Gas 10% ethanol

I am not taking sides, but I can tell you this....If you punch " pure gas " into your computer, a page will come up, state by state, where you can buy real gas. One tip is that, in looking at the station's octane ratings, real regular, will show the lower octane numbers. In Wisconsin, I believe all " premium " gas , has no ethanol in it. But these octane ratings will be higher, and cost a lot more. I know all cities and states are different, but here in Oshkosh, Wisconsin we have 2 stations that sell real gas - no ethanol - for 5 cents more than the ethanol only regular stations, sell their corn gas. :)
 
wisbangman said:
I am not taking sides, but I can tell you this....If you punch " pure gas " into your computer, a page will come up, state by state, where you can buy real gas. One tip is that, in looking at the station's octane ratings, real regular, will show the lower octane numbers. In Wisconsin, I believe all " premium " gas , has no ethanol in it. But these octane ratings will be higher, and cost a lot more. I know all cities and states are different, but here in Oshkosh, Wisconsin we have 2 stations that sell real gas - no ethanol - for 5 cents more than the ethanol only regular stations, sell their corn gas. :)
Click to expand...

WOW!! 5 cents is a bargain. Here in Oregon where we live it is 50 to 75 cents more per gallon.
 
Try this. Since you've been running 10% in your car for awhile, do a mileage check. See what your mpg is. Now go find ethanol free gas and check it again. On average, you will find a 2 mpg increase. Did it in my car and that was the result. Keep in mind that you are being taxed by the gallon.
 
1ton said:
Try this. Since you've been running 10% in your car for awhile, do a mileage check. See what your mpg is. Now go find ethanol free gas and check it again. On average, you will find a 2 mpg increase. Did it in my car and that was the result. Keep in mind that you are being taxed by the gallon.
Click to expand...

I did this check 2 years ago driving I-80 from sacramento to chicago and found 2 mpg increase in honda pilot with ethanol free gas.
 
1952henry said:
The Coal Creek plant (1100 mw) in Falkirk, ND sends the steam to the adjacent Blue Flint ethanol plant.

https://lignite.com/news/north-dakotas-largest-power-plant-coal-creek-station/6
Click to expand...


That's a very informative link. The efficiency of that Coal Creek Power Plant is impressive. I found the part about the fly ash being harvested/recycled and used in lieu of Portland cement especially enlightening. The environazi/environmentalists don't want us to know these things....


https://lignite.com/news/north-dakotas-largest-power-plant-coal-creek-station/6
 
Doesn't the government pay the farmers to make it?? Be interesting to see how much it would cost got 10% gas if they didn't.
 
Subsidies are paid to the ethanol producers that had to build the stills. The distillation plants are expensive to build and operate. https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-nat...l-subsidies-corn-ethanol-corn-based-biofuels/


Farmers that produce the crop only get paid for what they sell. There is no subsidy for growing corn. A lot of the ethanol producers are involved in the AG market and may also own corporate farms that produce the crops for ethanol production but the subsidy is for the operation of the renewable fuel production.


The bill provided incentives for non food production of ethanol as well but I don't think any of the producers have picked up on that to any large extent. I mentioned previously the production of sugar beets as the best possible non food related crop for North America since sugar cane doesn't grow that well in the northern climates. South America uses sugar cane for their ethanol production and they get a lot more bang for their buck. Sugar beets aren't like the beets you grow in your garden for food. They are much larger and are grown for sugar production but they only account for 20% of sugar produced. Using a sugar crop rather than a starch crop like corn eliminates some steps in the ethanol production process and they would get a lot more bang for the buck (ethanol produced per bushel of crop produced). Some of the other sources mentioned in that link other than high sucrose or starch crops would take tons of material for starch or sucrose extraction by comparison. To me, that type of production would be a last resort due to the added expense.


The government was looking for a way to lessen Americas dependence on fossil fuels and to develop renewable sources for fuel when the fossil fuels play out or become too expensive to produce. The fossil fuels won't be around forever and folks may need another fuel if we can't produce enough by the old standard methods. That 10% saves a lot of gasoline. When folks mention millions of barrels the 10% is a lot of barrels.
 
Last edited:
rotorwrench, "That 10% saves a lot of gasoline." Don't forget to factor in the reduced efficiency (fuel mileage) when using 10% ethanol. You are burning more gallons of gasoline. Plus, farmers have ramped up their production of corn, thus burning more Diesel fuel and using more fertilizer (often petroleum based). Plus, huge amounts of petroleum (natural gas) are used to distill ethanol. True, the leftover mash is used for cattle feed, but cattle did just fine eating corn that had not gone through this expensive process. Plus huge amounts of water are used in the distillation process. Much of this water is reclaimed and reused, at additional expense.
Add it all up and I don't think there is much of a net saving!
 
40 Deluxe said:
...Plus, farmers have ramped up their production of corn, thus burning more Diesel fuel and using more fertilizer (often petroleum based)...
Click to expand...



To be fair, farmers have converted from planting other crops such as soybeans. They would still have been out in the fields using diesel and spraying chemicals if they were planting one of those other crops.
 
papanomad said:
I did this check 2 years ago driving I-80 from sacramento to chicago and found 2 mpg increase in honda pilot with ethanol free gas.
Click to expand...


Here's an interesting exercise using your Honda:

E0 MPG: 27, Highway (We'll assume the EPA rated mileage is using E0)
E10 MPG: 25, Highway (per your observation)

E0: $3.07/gallon
E10: $2.73/gallon

*these prices per GasBuddy.com at the station nearest me (ZIP 50309)

Using the above, we can calculate the cost per mile (or miles per dollar)

E0: $3.07/27 = $0.114/mi
E10: $2.73/25 = $0.110/mi

E0: 27/$3.07 = 8.79 mi/$
E10: 25/2.73 = 9.15 mi/$

So, as we can see using today's fuel example prices, you would have actually saved a bit of money using the E10 despite its lower MPG rating.
 
I can't defend what the government does but I will defend the farmer since I was raised by one and worked on the farm when I was kid. What a farmer grows depends on the rainfall in their region or whether they can irrigate or not. Farms aren't springing up out of nowhere. As a matter of fact there is less farm land now than there was 20 years ago due to population growth and housing developments. We grow the same amount of corn now as we did back in 1975 on our family farm properties. Only a small part of it is irrigated and it cost a lot to irrigate. That's the only property we can produce corn from.


I don't think a person will worry about what they run there car on when the availability of gasoline is depleted. There may be no other choices. If the world ever has another major war mobilization, the existing fuel supplies will be drained to the point of non existence for personal use. The USA won't be able to grow enough crops to supply enough ethanol either. Something else will be needed if it ever gets that bad. Just hope & pray it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
rotorwrench said:
Subsidies are paid to the ethanol producers that had to build the stills. The distillation plants are expensive to build and operate. https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-nat...l-subsidies-corn-ethanol-corn-based-biofuels/
Click to expand...

It was done to buy votes in the corn belt. Ethanol can be produced more economically other ways. Without the ethanol subsidy and requirement there wouldn't be ethanol in gasoline. Oil companies won't intentionally put more expensive components in gasoline voluntarily.

The government was looking to politicize the production of gasoline even more and pick winners and losers. It was a significant negative disruption of refinery gasoline economics. A real loser in all ways.
 
I'm a firm believer that if it ain't broke, put a leaver on it and leaver alone. I can see planning for contingencies but I think there may be better alternatives. Subsidies should only be used when there is a planned offset that will eventually make them unnecessary. After the production stuff is all built then the subsidies should stop. It is a money making operation after all and should make its own way. If it doesn't, then let it go under as it should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top