An update with today's prices from data I collected this winter.



-John

 

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?

I applaud your continuing efforts in this regard. It's somewhat eye-opening. As long as we can keep the price differential (between gas and ethanol) in balance, It's good for you to be able to use less OIL.

 

Here is an interesting link regarding E85.

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/

Notice the "adjusted" price for E85 on the far right. When BTU's are taken into consideration. It no longer looks like such a bargain.

Quote form AAA site

**The BTU-adjusted price of E-85 is the nationwide average price of E-85 adjusted to reflect the lower energy content as expressed in British Thermal Units - and hence miles per gallon - available in a gallon of E-85 as compared to the same volume of conventional gasoline. The BTU-adjusted price calculated by OPIS and AAA is not an actual retail average price paid by consumers. It is calculated and displayed as part of AAA's Fuel Gauge Report because according to the Energy Information Administration E-85 delivers approximately 25 percent fewer BTUs by volume than conventional gasoline. Because "flexible fuel" vehicles can operate on conventional fuel and E-85,the BTU-adjusted price of E-85 is essential to understanding the cost implications of each fuel choice for consumers.

 

Steve, that's exactly what I show in my personal graphs earlier in my thread.

It is priced to be a "push". E85 is nearly identical price per mile, and I proved that is true in my own vehicle. There are a few dis-honest stations selling E85 at too high of a price, and I don't visit them, and neither should you. While generally costing the same, it is much, much, cleaner for the environment, and hence, there is the real savings. Yes, it is STILL cleaner when you consider all the fuel used in farming and transport.

After all, fuel is used also in oil refineries, and transporting oil!
-John

P.S. I compare the cost per mile to the cheapest, regular unleaded, because that is what I would otherwise buy. HOWEVER, E85 has an octane rating of 105, and thus, is way above "SUPER PREMIUM" in that regard. It is literally, "race fuel". If I had a fancy sports car, that required high octane, I think E85 would be cheaper overall, compared to the higher price of "premium" unleaded.
( I keep forgetting that part! )

P.P.S. I just had an AHA! moment! The reason AAA's "adjusted' price is not accurate is: They are not aware that "winter" E85 is 70% ethanol and 30% gasoline... thus winter E85 has more btu than they are calculating for. It is not advertised, and it is little known that the blend of E85 changes month to month, and state by state, and thus, it is impossible to have a valid "National Average" since California and Florida will have 85% ethanol in January, and Illinois, and Minnesota for example will have 70% ethanol in January.

Plus, there is the whole "efficiency" thing. What if 10% of gasoline BTU's go out the tailpipe and only 5% of ethanol BTU's go out the tailpipe? ( or 4% vs. 2%? I'm making up the numbers, but it is widely known that ethanol burns more completely )

 

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.

 

If I am not mistaken, ethanol can be made out of rubber tires, wood chips and other municipal waste products. An ethanol plant in Southwestern Pa. is going up that will use this type of material. The ethanol company is based in Warrendale, Illinois if I am correct.

 

Jon-
Do you know if the US imports any ethanol, or do we make it all? I don't run E85 any more, because my car didn't like it. It's too bad that car companies aren't offering us alternative options like biofuels and domestic electricity.

 

Colby, did you find out why?
Even the makers of the E85 boxes say ethanol is so good at cleaning out "gunk" that after the first tank or two you may get clogged fuel filters. But after all the dirt is removed, you will be fine. This is more likely the more miles your car has. ( more time for the tank to collect dirt )

The U.S. imports a small amount of ethanol. I think it started from the days when the U.S. could not make enough for the air non-attainment areas like L.A. and the contracts still exist today for some reason.
In the news:
"The Energy Information Administration said that U.S. ethanol imports dropped 48% in March to 253,000 barrels, down from 483,000 barrels in February. The figure represents a 64 percent drop from March 2007. Trinidad exported at 143,000 barrels, El Salvador exported 109,000 barrels, and Canada exported 1,000 barrels to Montana."


Today in NW Iowa pure gas was $3.859 and E10 was $3.759 and E85 was $2.699.
Denver was selling E85 for $2.359, the lowest in the nation.

 

Peter Schrum, President of the German Renewable Fuel Association: "In 1980, world prices for grain were on the same level as it is today. Why? Starting in the 1970s, farmers were paid direct payments, minimum prices were guaranteed. About 5 years ago, the EU Commission eventually decided to stop this erroneous development by adjusting agricultural subsidies; minimum prices were abolished and set-aside areas freed for production of energy.

At the same time Chinese and Indian economies grew at around 10 % per year, income increased and eating habits changed. Prices of grains and oil seeds jumped up, so that again we have a price level similar to 1980."

http://www.biokraftstoffe.org/

 

It seems like there are numerous factors affecting our food prices, and I have to believe that "ethanol" does play a part. Certainly oil prices play a huge role in that. Also, based on the bloomberg report it seems like there are a combination of other factors. Firstly, (and this is coming from a neighbor of mine who is a brewer as well as the bloomberg report) the subsidies for corn and the increase in demand for ethanol had (until this year) driven an increase in corn plantings and thus a decreased % of acreage for other plants (in his case hops, etc) that has driven those prices up. However, the recently reported reason for the reduction in corn plantings this year is a matter of $$$. The global demand for Soybeans and wheat has increased the prices for those crops thereby resulting in an increase of plantings there. An increase in demand for ethanol down the road may tip the scales back towards increased planting of corn.

I think we do need to consider that there is a tipping point where if we use too much ethanol our demand for corn will begin to have a significant impact on prices of other foods (in addition to the corn itself). Afterall, we do have a limited amount of farmland.

Like others have said, I think cellulosic ethanol is probably a better choice as those plants appear to require less "maintenance", fertilizer, etc and I believe would produce more energy per acre than corn....but I could be mistaken.