88 octane - loss of MPG

OK, how about some percentage figures ........or per capita numbers ??
Our usage should be something less than 10%, especially when you add in diesel use.
I think Brazil's number is something like 80 or more.

But you are right that isn't a good debating point.

 

Not necessarily true, the various grades of gasoline are not made to be exactly equal energy. Energy content is not a spec.

But it is effectively true in reformulated gasoline areas, such as California and Northeast, it is true that the EPA mandated recipe results in approximately equal energy content (MPG) between grades., if not slightly lower energy in the higher octane grades.

In Pittsburgh (my fair old home)(not an RFG area), the OP could be dealing more energy content variations than we see in RFG areas . It could be that in Pittsburgh, the 87 Octane the OP is using is juicier energy, so when he goes to 88 octane E15, he might be getting a double whammy of lower energy, if there is a change in fuel source between the 87 and 88.

PS- As far as OP, I would never trust MPG off the display, Really need to do the hand calc based on actual gallons pumped in, and that number usually jumps around, so you need a few tanks to average.

 

Since you seem unable to look up Brazil's population or do the arithmetic to compute per capita numbers, I'll do it for you. Brazil has about 211 million people, vs. 328 million in the U.S.

From the chart I posted, that means the U.S. uses (838,000 / 328 =) 2550 barrels per day per million people. Brazil, (359,000 / 211 =) 1700 barrels/day/million-peeps. I'll let you portray 1770 as "far more" than 2550, it fits your common argument style.

You also used the plural form, meaning other parts of the world using more ethanol that does the U.S. Where else, beside your questionable claim of Brazil?

Maybe China?

 

It would be interesting to see how these numbers are affected if you remove the numbers for Jet Fuel as I’m sure Thailand has much less aviation than the US

 

FEATURE: Brazilian ethanol trade flow reverses to net exports | S&P Global Platts


Just because Brazil’s people are far more efficient than a wasteful US citizen really doesn’t add credence to your argument Fuzzy

The US pisses away as much energy of all forms as humanly possible which is not winning.

Brazil does indeed use far more ethanol than it does crude for powering people movers and has flirted with energy independence off sugar cane fuels alongside historically exporting octane boosters to US

I rarely stand by Spade but I Understand his point and you clearly do not. His principal is correct even if poorly stated and your focus on numbers of apples vrs oranges add nothing to that discussion.

 

USA uses more ethanol because we have KingCorn EU prefers biodiesel.
EU does the same thing we do (government mandate agricultural bio content in fuels) but they are not big on corn or sugar cane.

In general, adding oxygenates to gasoline has no scientific benefit. It is not necessary, but can be done. .When the Auto/Oil studies were being done back in early 1990's , the surprising experimental finding was that adding ethanol did not make gasoline burn more cleanly in cars with catalytic mufflers. In fact adding ethanol is a little worse due to higher evaporative emissions. That's when Congress stepped in to say USA is going to mandate ethanol anyways, and there was a big political fight which the oil industry lost. Oil industry then said, if we must mandate oxygenates, then they asked for MTBE + ethanol. However, MTBE later was found to have eco-problems and was eventually banned...MTBE does not biodegrade well and finds its way into water bodies etc.

 

Even with zero oxygenation The regulators don’t like the aeromatics and volatile compounds that traditionally raise octane either.

Oxygenates really only reduce certain types of Pollution in engines without pollution controls and at this point could be completely optional

Our supply base isn’t setup to provide traditional 87 octane unleaded either and is focused on heavy ends making 84/85 octane feedstock which is another issue

 

1 this shouldn't be hard to prove true or false, I don't doubt it at all.

2 of course not. I'm not a fan of lobbyists, or congress, they're both wastes

3 this is logical. but you said "almost 100%" . I would expect with 300 million people using petroleum products weekly in the USA, someone besides a lobbyist/petroleum employee, might have discovered something also.

4 of course not. my main intention here it's to point out that additives that decrease efficiency , cost more, and prop up subsidies, are wasteful . yes, that includes ethanol.

5 yes, I would suggest that "climate change" is a very difficult proposal to prove or disprove. we have very limited data to draw from, which can be proven to be variable. as far as air quality, I believe catalytic converters and higher mpg vehicles in general are doing a good job. adding more gallons of poorer performing fuels to the mix appears to be a step backwards.

6 it's not hot here until August when the air is dead calm, full of humidity, and sweating doesn't help.

 

I admitted that I was not accurate in my last post.
And yet you continue to rant.
I am sorry that you take inconsequential things so seriously.
Have a good day.......and stay safe.

 

Where do you GET this crap ?
It helps reduce noxious emissions. An oxide of Nitrogen, I think.
There is no "scientific benefit" in reading most of the posts on here lately, that's for sure.

 

I thought that E10 produced less Co emissions than E5. That’s how it’s promoted in the UK

 

No it isn't.
A literal MOUNTAIN of data is accumulating.
And it almost ALL points to man crapping in his own mess kit, in a myriad of different ways.

 

okay.

 

have you jacked it up and checked for sticky calipers, under inflated tires , dragging parking brake, etc ?

 

Given that he has an early Gen 3,
is burning oil
an egr inspection and clean is on order.

Hopefully he hasn’t had herky jerky or other signs of a head gasket failure, his level of oil consumption isn’t considered severe by Toyota standards but definitely warrants a once over.

Given every Gen 3 will eventually blow the head gasket regardless of the fuel used or number of oil changes this is a lesson to always keep an eye on the EGR system

Prius Gen 3 Major Maintenance: EGR, manifold, spark plugs, Oil Catch Can | PriusChat

 

You did ask an additional question, which could have been answered with just a quick population query and a basic four-function calculation. And yet you continue to rant that I actually answered it for you.

I'm sorry that you continue to so dislike being fact checked.

 

Periodic use of injector cleaner in the gas can't hurt anything BUT taking wild guesses and throwing "snake oil" at it is NOT a good thing to be doing.

It is most likely that this is a HUGE coincidence and something else changed about the time you put the E15 in the tank.
You have gone back to regular E10 now......right ?

A very unscientific test of whether the fuel is really the culprit or not is to find some E0 premium and run a tank or two of that.
The lack of ethanol should give you about a 3% boost in MPG.

 

That argument was that some previously posted claims needed fact checking. The previous poster admitted to an error. So are you now defending those claims?

As for Brazil being "far more efficient", I'd describe it instead as "less developed" with a per-capita GDP barely over one-tenth that of the U.S.

As for exporting ethanol now, your linked article indicates that the pandemic economic slump reduced their domestic demand, leaving them with surplus for export. That may be a temporary situation.

Brazil's ethanol industry is based on sugarcane, with a fairly nice energy balance of about 8. (I'll ignore any deforestation problems for now.) The originally claimed portion of Brazil's fuel supply from ethanol had also been overstated.

Sugarcane doesn't grow well in most of the continental U.S., so our ethanol industry is based on corn, with a terrible energy balance of just 1.3. From a climate perspective, where we need a 5X reduction of fossil fuel emissions over the next three decades, this just isn't a path to reaching the target. It is hardly worth doing even without looking at the consequences of converting food croplands to non-food use. We need a cellulosic ethanol industry with an energy balance of similar to, or exceeding, what Brazil is getting from its sugarcane. But we don't currently have a viable way to do it.

Defending U.S. corn ethanol by referencing Brazil's sugarcane ethanol is the real apples vs oranges distraction here, and added nothing useful to the discussion.