Quote:
Originally Posted by gumby
That's cool, John.
I remember you stating that the best bang-for-the-buck was E25 or so, until the mod allowed you to use E85.
I can't remember if you tested with E70, up to E85. I know, mixing it yourself is a hassle.
If you tested E70, or 75 or 80, was there any cost savings, or is E85 just the way to go?
|
In winter, I had no choice. I ran 7 tanks in a row of "E85". However, in northern states, winter E85 contains only 70% ethanol. So the first 3 tanks were using 70% and the last 3 tanks were using 85% as spring came around. The tank in the middle was in between 70 and 85%. That's why I had 2 data points in blue.
What I proved is, no matter the blend, it will be close to even on a cost per mile basis, with a small exception: The "bump" in the graph at E26 to E30 is slightly lower cost per mile than pure gasoline.
USE ETHANOL to keep more dollars in the U.S.
USE ETHANOL to keep the air cleaner.
The use of ethanol is not going to save you, nor cost you significant money.
DO IT because it is a smart choice.
Ethanol plants starting in 2010 will take a bushel of corn.
Part of that will make fuel.
Part of that will make livestock feed.
Part of that will make HUMAN FOOD.
The world is "Carb rich, Protien poor."
The carbs will go into fuel ( ethanol )
The protien will go into human food products
The fats will go into livestock feed, or, as an alternative, bio-diesel.
By 2012 we will have full scale cellulosic ethanol plants.
I know. I've seen the pilot 1/100 scale facilities and they work.
The cost for a full scale cellulose production plant will be the same in 2012 as a corn ethanol plant today. There's also talk about algae that produce oil for bio-diesel. Algae are basic plants. Algae "eat" carbon dioxide. Stick an Algae facility on the back end of an ethanol plant and the CO2 from fermentaion of ethanol will be consumed, in part, or in whole. You could have ZERO CO2 atmospheric discharge from a new ethanol facility.
