 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.
==> “If I could buy E85 for $1.73, even I would be stockpiling it.” <==
Don’t even think about it! Ethanol is hygroscopic - it absorbs water from the air in large quantities, and is likely to go bad very quickly in storage.
Even if true, that's quite an Amerocentric view you have there, junior.
The oil companies will be selling greater and greater amounts of oil and gas far into the coming decades thanks to only two short words: China and India.
I don’t think I need to, that’s kind of the whole point of the study I cited.
I posted the link to their report, you’re more than welcome to rip it apart.
There are likely cases where ethanol will give better mileage. It depends on the vehicle. I doubt it’s enough to offset the additional cost though. Not the cost at the pump but the actual unsubsidized cost...
Yeah, I think they would do that.
Here is where the rubber meets the road:
“The EPA HWFET evaluates fuel consumption and hot-start and operating emissions. To
ensure maximum data accuracy, each ethanol blend-level evaluation was performed in triplicate.
For each vehicle, testing typically commenced at an ethanol blend level of 0%, after which blend
level was increased in 10% increments up to 70%, and then to 85%, for a total of up to nine
blend-level evaluations per vehicle. When one blend level was switched to the next, old fuel was
pumped from the tank, the tank flushed twice, new fuel was added, and the vehicle was roadtested
by driving the vehicle approximately 25 miles on both highway and city roads to ensure
that the vehicle computer acquired adequate data to “learn” the optimal air-to-fuel requirements
of the new fuel. Vehicle fuel trim data were monitored to ensure the fuel had been “learned.”
After the vehicle had “learned” the fuel, it was then tested on the Mustang dynamometer. The
vehicle was tested to see if the fuel injectors could supply adequate fuel under high-load
conditions. If the vehicle could not “learn” the new fuel, either in the road test or the Mustang
dynamometer test, as indicated by an engine fault code display, the ethanol blend level of the
fuel was reduced to 5% less to determine if the vehicle could “learn” a lesser ethanol blend-level
2
fuel. The highest ethanol blend level for each fuel was that on which the vehicle could operate
with no engine fault code display. The engine fault code is triggered because of the inability of
the fuel injector system to deliver sufficient fuel for normal operation of the engine. All four
vehicles operated on ethanol blendlevels of at least 45% without engine fault code display.
When a vehicle had successfully “learned” an ethanol blend level, it was then subjected to
a HWFET on the SuperFlow AC motor-driven chassis dynamometer to obtain highway fuel
economy and emission data. The highway fuel economy data were used to determine if there was
an optimum ethanol blend level at which the vehicle attained a better-than-calculated fuel
economy. The optimum ethanol blend level was determined by plotting the HWFET fuel
economy against the calculated economy. If several ethanol blend-level HWFET fuel economies
were higher than the calculated fuel economy, the one with the greatest difference was selected
as the optimum ethanol blend level for that vehicle.”
Apparently they taught the old computers new tricks.
Let’s see a show of hands, who drives his car on a dynamometer and who kills all his computer codes each time he fills his gas tank?
Sorry for the poor editing; I also forgot to mention that the vehicle in question is a Cub Cadet 46” riding lawn mower.
That could mean 2 per 100,000. Pretty much meaningless.
“I applaud the American Coalition for Ethanol for taking action and studying the impact of intermediate blends of ethanol.
Conceivably weighted study? /s
My Honda (2005) manual states, 10% max. ethanol.
BTW, I have no problem designing an engine to run efficiently on ethanol. However IMHO the jury is still out on its benefits.
I don’t see much difference between that and jacking the car up and running it at 2000 RPM powering a boom box. Besides, isn’t the dynamometer how they compute all MPG?
Where they killed the computer codes? As I’m reading this they drove the cars on the road to see if they could learn the new fuel ratio. Enlighten me if I’m wrong.
Those are not available to anyone, nor are they likely to be any time soon as far as I can see.
I suppose a person could blend their own.
As far as running E20-40 in a vehicle not built for it, who is going to honor the warranty?
My car’s manual says it can tolerate E10 and no more.
It seems to work for me! YMMV.
sionnsar, I heard on the TV last night about a Safeway station on the West Side of Washington that had slush gas or something like that anyway the customers didn’t even get out of the gas station before their cars quit on them. They were given their money back and a rental car. Have you seen an article on this?
“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.”
Sounds like obfuscation to me. This argument only makes sense if behavior has changed. If in the past, people used gasoline, avoided stop and go driving, drove below 60 mph, drove on fully inflated tires, had fully effective oxygen sensors, and uncloqqed fuel filters; but now people use an ethanol blend, practice stop-and-go driving, drive at speeds exceeding 60 miles per hour, have underinflated tires, faulty oxygen sensors and clogged fuel filters - then this argument holds. But there is no reason to think that people’s behavior has changed. Stop making excuses. It’s the ethanol.
I drive a Toyota Prius that constantly tells you how many miles per gallon you are getting. I can always tell when I get a ethanol blend in the tank because the mileage drops almost 10 mpg. It’s a nightmare.
“The new study, cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)”
Well isn’t that cozy? Let’s not trust big tobacco or big oil, but big corn is just fine.
I don’t really have a problem with industry groups or lobbyists as long as their role is reasonably transparent. But I do have a problem with double-standards. I don’t think there is a problem here, or if we listened to “big oil” on a number of topics.
As to tobacco, my distant recollection is that many years ago the tobacco industry was in great legal jeopardy if they admitted additional risk from tobacco, So, of course, they did not. They might have been more forthright if the threatened punishment were not so severe. Now, as a result, the advice of (almost all) industry groups is heavily discounted.
“The less gas they sell, the higher they will raise the prices to keep the profit levels up.”
That’s not the way it works. The less gas they sell, the more they will lower prices to stimulate purchases.
Prices go up with increased demand. Prices go down with reduced demand. That is standard economics and applies for all markets.
“Spuhler said he has complained to state and federal officials but “it’s like talking to a brick wall.”
That’s socialism for you. I vote for individual freedom whenever I can. A lot of people in Portland OR vote for socialism (liberalsm). You asked for it, you got it. I hope you are happy now.
No, I haven't. I take it that whatever happened to the cars, it was curable by replacing the fuel? (No mechanical damage?)
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.