What is the TRUTH regarding ethanol free gasoline?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Originally Posted By: JustinH
I use e10 gas in everything. Have never had a fuel related problem, ever.

I use it in lawnmowers, cars, everything.

Pick a station that moves a lot of product, and buy your gas there. That has been my motto.

I usually go to costco on my way home from work, they are busy all the time.

At present I have two or three E0 stations in my area. If they stop selling the fuel, I might look into Costco. From what I can tell, I'd save a bit of money every year, since they sell gas at quite a reduction over other stations, more than enough to pay for the membership. And I have a Costco directly on my morning commute.

You might have to wait in line depending on the time of day; I've given up before. You'd also be limited to using American Express, a debit card with PIN, or their gift cards. . . .

When I pass by the Costco, there's usually one or two cars at most. I get to work early. So I'd have to purchase a membership, then a gift card too, which I would have to put x amount of dollars on? They don't take cash?

If you know someone willing to buy "Costco Cash" cards on your behalf, you don't even need a membership to buy gas. My understanding is that you can even use them to shop inside a Costco. You flash the card and they let you in.

And no - Costco gas stations don't take cash. Everything is authorized via magnetic strip cards at the pump. I'll use my membership card followed by a debit card (and PIN). I mentioned an active Costco Cash card alone is enough to buy gas. I think they've gone this model because it keeps people from parking their cars at the pump while they handle a cash transaction.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've seen cars running e-85 that made awesome power at the track,and they never overheated in the lanes running all day
HOWEVER
They had twin fuel pumps,1" fuel lines and drank alcohol faster than a sailor in port,so yes ethanol has high hp potential however they've gotta burn a ton of it to achieve that power.


Exactly! Those huge pumps and giant lines are for the VOLUME they must have to make the big HP.

Anyone ever see the jets in an alky car?
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Here the costco pumps use shell fuel from what I've seen because that's what's advertised on the sides of the tankers filling the underground tanks.

I see our Costco station is pretty busy, too, and keeps the other retailers in the area honest on pricing. I haven't had the chance to fill there yet, given that its hours are similar to the Co-op's. Does one need a Costco membership for the Canadian Costco pumps?
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Here the costco pumps use shell fuel from what I've seen because that's what's advertised on the sides of the tankers filling the underground tanks.

I see our Costco station is pretty busy, too, and keeps the other retailers in the area honest on pricing. I haven't had the chance to fill there yet, given that its hours are similar to the Co-op's. Does one need a Costco membership for the Canadian Costco pumps?




Yep. Need a membership for Costco gas.

My cheque from co-op on my personal number was 300 bucks this year. Now that I'm driving the truck for the summer next year should be even better.
I haven't been riding because of my back. I'm going g to get this venture running tip top and ride it I think.
It's funny. My venture is an 82 and has 100hp. I had to spend 6k to get my 08 Harley to that power level.
And the venture will run on regular fuel
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've seen cars running e-85 that made awesome power at the track,and they never overheated in the lanes running all day
HOWEVER
They had twin fuel pumps,1" fuel lines and drank alcohol faster than a sailor in port,so yes ethanol has high hp potential however they've gotta burn a ton of it to achieve that power.


Depending on engine design. Take the 3.2L EBDI V6 engine that is in testing at GM and co-developed with Ricardo out of the UK. On E85, it generates the same HP and torque as the 6.6L Duramax Diesel and gets better economy than the Duramax. So I think maybe these folks have an edge over what someone may be doing at the track, but then the engines are developed for different applications. The 3.2L EBDI engine has been undergoing real world testing in 3500HD pickups at GM. I sure hope they get the R&D out of the way and start offering it as an option.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've seen cars running e-85 that made awesome power at the track,and they never overheated in the lanes running all day
HOWEVER
They had twin fuel pumps,1" fuel lines and drank alcohol faster than a sailor in port,so yes ethanol has high hp potential however they've gotta burn a ton of it to achieve that power.


Depending on engine design. Take the 3.2L EBDI V6 engine that is in testing at GM and co-developed with Ricardo out of the UK. On E85, it generates the same HP and torque as the 6.6L Duramax Diesel and gets better economy than the Duramax. So I think maybe these folks have an edge over what someone may be doing at the track, but then the engines are developed for different applications. The 3.2L EBDI engine has been undergoing real world testing in 3500HD pickups at GM. I sure hope they get the R&D out of the way and start offering it as an option.


Since some of the alky teams have huge budgets and have been doing this for many decades they could probably teach all of us a thing or two about horsepower.

But for daily driveability no doubt the GM engine will be better!

Seriously, I also have followed the GM/Ricardo engine online and it looks quite interesting. But it's a ways out from any real production. Still very promising tech, and I can guarantee you that technology will find a way...
 
I will say I get better gas mileage with using non ethanol gas but it does cost more. At best its a wash but I have not bought any fuel additives since using only non ethanol gas.
 
Non ethanol gas should not cost more. It is a result the market distortion by the subsidies applied to ethanol.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Non ethanol gas should not cost more. It is a result the market distortion by the subsidies applied to ethanol.


Agreed but I didn't want to get political.
grin.gif


The place that works on my cars for those tougher jobs confirms the subsidy. He said as much as he hates ethanol in gas it has increased his business with related repairs.
 
I use gas called E25(25% ethanol) in my cars for 30 years now. Not a problem, because it is what the car always used. What phocap the fuel system is precisely the use of gasoline without alcohol. That's it. Pure gas let residoes that alcohol dislodges. Ethanol doesn't make any deposits, just clean the residues already deposited by regular pure gas.

So, a car using ethanol mix, E10 or E15 since new, will never have problems, but an old car that only sees E zero, will start to clean up the fuel sys and clogg up the parts. That's what happens.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Non ethanol gas should not cost more. It is a result the market distortion by the subsidies applied to ethanol.


Please post government documents showing ethanol subsidies. According to my hired help in D.C., the Renewable Fuels Association, and my local newspaper articles, ethanol subsidies were eliminated at least a couple of years ago.

But what of petroleum subsidies and tax credits? Those folks have had some special treatment as well. Some of them implemented almost a century ago and never been rescinded. If we looked at the cost of lives, resources, etc to keep the spigots open for petroleum, it would be a lot more than ethanol has ever cost the tax payer.

Look, ethanol, wind, solar, petroleum, nuclear, whatever energy, every one has had their hands in the till in one form or another. It is pretty disingenuous to chastise one group without equally putting forth some of the realities of the others. And it really is telling to some degree. Almost seems like a religious discussion in that some give the appearance of worshiping at the petroleum alter. "Oh hail, almighty oil well, blessed be thou. Please take our sacrifice of our youth to keep the fuel at the pump cheap". We gladly sacrifice our young men and women on the petroleum alter without ever thinking about it when we fill our vehicles. But I don't think we have had to build Armies and send our finest to defend a corn field in Illinois or Iowa. At least not since the 1800's wars with the American Indian tribes.

I keep waiting for the true cost of petroleum to be priced at the pump. The cost of wars, lives, cost shifting to the taxpayers, etc. Some have played the numbers out that the actual cost of petroleum fuels would easily exceed $15 a gallon. So it is hard to speak so easily about any ethanol fuel subsidies without also the realities of what it has cost to keep petroleum fuels low at the pump. And primarily because government hacks would not let us drill for our own, or allow pipelines to be built to better supply ourselves from our neighbors. But hey, your government cares for you.
 
Illinois has a sales tax credit for gas station owners for the use of ethanol blends. I suppose most other states do too.

The EPA still mandates the use of ethanol fuel.

The refiners get a tax credit for purchasing of ethanol feed stocks.
 
Those are not factored into the market price of ethanol. Ethanol traded on the Chicago Board is the going price for ethanol for any buyer. Same is true for gasoline, diesel 1 and diesel 2, etc. What deals states make with the retailers is one thing altogether different.

Well, partially, the EPA mandates the use of ethanol. It is largely a regional thing and major metropolitan areas to meet clean air standards. If EPA mandated the use, as you imply, then ethanol free gas would be non existent in the country. The EPA also mandates a lot of other things that have are a drain on the consumer. Try looking at the cost of emissions equipment on a commercial semi truck sometime. Yet at the same time, via a loophole, I can buy a brand new commercial semi truck and drop in a pre-emission engine in it and be fully compliant! That is how I bought my 2013 Freightliner. Saved $40,000! What a country!

Tax credits are not subsidies. That is purely a reduction in the actual tax the business has to pay. If you think it is a subsidy, as many do because they feel the government owns the money and is only letting the people borrow it for a while, then I will advocate they give it up as long as you give up mortgage interest deduction, dependent and child care expenses, medical out of pocket expenses, Earned Income Tax Credit, and whatever other expenses you and others might write off on your taxes. Can anyone say Fair Tax?

Hey, a news flash..... anything I buy for my business is a tax write off also. It is called the cost of doing business. So, sure, the ethanol producers get to write off the material they buy to make their product. Come on now, get realistic and not show so much bias. The oil companies also get to write off all their expenses as well. Ever file your taxes and hear of a schedule C?
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Those are not factored into the market price of ethanol. Ethanol traded on the Chicago Board is the going price for ethanol for any buyer. Same is true for gasoline, diesel 1 and diesel 2, etc. What deals states make with the retailers is one thing altogether different.

The market price of denatured fuel ethanol is considerably less than gasoline at this point. That would seem to be an incentive to use it, I would think. I do remember back when ethanol had a higher market price than gasoline. That made it a matter of having to meet government standards.
 
Nice job of moving the goal post.

The expired blender subsidy was a tax credit.

When the EPA says we must use ethanol or some other form of bio fuel what more of a subsidy can you get?

Ethanol is not economical to produce into motor fuel without some financial incentive. Unless the EPA created demand then ethanol would not be produced as a motor fuel.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
When the EPA says we must use ethanol or some other form of bio fuel what more of a subsidy can you get?

It was never a requirement for a biofuel. The requirement is for areas with high levels of CO during the winter, and it's for oxygenates. MTBE used to meet the requirement, and it was hardly a biofuel. There's no particular requirement for an oxygenate outside of winter. There are a lot of incentives anyways. The current cost is less, and it boosts the octane rating. This is especially desirable in areas where there's a higher demand for premium.

Quote:
http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/gas.htm

Winter Oxyfuel Program: Originally implemented in 1992, the CAA requires oxygenated fuel (gasoline containing 2.7 percent oxygen by weight) during the cold months in cities that have elevated levels of carbon monoxide. Ethanol is now the only oxygenate used in this program.

Year-round Reformulated Gasoline Program: Since 1995, the CAA requires reformulated gasoline (RFG) year-round in cities with the worst ground-level ozone (smog). Between 1995 and May 2006, RFG required the use of oxygen in gasoline (minimum of 2 percent oxygen by weight). Refiners chose MTBE as the main oxygenate in RFG in cities outside of the Midwest primarily for economic reasons and its blending characteristics. Unlike ethanol, MTBE can be shipped through existing pipelines, and its volatility is lower, making it easier to meet the emission standards.
 
That was 1992. Here's the latest.

http://humanevents.com/2013/12/24/epa-reduces-2014-ethanol-mandate/

Quote:
The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under EPAct, the original RFS program (RFS1) required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable- fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012.

Under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways:

EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline;
EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022;
EISA established new categories of renewable fuel, and set separate volume requirements for each one.
EISA required EPA to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer greenhouse gases than the petroleum fuel it replaces.


But the good news is they have backed down from their forecast required levels. This is the push behind E15, because fuel use is dropping, the use of ethanol is also dropping. So they wanted to go to E15 to force the use of more ethanol.

[URL]http://humanevents.com/2013/12/24/epa-reduces-2014-ethanol-mandate/[/url]

Quote:
Approaching the Blending Wall
One of the biggest concerns is sluggish gasoline demand would require refiners to blend higher percentages of ethanol into gasoline to meet EPA’s requirements. Auto manufacturers and consumer groups have warned that automobiles, boats, lawnmowers, and other motorized machines suffer damage to key parts when gasoline blends include more than 10 percent ethanol

In December 11 testimony to the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, Christopher Gundler, head of EPA’s Transportation and Air Quality Office, said ethanol mandates are pushing gasoline refineries close to the point where adding more ethanol to the fuel mix is counterproductive.

“We’re recognizing that the blend wall has been reached,” Gundler testified.
 
could be, but there is going to have to be some other source besides corn. Corn derived ethanol is limited to 14 Billion gallons per year. The current rate of production from corn is at 13.7 billion. So the EPA is going to have to pull a rabbit out of its hat if it wants more used and likewise more produced.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
could be, but there is going to have to be some other source besides corn. Corn derived ethanol is limited to 14 Billion gallons per year. The current rate of production from corn is at 13.7 billion. So the EPA is going to have to pull a rabbit out of its hat if it wants more used and likewise more produced.

Sugar cane from a tropical climate would be perfect. Of course we don't have that. Sugar cane production in Florida and Louisiana is nowhere near that of a place like Brazil. Heck - there's barely any sugar cane production in Hawaii now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top