Ethanol’s an interesting fuel. Blended with gasoline, it can offer big octane and serious knock resistance, but it can also wreak havoc on incompatible fuel systems. While a 10 percent blend has been fairly normal at the pumps for decades now, E15 looks like it’s sticking around, and while it might be tempting to save a little bit on fuel, there are some reasons why it isn’t ubiquitous yet.
This cheaper blend with an extra slug of distilled corn juice has already been around for a while, but it’s historically been isolated to use in cold seasons, when smog is less of an issue. Over the past few years, a number of emergency orders have extended the sale of E15 through the summer months, and it looks like that’s continuing for 2025. However, just because it’s available doesn’t mean you should just put it in your car.
The EPA claims that cars made after 2001 will happily accommodate E15, but that’s not exactly accurate. While E85-capable vehicles can safely handle E15 since 15 percent ethanol by volume is far less than 85 percent ethanol by volume, there are lots of vehicles made after 2001 that aren’t designed for E15. For instance, BMWs only approves a maximum of 10 percent ethanol content in its vehicles, as does Mazda, as does Mercedes-Benz on all models not approved for E85. Volvo only approves a maximum of 10 percent ethanol content across its lineup, as does Mitsubishi.
Some other manufacturers like Nissan are more selective when it comes to E15 approval. The current Frontier, Rogue, Z, Pathfinder, and Altima can take E15, but the Sentra, Kicks, and almost all outgoing models like the previous-generation Armada aren’t rated to handle it.
So what happens if you run a car not rated for E15 on this particular blend of gasoline? Well, ethanol is hygroscopic, meaning it pulls in moisture. If not kept tightly sealed, the ethanol in blended gasoline can attract water and separate from the gasoline, potentially leading to fuel system damage. Thankfully, modern fuel systems are generally sealed pretty well, but water contamination isn’t the only way higher ethanol concentrations can affect fuel systems.
For instance, ethanol and oxygen can form acetic acid, the active ingredient in vinegar. Anyone who’s let old parts sit in a vinegar bath overnight will tell you it does a modest job of removing light rust and tarnishing, but similar acidity could also affect the integrity of fuel system components over the long run. It’s also worth noting that rubber fuel system components are rated for a certain level of ethanol, and lines and seals compatible with E10 might not be compatible with E15, leading to premature degradation.
Another thing to note about E15 is energy density. According to the Department of Energy, pure ethanol is roughly 30 percent less energy-dense than gasoline, so going up from E10 to E15 will likely result in a marginal decline in fuel economy. It will likely only be a few percentage points, but if the price of E15 in your area is only a touch cheaper than E10, you might not actually save any money.
Yes, E15 will likely be cheaper than more common blends of up to 10 percent ethanol, but it’s a good idea to check your owner’s manual to see if your car can run it before selecting it at the fuel pump. One mistaken tank probably won’t do any damage, but prolonged use in a fuel system not designed for it could result in unexpected wear. Also, reduced energy density means E15 might not work out cheaper on a cost-per-mile basis.
Top graphic images: stock.adobe.com; Nissan
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
More Corn Per Gallon: The White House Opens The Taps On E15 To Reduce Gas Prices
-
Why Truckers Used To Pour Alcohol Into Their Brake Systems
-
Who Buys Mid-Range Gasoline?
-
The Political Reason Why Gas Prices May Rise This Summer
Please send tips about cool car things to tips@theautopian.com. You could even win a prize!
I will say my DD which is approved to use E15 did not like it in terms of fuel economy. It seemed to perform just fine, but never again.
the cars I drive only differentiate by Leaded and Unleaded fuel…no ethanol bullshit
EVERYONE should read this. Corn Ethanol is a horrible way to make energy. It is SOOOO much more efficient to just put solar on the land instead of spending the time/money to grow non-food crops. Its not just a little bad, it is terrible and beyond dumb. E10 and E15 just prop up this terrible scheme at EVERYONE’s expense. We should ALL be very vocal about how monumentally stupid this is. Will get off my soapbox now.
https://www.cleanwisconsin.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Corn-Ethanol-Vs.-Solar-Analysis-V3-9-compressed.pdf
https://www.zmescience.com/science/agriculture-science/americas-cornfields-could-power-the-future-with-solar-panels-not-ethanol/
Subsidizing is only bad if the foreigns do it.
I honestly don’t care about subsidizing. Subsidize food crops, subsidize solar, whatever. This is purely about math. Spending subsidy $$$ elsewhere is a better return for whatever metric you want to use. This is just a dumb use of land and bad policy.
And please read the study in the first link, this is not about subsidies whatsoever….
“Averaging these values results in solar PV powering 803,586 electric vehicle miles per acre compared to 9,523 miles internal combustion vehicle miles per acre from corn ethanol. This is an 84x increase in land use efficiency. If the 1 million acres of corn grown for ethanol in WI were replaced with solar PV, this would power 804 billion vehicle miles compared to 9.5 billion miles from corn ethanol. “
I apologize, in the end i think we agree. Maybe in different planes.
No worries. I take absolutely no offense. I read this study the other day and I was absolutely blown away.
Only skimmed it, but it appears it is concerning just land use and to not consider The Real precious resource wasted- potable water.
Yes, the reduction in water inputs would also be a HUGE benefit. I’ve been torn about putting solar on farmland, but this makes a compelling argument when displacing corn grown for ethanol.
What is ridiculous is they should start by putting solar panels on parking lots then look at farm fields.
That way you cover up parking areas then look at grazing areas with solar. If you want to grow something then look at better rotation of products not just mass produce one thing.
We’re currently having this fight here in Lawrence, KS. The local utility wants to build a solar farm on some prime farmland. Plenty of parking lots/rooftops in town for that!
Absolutely, use the shade as a bonus, reduce the heat island effect of paved and roofed areas, preserve the carbon capture of farmland, practice no-till cover crops.
I cowrote a few published papers on this topic in grad school (almost 20 years ago!) and I agree. Ethanol from corn is very dumb and not good.
Ethanol being hygroscopic is a mixed bag, but really should only negatively affect cars that sit around for very long periods of time with unsealed fuel systems, and then only if the fuel lines or tank are steel. If water does get into the fuel (most likely through condensation) the hygroscopic nature of ethanol will keep the water suspended in the fuel rather than letting it sink to the bottom of the tank, where it will rust steel tanks and fuel lines. That is, until it gets saturated, but that takes a very, very long time, especially in a sealed system.
Ok, so bad for what a lot of us here drive.
Bad for the things a lot of us have but rarely drive.
Touche. Seafoam and StarTech are my best help
Back in the days of unsealed gas tanks and E0, people had to buy little cans of alcohol in winter for gas-line antifreeze with brand names like Heet or Dry Gas.
Mercury Marine, which hosted a Webinar on ethanol myths, noted that ethanol does not “grab water molecules out of the air.” It is hydrophilic, which means ethanol holds water. With regular gasoline (E0) as well at E10, the primary cause of water collecting in tanks is condensation on tank walls. But unlike E0, which can absorb almost no moisture, E10 can hold up to half of one percent of water by volume, and the water molecules will dissolve in the fuel. The “solubilized” water will bypass the water separator and burn harmlessly through the engine.
>>>>Mercury Marine also says E10 may be the superior fuel(over E0) because it keeps the fuel “dry”<<<<
Correct. Thank you for helping dispel the ethanol myth!
Hi, Fletch! I’m skimming the comments for exactly this kind of info. I have a boat with a Mercury outboard, and the boating community is generally in alarm over Ethanol. Understandable, because we’ve got some money tied up in an engine that sits a long time between uses. (I wish it were once a week, but, alas. *sigh*
Would you happen to have a link I could follow, please?
I run E15 in my vehicles with no second thoughts. But in my lawn mower or boat, hell no. Learned those the hard way. Luckily the HyVee near my house has a pump with ethanol free so I keep a can of that for the mower and my marina has ethanol free on the water.
Identical lawn mowers and boats in Brazil use their common gasoline which contains 27.5% ethanol. It has worked out so well and for so long that Paraguay went to E27.
Yeah, but what kind of boats? A panga that’s used for fishing or ferrying all-day, every-day vs. pampered monthly-use-but-only-in-the-summer sparkly-baby boats like so many in the US?
I’ve put e15 in my old Jeep, it didn’t care, but I prefer not to do that if it’s going to sit a while. I drive it a lot in the summer so I am not too worried. When nearing winter I can just switch to buying ethanol free for an extra $1 per gallon.
Lucky for you. Not available for me. I have to rely on stabilizers, which i have a mixed bag of results. Really bad for small engines
I am just happy to see the local HyVee/casey’s match u is offering no ethanol gas in both 87 and 91. it was almost always just in 91 at HyVees and 87 only in Iowa on 87. No Carbureted car or any car that is driven sparingly should ever get any ethanol blend.
the part nobody talked about was what the stuff turns to. instead of turpentine, it forms into a gelatenous fuel line clogger.
Isn’t there a spelling error on the sign? Surely the “If” whould be an “It”.
That doesn’t matter to the EPA. As I understand it, they tested E15 in E10-compatible vehicles and found no difference so essentially anything that says it will take E10 technically allows E15 as well (at least according to the EPA). That’s why they claim you can use it in engines that were built before E15 was even a thing people would actually use.
I’ll run E15 if it’s significantly cheaper (except in anything that might sit for a long time, which all gets E0. Ethanol sucks for fuel longevity, even with additives), but if the price is even close I stick with E10. Better fuel economy and I’m not supporting the dubiously green corn ethanol industry.
The EPA before approving E15 in 2011 ran long term tests with not only E15 but also E20 which found both fuels ran fine and did no damage.
The EPA and Nebraska just renewed a pilot program to run E30 in non-flex fuel state vehicles. Of course, Brazil has used E27 for a very long time with BMWs, Mercedes-Benz, and the other brands you mentioned. Bet their owners manuals state don’t run over E27, lawyers help write them.
Straight gasoline only lasts 3 to 6 months, ethanol lasts forever. Sea Foam uses an alcohol as an active ingredient, and they state it makes gasoline last two years.
This is just not true. Every real world test shows that E0 fuel stays usable longer than anything with ethanol in it, even when a fuel stabilizer is used. Maybe in a lab ethanol lasts forever, but nobody’s driving their car in a clean room.
And 3-6 months is a myth for any gas. Nobody’s mower or snowblower would start up after sitting through the offseason if that were the case. Even the ethanol-based stuff lasts longer than 6 months. Heck, I’ve had premix that sat for over 2 years and still worked fine, using E0 as the base.
Straight gasoline can last decades even in unsealed containers, which viewers if Junkyard Digs know. Ethanol is hygroscopic and e100 has a short lifespan.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
I’ve used it in my wife’s 2022 Sorento a few times without issue. The manual says it’s ok. Haven’t put it in my Mazda3 though, because as you point out their stance is essentially “don’t you dare put that shit in your engine”. I suspect it’s probably fine and they just don’t have enough data but the Skyactiv engines are different enough that maybe it causes real problems. It’s not enough of a savings for me to chance it.
Of course one way to avoid this problem is to buy a BEV…
E15 will absolutely destroy a BEV, don’t even try it!
Ah, well that’s where I went wrong!
I’m very familiar with batteries.
Ethanol convinced me to change to diesel.
The story of why ethanol was added to gas is almost as old and convoluted as the chicken tax. EPA started requiring reformulated gasoline containing oxygenates in the 90s to reduce emissions from older vehicles. The oil industry chose MTBE as their oxygenate because it’s something they could produce themselves. Ethanol would also work. Some problems with MTBE: suspected carcinogen and soluble in groundwater so spills lead to widespread groundwater contamination. It was eventually banned in the mid 2000s and ethanol took its place.
With better vehicle emission control tech, oxygenated fuel isn’t needed any more but it lives on because it created a whole industry. Adding ethanol to gasoline actually raises the volatility and increases evaporative emissions so any gain from older cars is offset by that.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane 🙂
IIRC, it was also considered after WW1 as a fuel additive. The criminals went with tetraethyl lead instead.
Its a subsidy for farmers
Especially those nice midwestern red leaning farmers.
Yes. Became politically untouchable
Ethanol only raises volatility slightly at 100 degrees F and only at blends of 2% to around 35% with a peak at around 7%.
Ethanol blends at <70 degrees F are lower in vapor pressure. E85 has a super low RVP and never needed a waiver to the old law written before ethanol.
Note also the non-toxic vapors of ethanol are less ozone forming than the toxic petroleum ones.
It still cleans up modern tech cars. Even with just 10% ethanol added to E0, the Swiss Federal Laboratory for Materials Science and Technology found that the especially health devastating ultra fine or nano particulate emissions were lowered by 97%, carbon monoxide lowered by 81%, carbon dioxide lowered by 13%, aromatic hydrocarbon emissions lowered by 67-96%, and genotoxic emissions lowered by 72%.
So far my ’96 GMC Sonoma and ’96 Toyota Avalon are tolerating it just fine. I’m not spending an extra dollar a gallon for ethanol free. I’ve run both on it since it started replacing E10 (which they also weren’t supposed to run).
The Avalon still gets 22-25mpg highway running it, and the Sonoma gets about 18-19. Neither had any appreciable drop in economy, performance, nor any issues from it compared to E10. There was a drop from 100% gasoline to E10, roughly 10%, in fact.
Now my small engines? Not one damned drop of the stuff. My chainsaw, my generator, my weedeater, they all get ethanol free 100% of the time. I had enough problems cleaning out the carburetors on them running E10, I’m not trying E15 there.
I never had so many issues with having to clean out carbs on small engines when I was younger.
Years ago I made the switch from gasoline to extension-cord electric yard working tools. (Through attrition, not all at once!) Then from those to battery, slowly. I’ve never regretted it. Cheaper tools, just as effective for a suburban homeowner, and I don’t have to futz around with finicky carbs, hot exhaust, nasty, nasty emissions, or keeping a gallon of high explosive in my garage.
Of course, I did learn that you have to budget for two extension cords. As you learn your way around with a new tool, you will inevitably run over your first extension cord with the mower. But, nobody makes that mistake twice!
I’ve started the same switch. My leaf blower is corded, my push mower is cordless. I’ve been replacing things as they wear out (with the exception of the generator, a gasoline generator is very preferable to the battery alternative). The big problem is my chainsaw is a Stihl, it just won’t wear out! I bought it used at a pawn shop 10 years ago. I discovered engraving on the bottom that showed it had previously been contractor owned and was older than dirt. I last gave it a tune-up in 2021, but I’ve kept ethanol free gas and Sta-bil in it the whole time, and it still starts on the first or second pull every time. It may never get replaced! On the weedeater, I had a cordless one, but I swapped it out for my parents’ gasser so I wouldn’t have to go over there and figure out why it wouldn’t start 6-7 times a year. I don’t have nearly as many problems with it as they did (I’m pretty sure my dad was putting stale gas in it).
Cordless electric is absolutely the way to go for most yard stuff these days, unless you’ve got a massive lawn. Way less hassle, but also a lot quieter.
25 in an Avalon is not good.
That’s the ethanol penalty.
Not good? Dude, it was rated at 26mpg highway in 1996 on ethanol free fuel. The fact that it’s still damned close to that on E15 while driven around 80-85mph for 50 miles at a time twice daily is fantastic!
I had a 318 van with overdrive that could do 26 mpg.
My 7000 lb Cummins gets 18 to 20 mpg unless towing, often better, in spite of tuning for more power.
My 90s ranger gets about 25 mpg highway unless heavily loaded.
I have a 408 Ford with tall gearing that gets 25 mpg highway, likely past legal speeds.
Granted that engine is highly tuned for efficiency, but also 500 HP at sea level.
I have a 4 cylinder Camry that is often disappointing on mileage, but can at times beat 30 mpg. It is completely stock.
Is the Avalon a 6 cylinder?
That could be reasonable for a six.
Rangers got better mileage without ethanol, and the very costly failure of various lines is ascribed to ethanol rot.
Yeah, it’s got a six. The 1MZ-FE 3.0L.
Like I said, the EPA rated it at 26mpg Highway when it was new 30 years ago, the fact that it manages to get 25 on ethanol blended gasoline when I drive it gently is fucking miraculous. The fact that the worst it gets is 22 while running E15 is above expectations.
True.
Ultimately your satisfaction with a car is all that matters.
My ranger lost mpg with ethanol, and was unable to manage altitude fully loaded.
I had a 1995 Toyota Celica converted to run on E85. Put over 60k ethanol miles on it. Still miss that car. Anyone telling you that anhydrous ethanol in gasoline is going to have the same effects as aqueous ethanol on rubber seals is wrong. Ethanol takes on the properties of what it is blended with so when it is blended with non-polar gasoline it acts non-polar. Unlike when it is blended with polar water where it take on polar properties.
My 10 year old Prius C specifically says on the fuel cap that it can use E15, but no more than that. My girlfriend’s slightly older Camry Hybrid says it cannot use anything more than E10. I would assume this means that Toyota had done testing on both cars with various fuel blends and found that some of their cars could take it, and some can’t. My Prius C’s engine has a (effective) compression of 9.5:1 and the Camry Hybrid’s engine is 10.4:1. I wonder if the difference in compression has to do with whether or not the engine can handle E15.
if anything the higher compression engine would in theory like more Ethanol as it tends to be in fuel with higher octane ratings. the issue usually is the computer sensors and ability to adjust flow to account for the alternate fuel. you would need more ethanol to produce the same power, so if the engine cannot compensate, then the vehicle will likely not run correctly.
I don’t have a problem with running it in my car. It’s in small engines where it becomes a problem. It solidifies and gums up quicker than fuel without ethanol. I also don’t have a problem running e-85 in vehicles that are made for it. My wifes 2012 sequoia is a flex fuel model. We don’t have any e-85 stations near where we live but the last time we vacationed out west I filled up with it a couple of times. Noticed more power but the consumption went up enough to off set the reduced price. All of my local stations are pretty much e-10. There are still a couple that sell ethanol free, at a raised price of course.
Back when I had a 1985 Toyota, I was actually seeking out ethanol free fuel. When your car has it’s original 40 year old engine, you don’t want to take chances.
You’d hate to see what I run through engines older than that
I was part of the large group of labs that tested E20 and E15 for the DOE back in 2009 to 2012 or so. In our testing in both vehicles, fuel systems, and small engines, it didn’t cause any issues. Look up the DOE reports on intermediate ethanol blends if you are curious. The American Petroleum Institute and Outdoor Power Equipment Industry took issue with E15 even though the data disagreed and have dominated the conversation. I’ve run E15 in numerous of my own cars, motorcycles, and small engines for 15+ years now and nothing bad has happened to any of them.
I’m shocked. 😀
Ha! I reached out to OPEI numerous times to see if they wanted to fund their own program. They never returned my call or email (also not shocking!).
In my area, gas stations at Thornton’s, Woodman’s, and Murphy’s sell E15 all year round.
I used to use it in my LeSabre, where it seemed to make no difference at all- same range, same power, etc. The benefit was only in the lower cost.
Been using it in my hybrid Fords since it came to my area. No difference in fuel economy, but big savings in cost of a tank, although it’s swinging wildly in it’s discount now, it used to be 30 cents cheaper a gallon than 87, now it’s between 10 and 30 cents cheaper.
One thing I wonder about is what gas they start with. Adding ethanol reduces octane, but E15 is 88 octane, so they must be starting with 89 octane mid-grade gas before they mix in the corn syrup.
Ethanol boosts octane, and mid-grade is usually blended at the pump by mixing 87 and premium (93 in my area.)
As a former fuel system enginerd, the compatibility of the hoses and seals will be the first to go. Many of the materials are a stretch on E10.
Another fun fact: you may or may not get the advertised percentage of ethanol content as the advertised content % is just the middle of the “acceptable” range. Iirc E15 can be as high as E25 and still considered acceptable.
Also also; contrary to popular belief, ethanol sans water is actually a better lubricant of the mechanical bits than straight gas
Do you have a reference for the 25% claim? When I worked in the fuel industry, it was well know that you couldn’t be above 15% for E15 or 10.5% or so for E10. You can confirm this law in the code of federal regulations.
Ok, so digging back through the memory banks, The E25 cap is the limit for not considering gasoline “blended” for transport law.
Generally, the ethanol content is close to the advertised value but we had fuel survey data that showed higher contents shipped and were in pumps. Most likely because they were considered “ok” because of the lack of need to reclassify it for transport and the hope that the dilution of existing tank content would prevent field issues.
*and this was well before E15 was ever considered as a price relief ~10 years ago
Except that our state placards say “A maximum of 10% ethanol” explicitly. Seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen if they’re stretching the truth.
There was a short while there, I remember people would call around figure out which refiners were sending ethanol-free gas to the E10 pumps and would stock up after the tanks got refilled. A little obsessive, but I can’t fault them. Pretty soon just about every refiner was doing E10 so it was moot.
There’s always as asterisk when it comes to specs. You can be lawyered to death on the meaning of ‘10%’ versus conforms to ASTM Dxxx which is absolute
Underwriters Laboratory (UL) when E15 was approved by the EPA in 2011 made a blanket statement that all equipment they approved for E10 is fine with E15.
In the late 1970s when Brazil went to E100, they simply used their already existing petroleum fuel infrastructure. Their common gasoline since then has been >E20 for non-flex fuel vehicles.
I can’t even imagine what it would do in many motorcycles. I add ethanol antidote religiously to my tank to counteract the E10 after it managed to clog and rust everything years back. I’d be buying it bigger jugs now!
No ethanol-free gas in your area? There are websites that list stations that sell it if you’re having trouble locating. I live in a corn state and get ethanol-free for my small engines and old 1992 S-10 pickup.
Where I live there are non-ethanol pumps for antique cars/motorcycles/lawn equipment /boats. It is about 50+¢/gallon more expensive. That is all I run in my not car motors also and I also fill my Jerry can for overlanding trips with it also.
Motorcycles, as far as I’m aware, are not rated for E15.
My current motorcycles are very sensitive to fuel quality & octane – though I’ve had motorcycles in the past that would have happily burnt anything remotely resembling something flammable.
Most carbed bikes won’t tolerate it very well, especially not sitting with E15 in the tank/fuel bowl. The nearest ethanol-free station is 60 miles round trip, I’ve been hauling a couple of 5 gallon jugs so I have it for my bikes. They run noticeably better without ethanol.
In a pinch you can make your own ethanol-free gas in a transparent mixing container with some water and food colorant.
It’s a bit sketchy, but it really works. Just use the highest octane E10 or E15 available because removing ethanol also reduces octane a bit.
Appreciate that trick – it makes perfect sense but I’d never thought of it. I’ve been using StarTron for years now with good results – I have a little flashlight with the vial of it I keep under the seat so I can peer inside at fill ups to check for rust.
Motorcycles in Brazil use E27, it worked out so well and for so long that Paraguay went to E27.
Making a “food” crop into transportation fuel is kind of immoral when there are hungry and food insecure people in the world.
Also e15 is 20-30¢ per gallon cheaper so roughly 10% cheaper than e10 at my gas station.
I also do not like ethanol in fuel since my 88 ranger 2.8 v-6 would vaporlock if there was ANY ethanol in the fuel and it was over 70oF. I would have to sit on the side of the road until it cooled down.
I think they needed a way to help farmers keep growing and selling corn. AFAIK, there’s no real nutritional value to it, it’s just filler.
The government’s own surveys show that a non-food crop (some sort of grass, forgot what) is cheaper to produce and more energy dense. But then we can’t appease the corn lobby, can we?
Are you talking Miscanthus? This would be the non-food grass crop that grows well in the midwest.
I love this plant and am growing it at my house in the city to make a green wall to block out the neighbors. There are definitely problems to getting farmers to plant this crop. It takes years to reach maturity, and who pays for the farmer making no money the first 2 growing seasons. Then there is the fact that the roots have to be dug up with a digger and then cut by hand into small enough pieces that they can go into a bean planter. Cheaper in the long run yes, but there are still significant costs that are all up front.
Switchgrass.The Engineering Explained channel did a great YouTube video about it. https://youtu.be/F-yDKeya4SU
In more northern regions, the yield of miscanthus is 3x as high as switchgrass.
https://farm-energy.extension.org/miscanthus-miscanthus-x-giganteus-for-biofuel-production/
That youtube video is fake news. There were no grasslands or forests broken up for corn.
Impossible right on its face since US cropland acres have declined since ethanol came to be.
Census data shows in corn producing states that grassland and forest areas have increased since ethanol.
Corn ethanol is a value-added product of already existing feed production acres which preserves the feed in a healthier and more productive form called distillers grains.
The corn belt grew more corn acres in 1980 before ethanol than with record ethanol production.
Switchgrass requires dedicated land plus cellulose is harder to get ethanol from than starch/sugar. This is why no spirits we drink come from cellulose.
The corn ethanol subsidy was $.45/gal. and ended back in 2011. The cellulosic gen2 subsidy was $1.01/gal. which ended in 2024 with a replacement.
Despite that, no cellulosic plant was ever built. One almost was but was not completed.
The US used 11,160,933 tons total fertilizer on corn in 1980, before ethanol.
In 2018, the year of the most ethanol production ever, the US used 10,521,850 tons total fertilizer on corn.
100% of the fertilizer (& everything from the soil) still gets fed to livestock in the distillers grains.
Ethanol comes from only things of the air: solar energy, CO2, and water with the latter two recycled once burnt.
Ethanol C2H6O = no fertilizer
Distillers grains = all the fertilizer
What logic is it to then assign all the energy and CO2 of fertilizer to ethanol and none to distillers grains?
All kinds of waste vegetation that we currently dump could be used, but I imagine the lack of consistency hurts production, though that’s purely a guess.
Cellulose is more complicated, and therefore much more expensive, to make ethyl alcohol. Even if it’s environmentally a slam dunk, the economics currently don’t work.
Depends on what “real” nutritional value is for you. It does have calories; about 90 kcal per 100 g of maize kernels. Of course, if you eat whole kernels and don’t chew them properly, you won’t be able to make use of these calories. It’s better to ground maize to a flour.
It’s better than paying them to not grow anything.
Its a loooong old GOP subsidizing subsidy for the midwest
Is that why Biden kept it?
So did Bush
I’m clearly not happy with anyone involved.
On top of the sheer amount of water and fuel required to grow the corn in the first place…
We modeled our playbook loosely after Brazil, but the key difference is sugar cane grows there with very little effort or environmental impact. They adapted cars to what they had. We forced the cars to meet with the overproduction of corn.
Food insecurity isn’t due to the amount of food produced in the world, it’s due to transportation or political issues.
yes political things like growing “food” for transportation fuels.
No, things like warlords stealing food meant for people and selling for profit, or it being dumped at ports and not able to be transported to hungry people outside the city.
Both things can be true. There are hungry and food insecure people here also.
True, but it’s not because of an actual shortage of food.
Plenty of criminals, but not too many warlords in USA lately.
I suppose you could count those with too much money and power?
Political issues.
I smell an upcoming Project Farm video comparing pure gas to E10, E15 and E85.
Most OEMs likely didn’t run E15 for any of their testing. Without any validation, they can’t recommend using it. I also question if the fuel trims for every vehicle can handle the lower energy density.
The programs I worked on until 2010 certainly did zero validation on any percentage of ethanol. So none of those could be said to be E15 safe.
Since then I’ve not worked on anything between E10 and E85, so none of the E10 validated engines can be said to be E15 safe either. They might be fine, but no one has the data.
Saying it’s ok with no data opens the door to potentially huge warranty claims.
The OEMs must test the same non-flex fuel engines in Brazil using their common gasoline of E27.
I haven’t worked with E27, but I mostly work in Europe.
The energy density only affects fuel economy, it is the Stoichimetric ratio that could cause the fuel trims to max out.
I hate ethanol fuel with a passion. It’s only a scam to subsidize the corn farmers. Of all the wacky things that Trump has done, I was really hoping getting rid of ethanol fuel would have been one of them.
Maybe we can start the rumor that ethanol is somehow “woke”.
Excellent!
I am tired of the welfare farming, ranching, drilling, mining, ranching etc.
I hate people that hate ethanol fuel with a passion. Please educate yourself and stop spreading oil industry propaganda.
Please explain the benefits if you’re so passionate about it.
Corn farmers have not received any subsidy for corn ethanol in 13 years. That is how long ago the subsidies were phased out.
The making of corn ethanol makes significant amounts of animal feed as byproduct. Corn is such a high yielding plant that it produces more feed per acre after the starch is turned into ethanol than soybeans produce if the entire crop is used as feed.
When I buy 105 octane e85 fuel, it comes from a factory 30 miles away. The money stays in the community and I can help support my neighbors. The price being $2.09 per gallon helps too.
Cows do not digest that corn feed well because they didn’t evolve to eat that heavily genetically altered product (this is not an anti-GMO screed, just a point that corn was bred by humans from a kind of grass), which causes an increase in methane emissions as they try to digest it, which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. While ethanol is cleaner in some regards, it’s less energy dense, so a greater volume of it is burned per mile vs gasoline, which results in an increase emissions (at least the tailpipe). Corn takes up a lot of acreage that could be used for crops that with much better nutrition, but of course those crops don’t travel as well or have as long a shelf life, so farmers don’t want to grow those alternatives (not that I can blame them, but it’s a problem, especially in a country that eats so poorly), then a symbiotic industry finds more uses for monoculture overproduction, like poor quality cow feed (not as bad for pigs as long as they have a balanced diet, but with the way they put pigs into kidney failure so they put on weight for auction, I suspect their diets are whatever is cheapest) or “biodegradable plastic” utensils that don’t biodegrade in reality.
Cows do not digest corn well because of the starch. It gives them ulcers and requires antibiotics to be added to the feed. Ethanol production removes the starch and produces a higher quality, more digestible animal feed that sells for a higher price per pound than the corn originally did.
I have talked to people in the business who claim they are animal feed processors who make fuel as a byproduct. This is because more than 50% of their revenue comes from animal feed sales.
Interesting. I appreciate the clarification.
The fact that it is mixed in is a subsidy. I sure didn’t ask for it. Why is cor grown for gas when people world wide are hungry?
It is mixed in because it replaced MTBE as an oxygenate. If ethanol falls on the ground it is broken down by bacteria. If MTBE falls on the ground it contaminates the water supply. We are not going back to MTBE.
The whole thing is a midwest subsidy and has been for a long time
How is it a subsidy still if there is no longer any money paid out? The subsidy on ethanol from corn ended in 2012.
Then why do we still have it? We could use our own beautiful wells to augment gasoline and eliminate the corn.
The subsidies were necessary to develop a self sustaining business. Now that it is established we still have it because it makes a profit. The profit is not made on the fuel but the animal feed, so even if the ethanol is sold for less than the cost of production they will not shut down.
Ethanol blending accomplishes two things. The first is reducing smog by adding oxygen content. Laws could technically be passed to change these requirement.
The second thing that ethanol does is boost octane rating. This is a chemical property that changing laws will do nothing to change. Ethanol blending allows for a lower quality and cheaper to produce gasoline to be made. Gasoline blending components like hexane (25 octane rating) can be used in greater quantities when mixed with ethanol (110 octane rating).
“We could use our own beautiful wells”
Ethanol blending lets us mix more natural gas condensates into the gasoline supply. When natural gas is pumped out of the ground it is processed to remove the liquids before it goes in the pipeline. The liquids are separated into fractions and then sold for different uses. Here is what google says about the c5+ fraction octane rating:
“C5+ condensate, also known as natural gasoline, typically has a low octane rating, around 60-80 RON. This is lower than the 87-93 RON required for most modern gasoline. While not usable as fuel on its own, it can be blended with higher octane components like ethanol to increase the overall octane of the fuel. “
“Now that it is established we still have it because it makes a profit“
No, we have it because the Renewable Fuels Act mandates X number of gallons be blended into the fuel supply every year.
Whether ethanol is a better replacement for MTBE or worthy of inclusion in gas can certainly be debated, but when people say “subsidy” or similar, this is what they mean. An enormous artificial demand for ethanol now exists that wouldn’t without this mandate. That’s true whether or not direct subsidies are in place.
When the 2005 mandates came out, ethanol demand was higher which prompted the lawmakers to greatly increase them in the 2007 energy act, but even then, the demand was higher than the mandates though they quickly came together as the desired 10% blend approached which coincidentally was the maxed-out mandate.
The CBO conducted a study of what would happen if the mandates ended which found the same amount of ethanol would be used because it is the most economical cost effective octane booster available and many municipalities require an oxygenate in gasoline for pollution control.
Subsidies cost taxpayers money and make the price of a product appear cheaper.
Mandates do not cost taxpayers money but most often make the price of a product more expensive (like airbags).
The ethanol mandate is odd since it makes our fuel cheaper. This is indicative of monopolistic powers at play.
A legitimate function of government is to be a check on monopolistic power.
There is no greater mandate than allowing monopolistic power free reign, bar none.
The blending mandate no longer has any effect because there is no longer a cheaper substitute that is legal. Without ethanol regular gas would cost as much as premium does now and premium would cost a few pennies more. The spread between regular and premium is an indicator of how much octane costs if it is not boosted by ethanol.
Just wanted to add in case it was not clear:
Exporting LNG is the reason the US now has a surplus of natural gas condensates, which is expected to continue to increase in the future as more export capacity comes on line.
Because there is no alternative to ethanol fuel most places.
It is not a choice.
And food costs are driven higher.
Ethanol is subsidized as long as it is forced on victims.
Buy a diesel
There is an alternative in every place. It just costs more money, or was designated as a drinking water contaminant in a separate EPA action. Removing ethanol from fuel would make regular cost as much as premium, because that price spread is how much octane costs without ethanol.
The food costs are driven higher lie. Wow. You do know that the original FoodVsFuel website was originally registered by the American Petroleum Institute. It is disgusting that you are still regurgitating their propaganda 20 years later. It is the zombie argument that just will not die.
Higher yields because of biotechnology have eliminated any potential for higher food prices. This can be seen by looking at average yields of substitute crops that could be grown instead of corn. The average yield of soybeans last year was 53 bushels per acre, while the average corn yield was 183 bushels. Converting corn to ethanol results in 1/3rd of the input mass coming out as animal feed, which is 61 bushels. Not producing ethanol at this level of market maturity would actually reduce food production.
Shipping and fuel costs drive most of it.
A large chunk is profiteering and I am happy so many are refusing to buy the most egregious items.
I stopped buying fast food – period.
Will I change my shopping even if prices go back down, or my superfluous cash goes up?
So far, not even tempted.
So satisfying when another company bites the dust!
There is a startup company (backed by Gates) called ClearFlame that rebuilds class 8 diesel engines to run on ethanol. Things like this are going to be needed to reduce shipping and fuel costs.
A dedicated ethanol engine could be a different deal if it uses diesel technology.
Cummins hydrogen research seems like a potential winner too.
Only if we can stop the EV rebates, tax credits, or registration fee waivers. I mean those are already “woke” I suppose, but they still persist. Probably because some of those incentives are the loopholes that made Elon rich?
Works for me!
I’m fascinated that seemingly the cult radical extremists most in support of battery cars are at war with battery cars.
It took people like that to elect Trump, and they still seem oblivious.
Who knows?
Maybe their next coup will be electing Musk to something?
Oh yes.
All this about corn fuel and not even one corny pun in there?!
A-maize-ing, isn’t it?
Aw shucks, have you been playing this by ear?
I mean, he could have cob-bled together something.
Theres a kernel of truth to that.
I tried to think of one, but nothing pops up.
Y’all are awesome!
What rhymes with pellagra?