E85 vs E10 in a 1999 OBW

[Uncle Ben]

It has been three months since I last reported on the conversion of my
1999 Outback to flex-fuel. Here is what I have found:

MPG=miles/gallon; MPD=miles/dollar

Suburban E10: 25 MPG; E85: 21 MPG
Highway E10: 28 MPG; E85: 24 MPG
Penalty: about 15%

New York State's E85 price is consistently 25% less than E10
(averages: E85 $3.00/gallon; E10 $4.00/gallon.)

So --

Suburban E10: 6.2 MPD; E85: 7.0 MPD
Highway E10: 7.0 MPD; E85: 8.0 MPD
Advantage: about 12%

So I am saving money with E85. I will have repaid the cost of the
converter in about 8 months at my rate of driving. Just as important
to me is that I am now contributing much less money to oil producers
overseas. (We send about $2,000,000,000 overseas *every day* for
foreign oil. This is a big problem.)

I am also getting a peppier car; I can accelerate faster at high or
low speeds on E85 than I can on pure gasoline.
It is hard for me to quantify that, but Saab has posted measurements
of horsepower and torque in one of their new flex-fuel cars that
confirm my observations.

I have learned that many states have average E85 prices that are not
as much discounted from that of E10 as in New York. Your experience
may differ from mine in this respect.

And I have also learned that not every car has the ability to burn E85
so much better than E10 that the MPG penalty is much less than the BTU
ratio in the fuel density. From the experience reported by the dealer
who sold me the converter, my 15% MPG penalty is on the high side of
the range he hears from customers, which is 15% down to about 3% in
some cars. The Chevrolet Tahoe is an awful example at 34%.

On the other hand, a report from the Univ. of Minnesota, Mankato finds
that a Chevrolet flex-fuel car (not a Tahoe) actually got a 15% MPG
*boost* at an ethanol concentration of 30%, compared to what it got on
pure gasoline in their tests. Ethanol makes less heat when burned in a
cylinder, but it can use that heat better to move a car! That is, if
the engine design is done properly.

Uncle Ben

 

[Ingo Menger]

Just as important
to me is that I am now contributing much less money to oil producers
overseas. (We send about $2,000,000,000 overseas *every day* for
foreign oil. This is a big problem.)

Where's the difference, whether you send money to oil producers or to
sugar cane producers or to corn producers?
(Apart from the fact, that burning food rises food prices worldwide
and more people are starving.)

 

[Uncle Ben]

Where's the difference, whether you send money to oil producers or to
sugar cane producers or to corn producers?
(Apart from the fact, that burning food rises food prices worldwide
and more people are starving.)

1. If we send money to overseas oil producers, it goes to governments,
many of which are not our friends. Some of it goes to support people
who are at war with us. Much of it goes into "sovereign wealth funds"
that buy up our companies or otherwise gain control of them.
Eventually we lose sovereignty over our own country. If it goes to
our farmers, the money is recirculated in our own country.

2. Higher food prices are caused by many factors, principally the
price of oil. Of the 40% increase in grain prices last year, the USDA
estimates that only 3% of it was caused by corn being diverted to
fuel. The World Bank paper that said otherwise was a leaked draft
with made-up numbers.

3. Higher grain prices are a benefit to the poorest of the poor in
needy countries, to which we supply foreign aid. They are the rural
farmers. The only thing they produce is agricultural, and when the
price goes up, what they produce is worth more. They may even become
self-sustaining. It is said in agriculture that "the best fertilizer
is money."

4. If we do not find a way to break the monopoly that oil has on our
transportation system, the result will be that the US becomes one of
those poor countries, and people will starve as gasoline and diesel go
to astronomical prices.

5. The availability of ethanol is a factor in keeping gasoline prices
a bit lower than they otherwise would be.

Uncle Ben

 

[Uncle Ben]

Where's the difference, whether you send money to oil producers or to
sugar cane producers or to corn producers?
(Apart from the fact, that burning food rises food prices worldwide
and more people are starving.)

From Biofuels Digest, Aug. 12, 2008:

US corn, soybean and oil prices have plunged, with a combination of a
strengthening US dollar and improving crop yields suggesting that the
6-month long commodities price spike is over. Corn has fallen 35
percent from its high of $7.99 reached on June 27th, to a closing
price of $5.18 at the CBOT. Soybeans dropped to $11.80, down from a
high of $16.36 on July 3rd. Oil has fallen to $114.62, down from a
high of $140. Observers said that the dollar rally has reduced the
appeal of commodities as an inflation hedge.

Danke, Ingo, fuer die Antwort.

Uncle Ben

 

[Ingo Menger]

Eventually we lose sovereignty over our own country.

Yes, sure you will. Or how, do you think, will the trade deficit paid
for at the end of the day? Until now, trade partners could be
convinced that taking US dollars is a good deal, but with the decay of
the dollar this is perhaps going to change.

2. Higher food prices are caused by many factors, principally the
price of oil. Of the 40% increase in grain prices last year, the USDA
estimates that only 3% of it was caused by corn being diverted to
fuel. The World Bank paper that said otherwise was a leaked draft
with made-up numbers.

This may or may not be so, but we know that we couldn't match the fuel
demand with ethanol from corn/wheat/etc. as the farm land that would
be needed to do so is just not there. And, of course, the more land is
devoted to bio-fuel production, the less land is left over for food
production. So, even if the soaring food prices are not yet caused by
bio-ethanol production, they will soon.

3. Higher grain prices are a benefit to the poorest of the poor in
needy countries, to which we supply foreign aid. They are the rural
farmers. The only thing they produce is agricultural, and when the
price goes up, what they produce is worth more. They may even become
self-sustaining. It is said in agriculture that "the best fertilizer
is money."

Sounds good, but there is a small problem with that.
Many of those farmers are not able to produce a notable surplus, as
they are merely self sustaining. The reason for that is the lack of
capital, property rights and markets. They just do not produce for the
(world) market, so higher (world) market prices do not affect them. An
important cause for this is also the subsidies that the U.S. and the
EU pay to their farmers and their utter resistance to free markets in
particular and freedom in the economic sphere in general, both at home
and abroad.

4. If we do not find a way to break the monopoly that oil has on our
transportation system, the result will be that the US becomes one of
those poor countries, and people will starve as gasoline and diesel go
to astronomical prices.

I do agree that alternate fuels are needed - but, unfortunately,
ethanol is not a viable option, see above.

 

[Ingo Menger]

From Biofuels Digest, Aug. 12, 2008:

US corn, soybean and oil prices have plunged, with a combination of a
strengthening US dollar and improving crop yields suggesting that the
6-month long commodities price spike is over. Corn has fallen 35
percent from its high of $7.99 reached on June 27th, to a closing
price of $5.18 at the CBOT. Soybeans dropped to $11.80, down from a
high of $16.36 on July 3rd. Oil has fallen to $114.62, down from a
high of $140. Observers said that the dollar rally has reduced the
appeal of commodities as an inflation hedge.

Danke, Ingo, fuer die Antwort.

It would be to good to be true, if this trend persistet. But,
unfortunately, it wont. BTW, the more the oil price goes down, the
more it gets economically wasteful to produce ethanol.