help me understand - e85

I have a Chevy truck that can use e85. I get 15% less mpg with e85 and e85 is 15% less expensive than gasoline. Is this a coincidence?

Also, with gas prices going up, shouldn't e85 only go up 15% of what the price of gas increased? So if gas is $2.00/gal, e85 is $1.70. When gas goes increases $1/gal to $3.00, e85 which is 15% gasoline should only increase 15 cents to $1.95. Right??

 

yep, go get some E85 and tell me how it runs.

I'm sure somebody will come along tell you your wasting money. But it's fairly equal.

 

Don't think I'm wasting money. If it costs 15% less and I get 15% less - it's a wash. If using e85 is better for the environment then even better.

 

That is a loaded question?


- air (air quality/smog): Maybe!
- water/soil/land use: Probably not as good/great.
- political/economic: Absolutely! And, the reason why it is being pushed.

The latter is the most prevalent of the environments! IMHO.

 

i will tell you this when running on e85 you will have a different/no so nice smell coming from your vehicle

 

E85 is all about carbon footprint. Aimed at making a better enviornmnet.

However, E85 is tasking the economy because much of the farmland is now being converted to corn crops. The price of wheat just skyrocketed because of supply/demand.

 

Which is a load of crap. How much energy is needed to produce that ethanol?

 

http://www.autoweb.com/content/shar.../article_page_order_int/1/article_id_int/1479

 

damn ethanol. its also the reason the price of tequila has risen in the last year. damn mexican farmers not growing as much agave so they can farm corn.

 

If your losing 15% in both areas, then technically it's a wash. However, you are on a different scale altogether, meaning $2.00 a gallon is better all day. Assuming gas is 3.00 a gallon and you get 20 miles to the gallon(for ease of math), you will lose about 3 miles per gallon. However, if gas goes from 2.00 to 3.00, that is a 50% increase. If your assumption that E85 stays about 15% cheaper than gas, then E85 should be about $2.55 a gallon. Is it? Glenn #62 MRA

 

I used $2.00/gal as an example. Currently e85 is 15% or so cheaper than regular gas. What I am wondering is how it stays 15% cheaper. When gas was $2, e85 was $1.70, when gas was $3, e85 was $2.55. Gas is now $3.50 and e85 is around $3 which is around %15 cheaper.

My question is how? So from $2/gal to $3.50/gal gasoline has increased by $1.50/gal. If e85 is only 15% gasoline and gasoline increases are based on prices of oil, refining, etc how is the difference always 15%. If e85 users share the increase of gasoline, e85 should only increase 15% of what gasoline does or 15% of $1.50 which is $0.23. I can't imagine the other costs are the same.

 

Marketing!

e-scam (I mean e85) will remain 15% cheaper gas as long as people keep purchasing it. They benefit from gas prices being high. e85 is not being sold as a solution and I would question if it is even an alternative.

 

A SHORT STORY



Two high dollar CEO's and one high ranking lobbyist meets every week at the Petroleum Club for lunch and a good cigar in the smoking room afterward. Being curious about each others business and duties they start discussing the different ways each other's business could benefit from the other's.

One of them is deeply involved in the Corn Growers Association, one is deeply involved in Petroleum and the third has great power, as a lobbyist, with the President. An idea is broached by one of them. The man in Petroleum suggests that if the Corn Grower were to start producing ethanol as a fuel additive and the lobbyist can promote it with the President, then all could make a hell of a profit because they could manipulate the prices, and as complicated as it would be, noone would be able to figure out the whole affair. The President could push Congress to mandate ethanol use which would result in an increase fuel costs and, at the same time, cause a corn shortage which would drive up the cattle feed industry and food industries. They could all invest in each of those industries and make even more profit.

And so it was and here we are.

 

And, if you are a farmer, you will plant wheat for next year. Therefore, expect a shortage of corn the following year. I don't know how long this cycle will go but I expect that it will go on for some time.

I don't really follow the carbon footprint (environmental) argument. And I am not an environmentalist (as defined by the media) but I would guesstimate that the impacts of farming for fuel source are great.

Some (Tommy) here have argued about pipelines and their environmental impacts. Farming is far more detrimental, and one of the greatest threat to erosion and dust pollution, much more than any temporary trench.

This trend towards ethanol will have unmeasurable impacts with regards to erosion.

Brazil implementation (mandate) of ethanol as the sole fuel source is harming the Amazon and you don't see any uprising by environmentalist. They are so blind by the hatred of big oil. It is unbelievable.

The environmetalist have concentrated all their might against the SUV (Big Oil) but much more can be done for conservation if we start generating our electricity from region specific-favorable resources.

If you have wind, utilize wind power. If you are on the coast, look at tide generation. If you can do with water, use it. Solar, if it is feasible.

Diversification is key. My opinion of course.

 

BS. The Portugese learned long ago, the rain forest isn't a place to plant cane.

Evironmentalist have been pushing conservation for a long time.

 

You're correct of course. We have no choice but to diversify and, work toward renewable sources only. The arguments continue as to where we are in the exploration of crude. Some say that we have already peaked in oil production while others say that won't happen for another 30 to 50 years. The price, of course, goes up anyway. I'll be greatly surprised if gasoline ever goes back below $2.75 and I won't be surprised if stays at or above $3.00.

Producing corn isn't the answer. I think that I read something that if we converted every square mile of agricultural land in the US to corn we would only produce enough corn to replace less than 5% of gasoline used today. A drop in the bucket.

 

There is no renewable energy source.

 

First, do you know what you are talking about.

-Where did I say that there was any planting of cane in the rain forest?
-You could deforest the rain forest and then plant cane, just in case you were wondering.
-I suspect that sugar cane has a potential to adversely affect the Amazon due to erosion and chemical. I know this effects of Sugar Cane production on an ecosystem (Florida Everglades).


2nd, stop taking things out of context.

I never said that Environmentalist were not for conservation. I just think that their hatred of Big Oil blinds them to solutions and often misguide them in implementation. Sure we can save or consume less if we drove smaller more efficient cars but this is not the end of all things.

We need diversification including Nuclear and even your love frenchman use this technology extensively. However, Nuclear Power is distasteful to most environmetalist.

 

I said the Amazon rain forest is unsuitable to plant sugar cane.

I don't think environmentalist's have blind hate. If it wasn't for them we wouldn't have higher cafe standards.

BTW - why are we talking about Brazil. We can produce cellulosic ethanol right here for about $1.80 a gallon.

Nuclear isn't answer. High initial cost and maintenance make it more expensive then coal.

Clean coal technology is were its at.

 

Give it up man. Nuclear is the answer, actually part of the answer. Never put all your eggs in one basket. We've already provided numerous sources that show nuclear and coal is about the same currently. When you start with the "clean coal tech" it starts getting more expensive than nuclear. Get the beurocratic bullshit out of the nuclear industry then it gets significantly cheaper than coal.