E85

[Ole #1]

I only paid $2.19 per gallon on Saturday. The regular gas was $2.79. I am only using E85 in my caravan from now on. If your vehichle can use it, it's much chaper than regular gas.

[Mark Christianson]

But in a lot of cases your mileage suffers too.

So if your mileage suffers too much, its a wash.

[Ole #1]

So far it doesn't seem to be that much worse, but I'll check it the next couple fill ups.

[T-ProGuy]

I have a question related to E85...

By no means am I a fuel expert, therefore I am a bit confused here. My understanding is that E85 is 85% ethanol. Yes, it is cheaper than regular gasoline, but if it really is 85% ethanol, then why is it still way over $2 per gallon? Shouldn't it be even cheaper yet?

[ghotierman]

if you're worried about the mileage decrease, you can always go 50/50 or 40/60...it still saves some money.

[Ole #1]

This was on Saturday and most regular prices were $2.99, so I was happy to see $2.19. I only checked one gas station, it could have been cheaper elsewhere.

[deeky]

The cost stays up for a couple of reasons. First, some diesel fuel is used in the production of ethanol, not to mention the cost of pretty much everything is going up. Second, the trucks delivering E85 still aren't running 85, so their delivery costs are still up. Third, because of the spike in gas prices, the demand has gone up faster than production. Law of supply and demand, etc. I don't think it accounts for all of the price. I was in SD this weekend and there E85 was even cheaper - SD has given tax breaks on ethanol to promote their own economy over the mid-East. I'm not in the industry, but have connections with it. Take it for what it's worth.

[river rat316]

I still think its a form of price gouging, the demand cant be that darn high most vehicles cant even run it, in Elk River it was only 15 cents a gallon cheaper $2.70 compared to $2.85, thats complete talk about trhe cost being higher because "some" diesel is used in the manufacturing, its still 85% corn for crying out loud! Talk about the oil companies getting rich Im sure the companies that produce e-85 arent hurting for any money either right now!

[trollneyes]

It is great to see many of you interested in using E85. I am in the Ethanol industry. We are running promotions this month at approximately 40 stations in our area that pick up fuel directly from our plant. The promotion ensures that they price E85 70 cents below regular gas. The demand is going up because many of the flex fuel vehicles out there were not burning E85 until the big price gap and also many motorists are starting to blend a few gallons in anyway if they do not have a flex fuel. Our netback this week for our Ethanol was 1.66, this tells the consumer that most of the time the cost benefit is not passed on from the retailer to the consumer. The fact that E85 can be priced lower in gas shortage times should tell us with more plants being built in the U.S. our economy should be more self sufficient. As consumer demand goes up, the awareness of E85 and its current benefits along with the car manufacturers focus on flex fuel engines efficiencies should increase.

[federline]

Well, I have a little different slant on things...

It is typical to get about 66% of your normal fuel mileage of gasoline, when using E85 in an FFV. But, E85 has been running at 75%+ of the cost of gasoline still. That's a losing proposition to the consumer - it costs more per unit of energy right now than gas. At least get the price of E85 down to the same or less percentage of the fuel economy.

We have an FFV Chrysler minivan. It gets 22 MPG on regular gasoline, and 15MPG with E85 in temps above 50 degrees F. Below 50 degrees F, it begins to drop even lower in MPG. It's not a viable fuel in the winter up here, unless your desire for cleaner fuel outweighs your ever-lightening wallet. A tank of E85 in winter disappears real quick!

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea, and want it to succeed. It doesn't compute on a family balance sheet yet. At $2.99/gal regular gas, E85 needs to be at 1.99/gal before I'd use it regularly. If gas hits 3.99/gal, then 2.67/gal E85 is my max price. At least until FFV's work better. If $4.99/gal gas, then E85 should be $3.29/gal or less.

An ethanol auto fuel program for "70 cents per gallon less" is the wrong approach in the long term. It should be percentage-based, matched to the state of FFV auto technology MPG gaps between gas and E85. Make it the same fraction as prevailing MPG technology, and people will buy it, I think it is that simple. Eventually, E85 will make sense on it's own merit if petrol keeps rising, without all these govt subsidies.

Then, we'll need an ethanol engine that does better on fuel... it's a viscious cycle!

OK, that's all. $0.02 deposited.

[Jeremy airjer W]

ole

If your running E85 in your caravan are you using chrysler approved E85 oil as per the owners manuel. I've done some checking around and most oil companies do not approve using there oil with E85. I've also called a couple of dealerships inquiring about this oil and nobody seems to carry it. they also won't say if it is or isn't o.k. to not use it.

[Ole #1]

just using regular oil.

[WallyGator12000]

I guess I am a bit naive about this whole E85 thing, I have a 92 Ford Explorer V6, does anyone know if I can or can't use E85 in it? Can I use a full tank of it, or blend some? Thanks for the help!

[Dotch]

For a pretty complete HSOforum including links to many of the frequently asked questions about E-85, check out: http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/afv/eth_vehicles.html

[Jeremy airjer W]

wally, no

All ford vehicles designated as "flex fuel vehicles" will have an emblem on it that designates it as a vehicle that is capable of using E85. I think a 92 is too old. As a matter of fact I think the earliest ford flex fuel vehicle is the 95 tuarus/sable with a 3.0 litre.

[fishinchicks]

We did some checking before we started burning E85 in our Chrysler T&C, and were told that if you use 5W30, you should be ok. In the winter it is important to change the oil more frequently due to moisture concerns. We talked to our Cenex manager who did some checking for us.

Our mileage seems to have come up a bit after burning the E85 for awhile. Has this happened to anyone else? On regular gas, we were getting about 21 mpg on longer trips. The last time I checked on a longer trip, the E85 was about 18. Not too bad. Still gets better mileage than the truck!

[widetrack]

I used to think E85 was the answer to all our oil dependency issues...

After reading about it, I think our efforts, money etc.. would be much better spent on fuel cell technology, hybrid technology, and having govt standards on MPG vehicles need to conform to. Ethanol just doesn't add up.

Read below...

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates,

according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not

sustainable."

Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of

producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;

switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to

consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.

"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant

biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."

Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use

contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but

to large ethanol-producing corporations.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol

production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the

country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.

[Eric Wettschreck]

I'm not going to get involved in this debate, pretty much because I'm sick of it.

However, it's important to know that Pimentel and Patzek were hired by Citgo to do the study and used early 80's data in doing so.

Yous guys do the math.

[rundrave]

widetrack,

I hope your not basing your results on just ONE article. I can find you just as many studies that say ethanol is great, and just as many that say ethanol is bad.

I guess the guy who wrote your article has an abundance of agriculture sources and several ethanol plants at berkely, to validate his research out in New York.

All I suggest you do, is a little more research of your own, I dont ask you to agree with it, but at least look into it more.

[widetrack]

10-4... will do.

Hybrid, and fuel cell seems like better options to me... but I may be off too... I'm no expert on it.

[fishinchicks]

LATEST ETHANOL REPORT BOGUS --Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA) President Gene Sandager of Hills said recently that a study contending ethanol production used more energy than it produces is simply a rehash of outdated data, and does not deserve media attention.

The study was written by Dr. David Pimentel, a Cornell professor with a PhD in entomology (the study of insects) and Tad Patzek, currently a professor at the University of California - Berkeley, who founded and currently runs the University’s Oil Consortium. Patzek is a former Shell Oil employee and has served as an expert witness and consultant to Shell and Chevron.

Pimentel and Patzek claim it takes 29 percent more energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of energy the process produces.

“Pimentel’s studies have been discredited many times by officials from the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, as well as independent researchers,” said Sandager. “Since 1995, 12 major studies on the energy balance of ethanol have been conducted. Of those 12, only three - all of which were produced by Pimentel - found ethanol to have a negative energy balance.”

“The truth is, a gallon of ethanol contains considerably more energy than it takes to produce, according to every other piece of research conducted in the past ten years,” said Sandager. “A study produced by two-non-experts in either agriculture or ethanol - one who studies bugs and another who used to work for Shell Oil - doesn’t deserve the attention of anyone who is interested in real science.”

The accepted data with today’s more efficient corn hybrids and greatly improved milling processes is this: A gallon of ethanol contains 76,400 BTUs. Total energy to produce that gallon in the dry mill process is 43,134 BTUs which includes BTU values of 12,467 for corn production (all production costs including land), 1,411 for corn transport (from field to farm to ethanol plant), 27,799 for the ethanol conversion process and 1,467 BTUs for transport to terminals and distribution points. Subtracting 43,134 from 76,400 leaves a net energy gain of 33,196 BTU’s per gallon.

[widetrack]

That's good news... Thanks.

It will probably take a combination of many things to get us ahead of the curve...

[McGurk]

Some interesting numbers, fishinchicks; do you happen to have a similar breakdown for the conversion from crude oil to the gas pump also? Thanks McGurk

[Gadgetman]

Or at least the number of btu's in a gallon of non oxygenated gas?