|
One business writer for the Houston Chronicle, Loren Steffy, decided that he would take the time and personally test the difference between ethanol and gasoline.
Opponents of ethanol point out that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than what the ethanol produces. According to the Department of Energy, ethanol yields 25 percent more energy than it takes to produce it.
To find out if this was true, Steffy rented a Chevrolet Suburban which, as a flex fuel vehicle, could burn both gasoline and E85. He used one tank of each fuel and drove the SUV under comparable driving conditions.
His first tank of gas cost him $2.20 a gallon. A week later, he filled up with E85 ethanol at $1.92 a gallon. The SUV got 16.4 miles a gallon on gasoline and 13.5 miles a gallon on the ethanol. He calculated that if he drove 15,000 miles a year and the prices remained the same, ethanol would cost about $120 more than gas.
However, he noted that if the gas prices rise during the year, the cost of ethanol would compare well and the cost difference would be cut. Also, he pointed out that ethanol would cut emissions of greenhouse gases on his rented Suburban by about 6,500 pounds a year.
So ethanol's in front of this fuel race, right? Uh, not quite. According to Steffy, most flex-fuel vehicles that can burn both ethanol and gas are among the least fuel-efficient vehicles available. His Toyota coupe, which gets about 26 miles a gallon on gas, is fuel efficient and emits low amounts of pollutants. And hybrids, Steffy argues, are even more efficient.
So, Steffy’s conclusion was that gas is more efficient. It produces 94 percent more energy than it takes to produce it. And the cost of ethanol at the pump is misleading because it is being subsidized.
He’s sticking with gas.
|
|