An easy 13.6%

[owly]

I've been anti ethanol since the very beginning...........It's a dead loss. Not only does nobody count the full energy cost of growing the grain and processing it into fuel, but the loss in horsepower and economy exceeds the percentage in the fuel. And in addition there is the vast though widely distributed cost of the damage it causes. And of course there is the top soil loss, chemicals & fertilizers, and the cost of shipping ($ & energy) in the products that would otherwise be grown on the ground no taken up in growing ethanol crops.

Here in Montana, ethanol was virtually non existent in our fuel until this last summer...... or at least minimal. Last summer I watched gas mileage plummet, and nothing I could do would bring it back............. Until the local Cenex station started advertising NO ETHANOL IN ANY OF OUR GAS. I immediately began filling both my vehicles up there. My Subaru immediately picked up 3mpg........ which exceeds 10% based on the 28 mpg it had been making on E10. My full size Chevy extended cab pickup also jumped approximately 3 mpg.... an impressive 13.6%.

As E10 has 10% ethanol, and the cost in mileage exceeds 10%, ethanol is beyond a dead loss. If I could remove that 1 gallon of ethanol per 10 gallons of gasoline, I could drive further on the remaining 9 gallons than on the 10 gallons of E10!!!

Write your congressman! The ethanol boondoggle / fiasco needs to go away....... Gasahol is an idea with no redeeming value!!

[gone-ot]

My "by-the-numbers" response:

1) I totally agree, ethanol is for sipping (whiskey), not diluting gasoline.

2) Older engines cannot detect and adjust A/F-ratio to accommodate E10 fuel so almost universally loose MPG with E10 fuel.

3) Newer engines CAN detect and adjust A/F-ratio so CAN accommodate E10 fuel such that they often do NOT loose any MPG burning E10.

4) Power-hungary drivers LOVE E85 fuel because it UPs their engine's HP output (but simultaneously DROPS their MPG numbers drastically).

5) E10+ fuels (gasohol), IMHO, should only be used during "emergencies" such as OIL embargos and natural disasters, where "something" is better than "nothing."

[bkiserx7]

Everytime I drive to Lousiana for work I put just enough gas to get me to the first ethanol free station and make sure and fill up there on my way back. Living in the Houston area, there is only on ethanol free station "near" and it is too far out the way to go to.

Have you heard of or used the puregas.org app and or website? It is an amazing tool to avoid this government forced fiasco.

[elhigh]

According to at least one resource I've read, gasoline is only moderately better at well-to-tank efficiency than alcohol - 80% vs 60%. Interestingly, both of these are better than grid electricity.

I think an engine that was idealized for alcohol consumption from the outset would deliver much better fuel economy than the flex-fuel models. Let's ask Cripple Rooster, Brazil has a long history of domestic alcohol fuel production.

[B440]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

2) Older engines cannot detect and adjust A/F-ratio to accommodate E10 fuel so almost universally loose MPG with E10 fuel.

3) Newer engines CAN detect and adjust A/F-ratio so CAN accommodate E10 fuel such that they often do NOT loose any MPG burning E10.

Two and three are backwards; The older engines will run leaner if they cannot adjust a/f ratios, and possibly better mpg at the risk of engine damage. Newer cars that can adjust, will add more fuel because of the alcohol, lowering mpg.

[Fat Charlie]

80% efficiency is "is only moderately better" than 60% efficiency?

I love ethanol. We sold a boatload of fuel pumps when NH started requiring it because it sucked up all the water that had been in the stations' tanks.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by B440

Two and three are backwards; The older engines will run leaner if they cannot adjust a/f ratios, and possibly better mpg at the risk of engine damage. Newer cars that can adjust, will add more fuel because of the alcohol, lowering mpg.

Sorry, but the ECM in almost ALL of the newer engines, especially those using turbochargers, actually "test" the octane levels of the gasoline by periodically "advancing & retarding" the spark ignition, using the principle that E10 (and higher) mixtures have higher octane levels due to ethanols higher octane number (100+) than 'straight' gasoline. Typically, this process is done upon each tank refill, and then more often as the car is driven.

How do I know this? Because that's exactly how our 2011 1.4LT Cruze works, and because I can SEE it occuring with my ScangaugeII™ when different mixtures of E10 and E0 are used. I see advanced timing consistently with E10+ fuel, but timing retard consistently with E0 fuel.

Similar process happens with Ford and Fiat-Co (pronounced fiasco) cars with turbos.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

80% efficiency is "is only moderately better" than 60% efficiency?

I love ethanol. We sold a boatload of fuel pumps when NH started requiring it because it sucked up all the water that had been in the stations' tanks.

As opposed to my original and clearly wrong choice of words, "only slightly." This 60% vs 80% is considerably better than the numbers fronted by the anti-alcohol faithful.

I'm certain there are better efficiencies to be had, perhaps better enough to neutralize gasoline's delivered BTU advantage. That will be interesting to see.

[owly]

I am 100% dyed in the wool anti ethanol............ So I am hyper aware of the bogus figures used by the pro-ethanol crowd. Bias aside....... and I am obviously heavily biased.... the fact is that the figures quoted by the pro-ethanol crowd are completely false. They are figures designed to promote their agenda. With agriculture....... with which I am heavily involved, the energy costs of production can easily be manipulated to make things look better than they in fact are. The pro-ethanol folks look at only the most obvious first tier energy costs. There are studies that look more deeply into the total energy picture, and those invariably come up with negative or close to negative figures. It makes no sense whatsoever to burn / consume fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol. It is very easy for example to gloss over or completely ignore energy used in replacing equipment and consumables, and there are many consumables in agriculture, or to ignore things like the energy that goes into producing fertilizer, or the energy used in irrigation, or the replacement and maintenance costs in energy of that equipment. It's easy to say "they don't have to irrigate their cornfields"...... while ignoring the fact that crops that were grown on those fields are now displaced to other locations where irrigation is necessary....... that for example is a second or third tier energy cost, as is transporting replacement crops from overseas. They present an entirely false and bogus "feel good" picture of the energy efficiency. Looking at it honestly, you must look at all of these things........ and more, as they all are energy costs that wouldn't be there without ethanol production. Is the energy cost of production of piece of iron that is worn out in tilling the soil NOT a energy cost of production of ethanol? Is the energy cost of operating a service truck to work on a center pivot to irrigate an ethanol crop NOT an energy cost of production? Even the energy cost of running a school bus to farms out of town must be assigned to whatever is being produced on that land. A share of EVERY energy cost associated in any way with farming that land, be it maintenance of roads & utilities, school bus, fuel and electricity to light the homes of the farmers, etc........belongs on the debit side of the equation. It's easy to gloss all this over and say....... "but they'd be growing something else........", but the fact is that they are NOT growing something else........ somebody else somewhere else is growing that "something else", and accruing that energy cost. Honesty is NOT popular where people have an agenda, but to be truly honest one has to look at the larger picture.

Howard

Originally Posted by elhigh

As opposed to my original and clearly wrong choice of words, "only slightly." This 60% vs 80% is considerably better than the numbers fronted by the anti-alcohol faithful.

I'm certain there are better efficiencies to be had, perhaps better enough to neutralize gasoline's delivered BTU advantage. That will be interesting to see.

[101Volts]

We used pure gas from one station in 2013, But I think the pure gas we bought was not as efficient as the E10 they sold at the same time because I tried running a lawnmower on it (Which was in poor running order) and it barely ran, But when I filled it back up with their E10 it ran well enough to cut grass!

I'm not saying pure gas can't run better, I'm just reciting memory.