E15 is here next year

[MCRIDER007]

I don't understand what you are writing.
My personal comparison test are purely from a cost of fuel per mile on my own engines. In my own test, considering the current cost of fuel in my city, and my own differences in mileage observed under two separate and complete tanks of fuel, driving under similar conditions, there is no appreciable difference in cost of the either fuel.

Your analysis is all about cost between the fuel alternatives but it assumes, based on 2 tanks of fuel, that E10 gets 10 percent less mileage than E-0....and the only way that would be possible is if the ethanol added to the gasoline was only there to take up space, it contains no additional energy to contribute to mileage at all....and if that were the case, then E85 would get 85 percent less mileage than E-0.

 

[El Toro]

There is very little difference in performance for fresh E10 compared to E0. Because the alcohol is a bit denser than typical gasoline blends, the loss in energy content (which is given in MegaJoules per kilogram) isn't actually very much on a per liter basis for a 10% ethanol blend.

If you use the road load equation to define two identical tasks, like ride your FJR to Grandma's house, and you plug and chug through the energy conversion equations for a properly tuned IC engine, the differences between the mpg you get with the E10 and the mpg you get with the E0 will be lost in your actual personal driving habits.

The problem with ethanol blended into the gas is that it drives off volatile components (which are necessary for cold starting), and depending on the materials used in the fuel system, it can cause premature degradation of storage and fuel delivery components. And then there is the issue that, if you don't drive the vehicle for a while, the ethanol laced gasoline can gum things up. It won't happen overnight, but before we got ethanol laced fuel, the need for fuel stabilizers was minimal if you weren't doing long term storage.

 

[hppants]

Huh?

2 tanks of gas is not a scientific, statistically analyzed, journal-ready publication - I certainly get that.

And granted, I didn't run my 25 gallon test tanks on my pickup truck in a controlled proving ground track measuring weather conditions, tire pressures, coefficients of drag, and anything else with big words in it. I simply commuted to my job with my wife for 2 weeks, filled up, rinsed, lathered, and repeated...

But it doesn't matter what takes up which space. Both fuels are purchased on the same unit of volume - a gallon is a gallon. I simply compared the ethanol blend to the non-ethanol fuel on a COST PER MILE basis. In the end, they cost (virtually) the same. The E-10 gets about 10% less fuel mileage, but cost about 10% less to purchase.

Now getting into the nitty gritty, the non-ethanol fuel station is about 3 miles (each way) and 6-8 minutes out of my normal path. That I suppose has some cost, but for the most part, I'm just too lazy to stand on a matter of principle.

Ironically, if (big if) the boat gets better fuel mileage on the E-10, I might consider splurging on the E-0 because of all of the water/alcohol concern. But alas, I'm too cheap... er.... frugal to go through with it. Lazy, and frugal.

Besides, the E-10 station has that cappuccino thingie that wifey really likes. Every now and then, I like to surprise her with a treat on our way to work.

 

[900gc]

A few people run E85 because their vehicles can handle it and it is normally a lot cheaper by the gallon. I know that may be a false economy, but that's what some people do.

A more popular reason in my neck of the woods is for people to use E85 in high performance applications because it runs cooler. They burn it fast to get the horsepower, but can run more boost without overheating, so it is useful for short runs.

I don't know if E15 will really cause problems in vehicles designed for E10, but I would not use it unless I had no other choice.

Anybody who runs E85 because it is cheaper and chooses to fill the tank with it a second time is mathematically and financially challenged.
E85 has a much lower energy content compared to E10 or E0 (real gasoline).

Your mpg will drop quite a bit so that even the least casual observer should be able to notice it. The cost difference doesn't come close to making up the mpg difference, at least not around here.

A few years back one of the major auto mags. did a direct comparo in cost per mile of E85 vs. 'regular' gas in a Chevy truck. At the time with the cost differential of the fuels, it was pretty close. What they really hated though was the loss of performance with the E85 and concluded (paraphrased) that we must be stupid to make it and use it.

 

[Fred W]

Actually...

Ethanol is good to have in your fuel if you are concerned about water (condensate) contamination. In E0 fuel the water stays separated and, being heavier, collects at the bottom of the tank and/or fuel filter until it is enough to cause real problems. In ethanol blends the alcohol absorbs small quantities of H2O and it is burned off during combustion of that fuel.

Back "in the day" of only having E0, northerners would all add ethanol (dry gas) to the tank in the cold winter months or suffer the ravages of water freezing up in the tank, fuel filter or fuel lines.

@hppants - I think what MC is saying is that it is not technically possible to have a reduced mileage of 10% that is attributable to only a change to fuel with 10% ethanol. You may have experienced a 10% loss in mpg, but it had to have been influenced by some other factors in addition to the ethanol. Which means that the 10% increased cost of the E0 is a bad deal.

Think about it this way: If E0 gas is $2 a gallon, that means they will sell you 9/10ths of a gallon for 10% less ($1.80). So if the E10 fuel is being sold for 10% less per gallon than the E0, then that means you are getting the ethanol fraction completely for free.

 

[El Toro]

A few years back one of the major auto mags. did a direct comparo in cost per mile of E85 vs. 'regular' gas in a Chevy truck. At the time with the cost differential of the fuels, it was pretty close. What they really hated though was the loss of performance with the E85 and concluded (paraphrased) that we must be stupid to make it and use it.

Another English Majors' Science Project. Magazines ... the modern storehouse of information that will still be accessible when the power goes off.

Try it yourself and see if you can get close to the same mpg performance. If the engine is tuned properly for the E85, there is no reason to have problems with performance. The stoichiometric air to fuel ratio for E85 is about 10, compared to about 14.5 for E0. So you'll need to be doin' a lot more squirtin'. And if you do the extra squirtin', then there's no reason not to get decent performance ...

Now if they ran the E85 super lean (with a gasoline level AFR), that would lead to the result reported, i.e. similar gas mileage, but reduced power. I don't like that tradeoff myself.

 

[El Toro]

Back "in the day" of only having E0, northerners would all add ethanol (dry gas) to the tank in the cold winter months or suffer the ravages of water freezing up in the tank, fuel filter or fuel lines.

People still use dry gas. I think the recommended ratio is something like a pint to 10 or 15 gallons, so it's a tiny percentage and won't turn a tank of E0 into E10, or anything close.

The hygroscopic nature of ethanol is both a boon and a bane.

Instead of having the water settle out, the water ethanol mixture can settle out. You basically trade one problem for another.

FWIW, I've never seen anyone recommend dry gas unless they were also of the "Marvel Mystery Oil will fix that tappet rapping" crowd. Granted, it's a big crowd.

One of the things I hate about teaching IC Engines or Alternative Fuels and Power Trains is that everyone's already been schooled by the magazines or their uncle, so the activity is much more difficult than teaching something like Thermo II or Nonlinear Programming where the starting point is cleaner.

Sigh...

I'd better spend a few more nights at the Holiday Inn Express.

 

[Fred W]

Never heard of anyone needing dry gas since the introduction of E10. Yes we did need to use dry gas prior to that. I had a few instances of iced up fuel pumps or filters. Actually happened to me when we were heading up to Stowe,VT on our honeymoon back in 1977, in our 1975 Mazda RX-3 coupe!

Yes, I've seen the dry gas on the shelves still, right next to that Marvel Mystery Oil* you spoke of.

I've never once experienced "phase separation" or any of the other evils often attributed to ethanol blended fuel storage, and I abuse my fuel tanks more than the average bear. My motorcycles and outdoor power equipment will often times sit for 5 or even 6 months in the cold New England winters. Yeah, I've had to clean out carburetors after storage abuse, but that was due to varnish buildup in the jets and floats from the fuel evaporation, not from the ethanol.

* - The funniest part about MMO is the word "Mystery" is right in the name. As in: it's a mystery what this stuff is supposed to do when you pour it in the gas or crankcase. Oh that's right... it "lubricates the top end".

 

[Pterodactyl]

In AK we used alcohol quite a bit. Isopropyl in the tank and all too often ethanol in the driver.

 

[hppants]

Fred and M/C - I had to hit myself in the head with it, but eventually I did get what you are explaining. I still maintain my opinion of that, which is respectfully ... Buffalo Bagels.

I certainly respect anyone else's right to their own opinion, but don't get stuck in the weeds. If I'm trying to chose a product that will get me from here to there in the cheapest manner, statistical sampling shortage aside, my method is valid.

A mile is a mile

A gallon is a gallon

Both fuel alternatives are sold with the same currency.

This ain't rocket science...

Of course, everything changes if (when) the price of E-10 goes way up. IIRC, the E-0 differential at higher prices is less, thereby making it a more valuable choice.

 

[El Toro]

Never heard of anyone needing dry gas since the introduction of E10. Yes we did need to use dry gas prior to that. I had a few instances of iced up fuel pumps or filters. Actually happened to me when we were heading up to Stowe,VT on our honeymoon back in 1977, in our 1975 Mazda RX-3 coupe!
Yes, I've seen the dry gas on the shelves still, right next to that Marvel Mystery Oil* you spoke of.

I've never once experienced "phase separation" or any of the other evils often attributed to ethanol blended fuel storage, and I abuse my fuel tanks more than the average bear. My motorcycles and outdoor power equipment will often times sit for 5 or even 6 months in the cold New England winters. Yeah, I've had to clean out carburetors after storage abuse, but that was due to varnish buildup in the jets and floats from the fuel evaporation, not from the ethanol.

Old guys are the worst.

"Yes I've had to clean yada yada yada, but we did a detailed analysis of what we cleaned and it had nothing to do with the ethanol/water blend separating out of the gasoline."

One of the simple ways to figure out what the ethanol content of unknown E?? is to take 100 ccs of it and add 10 ccs of water. The water and ethanol will join, and if you let it stand, it will separate out and you can measure the gasoline that's left. The ccs in the gasoline phase is the percent gasoline in the original blend. So if you've got 90 ccs of gasoline, and 20 ccs of ethanol/water, the original blend was E10.

I grew up in your neck of the woods. I know about the guys who thought dry gas was helping them. Maybe so... maybe no ... but even if it did help, you surely didn't add a gallon of ethanol to 10 gallons of gasoline to get the benefit. If you stop and think about just how little ethanol is added to a gas tank with the recommended dry gas dose, why would you expect that it would get to the appointed spot and fix the icing issue in anything approaching real time?

Do they still sell dry gas up there in New England? If they do, and if nearly all of your fuel is E10 (or so it appears to a casual annual short term observer), then what's the purpose for the dry gas now, except as continued proof that P. T. Barnum was right?

I think you're very lucky that you can store ethanol and have it start reliably and not cause issues for your engines. You may need to patent your process. No one else can do it with a high degree of reliability. If everyone had your experience on this issue, all the marine, motorcycle, and small engine lobbying obstacles to moving to E15 or E20 would pass with a wave of the hand.

 

[RichDoyle]

Here's an example:

E0 has a Low Heat Content of about 115,000 BTU/gal (there is variability to this number for varioius reasons. I picked a number near the higher end)

Ethanol has a Low Heat Content of 76,330 BTU/gal (more predictable number, as it's a specific molecule)

Let's mix up a 10-gallon batch of E10, shall we?

9 gallons of E0 @ 115,000 BTU per = 1,035,000 BTU

Add 1 gallon of ethanol = 76,330

Total heating value in that 10 gallons = 1,111,330 BTU

10 Gallons of E0, of course, would be 1,150,000 BTU

The ratio of the het of combustion of the E10 to the E0 is 1,111,330/1,150,000 = .966, or just short of 97% (~3% shortfall) of the energy content of E0. Doing a similar calculation for E15 produces about a 5% shortfall.

Stating that E10 has 10% shortfall seems to imply that ethanol provides no energy whatsoever to the combustion. Doesn't seem rational.

Of course, the deterioration of fuel system components is a valid point. The effect is unknown in any given vehicle not designed for the specific fuel. But also keep in mind that E0 is a blend of various compounds that vary by supplier, geography, season, and the march of technology. You really don't know what you're putting in your tank even when it's E0.

 

[El Toro]

Yeah, those numbers were bogus and probably the result of other issues in the gasoline blends considered.

Gasoline is a mixture of different liquid hydrocarbons, blended to achieve octane targets, startability, energy content, and pricing goals. What you buy one week may be different from what's available the next. And then you get into the issues of seasonal blending and boutique blending (as required by some municipalities to improve emissions performance).

If you really want to get the best picture for the comparo, you have to consider the heat release and energy conversion in the context of the road load that is presented.

The difference between E10 and E0 is pretty small if all other things are equal.

Current research suggests that since ethanol has a very high octane rating, blends like E30 or higher might allow higher compression ratios, which would then lead to higher thermal efficiencies. Lots of work has been done in the last few years on this issue.

 

[hppants]

Damm it - I'm fallen in NEPRT and I can't get up....

Uncle.

 

[Bounce]

A mile is a mileA gallon is a gallon

Both fuel alternatives are sold with the same currency.

Except when it's a US gallon vs an Imperial gallon.

 

[Abercrombie FJR]

I always look at the cost of burning ethanol from a broader view. I always figure you have to add in the total cost of using ethanol by adding in the increased taxes used to subsidize this product. I don't believe that it would be feasible to manufacture on the free market.

Point I'm trying I was trying to make is, ethanol is costing more than you think when just adding price at the pump, or reduced gas mileage. I think you need to add in the increased taxes and food prices in to the cost of burning ethanol.

Edit

This post is heavily edited to remove most of my political views related to the cost of production, distribution and use of ethanol.