E-85 Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheForce

SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Oct 13, 2003
38,857
14,939
Jacksonville, FL, Earth
There have been several threads on this over the past few years. A few reports that triggered them were by the negative reports that surfaced in the news and tabloids that claimed the E-85 alternative fuels were not efficient, damaging to the environment and even one that recently claimed if we used E-85 the world would starve to death. :) I have always suspected these reports, regardless of their published author were not only bogus but also instigated by the petroleum industry to sequester this competitive transportation fuel source. As farm grown renewable resource vs. non-renewable wells. In some cases these reports were later found to just that fakes with huge flaws hardly representative of the institutions that released them such as Princton and other highly respected organizations. In my mind these reports have tarnished the good name of these institutuions.

I saw this report published by the EPA that opens up the truth behind our current situation with the public opinion of FFV and E-85. IT reports and confirms two of my own suspicions, one market and the other technical.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentations/epa-fev-isaf-no55.pdf


I found it especially interesting that they admit that the current price at the pumps of E-85 is largely fixed by the present price of gasoline in a disproportionate amount. ( What I mean by this is that the price of E-85 increased as did Gasoline, not 15% of what gasoline did as would be dictated by the blend ratio. )

The other, technical, was that with my limited understanding of how engines worked, that the present design of an engine is first optimized by using gasoline, and with FFV it is compromised to "allow" the use of E-85 but still a gasoline engine. The test that the EPA did was to build an engine that was modified and optimized for alcohol, not gasoline. In their results it showed that this design resulted in an engine that ran at 33% more efficient than gasoline, plus emitted much less exhaust pollutants than gasoline.

Now getting back to the market, it was also stated that the production and sale of FFV cars and trucks for consumer transportation far exceeded the growth of the availability of E-85. This shows that there are far more cars today that are capable of E-85 use than are burning it due to lack of availability and in areas where available such as the midwest, the price is kept artificially high so as to be more cost per gallon equal to gasoline.

Is this a conspiracy? Well you all can decide for yourselves but I tend to believe it is. A conspiracy among all the oil and gasoline producing companies in the world. Plus our own lawmakers who are in control of preventing the enacting of laws that would give incentive to make E-85 distribution more in line with the vehicles that can use it. Plus insure there is a proper cost spread that is more in line with actual costs of the product. The last part I'm a bit nervous about because I really don't believe in cost controls. However, I would be willing to vote for a national referendum that would make transportation fuels, all of them a federally regulated commodity because as was stated, our national security is at risk because it is not. The Feds regulate alcohol now for drinking but something like transportation it does not.
 
Im not sure what news service I saw this on ( I think it was on the local fox affiliate at fox 5 Atlanta ) that quoted a research study that said the fuel efficiency of E-85 on a vehicle is reduced by %27 over that of regular unleaded gas. If thats true then what benefit does it do for people with FFV's now if they cant get performance and economy equal to or better than a non FFV?

Conspiracy......I dont know, Im more apt to think that its corporate greed at offering what is supposed to be a greener alternative just like you find with anyting else that is labeled green and foods that are all naturual.
 
e85 is largely produced here, rather than imported bought from terrorists.

auto and oil companies dont want fuel efficency or changing much of anything, they prefer the status quo with increasing profits.

note car companies advertising against increased mandatory economy of light trucks.
 
I have never seen it where I am at.
 
Its not available in alot of area's yet and probably wont be with more negative news coming out daily it seems.
 
... I found it especially interesting that they admit that the current price at the pumps of E-85 is largely fixed by the present price of gasoline in a disproportionate amount. ( What I mean by this is that the price of E-85 increased as did Gasoline, not 15% of what gasoline did as would be dictated by the blend ratio. ) ...
I'm not surprised and I believe this situation is good for the E-85 market.

By selling at prevailing market prices for gas, ethanol producers should be making money hand-over-fist. Other potential producers will be aware of the markup and be encouraged to enter the market, increasing total production. Isn't that what most of us want? Availability will be limited to the areas near the production facilities, but as more sprout up around the country, E-85 will become more common.

I've always believed that higher prices for gas will encourage ethanol production. I proposed long ago that punitive taxes be placed on gasoline to ensure that ethanol producers would be motivated to make the needed investments. The current high prices provide an incentive, of course, but potential producers can't rely on them - prices could drop again as they did last year.

The bottom line – permanently expensive gas is good news for ethanol, cheap gas isn’t.
 
Its not available in alot of area's yet and probably wont be with more negative news coming out daily it seems.


E-85 is likely only a stopgap/band aid alt fuel. Likely only 10 years or so; maybe 20. Its not going to be a permanent solution.
 
There is a boatload of those E-85 stations in Minnesota....3 in the town I live in

The problem I see is its a catch 23 situation for me. I own a FFV (03 Ranger). I would get 21-22 on highway on gas and 17-18 on E-85.

When was around $2 a gallon, the difference between gas and E-85 was between .10-.20 a gallon. When gas was 2.50 a gallon, E-85 was .40 cheaper. Now with $3 gas its .50-.60 cheaper.

I need at least .55 difference to break even so when it was only .40 a gallon differnce, why would I put that in when I can go more miles on unleaded? I know a year ago Chevy had a $1000 E-85 gas card if you bought a new vehicle. My grandma got one of those cards so she hasn't used unleaded yet in her new Impala so we don't know the milage difference.
 
The point in the article was that an engine optimized for Neat fuel (E-85 or higher) is 33% more efficient than ome optimized for gas and made compatible for Neat fuel . Agreed that this does not help us today and I agree that distribution of E-85 while on the rise is way behind the number of FFV's on the road. IT does offer some true direction for the car makers to consider for the future. 33% is a huge jump in efficiency over Gas of today.

Keeping E-85 artificially high is probably a good thing for the makers, but does this really filter back to the source suppliers? Or is it justy lining the pockets of the oil companies while protecting the side industry of well production?

Iceberg- The information I have is several years old now but it was said that ethanol in E-85 made the BE point at $1.60 a gallon. Considering that other information shows the ethanol production has become more efficient and in greater volume that cost portion has gone down, while the cost portion of gasoline (15%) has gone up. The net result is that the BE point may be even less than $1.60 ( this was considering the efficiency difference.).

Stopgap? Sure. Some would say all internal combustion engines have been a stopgap for the total electric car. :) It's all relative.
 
... Keeping E-85 artificially high is probably a good thing for the makers, but does this really filter back to the source suppliers? Or is it justy lining the pockets of the oil companies while protecting the side industry of well production? ...
Good point. But it assumes that E-85 would only be distributed through traditional oil company stations. If the market becomes large enough and if generous profits are involved, ag or chemical companies would be motivated to build competing stations, particularly in the areas where ethanol is produced.
 
It makes you wonder how much more the car companies would charge you for an engine optimized for E-85, anyone know what the diference in price from a FFV to a non FFV vehicle is same model?
 
The automakers actually get a fleet fuel mileage credit for every E85 vehicle sold that they can use to offset their high mileage models and not be penalized. That's why there's no extra charge, otherwise very few would pay extra for them.
 
FFV vehicle manufacturing is over 10 years old now. But I don't believe any are made to optimize for E-85. Rather they are made to compromise E-85 and optimize for gasoline. The primary difference in the present day FFV's are compatible fuel transport components that do nt deteriate over time exposed to high ethanol content. The retro fit kits are exactly that as well. But the retrofit kits only work on electronic fuel injected cars.
 
Good point. But it assumes that E-85 would only be distributed through traditional oil company stations. If the market becomes large enough and if generous profits are involved, ag or chemical companies would be motivated to build competing stations, particularly in the areas where ethanol is produced.

Maybe but lots have to change, even at a chemical company as they woukld need to buy in the gasoline 15% as a raw, don't forget. I have always felt that the best way for E-85 to become mainstream is to have the oil companies, the majors do it since they control virtually 100% of all the supply to all stations anyway. Companies like Kangaroo, Race Track would still need to buy from them too. But I do agree with chemical industry getting into the game for the ethanol, we'd have more competition and it wouldn't tie up the present gasoline refinery production. I do believe that the mid states like Iowa, already have dedicated ethanol production. It's just the stations that seem to be the key.
 
How much would E-85 cost without gov't subsidies?
Because if it ever came close to replacing gas, you can bet the subsidies and tax exemptions would end.
 
How much would E-85 cost without gov't subsidies?
Because if it ever came close to replacing gas, you can bet the subsidies and tax exemptions would end.
We don't really have to speculate about such things. We can look to a country that uses ethanol in a big way. Brazil doesn't subsidize ethanol and has cars that run on it without blending. It's more than competitive with gasoline there.

Ethanol will be a major fuel in developing countries that can't afford oil but can grow the crops needed to make ethanol. Car manufacturers are developing engines that are optimized for ethanol for those markets. We just don't read much about such things here since our focus is on petroleum.

Do a web search for "Brazil" and "ethanol" and you'll find lots of evidence that the fuel is competitive. Our energy companies are focusing on oil because they have tremendous investments in its production and distribution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)