E15 on the way?

[Allch Chcar]

I've heard of the 10% loss anecdote. I've never seen it proven with anything factual though. :/ Infact, everything I have seen and read shows a better picture.

Ethanol has 66% of the energy content. You mentioned both E15 and E10 in your post though so it's difficult to tell which you mean. I tried to find a good E10-E0 price comparison and the best(more recent) I could find had a 10cent spread between E10 and E20 at a blender pump which was about 10 cents $3.29 vs $3.39. Which makes the cost the same per BTU between the two. If you have a 10 cent spread between E10 and E0, it's easy to extrapolate that E15 would have a linear spread and would still achieve the same cost.

Then the question becomes, at the same price per BTU, which would you support? Myself, I have a modest interest in engine performance, as in power of course. So I'm leaning towards Ethanol unless it costs more per energy unit than Premium than I'd probably buy Gasoline instead.

[KY_Canyon]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

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.

[KY_Canyon]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

I've heard of the 10% loss anecdote. I've never seen it proven with anything factual though. :/ Infact, everything I have seen and read shows a better picture.

Ethanol has 66% of the energy content. You mentioned both E15 and E10 in your post though so it's difficult to tell which you mean.

There is no widespread use of E15 yet. That is what this thread was started in regards to. I have never used E15.......only E10. If my previous post insinuated my experience using E15 rather than E10 then I didn't do a good job with my wording. I also don't have E85 in my area...so no experience with it.

Properly formulated ethanol will contain 65-66% of the energy potential of gasoline. Therefore it is 34-35% less efficient (at best). So, E10 should calculate to a decrease of 3.5% and E15 should calculate to 5.25% decrease. However, an engine designed for pure gasoline will not burn ethanol as efficiently as an engine designed specifically for it, and therefore the realized decrease will be greater and will vary from engine type to engine type.

My original post was intended to point out the fact that the two fuels have different engine requirements to maximize efficiency. The blending of fuels almost guarantees that we will end up with a sub-par outcome.

The truth of the matter is that we have the ability to produce cars/trucks that could run on 100% ethanol or methanol if the free market would support them. Ethanol is nothing new. In fact, it's been around for more than 100 years. However, under pressure from special interest groups, the government chose to subsidize corn based ethanol and is slowly forcing the market to use it. Originally it was E10, now it's E15, next it will be E20 and before you know it they will be mandating ethanol in much higher percentages leaving no choice to the consumer.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by KY_Canyon

...
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.

...

The EPA makes no claims to the real world MPG of Ethanol because it can't. They use straight energy content to calculate the MPG loss. New FFVs reportedly get anywhere from 5-15% losses, depends on what generation they are from. Older FFVs and Non-FFVs get anywhere from 15-29%, mileage varies. E85 has 71% of the energy content of Gasoline so any less than 29% would be a loss in energy efficiency compared to Gasoline. I've actually never heard of anyone getting less energy efficiency with E85 than Gasoline only E10.

Originally Posted by KY_Canyon

There is no widespread use of E15 yet. That is what this thread was started in regards to. I have never used E15.......only E10. If my previous post insinuated my experience using E15 rather than E10 then I didn't do a good job with my wording. I also don't have E85 in my area...so no experience with it.

Properly formulated ethanol will contain 65-66% of the energy potential of gasoline. Therefore it is 34-35% less efficient (at best). So, E10 should calculate to a decrease of 3.5% and E15 should calculate to 5.25% decrease. However, an engine designed for pure gasoline will not burn ethanol as efficiently as an engine designed specifically for it, and therefore the realized decrease will be greater and will vary from engine type to engine type.

My original post was intended to point out the fact that the two fuels have different engine requirements to maximize efficiency. The blending of fuels almost guarantees that we will end up with a sub-par outcome.

The truth of the matter is that we have the ability to produce cars/trucks that could run on 100% ethanol or methanol if the free market would support them. Ethanol is nothing new. In fact, it's been around for more than 100 years. However, under pressure from special interest groups, the government chose to subsidize corn based ethanol and is slowly forcing the market to use it. Originally it was E10, now it's E15, next it will be E20 and before you know it they will be mandating ethanol in much higher percentages leaving no choice to the consumer.

It seemed like you were compared E15 to E0.

Ethanol does not burn any less "efficiently" in a Gasoline designed engine, it burns at least as efficient as Gasoline in older FFVs. That's an idea based on anecdotal evidence not scientific study.

Studies suggest that low-mid blends E10-E40 gets almost the same MPG meaning E40 would be the most efficient because it has less energy. I've seen this confirmed by a another source too.

I can't think of any subsides directly on Corn derived Ethanol. The VEETC was for blending and went almost completely to Oil Refineries. The Farm bill subsidizes Corn but that actually went down as Corn prices went up.

[KY_Canyon]

I stand correct. It is the US Dept of Energy who states the 20-30 % loss of use of E85.

fueleconomy.gov

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by KY_Canyon

I stand correct. It is the US Dept of Energy who states the 20-30 % loss of use of E85.

fueleconomy.gov

Flex-fuel Vehicles

Originally Posted by Fueleconomy.gov

However, since ethanol contains less energy per volume than gasoline, FFVs typically get about 25-30% fewer miles per gallon when fueled with E85.1

If you'll note the source is not the EPA or the DOE but the SAE.

Originally Posted by Fuel Economy.gov

Data Sources
1. West, Brian H., Alberto J. Lopez, Timothy J. Theiss, Ronald L. Graves, John M. Storey, and Samuel A. Lewis. 2007. Fuel Economy and Emissions of the Ethanol-Optimized Saab 9-5 Biopower. SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-3994.

2007 no less and one vehicle, hardly a consensus.

[KY_Canyon]

Frequent Questions | Green Vehicle Guide | US EPA

Why is the fuel economy for a flex-fuel vehicle lower when using E85 than when using gasoline?

Ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline as measured in British Thermal Units per gallon, so you travel fewer miles per gallon when using a fuel that contains ethanol. Compared to gasoline, E85 typically gets about 25-30 percent fewer miles per gallon in ethanol flexible fuel vehicles.

[roosterk0031]

Ethanol from my searching has 28% less energy, summer vs winter E0 varies in energy content, but averages within 3% of E10. don't know if summer or winter blend of E10.

Search E10 vs E0 & E85 to find some older threads with links I've found and my experiment results.

Basically Stratus(non FFV) MPG = energy content almost perfectly.
Impala & suburban(both FFV) suffer about 16-18% loss in mpg on E85 vs E10 instead of energy content 25% would predict.

Also search the internet for North Dakota Ethanol Blend test, sure looks like a scientfic test where some of the test cars (only 4) get better MPG with higher E content so lower energy content, contrary to what I'd expect. There is also a Finland test comparing E5 & E10 with interesting results. Check out the emission results on the North Dakota test as well.

I don't have a dog in the hunt, just tired of people saying ethanol sucks without any data to back it up. I'm just trying to collect/record data on blends and FFV cars.

I'm really just looking to find the cheapest way to get to work.

[payne171]

Frank, I am not sure if you were referring to me directly with "wanna bet," but I made no reference to assuming you would eat the grain that came from "field corn." what I do know is that it has caused the cost of livestock to go up. I eat meat. Even if I stopped, the switch to plant alternatives would cause those prices to go up. Even if we choose to ignore those basic economic principles, that field could be producing edible food if the price of farm products weren't being ARTIFICIALLY driven up by a few upon the majority of the populace that are either against it or don't care.

And Shovel, a free market dictates those uses for corn, so yes, I am in favor of it. If a free market dictated this use, I would favor it as well. Hell, if it even had popular support, I would be fine with it. As I said above, though, most Americans are either indifferent or see it as a waste, yet we get it pushed upon us by a vocal minority and the elected officials that need their votes.

[Frank Lee]

Many speak of it as if the field corn is being swiped from their plates.