 Sherman Harris, owner of Snappy's Gas & Grocery in Vancouver, Wash., offers gas with no ethanol at his 76 station. (Photo by Doug Beghtel) |
|
Posted on 05/27/2008 9:03:13 AM PDT by Incorrigible
By GAIL KINSEY HILL
Sherman Harris, owner of Snappy's Gas & Grocery in Vancouver, Wash., offers gas with no ethanol at his 76 station. (Photo by Doug Beghtel) |
|
PORTLAND, Ore. — When ethanol began flowing into Oregon fuel tanks early this year, its costly little secret was scarcely mentioned: It packs one-third less explosive energy than gasoline and so reduces vehicle mileage on the road.
Oregon requires a 10 percent blend with gasoline, known as E10, which cuts mileage by 3 percent, according to official estimates. That costs you an additional $73 a year at the fuel pump, based on today's prices for regular gasoline.
But many Oregonians don't believe the 3 percent figure and maintain the drop is 10 percent or more, raising out-of-pocket costs much higher. It's enough to throw into question the real cost of cleaner air from ethanol use and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.
When Oregon lawmakers enthusiastically passed the alternative fuels bill in 2007, they barely mentioned ethanol's lower energy content. Instead, they emphasized E10's benefits: cleaner air and a healthier economy.
Now, record-high gas prices have thrown the mileage gap into sharp relief. Tapped-out consumers are scrutinizing every penny they have to shell out at the pump and track any discernable upticks. Drivers are finding that their mileage has dropped far more than 3 percent.
"It's just not fair to anyone who drives a car," said Ron Spuhler, a retiree who lives in Gresham, Ore., and now gets 21.5 miles per gallon in his 1999 Buick instead of the previous ethanol-free readings of 24 mpg.
That's a drop of 10 percent and an extra $7 every time he fills the tank.
Plenty of factors influence gas mileage, so it's hard to carve out the effects of ethanol alone. Government, academic and industry experts point to a scientific principal to back up claims of slight reductions: ethanol contains about two-thirds the energy content of gasoline, gallon for gallon.
That means a gallon of pure, corn-based ethanol would reduce mileage by 30 percent and a 10 percent blend — as Oregon now requires — by about 3 percent. Gasoline can vary a bit, batch to batch, so a drop of 2 percent to 4 percent is a safe estimate, these experts say.
"Energy content is the critical issue," said Don Stevens, a senior program manager with the U.S. Department of Energy.
Comprehensive studies that rely on actual road tests for mileage comparisons are few, but they generally support the science-based data. A study by the American Coalition for Ethanol, a trade group promoting ethanol's development, tested three vehicles and came up with an average reduction of 1.5 percent.
If ethanol isn't to blame for the larger mileage gap, then, what is? Stop-and-go driving, speeds exceeding 60 miles per hour, underinflated tires, faulty oxygen sensors and clogged fuel filters can affect gas mileage, sometimes significantly, government energy analysts said.
"Some individuals may well believe their mileage is dropping by 10, 20 percent," Stevens said. "But the difference is from some other factor, not ethanol."
Mark Kendall, a senior energy analyst with the Oregon Department of Energy, agreed, saying painfully high gas prices may be pushing consumers toward faulty conclusions.
"They're looking for the devil," he said.
But E85, which contains 85 percent ethanol and is used in flexible-fuel vehicles, is a different story. It can pull down mileage by more than 20 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Spuhler, like so many Oregonians, is unimpressed with the government's account.
He insists the truth comes out when the rubber meets the road. Decades as a truck driver taught him the ups and downs of gas mileage, he said.
Besides, he said, his Buick has a computerized mileage read-out and "it doesn't lie."
For years, gas stations in the greater Portland area have pumped E10 in the winter months to meet federal clean air requirements. "I noticed it every time," Spuhler said.
Spuhler said he has complained to state and federal officials but "it's like talking to a brick wall."
James Bong, who lives in Milwaukie, Ore., and drives a 1994 Ford pickup to work in Oregon City, has channeled his frustration into trips across the Columbia River into Washington state, where he fills up on ethanol-free gasoline.
Sherman Harris owns the 76 station in Vancouver, Wash., that Bong visits. He said an "amazing number" of Oregon drivers seek him out.
"They say they're noticing a huge difference," Harris said of the Oregon customers. "If they're driving from Oregon, across the bridge, they should know what they're talking about."
Washington stations must pump at least E2 — a blend of 2 percent ethanol — by Dec. 1 of this year, with increases to E10 if certain conditions are met. Many already have made the switch.
Harris' station is one of the few that still uses no ethanol at all.
Bong said his truck gets 13.9 miles per gallon with Harris' gas but just 10 mpg with E10. That's a wallet-pounding difference of 28 percent.
"I'll do anything to shave a cost," he said.
Bong rejects officials' arguments that poor maintenance or inconsistent driving behavior is to blame. He said he takes good care of both his vehicles — he also owns a four-wheel-drive pickup — and has compared mileage over like terrain.
"They can say what they want, but those of us who use cars and observe what's going on, we notice a big difference," Bong said.
State officials say motorists shouldn't lose sight of the big picture: that ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline — fewer smog-causing pollutants — and reduces the country's dependence on foreign oil.
Another plus, they say, is that ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. In the Pacific Northwest, pure ethanol has been selling for $2.09 a gallon, compared with no-ethanol gasoline at $3.25 a gallon. E10 blends, then, dampen prices by almost 12 cents a gallon.
If ethanol's contribution to the country's overall fuel supply is taken into account, the savings are larger — between 29 and 40 cents a gallon — say researchers at Iowa State University. Ethanol currently accounts for about 6 percent of U.S. fuel supplies. If it were pulled from the mix, demand for gasoline would spike and so would prices, these researchers concluded.
That's of little comfort to consumers watching pump prices as they climb toward $4 a gallon. When a customer from Oregon drove into Harris' station one day last week to ask for a fill-up, he pointed to a big barrel in the back of his pickup. He wanted that filled too.
(Gail Kinsey Hill is a staff writer for The Oregonian of Portland, Ore., and can be contacted at gailhill(at)news.oregonian.com)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
Don't forget all the oil that went into the production of that Ethanol!
Oregonians have an obligation to keep Iowa farmers wealthy.
“Besides, he said, his Buick has a computerized mileage read-out and “it doesn’t lie.””
I agree about ethanol, but he’s wrong there. Those readouts aren’t accurate enough to use to make his claim.
I’m waiting for prices to go down due to ethanol. But I’m not holding my breath.
Actually, it’s no mystery to anyone who wants to keep track of their mileage — preferably on a road trip. 10% is about right. I live in the heart of ethanol country and will not use ethanol unless the price diffential makes it economical— which has never happened. BTW, except in rare circumstances ethanol won’t damage your engine and can be a benefit in below zero weather.
I thought ethanol was terrible in the cold?
Have to mix gasoline with it to get it to light off in the cold?
Any chemist using 100 year old tables could tell you that a mixture of ethanol and gasoline has less energy than gasoline by volume.
“Lower Ethanol Mileage Means Biofuel Users Buy More Gas”
It also means that biofuel users pay more taxes, don’t you get it?
Study Finds Certain Ethanol Blends Can Provide Better Fuel Economy Than Gasoline
http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2007/163_news071206_ethanol_fuel/index.html
Research findings released today show that mid-range ethanol blends—fuel mixtures with more ethanol than E10 but less than E85—can in some cases provide better fuel economy than regular unleaded gasoline, even in standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles.
Previous assumptions held that ethanol’s lower energy content directly correlates with lower fuel economy for drivers. Those assumptions were found to be incorrect. Instead, the new research strongly suggests that there is an “optimal blend level” of ethanol and gasoline—most likely E20 or E30—at which cars will get better mileage than predicted based strictly on the fuel’s per-gallon Btu content. The new study, cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), also found that mid-range ethanol blends reduce harmful tailpipe emissions.
“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. “This is a compelling argument for more research on the promise of higher ethanol blends in gasoline. There is strong evidence that the optimal ethanol-gasoline blend for standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles is greater than E10 and instead may be E20 or E30. We encourage the federal government to move swiftly to research the use of higher ethanol blends and make necessary approvals so that American motorists can have the cost-effective ethanol choices they deserve at the pump.”
The University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research (MnCAR) conducted the research using four 2007 model vehicles: a Toyota Camry, a Ford Fusion and two Chevrolet Impalas, one flex-fuel and one non-flex-fuel. Researchers used the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HWFET) to examine a range of ethanol-gasoline blends from straight Tier 2 gasoline up to 85 percent ethanol. All of the vehicles got better mileage with ethanol blends than the ethanol’s energy content would predict, and three out of four actually traveled farther on a mid-level ethanol blend than on unleaded gasoline.
“I applaud the American Coalition for Ethanol for taking action and studying the impact of intermediate blends of ethanol. I am encouraged by the findings of this study, which should benefit the federal regulatory process for approving higher blends of ethanol,” said U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD). “Intermediate blends of ethanol will offer consumers more choices at the pump, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and benefit our domestic ethanol industry for years to come.”
In addition to the favorable fuel economy findings, the research provides strong evidence that standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles can operate on ethanol blends beyond E10. The three non-flex-fuel vehicles tested operated on levels as high as E65 before any engine fault codes were displayed. Emissions results for the ethanol blends were favorable for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and nonmethane organic gases, showing an especially significant reduction in CO2 emissions for each vehicle’s “optimal” ethanol blend (E20 for the flex-fuel Chevy, E30 for the Toyota and Ford, E40 for the non-flex Chevy).
“These studies show that moderate 20-30 percent ethanol blends can reduce air pollution, improve gas mileage, and save drivers money in the most popular cars on the road today,” said Brett Hulsey, president of Better Environmental Solutions, an environmental health consulting firm. “Moderate ethanol blends are homegrown in America, can be delivered with existing pumps to current vehicles, and cost less than gasoline. Ethanol lowers CO2 emissions 20 percent from gasoline, making it one of our most effective greenhouse gas reduction programs currently in place.”
KEY FINDINGS
Ethanol’s energy content was not found to be a direct predictor of fuel economy. A fuel’s energy content in British Thermal Units (Btu) is current standard practice for estimating fuel economy, a method that, because of ethanol’s lower Btu value, leads to estimates of decreased fuel economy in proportion to the percentage of ethanol in the fuel blend.
— This research, however, did not find ethanol’s Btu content to be a direct predictor of fuel economy. All four vehicles tested exhibited better fuel economy with the ethanol blends than the Btu-value estimates predicted.
E20 and E30 ethanol blends outperformed unleaded gasoline in fuel economy tests for certain autos. Contrary to Btu-based estimates of fuel economy for ethanol blends, three of the four vehicles tested achieved their highest fuel efficiency not on gasoline, but on an ethanol blend. Mid-level blends of ethanol E20 (20% ethanol, 80% gasoline) and E30 (30% ethanol, 70% gasoline) offered the best fuel economy in these tests.
— E30 offered better fuel economy than gasoline (a 1% increase) in both the Toyota and the Ford.
— E20 offered better fuel economy than gasoline (a 15% increase) in the flex-fuel Chevrolet.
— The non-flex-fuel Chevrolet more closely followed the Btu-calculated trend for fuel economy, but did experience a significant improvement over the trend line with E40 (40% ethanol, 60% gasoline), indicating that this may be the “optimal” ethanol blend level for this vehicle.
Standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles operated well on ethanol blends beyond 10 percent - All automakers currently cover the use of up to E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) by warranty for standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles. In this preliminary research, the three non-flex-fuel vehicles tested each operated successfully on ethanol blends significantly higher than this 10% ethanol level.
— The Ford Fusion operated on E45, the Toyota on E65, and the non-flex-fuel Chevy on E55. No engine fault codes were displayed until these levels were surpassed.
The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) is the grassroots voice of the U.S. ethanol industry, a national trade association for the ethanol industry with nearly 2,000 members nationwide, including farmers, ethanol producers, commodity organizations, businesses supplying goods and services to the ethanol industry, rural electric cooperatives, and individuals supportive of increased production and use of ethanol. For more information about ethanol or ACE, visit www.ethanol.org or call (605) 334-3381.
Source: American Coalition for Ethanol
Source: American Coalition for Ethanol
Some aren’t even looking for the True Cause.
Another thing people don’t seem to get......if you double your MPG....say from 10mpg to 20mpg, you will use less gas. If everyone did this, the oil companies profits will be cut in half. Do people really think that they are going to let this happen? The less gas they sell, the higher they will raise the prices to keep the profit levels up.
The rising cost of food products and our tax dollars diverted to promote the production of ethanol must be factored into the net cost of the mandated fuel. It is very expensive.
What would be needed is to increase the compression ratio of the engines to take advantage of E85’s 105 octane rating or Ethanol’s 116 octane rating.
Cars with knock sensors may be taking advantage of the higher octane and advancing their timing to take advantage of it.
I too, get 10% less.
The real reason: 10% less mileage, purchase 10% more fuel = 10% more gas tax revenue without a tax increase.
Now they can build even more little trains in Portland, for the drug dealers to ride!
Around here, pure ethanol is sold in most stores. The call it “gas line anti-freeze”.
Ethanol up to 5% can have a lot of benefits as an anti-icing agent, octane booster and oxygenator. Ethanol is a wonderful fuel additive but a lousy fuel.
We don’t even get E-fuel here. But this is beside the point of the True Cause.
Given that (1) the study is making claims of increased fuel economy without providing any explanation, IOW they claim improvements in an empirical test without providing the underlying theory to explain it, (2) they are claiming that Btu is not the only predictor but not naming other predictors, and (3) the study was conducted by a pro-ethanol lobby group, I’d say this “study” has junk science written all over it.
Cars with turbos could take advantage of the additional octane by cranking down the waste gate to increase the boost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.