Gasoline May Rise Above $5 a Gallon

[TomT]

Thankfully, E15 will be optional and must be labeled as such. I certainly would never put it in any of my engines! Ethanol is a purely political solution and has a lot of bad science and claims behind it...

What you've been thinking of as normal gas at the majority of stations in the US is E10 but there has been talk of allowing or requireing E15.

 

[AndyH]

I was being conservative with 3-4 mpg. It is VERY noticeable when you are used to getting >50 mpg. I don't care what the arguments are FOR ethanol. If they replace 10% of my gas with ethanol, and I get 10% worse gas mileage, where is the benefit in that?? :roll:

Benefit? Reduction in foreign oil imports. Carbon negative. Oxygenated fuel reduces CO and other pollutants. Supports American farmers. Replaces the carcinogen MTBE as a fuel oxygenate.

And, making it from corn is just plain stupid. Many of the proponents who pushed for the ethanol legislation have now back-pedaled, and are now trying to get it repealed. But, like most government subsidies, once you have something in place its almost impossible to remove it. I just hope they fail to get the 15% ethanol blend they are now pushing for.

I agree that corn is a bottom-rung ethanol feed stock. Fear not - cellulosic ethanol plants are on-line today, plants converting municipal solid waste to ethanol are coming on-line as well - and due to price/availability, midwest ethanol plants are idling until they either switch feed stocks or until corn is again available. Texas panhandle ethanol producers are using sorghum.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505244_162-57487634/apnewsbreak-feds-announce-nevada-biofuel-plant/
http://www.startribune.com/business/142515155.html?refer=y
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/plants/listplants/USA/

I agree that our farm system is broken - but it's not about ethanol.

 

[TomT]

Sorry, it doesn't fly. Ethanol has so many problems of it's own - ignoring all the political, economic and food-supply ones for the moment - that it is clear that it is simply a terrible alternate fuel source. It exists primary to garner votes. I hope that E15 is soundly boycotted in the marketplace!

I was being conservative with 3-4 mpg. It is VERY noticeable when you are used to getting >50 mpg. I don't care what the arguments are FOR ethanol. If they replace 10% of my gas with ethanol, and I get 10% worse gas mileage, where is the benefit in that?? :roll:

Benefit? Reduction in foreign oil imports. Carbon negative. Oxygenated fuel reduces CO and other pollutants. Supports American farmers. Replaces the carcinogen MTBE as a fuel oxygenate.

 

[keydiver]

Benefit? Reduction in foreign oil imports.

If 90% gas + 10% ethanol = 90% of the gas mileage I use to get, how did that reduce oil imports??? :roll: I'm burning almost EXACTLY the same amount of gas per mile as I do without ethanol, so its a wash to me. Studies I have seen indicate a 5-9% loss in mileage for E10.
All of your "benefits" were the same ones touted when ethanol was pushed 4-5 years ago, but now that reality has sunk in most groups agree it was a bad decision. Too many unforeseen consequences. I hope we get off the corn habit ASAP, and move on to better sources as you have listed.

 

[smkettner]

Maybe ethanol should just replace coal at the power plant if it is so good :lol: :roll:

 

[ztanos]

I was being conservative with 3-4 mpg. It is VERY noticeable when you are used to getting >50 mpg. I don't care what the arguments are FOR ethanol. If they replace 10% of my gas with ethanol, and I get 10% worse gas mileage, where is the benefit in that?? :roll:

Benefit? Reduction in foreign oil imports. Carbon negative. Oxygenated fuel reduces CO and other pollutants. Supports American farmers. Replaces the carcinogen MTBE as a fuel oxygenate.

I will have to disagree with you on this one... carbon negative? How can making me stop for gas more often be considered a good thing? Now I'm doing more restart cycles which wastes even more gas. The ethanol eats away at the gaskets quicker than regular gas causing my car to burn oil. (Note: it may be coincidence, but my head gasket started leaking about 6 months after every gas station in Columbus, GA (where I lived at the time) converted over to 10%. I now have to put a qt of oil in the car between oil changes.) All of this is money out of my pocket. If the only reason I am using the E85 is to get out of the middle east, I'll buy a LEAF. That has been the only argument that carries any weight with me so far. But I haven't done nearly the research that you have.

 

[AndyH]

Sorry, it doesn't fly. Ethanol has so many problems of it's own - ignoring all the political, economic and food-supply ones for the moment - that it is clear that it is simply a terrible alternate fuel source. It exists primary to garner votes. I hope that E15 is soundly boycotted in the marketplace!

I was being conservative with 3-4 mpg. It is VERY noticeable when you are used to getting >50 mpg. I don't care what the arguments are FOR ethanol. If they replace 10% of my gas with ethanol, and I get 10% worse gas mileage, where is the benefit in that?? :roll:

Benefit? Reduction in foreign oil imports. Carbon negative. Oxygenated fuel reduces CO and other pollutants. Supports American farmers. Replaces the carcinogen MTBE as a fuel oxygenate.

Feel free to cite a source that supports your belief.

 

[AndyH]

Benefit? Reduction in foreign oil imports.

If 90% gas + 10% ethanol = 90% of the gas mileage I use to get, how did that reduce oil imports??? :roll: I'm burning almost EXACTLY the same amount of gas per mile as I do without ethanol, so its a wash to me. Studies I have seen indicate a 5-9% loss in mileage for E10.
All of your "benefits" were the same ones touted when ethanol was pushed 4-5 years ago, but now that reality has sunk in most groups agree it was a bad decision. Too many unforeseen consequences. I hope we get off the corn habit ASAP, and move on to better sources as you have listed.

The benefits haven't changed since Henry Ford built cars that used ethanol - before we had gasoline. Thankfully, we're starting to get over the insanity brought to us by Standard oil.

The simple fact is that ethanol production is carbon negative - and we need as much of that as we can. The distillers grain 'byproduct' is a 15% more effective animal feed than raw corn, and is easier on the animals - they don't need as many drugs as when they're forced to eat food they're not evolved to eat.

Yes - the move away from corn is already in progress - and the move away from ADM-scale production is happening as well. Ethanol continues to be a safe, biodegradable, renewable, carbon negative fuel when made from corn - and it's much, much better when it's made from cattails harvested from municipal water treatment plants.

I've gone to E85 for today, and will distill my own 90 proof fuel just as soon as I get established out of town. With E85 in a non-flex-fuel vehicle my mileage is down around town but is the same as gasoline when the truck is loaded or on the highway. I think the benefits significantly outweigh the part-time mileage loss.

 

[AndyH]

I was being conservative with 3-4 mpg. It is VERY noticeable when you are used to getting >50 mpg. I don't care what the arguments are FOR ethanol. If they replace 10% of my gas with ethanol, and I get 10% worse gas mileage, where is the benefit in that?? :roll:

Benefit? Reduction in foreign oil imports. Carbon negative. Oxygenated fuel reduces CO and other pollutants. Supports American farmers. Replaces the carcinogen MTBE as a fuel oxygenate.

I will have to disagree with you on this one... carbon negative? How can making me stop for gas more often be considered a good thing? Now I'm doing more restart cycles which wastes even more gas. The ethanol eats away at the gaskets quicker than regular gas causing my car to burn oil. (Note: it may be coincidence, but my head gasket started leaking about 6 months after every gas station in Columbus, GA (where I lived at the time) converted over to 10%. I now have to put a qt of oil in the car between oil changes.) All of this is money out of my pocket. If the only reason I am using the E85 is to get out of the middle east, I'll buy a LEAF.

Spoken like someone that's never been in uniform and/or doesn't care about the Americans that have been dying to preserve our oil supply since before WWII... Cars in the US have been ethanol-proof since the mid-1980s. While methanol will cause problems with hoses and gaskets, ethanol will not.

That has been the only argument that carries any weight with me so far. But I haven't done nearly the research that you have.

In the early days of this forum I lobbied against ethanol and was still a rep for the Pickens Plan. I reserve the right to learn and evolve. :lol:

Consider worst-case ethanol from corn. Ethanol using non-cellulosic processing ferments the sugar and starch in the corn kernal - the seed. It doesn't use the rest of the plant. For most plants, there is as much biomass underground as above. The biomass under ground is sequestered carbon. The stalks, leaves, and cobs can be sequestered carbon, or can be burned to provide process heat for distillation. That's carbon negative or carbon neutral. Then we have 'waste' process heat that can be used to pre-heat the next batch to be distilled. The left-overs from distillation is distillers grain - it is made from yeast carcasses and corn kernels minus sugar and starch - in other words, the kernels retain fat, fiber, vitamins and minerals and make a superior animal feed to corn. If not used for animal feed, the distillers grain can be reapplied to the field to grow the next crop. If this is done, the farmer does not need to apply any fertilizer or herbacide (the distillers grain acts as a pre-emergent herbacide). This further saves fossil-fueled drives through the field after planting.

Just one real-world overview. Yes, I think ethanol is a superior liquid fuel to gasoline for those that will continue to rely on a liquid fuel for some time to come. I do not, however, think much of our industrial ag system and agree that it needs serious help. But lobbying from agrobusiness doesn't change the nature of ethanol.

Hit up the "Alcohol Can Be A Gas" videos if you wish - it's ethanol production and use from the perspective of a biologist/organic farmer/permaculturist. Sorry - it's kinda hacked into pieces and there's no playlist... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km7xFd87-mw

Sorry if this seems terse and undiplomatic - not intended. Replying while coordinating a property purchase and having a Nerf fight with my 10-year old.

 

[AndyH]

Maybe ethanol should just replace coal at the power plant if it is so good :lol: :roll:

Hmmmm....Google Sez:

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/ethanol-power-plant/

On 19 January 2010, Brazil's state-owned company Petrobras launched the world's first ethanol-fired power plant. Situated in the city of Juiz de Fora, in the state of Minas Gerais, approximately 180km north of Rio de Janeiro, the plant will generate electricity on a commercial scale using sugar cane-derived ethanol. The plant's technology, engineering and field support was provided by General Electric (GE).

During the tests, the plant demonstrated significantly lower CO2 emissions and water usage. Between 31 December 2009 and 13 January 2010, the plant demonstrated a 30% reduction in nitrogen oxide (Nox) emissions within 150 hours of power generation with ethanol. In comparison with natural gas and diesel-fired plants, the plant releases lower Nox levels without lowering its power generating capacity.

Yes - that's compared to the other plant burning natural gas. :shock:

The question I have is, "Why are American companies doing this in other parts of the world but not here?" and, "Why does GM, Ford, and Chrysler build cars with engines and control systems built for ethanol (and provide better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts) in other parts of the world but not in the US?"

Yeah, those are rhetorical...unfortunately...

 

[keydiver]

Brazil is not a good example, IMO. Their ethanol is a biproduct from their sugar cane production. Very little of that in the US.
I'm not arguing that it produces less emissions, or that it isn't great to get off Mideast oil. (Heck, I have a PHEV Prius and now a LEAF!) But, forcing ALL gas vehicles to use watered-down fuel, cars that aren't programmed to add any more spark advance with ethanol, is just stupid. I have designed hundreds of car computer chips to take advantage of E85 in high performance turbocharged cars, so I have learned some about it. Ethanol has quite a bit less energy/calories than gas, so you can't just arbitrarily replace 10-15% of gasoline with ethanol and not see a performance hit. My E85 chips inject 50% more fuel on E85 than on straight gas, and have TONS more timing advance added, both to take advantage of the higher octane, and to bring the throttle response back up where it should be.
In my case, my PHEV Prius, and using your original example, how much am I really NOT now sending to the Mideast? If I take the midrange figure, say a 7% loss of mpg with E10, and 12,000 miles per year, my mileage drops from 50 mpg to 46.5 mpg with E10. So, instead of burning 240 gallons/year, I now burn 232 gallons of gas per year (258 X .90). Big deal, a whole 8 gallons. :roll: Barely a 3% savings. I could have saved more than that by just keeping my tires inflated properly. :lol: I would gladly have sent another $8.40 to OPEC not to have to stop and get gas 7% more often. Instead, I paid $63 more for an extra 18 gallons of E10, which made Exxon/Mobil richer, but hopefully trickled down to some poor farmer.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for E85 or even E100 vehicles, which are built to use ethanol properly, and getting the ethanol from better sources. I just think the E10 scheme is just another gimmick that made lots of people rich, but came with many other unforeseen consequences that we will be dealing with for years.

 

[AndyH]

Brazil is not a good example, IMO. Their ethanol is a biproduct from their sugar cane production. Very little of that in the US.

Actually, sugar is a byproduct of their national desire to break their addiction to oil. :lol:

I'm not arguing that it produces less emissions, or that it isn't great to get off Mideast oil. (Heck, I have a PHEV Prius and now a LEAF!) But, forcing ALL gas vehicles to use watered-down fuel, cars that aren't programmed to add any more spark advance with ethanol, is just stupid.

It's not a 'watered down fuel' but it is different. Put into context, we used to use tetraethyl lead in our gasoline as an octane enhancer and valve seat lubricant. The down side is that it was killing us. Oops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead On the recommendation of the oil industry, we replaced lead with a number of other substances, including MTBE. It's an oxygenate (cleaner air) and supposed to be 'good for us' - and it started killing us, too. So after doing a bunch of 'wrong' and harmful things since the 1930s, we're back to using an oxygenate that is safe to drink, safe if it leaks and gets into our ground water, biodegradeable, made in this country, and results in lower CO2 and CO and other pollutants than 'pure' gasoline alone.

I have designed hundreds of car computer chips to take advantage of E85 in high performance turbocharged cars, so I have learned some about it. Ethanol has quite a bit less energy/calories than gas, so you can't just arbitrarily replace 10-15% of gasoline with ethanol and not see a performance hit. My E85 chips inject 50% more fuel on E85 than on straight gas, and have TONS more timing advance added, both to take advantage of the higher octane, and to bring the throttle response back up where it should be.

Good job on the chips! You already know, however, to get the performance and fuel economy back (actually to exceed gasoline's economy and power) you need to raise the compression, retard the timing, and heat the fuel. There are links in the off topic/ethanol thread to DOE and SAE projects that use an electric turbo to provide multi-fuel capability that's far superior to chip tuning alone.

Bottom line - the fuel is better than gasoline across the board - but our engines have evolved to use gasoline instead of the original ethanol (just as diesels evolved to use petroleum instead of the original peanut oil). That doesn't mean the fuel is bad - it means the compromises are in the engine. As already stated - the US "formerly-big-3" automakers already make multi-fuel engines that are optimized for ethanol and also happen to run gasoline - this is opposite to the US flex-fuel process.

In my case, my PHEV Prius, and using your original example, how much am I really NOT now sending to the Mideast? If I take the midrange figure, say a 7% loss of mpg with E10, and 12,000 miles per year, my mileage drops from 50 mpg to 46.5 mpg with E10. So, instead of burning 240 gallons/year, I now burn 232 gallons of gas per year (258 X .90). Big deal, a whole 8 gallons. :roll: Barely a 3% savings. I could have saved more than that by just keeping my tires inflated properly. :lol: I would gladly have sent another $8.40 to OPEC not to have to stop and get gas 7% more often. Instead, I paid $63 more for an extra 18 gallons of E10, which made Exxon/Mobil richer, but hopefully trickled down to some poor farmer.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for E85 or even E100 vehicles, which are built to use ethanol properly, and getting the ethanol from better sources. I just think the E10 scheme is just another gimmick that made lots of people rich, but came with many other unforeseen consequences that we will be dealing with for years.

You're only looking at price per gallon as if CO2, CO, American lives, asthma, ground level ozone, and a host of other problems don't exist. Sorry, I think that reasoning is backward. Nothing personal! It's your money - send it where you wish!

http://www.obitet.gazi.edu.tr/makale/makale/internalcombustionengines/224.pdf

I'm using E85 in a non-flex engine and once I get stabilized in a new location will be distilling my own ethanol fuel and burning 90 proof. I'm probably not the best person to reinforce your decision or concerns. Sorry. :lol:

Have a great weekend,
Andy

 

[ztanos]

Spoken like someone that's never been in uniform and/or doesn't care about the Americans that have been dying to preserve our oil supply since before WWII... Cars in the US have been ethanol-proof since the mid-1980s. While methanol will cause problems with hoses and gaskets, ethanol will not.

Try re-reading my post. Don't pull the military service on me when I say that I would rather buy a leaf than buy E85. E85 is a joke. It is a way for the government to make money, plain and simple. Sure it gets better gas mileage than the standard gas, but Electric gets better. If you go back and re-read my post, I said that I would rather buy a LEAF... if that were the only argument I was comparing. Sorry if this seems terse and undiplomatic - not intended... no actually it was. Don't say you don't mean to offend when you clearly were. I came here looking for answers to questions. You sir gave me nothing. Thanks.

 

[ztanos]

Spoken like someone that's never been in uniform and/or doesn't care about the Americans that have been dying to preserve our oil supply since before WWII... Cars in the US have been ethanol-proof since the mid-1980s. While methanol will cause problems with hoses and gaskets, ethanol will not.

Spoken like an Ass-hat that can't read posts. Don't pull the military service on me when I say that I would rather buy a leaf than buy E85. E85 is a joke. It is a way for the government to make money, plain and simple. Sure it gets better gas mileage than the standard gas, but Electric gets better. If you go back and re-read my post, I said that I would rather buy a LEAF... if that were the only argument I was comparing. Sorry if this seems terse and undiplomatic - not intended... no actually it was. Don't say you don't mean to offend when you clearly were. I came here looking for answers to questions. You sir gave me nothing. Thanks.

Sorry, you did mention that cars have been "ethanol-proof" since the 80s. Does this include all cars or just the ones that were made to support both gas and E85? Did the majority of manufacturers know that they were going to be converting gas stations to 10% back in the 90s or early 2000s? Probably. But I don't know that you can say that all of them have been. Guess my case was just "coincidental" after all.

 

[AndyH]

Sorry, you did mention that cars have been "ethanol-proof" since the 80s. Does this include all cars or just the ones that were made to support both gas and E85? Did the majority of manufacturers know that they were going to be converting gas stations to 10% back in the 90s or early 2000s? Probably. But I don't know that you can say that all of them have been. Guess my case was just "coincidental" after all.

Yeah, sorry. I may be off here, but I believe the move to alcohol-safe components goes back to the 'gasohol' times in the 1970s, but I don't think everything was alcohol ready until the 1980s. edit - 1983 and newer is alcohol ready. /edit

I can see hoses, o-rings, and other fuel-system related parts having challenges with a move to alcohol (if the vehicle is not already compatible) - I went through the same problem with my diesel injection pump when I started using biodiesel, and later when ultra-low sulfur diesel hit the streets. Dino diesel caused gaskets/seals to expand and bioD and ULSD reversed the swelling and gaskets returned to their old size/shape and started to leak.

I can't say for sure without pulling the head, but I'd be very surprised if ethanol was a factor.

 

[AndyH]

Spoken like someone that's never been in uniform and/or doesn't care about the Americans that have been dying to preserve our oil supply since before WWII... Cars in the US have been ethanol-proof since the mid-1980s. While methanol will cause problems with hoses and gaskets, ethanol will not.

Spoken like an Ass-hat that can't read posts. Don't pull the military service on me when I say that I would rather buy a leaf than buy E85. E85 is a joke. It is a way for the government to make money, plain and simple. Sure it gets better gas mileage than the standard gas, but Electric gets better. If you go back and re-read my post, I said that I would rather buy a LEAF... if that were the only argument I was comparing. Sorry if this seems terse and undiplomatic - not intended... no actually it was. Don't say you don't mean to offend when you clearly were. I came here looking for answers to questions. You sir gave me nothing. Thanks.

I love you too, dear. My comment was honest and heartfelt because I was giving you the time I had available in between two other important multi-tasking events. Sorry - appears I made a mistake. You didn't come here looking for answers, because you're still under the mistaken impression that E85 is all about some kind of government conspiracy. BS.

You're the one that said that you didn't care about sending money to the middle east - I merely suggested that the problem might be a bit larger than your bank account. Sorry if my view upset you. If I'm allowed to be frank, I'll be glad when the rest of my friends return home after putting their lives on the line so lazy asses can choose to keep burning gasoline - whether their other car is a Leaf or an M1 tank.

You have a fantastic weekend!

 

[ztanos]

Sorry, you did mention that cars have been "ethanol-proof" since the 80s. Does this include all cars or just the ones that were made to support both gas and E85? Did the majority of manufacturers know that they were going to be converting gas stations to 10% back in the 90s or early 2000s? Probably. But I don't know that you can say that all of them have been. Guess my case was just "coincidental" after all.

Yeah, sorry. I may be off here, but I believe the move to alcohol-safe components goes back to the 'gasohol' times in the 1970s, but I don't think everything was alcohol ready until the 1980s.

I can see hoses, o-rings, and other fuel-system related parts having challenges with a move to alcohol (if the vehicle is not already compatible) - I went through the same problem with my diesel injection pump when I started using biodiesel, and later when ultra-low sulfur diesel hit the streets. Dino diesel caused gaskets/seals to expand and bioD and ULSD reversed the swelling and gaskets returned to their old size/shape and started to leak.

I can't say for sure without pulling the head, but I'd be very surprised if ethanol was a factor.

I did come here to learn, but the first thing you do is say that I don't support the local economy or our troops, which is absolutely not true.

Meh, I'm not too concerned as I plan on getting the LEAF in December anyhow, but I just found it odd that a Saturn would need a head gasket replacement at 69,000 miles. I don't want to have to deal with anything but home grown american and I don't trust the government funded E85 fuel machine. The government supports the farmers who would not be selling the corn unless for this rather inefficient purpose claiming that it is the end-all. We all know that corn is not the best option.

I bought the Saturn because it was made in Tennessee. Have always bought GMs because they are an American company. I just don't trust the government and don't want to look at them through blinders anymore. This is why I came here to learn more about the E85 or other alternatives. I have learned that corn isn't it.



And to be clear, my exact wording was "If the only reason I am using the E85 is to get out of the middle east, I'll buy a LEAF." Please tell me where that means that I support the middle east. LEAF = local so confused.

Be as Tom, Charles or Frank as you want... just make sure you are accurate and mayhaps you shouldn't throw out opinions without knowing more of the person you are chastising. I will, also, be awaiting many a friend and family member from the Stan. Driving a car that runs on gas isn't always about being lazy. Sometimes that aforementioned by you wallet, also plays a part.

 

[ztanos]

Or perhaps we should all believe that the government never lies and 100% of the money we give them in taxes goes exactly where they say it does 100% of the time?

 

[AndyH]

I did come here to learn, but the first thing you do is say that I don't support the local economy or our troops, which is absolutely not true.

You are correct. It appears in my haste that I mixed comments from you and keydiver and turned them into a non-existent mud pie.

Please accept my apology - I made a mistake.

 

[ztanos]

I did come here to learn, but the first thing you do is say that I don't support the local economy or our troops, which is absolutely not true.

You are correct. It appears in my haste that I mixed comments from you and keydiver and turned them into a non-existent mud pie.

Please accept my apology - I made a mistake.

I do, and I apologize for being so defensive. As you said earlier, lets all have a great weekend.