backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Oct 10 at 11:56 PM


  (Source: global.fncstatic.com)
Verleger said that oil prices would be $15 to $40 a barrel higher than they are today without ethanol added in

A new analysis shows that American consumers are saving anywhere from millions to even trillions of dollars annually at the pump thanks to ethanol blends.
 
According to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) -- which presented information from former Ford and Carter administration energy advisor Philip Verleger -- American consumers are paying between 50 cents and $1.50 per gallon less for gasoline due to the addition of ethanol blends (such as E15, which is 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline). 

The analysis further said that consumers are saving from $700 billion to about $2.6 trillion annually on gas because of ethanol. 

Verleger said that oil prices would be $15 to $40 a barrel higher than they are today without ethanol added in. 
 
“Had Congress not raised the renewable fuels requirement, commercial crude oil inventories at the end of August would have dropped to 5.2 million barrels, a level two hundred million barrels lower than at any time since 1990,” said Verleger. “The lower stocks would almost certainly have pushed prices higher. Crude oil today might easily sell at prices as high as or higher than in 2008. Preliminary econometric tests suggest the price at the end of August would have been $150 per barrel.” 

AAA said the national average is about $3.50 a gallon and the cost per barrel is around $100-$110.

E15 in particular has been a hot topic this year. In August, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) froze a planned bump in ethanol levels that was set for next year. The freeze came after state efforts to ban E15, and House debates on whether to cut the blending requirements entirely.

In 2012, only 4.55 billion bushels of corn was used to produce ethanol, which was down from 5 billion bushels in 2011.  About 13.33 billion gallons of ethanol was produced last year, missing the goal of 15.2 billion gallons.

Ethanol opponents say the use of ethanol blends takes away from the nation's corn crops, and livestock farmers saw the cost of feed inflated by having to compete with ethanol. In addition, environmentalists say corn ethanol produces more emissions over its life cycle than oil.

Furthermore, ethanol can damage many old vehicles (and even some new) on American's roads because parts in the engines made of rubber, plastic, metal, and other materials aren't made for high ethanol blends. 

Later in August of this year, big oil firms filed a request to cut the ethanol target for 2014. The EPA announced that refiners must blend in 18.15 billion gallons during 2014 under The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007's (EISA) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) terms. The oil industry, however, wants that target to be slashed 3.35 billion gallons to a total of 14.8 billion gallons. 

Source: Ethanol Producer



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fuel Mileage Loss
By btc909 on 9/25/2013 11:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
When I run the AC I get 290-310 miles per tank of E10. The average is a 10% loss with Ethanol. Lets say 10% loss on 310 miles I should be getting 335 on pure gasoline. When I don't run the AC I get 350-355 so I should be getting 385 based on 350 miles to a tank with E10.

Plus I have to dump in a fuel system cleaner twice a year.

I thought drilling our own oil was suppose to bring gas prices down?

I don't have any nearby access to E0 gas in Southern Kalifornia.




RE: Fuel Mileage Loss
By freedom4556 on 9/26/2013 3:11:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't have any nearby access to E0 gas in Southern Kalifornia.
That's because your state is run by communists.


RE: Fuel Mileage Loss
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 10:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
So, where are you getting the 10% mileage loss from? Are you thinking perhaps that the 10% ethanol in your tank is not in itself fuel? Ethanol burns, though in near-pure form you would need to run it at a lower fuel-air ratio. At 10% it works just fine at the standard gasoline air-fuel ratios. Your car's EPU only needs to lower A/F ratios if you are hitting E30-E85 concentrations and only cars built to handle that level of ethanol can run it.

I've owned several cars for about 4 decades now and we have been using E10 gas in Canada for about 10 years. I have yet to need a fuel system cleaner in any of my cars in all that time.

Drilling your own oil (does the U.S really produce its own crude anymore?) does not change the transport and refining costs of oil. Also it is not where the oil comes from that drives costs to you. It is supply & demand on the commodities market that does.


RE: Fuel Mileage Loss
By The Von Matrices on 9/26/2013 6:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
I still think that ethanol blending was one of the worst ideas imaginable. There should never have been a blended ethanol standard. E100 (or maybe slightly lower to add lubricants and denature it) should have been the only form of fuel ethanol available. Then you could build cars that have high compression ratio engines, run on only ethanol, and get spectacular fuel economy. Once you get 15% of the cars on the road running on pure ethanol, and then you have the same reduction in oil usage, maybe even more due to the increased fuel economy, with none of the blending related mechanical issues.


RE: Fuel Mileage Loss
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 7:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that there are a lot of cars on the road that can't tolerate any more than 10% ethanol. 15% is really pushing it.

Car manufacturers are not ready with cars that can run on pure ethanol, nor are there gas stations that can supply it.

The only transitional solution to reduce stretch our oil reserves is to provide a blended fuel that can be consumed by any production car that required gasoline.

it is not the best solution, but it is one that everyone can live with and buys us time to come up with something better.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki