Born: June 9, 1972
« Church of the Flying … | Home | Community Times Four.… »
September 19, 2005 at 11:05 am
E85 (Alternative Fuel), Redux: A Photo Essay...
Not too long ago, I wrote an entry here about E85 — an alternative fuel made from ethanol (if you’d like to read the entry, click here). In June, when I wrote the entry, I was bummed for two reasons: (1) our car can’t use E85 and, (2) E85 wasn’t available in the Kansas City area. Well, since then, I have found a gas station that supplies E85. Here’s what I found…
Here’s our car wishing it could use E85:
That’s right. E85 was thirty cents more per gallon than regular unleaded. But that article at MSNBC said that E85 should be an average of forty-five cents cheaper than regular unleaded? What’s the deal?
And that’s my question: What’s the deal?
Anyone out there know?
Digg This Story | 
Save This Page
No Trackbacks
Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (20)
Thanks for the link, but it doesn’t really help. While the article explains that E85 prices are on the rise, it still says that, “E-85, a fuel blend that’s 85-percent ethanol, is still about 45-cents a gallon less than regular unleaded.”
As you can see from my “investigation,” the prices here in Kansas City are flip-flopped. It just doesn’t make sense.
As you can see from my “investigation,” the prices here in Kansas City are flip-flopped. It just doesn’t make sense.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on September 19, 2005 at 12:33 pm
i smell a crude conspiracy! pun intended. Lame! Who do we have to kill? i’m in.
» Comment by dennisthemenace () , on September 19, 2005 at 12:44 pm
“You’d think E-85, which contains just fifteen percent gasoline, would be well-insulated from the sharp rise in gas prices. But that’s not how the math works out. It’s the ethanol in E-85, not the gasoline, that’s the driving force in the equation for higher prices. There’s more demand now for ethanol and that’s why the price of E-85 is going up.”
Here is another thing I found that shows a problem and complexity of the tax credits for the E85.
(this site below is under letters to NEVC)
http://www.e85fuel.com/news/071703fyi.ht..
You may want to contact the state for ease of implimentation of the tax incentive. This is a state by state implimentation of a federal directive. An obvious problem. (not to contradict my strong views for balance of powers but this is a problem in this case).
Here is another thing I found that shows a problem and complexity of the tax credits for the E85.
(this site below is under letters to NEVC)
http://www.e85fuel.com/news/071703fyi.ht..
You may want to contact the state for ease of implimentation of the tax incentive. This is a state by state implimentation of a federal directive. An obvious problem. (not to contradict my strong views for balance of powers but this is a problem in this case).
» Comment by dh () , on September 19, 2005 at 2:23 pm
It’s also a problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax issue that Congress must rectify with the implimentation of these credits. I found these sites interesting and helped me understand the complexity of the issue with price.
» Comment by dh () , on September 19, 2005 at 2:29 pm
aww… so.. we DON’T get to kill someone… (throws gun on the ground and drops head) i never get to have any fun.
» Comment by dennisthemenace () , on September 19, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Dennis don’t be disappointed. We still need to “take on” states who don’t impliment the Tax credit for Alternative Fuel and address the Federal Government when it comes to how the tax credits affects the Alternative minimum tax which prevents companies from sell E85 at lower prices because of A.M.T. issues for their respective companies. Kill? no take them on? sure
I say we do away with AMT all together like it was presented earlier this decade but this was part of the “compromise”.
I say we do away with AMT all together like it was presented earlier this decade but this was part of the “compromise”.
» Comment by dh () , on September 19, 2005 at 3:02 pm
None of the information presented so far explains why the regular unleaded/E85 prices in Kansas City, MO are flip-flopped. I’m not trying to figure out why E85 prices are high — the information in that regard seems pretty straight-forward. Still, all of the data I read about E85 says that it should be priced lower than regular unleaded. (Am I missing something here?)
Anyway, I’m thinking it’s time that DH gets himself his own Blog!
Anyway, I’m thinking it’s time that DH gets himself his own Blog!
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on September 19, 2005 at 3:17 pm
i have no idea what he just said…. Where’s my gun!?
» Comment by dennisthemenace () , on September 19, 2005 at 5:18 pm
Tim,
we have a similar E-85 price disparity here in Colorado. While some fueling stations seem to have a
handle on negotiating the tax hurdles , keeping the price 30-40 cents below unleaded( where it should be)
other stations are clearly off the path. It’s almost like twisting the knife after inflicting a wound..
Someone needs to round these rascals up …
Check this link for how Colorado prices compare with yours in Kansas …
http://coloradocorn.com/resources/goals/..
we have a similar E-85 price disparity here in Colorado. While some fueling stations seem to have a
handle on negotiating the tax hurdles , keeping the price 30-40 cents below unleaded( where it should be)
other stations are clearly off the path. It’s almost like twisting the knife after inflicting a wound..
Someone needs to round these rascals up …
Check this link for how Colorado prices compare with yours in Kansas …
http://coloradocorn.com/resources/goals/..
» Comment by Wayoutwes () , on September 21, 2005 at 07:44 am
Thanks for the comment and link… It is interesting how varied the prices are at the different fueling stations!
I am going to contact the NEVC website and ask them if they can explain.
I am going to contact the NEVC website and ask them if they can explain.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on September 21, 2005 at 09:30 am
From the NEVC I posted earlier under(letters to the NEVC)
“The retailers in Maryland that are providing E85 are currently unable to take advantage of the tax credits as they are impacted by the Alternative Minimum Tax. Hence, the price of E85 is higher than unleaded gasoline.”
The AMT is federal so it seems reasonable that the MD variables apply to the KC variables. Sorry, I was just trying to help.
“The retailers in Maryland that are providing E85 are currently unable to take advantage of the tax credits as they are impacted by the Alternative Minimum Tax. Hence, the price of E85 is higher than unleaded gasoline.”
The AMT is federal so it seems reasonable that the MD variables apply to the KC variables. Sorry, I was just trying to help.
» Comment by dh () , on September 21, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Another juicey tidbit for you… Just before Katrina hit in late August, I found out what the wholesale price of E-85 was at the terminal just outside of Denver… 1.83/gal. !!! With ~ $0.43 worth of
state & federal tax , and a small markup for the station owner, what should the price of E-85 be
in Colorado ??? I don’t think any of this adds up
to 3.09, 3.19, or even 2.85/gal.
state & federal tax , and a small markup for the station owner, what should the price of E-85 be
in Colorado ??? I don’t think any of this adds up
to 3.09, 3.19, or even 2.85/gal.
» Comment by Wayoutwes () , on September 21, 2005 at 9:34 pm
DH ~ Ahhh… See? I didn’t see that part.
Still, as Wayoutwes says, it just doesn’t make sense… The price it costs to create E85 is much much lower than what it costs to refine unleaded gasoline. Even with taxes and fees, the selling price of E85 should not be above regular unleaded.
I did send an e-mail to whoever runs the NEVC site, but have not yet received a response.
Still, as Wayoutwes says, it just doesn’t make sense… The price it costs to create E85 is much much lower than what it costs to refine unleaded gasoline. Even with taxes and fees, the selling price of E85 should not be above regular unleaded.
I did send an e-mail to whoever runs the NEVC site, but have not yet received a response.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on September 22, 2005 at 08:11 am
Update: I’ve posted a response from the NEVC here:
– http://www.sense-datum.org/tim/pivot/ent..
– http://www.sense-datum.org/tim/pivot/ent..
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on September 23, 2005 at 09:37 am
the response sounds like a catch 22. If this is true, then the whole E85 thing is self defeating. How can you spark interest or build an industry if people have to buy regular gasoline to save money?!? so much for buying a flex fuel car!!!
» Comment by Ray () , on April 19, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Why are ethanol prices higher there? check this link for all prices. http://e85prices.com/
I can only assume its a supply and demand issue, or the company selling E85 really prefers to sell gas (big shock) instead of ethanol…. so they priced it too high to slow sales.
GOOD NEWS — There is a way to convert most cars to flex fuel vehicles Intelligent Ethanol Systems makes the only EPA approved fuel conversion kit on the market. They have a website and you can have it installed in about an hour. You can order online or see if they have a dealer in your area the kit runs about 595 plus shipping and installation. http://www.intelligentethanolsystems.com..
I can only assume its a supply and demand issue, or the company selling E85 really prefers to sell gas (big shock) instead of ethanol…. so they priced it too high to slow sales.
GOOD NEWS — There is a way to convert most cars to flex fuel vehicles Intelligent Ethanol Systems makes the only EPA approved fuel conversion kit on the market. They have a website and you can have it installed in about an hour. You can order online or see if they have a dealer in your area the kit runs about 595 plus shipping and installation. http://www.intelligentethanolsystems.com..
» Comment by Jim Acquaviva () , on August 21, 2007 at 09:59 am
Jim, back when I wrote this post (2005), the prices were as described here. And, I definitely think it was a supply/demand issue. Just a few days ago, though, I noticed that the E85 prices were dramatically lower than regular gasoline (up to 75 cents cheaper at one place).
Thanks for the link!
Thanks for the link!
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on August 21, 2007 at 10:58 am
Jim Acquaviva wrote me an email that I thought should be included here:
—-
Thanks Tim.
I hope the links are useful. The E85 is on the up rise. Though there are many people who say it is not going to work the production in 2006 was 4.89 billion gallons from 127 ethanol production plants. There are currently 81 more production plants under construction. This is a very cool trend. I don’t think we can ever substitute the 140 billion annual gas demand for the US, however if we can blend 15% of the gas with 85% ethanol… we can definitely extend the lifetime of a fossil fuel on the decline and reduce some dependency of foreign oil.
I really don’t think the US can convert enough corn acreage to produce a high % of our annual gas demand, but the same formula applies as above. In 2007 the US planted 90.5 million acres of corn in 2007 a 15% increase over 2006 (according to the USDA). 2007 ethanol production is slated to be approximately 6.2 billion gallons that will make 7.1 billion gallons of E85 ethanol right at 5% of our annual fuel demand. So the growth trend is good for the states that produce a lot of corn, they should be able to have a cheap alternative fuel source. The US is now ahead of Brazil in ethanol production. So if you have access to E85 that is reasonably priced it may be a good option. And now you know you can convert the car you have and not go buy a new one….that ought to piss off GM…. :) Good luck either way. Ethanol is mainly limited by lack of infrastructure and the ability to transport it beyond trucks, trains, and barges. There are no pipelines (yet). So proximity is the main determining factor to affordability.
Thanks for letting me ramble on….
Jim A
—-
—-
Thanks Tim.
I hope the links are useful. The E85 is on the up rise. Though there are many people who say it is not going to work the production in 2006 was 4.89 billion gallons from 127 ethanol production plants. There are currently 81 more production plants under construction. This is a very cool trend. I don’t think we can ever substitute the 140 billion annual gas demand for the US, however if we can blend 15% of the gas with 85% ethanol… we can definitely extend the lifetime of a fossil fuel on the decline and reduce some dependency of foreign oil.
I really don’t think the US can convert enough corn acreage to produce a high % of our annual gas demand, but the same formula applies as above. In 2007 the US planted 90.5 million acres of corn in 2007 a 15% increase over 2006 (according to the USDA). 2007 ethanol production is slated to be approximately 6.2 billion gallons that will make 7.1 billion gallons of E85 ethanol right at 5% of our annual fuel demand. So the growth trend is good for the states that produce a lot of corn, they should be able to have a cheap alternative fuel source. The US is now ahead of Brazil in ethanol production. So if you have access to E85 that is reasonably priced it may be a good option. And now you know you can convert the car you have and not go buy a new one….that ought to piss off GM…. :) Good luck either way. Ethanol is mainly limited by lack of infrastructure and the ability to transport it beyond trucks, trains, and barges. There are no pipelines (yet). So proximity is the main determining factor to affordability.
Thanks for letting me ramble on….
Jim A
—-
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on August 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm
We found an interesting article about the problems with Ethanol on ConsumerReports.org:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/20..
“But there are some problems with increasing ethanol blends. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline will likely result in lower fuel economy. Increasing standard fuel blends from zero to 10 percent ethanol, as is happening today, has little or no impact on fuel economy. In tests, the differences occur within the margin of error, about 0.5 percent. Further increasing ethanol levels to 20 percent reduces fuel economy between 1 and 3 percent, according to testing by the DOE and General Motors. Evaluations are underway to determine if E20 will burn effectively in today’s engines without impacting reliability and longevity, and also assessing potential impact on fuel economy.”
TheSUBWAY.com would like to invite readers to post their own views and ideas in TheSUBWAY.com’s Investor Forum:
http://investor-forum.thesubway.com/
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/20..
“But there are some problems with increasing ethanol blends. Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, so increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline will likely result in lower fuel economy. Increasing standard fuel blends from zero to 10 percent ethanol, as is happening today, has little or no impact on fuel economy. In tests, the differences occur within the margin of error, about 0.5 percent. Further increasing ethanol levels to 20 percent reduces fuel economy between 1 and 3 percent, according to testing by the DOE and General Motors. Evaluations are underway to determine if E20 will burn effectively in today’s engines without impacting reliability and longevity, and also assessing potential impact on fuel economy.”
TheSUBWAY.com would like to invite readers to post their own views and ideas in TheSUBWAY.com’s Investor Forum:
http://investor-forum.thesubway.com/
» Comment by TheSUBWAY.com , on April 11, 2008 at 1:29 pm
http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail2817.c..