Ugh, Just what we needed...

[daytonadave]

I drove through Iowa last June and the Gas Stations are already selling E-15 in Regular and Mid-Grade. I was glad that Premium was Ethanol-Free.

[jnormanh]

I drove through Iowa last June and the Gas Stations are already selling E-15 in Regular and Mid-Grade. I was glad that Premium was Ethanol-Free.

If your concern is fuel mileage, I don't get it.

If your fuel mileage on 100% gasoline is 20 mpg, then you'll burn 5 gallons every 100 miles.

If E-15 reduces your fuel mileage by 5% to 19 mpg, then you'll burn 5.26 gallons every 100 miles.

What's that worth?

[Skip Lackie]

The issue of reduced gas mileage (though real when multiplied by the number of miles driven nationwide) is only part of the problem. Coupla facts:
1. Oxygenated fuels were first mandated in the early 90s when the oxygenate of choice was MTBE. Ethanol was added as an optional oxygenate as a way to gain the support of grain-belt members of Congress. MTBE was cheap to produce and reduced gas mileage by only a tiny amount (compared to ethanol). Unfortunately, MTBE got into water wells and was a carcinogen, so its use was banned after a few years.
2. The move to use ethanol was then endorsed as a way to reduce the amount of oil imported from sometimes-unfriendly nations and replace it with a renewable product that could be grown in the US.
3. Ethanol-laced fuel does have a deleterious effect on some fuel-system components of older vehicles and other gas-fueled equipment (I have a perfectly good chain saw that I can't use because E10 makes the filler cap swell up to the point that it won't fit). Increasing the amount of ethanol in oxygenated fuels will exacerbate these problems.
4. There has never been a definitive study that showed that the use of E10 actually reduces air pollution. Modern automotive technology has had a much greater impact on both mileage and tailpipe emissions.
5. The US is now a net exporter of petroleum, undermining the argument that the use of ethanol-fuel would reduce our dependence on imported foreign oil.
6. No one had (or has) actually calculated whether it takes more petroleum to grow, ship, distill, and manufacture ethanol-laced fuel than it saves when burned in motor vehicles.
7. The ethanol mandate is a cost that is imposed rather randomly on part of the population for no proven benefit except to enrich some corn farmers and the ethanol-distillers. It is a political decision that is not based on science.

[jclary]

The issue of reduced gas mileage (though real when multiplied by the number of miles driven nationwide) is only part of the problem. Coupla facts:
1. Oxygenated fuels were first mandated in the early 90s when the oxygenate of choice was MTBE. Ethanol was added as an optional oxygenate as a way to gain the support of grain-belt members of Congress. MTBE was cheap to produce and reduced gas mileage by only a tiny amount (compared to ethanol). Unfortunately, MTBE got into water wells and was a carcinogen, so its use was banned after a few years.
2. The move to use ethanol was then endorsed as a way to reduce the amount of oil imported from sometimes-unfriendly nations and replace it with a renewable product that could be grown in the US.
3. Ethanol-laced fuel does have a deleterious effect on some fuel-system components of older vehicles and other gas-fueled equipment (I have a perfectly good chain saw that I can't use because E10 makes the filler cap swell up to the point that it won't fit). Increasing the amount of ethanol in oxygenated fuels will exacerbate these problems.
4. There has never been a definitive study that showed that the use of E10 actually reduces air pollution. Modern automotive technology has had a much greater impact on both mileage and tailpipe emissions.
5. The US is now a net exporter of petroleum, undermining the argument that the use of ethanol-fuel would reduce our dependence on imported foreign oil.
6. No one had (or has) actually calculated whether it takes more petroleum to grow, ship, distill, and manufacture ethanol-laced fuel than it saves when burned in motor vehicles.
7. The ethanol mandate is a cost that is imposed rather randomly on part of the population for no proven benefit except to enrich some corn farmers and the ethanol-distillers. It is a political decision that is not based on science.

And...try as we might avoid political discourse on this forum...it is difficult when it directly impacts our Studebaker interests. Thanks Skip for laying it out.

For me, at this time, I intend to keep an open mind as long as I have alternatives. For example, I have several locations where I can buy 89 octane ethanol free gas and use it in my vintage vehicles and implement engines. For my BMW motorcycle, I have at least two places (in reasonable distance) that supply ethanol free premium 93 octane gas. The motorcycle manual does not call for ethanol free but does specify premium. I buy the ethanol free because the computer on the BMW reads out better mileage (over 50mpg) when using the ethanol free gas.

For those who might live in areas where alternatives are not available...time to call, write, squeal, and lobby for the ability to choose. In the manner Skip has done, no need to blast away with hysterical behavior, but lay out your case. Failure to reach out to those who can make the policy makes complaining among ourselves futile and useless.

[Gunslinger]

My understanding...and I'm no expert of any kind on the subject...is that sugar is a more efficient compound for making ethanol or anything like it. But we import sugar and don't import corn, so it was an economic decision as well as political to use home grown corn rather than imported sugar for processing the fuel.

Politics is is involved in all decisions, not simply economic or scientific ones. That can be argued both good and bad depending on one's point of view such as whether you're an American corn grower, a lobbyist for a sugar producing country or someone strictly interested in producing the product in the most efficient manner.

[jnormanh]

The ethanol mandate is a cost that is imposed rather randomly on part of the population for no proven benefit except to enrich some corn farmers and the ethanol-distillers. It is a political decision that is not based on science.

There's a lot of truth in that, but the corn farmers love it, and the politicians from those states love it.

There are more states where corn production is important than there are oil producing states.

Democracy at work.

[Skip Lackie]

There's a lot of truth in that, but the corn farmers love it, and the politicians from those states love it.

There are more states where corn production is important than there are oil producing states.

Democracy at work.

I do not doubt that most politicians would agree with your last three words -- and a lot of other Americans would, too. But I am naive enough to believe that those in "public service" should not just represent their own constituents, but should also aspire to serve and defend all citizens for the benefit of all. Yes, corn-state legislators should defend their corn farmers against discriminatory or unfair legislation or regulations. But giving those farmers an undeserved subsidy and passing the costs along to others just to ensure one's own reelection is not democracy.

[jnormanh]

But I am naive enough to believe that those in "public service" should not just represent their own constituents, but should also aspire to serve and defend all citizens for the benefit of all.

I'd love to see politics work that way, but it does not. The one thing politicians want more than anything else is being reelected, and to do that, they have to appeal to voters in their state, regardless of what is good for the country as a whole. You cannot be opposed to ethanol and get elected in the corn belt.

There's "Democracy" which we all hold dear, or at least give lip service to, and then there's CYA.

[Buzzard]

We commute twice annually from British Columbia to Arizona and vice versa in a 2005 Yukon XL Denali, 6.0L AWD. We use only back roads so not a constant interstate cruise speed. I keep a log, use premium fuels and when I can procure Non-Ethanol premium, I gain approximately 2 to 2 1/2 MPG. The difference in power is probably more my imagination than reality. Yesterday I solved next springs' fuel dilemma by dragging home my Tidy Tank with 150 US gallons of 91 Octane Non-ethanol fuel before the price rises. I have zero fuel issues in all our small motors as well as Studes. There are more and more stations promoting that they have Non-Ethanol fuel available but is mostly premium, not regular.
Bill

[rockne10]

The one thing politicians want more than anything else is being reelected, and to do that, they have to appeal to voters in their state, regardless of what is good for the country as a whole. ... There's "Democracy" which we all hold dear, or at least give lip service to, and then there's CYA.

I've always thought our founders' intentions were that the "representatives" in the House of Representatives were responsible for representing the wishes of the voters in their districts, without regard for the greater good of the country as a whole; while the "Senators" in the Senate were expected to be the "statesmen", weighing the greater good for the country. Hence the reason representatives are voted every two years and senators every six; in addition extending a check and balance to the legislative branch. A brilliant concept.
Of course the thought that anything would be as intended is pretty naïve, as they all seem to represent only those who can afford them.

[bumpkinvilledano]

I've always thought our founders' intentions were that the "representatives" in the House of Representatives were responsible for representing the wishes of the voters in their districts, without regard for the greater good of the country as a whole; while the "Senators" in the Senate were expected to be the "statesmen", weighing the greater good for the country. Hence the reason representatives are voted every two years and senators every six; in addition extending a check and balance to the legislative branch. A brilliant concept.
Of course the thought that anything would be as intended is pretty naïve, as they all seem to represent only those who can afford them.

See attached. Political corruption has been around as long as there have been politicians.

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/17th-amendment

[lugamatic]

Boys, you can rant all you want about ethanol , but if you are a corn farmer , thank god and greyhound for it.

[Skip Lackie]

Corruption has been around for centuries, but elections awash with money are relatively new. And there's a reason our elected representatives work so hard to raise money to stay in office.

1. There's no real work. They do almost nothing -- the Congressional staff of ~20,000 people does all the real crafting of legislation.
2. They only "work" Tuesday noon to Thursday afternoon, and they recess for all known holidays plus the whole month of August through Labor Day. This works out to about 100 days of work a year and 265 days off. Compare that to your work schedule.
3. Most will retire to become lobbyists, where the base salary is about $1M a year and the work is actually less stressful than being in Congress (and nearly every meal and drink is on an expense account).
4. They can't even get the minimum done, even with all those staffers doing the real work. Beginning in the 1960s, TV advertising became the most expensive part of running for office. As a result, Congress spent so much time fund-raising that they found it difficult to pass an annual budget by 30 June, the end of the fiscal year. In 1976, they added three months to that fiscal year by changing the end to 30 September. With the extra three months this provided (this one time), they passed the 77 budget on time. But they only managed to do that three more times over the next 40 years. Passing an annual budget is one of the few things that Constitution requires the Congress to do. Most of the rest are "may".
5. Finally, they live a plush life style. Good salary, nice offices, huge travel budget, reserved parking, subsidized meals, swimming pool, gym etc. And nearly everyone treats them with respect. Big ego boost.

No wonder they like it.

[BobPalma]

"And nearly everyone treats them with respect."

Thankfully, Skip, you included the word nearly. I would opine that the percentage that constitutes "nearly" is shrinking. BP