Non – ethanol gas wow! – airstream forums electricity research centre

Yes, it’s worth it. Ethanol was not added to gasoline to reduce dependency on foreign oil; to get the same performance, you have to burn more gasoline with the ethanol than you do without the ethanol (10% ethanol reduces fuel economy by more than 10%). It takes more energy to make ethanol than you get from burning ethanol, same as it takes more energy to make gasoline than you get from burning gasoline. You can’t finesse physics. In other words, "Entropy— It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law." It always takes more energy to produce ANY fuel and transport it to the point of use than you can effectively use when you burn the fuel.

The purpose of the ethanol additive is to replace carcinogenic additives in the non-ethanol gasoline. Ethanol burns cleaner than the MTBE (Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether) that it replaced. Even non-ethanol gasoline doesn’t use MTBE anymore; it uses a chemical called ETBE, which is derived from ethanol and isobutylene the same way that MTBE was derived from methanol and isobutylene. So even non-ethanol ETBE gasoline requires ethanol to manufacture.

If you don’t like the reduced performance of E-whatever gasoline versus non-ethanol gasoline, you could always switch to diesel. The difference in performance between diesel and biodiesel isn’t as large as the difference between gasoline and ethanol.

Yes, it’s worth it. Ethanol was not added to gasoline to reduce dependency on foreign oil; to get the same performance, you have to burn more gasoline with the ethanol than you do without the ethanol (10% ethanol reduces fuel economy by more than 10%). It takes more energy to make ethanol than you get from burning ethanol, same as it takes more energy to make gasoline than you get from burning gasoline. You can’t finesse physics. In other words, "Entropy— It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law." It always takes more energy to produce ANY fuel and transport it to the point of use than you can effectively use when you burn the fuel.

The purpose of the ethanol additive is to replace carcinogenic additives in the non-ethanol gasoline. Ethanol burns cleaner than the MTBE (Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether) that it replaced. Even non-ethanol gasoline doesn’t use MTBE anymore; it uses a chemical called ETBE, which is derived from ethanol and isobutylene the same way that MTBE was derived from methanol and isobutylene. So even non-ethanol ETBE gasoline requires ethanol to manufacture.

If you don’t like the reduced performance of E-whatever gasoline versus non-ethanol gasoline, you could always switch to diesel. The difference in performance between diesel and biodiesel isn’t as large as the difference between gasoline and ethanol.

1) Ethanol WAS encouraged by the Feds to reduce dependency on oil. (albeit, among other politically convenient agenda items) Especially E85, but E10 as well…although some ethanol is needed as an oxygenate to replace MTBE (a carcinogen). That’s why most "e10" pumps say "up tp 10% ethanol". When gas is cheap and ethanol is high, blenders will put in just enough to comply with EPA oxygenate standards. When gas is high and ethanol is cheap, they put in 10% (actually they are allowed a bit more to be within compliance). You will know when this scenario is in play when E85 gets 15 – 20% cheaper than E10. (At least here in the corn belt, where distribution of ethanol is cheap(er) from field to pump. You guys in the south and the southeast will have to wait for these economics until other feed stocks become practical).

3) The energy deficit to produce is less than output now. Your statement was true 10 years ago. Also, no-one wants to talk about the energy input to produce gas and diesel…like it is a net zero game. It isn’t. Both fuels are positive, albeit not grossly. Gas and diesel are probably not positive if it is foreign crude, but domestic, yes. Be sure you are getting your figgers from sites not dated more than a couple years, as much has changed.