Another reason ethanol is a bad idea
- From: John Lansford <jlnsford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:19:57 -0400
....because you end up using more of it. Our state vehicles use E85
and on long trips I've noticed they all tend to have terrible fuel
efficiency, worse than the conventional fueled vehicles had in the
past.
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/593644.html
"If it?s a gallon of E-10, which is a blend of 10 percent ethanol and
conventional gas now widely available in the Kansas City area, there?s
an energy difference of about 3.4 percent.
Now that may not seem like much when you?re topping off the tank this
week. But over the course of a year of normal driving, it would take
an additional 40 gallons of E-10 to go the same distance as
conventional gas. If they were both priced the same, it would mean an
extra $120.
If it?s E-85, a blend containing 85 percent ethanol that can be used
in specially equipped vehicles, the energy loss soars and more than
offsets its lower cost, even though E-85 is about 60 cents per gallon
less at retail than conventional gas.
Mileage can suffer by about 25 percent with E-85, according to AAA.
Over the course of a year, that amounts to an extra 300 gallons of
E-85 to go the same distance as when using conventional gas. That
means an average household, when the total cost of conventional gas
and E-85 are compared, would spend nearly $100 more per year for
E-85."
....
"The Energy Information Administration is keeping track of how ethanol
is affecting average fuel economy in the United States. The federal
agency projects that additional ethanol usage this year will cause
average fuel economy to decline by an extra 0.5 percent.
Moreover, the ethanol impact is expected to increase because the
federal government approved an energy bill last year that encourages a
sharp increase in ethanol production.
In Missouri, we?re already there. Since January, E-10 has been
required for regular and midgrade gasoline. Premium gas sold in the
state can also contain 10 percent ethanol, but it is not required."
....
"British thermal units measure energy content. A gallon of ethanol has
76,000 Btu. Conventional gasoline, in contrast, has 115,000 Btu. If
you purchase a blended gallon of gas that contains 10 percent ethanol,
you get 111,100 Btu.
That amounts to a 3.4 percent reduction in energy. So if you have a
car that gets 20 miles per gallon, you?ll likely end up losing
seven-tenths of a mile per gallon because of the energy content loss."
....
"To those that have the flex-fuel vehicles that can use the fuel, it?s
tempting to purchase E-85 because at first glance it appears to be a
great deal compared with conventional gasoline. But at least for now,
it isn?t.
AAA now calculates a price for E-85 to adjust for its energy content.
The national average pump price for the fuel on Thursday was $2.91 per
gallon; regular gasoline was $3.56. But adjusted for its energy
content, the price for E-85 jumps to $3.83, or 27 cents more than
regular.
?We did it to inform the consumer,? said Mike Right, a spokesman for
AAA Auto Club of Missouri. ?You have to consider the effect of fuel
economy.?"
....
"The ethanol industry?s reaction, at least in some instances, appears
to be to ignore the issue of energy content.
The Missouri Corn Growers Association last week released a study that
estimated E-10 prices over the next 10 years would be 7.2 cents per
gallon cheaper than conventional gas ? resulting in an annual
statewide savings of $214 million, or $54 per driver.
But the study did not account for the energy loss.
The author of the study, John Urbanchuk, director of LECG, a
consulting firm in Wayne, Pa., said the loss was so insignificant it
was in the ?noise category.?
?It?s really a negligible loss,? he said.
At current pricing, though, that energy loss more than wipes out the
savings that the study says consumers will reap by using
ethanol-blended fuel.
But what if the energy loss from ethanol isn?t as great as most think
it is? That idea is being broached by some in the ethanol industry who
are arguing that the way ethanol burns overcomes at least some of the
energy loss.
One study, released in December, even claimed that E-20 or E-30 blends
in some instances got better mileage than conventional fuel.
?Initial findings indicate that we as a nation haven?t begun to
recognize the value of ethanol,? said Brian Jennings, executive vice
president of the American Coalition for Ethanol.
Those findings were met with considerable skepticism. An official with
the Union of Concerned Scientists said the conclusion that E-20 or
E-30 gave improved mileage wasn?t convincing. Others have also
questioned the findings.
?We don?t believe that study,? said Adler, the GM spokesman."
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Another reason ethanol is a bad idea
- From: Michael G. Koerner
- Re: Another reason ethanol is a bad idea
- From: Stephane Dumas
- Re: Another reason ethanol is a bad idea
- From: Bob S
- Re: Another reason ethanol is a bad idea
- From: Cameron Kaiser
- Re: Another reason ethanol is a bad idea
- From: Darkangel de la Louisiane
- Re: Another reason ethanol is a bad idea
- Prev by Date: Re: Oil hits $118/barrel
- Next by Date: Re: County Designated Highways Question
- Previous by thread: @@@PART TIME JOB AT YOUR HOME@@@
- Next by thread: Re: Another reason ethanol is a bad idea
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading