does anyone actually use E10 out of choice?

[crinkles]

down here, it is made from wheat or sugarcane.

I don't see why it is so bad.

They say on average you use 3% more. (Long term, mass market etc).

No E10: Get 10L/100km, 100% petrol, 10L/100 km petrol used.

With E10: Get 10.3L/100km, 90% Petrol, use 9.3 L/100km petrol and 1L/100km ethanol.

WHy is it bad that I have effected a 7.3% reduction in petrol use?

 

[Shannow]

crinkles, ethanol from sugarcane is something I've supported for decades, particularly if value adding is done here.

From grains is a dodgy prospect.

You'll win and/or lose, depending on how your car is set up with knock sensors etc. Take some advantage of the higher octane rating, and mileage can "improve" more than it is reduced from energy density.

Vehicle specific 'though.

 

[Shannow]

BTW, used to add 10% ethanol to my LJ 20+ years ago, while running 50:50 Super and PULP...car loved it, and wouldn't run on for 30 seconds after switching it off.

 

[Jason2007]

I have never seen a decrease in mileage using E10 over straight gasoline.

 

[crinkles]

i cannot conclusively say that i've suffered a loss in mileage either, or a gain.

other factors have a greater influence especially if driving patterns are variable like mine.

 

[Turk]

Originally Posted By: Jason2007
I have never seen a decrease in mileage using E10 over straight gasoline.


I see 1.5 - 2 MPG increase with real gas on my '03 GMC Sierra. Yes, I have ran that experiment over and over with many replicates and that is the increase I experience.

 

[duaneb9729]

my experience is just like yours Tpitcher, From an aerostar van to full sized vans and pick ups.

 

[Cup of Joe]

The argument in the US is a bit different. The first problem is there is no option. Finding a station that is not E10 is rare as they have made it mandatory use. Second problem we don't have sugar cain to use to make ethanol. We are using corn which is a food crop plus the fact that the BTU recovered from the use of corn ethanol is less then the BTU required to produce corn ethanol.

 

[tig1]

For a long time I had a choice between the two. I couldn't see any real differance. If there was any it couldn't have been more than a couple of tenths.

 

[Samilcar]

Originally Posted By: TaterandNoodles
The argument in the US is a bit different. The first problem is there is no option. Finding a station that is not E10 is rare as they have made it mandatory use.


This does not apply to the entire US, and varies from state to state. In Iowa, consumers have the choice to buy either straight gas or E10. Each nozzle is clearly labeled as to what it dispenses.

There have been rumblings recently from ethanol lobbyists at the Iowa statehouse to try to get this changed. I hope they don't succeed, as I enjoy having the freedom to purchase the fuel of my choice.

And , by the way, I've used that freedom of choice to run mainly E10 (along with 70% of other Iowa motorists) for the past 25 years.

 

[bigmike]

I've concluded that my truck has lost MPG when using gas with Ethanol. I was averaging 17.5 city before and now I get 16.

 

[Kestas]

TaterandNoodles touched on an important aspect to this issue. The growing season is considerably longer in Australia (and Brazil). It is cheaper and makes more sense for warm countries to grow the easy crops for ethanol than it is for the US to grow our ethanol crops. We can't grow sugarcane in most of our US.

 

[Samilcar]

Originally Posted By: TaterandNoodles
the BTU recovered from the use of corn ethanol is less then the BTU required to produce corn ethanol.


No. The single study that found this to be true assumed that the end product (distillers grains) were simply thrown away after making ethanol from corn. This is never done and has never been done. In fact, the distillers grains are often more economically valuable to the ethanol plant than the actual ethanol produced.

Other studies that don't make such a weird and misleading assumption find energy gains ranging anywhere from 10% to 50%, with a 30% energy gain being the generally agreed upon average.

This is not as good as the 150% energy gain from sugar cane ethanol, but it's not anywhere close to being a net energy loser.

 

[mechtech2]

In the USA, ethanol is a huge political thing. Special laws and incentives abound. The actual costs of producing the alcohol and implementing it are greater than what they say. And this applies to water use, higher prices for other crops because of the growing of corn, etc..

Plus, it makes cars run with less power and gas mileage.

 

[Russell]

Originally Posted By: Jason2007
I have never seen a decrease in mileage using E10 over straight gasoline.


I would say I lose about 5-8%, at least, due to E10 in my bmw with new plugs, oxygen and knock sensors. Noew there is consideration for E15-go fighure

 

[Jason2007]

In all fairness all of the pumps I use say could contain as much as 10% Ethanol, so who knows if it is really the full 10%.

 

[fsskier]

Carefully controlled tests from credible organizations have repeatedly shown a loss of 3 percent when using E10, this matches nicely with the reduced BTU's in ethanol.

If you study the E-85 cars on the epa.gov website you will discover that they all get about 35% less mileage than straight gasoline.

Yet another study just came out showing that it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get out of it, and yes they claim to have included everything, including byproducts.
I will not argue that either way except.....

Burning corn in your stove yields almost 500,000 BTU's per bushel. To convert that bushel to ethanol you add another 150,000 btu's of processing and distillation energy, and then wind up with 2.67 gallons of ethanol, well less than 200,000 btus of yield.

It would make much more sense to burn the corn in stoves, power plants, etc. The only reason we use it in gas is because the huge subsidy is hidden in the gas tax exemptions.

One thing is sure, ethanol contributes to lousy roads by raiding the road fund!!

No, I avoid it as much as possible.

 

[severach]

Ethanol apologists don't seem to mind when the ROI is less than 1 but as soon as it exceeds 1 they think it's a good deal. Unfortunately an energy source needs an ROI a lot greater than 1 to be viable. The 1.5 or so ROI of corn fed ethanol isn't even close.

 

[fsskier]

Well said!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Samilcar]

Originally Posted By: severach
Ethanol apologists don't seem to mind when the ROI is less than 1 but as soon as it exceeds 1 they think it's a good deal. Unfortunately an energy source needs an ROI a lot greater than 1 to be viable. The 1.5 or so ROI of corn fed ethanol isn't even close.


Agreed. Corn based ethanol wouldn't be economically viable without the major subsidies currently given to it. I keep waiting for cellulosic ethanol to take over from corn ethanol, but IMO the subsidies given to corn ethanol are keeping anyone from taking the financial risk of building new cellulosic plants.

What needs to be done is a gradual phasing out of subsidies for corn ethanol, and a phasing in of subsidies for cellulosic. I fear this will never happen because of the entrenched political power of the corn ethanol lobby.