E10 has NEVER been tested by the EPA. The EPA tests pure gas. The deviations in mpg may be due Exx in gas since 1990.

Now the oil companies are quietly trying to get up to E15!

Stop them!

For reference, here are some salient facts regarding the use of corn based ethanol in motor fuel:
1. Using ethanol in our fuel almost certainly does NOT cut the emissions of carbon dioxide, especially if deforestation to grow corn is considered. Further, it has been documented that ethanol leads to increased emissions of VOC’s and oxides of nitrogen. (California requested but was denied exemption to EPA mandated ethanol usage.)
2. The use of corn to produce fuel has raised food prices around the world, often resulting in needless third world starvation.
3. Many gasoline powered machines, such as boats, lawn, farm, and construction equipment are damaged by ethanol in their fuel. Apparently some modern cars are affected also, notably certain recent Lexus models.
4. Ethanol cannot be transported in gasoline pipelines. This means it must be moved by truck or rail. Not only does that add to the cost and to highway congestion, but there is a safety issue as evidenced by two recent horrible accidents (one truck and the derailment of tank cars in Chicago resulting in fierce fires and at least one fatality).
5. A huge quantity of water is needed to make ethanol from corn, and this aggravates shortages of fresh water in many parts of our nation.

However, one aspect of ethanol has not previously been considered. That is that it very likely INCREASES the nation’s consumption of fossil fuel. But, you say, the very purpose of using ethanol is to reduce our dependence on imported petroleum. I will show that a given trip, say one that would require 100 gallons of unadulterated gasoline would require more fossil fuel if the trip were made with a 10% ethanol blend (E10).

Consider: Based on data from the EPA, a gallon of ethanol contains about 76,100 BTU, while a typical gallon of gasoline has 114,000 BTU. Crunching the numbers shows that E10 has about 3.3% less energy than 100% gasoline and thus could be expected to decrease fuel mileage by that percentage. If the only degradation in gas mileage with E10 were 3.3%, you would not be reading this blog. However, I have been fortunate to find a local source of 100% gasoline. I have made a careful comparison of mileage with E10 vs. that with pure gasoline. It is well known that gas mileage varies depending on whether the driving is highway or local. So in order to make a valid comparison, I have taken advantage of the trip computer in my 2008 Nissan Rogue and recorded the average speed (mph) for every tank full of fuel. See chart below. For the (tank average) speed range of 27 to 53 MPH, using pure gasoline gave me an average of 7.8% better mileage than E10. Others on this blog have reported even higher savings in mileage with pure gasoline.

Return now to that hypothetical trip that took 100 gallons of pure gasoline (E0). Based on my experience, the same trip would require 107.8 gallons of E10. Agreed? Ten percent of this E10 usage would be 10.78 gallons of ethanol. Well, from that we note that the energy equivalent of the ethanol would be 7.2 gallons of gasoline. (10.78 x 76,100 / 114,00 = 7.2) But not even ethanol protagonists allege that a gallon of ethanol requires less than 75% of its energy content to produce. So that 7.2 gallons would need the equivalent of 5.4 gallons of gasoline to produce. (7.2 x 0.75 = 5.4) Thus the trip with E10 would need 102.4 gallons of gasoline or its equivalent. (107.8 – 10.78 + 5.4 = 102.4) Which is to say that by using 10% ethanol in my fuel, I am using 2.4% more fossil fuel than if our benighted government had not modified our motor fuel in the first place.

The bottom line is — it is patently obvious that the government’s ethanol mandates and subsidies have but one indisputable effect. They enrich the corn growers and the ethanol producers at the expense of all the rest of us taxpayers. Now who in government will stand up to the farm and ethanol producer (think ADM) lobbies and declare that there should be an end to this blatant scam on the American public? Think of what those billions in wasted subsidies could do for our troubled economy or health care.

1) Eliminate the waiver for E10 testing in the EPA. Or more specifically, reuire that the EPA test each gas mixture (within two percent or whatever) before that mixture can be sold.

2) Require that a federal agency test the gas at the pump, randomly, for each service station, to assess its content.

A class action lawsuit might be useful, but the above is what we need to fix the problem.

This is a total scam.

I found my drop in efficiency was at *least* 10 percent, which means that when I buy E10, I’m basically buying 10 percent inert filler and 90 percent gas, yet paying for all 100 percent.

I hadn’t bothered trying to compare in the past, because my daily driving isn’t consistent enough to offer an unbiased test. This road trip, however, was pretty darned consistent. And out of the 300+ gallons I put into my car, about 50 gallons were E10. (Once I noticed the drop, I became religious about searching for pure gasoline). When I drove with E10, I was doing the exact same sort of cruise-controlled highway driving as when I drove with actual gasoline.

Most interesting to me was that in some of the corn belt areas (the states all ran together, to be honest) stations sold both E10 *and* real gas, and charged more for the real gas. Meaning that where they’re producing this ethanol, and most knowledgeable about it, consumers *know* that E10 is crud and will pay extra not to buy it.

Nothing is more maddening than needing gas, getting off the interstate, and finding that dreaded “This fuel may contain up to 10% ethanol” sticker. At a bare minimum, E10 should have to be labeled on the price billboard for the station so you don’t have to find out once you reach the pump.

We’re being rooked, and in many cases, this sham actually *increases* our oil dependency, rather than decreasing it. At best, for most, it appears to be a zero gain (and that doesn’t include any petroleum consumed producing the corn).

Also, something I didn’t know till I just read this today: Ethanol appears to damage boat fuel tanks made of fiberglass.

I just don’t get how such a smart bunch of people (All of the U.S) got scammed into thinking this will save our countries energy and pollution problem without doing adequate testing !!

If you add 10% Ethanol, and you get 10% less mpg. Tell me exactly what we are saving?

MIC, Other Groups Ask EPA for More Ethanol Tests

Fourteen organizations, including the Motorcycle Industry Council, recently called for “unbiased and comprehensive testing” before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permits the use of mid-level ethanol blends in engines.

http://poweretblog.com/2009/01.....nol-tests/

The letter contends the existing test results suggest mid-level ethanol blends might be incompatible with current motor vehicle and non-road equipment engines, might cause emission control devices or systems to fail, might defeat engines’ safety features and could lead to significantly higher emissions during the engines’ lifespan.

http://www.renewableenergyworl.....o-renergie

Here is an excerpt from this page:

In the U.S., the primary method for blending ethanol into gasoline is splash blending. The ethanol is “splashed” into the gasoline either in a tanker truck or sometimes into a storage tank of a retail station. Renergie believes the inaccuracy and manipulation of splash blending may be eliminated by precisely blending the ethanol and unleaded gasoline at the point of consumption.

A variable blending pump would ensure the consumer that E10 means the fuel entering the fuel tank of the consumer’s vehicle is 10 percent ethanol (rather than the current range of 4 percent ethanol to at least 24 percent ethanol that the splash blending method provides) and 90% gasoline, Renergie said.

- E10 is increasing our foriegn oil demand by about 15-20%!nnThat costs us for gas, and also by push demand that causes shortages, and also by forcing rises in shipping costs for, like, milk

Write your congressman to have E10 tested by the EPA!

Out of curiosity, I got a half tank of Shell just down the block, and it jumped to 42 mpg, then my next tank at Shell was 44 mpg, and this last tank is now 46 mpg. My theory is, I think all the ethanol burned out of the tank after 3 fillings. I’m not going back to ARCO, sorry ARCO.

Here is the math:

Shell is more cost effective even though it costs 10 cents more per gallon. from 37 to 46 mpg = 20 % improvement in mpg, while it only costs $2.10 at ARCO vs $2.20 at Shell = only 5% more cost per gallon. I’m saving 15% at Shell even though it costs more.

I bought a 2008 Prius which gives me constant mpg feedback. My results: 44-47 mpg with straight gas, 38-41 mpg with Ethanol E10. This is more than a 10% reduction in mpg.

Anybody else see a connection to this E10 gasoline junk and our “oil demand” problem that has driven fuel prices up?

Let the revolution begin……

I constantly monitor my wife’s Milan by checking the MPG reading on the dash. To my horror when I checked the readout with the 10% Ethanol mix, the MPG fell off by 3 mpg to around 23 MPG. Putting some highway miles on the vehicle improved it to 28 MPG, but the same type of driving with a previous fillup of Mobil delivered 32 MPG. I am guessing I am losing around 10% using the Ethanol mixture. And to add insult to injury, Shell is around
3 cents higher than regular Mobil gas.

Needless to say, I am going to inform Shell I will no longer purchase their gas as long they use an Ethanol mixture. We as consumers somehow have got to convince our ‘clueless’ politicians to give up on this Ethanol Craze. I am convinced that Ethanol is really consuming more oil than it saves.

Ethanol is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American public by the energy industry.

Government statistics document that a mix of 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline “E85” will
Produce a drop in gas mileage of approximately 20%. When I first read these figures
I thought it sounded strange. So, I decided to make a “rule of thumb example” that could be easily related to by the average American, and here is what I came up with.

Just to make things simple:
A car traveling 100 miles and getting 10 mpg on regular gasoline.
100 mi / 10 mpg = 10 gal of gasoline.
The same car using E85 would get 20% less gas mileage, 80% of 10 mpg = 8 mpg.
100 mi / 8 mpg = 12.5 gal of E85
How much of this is gasoline ? 85% of 12.5 gal/mix = 10.625 gal. of gasoline.
?? I am trying to keep this simple .
We just burned .625 gal more gas with the E85 mix plus the additional Ethanol.
How much additional ethanol? 12.5 gal. mix – 10.625 pure gas = 1.875 gal of ethanol.
It is my understanding that it takes about 1 gal of gasoline to make 1 gal of ethanol.
So we have 1.875 gal (used to produce the ethanol) + .625 gal = 2.5 gal of additional gas or 25% more gas just to go the same distance as we did with straight gasoline.
That’s 25% more pollution from gasoline and 25% more gas dependency per gal of E85 used, etc., obviously we are not reducing our oil dependency with this choice.
Now we have to add in the Ethanol, another 1.875 gal with it’s associated pollution , environmental and geopolitical problems created by over farming our ground , changing our crop rotations and grain balances, both U.S. and exported.

Even if you got the ethanol for free, you still used 6.25% more gasoline!

I understand from people who drive flex fuel cars that the reduction in fuel mileage is closer to 30% to 35%. So here is the calculation for a 30% gas mileage reduction using the example above (7mpg).

14.29 gal. of mix, 12.14 gal. of gasoline (a 21.4% increase in gas consumption before considering the gas it takes to produce the ethanol), 2.147 gal of ethanol and the matching 2.147 gal of gas to produce the ethanol. That’s a 42.9% increase in gasoline consumption for each gal. of gas used, plus the ethanol.

I have never thought it a good thing to burn our primary food sources, no matter what the reason (unless of course its toast in the morning). However, if I were wanting to terrorize the U.S., this might be an effective way to do it.
Of course these figures might not be perfect, but they should be good enough for rule of thumb.
Additional thoughts:
For the same 100 miles driven starting with 10 mpg on std gasoline at a price of $3.50 per gallon;
Standard gasoline cost for 100 miles would be ……… $35
E85 cost at the governments estimated 20% reduction….. $43.75.….or $4.38 per gallon.
E85 at 30% (estimated by motorists) $50.00 ….or $5.00 per gallon.
Figuring gas prices in this way gives us an equivalent price per gallon, looks like the gas companies are getting more per gallon, without raising the price. Just a thought.
I estimate the 10% max. additive disclaimer now being used could reduce gas mileage 10% to 20%, most gas stations seem to have this disclaimer, good luck finding pure gasoline. My wife says when she uses pure gasoline in her new car, it increases the gas mileage about ……..20%!

Sincerely,
Jim Johnson
Port charlotte, Florida 4/8/08