[HoosierRon]

IMPACT OF ETHANOL ON RETAIL GASOLINE PRICES IN MISSOURI

On January 1, 2008 Missouri became the third state to require all gasoline sold in the state to be blended with 10 percent ethanol (E10).
...
The use of a 10 percent ethanol blend saved Missouri drivers 7.7 cents per gallon at the retail pump in 2007 for a total savings of $158.2 million, or $40 for each of Missouri’s 3.9 million licensed drivers. Reflecting current gasoline and ethanol price movements the savings are expected to average 9.8 cents per gallon or $72.80 per driver this year as 10 percent ethanol is used statewide in 2008.
...
As can be seen in Table 1 EIA reported that the average wholesale, or “rack”, price for gasoline in Missouri was $2.195 per gallon in 2007. ... Ethanol is blended with gasoline at the terminal for delivery to retail stations. As reported by USDA, the average price of ethanol, FOB plant in Iowa (the closest reporting point to Missouri) was $1.938 per gallon. The blender who purchases ethanol for use with gasoline qualifies for the $0.51 per gallon Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) which reduced his actual cost of ethanol to $1.428 per gallon.

 

[gardnet1]

With the Iowa floods, they could be adding 20 cents a gallon before long.

Plus the mileage won't be quite as good will it?

 

[XCR440SP]

Sounds great that they cost 7.2 cents less, but factor in the decreased fuel economy and on many vehicles it will actually cost more. Tests vary (the ethonal sponsored ones even admit to a 1/2 MPG drop and those are qustionable due to the source. Most studies I read vary from 2-10% loss on E10.

Based on my own experience it's a big no it doesn't save anything at 10 cents (the difference here in Iowa). My Fusion losses 2 MPG on E10, my old Taurus work car lost 1 MPG and the company Explorer I had lost 3 (wich I attribute to the fact that it was an E-85 FFV and was compensating for the 10% ethanol content by running richer)

I suggest everyone try 2 tanks of each (checking the mileage on the second tank after adapative strategy has had enough time to adjust to octance and other differences) and see what you fuel economy does. 90% of the people I convince to try this end up choosing to pay the extra 10 cents to get straight gasoline

I'd really like to see E10 eliminated, Make E85 available, but lets not have 7 different choices, 100% gasoline or E85 (and have it readiliy available which eliminating E10 would accomplish by freeing up ethanol and gas pumps both)

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/feb/03/0203_Ethanol/

 

[ctaylorzl1]

good article, nice to see it is bringing the price of gasoline down! gardnet1 does have a good point though, I am curious to see how the midwest flooding effects the ethanol industry. It made corn jump a dollar last week alone, and that may increase after loss totals are calculated and now that lots of places are starting to dry out (or my farm is atleast) it is getting to late to replant corn. So corn we lost will go to beans, and when we get closer to harvest time the price may go up even more, which in turn will propbably raise ethanol prices!

 

[Neanderthal]

Woo hoo, let me be the first to base my prezdential campaign on a 2.5% cost "saving" minus a 5-10% MPG decrease for a grand total of yet another delusional action by a legislative body.

When the history of the late 20th and early 21st century is written, it will be known as the Upside Down Era or perhaps the Age of Insanity.
We take actions that hurt us while not taking actions that help us. We are ruled by lawyers and MBAs from the Ivy League who have absolutely no clue what they're doing.

E-10 is crap gas, if anyone honest ever runs the numbers an amazing discovery will be made: It works out to a negative, as 90% of legislative/congressional actions do.

Even George McGovern, a seriously simpleminded former senator and 1972 prez candidate who was probably responsible for driving more people from his party than anyone in history to that point, eventually discovered that there is a huge difference between sitting in a giant hall full of the self-important and actually trying to run a business.
His business went bankrupt, due to his own lack of management skills and the huge bureaucratic burden of regulations and red tape which he so self righteously voted for during his career as a Great Leader.

IMHO some people are taking bribes for this, no rational person would do it based on evidence.

 

[TJ95GAGT]

I don't remember our gas dropping at all when we went to E10 everywhere. In fact during the change over, I think 2 years ago, some places didn't have gas because there wasn't enough of the E10 blend.

 

[HoosierRon]

If your car gets 10% fewer miles with a fuel that contains 3% less energy, your car has a problem. There is no way you can attribute a 1 mpg drop in mileage to E10 vs. driving conditions, weather or driving style (caused by the fact that you want to "prove" that E10 is "crap".) There are too many whiners in this country.

The fact is that E10 is making us less reliant on foreign oil and is keeping American dollars in America.

 

[XCR440SP]

I don't remember our gas dropping at all when we went to E10 everywhere. In fact during the change over, I think 2 years ago, some places didn't have gas because there wasn't enough of the E10 blend.

The E10 is cheaper here in the midwest mainly due to the fact that most states are reducing tax on the Ethanol blends to make them cost less than straight gasoline.

 

[logansowner]

Sounds great that they cost 7.2 cents less, but factor in the decreased fuel economy and on many vehicles it will actually cost more. Tests vary (the ethonal sponsored ones even admit to a 1/2 MPG drop and those are qustionable due to the source. Most studies I read vary from 2-10% loss on E10.

Based on my own experience it's a big no it doesn't save anything at 10 cents (the difference here in Iowa). My Fusion losses 2 MPG on E10, my old Taurus work car lost 1 MPG and the company Explorer I had lost 3 (wich I attribute to the fact that it was an E-85 FFV and was compensating for the 10% ethanol content by running richer)

I suggest everyone try 2 tanks of each (checking the mileage on the second tank after adapative strategy has had enough time to adjust to octance and other differences) and see what you fuel economy does. 90% of the people I convince to try this end up choosing to pay the extra 10 cents to get straight gasoline

I'd really like to see E10 eliminated, Make E85 available, but lets not have 7 different choices, 100% gasoline or E85 (and have it readiliy available which eliminating E10 would accomplish by freeing up ethanol and gas pumps both)

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/feb/03/0203_Ethanol/

2% sounds reasonable, 10% is ridiculous. If 10% ethanol resulted in a 10% drop in economy it would mean that ethanol had an energy content of 0.

My understanding is that 100% ethanol would result in about a 25-30% loss. So logically at 10% a 2-3% loss should be expected. In this case, 7 cents in savings over say $4.00 gas is only about 1.5%, and if you lose 2-3% economy, you are still paying more.

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. Until some person decides to be a martyr for the good of the nation and take less profit on their alternative fuels, we are screwed. And these people are very, very rare. Only one I can think of is the guy who founded Virgin, he seems to be willing to pay more for the good of society.

Also, I think we need 3 choices. We already have 3 pumps. Any car can run 20% ethanol. All E10 gas should become 20%. Not a money thing.... a moving the money to American and not Arabia thing. Then have 100% gas for the people whos cars may not like alcohol. Then I think E85 needs to go to maybe 75%, at least in the winter, if anyone has ever tried to start an engine in real cold weather on alcohol...it can be a fun experience.

 

[TJ95GAGT]

The E10 is cheaper here in the midwest mainly due to the fact that most states are reducing tax on the Ethanol blends to make them cost less than straight gasoline.

Makes sense. Maybe I just didn't notice because all pumps here changed over to E10 at once, so there was no price comparison.

 

[Neanderthal]

2% sounds reasonable, 10% is ridiculous. If 10% ethanol resulted in a 10% drop in economy it would mean that ethanol had an energy content of 0.

My understanding is that 100% ethanol would result in about a 25-30% loss. So logically at 10% a 2-3% loss should be expected. In this case, 7 cents in savings over say $4.00 gas is only about 1.5%, and if you lose 2-3% economy, you are still paying more.

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. Until some person decides to be a martyr for the good of the nation and take less profit on their alternative fuels, we are screwed. And these people are very, very rare. Only one I can think of is the guy who founded Virgin, he seems to be willing to pay more for the good of society.

Also, I think we need 3 choices. We already have 3 pumps. Any car can run 20% ethanol. All E10 gas should become 20%. Not a money thing.... a moving the money to American and not Arabia thing. Then have 100% gas for the people whos cars may not like alcohol. Then I think E85 needs to go to maybe 75%, at least in the winter, if anyone has ever tried to start an engine in real cold weather on alcohol...it can be a fun experience.

WRONG. :doh: 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. Fine fix I'd be in if all I could get is E20 which would cut my MPG and kill my warranty.

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. Not that that ever stopped them before.

 

[logansowner]

WRONG. :doh: 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. Fine fix I'd be in if all I could get is E20 which would cut my MPG and kill my warranty.

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. Not that that ever stopped them before.

Ok, keep it at 10%, but how can the jury be out on it? It isn't a price thing. It's about keeping our money here. $700B a year goes for foreign countries from the US I believe. At 10% ethanol -3% lower economy, that's a 7% drop in gas being used. How exactly is that bad, I mean unless you own an oil company?

 

[Neanderthal]

Ok, keep it at 10%, but how can the jury be out on it? It isn't a price thing. It's about keeping our money here. $700B a year goes for foreign countries from the US I believe. At 10% ethanol -3% lower economy, that's a 7% drop in gas being used. How exactly is that bad, I mean unless you own an oil company?

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%. :think: Maybe it's new math.

 

[mike's 01ws6]

They went to the ethanol blend because it burns cleaner, not to save you money.

 

[smith7629]

To all you ethanol haters: My suburban goes over 100 miles before burning a single gallon of gasoline while running on E85. I'm keeping the money at home, and that puts less dependence upon foreign oil...and foreign politics...and foreign butt kissing...and foreign wars. What's there to dislike...besides the people who will argue for the sake of not admitting they're wrong?

 

[HoosierRon]

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%. :think: 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]

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]

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%. :think: 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.