Yeah the fuel economy difference between E-10 and E-0 is really not much.
TiredTrucker said:Considering that was passes for E10 really is not 10%. It is likely no more than 8% at most. The law is clear that E10 cannot contain more than 10%. So to protect from inadvertently going over 10% and getting a fine, the fuel terminals will typically blend E10 at 8%. so the actual difference in mpg between E10 and E0 will never recover the additional cost of E0.
Let's say you buy E10 at a price of $1.91 a gallon like it is now near me. And for math purposes, you are getting 20 mpg on the stuff. That means you are spending 9.5 cents a mile.
And using the OP statement of E0 being 40 cents a gallon higher, or $2.31 a gallon, to break even on the 9.5 cents a mile fuel cost, the vehicle would have to get over 24 mpg on E0.. a 20% mpg improvement. I really don't think that is a reality.
When folks get past the warm fuzzy of mpg numbers only and actually calculate what it is costing them per mile, then E10 doesn't quite look all that bad nor does ethanol free fuel all that great. That is why I only buy E0 for my OPE, motorcycle, etc. My car and pickup do just fine on the lower cost ethanol blends.
Agree with tired trucker. For years we had a place that sold E0 for about 10 to 15 cents a gallon more than E10. I would fill up there whenever I passed by, but If it was more of a difference than that, no. Still get it for OPE and my boat.
Now it's more like 35 to 40 cents a gallon more.
Which shows how much ethanol is subsidized with your tax dollars.
That sounds good until one realizes that ethanol is traded on the commodity exchanges just like any other fuel and the commodity market is what sets the price. Now there may be some incentives at the pump in terms of lower fuel taxes equating to lower pump price that makes ethanol blends cheaper, but that is not a subsidy pay out by the tax payers. That is simply less taxes being taken from the consumer at the pump. It may be incentivizing fuel selection but not subsidizing it. And how is taking less in taxes from consumers not a good thing?
Only in a socialist mindset is a reduction in taxes collected from the consumer a subsidy by the tax payers because everything belongs to the collective and if one part of the collective benefits then it must be coming from others in the collective.
LOL. Showing your ignorance, again.
Here you go Einstein:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jul/01/does-ethanol-bring-down-price-gasoline/
Quote
Ethanol reduced gas prices by 89 cents per gallon in 2010," says one ad. "Ethanol reduced the average American's household gasoline bill by more than $800. If ethanol disappeared, gas prices could rise by as much as 92 percent."
The ad blitz is timed to the latest round in the debate about federal subsidies for ethanol.
One hotly contested federal subsidy offers producers a credit of 45 cents for every gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline. The credit - which is worth an estimated $6 billion a year -- had been scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, but Congress extended it for another year.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...ls-fuel-mandate-costs-american-taxpayers
So yeah, E-10 is cheaper than E-0 at the pump, but you have ALREADY paid for the difference in your tax bill.
Now, what were you mindlessly rambling on about with regards to socialism?????