fuel economy is a measure of efficiency, additives are snake oil

mndriver

curmudgeon extraordinare
Supporter
Thread starter #61
It's a shell game in the total energy required to produce one gallon of fuel for the cost isn't there. The ethanol and biofuel industries are heavily subsidized by the government to make them viable. Minnesota even went so far as to create an artificial market for them by requiring it be used in all states vehicles.

One needs to pay very close attention to the price paid and your actual fuel economy to justify what bought for fuel. When I drove a state van, we found out just how bad the state was wasting fuel money on forcing us to use E85.

It's nice having the flexibility, but I can't say its worth it to run all the time.

I could go home and yank out all the notes from the course on "Energy and the Environment". The numbers really surprised me when you put total life cycle costs into it. From building the refineries to their maintenance and their disposal. It's really hard to beat the cost effectiveness of petroleum.

I'm not saying we don't need to find an alternative, but we need to be wiser about a lot of these alternatives than we are or think we are. Some of them, the technology just isn't ready for them. Others, need a major infrastructure update or development.
 

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
#62
Well, I am not so sure. Major studies have been done that show a net BTU energy output from stuff like ethanol, compared to the energy input. For every 1 BTU of energy that is used to make ethanol.... from the fertilizer, to planting, to growing, to harvesting the corn, to the final ethanol product.... there is a 1.34 BTU energy output. A net gain.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf

Some argue about water use. Let's see.... it takes 3 gallons of water to produce ethanol. But it also takes 2.2-5 gallons of water to make gasoline, 14 gallons of water to make a pound of sugar, 24 gallons of water to make a pound of plastics, and the all time champion.... 150 gallons of water to make a sunday newspaper! Ethanol seems pretty decent in light of this info.

Water Use for Ethanol Production - Ethanol - University of Illinois Extension

And subsidies for ethanol production were allowed to expire at the end of 2011. But the oil industry, just in the U.S. alone, enjoys some serious subsidies and benefits at the taxpayer expense. World wide it is $775 billion to $1 trillion in subsidies, grants, etc. In the U.S. alone, around $37 billion. Now considering the ethanol industry in the U.S. only makes around 13 billion gallons of ethanol a year, even if they were subsidized at $1 a gallon, it would still be a fraction of what the oil folks get.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview - Oil Change International

And one thing that doesn't ever seem to get factored in, the cost that is not reflected at the pump for gas or diesel. I don't know of one military person that has lost their life protecting a corn or soybean field, but we all know of the thousands of military lives sacrificed and the thousands wounded in keeping the oil flow going. As a disability retired Army veteran myself, I think I will use the ethanol and biodiesel as much as possible.

And we spent, on average, $14 billion a month just in the Iraqi war thing. At the height of ethanol subsidies, we didn't spend $14 billion a year in subsidies. And we got what in return for the Iraqi thing? But we have an economic gain from the biofuels thing. Again, I'll take the biofuel.
 
Last edited:

Duck

Quack
Supporter
#63
I don't know of one military person that has lost their life protecting a corn or soybean field, but we all know of the thousands of military lives sacrificed and the thousands wounded in keeping the oil flow going.
That's not a problem associated with oil. It's a problem associated with where we choose to get our oil. There's oil reserves all over the world including right here. I read an article about oil slicks showing up on the surface off the coast of California because there is oil literally bubbling up out of the sea floor but the imbeciles won't allow drilling and pumping it out. Tapping those particular reserves would actually clean up the ocean. But you can't convince the environmentalist f***tards of anything that doesn't fall in line with their hardline belief that anything having anything to do with humans using oil is going to cause Armageddon.
 

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
#64
And that is true. The earth is oozing oil out all over the place. Oceans cover 3/4 of the earth surface. It is well documented that oil escapes thru the ocean floor all over the globe.

But one of the major reasons for our incursions into the middle east in Kuwait and Iraq, was to secure the oil fields to keep the oil flowing. It really wasn't for our needs, as we hardly get any oil from the ME, but mostly for Europe. We get the majority of our oil from our own fields, Canada, and Mexico.

But U.S. military lives have been lost in these events. It is what it is. And if all of the cost were tacked on to the fuel at the pump, we would be paying between $6 and $10 a gallon for fuel. That is why I have advocated that all of the actual costs to secure oil fields in foreign engagements, protecting shipping lanes and the tankers that depend on that protection, etc should be applied to the cost of fuel at the pump. Then maybe the people in this country would seriously start to question how we are doing things.
 

BirchBarlow

I love KW 680s
#65
It's a shell game in the total energy required to produce one gallon of fuel for the cost isn't there. The ethanol and biofuel industries are heavily subsidized by the government to make them viable. Minnesota even went so far as to create an artificial market for them by requiring it be used in all states vehicles.

One needs to pay very close attention to the price paid and your actual fuel economy to justify what bought for fuel. When I drove a state van, we found out just how bad the state was wasting fuel money on forcing us to use E85.

It's nice having the flexibility, but I can't say its worth it to run all the time.

I could go home and yank out all the notes from the course on "Energy and the Environment". The numbers really surprised me when you put total life cycle costs into it. From building the refineries to their maintenance and their disposal. It's really hard to beat the cost effectiveness of petroleum.

I'm not saying we don't need to find an alternative, but we need to be wiser about a lot of these alternatives than we are or think we are. Some of them, the technology just isn't ready for them. Others, need a major infrastructure update or development.
Around here Kwik-Trip sells E-15 blend for like 15/20 cents less per gallon than Regualar 87 unleaded

My Owners manual says I can use E-15 so I tried it once ....

My fuel mileage dropped substantially ..

And I hadda get gas again that much sooner than if I just paid the extra few bucks for plain ole Regual 87
 

dchawk81

Well-Known Member
#66
I tried Flex Fuel during our coldest days this winter. It wasn't very good, but neither was the regular 87 I normally get. It ran fine, even had better throttle response. But I think the MPG result was about the same due to all the idling and such. So, not a particularly fair time to compare.

I'm gonna try it again this spring when temperatures help with normal fuel economy and I'm only burning when on the move and not just to defrost windows.

I think the newer your vehicle is, the better it can adapt to various fuels compared to older vehicles that can run on the same fuels.

Either that or our Flex Fuel doesn't have a super high ethanol content. It's never specified, which is probably my biggest peeve.
 

BirchBarlow

I love KW 680s
#67
I tried Flex Fuel during our coldest days this winter. It wasn't very good, but neither was the regular 87 I normally get. It ran fine, even had better throttle response. But I think the MPG result was about the same due to all the idling and such. So, not a particularly fair time to compare.

I'm gonna try it again this spring when temperatures help with normal fuel economy and I'm only burning when on the move and not just to defrost windows.

I think the newer your vehicle is, the better it can adapt to various fuels compared to older vehicles that can run on the same fuels.

Either that or our Flex Fuel doesn't have a super high ethanol content. It's never specified, which is probably my biggest peeve.
I tried Flex Fuel during our coldest days this winter. It wasn't very good, but neither was the regular 87 I normally get. It ran fine, even had better throttle response. But I think the MPG result was about the same due to all the idling and such. So, not a particularly fair time to compare.

I'm gonna try it again this spring when temperatures help with normal fuel economy and I'm only burning when on the move and not just to defrost windows.

I think the newer your vehicle is, the better it can adapt to various fuels compared to older vehicles that can run on the same fuels.

Either that or our Flex Fuel doesn't have a super high ethanol content. It's never specified, which is probably my biggest peeve.
Uh @dchawk81 you are refering to E-85 which requires a Full "Flex" Fuel setup..

Mine is not Flex Fuel though anything 2010 on can do E-15.

E-15 is basically your old school Reformulated regular gasoline just higher octane..

Here in the Midwest this is the GrainBelt so several chains offer it at reduced price..

The Gain was "nothing"...for what I saved in pump price I just hadda get gas that much sooner
 

dchawk81

Well-Known Member
#68
Uh @dchawk81 you are refering to E-85 which requires a Full "Flex" Fuel setup..

Mine is not Flex Fuel though anything 2010 on can do E-15.

E-15 is basically your old school Reformulated regular gasoline just higher octane..

Here in the Midwest this is the GrainBelt so several chains offer it at reduced price..

The Gain was "nothing"...for what I saved in pump price I just hadda get gas that much sooner
Nope Flex Fuel and E85 aren't the same thing. And my pickup is indeed Flex Fuel. Flex can have anywhere between 51 and 83% Ethanol and it doesn't have to say.
IMG_20180126_085320.jpg
 

BirchBarlow

I love KW 680s
#69
Nope Flex Fuel and E85 aren't the same thing. And my pickup is indeed Flex Fuel. Flex can have anywhere between 51 and 83% Ethanol and it doesn't have to say. View attachment 43612
Nope @dchawk81 ya didnt even Read my damn Post...

E-15 heres a Link to inform ya should ya ever 4 wheel to the MIDWEST or TRUMP COUNTRY..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw32wz4IS2DiZq2MDA99lnJY&cf=1

In qoutes..

"
le corn-derived E85 fuel has been in the Chicago market for a number of years, one gas station operator is betting that a fairly new ethanol-gasoline blend will be a hit with drivers.

E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, is widely available in the south and southwest suburbs, and is priced substantially cheaper than regular unleaded, which contains up to 10 percent ethanol."...

Now the E-15 Blend and again ya had better have a 2010 or newer model to run this stuff..

Its 15/20 cents Cheaper than Regular 87 due to "SUBSIDIES"


The E15 blend, which Thorntons is selling as Unleaded15, has a slightly higher octane than regular unleaded, and, the company says, can be used in any vehicle made since the 2001 model year.

Miles-per-gallon are on par with regular unleaded, according to the company, now pricing it 3 cents less per gallon than regular, although that could change, according to Matt Nichols, a project manager with the Louisville, Ky.-based chain.
 

dchawk81

Well-Known Member
#70
Must be a regional thing because our Flex Fuel is labeled as up to 83%...not 85%.

Y'all must have actual 85% ethanol and it's not pumped here that I've seen. In fact Sheetz seems to be one of few places with Flex Fuel at all locally.

Like I said though...I have a Flex Fuel pickup.
 
Top