# E85 not worth it for me, but I tried.



## smokedragon (Nov 1, 2014)

So three months ago, a new station opened up on my commute that was selling E85, and it was priced 50 cents cheaper than regular unleaded.  

We purchased a minivan 3 years ago that will run E85 (that had no affect on our decision, but it will run it).  I decided to do a little experiment, since I have always heard that E85 is less efficient than gas.

I ran three tanks driving the van to work and back of both gas and E85.  Now a tank of E85 cost less, but I also noticed I was getting less miles out of the tank.

So, I decided that I would figure a way to compare apples to apples, so I wanted to find the $/mile spent on both fuels.

Gas, three tanks at $3.19/gallon.  E85, three tanks at $2.69/gallon.

Turns out I got (over three tanks) 25.8 miles per gallon with the gas, and 19.1 miles per gallon with the E85.  At those pump prices, that comes up to:

Gas: 12.36 cents/mile

E85:  14.08 cents/mile

So despite the 50 cent per gallon price difference, it costs me more to operate my vehicle on E85.

Gas has gone down (currently $2.85 at that station) and E85 remains steady ($2.66 at that station) since my tests.  

Now that isn't to say there may not be advantages (pollution control, no oil imports) and disadvantages (using a food product for fuel) to E85.  I just looked at this strictly from a cost standpoint.

Thought I would share my results.


----------



## Circus (Nov 1, 2014)

Isn't as green as it's cracked up to be either. Is there's a way to remove the 15% gasoline? Just wondering.


----------



## begreen (Nov 3, 2014)

It never was a very green process, just some corny agribusiness math. I'd be very happy if they dropped all ethanol subsidies tomorrow.


----------



## smokedragon (Nov 4, 2014)

begreen said:


> It never was a very green process, just some corny agribusiness math. I'd be very happy if they dropped all ethanol subsidies tomorrow.


I agree. I just think it is sad that after the subsidies, gas is still more economical.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 4, 2014)

Not totally surprising when you reckon it takes a lot of oil to to grow the corn, and food calories are more expensive than fossil calories across the board.


----------



## Hansson (Nov 5, 2014)

In Sweden E85 cost 6 usd /gallon.
Gas cost 8,5usd/ gallon.

So over her its a litlle vin. But you have to service the car more often..


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 5, 2014)

Is the difference in taxes?


----------



## smokedragon (Nov 5, 2014)

Hansson said:


> In Sweden E85 cost 6 usd /gallon.
> Gas cost 8,5usd/ gallon.
> 
> So over her its a litlle vin. But you have to service the car more often..



I can see it being more economical.  But I will also add that on cool mornings, the vehicle did not idle as well either.  

If I planned on a keeping a car long term (like we do) I also worry about the wear that E85 puts on certain components.


----------



## Hansson (Nov 5, 2014)

Yes iI think its diffrent taxes. 56%tax on gas. 57% on diesel.Dont know on E85

In the winter they change the mixture here. 75% Ethanol and 25% gas.
No problem with cold start then. All petrol stations must sell any renewable fuel by law so E85 are everywhere.
Cars that run on E85 also has tax benefits that lower tax on the car, free parking in big cities and exemption from road tolls.


----------



## blades (Nov 5, 2014)

ethanol  production and mixing into gas as a conservation function is likely the biggest lie ever foisted on the public- when you look at the costs of production. Additionally  it has contributed to the rising costs of almost every thing at the grocery store and other areas in one way or another.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 5, 2014)

Looks like Sweden went big into biofuels, an out of date wiki page:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel_in_Sweden suggests that there were significant incentives in place to get it off the ground.

Neighboring Norway is pouring money in EVs and associated infrastructure.....EV market share there is 13% of sales and still climbing, and >1% of the entire car fleet is now EVs (these are about 20x the numbers in the US).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country#Norway

An interesting side by side comparison.  Given the massive amount of hydropower, I suspect Norway took the lower carbon approach.


----------



## pma1123 (Nov 5, 2014)

As a performance car enthusiast, I had to triple the injector size, install a massive fuel pump and delivery lines, and a finer fuel filter (all Teflon lined hoses and anodized fuel rail for corrosion resistance) to go to E-85.  The saying is that an internal combustion engine requires about 20% more fuel by volume to do the same between pumpgas and E85.

But in a turbocharged application, E-85 allows you to make great power because the fuel is less combustible and you can run your ignition timing more advanced, as well as higher boost pressure/volume before the onset of preignition/detonation.  I took a car that got 25-27mpg on pump premium (91) and it gets more like 15-22mpg now depending on use using E-85.

The "mix" becomes more like E70 on a winter blend, and changes everything about the tune where the car is pig rich, requiring re-tuning.  Normal cars have flex fuel sensors in the delivery lines to compensate.

I think ethanol subsidies and the economics of E-85 are a joke, but I can't deny that it makes a great readily available "race gas".

It is definitely harder on rubber components of a vehicle, and being less combustible, makes starting the car on a cold morning require an extra second or two of cranking. In my own experience anyhow...

Being a lower BTU fuel, it probably makes the car take longer to warm up also.


----------



## Hansson (Nov 6, 2014)

blades said:


> ethanol  production and mixing into gas as a conservation function is likely the biggest lie ever foisted on the public- when you look at the costs of production. Additionally  it has contributed to the rising costs of almost every thing at the grocery store and other areas in one way or another.



But you can make ethanol of cellulose.



pma1123 said:


> As a performance car enthusiast, I had to triple the injector size, install a massive fuel pump and delivery lines, and a finer fuel filter (all Teflon lined hoses and anodized fuel rail for corrosion resistance) to go to E-85.  The saying is that an internal combustion engine requires about 20% more fuel by volume to do the same between pumpgas and E85.
> 
> But in a turbocharged application, E-85 allows you to make great power because the fuel is less combustible and you can run your ignition timing more advanced, as well as higher boost pressure/volume before the onset of preignition/detonation.  I took a car that got 25-27mpg on pump premium (91) and it gets more like 15-22mpg now depending on use using E-85.
> 
> ...



Saab 95 BioPower have 150hk on gas and 180hk on e85.


----------



## midwestcoast (Nov 6, 2014)

Hansson, what to they make ethanol out of in Sweden? Or is it mostly imported?


----------



## dougstove (Nov 8, 2014)

Brazil sugarcane ethanol is considerably cheaper, with a better Energy Return on Investment than is North American maize ethanol.
But the Brazil product is kept out by a tariff barrier.


----------



## Hansson (Nov 11, 2014)

midwestcoast said:


> Hansson, what to they make ethanol out of in Sweden? Or is it mostly imported?


Its hard to find any iinfo on the orgin of e85. I think its mostly imported.
Some is made in sweden. The bigiest maker is http://www.agroetanol.se/en/Bioethanol/Questions-and-answers/


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 11, 2014)

Cellulosic ethanol would be an interesting technology (but also not a panacea), but after much effort in the US, includijng a legal order from congress to start making the stuff several years ago, it has not materialized.  

Apparently getting Ethanol from marine kelp is easier than wood (no lignin)...does Sweden have any kelp beds it wants to harvest?


----------



## dougstove (Nov 11, 2014)

Kelp (and other coastal seaweeds) is a scarce resource for multiple high-value products.  There is no bulk opportunity for biofuels.
There might be small local opportunities for co-culture with aquaculture enclosures (seaweed to take up the nutrients from the animal aquaculture waste), but there are higher-value uses than biofuel.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 11, 2014)

I could say the same thing about wood.  And it would be about as true.  Kelp biomass productivity is quite high.


----------



## dougstove (Nov 11, 2014)

Yes, but the habitat for kelp and other macrophytes is limited; a narrow strip on some coasts.
The real winners on productivity are some of the green seaweeds ('sea lettuce') which show the highest specific growth rates of any photosynthetic organism.  They are under study for biomass production.  But de-watering and de-salting the product is energy intensive.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 11, 2014)

In the end, our current fossil energy use is significantly larger than the total photosynthetic activity on the earth....in that way there are no 'bulk' opportunities for biofuels at all.  As for material and chemical feedstocks, however, biomass could easily replace petroleum.


----------



## saichele (Nov 12, 2014)

> In the end, our current fossil energy use is significantly larger than the total photosynthetic activity on the earth....in that way there are no 'bulk' opportunities for biofuels at all. As for material and chemical feedstocks, however, biomass could easily replace petroleum.



Do you have a reference on that?  I'm not saying you're wrong, just seems hard to believe.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 12, 2014)

saichele said:


> Do you have a reference on that?  I'm not saying you're wrong, just seems hard to believe.



I exaggerated.  Human fossil energy use and total _agricultural_ photosynthesis are about the same size.  Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production

Looks like all land plants create ~56 gigatons C (GtC) of biomass per year, and human agriculture corresponds to about 25% of that, or 14 GtC.  If we burned all of that bioass (and had nothing to eat), it would release about 14*(3.6) = 50 Gt of CO2.  Human fossil fuel emissions are at ~25 Gt CO2.  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

Assuming that fossil fuels and biomass have similar carbon/hydrogen ratios, FF energy is about 50% as big as all agricultural photosynthesis energy. Take into account that the vast majority of that agricultural photosynthesis energy does not end up in the final harvest (e.g. more energy in stalks than corn kernels), but rather rots in the field.  Add in the difficulty of drying biomass and converting it to other forms, and it is still really hard to see how we could get biofuels to replace fossil fuels.


----------



## SD Farmer (Nov 13, 2014)

smokedragon said:


> So three months ago, a new station opened up on my commute that was selling E85, and it was priced 50 cents cheaper than regular unleaded.
> 
> We purchased a minivan 3 years ago that will run E85 (that had no affect on our decision, but it will run it).  I decided to do a little experiment, since I have always heard that E85 is less efficient than gas.
> 
> ...


 

I don't disagree with your numbers.  I run e85 100% of the time in my 2012 F150.  My wife does the same in her 2013 Escape.  We are farmers that grow corn and not using what you produce doesn't make sense to me.  I'm also invested in a couple local ethanol plants that employ lots of people in our rural communities.  Most ethanol plants are locally owned and managed.  There is a significant social aspect of ethanol production that is no doubt benefical to rural America and the country as a whole.  We won't need to send troops and mainstreets in rural America are getting a fresh coat of paint.

I've done my own comparisons much like yours.  I've found that the difference between super unleaded (e10) and e85 is 1.3mpg.  I need in the range of $.38 per gallon to break even(depending on the cost of both at the time but that's my average).  I will tell you however, that switching back and forth from e85 to super unleaded will skew your comparison.  Yes there is a sensor that adjusts the engine for the incoming fuel but, I see narrowing of the difference the longer I run excusively e85.  I'm not sure if things stablize or how to explain it but I've suggested this to others and they have reported back with the same findings.

There was a good chunk of 2014 that e85 was nearly $1 per gallon below e10.  The non-corn belt markets are out of line with the actual cost of ethanol but hey the oil industry basically owns and controls the infrastructure of the fuel in this country so you aren't likely to see them feature, promote, or encourage ethanol use.  Our e85 is <$2 currently.

The energy usage sited by one of the other posters is not valid.  The studies that show marginal energy gain to ethanol are flawed in that they give no credit to the bi-products coming out of an ethanol plant.  1 bushel of corn=56lbs.  For each bu going in to the process, 17lbs of bi-product called ddg (dry distillers grain) comes out the back.  Ddg is actually a higher feed value per lb than corn.  How can you do an energy study and not deduct this unless your study has an agenda?

The corn used for ethanol is not for human consumption.  It is animal feed and used for corn oil, syrup, etc.  We over-produce corn to the point where government subsidies keep growers from going out of business at times.  Ethanol uses a very small percent of the annual production and has a very small impact on the price of corn.  It does however have a big impact on the price of gas that consumers pay at the pump by displacing >10% of the demand for gas.

I'm sorry you weren't happy with your e85 comparison but.....I have weighed all the factors and will use nothing else...use all you can...I'll grow a fresh batch!


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 13, 2014)

SD Farmer said:


> The corn used for ethanol is not for human consumption.  It is animal feed and used for corn oil, syrup, etc.  We over-produce corn to the point where government subsidies keep growers from going out of business at times.  Ethanol uses a *very small percent* of the annual production and has a *very small impact on the price of corn.*  It does however have a big impact on the price of gas that consumers pay at the pump by displacing >10% of the demand for gas.



Currently 40% of the US corn crop is going to ethanol.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/

50% more corn is being grown in the US, than previously, to provide the feedstock.  http://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/0...rade-deficit-and-ensure-chinas-food-security/

I do not dispute your argument regarding that value of distillers grains.


----------



## SD Farmer (Nov 13, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Currently 40% of the US corn crop is going to ethanol.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/
> 
> 50% more corn is being grown in the US, than previously, to provide the feedstock.  http://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/0...rade-deficit-and-ensure-chinas-food-security/
> 
> I do not dispute your argument regarding that value of distillers grains.


 
There are lots of different sets of facts.  Mine say 17.5% of the US corn supply goes to ethanol.  http://www.growthenergy.org/images/uploads/GROW_14012_Fast_Facts.pdf

Corn acres are entirely based on prices.  The drought in 2012 caused the corn prices to rise dramatically solely based on supply shortages.  When corn is more profitable than cotton, soybeans, wheat, oats etc etc farmers plant corn.  The same works in reverse.  Corn acres are down, corn prices are down.  Ethanol production is about as high as it has ever been.  Those are the on the ground facts.  Yields per acre set a record high in 2014 so just because there is more production doesn't mean there are necessarily more acres being devoted to corn.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 14, 2014)

The 40% number was in the first ten links I checked out, including several national media sources as well as the USDA and the Heritage Foundation, but I only linked one.  The 17% number in your link (corn ethanol trade group/lobbyists) is clearly trying to 'correct' the value by some logic like half of the corn that goes to ethanol should be called feed instead, because of the distillers grains.  It still appears that nearly half of the corn bushels grown in the US go straight to a fermenter.

That farmers are businessmen that respond to price signals, and that those signals are related to demand, I have to agree.  Ethanol production in the US has increased corn demand by 60%. That is, prior food/feed demand/crop (ten years ago) was 100-40%=60% of the current crop, new demand is 100/60 = 160%, a 60% increase in demand.   While crop yields have steadily improved, that improvement has slowed a bit in the last ten years, and certainly can't account for a 60% increase in yield.

(data here: http://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/0...rade-deficit-and-ensure-chinas-food-security/)

You seem to be saying that a 60% increase in corn demand does not affect corn prices, or farmers' choices to plant corn, which is hard to believe.  At the same time, you are saying that your community is getting a lot more revenue than it did before, which is good, which is it?

Some other analyses I have read reported that US land under cultivation (as opposed to fallow/banked) is at a historic high, and underwent a huge surge (along with farmland prices) at the same time that ethanol was launched.


----------



## SD Farmer (Nov 14, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> The 40% number was in the first ten links I checked out, including several national media sources as well as the USDA and the Heritage Foundation, but I only linked one.  The 17% number in your link (corn ethanol trade group/lobbyists) is clearly trying to 'correct' the value by some logic like half of the corn that goes to ethanol should be called feed instead, because of the distillers grains.  It still appears that nearly half of the corn bushels grown in the US go straight to a fermenter.
> 
> That farmers are businessmen that respond to price signals, and that those signals are related to demand, I have to agree.  Ethanol production in the US has increased corn demand by 60%. That is, prior food/feed demand/crop (ten years ago) was 100-40%=60% of the current crop, new demand is 100/60 = 160%, a 60% increase in demand.   While crop yields have steadily improved, that improvement has slowed a bit in the last ten years, and certaintly can't account for a 60% increase in yield.
> 
> ...



The % number depends on what year you pick.  In 2012 it was a bigger number than it will be in 2014 when we produced 14.5 billion bu.  Corn cost of production is >$3.50 for the average producer and current prices are <$3.50.  Prices will adjust corn acres planted in 2015.  Crude oil prices have driven up Ag inputs for several consecutive years so it won't take long to move acres away from the highest input cost option which is corn.  We are projected to have 2 billion bu of carry over corn this crop year even with ethanol output at historical highs.  In 2012, many ethanol plants went idle due to high corn prices.  This happened around the $6 per bu level but it had no impact on the resulting climb to $8.

There is no doubt value to the producer in ethanol just as their is to every US consumer. Building a 50 million gallon per year ethanol plant is a boom of epic proportions to a town of 1000.  The biggest impact to the western corn belt has been leveling basis.  Corn in SD used to be worth about $1 per bu less than it was in IL near the river market, today it is nearly even .  This has driven up land prices proportionately more than out east-where they were much higher start with.  This also contributes to the overall land price spike numbers.

Fallow/banked acres are a function of gov programs and their price levels.  When you can solidly make more money growing a crop than you can enrolling it in a program that pays you not to plant, it's a business decision and acres shift. 

Corn yields are affected hugely by weather conditions.  The dry years of 2010-2013 make it seem that trend line yields increases were running out of steam.  2014 blew the top off the thing.  On my farm, we have made steady overall yield increases the last 5yrs as have many others.


----------



## smokedragon (Nov 15, 2014)

SD Farmer said:


> ...I have weighed all the factors and will use nothing else...use all you can...I'll grow a fresh batch!


I don't disagree that it is something we can grow vs. importing.  But for me, it is less economical (price) and harder on the fuel system.  If it were cheap enough that I felt like I was breaking even monetarily, I would run it.  I am glad they are finally selling it in this area, and it gives people an option (even if it is from the same distributor as the gas).


----------



## spirilis (Oct 26, 2018)

I haven't seen anyone here discuss this yet-

https://www.usda.gov/media/press-re...port-lifecycle-greenhouse-gas-balance-ethanol



> WASHINGTON, Jan 12, 2017—Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced the release of a report studying the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of corn ethanol. The report, A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based Ethanol, finds that GHG emissions associated with corn-based ethanol in the United States are about 43 percent lower than gasoline when measured on an energy equivalent basis. Unlike other studies of GHG benefits, which relied on forecasts of future ethanol production systems and expected impacts on the farm sector, this study reviewed how the industry and farm sectors performed over the past decade to assess the current GHG profile of corn-based ethanol.
> 
> "This report provides evidence that corn ethanol can be a GHG-friendly alternative to fossil fuels, while boosting farm economies" said Vilsack.
> 
> ...


----------



## blades (Oct 29, 2018)

interesting- perhaps a  bit biased?


----------

