Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] How Many Miles to the Bushel?

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I guess whether E85 is twice as much or not would depend a lot on the
vehicle you drive. Here is a nice chart that shows the cost between
gasoline, gas mileage of gasoline and E85 and the pollution produced.
Pretty nice as it is broken down by model of vehicle as well.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/FFV2000.shtml

It does not support the claim that E85 is twice as expensive, it does
support that E85 is not as efficient, which makes it more expensive
even if the cost per gallon is only .30 less than gasoline.

What is more remarkable to me on the chart is how the greenhouse gas
estimates are not that much lower. I guess even 10% reduction is
better than no reduction.

You're right though, unless we can get the cost down to even, or less
than even to gasoline, we are not going to see E85 widely accepted. I
have yet to even see a single pump for it in California. I think it is
possible to get to that level. If we can get the cost of creating the
ethanol down another 20% we could get closer to breaking even.

I could also see where optimizing vehicles to run on E85 would help, I
imagine by creating vehicles that burn both E85 and regular gasoline,
we sacrifice some efficiency but I don't know this for sure.

On 6/3/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Vern Green wrote:
>
> > Much like hybrids, these alternative fuels are not about being cheaper
> > then gasoline, though some of them are, most of it has to do with being
> > cleaner.
> >
> > I saw a report on the local news channel here recently about E85 and the
> > problem with it right now is the cost of creating the ethanol in the
> > first place. There was also mention that it is not nearly as efficient
> > as gasoline, so the cost goes even higher.
> >
> > I think the real benefit in E85 is that it is cleaner burning and it
> > could potentially reduce our use of foreign oil.
>
> Last year, E85 was selling for as much as $0.70 less per gallon than
> regular unleaded.  Now it's about $0.50 less.  If the NY Times article was
> correct in stating that it costs twice as much to use E85 as gasoline,
> doesn't that imply that mileage per gallon is less than half with E85 than
> with gasoline?
>
> I see what you mean about benefit, but if the price doesn't come down, I
> don't think E85 will succeed.  As someone pointed out, there are many cars
> on the road that can use E85 but few of them do so.  Few individuals will
> be willing to double their fuel costs in order to theoretically reduce
> pollution and dependence on foreign oil.  That would just be too much to
> pay.
>
> Mike
>
>
> > On 5/30/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> >> So this article finds that E85 is twice as expensive to use as gasoline
> >> and M85 is much worse than E85.  Does that seem right?  See below.
> >> --Mike
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/business/media/27offline.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion