- :
- 2015 Mazda CX-5 Touring FWD
Has anyone tried alcohol free gas yet? Did you note much of a difference in fuel economy, or performance?
Thanks, Cheers
Thanks, Cheers
Alcohol Free Gas
- Thread starter Goguinness
- Start date
There is none available where I live so I havent tried it in the CX-5.
You should notice a 3%-4% increase in fuel economy and no difference at all in performance.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml
Instead of 30MPG you would be looking at over 30.9MPG
How do the prices compare for E0 vs E10? I recently saw an article that implied that the E10 requirement is preventing further drops in gas prices.
Last edited:
- :
- 2015 Mazda CX-5 Touring FWD
I filled up today for the first time with EtOH free gas, and it was $2.25, with reg gas prices running around $1.98.
This is funny because back in the 1970's (before gas had alcohol), car enthusiasts would spend a lot of money on alcohol to add to the regular gasoline. All kinds of wondrous benefits were claimed from smoother, cooler running, better economy and elimination of stumbles and flat spots. And since we've had alcohol in most gasoline, problems with freezing fuel lines and water in the gas have almost disappeared.
That was also back in the day of carburettors, inefficiency, and dirty combustion where they used lead to improve the octane rating - of course ethanol was desirable under those circumstances. But these days, the CX-5 engine runs at 13:1 on regular gas. Who needs ethanol in this context?
Never mind the dramatic increase in corn prices, or the fossil fuel energy spent producing the corn, or the destruction of pristine arable land for corn monoculture. Considering the utter failure of cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel and biomethane both show far greater promise from an environmental and economic standpoint. Of course, if you are genuinely concerned about oil or fossil fuel consumption, nuclear-fed electric cars trump the lot of them. Ethanol in fuel is full retard.
Last time I bought corn it was 4 ears/dollar. Hardly enough to worry about.
I'm simply saying that ethanol helps keep demand for oil lower than supply. This is good for consumers and makes it difficult for groups like ISIS to amass millions of dollars that would likely be used to disrupt the free world. Top fuel dragsters also like alcohol. And lots of fuels show more promise than ethanol but the same could be said of gasoline. That's not a good reason not to use gasoline.
I'm simply saying that ethanol helps keep demand for oil lower than supply. This is good for consumers and makes it difficult for groups like ISIS to amass millions of dollars that would likely be used to disrupt the free world. Top fuel dragsters also like alcohol. And lots of fuels show more promise than ethanol but the same could be said of gasoline. That's not a good reason not to use gasoline.
Actually, it is the ethanol that raises the octane of modern refined gasoline to an acceptable level and it does this more cheaply than the alternatives.
Fine, except for the fact that we were reaching 87 AKI with regular gas just fine before ethanol became mandated.
That is fine from the comfort of your ski chalet, but what about the rest of the world? Corn-based staples in developing nations have increase in price FAR higher than inflation. Ethanol in fuel is stupid.
You must not be comprehending very well. Of course there are many ways to reach the desired octane from a refining perspective, I can buy 92 octane that is alcohol free but the refinery is going to charge considerably more if they can't use alcohol to achieve the desired octane. At least that was true when oil was over $100/barrel and we were paying nearly $4.00/gal. Now that oil is down to $46/barrel and we are only paying $1.85/gal. (at least in my area), the cost benefit of using alcohol to boost octane may be much smaller or even slightly negative.
But do you really think gas would be so affordable right now if we had not been easing demand on oil by using bio-fuels like alcohol to replace 9% of that oil?
Have you ever been to Brazil? All new cars run on 95% alcohol/5% water and they run very well indeed. Older vehicles have been converted to run on E85. The air in traffic jams is safe to breathe (unlike in the US) and Brazil's switch from petrol to alcohol has allowed them to become a net exporter of oil which has created an economic boom and previously unheard of prosperity over the last decade or so. The fact that Brazil is exporting considerable quantities of oil priced in US dollars (while previously they were a net importer) has contributed greatly to the current affordable gas prices in the US. That's because oil prices are very sensitive to supply/demand.
Who would have thought alcohol as a motor fuel could benefit so many people around the globe all while keeping the air cleaner?
The mantra that alcohol as a motor fuel is stupid is propaganda spread by oil interests who are running scared that their reserves are no longer "black gold". I'm not sure why you are so much more concerned about the price of a cheap commodity like corn than you are an expensive commodity like gasoline. Me thinks your oil stocks have taken a beating and you thought it was a sure thing. We have alcohol to thank, in no small amount, for the current low gasoline prices.
What about the rest of the world? Like Brazil? Like Mexico? Like Australia and New Zealand? Like Spain? Like the people right here in the US who are struggling to put food on the table? I can assure you, any extra they might spend on corn is made up many times by the cheaper cost of gasoline. You claim ethanol in fuel is stupid without supplying one good reason. It would be much easier to make a fact based case that using petroleum as a motor fuel is stupid. We could start with cancer deaths from petroleum combustion by-products even though global sea level rise is a much bigger problem for our children and grandchildren. Alcohol as a motor fuel is carbon neutral. You fail to make a logical case that alcohol is bad.
I don't have the time and the energy for a full internet argument, so let me just point you to a good article from Forbes that summarises some IPCC findings: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/
To quickly dotpoint out a few of your errors......
The cost reduction from ethanol is far lower than you would think, especially for E10; even if ethanol was free, the cost reduction is 10% max, far less when you consider the overheads. But a quick Google brings up USDA data showing that over the last 30 years, ethanol has at best been only slightly cheaper than gas http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/US_Bioenergy/Prices/table14.xls. A terrible set of figures considering ethanol has a lower energy density per gallon. The rest of your economic argument falls down considering that current oil oversupply is far more than 10% (and only a portion of this oil is used for fuel), and that prices have historically been inflated purely by artificial limitations on supply.
Yes, some people in developed countries may save money through cheaper gasoline relative to food prices. But FAR more globally are worse off; these are people living on just a few dollars a day, who cannot afford fuel, and who live subsistence lives - not just at poverty but bordering total starvation. I'm so glad you consider these people less relevant than those in countries that still have substantial social security safety nets.
Alcohol is AT BEST carbon neutral in theory. But practically, most estimates put ethanol as contributing 30-90% of the CO2 of gasoline. So while this may still seem better on paper Brazil's forest land, for example, has been positively raped to make way for sugar cane monoculture. I'm not quite sure how the environmental benefits of ever-so-slightly-less-particulates in cities, and a loss of irreplaceable forest land, is more valuable an environmental endpoint.
Citing oil propaganda while ignoring the political power of the corn and sugar lobby is nave at best, and totally wrong at worst. Further, trying to use the FUD of oil interests to attack me is a cheap shot with no basis in reality. I think that powering our cars with any kind of organic liquid including dinosaur juice is stupid. If you want to lay any bias on me, I am a nuclear stooge who believes that electric cars fed by nuclear combined with renewables like wind/solar/hydro/tidal/etc. are a far superior solution.
Ethanol as fuel is full retard. The science says it, the logic says it. No other conclusion makes any sense.
To quickly dotpoint out a few of your errors......
The cost reduction from ethanol is far lower than you would think, especially for E10; even if ethanol was free, the cost reduction is 10% max, far less when you consider the overheads. But a quick Google brings up USDA data showing that over the last 30 years, ethanol has at best been only slightly cheaper than gas http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/US_Bioenergy/Prices/table14.xls. A terrible set of figures considering ethanol has a lower energy density per gallon. The rest of your economic argument falls down considering that current oil oversupply is far more than 10% (and only a portion of this oil is used for fuel), and that prices have historically been inflated purely by artificial limitations on supply.
Yes, some people in developed countries may save money through cheaper gasoline relative to food prices. But FAR more globally are worse off; these are people living on just a few dollars a day, who cannot afford fuel, and who live subsistence lives - not just at poverty but bordering total starvation. I'm so glad you consider these people less relevant than those in countries that still have substantial social security safety nets.
Alcohol is AT BEST carbon neutral in theory. But practically, most estimates put ethanol as contributing 30-90% of the CO2 of gasoline. So while this may still seem better on paper Brazil's forest land, for example, has been positively raped to make way for sugar cane monoculture. I'm not quite sure how the environmental benefits of ever-so-slightly-less-particulates in cities, and a loss of irreplaceable forest land, is more valuable an environmental endpoint.
Citing oil propaganda while ignoring the political power of the corn and sugar lobby is nave at best, and totally wrong at worst. Further, trying to use the FUD of oil interests to attack me is a cheap shot with no basis in reality. I think that powering our cars with any kind of organic liquid including dinosaur juice is stupid. If you want to lay any bias on me, I am a nuclear stooge who believes that electric cars fed by nuclear combined with renewables like wind/solar/hydro/tidal/etc. are a far superior solution.
Ethanol as fuel is full retard. The science says it, the logic says it. No other conclusion makes any sense.
That article cites the same petroleum industry propaganda and studies funded by the oil industry. Without pointing out every misleading statistic and cleverly worded statements designed to create a false impression, I'll just say it's heavily biased and misleading. At least it's done in a way that is not a total bastardization of the truth - it's just slanted and misleading. There is big money on the line for oil interests.
Yes, ethanol is cheaper than gas (even when you average in all those years when gas was below $1.00/gal. and the early, small scale production years of ethanol production when it was less efficient). Currently, ethanol is produced in large, efficient distilleries, not the small scale, expensive ones 30 years ago. But, by averaging in cheap gas and expensive ethanol of yesteryear, statistics can be used to create a false impression. Looking ahead, ethanol is considerably less expensive than gas. And that's not even taking into consideration that ethanol increases the octane of gasoline more cheaply than can be achieved by simply refining petroleum to the desired octane.
My economic argument does not fall down based on the fact that oil is currently in over supply. The truth is, ethanol is a primary cause of the current oil glut and low prices. Increasing consumption of ethanol reduces consumption of oil and puts downward pressure on gasoline prices. And who doesn't like cheap gasoline? Oh, that's right, oil companies. Duh!
This is an emotional red-herring argument. More smoke and mirrors designed to put the oil companies propaganda on the moral high ground. If hunger were such a big concern with the anti-ethanol propagandists, there is an easy solution. A miniscule $0.01 tax/gallon of fuel would raise over a billion dollars annually in the US alone, more than enough to subsidize corn to non-ethanol prices in areas where it was a concern. And of course the tax would be inconsequential to motorists considering the downward pressure on oil prices due to competition from ethanol. Using peoples empathy for the plight of the poor is one of the oil companies biggest tools in their fight against ethanol competition. Do you really think the oil companies care about the poor and starving?
Yes, it's true that no fuel is without it's impacts, even ethanol. However, even by your own numbers the total greenhouse emissions of ethanol are lower than gasoline. And I would suggest that they hover a lot closer to 30% than 90% now that the industry is maturing with an eye towards scale of efficiency in every step of the process. So, why is it bad that ethanol has perhaps 1/3 the greenhouse emissions of oil?
I wasn't trying to take a cheap shot. But I will suggest that if you don't think the oil interests anti-ethanol propaganda has any basis in reality, I would suggest you are nave.
I don't think you can change positions that quickly. Your position is that fossil fuels make so much more sense than ethanol. But your own info shows that ethanol is not as harmful as gasoline (apparently ethanol isn't 'enough better' to justify it's use). You said "But these days, the CX-5 engine runs at 13:1 on regular gas. Who needs ethanol in this context?
You've presented a lot of rhetoric that a non-critical thinker could use to conclude maybe ethanol isn't such a good idea but, when that rhetoric is critically examined, it doesn't say that at all, at least not in comparison to using pure gasoline.
And, I largely agree with you, we need to switch to fuels that make more sense than either gasoline or ethanol. But let's not disrespect any fuel technology that has more favorable economics and less environmental impacts compared to oil just because it will harm oil profits. My favorites are wind and solar. Hawaii was the first state to achieve grid parity with solar because Hawaii's grid power is primarily oil with rapidly increasing PV. That is without any government solar subsidies. So, Hawaii and other areas switching to higher proportions of solar and less oil/coal will naturally help reduce demand for oil.
So you think that the IPCC is funded by the oil industry? The same scientific group that consistently states how bad anthropomorphic global warming is, and how desperately we need to severely cut back on CO2 emissions? And you claim I'm the biased one spouting rhetoric?
Honestly, of all the strange bedfellows you could put together in a bizarre conspiracy...... whatever you're having, I'll take two.
Honestly, of all the strange bedfellows you could put together in a bizarre conspiracy...... whatever you're having, I'll take two.
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
who wants to do donuts
No, absolutely not. The IPCC is a group that relies on the best available science for it's conclusions. The issue I have is with James Conca, the Forbes "journalists" misrepresentation of the IPCC's report which you use to try to make your case that "ethanol as fuel is full retard". It's ironic that his last name begins with "Con".
Rather than spend my time detailing how Mr. Conca cherry picked from a report over 2000 pages long, I'll refer you to this article that addresses exactly that:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/exchange/entry/its-finalforbes-is-terribly-misinformed-on-ethanol/
Well, yes, as long as you quote from such a biased ethanol hit piece and act like it came straight from the IPCC.
So your highly paid lobby group is better than my highly paid lobby group, somehow?
At worst, the Forbes article cherry picks and is overly emotive. That doesn't change the fact that the IPCC is highly scathing of ethanol. It hasn't lived up to its utopian promises, and the negatives are profound.
At worst, the Forbes article cherry picks and is overly emotive. That doesn't change the fact that the IPCC is highly scathing of ethanol. It hasn't lived up to its utopian promises, and the negatives are profound.
The Renewable Fuels Association is not my lobby group but Geoff Cooper, the man who wrote their rebuttal to the unfair and highly biased hit piece called "It's Final - Corn Ethanol is of No Use" did a fine job of exposing the fallacies contained within. Even James Conca admits it if you bother to read the comments following the article. Conca says "I do believe an equal mix of biofuels, electric and petrol could be achieved that would dramatically reduce emissions and not have other effects. The response to your comments on the post are pretty good as well. Thanks - Jim".
No. the IPCC is not "highly scathing" of ethanol. In fact, the IPCC data and conclusions point out that not all ethanol is created equal and that each production process must be weighed on it's own merits. For example, celluloid ethanol production has particularly beneficial metrics in terms of production efficiency, ability to recycle waste products and greenhouse gas reduction. But you have tried to portray the IPCC report as supporting the wacky belief that all ethanol is bad. In fact, the report suggests that the worst case ethanol scenario is roughly a wash (or "of no use"). But that is a far cry from saying any ethanol "is retarded". What's retarded is using the Alberta oil sands where it takes 2 barrel equivalent of energy just to extract one barrel of oil. And the crude extracted from the tar sands is very "dirty" meaning that it will pollute heavily wherever it is refined into useable product. The tar sands efficiency is roughly twice as bad as the WORST case scenario with ethanol (and there are plenty of ethanol processes that are considerably more efficient than that) and the pollution factor is many times higher. Perhaps you should be on a crusade to bad mouth the Alberta tar sands production rather than railing against the free market production of benign ethanol. And recognize that processes like celluloid ethanol production have very beneficial metrics even compared to traditional oil extraction.
You have failed to make the case that using ethanol to replace a portion of oil based fuels is "retarded".
Last edited:
