[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by toc

E10 is ultimately bad.
It contains less energy than is used to produce it.

The production of it takes up valuable farming land - land which otherwise would produce food, a far more useful commodity.

The burning of ethanol produces far worser gases than that of 91, 95 or 98RON ULP.

The outcome of using E10 is that you will end up needing more fuel to travel the same distance (less energy content, less energy can be derived from it, you can't break the laws of thermodynamics)

The price of E10 may be cheaper per L, but on a kM/L basis, you should come out ahead in price terms by using 95 RON fuel (and it's better for your engine).

LPG is a cheaper fuel here in Australia, used in taxis as it's 'the cheapest' fuel, the trouble is you need more of it to get the same distance as ULP. It's significantly cheaper (50% cheaper), but we are depleting the resources faster than ever, and so using it for a fuel isn't the best of decisions.

I place Ethanol in the same LPG basket, sure, it might be cheaper to some extent (not cheap enough here for me), but if you look at the real costs of it, you are paying the difference through either the poorer quality air breathed in, to higher priced food due to lack of farming land / lack of interested farmers if Ethanol is more attractive to them.

I realise that this price specific points would apply to Australia and not necessarily in the USA, my point is that the number of L required to produce x KM is a consideration, I wouldn't buy 36L of E10 for 380kM if I can get 450kM from 36L of 95RON. I still wouldn't buy E10 if I could get 420kM - the food & environmental impacts will cost more than the savings.

Ethanol in fuels is madness, it's like saving 5c worth of fuel coasting in neutral, but getting a fine because you went downhill 10kM faster as a result of coasting.

Please make an attempt to find and use data that is newer than from the '70s. Things have changed since then. Thank you.