Yes, MANY vehicles will get better fuel economy on premium, and back
when the difference was 5 or 10 cents a gallon it was OFTEN cheaper to
run these vehicles on premium fuel. With the price difference here in
ontario at 5% from 87 to 89, and another 5% more or less from 89 to
91, you need to get at least a 10% improvement in fuel economy for the
price to work out to a savings. I've almost never seen a 10%
improvement in fuel economy on an unmodified OBD2 equipped vehicle, or
even on an ALDL or OBD1 system. If you can buy premium for a 6% price
penalty, you win ( or, as in the case with Shell in Ontario, where
their Premium (Gold) gas has NO ethanol, and their regular is E10,
+/-, the 5% loss in fuel economy from using ethanol 87 R+M/2 means you
only need 5% improvement from the 4 points of octane to make it make
sense.

On my 3.8 Pontiac (1994, so pre OBD2, but still a rather sophisticated
SEFI system) premium reduces my knock count significantly, but since
even on 87 I'm not seeing any spark retard from the knock count
premium isn't likely to make a noticeable difference. I've got a tank
of 91 in right now trying to diagnose a light throttle surge at about
90kph (1600 rpm in 4th gear) and that's how I've gotten the knock
count info. Still surging on premium, no anomolies on the scanner
(data-streaming)but the surge SEAMS to go away when I disconnect the
single pintle electrically controlled EGR valve - so I suspect it's a
programming problem where the factory dialed in the EGR too early.
(the truck had had the problem as long as I've owned it - which means
the brand new engine installed when I got it has ALWAYS had the
problem - 100,000 km now on the engine and 368000 on the van). Passes
DriveClean with flying colours too. Better now than when the engine
was new (all 3 readings down to about half what they were when the
engine went in)

If I could get rid of that surge the gas mileage might improve from an
average of 13.5 l/100km.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

If the price of Gasoline was $100 a gallon and we were producing
ethanol from non-food crops, and particularly from low fertilizer
intensive non-food crops(like legume straw) and waste, food prices
would not be as high as they are today (assuming the cost of natural
gas used to produce fertilizer did not follow the gasoline price)

The USDA estimates re the cost of feedgrains due to ethanol production
WILL be found to be grossly understated. I have farmer friends. The
fuel price is not NEARLY the whole picture. The fertilizer price
definitely comes into it - but vast increases in the production of
corn means a LOT more fertilizer is required - which puts the price up
even more than it would be just because of the oil price.

Using foodgrains for fuel is criminally irrisponsible in today's
world.Particularly as in-efficient a plant as corn.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Speculation, too. The real estate money (well, a good bit of it) ran
to the commodities market.

Dave

Hi,

Politely, let me call BS on that...

Food prices respond to EXACTLY the same forces oil prices do: SUPPLY AND
DEMAND.

The world can only supply so much of either at a given time. Yet we
continue, in a manner totally contrary to most of nature, to breed
ourselves into an excessive demand situation despite our supply not
rising at the same rate. You're a retired physicist/teacher, right? So
it should be no surprise to you to find that if "x" units of "supply"
divided by "y" number of "demanders" allows "z" units of supply per
demander, whenever you reduce "x" or increase "y" then "z" goes down,
too. If "z" must remain static for the system to "work," any change in
"x" or "y" is problematic, now, isn't it?

I appreciate everyone's tiny little efforts to "clean up this" or "use a
little less of that" but I'm afraid I cannot accept ANY solution that
doesn't also include a population control element is anything if not
partially to totally off base.

Rick

Methanol has other SERIOUS problems as a motor fuel. All of which
could likely be minimized with proper development.
First of all, it is extremely toxic (if swallowed)(but so is gasoline
- which is, however, much less palatable). Second of all it is
extremely agressive against most common materials used in automotive
applications.(read that as extremely corrosive)(it contributes to
oxidation).
Also, methanol fire is invisible. EXTRENMEly dangerous.

This is partly counterbalanced by the fact that methanol (the simplest
of all alcohols) breaks down very quickly, and other than by ingestion
is non-toxic. It is also less LIKELY to burn as it requires a lot more
heat to ignite, and has a higher lower flamability limit.

This also means cold staring on neet methanol is extremely dicey.
Ether starting is almost the standard for methanol engines (even for a
hot restart in many cases)

The beauty of Methanol is it can be produced from CO2 and Hydrogen.
Just think - combining hydrogen economy with greenhouse gas reduction
(although burning Methanol produces CO2.)

Production of methanol by the now common processes using natural gas
would obviously be a non-starter.

It mixes freely with water in any ratio, which can be good or bad.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

The ethanol is used to bring the fuel TO the minimum octane rating. If
you buy 87 octane E0 or 87 Octane E15, your AKI is virtually the same.
If you are running a Turbo engine you will be running premium gas for
maximum performance and fuel economy - and again, 93 octane Eo, E10,
and E15 have the same AKI value.

I stand by my previous statement.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Todd, for references, see my reply to DK's post that appears just
after yours in the thread.

Switchgrass and other cellulosic feedstocks are not yet commercially
viable, but they have promise.

Uncle Ben

Yup.  Lotsa energy density, fuel is relatively cheap, no emissions
unless someone majorly f.cks up.  Doing it all safely is the expensive
part, and the "destroys parts of the environment" part of the waste is
the other sticky wicket that requires care, thought, planning and
resourcs.

One disappointment I have with Obama at present is that he hasn't
taken as enlightened approach to nuclear power as Mccain apparently
has.

Maybe the eco zealots that kept any new nuke plants from being built
in the US for the past howevermany years are concerned enough with co2
emissions part of power generation and global warming to reconsider
their position on nuclear power?

--
Todd H.
2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
Chicago, Illinois USA

DK, the article you cited is by Tad Patak, who is also the co-author
of another anti-ethanol paper with David Pimental, who is notorious
for an early article claiming that ethanol from corn costs more energy
to make than you can get out of it.  In fact, the USDA and many others
have found that you get back 67% more than you put into it:

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/net_energy_balance.pdf.

If you restrict inputs to petroleum and natural gas, you get back five
times as much as you put in:

A. Farrell, R. Plevin, B. Turner, A. Jones, M. O'Hare,and D. Kammen,
Science 311 (January 27, 2006):506-508.

I agree that corn is not the best feedstock, but it's what we've got
right now, and it's getting a bad rap.

Uncle Ben

DK, I agree that nukes are the most promising answer, but they are
going to take years to build, and we have hardly started.  We need
something now to bridge the gap.

Uncle Ben