Would gas be 6-9 cents a gallon more expensive without ethanol?
Gas prices are noticeably high. Ethanol is not exactly the most loved liquid in the country (unless you're a farmer or a politician representing a farm state). How might you be able to leverage these negatives into a positive? How about making sure people know that all of this corn fuel is saving them at the pump?According to a news release from the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), gasoline that has been blended to include ten percent ethanol is six to nine cents per gallon cheaper at the pump than gasoline that contains no ethanol. ACE uses data from price reports by Axxis Petroleum and the Oil Price Information Service to arrive at these numbers. ACE says about two million gallons of ethanol are added to the nation's fuel supply every day.
[Source: American Coalition for Ethanol]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MikeW 1:35PM (3/25/2008)
If it was, it wouldn't matter.
The increase in mileage would offset the extra cost [if there would be one]
Reply
Rick 1:52PM (3/25/2008)
not true - a limited % ethanol mix can improve the burn and maintain or even improve mileage. It oxygenates the fuel and makes it burn cleaner.
Reply
Turbofrog 1:55PM (3/25/2008)
Not to mention the increase in food prices that impact all of us, even if we don't drive.
Corn ethanol is criminal.
Reply
Whopper 3:49PM (3/25/2008)
You guys are dreaming. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline and, therefore, a 10% mix yields lower mpg, not higher. The ONLY way ethanol ever yielded improved mileage was when it was added to permit increased timing advance and prevent knock. In that case it was added upon demand (WOT wide open throttle) from a separate container under the hood and not added to the gas at the pump. It was abandoned because the public could not be counted on to keep the ethanol container full.
Reply
Mulad 2:47PM (3/25/2008)
I'd say gas would be far more than just 6-9 cents more expensive, more like 20-30 on average and perhaps double that in some corn belt states where ethanol is actually available.
That being said, I have to agree that corn ethanol is not the right way to do things.
Reply
Chris 2:49PM (3/25/2008)
It's more likely that prices are the same as they would have been and any cost decreased by mixing in Ethanol has been passed on to BIG OIL as profits.
Reply
rgseidl 2:49PM (3/25/2008)
E10 contains about 3% less energy by volume than straight gasoline, i.e. the ethanol increases your fuel consumption per mile by 3%. At $3 a gallon, nine cents equals 3% so your cost per mile stays the same.
Moreover, the only reason corn ethanol isn't more expensive is farm subsidies and blender's credits (which go to the oil industry). Drivers are voters and it's all coming out of the same pocket, so what you pay at the pump is not the whole story.
Biofuels could be a good idea, it all depends on the feedstock. Corn is arguably the least sustainable. Wheat, which is what is used in Europe, is just as bad. Single-celled algae would be much better, but we don't yet know how to grow them reliably in the vast quantities required.
Reply
steve 2:54PM (3/25/2008)
You do realize don't you that the corn that makes it to our tables is not the same as the corn used in animal feeds, and is not the same as used in making Ethanol for fuel or booze. So, if anything, Ethanol fuel should only affect the price of things like Jack Daniels and Jim Beam, etc. And if your argument is that we should be using the fallow land for food crops rather than fuel crops, then you would have to also consider that cotton is grown on fallow land that could be used for food production, but instead we choose to use it to grow a crop that offsets our use of petroleum in Poly-vinl fabrics. That being said... I would love to begin seeing engines that are optimized to run ethanol, rather than Gas engines that are able to burn it without burning themselves out.
Reply
Jimmy 4:04PM (3/25/2008)
The US is not building any new refineries, but we are building ethanol plants. If demand increases you will see more and more ethanol displacing petroleum. Corn ethanol is not perfect, but it is much better than petroleum. Second generation biofuel production from waste products is the key to meeting future energy needs.
Reply
gsolman6 4:22PM (3/25/2008)
The gov't subsidy for ethanol works out to $0.51/gallon so no I don't see a benefit to consumers or taxpayers.
Reply
Kevin 10:01PM (3/25/2008)
I know that the corn we eat and the corn that we grow for fuel is two different things . But never the less it has been proven countless times again and again that using corn to create ethanol is very inefficient. IN around 2 years they will be able to make ethanol form oy beans and various other plants making it alot less expensive to make.
Reply
frank78 9:07PM (3/25/2008)
Anyone who is positive about corn ethanol is lying at an incredible level. Let's see- it's worse for the air than gasoline (all steps considered), corn is heavily subsidized as a crop, then a 2nd time when converted to corn ethanol, it's causing worldwide food price increases, causes a person to buy more fuel to go the same distance as gasoline.
Oh yes, and even if 100% of corn in the US were converted to ethanol, it would make up less than 5% of the fuel for driving. I can keep going and going with the negatives.
Reply
Chris M 12:28AM (3/26/2008)
Wheat flour and bread prices are rising because some wheat farmers switched to growing corn to feed the ethanol producers. Oh, and the price of fuel is rising, so shipping costs are increasing for everything, including corn and ethanol.
Reply
Drake 8:20AM (3/26/2008)
I'd rather see my money go to U.S. farmers to grow corn than to the Middle East to pump oil.
Reply
Jesse Thoresen 10:59AM (3/26/2008)
I know that diesel would be less expensive if gasoline did not have ethanol?
Reply
L.Wood 10:36AM (3/26/2008)
Considering the massive government subsidies that make ethanol a "player" in the market place, the idea that gas would be more expensive without ethanol is ridiculous. I must have missed the memo that says it is oki-doki to defend anything and everything regardless of how bogus it may be. Did anyone catch Lanny Davis on Fox last night defending Hillary Clintons remarks about being shot at while visiting Bosnia in the late 90's? I rest my case.
Reply
superdart 6:37PM (3/26/2008)
It's funny how, at the time, they touted Ethenol blend as beig cheaper for us. Gas at the pump didn't drop a penny when they switched, but I saw my mileage drop, so the net gain by using less gas was offset by my loss in mileage (in the vehicle I had at the time)....lose lose situation for me.
I would actually like to know what my NEW vehicle would get if I had REAL gas to put in it. It's flex fuel, but I haven't run E85 in it. I might try it just to see the carnage it inflicts on my fuel economy.
Reply
TheSUBWAY.com 3:18PM (3/27/2008)
We found an interesting article about the problems with Ethanol on ConsumerReports.org:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/03/ethanol-e85.html
"But there are some problems with increasing ethanol blends. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline will likely result in lower fuel economy. Increasing standard fuel blends from zero to 10 percent ethanol, as is happening today, has little or no impact on fuel economy. In tests, the differences occur within the margin of error, about 0.5 percent. Further increasing ethanol levels to 20 percent reduces fuel economy between 1 and 3 percent, according to testing by the DOE and General Motors. Evaluations are underway to determine if E20 will burn effectively in today's engines without impacting reliability and longevity, and also assessing potential impact on fuel economy."
TheSUBWAY.com would like to invite readers to post their own views and ideas in TheSUBWAY.com's Investor Forum:
http://www.thesubway.com/small-cap-forum
Reply