The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol



  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    The Game may be over. Will Congress pull the rug out from under those that feed them? If they lose the amount of corn to flooding that is projected, there is no way they can meet the mandate. Here is my question. Refiner "A" has to add a minimum 2.9% ethanol to his gas for sale. He cannot get any ethanol as supplies are short. Does he break the law or not deliver any gas at all? Will the fact that we cannot depend on ethanol producers cause shortages at the pump?
  • mattandimattandi Member Posts: 588
    Be careful with that phrase "shortages at the pump" there now. :P
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    I know CARB is so anal about their rules, that they would not be the least bit hesitant to block gas sales if they did not meet design requirements. Ours is Gucci Gas and the price reflects that! :sick:
  • drmikedrmike Member Posts: 3
    What's it going to take? $4 gas? $5 gas? I'll tell you what it's going to take.

    It's going to take the refusal on the part of the US electorate to elect politicians who will risk the economic security of this country by continuing to hold up safe US oil extraction and refining from known reserves and/or shale, thus making us continually dependent on our enemies in the Middle East, and the election of politicians who are not in the pockets of the farm subsidy/ethanol wacko crowd.
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    I wish AAA would make up their mind. Ethanol is back to $3.324.
    Yesterday the average was $3.834.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    There are places in your part of the country selling E85 for $2.60 a gallon. That is according to the E85 website. What do they charge at your local stations?
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
    Only one station with E85 that I've noticed and it's priced at $3.69, 30 cents below regualr unleaded
  • middleoroadmiddleoroad Member Posts: 1
    Corn based ethanol is an unfortunate but crucial stepping stone towards cellulosic ethanol which will be a true lifesaver.Without the fat cats at ADM spending millions to court your congressperson ethanol never would have gotten out the door.Don't forget that petroleum is aggressively anti-life,spills,run off and emissions are killing lots of species including us.API would like you to believe ethanol is evil,they are deathly afraid of its possible upturning of their gravy boats.Making fuel out of waste is the true holy grail and we should not squander this opportunity. :)
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Welcome to the Forum.

    I think you are terribly misinformed. When Cellulosic Ethanol becomes reality it will require ALL new production facilities. You know what happens to all those little towns that have become dependent on the local still to employ them? That's right they become statistics. Casualties of the corn ethanol boondoggle. There are 90 towns in the Midwest that had a corn still in the late 70s or early 80s that are no longer there.

    The fat cats at ADM are not spending a penny of their money. It is all OUR TAX DOLLARS building this corn ethanol infrastructure. For Nothing....The sad part is most every one including Congress know they have been hood winked by a slick sales pitch.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    IF ethanol is so important to us then why with all the political BS floating about and everyone saying we have open up drilling here, there and people can’t eat because prices are so high, etc., etc. And yet not one word is spoken to drop the tariff on imported alcohol to help ease our pain. We could drop the tariff for maybe 6 months or a year, but not one word is uttered. Why is that?

    Ethanol equals less MPG and less MPG equals more tax revenue.

    If we as a nation insist on using food crops or any crop for fuel, at least turn it to bio diesel so we can get more MPG per acre and save the corn mash for drinking.

    If we drink enough we won’t drive, we will not consume fuel, problem solved.

    And while I might make light of this issue, I take it very seriously.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,200
    "Corn based ethanol is an unfortunate but crucial stepping stone towards cellulosic ethanol which will be a true lifesaver"

    As others have stated, almost no new technology is being used to make ethanol today, from corn. My friend, a chemical engineer who helped design ethanol plants back in the '80s, said they're just taking those same designs and building them today.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    It was a similar story in the early 1980s. Sugar became more valuable as food than the ethanol it was being used to produce. Thus ended the ethanol boondoggle 30 years ago. Looks like a similar fate is in store for Corn ethanol.

    Corn prices stall VeraSun ethanol plant

    VeraSun Energy Corp., the second-largest U.S. ethanol producer by capacity, has delayed the opening of a 110-million-gallon-a-year distillery in Hankinson, N.D., because of rising corn prices.

    Last update: June 25, 2008 - 11:29 PM

    VeraSun Energy Corp., the second-largest U.S. ethanol producer by capacity, has delayed the opening of a 110-million-gallon-a-year distillery in Hankinson, N.D., because of rising corn prices. The plant is the third that the Brookings, S.D.-based company has delayed. "They're looking at very expensive corn right now. Ethanol prices have increased, but they need to increase more as corn and natural gas" have each climbed, said Joseph Gomes Jr., an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. in New York. VeraSun stock rose 13 cents, or 3.3 percent, to $4.11 in New York Stock Exchange trading. The shares have fallen 69 percent in the past year.

  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    And they still stink. They may not be as bad as peeling onions :cry: but I would not want to work at one. I had a tour of a new one last year.

    They seem to be doing a bit better from an energy standpoint. The Blueflint plant here uses waste heat from the coal power plant instead of natural gas.

    S.C. passes ethanol law challenged by oil companies dit_N.htm

    Everybody wants the money, go figure.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735 ?guid=%7BBD7CC63F%2D7C53%2D4290%2D8345%2D8619DD7AA01F%7D

    Floods may push corn inventories to historical low
    USDA to report acreage; analysts warn of $10 corn and possible supply crisis
    By Moming Zhou, MarketWatch
    Last update: 12:15 p.m. EDT June 27, 2008

    SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Recent Midwest flooding may have damaged millions of acres of corn crops, analysts expect the U.S. Department of Agriculture to say in its crop acreage report slated for release Monday.

    The loss of acreage could slash U.S. corn production and push the 2009 season's year-end stocks to the lowest level since just after World War II, analysts said. And the real damage is likely to be even worse than what Monday's 8:30 a.m. EDT report will show, as it's still too early to evaluate the full impact of the flooding.
    "The report is already obsolete," said Elaine Kub, a grains analyst at commodities-information provider DTN. Many acres could be abandoned at a later date and the acreage situation will be worse than the report sounds, she said.
    The acreage report is likely to show that the U.S. will harvest 77 million acres of corn in the 2009 season, down 1.8 million from the USDA's March report, according to an estimate from Shawn Hackett, president of agriculture futures brokerage Hackett Financial Advisors.

    Corn yields are also expected to be hurt by the Midwest flooding, which by some estimates was the worst since 1993.
    Shrinking acreage and falling yields could push 2009 year-end corn inventories to as low as 300 million bushels, down 80% from the previous year, Hackett projected. This will be the lowest inventory level the U.S. has seen since 1947.
    The USDA, without fully considering the impact of flooding, projected in early June that corn year-end stocks would stand at 673 million bushels in 2009, down 53% from a year ago and the lowest in 13 years.

    The acreage report on Monday is based on surveys the USDA did in the first two weeks of this month, before the majority of the flooding occurred, according to Dawn Keen, an economist at the USDA. Given that, it may not fully reflect the flooding damage.

    Monday's report will also include acreage information for other crops such as soybeans and wheat. Soybean acreage is expected to fall, also hurt by the flooding. Soybeans futures climbed to an all-time high of $15.998 a bushel on Friday on the Chicago Board of Trade. Wheat is also on the rise. In an effort to more accurately assess the damage, the USDA said more surveys will be conducted in July and the latest information will be included in its Aug. 12 crop production report.

    Cool weather seen crimping corn crops
    Massive flooding, despite its scale, isn't the only reason for reduced production. Cooler-than-normal weather is also hurting harvests.
    Temperatures in the Corn Belt, where Iowa, Illinois and other top corn producers are located, have averaged two to four degrees below normal in the past week, according to

    Cooler weather will push back corn's maturation date and potentially translate into a delayed harvest, according to Dale Mohler, senior meteorologist at AccuWeather. "This crop can't take additional setbacks, but instead needs ideal weather," he said.

    Lower temperature and heavy flooding are likely to drive corn prices higher to $10-a-bushel level, Hackett said. Corn futures recorded a new all-time high of $7.673 a bushel Friday on the CBOT, up nearly 70% this year.
    "If bad weather is seen in the July-August timeframe, then we would be talking about a corn supply crisis that would probably require some type of government intervention," said Hackett.

    Government intervention?
    Indeed, falling corn production and surging prices may force the federal government to revise its ethanol policies, which mandate the use of the biofuel and impose tariff on ethanol imports.

    The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a petition for a 50% roll-back of the Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandates fuel makers to use nine billion gallons of biofuels this year, mostly corn-based ethanol. .

    The nine-million-gallon ethanol mandate is expected to cost the U.S. three billion bushels of corn, or nearly a quarter of this year's corn production.
    The possible "corn crisis" could add more pressure to the EPA to "lower the mandate for corn ethanol," Hackett said.

    To alleviate the crisis, the government could also lower the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff imposed on ethanol imports, Hackett said. Ethanol prices in Brazil are much lower than in the U.S. and a partial cut in the tariff will encourage imports to replace domestic production.

    But some analysts think the tariff will be left intact. "Despite some sound economic rationale for repealing the tariff, political consideration in favor of upholding the tariff continue to outweigh calls to eliminate it," said Divya Reddy, an energy analyst at Eurasia Group.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    If they drop the 54 cent tariff it will probably drive up the sugar prices and keep ethanol high priced.

    It is funny that they would roll back the mandate. Is it because we ain't got no ethanol to lace our gas with. I hope they take it out of our gas for a while. I would like to get a little better mileage.
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    I suspect most people have seen the latest craze, pumps that let you blend your E.

    "I don't even think there's a difference in mileage."

    Comments like that just make me wonder. Of course there is a difference in mileage. But I suppose we should let people have their delusions, don't want to upset the apple cart by actually measuring the mpg.

    "...and the car's components seemed to handle the fuel fine, said Bruce Jones, a researcher at Minnesota State University, Mankato, who has helped lead the studies."

    I wonder if Bruce will back that claim up in a few years when some cars start having issues. Probably not.

    Ethanol plant to be built in U.P. /AUTO01

    They plan to use wood chips.

    "This is a game-changer for Michigan," said Granholm :confuse:

    Fifty jobs is not a game changer. 17,000 workers just left GM. They would need to build 340 woody chip to E plants to make up for all the workers that left from GM this go around.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    They plan to use wood chips.

    How many gallons to the acre of forest they cut down. How many years to replace those trees? I thought they were going to use some fast growing weed like switchgrass. in this cellulosic ethanol. I get it. They cut down ALL the forests and plant corn.

    I want to find the pump that sells E-Zero regular unleaded. Making ADM and Verasun rich is not something I am interested in. It does cut your mileage. I wonder if the pumps have the warning from the EPA & MFG?
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    E85 is for sale in boston area for the first time, at Burke oil in chelsea.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    How much per gallon compared to RUG?
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    apparently the E85 was only 85 cents per gallon for the first 85 minutes it was on sale - that's the only price info I have. I hope Doritos prices do not increase too much now as a consequence of increased E85 production to support that one pump in Boston! :shades:
  • avalon02whavalon02wh Member Posts: 785
    AAA is reporting E85 jumped over 50 cents in one day. Today $3.807 Yesterday $3.285 Me thinks someone keeps hitting the wrong key or two or three on the keyboard.

    "Crop's high price kills profit for ethanol plants"
    "The $7-a-bushel corn and construction costs that have nearly doubled in the past year brought the fledgling firm to its knees last week."

    What goes up too fast - explodes. :surprise:
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
    We were on the road last weekend for a basketball tournament (the season never stops) and I wound up having to fill up at a station that had an E10 blend. After a bit on the highway it felt like I had a little less power, but I dismissed that as my imagination and took a wait and see attitude. I was just about at empty when I filled up, and I ran out the tank driving 95 -99% highway miles, all at 55-65 mph.

    Now my car normally gets 32-33 mpg driving around locally and 33-35 mpg out on the highway. On the E10 tank I got just under 31 mpg. Now I had just put on new tires a few days before, so I figure maybe that has something to do with it as well, so I'll wait until I run the next tank through...

    In the meantime, my daughter turns 16 and gets her learners permit and she's learning to handle the clutch and 6 speed, so ALL the miles on this next tank of gas are going to be local and at least half are with a new driver behind the wheel not driving as efficiently as she eventually will be.

    Filled up this morning and the calculation came out to 32.9 mpg. So E10 gave me in the neighborhood of 8-10% less mileage. And I paid $3.95 for it vs $3.99 for regular unleaded.

    Color me not impressed
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Thank you for that report, you just validated my thoughts on E10.

    Now add to that the hit on your food bill. :mad:
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    The misguided dash for biofuels has pushed up world food prices by 75 per cent, a major study has found.

    Demand for 'environmentally friendly' plant-based fuels has led to a slump in global food production and sent grocery bills soaring, according to the damning report from the World Bank.

    Since April, all diesel and petrol sold in the UK has contained 2.5 per cent biofuel. By 2010 the figure will increase to five per cent.

    The EU had planned a ten per cent biofuel target for 2020.

    However, following growing concerns that plant-derived fuels could be doing more harm than good, MEPs will vote whether to scrap the plan on Monday.

    The World Bank report, leaked to the Guardian, is based on the most detailed assessment of the food crisis so far.

    Kenneth Richter, of Friends of the Earth, said: 'This report shows that when MEPs vote on biofuels targets next week they will have the fate of millions in their hands.

    'Finding enough land to grow ten per cent of Europe's transport fuel will lead to more hunger and suffering as well as doing next to nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

    'Politicians must act responsibly and change course on this disastrous transport policy.

    The same goes for our bought off Congress. They need to put the people ahead of their own greed.

    Critics say biofuels take up land that would otherwise be used for food, reducing supplies and driving up prices.

    The grain needed to fill the tank of a 4x4 car could feed one person for a year.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,200
    Thanks for the World Bank study post - it confirms what many of us have said, and directly contradicts what some ag-linked studies have inferred. Things like 'biofuels are not responsible for crop price increases'. What nonsense.
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    Link to a BBC article on this study.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    The governor of TX has asked to be exempted from the ethanol mandate. He says it is impacting the beef production. At $8 per bushel it will have a negative impact on the state of $3.59 BILLION. When will the other states that are being negatively impacted by the ethanol boondoggle start to rebel against this silly Energy Bill? Ahnold is too dumb to figure out what has happened in CA. So we are stuck with that mileage reducing crap in our gas.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary says, "You know what happens to all those little towns that have become dependent on the local still to employ them? That's right they become statistics. Casualties of the corn ethanol boondoggle. There are 90 towns in the Midwest that had a corn still in the late 70s or early 80s that are no longer there."


    Small towns in the USA dying off because an industry in the area ended has been a characteristic of American society since the 1800s.

    We have survived so far. And the people in those little towns will move on to bigger and better things or stay there and work in another job. If the town "goes away" the people don't just sit in their little house and starve to death.

    They don't all just wither and die because a company moves on.

    America is stronger than you seem to give it credit for.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Small towns in the USA dying off because an industry in the area ended has been a characteristic of American society since the 1800s.

    I understand that. I just don't like the government causing the problems. If you have not guessed I am against our government sticking there nose into private business. The ethanol boondoggle of the late 1970s is identical to this ethanol mess. It has not saved us any imported oil. It has only managed to be part of the huge run up in the price of oil and FOOD cost. It is easy for you to not worry. So far your gas has not been laced with 10% ethanol causing a reduction in your fuel economy as it has here in the land of flakes.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,200
    Here's an article on Europe doing an about-face, starting to move away from biofuels because of their huge negative impact on food prices and deforestation:
    EU-"no" to biofuels
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
    Attitudes towards flex fuel are changing.

    Survey Says...
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Higher prices and less MPG. Doesn't take long to figure out that it's not a good deal.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Something else occurred to me yesterday as I filled my Sequoia. I had driven 152 miles in 41 days. The mileage dropped to 13.85 MPG, from the normal 14.95 MPG. I am thinking that the 10% ethanol evaporates when sitting for that period of time. All my tests indicate that E10 loses at least 10% mileage on the Sequoia.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Good point, I never gave it much thought.

    I usually never come to work with more than half a tank of gas in my Ranger and never keep track of my MPG as I use it so little, maybe 5,000 to 7,000 miles a year.
    While it sits in the parking lot at work while I’m gone 15 days I must lose a lot of alcohol to evaporation.

    What a bargin :sick:
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
    I don't think it's evaporation as your gas tank would need to be open for that to occur. Yes, there are fumes in the empty space in your tank, but it's a sealed system and there's no room for that much to evaporate, at least my gut is telling me that.

    If you have ten gallons of fuel in a 13 gallon tank, it feels like a very small faction could evaporate into that empty space. Now put that 10 gallons of fuel in a sealed oil tanker and I can see it all eventually becoming airborne.

    An interesting question to ponder though.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,200
    As much as I dislike ethanol, I have to agree that not much of it can evaporate once it's in the tank. However, you are bringing up another major problem with E10 - ethanol does have a much higher 'vapor pressure', or ability to evaporate. That's one of the specs that gas has to meet, and ethanol makes it harder to meet the spec. Harder = more expensive, of course.
  • janmac1janmac1 Member Posts: 1
    I've noticed with my Prius that my mileage has gone waaaay down since I've been forced to buy gas with 10% ethanol. I've lost at least 8 mpg. Nothing else about my driving has changed. This represents a 10% decrease.
  • ronsmith38ronsmith38 Member Posts: 228
    You were getting 80 MPG, now 72?
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 212,065
    In reality.. if ethanol is only 70% as efficient as gasoline, then E10 would only be 3% less efficient that straight regular gas..

    For most people, that is less than one mile per gallon...

    Of course, the argument could be made that the mixture of ethanol/gasoline creates a fuel that is less than the sum of its parts.. Whether that is valid or not, I have no idea, but it doesn't seem likely.

    And.. one more point.. Where I live, tanks are labeled, "May contain up to 10% ethanol". So, it may have 10%, or less... or, even none at all.. You'll never know.

    I'm not a fan of ethanol.. it seems to be one big political boondoggle... but, 10% less MPG? Seems like there might be more variables at work.

    visiting host

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
    I think the silliest thing I've heard was the claim that there's a "sweet spot" where the proportion actually gets you more mileage. Pretty good trick with adding something that doesn't have as much energy as regular unleaded and getting more out of the combo :surprise:
  • 7milehi7milehi Member Posts: 28
    I know some will try to argue but on average I'm getting 4-5mpg less when using ethanol blended fuel in my 08 Taurus. For a while I kept wondering why my mpg would vary so much driving basically the same route and driving style. Then I started to pay attention where I was buyuing my fuel and here are my facts. When filling up with 10% ethanol gas I will get between 21.5 - 24 mpg. When filling up with non-ethanol gas my mpg will be between 26 - 29 mpg. This is based on 8 tank fills, and thats enough evidence for me.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Thanks for the information, very helpful on two fronts.

    1.The ethanol issue
    2.We are planning to purchase "maybe" a Taurus and I thank you for the MPG figures.
  • setamericafreesetamericafree Member Posts: 7
    Do you realize America sends $2 Billion PER DAY to Middle East Countries for oil to power our vehicles? That's over $700 Billion per year. That's more than America's $520 Billion per year defense budget to protect our country.. That's more than 5 times what the Iraq War has cost. Those dollars are funding radical schools that provide the troops we're fighting in Iraq & Afganistan, the terrorists that brought 9/11 to America's doorstep and the ARAB national investment funds that have bought large stake in CITIbank, Morgan Stanley, Newscorp, etc.. Oil powered vehicles are mortgaging America's future.

    You should be THRILLED that AMERICAN innovation is trying to figure out how to power our cars. Flex fuels will create millions of jobs in America and keep BILLIONS of dollars in AMERICA.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Can someone else deal with this one, :sick: I don't have the energy.

    Thank you
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    Welcome to the Forum.

    Sadly most of what you are saying is true. Except Ethanol has not SAVED US one penny in foreign oil. There are reasons to believe it has actually taken more oil to produce than the energy ethanol has provided. It was poorly mandated as a payoff to the agriculture lobby. It is corporate welfare and not to save oil. When we develop REAL alternatives I will be an early adopter. If you are truly interested in alternatives check out what T. Boone Pickins has to say.
  • setamericafreesetamericafree Member Posts: 7
    It's critical we "connect the dots about the danger of dependence on foreign oil" ...sooner than later...our freedom is riding on it.
    Americans are 4% of the world population. The US has only 3% of the world oil reserves. The US uses 25% of annual oil production. That means we're sending American dollars out of the US to satisfy our oil adiction- $700 Billion per year.
    Here is a link to July 22, 2008 Senate Testimony by Dr. Gal Luft, Executive Director of The INSTITUTE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL SECURITY (IAGS) on “Breaking Oil’s Monopoly in the Transportation Sector” :
    The Saudi's HATE ethanol.
    Each gallon of ethanol is a reduction of American dollars transfering to t he Middle East
    Currently the yearly $3 Billion dollar ethanol subsiday reduces by $16 billion American dollars sent to the middle east. It also reduces $6 Billion NOT paid out in farm subsidies paid NOT to farm!
    Check it out: or .
    Our technology will get better. It must. Pressure your Congressmen and Senators to make it SOONER!
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    The gentleman is right about Brazil having a good ethanol market. Ethanol from sugar makes good sense. Ethanol from CORN does not. He rambles about Flex Fuel Vehicles becoming mainstream in America. I have in CA a 99 Ford Ranger that is Flex Fuel rated. There are only two stations in San Diego county that sell E85. The closest is 35 miles from me. It will cut my already lousy mileage even further than the ethanol laced regular we are forced to buy in this state. To say I hate corn ethanol and what it is doing to our country is an understatement. It also has some very Serious environmental hazards attached to it. I think you really need to go back on this thread and read some of the downsides to using food for fuel. If Congress was serious as was pointed out in your article. They would get rid of the tariff on ethanol from Brazil as a starting point.

    I think the Saudis love ethanol. They sell a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of ethanol from Corn. Except where they are using coal to produce ethanol. That's a real clean way to do it.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAMember Posts: 9,372
    Seems like I'm not alone in getting less than stellar results from ethanol.

    Something To It?

    Ethanol is going to have to save me money or get me to use less gasoline (reduce my oil jones) for it to make sense. Right now it fails on both accounts. The price difference at the pump for the "blend" in my area ranges from NO difference to 2 or three cents lower. Less than 1%, and since I'm right around a 10% hit in mileage, I'm buying gas more often than I used to. So much for using less gas.

    They can "mandate" that our cars need to run on ham sandwhiches by 2010. That doesn't mean it will make any sense once we start to see real world results.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaMember Posts: 31,450
    “Why Do You Put Alcohol in Your Tank?” demands a large sign outside one gas station here, which reassures drivers that it sells only “100% Gas.”

    I wish I could find such a gas station here in San Diego. I would not be so negative on Ethanol if it was an option and not a Government mandate. A mandate based on paying off corporations like ADM and Verasun. It is just a big smokescreen to make the masses feel like we have an alternative energy source. If it was a true alternative that did not need to be subsidized to exist I could get behind it. Give me some biodiesel made with algae and I will start to believe in alternative fuels.
  • fezofezo Manahawkin, NJMember Posts: 10,384
    I just had a real world example last week when I hit a station taht actually sold gasoline without the 10% ethanol. The car which hovered between 26 and 28 mpg on 10% ethanol got a solid 30 in the same mix of driving with gasoline.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Sign In or Register to comment.