Regular Unleaded

That depends on your state. Mid Wes corn belt you got E10 24-7. We have it in winter here in Washington. All of that may change as EtOH replaces other oxygenation agents in gas.

 

But is there a company that doesn't add ethanol at all?


legalize freedom!

 

There is an Exxon station in Lakewood, CO that advertises non ethanol fuel It is about 15 cents a gallon more than gas at other local stations...







<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cheap! @ Jul 10 2006, 03:39 PM) [snapback]284082[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cheap! @ Jul 10 2006, 05:39 PM) [snapback]284082[/snapback]</div>

Your logic is faulty.

It is true that your MPG will be less with E10. About 3% less from what I've read. Therefore, you will burn more fuel.

However, E10 contains 10% less gasoline than straight gasoline. So, you are acutally burning less fossil fuels by using E10 than you are by using straight gasoline. Even though the car may emit more CO2 because you are burning more fuel, a smaller percentage of it comes from fossil fuels. The rest comes from the ethanol which was produced from corn which actually removed the CO2 from the air in the first place. Even if you consider the fossil fuels used to grow the corn, you are probably still consuming less fossil fuels than you would have if you were burning straight gasoline.

So, if you do succeed in finding a gas station that will sell you non-ethanol gasoline, then you will actually be burning more fossil fuels and adding more greenhouse gasses to the environment than you would if you just used E10.

 

EDIT: Sorry bad information, post removed.

tumbleweed

 

Marathon used to be 100% gasoline, but I'm not sure if they still are.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cheap! @ Jul 20 2006, 04:43 PM) [snapback]289570[/snapback]</div>

It depends on who you listen to.

One study that seems to be quoted by lots and lots of people is by a UC Berkley professor who claims that the amount of energy required to produce Ethanol is about twice that contained in Ethanol. And technically, he's right.

However, that number includes the solar energy used by the corn plant to grow the corn. It's not exactly fair to include that, don't you think? Would you include in the energy cost of gasoline, the solar energy required to grow the plants 10 million years ago that were turned into oil? How about the geothermal energy required to compress and heat the plants as they turned into oil?

When you consider only the fossil energy input, which is after all what your original post was concerned about, then Ethanol is more efficient than gasoline and actually has a net energy gain, while gasoline has a net energy loss.

Study: Ethanol production more energy efficient than gasoline

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("St Louis Business Journal Article")</div>

See Also...
Energy Balance/Life Cycle Inventory for Ethanol, Biodiesel and Petroleum Fuels

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Jul 21 2006, 05:35 AM) [snapback]289864[/snapback]</div>

You are right on Marlin. I originally posted the results of a "study" which was done by a Cornell professor named David Pimental. I deleted it after checking some of his facts (should have checked first). He stated that it would take 140 gallons of fossil fuel per acre for a farmer to grow corn, I have friends involved in agriculture and they tell me this is about 10 times or more to high. Also his "study" completely ignored the other by-products you can get from corn when you make ethanol. People on the other side of the issue tell me there are by-products such as corn flour, corn oil, corn meal and even grits. Other by-products are animal feeds such as Fibrotein TM, corn gluten meal and feed and certain amino acids.

The truth is there are people pretending to be objective and knowledgeable on both sides of this issue who are being paid to come up with specific results, and they do. The only thing we can know for sure is that it is very political and there is a lot of money on both sides.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(legalize freedom @ Jul 20 2006, 06:34 AM) [snapback]289274[/snapback]</div>

All of the Phillips 66 stations I've seen in southern Wisconsin have "no ethanol - better MPG" or something to that effect on their signs. I do not know what, if anything, this means in your area of the country.

 

All my stations in my area on Long Island, NY, say "no more than 10% ethanol."