34mpg without really trying

[moonlighter6]

40 mpg consistently? My "consistent" mileage is 34-35 mpg on non-ethanol gas. SC is a hilly state, but on flat level roads without a strong head or cross wind, few stop lights, I could see you getting 40 mpg. Aggressive driving relates to getting up to speed quickly and keeping up with traffic, sorry but see few Yaris' in the horrid stop and go quickly Atlanta traffic.

I am a Department of Energy contract employee. E10 and E85 were first used by us and continues to be used by us. OUR critical vehicles, BOAT engines, small engines, and generators use non-ethanol exclusively. Ethanol absorbs water which is the main problem but can be a beneficial effect in very cold climates thusly reducing fuel freeze problems. Ethanol attacks many components of fuel systems (rubber and plastic), a reason vehicles must be built/approved to use E85. The primary reason for using Ethanol is to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, not increased engine durability and reliability. I presently own five personal vehicles, they run quieter with less problems using non-ethanol exclusively. A plethora of manufacturers have produced fuel additives to address the effects of ethanol in gas for viable reasons.

[BailOut]

Originally Posted by moonlighter6

The primary reason for using Ethanol is to reduce our dependency on foreign oil

I've never heard that before and it doesn't make much sense. EPA documents concerning the mandatory use of ethanol in some areas is for their "Clean Air Attainment Program". The U.S. uses an ocean of petrochemical fertilizers - made from the same foreign oil that ends up in your gas tank - every year to grow a sea of corn not for food but for fuel (!). When the corn is grown they use only the kernels and "milk" in the biofuels process, leaving behind all cobs, stalks and husks (which represent a much larger part of each corn stalk) as waste instead of usable biomass or compost.

How any of that is supposed to reduce our use of foreign oil in an effective, sane and logical way is beyond me.

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by BailOut

I've never heard that before and it doesn't make much sense. EPA documents concerning the mandatory use of ethanol in some areas is for their "Clean Air Attainment Program". The U.S. uses an ocean of petrochemical fertilizers - made from the same foreign oil that ends up in your gas tank - every year to grow a sea of corn not for food but for fuel (!). When the corn is grown they use only the kernels and "milk" in the biofuels process, leaving behind all cobs, stalks and husks (which represent a much larger part of each corn stalk) as waste instead of usable biomass or compost.

How any of that is supposed to reduce our use of foreign oil in an effective, sane and logical way is beyond me.

You are a wise man.

[KrazyDawg]

Originally Posted by BailOut

I've never heard that before and it doesn't make much sense. EPA documents concerning the mandatory use of ethanol in some areas is for their "Clean Air Attainment Program". The U.S. uses an ocean of petrochemical fertilizers - made from the same foreign oil that ends up in your gas tank - every year to grow a sea of corn not for food but for fuel (!). When the corn is grown they use only the kernels and "milk" in the biofuels process, leaving behind all cobs, stalks and husks (which represent a much larger part of each corn stalk) as waste instead of usable biomass or compost.

How any of that is supposed to reduce our use of foreign oil in an effective, sane and logical way is beyond me.

Most people on gasbuddy believe it's to reduce dependency on foreign oil and about keeping money here. There's a number of people that have purchased a flex fuel vehicle and asked for more E85 stations.

[PhotoDu.de]

Originally Posted by KrazyDawg

Most people on gasbuddy believe it's to reduce dependency on foreign oil and about keeping money here. There's a number of people that have purchased a flex fuel vehicle and asked for more E85 stations.

They do think that, because they are misinformed.

Producing ethanol from corn sometimes results in a net energy loss. Even under ideal variables, the net energy gain only goes up to 50% but is normally less then that.

However, sugarcane can produce 15 times the energy used to produce it. Sugarcane ethanol has been very lucrative for Brazil. Other biomass can also be more efficient than corn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol...energy_balance
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...z1c03fuel.html
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf