Missouri: E10 mandate lowering gas price by 9.8 cents per gallon

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

IF it were merely a 3% MPG drop with E10, that would make for a more reasonable argument.

When you go from 34 to 22 (07 Spectra 2.0), or from fine and dandy to won't pull a 4000' hill (01 PT 2.4), or when your MPG drops about 10% over four or five tanks (04 Impala 3.4), then it's not a 3% MPG drop.

I am not seeing where the economy comes in if your gas is 2.5% cheaper and your MPG drops 10-40%. Maybe it's new math.

Lamronh, I am not doubting that your mileage went from 34 to 22 mpg. But that drop has nothing to do with 10% ethanol in the fuel. If you saw a 40% drop in mileage, there was something else going on. I suspect that there either was water in the fuel, or the refiner was mixing high octane ethanol with crapola gasoline to end up with an 87 octane fuel. (Also, it could be that the Spectra's computer did not know what to do with E10, but that is the Spectra's fault, because other brands do not see this kind of a drop.)

As for not being able to pull up a hill, as you know, ethanol has a higher octane rating, which allows for a higher compression ration, which results in more power. Your experience leads me to suspect that you bought the E10 from a gas station with a leaky tank.

Either way, it is simply ridiculous to suggest that a fuel with 3% less energy results in vehicles getting 40% less mileage.

[JM9777]

Anybody know how much we're really paying in state and federal subsidies of the ethanol industry? You know, the only reason that the industry can offer a competitively priced product?

I will also take into account that the "study" referenced in this post was conducted by the Missouri Corn Growers Association, which I'm sure is a totally un-biased source.

I'm all for alternative fuels, but I don't believe that corn-based ethanol is the answer at this point in time.

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by JM9777

Anybody know how much we're really paying in state and federal subsidies of the ethanol industry? You know, the only reason that the industry can offer a competitively priced product?

I will also take into account that the "study" referenced in this post was conducted by the Missouri Corn Growers Association, which I'm sure is a totally un-biased source.

I'm all for alternative fuels, but I don't believe that corn-based ethanol is the answer at this point in time.

It is undisputed that the ethanol industry is creating many thousands of good paying jobs for hard working Americans.

It is undisputed that the ethanol industry is investing billions of dollars in America's energy-producing infrastructure.

It is undisputed that when Americans buy ethanol, the money is recirculated in the American economy rather than having our wealth leave this country.

It is undisputed that all of these jobs result in employees paying income tax, social security tax and Medicare/aid tax. It also results in those employees buying houses and paying real estate taxes. When the employees buy things, they pay sales taxes.

The billions of dollars spent on infrastructure also result in sales taxes being paid, jobs being created, more employee taxes being paid, and on and on and on.

The so-called subsidy that you refer to is not a payment from the federal government to anyone. Rather, it is a tax credit claimed by the blender. The blender does not get anything: it simply has to pay less tax. If you would prefer that American entrepreneurs such as ethanol blenders be taxed more, just say so.

And when you find an unbiased study that takes into consideration all of the economic effects of the ethanol industry, let me know. Otherwise, you can go to work and help earn your part of the $700 billion dollars that will leave America this year to purchase foreign oil.

[JM9777]

While E10 may reduce gas prices by 10 cents per gallon, it is also undisputed that corn prices have tripled since 2005, from the $1.80 range to a peak of $6.72 on June 10. Part of this increase can be attributed to the rising cost of gasoline, but with corn supplies at a 34-year low, it's apparent that increased demand for corn, coming almost entirely from the ethanol industry, is a primary reason. And demand won't drop off any time soon....to meet the government mandate of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel per year by 2017 solely with corn-based ethanol would require more corn annually than is currently grown in the U.S., just for fuel.

I have not doubt that there are positive aspects to the ethanol industry, as have been listed here (job creation, infrastructure, etc.). But the government mandate of ethanol, and subsequent subsidies (or tax credits, whichever you prefer) to encourage its production, have and will continue to cause rapidly rising prices of food here and worldwide. It's not just corn that is going up, but everything fed by corn (beef and poultry) and made with corn meal or corn syrup (most everything in your pantry). This is the unintended consequence of the government alternative fuel mandate.

Increased oil and natural gas drilling in ANWR, off the gulf coast and in oil shale in the northwest would also result in jobs and infrastructure creation, and would probably lower the price of gasoline more than ethanol does. It's not an immediate solution, nor is it the long-term solution, but until we have an alternative fuel that isn't made from the world's primary source of food, my personal opinion is that it's time to step away from this mandate. Of course, others are entitled to their own opinions.

[logansowner]

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

IF it were merely a 3% MPG drop with E10, that would make for a more reasonable argument.

When you go from 34 to 22 (07 Spectra 2.0), or from fine and dandy to won't pull a 4000' hill (01 PT 2.4), or when your MPG drops about 10% over four or five tanks (04 Impala 3.4), then it's not a 3% MPG drop.

I am not seeing where the economy comes in if your gas is 2.5% cheaper and your MPG drops 10-40%. Maybe it's new math.

Your car dropping from 34 to 22 mpg and claiming it as something to be expected is like getting a flat tire and proclaiming tires are useless.

Nobody else sees that kind of drop. Maybe something is wrong with your car. You can argue all day but 34-22 is much more than the result of 10% ethanol. SOmething is wrong there. You don't honestly think that anyone else experiences that do you?

You could put 10% piss in your car and it isn't going to drop your economy more than 10%. Common sense. That ethanol does not have a negitive energy content...foolishness.

[logansowner]

Originally Posted by JM9777

While E10 may reduce gas prices by 10 cents per gallon, it is also undisputed that corn prices have tripled since 2005, from the $1.80 range to a peak of $6.72 on June 10. Part of this increase can be attributed to the rising cost of gasoline, but with corn supplies at a 34-year low, it's apparent that increased demand for corn, coming almost entirely from the ethanol industry, is a primary reason. And demand won't drop off any time soon....to meet the government mandate of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuel per year by 2017 solely with corn-based ethanol would require more corn annually than is currently grown in the U.S., just for fuel.

I have not doubt that there are positive aspects to the ethanol industry, as have been listed here (job creation, infrastructure, etc.). But the government mandate of ethanol, and subsequent subsidies (or tax credits, whichever you prefer) to encourage its production, have and will continue to cause rapidly rising prices of food here and worldwide. It's not just corn that is going up, but everything fed by corn (beef and poultry) and made with corn meal or corn syrup (most everything in your pantry). This is the unintended consequence of the government alternative fuel mandate.

Increased oil and natural gas drilling in ANWR, off the gulf coast and in oil shale in the northwest would also result in jobs and infrastructure creation, and would probably lower the price of gasoline more than ethanol does. It's not an immediate solution, nor is it the long-term solution, but until we have an alternative fuel that isn't made from the world's primary source of food, my personal opinion is that it's time to step away from this mandate. Of course, others are entitled to their own opinions.

The oil industry uses this same argument. The move is from corn to cellulose, and it is moving fast. The only people that don't mention this are the people invested in oil and the people who are simply afraid of something new. (not you) But getting off foreign fuel needs to be mandated. I am not a liberal, but in this case the government needs to step in, Americans are completely stupid when it comes to fuel, and until the mandates started, NOTHING was going to be done. Normally the government needs to back off, but in VERY FEW cases, we need to be saved from our own stupidness. If it was not for mandates, do you honestly thing ANYTHING would ever be done? Hell no, we'd be burning gas for ever, and more and more from foreign countries. Nothing like shipping a billion dollars a day out of a nation.


We don't need economy mandates. It is our right to drive..always has been. But it is our responsibility to not bankrupt a nation doing so.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by HoosierRon

....... ethanol has a higher octane rating, which allows for a higher compression ration, which results in more power. ......

Yes, but using ethanol doesn't GIVE you that higher compression ratio. That's a mechanical attribute of the engine. Changing the fuel won't change the compression ratio.

E85 capable vehicles are still designed to run on pure gasoline (E0). They are just designed to TOLERATE ethanol fuel up to 85% (E85). All manufacturers have certified that using ethanol (in any otheir engines) up to E10 is acceptable (not optimal) without voiding the warranty.

Someday, I would expect manufacturers to flip on this and make engines designed to get the most out of the higher octane ethanol, (mainly through higher compression ratios) and merely "accept" the gasoline use.

Actually, these ethanol mixes would be a better match to the vehicles which recommend premium fuel, as they HAVE a higher compression ratio.

All that aside, mixing in ethanol (E10 to E85) is still good, but the original assumption here that this E10 mix will save money on fuel by shaving less than 10 cents off the price is erroneous. You will get lower fuel mileage (probably around a 3% loss - certainly not as much as 10% though, duh). So a 2.5% savings at the pump won't save you, but won't cost you much either. The other benefits (displacing oil purchased from overseas sources - some of whom are "undesireable", keeping those huge fuel monies within the country, helping ramp up a POTENTIALLY cheaper fuel, etc) can be seen as good reasons.

[cafranz1]

Originally Posted by LAMRONH

WRONG. A lot of cars can not or should not run any more than E10 at the very most. My owner's manual says E10 is the most E I can run, any more and the warranty may not be honored. The jury is not in on E10, mandating it is just one more stupid, shoot-in-the-foot action that PC-panicked legislatures are taking without sufficient information.

Well maybe not.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...finds-cer.html

This is a summary of a North Dakota/Mankato U published study of mileage versus ethanol content. I am still awaiting follow-up work as it defies the thermodynamics I know. It supposedly uses an EPA protocol and concludes that there is something to 20% ethanol relative to positive MPG data versus the expected loss in MPG associated with ethanol containing 30% fewer BTU's of thermal energy per gallon versus 100% hydrocarbon gasoline.

[cafranz1]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

Yes, but using ethanol doesn't GIVE you that higher compression ratio. That's a mechanical attribute of the engine. Changing the fuel won't change the compression ratio.

E85 capable vehicles are still designed to run on pure gasoline (E0). They are just designed to TOLERATE ethanol fuel up to 85% (E85). All manufacturers have certified that using ethanol (in any otheir engines) up to E10 is acceptable (not optimal) without voiding the warranty.

Someday, I would expect manufacturers to flip on this and make engines designed to get the most out of the higher octane ethanol, (mainly through higher compression ratios) and merely "accept" the gasoline use.

Actually, these ethanol mixes would be a better match to the vehicles which recommend premium fuel, as they HAVE a higher compression ratio.

This author does, indeed, understand the octane/compression ratio connection. There is already a car (SAAB) that utilizes the octane of ethanol and it is a supercharged or turbocharged engine. One merely has to tie the wastegate pressure control point to an E85 sensor. One also sees a trend to turbocharged 4 cylinders for economy reasons. It is a good fit that can recover some energy loss of using ethanol by upping the cylinder pressure (ie like compression ratio) for higher thermal efficiency. Compression ratio and thermal efficiency are directly related. Nominally one uses about 30% of the energy content of a gasoline fuel for vehicle locomotion. The rest is heat loss to the radiator and exhaust gas.

However, electric motors still have better thermal efficiency traced all the way back to electric generation. Tesla published all this over a year ago. Now to convince the powers to be that nuclear is the way to go for electric generation.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by cafranz1

This author does, indeed, understand the octane/compression ratio connection. There is already a car (SAAB) that utilizes the octane of ethanol and it is a supercharged or turbocharged engine. One merely has to tie the wastegate pressure control point to an E85 sensor.........

Yes, I forgot that one. Supercharging (including turbocharging) does effectively increase the compression ratio. In the past, the relatively low gasoline octane available has limited the boost usable. But with 105 octane E85 available, higher boost can be employed, along with it's increased efficiencies. More power and/or more fuel economy.

In racing and aviation, superchargers have been used with alcohol injection to allow higher boost pressures than plain gasoline could achieve.

[smith7629]

I just filled up with E85 today for 60 cents cheaper per gallon than gasoline....E85 prices and availability getting better! That really adds up with a 33 gallon tank.

[logansowner]

Originally Posted by smith7629

I just filled up with E85 today for 60 cents cheaper per gallon than gasoline....E85 prices and availability getting better! That really adds up with a 33 gallon tank.

Was that 60 cents equal to 30% cheaper than gas though?

[smith7629]

Originally Posted by logansowner

Was that 60 cents equal to 30% cheaper than gas though?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question but essentially I paid 3.36/gallon for E85 and regular unleaded gas was being sold for 3.96/gallon. My mpg does drop due to the lesser energy content of E85 but a while back I compared gas to E85 at 30 cents a gallon cheaper and financially it was break even for me. Now at 60 cents a gallon cheaper I'd assume I'm getting ahead. However financial consideration is not the main reason why I buy E85. I want our country to be more energy independent. I'd rather see more of the $700billion going to our farmers and ethanol industry workforce than a sultan or shiek in the middle east or south american dictator.

[M_RABID]

Originally Posted by logansowner

2% The days of cheap fuel are over, any alternatives are going to be inflated to at least match the cost of gas...nobody is going to sell for less than the maximum they can get.

E85 is selling at $1.16 cheaper than gas RIGHT NOW.