Posted by docmirror on May 14, 2018 at 17:45:30 from (107.213.165.255):
In Reply to: Flex fuel..real data posted by Hay hay hay on May 13, 2018 at 18:06:04:
I have one flex fuel vehicle. I'm in TX, and travel plenty. I tested two discrete trips from the Fort Worth are to Katy and back on E85, and then on E10. Using the best prices I could find for both fuels, the E85 was consistently higher cost per mile. It seemed to average about 1.2 cents per mile higher cost.
Ethanol makes a good octane booster. It's also a good fuel, but is not as energy dense as gas or diesel(as noted before). The other factors are production efficiency/cost. We have been hydrocracking oils for more than a century, and we are really, really good at it. From my investigation back in 2016 when we bought the E85 car, the cost to produce Ethanol for fuel is about double, or slightly higher than double the cost to produce gas from crude. There is a big 'however' involved here. Calculating the cost to produce is fraught with peril. Determining the life cycle cost of a commodity is really tough.
Next, the mishigoss of 'subsidies'. Although the cash subsidies for Ethanol ended in 2012, there is the lingering cost of the time value of borrowed money(a significant percent of our national budget is for interest on debt) which was spent on those subsidies from 2003-12. Some portion of that money paid out was borrowed, and we are still paying for the bonds floated to make those subsidies. This is true of all expenditures. In economics we would call this the indirect cost of funds. Adding to that, there are still farm subsidies for corn, and I can't decipher all the different subsidies that are given, and then allocate the part of that subsidy that would be spent on Ethanol fuel infrastructure. It is a non-zero number, and it must be taken into account because Ethanol fuel is still intact(RFS-46414G-31-2018).
Another however, there may be changes afoot in the mandate with this admin. But - as long as the mandate is present, the cost of complying with that fed order has to be taken into account.
A few more notes, non-ethanol is becoming more widely available all the time. We have it at our local walmart now, and I've seen it advertised on some travel stations along the interstate. One more indirect, but important cost is the damage to engines, and the reduced engine life of many early auto, motorcycle, boat, and small retail engines. Frex; I bought a top of the line 4 stroke weed trimmer from Stihl. I took such good care of it, fresh oil on time, don't overheat it, clean air, etc. However, they recommended E10 fuel in it. within 2 years, the piston was scraping on the cyl, and it was burning oil badly. I'm certain that quite a bit of the damage was due to using Ethanol fuel.
Lastly, supposing that Ethanol laced fuel actually does improve emissions. Lets say it reduces the CO by ~2%(has little to no effect on HC). The question we must then ask is; 'does the lowered energy density, and the worse cost of production of Ethanol offset the original CO produces by the IC engine in a catalyzed auto system?' In other words, if we completely get rid of Ethanol fuel production, and go back to some other iso-octane method, and live with the slightly higher CO produced, would be be a net gain or a net loss of environmental damage?
There are plenty of engineers who have postulated both ways. Frankly, in my opinion, I would like to have the mandate withdrawn, and allow the production and burning of E10 or E25, or E85 to reach it's market maturity. Unless or until there is definitive net gain to the environment which can be measured well. This is a complex calculus.
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]
Today's Featured Article - Timing Your Magneto Ignition Tractor - by Chris Pratt. If you have done major engine work or restored your tractor, chances are you removed the magneto and spark plug wires and eventually reached the point where you had to put it all back together and make it run. On our first cosmetic restoration, not having a manual, we carefully marked the wires, taped the magneto in the position it came off, and were careful not to turn the engine over while we had these components off. We thought we could get by with this since the engine ran perfectly and would not need any internal work. After the cleanup and painting was done, we began reassembly and finally came to t
... [Read Article]
Latest Ad:
1964 I-H 140 tractor with cultivators and sidedresser. Starts and runs good. Asking 2650. CALL RON AT 502-319-1952
[More Ads]
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
