Ahh radiation. In case you don't already know we are bombarded with electromagnetic radiation 24/7, not just when we drive a hybrid or use a cell phone or lay out in the sun. If you don't belive me turn on a radio or TV (with an antenna). All them big ole antennas are pumping out EMR all the time. You cell phone is only a watt or so WLS pumps out 50,000 watts.

 

E10, sometimes used here in California in place of MTBE, is the same price as regular gas. In fact, some people don't even know that there is ethanol in the gas, unless they read the fine print on the sign.

 

Why do you want to run it on e10? You will not get the milage that you normally get and the cost of E10 is still up there, I don't really see a huge savings.

 

In NY we have to use E10 by law due to environmental standards up to now. The regualtion has been lifted and we will soon see 100%gasoline. The addition of the 10% alcohol reduces MPG by about 2-5%.
Rick

 

While I don't necessarily WANT to run E10, my original post simply inquired whether the HCHI or II COULD run it since we're being steered toward ethanol.

However, after watching the last 60 Minutes where global warming was explained and proven as clearly as I could want (wasn't sure until then), then I will ACCEPT ethanol mixed in with my gasoline and not begrudge the 3-5% impact on my mileage.

Don

 

If you live in Iowa (and thank your lucky stars you don't , E-10 is everywhere, since we're one of the big corn producing states. In fact, it's hard to find a station that doesn't have it as it's "mid grade" gasoline, which is always lower cost than the "regular" grade without ethanol, which has confused more than one out-of-towner.

The cost depends on the cost of gasoline. From watching it over the past few years, it appears that the break-even cost is when gas is about $1.50/gal. Above this price, ethanol gets cheaper. Right now it's probably about 10 cents a gallon cheaper, at around $2.15 per gallon.

The environmental jury is still out on ethanol. While it saves on gasoline at the pump, production of ethanol uses oil. The farmer needs to plow the field, plant, harvest, etc., and the plant that manufactures it uses energy to produce it. But some argue that the farmer would have grown the crop anyway, and the cost of manufacturing it isn't a lot different than the cost of refining oil into gasoline. Studies are inconclusive, from what I've seen. Anyone know of a good study that seems to put this to bed?

E-85 is catching on here in corn country, but still not very available. Ran into it at a station in Missouri outside St. Louis, and my uneducated companion filled up a Ford Expedition with it. Luckily it was a company vehicle. It ran fine, and a dealer we stopped at told us it wouldn't hurt it, but even though it's cheaper the vehicle will get lousy gas mileage if it's not set up for it, so the end result is a wash. Plus there may be something to the whole plastic fuel line thing - I wouldn't want to run it regularly unless the car was set up for it.

 

Thanks for saving the earth. I doubt you will polute less while using it.

 

The issue of using E85 is very controversial. Generally the people getting the big subsidies for producing it think its the salvation of the world and the rest of us can't see any significan't advantage to it. If you go to a search engine and enter E85 and Prius you will see some data that definitely documents that a Prius will make 20% more horsepower on E85 than it makes on gasoline. However the MPG takes a huge hit

 

1) There's only really been two oxygenates in use to comply with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments: MTBE and Ethanol. MTBE has been banned in about 25 states because it pollutes groundwater and it's expensive to clean up. People don't want to drink that stuff. Other oxygenates included TAME, DIPE, TBA, and ETBE, but they weren't ever widely used.

2) If you live in a non-attainment zone where RFG was required (LIKE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA) you are using "e10" or at least about 8% ethanol, because you need about 8% ethanol to meet the 2.0% oxygenate requirement for RFG. The EPA announced last week (or maybe the week before) they were going to revoke the 2.0% oxygenate requirement, so that might change soon. But as of now, ethanol is how oil companies meet the oxygenate requirement in RFG.

3) No significant advantage to E85? Most of the terrorists from 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, except those that came from the United Arab Emirates. The United Arab Emirates state-owned company, Dubai Ports World now wants to buy 6 ports in the US. Many of these, if not all of these ports ship items out to our troops in Iraq. Iraq is a country where we're spending $250 BILLION that had no conection to 9/11. So we're letting a country that was allegedly a nexus for funding the 9/11 attacks control our ports, which are already woefullly insecure?

This is to say that I can give you 250 BILLION reasons; 2,200 American lives; and 30,000 innocent civillians' lives why it might be smart to start looking toward E85. As George Bush said, "America is addicted to oil." It needs to stop and e85, biodisel ,and bicycles is a good way to start.

 

I completely understand every point you have made. However I remember when MTBE was going to be the salvation of the refineries. That didn't work out to well because people just don't seem to want to address the pros and cons of each of these end all be all solutions.

Nobody talks about the water requirements of the ethanol industry. I suspect that if it comes down to fuel or water that water will be the higher priority.

America isn't going to solve its energy problems via Ethanol/E85 mostly because this fuel can be produced cheaper in tropical climates.

However we could reduce our cost significantly if we started using the waste heat going up power plant smokestacks to process ethanol.

I sure would be interested in Mr Gerdes thoughts on that subject.