Indy Podcasts
5 Comments
Posted by Cindy Zimmerman – January 21st, 2006
Fire up your I-Pod and tune in to the latest in Indy racing news from Indycar.com. There’s the Indy Racing Weekly Podcast, IMS Radio Network Podcast, and Indy Racing League Teleconference Podcast.
If you wonder what that has to do with domestic fuels, then you don’t know that IRL is embracing ethanol in a big way – starting this year on a 10 percent blend for all cars and going to 100 percent ethanol next year, replacing methanol.
By the way – be sure to tune in Monday for a big ethanol-related Indy announcement.
5 Comments »
Gary Dikkers
Cindy,
While the IRL switch to ethanol is a public relations coup for the ethanol industry, analytical people will realize using ethanol in the high-compression, high-performance motors on IRL racers has nothing to do with the ordinary cars average people drive.
Indy racing cars need high-octane fuels because of their high compression ratios. Both methanol (which they have used for years) and ethanol work equally well in providing the octane they need. However, the low compression ratio motors in passenger autos dont need that octane.
The fact remains that ethanol fuel has a lower energy density than gasoline-based fuels, and that the use of ethanol-blended fuels in normal autos results in lower fuel economy and in the long run that lower fuel economy costs drivers more.
Racecar drivers have made a cost-benefit decision to use ethanol despite of its lower energy density because the power they can get from high-compression ratio motors is more useful to their type of work than fuel economy. That is a legitimate and correct decision for them, but would be absolutely the wrong decision for the average commuter or driver of a family auto with a low-compression engine.
High-octane fuel has no effect on performance when put into the low compression motors Detroit, Japan, Korea, and Germany put in most of the passenger autos they make. The four-cylinder motor in my truck runs just fine on 89-octane fuel, and putting higher-octane fuel in it neither improves performance or fuel economy. In fact, if that higher octane is achieved because of ethanol, the lower energy density causes my fuel economy to suffer, and I end up paying more.
High-octane fuels are great for racing cars, but mean nothing for commuter and passenger autos. Unfortunately, I can already see how the ethanol industry will distort IRL’s conversion to the ethanol industrys benefit. Equally unfortunately, most politicians and most of the public will be gullible to fall for it.
Cindy
Trouble with this argument is that “analytical people” tend to come up with different opinions following their analysis. Here are a few facts:
1. EVERY major auto maker in the world approves the use of E-10 in its engines.
2. The ethanol in E-10 unleaded adds two to three points of octane to ordinary gasoline, helping improve engine performance.
3. As an oxygenate, ethanol has a high oxygen content and burns more completely and pollutes less.
The fuel economy difference is basically negligible with ten percent blends, although it does become more of a factor with E-85. But, as we increase production and demand for ethanol and become more efficient, such as using more waste products, we can decrease the price for ethanol. That is where the fuel becomes “renewable” compared with fossil fuel which is finite and therefore the price can only increase in the long run. We can make more ethanol, we can’t make more natural gas.
Some “analytical people” therefore might conclude that if the fuel is cheaper than conventional gasoline, even if the fuel economy is a bit less, it’s still a better deal. And, as a bouns, it’s made in America.
AgWired » Indy Racing League Podcasting
[...] I don’t know how interested you are in renewable fuels like ethanol or biodiesel but you ought to see what Cindy’s been doing over at DomesticFuel. That’s a ZimmComm blog that we’ve been cranking up the production on. Cindy’s really developing a blogger’s habit there. What’s been interesting is seeing the response we’re getting and we haven’t even rolled out our first promotion for it yet. People are submitting ideas for stories and submitting comments! Take her recent post about the Indy Racing League podcasts as an example. [...]
Gary Dikkers
Cindy said, “The fuel economy difference is basically negligible with ten percent blends, although it does become more of a factor with E-85.”
That is not true, at least not according to my personal experience. There is also evidence on the USDOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) website comparing the fuel mileage in Minnesota (w/ mandatory E-10) and Wisconsin (w/o mandatory E10) that confirms my experience.
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
I drive a compact pickup truck with a four-cylinder engine. I also always record the amount and type of fuel I buy as well as the miles driven. When I fill the tank with straight gasoline, I get 32 mpg at a highway cruising speed of 65 mph. When I fill the tank with E10, I get 29 mpg under the same driving conditions.
That means on a theoretical trip of 320 miles, I would burn 10 gallons of gasoline. If I used E10 on the same trip, I would burn 11 gallons. BUT (and this is an important but) 90% of that E10 is gasoline, and 90% of 11 gallons is 9.9 gallons. WHETHER I USE GASOLINE OR E10, I BURN ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF GASOLINE. Using E10 costs me more and saves no gasoline.
It should be clear why I long ago decided not to buy E10 unless that was my only choice.
OK, I understand it could be my truck or the way I drive, and my personal experience is certainly not scientific proof. Therefore, I started looking for other evidence to confirm my experience.
MINNESOTA FUEL MILEAGE v. WISCONSIN FUEL MILEAGE
The USDOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains records of the amount of fuel consumed and miles driven for each of the 50 states. That information is available on their website at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/qffuel.htm
Using their data for 2003 which is the last year for which they have complete statistics, it is easy to compute the average fuel economy in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
In 2003, Minnesotans used 2.730 billion gallons of ethanol-blended fuels while driving 55.296 billion miles. Minnesotas average fuel economy was 20.25 mpg.
In the same year, Wisconsin drivers used 2.570 billion gallons of fuel while driving 59.615 billion miles. Wisconsins average fuel economy was 23.20 mpg.
Minnesota drivers had to burn more fuel to drive less distance. In fact, their rate of fuel consumption using E10 was 113% more than that of their Wisconsin neighbors consumption rate using gasoline. Heres the real kicker, Minnesota actually burned more gasoline at their mileage rate, than they would have had they used straight gasoline and their mileage rate equaled Wisconsins.
The two states are very much alike: similar weather, similar demographics, similar terrain, and a similar rural/urban mix. The only obvious difference that jumps out is that Minnesota mandates ALL their fuel contain at least 10% ethanol, while Wisconsin doesnt. (It is hard to pin down an exact number, but it appears less than 40% of the gasoline sold in Wisconsin contains ethanol.)
I suggest that a large part of the reason for the well-documented lower fuel mileage in Minnesota is that all of their fuel is blended with ethanol.
Unless the FHWA numbers cannot be trusted, it seems to me their numbers are fairly solid evidence that ethanol lowers average fuel mileage.
Best regards,
Gary Dikkers
Cindy
Ok, Cowboy – not going to argue with you here. Yes, ethanol results in somewhat less fuel efficiency than gasoline. Some of us think it is worth that sacrifice to grow this industry to make our country less dependent on foreign oil. And what about cost? If ethanol blends are cheaper, than the actual COST per mile should end up at least the same if not better.
Comments RSS feed — TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment