamed Big Oil for the anti-ethanol backlash. "The oil companies are behind it all, Prez Bob Dinnean pronounced. "With the passing of the 36 billion-gallon renewable fuels standard, the oil barons saw one-third of their market share slipping away and concocted an enormous campaign against renewables. They sit on editorial boards of every major newspaper." What's more Big Oil "bought themselves some studies" and conspired with major food companies to create a giant smokescreen. "They need to stop us now," battling Bob told the assembled throngs. "But they won't." To that end, the 2008 Fuel Ethanol Workshop & Expo will discuss plant development, new enzyme technology, water utilization and conservation, and the utilization of non-fossil fuel to power ethanol plants. Hmmm, what that all about?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I’m just wondering why E85 costs $3.49 a gallon at my local station, while gas costs $3.99. With E85 being about 2/3 the efficiency of gas per gallon, people using E85 are getting a truly awful deal – to be competitive with gas, we should be looking at costs of about $2.66 a gallon.
That’s an awful lot of money to be alternative-fuel chic.
Anyone know why costs are so high? E85 seems downright pointless at that price, even aside from the well known effects on food prices, etc.
Why are we bothering?
D
Even worse is putting 10 percent ethanol in gasoline and having the mileage reduced by ten percent. How does the government think this stuff up? With the floods in the Midwest expect food to spiral upwards. Beef will be cheap in the short term as the farmers dump the cattle they cannot afford to feed. Stock up now.
And now the Marxist bunch in the Democrat Party want to nationalize the refineries or how to produce $20 a gallon gasoline.
Corn ethanol is expensive because corn is expensive: futures are up to almost $8 / bushel from $4 since Sept. 2007, according to the Chicago Board of Trade.
http://cbotdataexchange.if5.com/DataEOD_F_Chart.aspx?symbol=C/F.CBOT
I blame federally mandated increases in ethanol production. Who thought that was a good idea, other than the corn lobby?
@David Dennis:
Why are we bothering? Well:
The politicians get to hand out favors to their supporters. Remember that corn subsidies go not just to your local mom-and-pop farmers, but to Monsanto and ADM.
It gives the government control over a vital industry that, more than any other, is the lifeblood of our economy.
Because they just can’t help themselves. Politicians need to be seen doing something, even if that something has undesirable long-term effects (The Law of Unintended Consequences). Personally, I wish they would do more hearings on steroids in sports and spent less time governing the country.
And they do all of this while telling us that it is for our own good. Making them either stupid, evil, or both.
Everyone ignore David Dennis, he is obviously just a big oil supporter in disguise. He really works at Exxon, eats small children for breakfast, and votes Republican!
Ha, we are not fooled David, if indeed that is your real name. Asking about the specifics is just a ruse. We all know ethanol is the only thing standing between us and total global upheavel!
I can’t believe they let people write that kind of stuff. We need to control this internet thing.
Even worse is putting 10 percent ethanol in gasoline and having the mileage reduced by ten percent.
That would be bad if it was true. Except it isn’t.
For that to be factually accurate, ethanol would have to contain zero energy, which of course is absolutely false.
Ethanol clearly contains less energy than an equal amount of gasoline, but it isn’t zero. E10 should result in a loss of mileage of about 3%, not 10% percent. A 25 mpg car would get 24.25 mpg with E10 in the tank.
Ethanol is energy positive when you consider the food byproducts of the fuel. What’s left after making the ethanol goes to feeding animals. There’s talk of even converting some of that stuff into fillers for what we eat. Between that and high fructose corn syrup, bon appetit.
Pch101,
You’re last paragraph: that’s a good point, but that’s not necessarily the kind of ethanol that Monsanto et al are championing. Sad, really: it’s a potentially carbon-neutral fuel source (one that could address waste management issues as well) that’s being wrecked by Big Farm and Big Oil at the same time.
Wouldn’t the E85 camp do better to give up on flex fuel and try for vehicles specifically tuned for E85? Aren’t there any E85 fleets out there that have tried this?
If the Flex Fuel engines are really the problem, then let’s prove that, or STFU. Seriously.
Psych101, my friend, I’ve been driving cars since 1973, and have tried E10 (aka “gasohol”) in cars since 1979, and I have to tell you it IS true that MPG drops between 7 to 25% on E10.
Two very quick explanations (my theories) as to why this is.
1. It’s well known that ethanol has less energy than gasoline, so I surmise that when people are “used to” a certain amount of “ooomph” from their cars, and this is reduced (which it will be on even E10, by a fractional amount), that people may be pushing to go-pedal harder to get back the performance they usually expect.
2. Since 1979 in some cars, and 1984 in most (US spec) cars, there is an oxygen sensor in the exhaust which leans and enriches the fuel system (whether carburetor on early jobs or fuel injection).
Ethanol is oxygen rich. 10% ethanol fools the system into thinking the car is running lean, so it dumps for fuel into the mix, enriching the mix, and continues to do so until equilibrium is reached.
This enriches the mixture, which uses more fuel, this also reduces power, go back to #1.
It’s a viscious circle.
I may be wrong.
Any automotive engineers out there, willing to put in your 2 cents worth, about my theory?
But in fact, I’ve seen it with MY OWN EYES on at least a dozen cars. I’ve talked to other folks, and this is also their experience.
E10 use DOES reduce MPG between 7% and 25%.
And yeah, it REALLY PISSES ME OFF to put in 1/2 tank of E10 (that’s a 5% ethanol solution for those of you who are math-challenged) and watch my Prius MPG plummet from 50 mpg to 47 mpg (a reduction of 6%).
I’ve also had TWO Prius’s and both did this. One was a 2005, the current one, 2008.
@Pch101
Here near the P.C.H. (i.e.: California areas were we have California Reformulated Gasoline version 2), putting ethanol in the fuel also requires changing the formulation of other components. Read all about Reid Vapor Pressure and such. As a result, the lower energy content of the ethanol in combination with the other changes needed to meet California RFG II requirements make the fuel noticeably less efficient. People in Federal Reformulated Gasoline areas might not notice much of a difference, though.
I keep careful economy records of my car and have noticed a significant difference in mileage when refueling in the Central Valley (Federal RFG). The best I’ve gotten on California RFG II is about 23 MPG. I’ve seen 27 MPG from Federal RFG even with the A/C on in the middle of summer. Oh, and the power is markedly improved on Federal RFG also.
You’re last paragraph: that’s a good point, but that’s not necessarily the kind of ethanol that Monsanto et al are championing. Sad, really: it’s a potentially carbon-neutral fuel source (one that could address waste management issues as well) that’s being wrecked by Big Farm and Big Oil at the same time.
Making corn-based ethanol produces a byproduct called distillers grains that are fed to cattle. The DOE has also conducted studies that has found these distillers grains to be good as a soil nutrient.
I’m not necessarily a big fan of ethanol, but a lot of the chatter about it online is, as Bob Lutz would say, a crock of something or another. A lot of it is either pure hype or pure nonsense, and the truth of it lies somewhere in between.
I’ve been driving cars since 1973, and have tried E10 (aka “gasohol”) in cars since 1979, and I have to tell you it IS true that MPG drops between 7 to 25% on E10.
Sorry, but that is just wrong. Your anecdotes are not persuasive.
Fuel consumption is a function of demands placed on the vehicle and the energy content of the fuel. Ethanol contains about 65-70% of the energy per unit of volume that gasoline does. So it should get that kind of fuel economy, and E10 should have a loss of about 3-3.5%.
Other differences beyond this will be due to driving style and vehicle usage. Fuel economy varies from tank to tank, based upon what kind of driving you have done.
If you meet someone who tells you that E10 causes a 10% loss of fuel economy, that person is wrong. If someone tells you that it creates no loss at all, that person is also wrong. Energy is energy, it isn’t hocus pocus magic that is pulled out of hats. The laws of science have not been revoked, last I checked.
Menno is correct. The oxygen sensor will cause the vehicle to run rich on E10. It is a total waste to make E10 fuel.
The oxygen sensor will cause the vehicle to run rich on E10.
The ECU on a modern car will adjust to the fuel mixture.
Honda, Toyota, GM, VW, BMW and Audi have worked with the oil companies to create a standard for gasoline called “Top Tier.” They optimize their vehicles to run on this blend.
Well, you guessed it. One of the requirements for Top Tier fuel is that it uses an ethanol blend of 8-10%. If it has more or less than that, it doesn’t qualify for the label.
Not only can your car run on the stuff, but the manufacturer of your car would actually prefer that you use it and has designed your car to consume it. Of course, if you want to argue with the company that made your car about what to put in the tank, go right ahead.
Top tier fuel has nothing to do with adding ethanol to gasoline. Most vehicles currently on the road will run rich on E10.
Top tier fuel has nothing to do with adding ethanol to gasoline.
If you look at the Top Tier website, you can see that the fuel specification specifically requires that Top Tier fuel “Contain enough denatured ethanol such that the actual ethanol content is no less than 8.0 and no more than 10.0 volume percent.”
So no, you are incorrect. Not only does it have something to do with it, but it must contain ethanol to meet their standard.
It does contain ethanol. Another scam by the auto industry?
Still doesn’t change the fact that the majority of the cars will run rich with 10 percent ethanol.
Pay a premium for lower mileage E10?
Another scam by the auto industry?
No, it has detergent value for the engine. It’s not a scam, it just contains a bit less energy.
The debate as to whether ethanol subsidies are good policy are separate from its energy content. We can all disagree about the policy in good faith, but the energy content of the fuel is what it is and does not create the horrendous effects being claimed by some people.
Engine load and driving style greatly impact fuel economy. The only way to compare two blends of fuel accurately is to do it under controlled conditions in a lab, and to run enough trials to be able to quantify the differences without tainting the measurements with variables that are independent of the fuel, like different driving conditions.
Come on everybody, who are you going to believe PCH101 or your lieing eyes? I too have observed an increase in mpg on long trips when using nonoxygenated gas (going back to MTBE versus non-MTBE gas) versus using the usual oxygenated California crap that I start out with on my trip. I’m only referring to the highway miles on the trips, totalling 10’s of thousands of miles over the years. It’s typical for me to get the same or slightly better mileage during mixed driving with the non-oxygenated gas than with oxygenated gas and entirely highway driving (no I don’t drive a Prius or other hybrid where highway mpg is greater than city mpg). I have kept miticulous records of fuel usage on my last two cars for every fill-up from the day I bought them. I have no experience with E85, but with E10, I see a marked improvement in mileage when I am able to buy E0, even greater than the differences that I saw previously going from gas with MTBE to gas without MTBE. While my “anecdotes” (it is actually data due to my method of recording miles driven and fuel used from day one of ownership) may not pursuade PCH101, his flat assertions do not persuade me.
p.s. I have a brother-in-law who is a design engineer (control systems, mainly) with GM. I’ll ask him if he has any insight into this matter or if he can find out something from one of his fellow engineers who does work on engine design.
The only way to compare two blends of fuel accurately is to do it under controlled conditions in a lab
I agree with that. I will contribute anecdotally though, I track miles per gallon to the 100th, and have noticed a 4.5- 5.0 mpg lower with E10 using it in my Sentra, the .5 maybe resulting from filling it up between 1/4 to 1/8th of a tank. The car has essentially no variation in driving style/type of driving ect.
The Grand Prix I got rid of recently seemed to drop by 1-2.5mpg whenever I used E10 (non-supercharged), but it had much more variation in driving and was not driven as much as the Sentra, so I won’t go out on a limb and say that result is meaningful. But the Sentra is as far as my wallet goes. For a total of 8 fill-ups on the Sentra I alternated E10 and E0, and the results were 4.5-5mpg each time. It does have 155k miles on it with original o2 sensor, distributor, wires, and the plugs are old now, and my next step was to do all those items and check it again for 6 or 8 fill-ups. In the meantime, I’ll drive a smidge out of my way to get the E0.
If we currently have an ethanol glut in the US, and the mandate will dramatically raised the amount of ethanol required to be used, how will it be used?? Cars can run on E10 now, can they run on E20 or E30 without modification? If not, where will all the ethanol go? Did Congress mandate that all cars be able to run on E85 and that service stations must offer E85 to go along with the new mandate? Oh, wait, that would make too much sense…
If we currently have an ethanol glut in the US, and the mandate will dramatically raised the amount of ethanol required to be used, how will it be used?? Cars can run on E10 now, can they run on E20 or E30 without modification? If not, where will all the ethanol go? Did Congress mandate that all cars be able to run on E85 and that service stations must offer E85 to go along with the new mandate? Oh, wait, that would make too much sense…
How does that make sense? Legislating a majority of the cars on the road today into oblivion doesn’t seem sensible to me.
I meant all NEW cars. oops.
Lumbergh21, are you using California RFG version II gasoline with ethanol? I suspect that is more of the problem than the ethanol itself. In the Central Valley you can get Federal RFG, which my car likes much better (mileage, power, stable idle, less engine heating when sitting in traffic).
To Pch101: adding 10% ethanol to gasoline doesn’t just change the amount of energy in the fuel. How many MPG improvement would I get if I put 100% diesel in my tank… by your logic I should get 25% better mileage. Reality: I wouldn’t even roll out of the fueling station before my spark plugs jammed. In my part of California, requirements are such that using 10% ethanol has significant other ramifications for the other components of fuel stock and, even if the listed (R+M)/2 octane rating is the same (and marginal at 91), the engine may not react in the same way.
Here is a starting point for RVP and how it varies with different fuel blends (and especially with ethanol). http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2374
my anecdote is my experience and I believe what I experience more than what I read on review sites.
I go to great lengths to avoid E10 in Northeast. Minus more than 3% MPG on my 1.8t.
Yes you can read right on Chevron site they dont use MBTE they use Ethanol, and they say E10 gives 3% reduction. Not in my car it doesn’t.
If it was only 3% in my car I would not bother avoiding it.
If anyone wants to make millions, all you have to do is come up with something that the refiners can use to meet the oxygenate requirements other than ethanol that does not pollute the ground water and get them in legal trouble.
Any ideas?
Otherwise, we are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Unless you are proposing to change the rules, then go ahead.
How many MPG improvement would I get if I put 100% diesel in my tank…
Usually, people reaching for a point use apples and oranges arguments to create their straw men. You’ve resorted to using some kind of odd fruit, and a completely different organism that I can’t identify.
Please. There’s no comparison between gasoline and diesel. The engines work on completely different principles. Don’t reach for the unreachable in an effort to prove your point.
Gasoline-powered engines are compatible with alcohol, with some modifications. (The early Model T’s were flex-fuel vehicles, just in case the farmer had to make his own fuel.)
More to the point, note the reference to Top Tier fuel — cars made by Toyota, Honda, VW, GM, BMW and Audi are specifically made to run on 8-10% ethanol blends.
Let me repeat that, just in case there was any misunderstanding. Cars made by Toyota, Honda, VW, GM, BMW and Audi are specifically made to run on 8-10% ethanol blends.
Once again, let’s separate the issues of the subsidies with the issue of the fuel itself. E10 fuel and lower percentage ethanol blends work just fine in newer cars that were made to work with it.
The science is clear on this; the energy content is what it is, and modern engines are designed to use it. I wouldn’t put it in my 65 Mustang, but in your new Camry, the engine is matched to the fuel.
If you object to this for some reason, then call up Toyota, Honda, VW, GM, BMW and Audi and complain about it, because they want you to use it and are encouraging oil companies to add it to your gasoline.
Makes me wonder if we ran a double-blind trial how many people would know if their car was running E10 fuel or not.
This reminds me of people who feign headaches from cell phones.
quasi,
People do get headaches from cell phone use. Some folks shout themselves into a headache, while others cock their heads and strain their necks.
They’re not making it up, they really do get a headache from using cell phones.
Hey, Landcrusher, “they” have already come up with it. But our “fearless leaders” have decreed – a couple of decades ago (in much the same manner as the old Soviet leaders) that ETHANOL is the chosen alternative fuel. All the legal requirements rotate around it, the little tax breakes (and big ones), and the boondoggle monies from our (taxpayer) pockets into the pockets of ag-industry.
The alternative?
Butanol. 4-carbon alcohol. http://www.butanol.com
Interestingly, BP is working on Butanol in the UK with some little company called – um – oh, yeah – DuPont.
Also interestingly, BP is the ONLY company in my area which does not sell E10 but pure gasoline.
So I’m doubly happy to support them.
BTW Butanol has very nearly the same energy per gallon as ethanol, and for modern cars, is virtually a drop-in substitute for gasoline.
We just need to change the government to get these problems solved.
Remember that in November and don’t bother voting for more “changes” of exactly the same kind. The only way we’ll really get change is to boot out the two major parties.
Vote Constitution Party or Libertarian Party, and oust the powers that be, or we’ll only get the same old crap from the “perpetual politicians” who only pander to us and actually work for the rich elite. ‘coz they very clearly don’t work for we the people, nor do they follow the Constitution of the United States.
That’s my piece said.
Johhny Ro, Can you find straight reg’lar in the NE? If so please tell me where.
Here is a picture worth considering: No matter how high gasoline prices go, ethanol is probably always going to be more expensive. Since producing ethanol requires a lot of diesel fuel (tractors, harvesters, transportation) and natural gas (fertilizer, distillation), ethanol tends to follow oil prices.
One solution: Let the ethanol producers run their operations on ethanol (and leave the good old crude to us drivers). Then we’ll see if they produce enough to keep going or run out (in spite of generous subsidies).
Now, if only John Deere had a tractor that ran on E85…
To all those complaining about mileage being less with E10 and overpriced E10. Of course the mileage is less! Duh.
The price is less to compensate. If the price of E10 is not low enough in your area to compensate for the reduced mileage, do not buy E10. Anyone who continues to buy overpriced E10 is stupid.
E10 is distributed by oil companies who collect the subsidy in the form of a tax credit called the blenders credit. It is not priced by the ethanol producers or corn farmers.
Gas distributors have found that many people are gullible enough to buy E10 when it is inappropriately priced. They collect the subsidy and gain an extra profit on over priced E10.
The ethanol subsidy was necessary to buy off the liquid fuel distribution monopoly which the oil companies hold. They have enough monopoly power and political power behind them to refuse to sell ethanol.
We are in a post Peak Oil world. If ethanol is shut down, what then? There are no other current liquid fuel alternatives to gas. Think about it.
OK, so tell me how to tell if the gas I’m buying has E10 or E0.
If I’m driving down a street and see 3 gas stations within a block or so I can see the signs listing a price but not the E%. If I show up on the lot and get up to the pump I may or may not see a sticker about ethanol content. If I do it will say:
“This gas may contain up to 10% ethanol”
that is a conditional statement not an absolute.
If I take that to mean it absolutely will be E10 and drive to the next station how much gas will I waste running from station to station to look for stickers?
I only spend about $10 a week on gas so I’m not too worried about it but for those who are, how much effort do you put into finding E0 when you are in an area you aren’t sure about?
E10 doesn’t ALWAYS reduce mileage by 10%. Actually, in my Ranger, the mileage drops 10% or more on the first tankful bought after a long period of running pure gas, but on the second and subsequent tankfuls of E10, economy improves to only 3-5% lower than pure gas. Does the fuel system computer need a tankful’s worth of mileage to learn how to use E10?
Exactly the same thing happens with my Pontiac–10% mileage reduction first tankful– lesser reduction any subsequent tankful.
I try to avoid E10 in Nebraska because 5-10 cents off $4 gas isn’t enough to compensate for 3-5% decrease in mileage.
In Iowa, I’ll bite the ethanol hook because E10 in Iowa is typically 20 cents cheaper than Nebraska’s pure gas price.
I think they say 3 to 5 trips that include a full warm up cycle to get the computer adjusted.
Now if you don’t use a full tank in a weeks driving it’d be less than a tank to adjust. If you do use a full tank in 3 days driving then sure a tank sounds about right.