Thread: E15 on the way?
View Single Post
Old 02-29-2012, 11:39 PM   #82 (permalink)
KY_Canyon
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kentucky (Go Cats!)
Posts: 24

BigBlue - '05 GMC Canyon Crew Cab 4x4 Z71
90 day: 22.39 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by roosterk0031 View Post
Less than 2 hours ago you claimed 20% loss, I don't see 10% on the board as a norm, that means the ethanol might as well be water. You swicthed from E15 to 10 precent 90% gasonline. E10 should get 15.52 per my calculations, 1030 gallons of fuel, 103 of ethanol, 900 gallons of gasoling. Or 1000 of E0, E10 results in 100 gallons less gasoline, only 30 gallons more total fuel.

Economics wise. at the closest station to my house today 3.45 vs 3.55, $3553.50(e10/year) vs $3550, a whopping 3.50 difference. I'd say someting's wrong with this truck too, but sorry most likely your record keeping. We always have 0.10 differnce so the higher the prices go the worst it gets economics wise for E10, used to be the clear winner.

E10 has 3% lower energy (average summer & winter gas combine) anything more than 3% loss in MPG means something is wrong. And based on the other study some cars actually get better MPG with E20 or E30.
There is nothing wrong with my truck or my record keeping. My experience has been at least a 10% decrease with E10 since the truck was purchased new in 2005. On the hwy I can avg 17-18 MPG with pure gas....I can't get over 15 with E10 (usually a bit lower). There is less difference with city driving.

For the calculation above I used the EPA's efficiency loss data (not mine). In fact, they claim a 20-30 % loss for E85 vs pure gasoline.

Perhaps the fact that you reside in Iowa gives you reason to support ethanol production. However, it is easy for anyone with the slightest bit of common sense to understand that ethanol use is not cost effective. Even your calculation using 3% shows the direct costs are greater than using pure gasoline. Of course, neither one of us took into account the indirect costs of its production, which throws the cost effectiveness out the door completely.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the research and knowledge gained from development of ethanol. However, I do have a problem with its mandated use and the fact that special interests supporting ethanol are (for the most part) doing so from a corn based production perspective. There are other sources that could be considerably more cost effective.
__________________
  Reply With Quote