Some facts about E10 fuel.

[jpd80]

If our government was serious about reducing CO2 and supporting cane farmers,
they would skip E85 and opt for E25 as the new greener fuel to be used by all
new vehicles beyond a set date and leave 91 for older cars but have a sunset
clause on its cessation in the future, like they did with leaded fuel.

E25 promises a lot of power from high compression, high boost turbo engines
and would allow significant capacity down sizing whilst allowing forced induction
to really take hold, driving up fuel efficiency.

But our government would never do something as sensible as looking at Brazil
and what they did with their sugar crops and reducing imported oil dependency.

[castellan]

The best thing about E10 is it does not pollute the under ground water as unleaded is the most deadly petrol ever used.
With the 10% they don't have to use that stuff in it and that is why all the USA is E10.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by jpd80

If our government was serious about reducing CO2 and supporting cane farmers,
they would skip E85 and opt for E25 as the new greener fuel to be used by all
new vehicles beyond a set date and leave 91 for older cars but have a sunset
clause on its cessation in the future, like they did with leaded fuel.

E25 promises a lot of power from high compression, high boost turbo engines
and would allow significant capacity down sizing whilst allowing forced induction
to really take hold, driving up fuel efficiency.

But our government would never do something as sensible as looking at Brazil
and what they did with their sugar crops and reducing imported oil dependency.

See...now that little mention of a "cessation date" is what concerns anyone who isn't able to buy a brand new car every year or two, or who actually likes driving older cars...

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The only thing I say to people about E10 is to do your own testing and make your own mind up.

I've tracked my fuel economy for two years and things I have found in my situation is:

95ron E1 and 91ron non E10 yield the same economy but the performance is a tad better on the E10.

Ultimate yields about 30km more in economy, the car is smoother. But not worth the 12c/l really.

But in an FG 95ron E10 didn't have as good economy as the 91ron fuel (up to 70k more). But the car felt less powerful on 91 then 95ron E10.

But the 98 wasn't all that more beneficial then the regular 91.

Different peoples situations will yield different results.

This tallies up with my experience and that of others i have read/spoken to. The 95 E10 is atcually very good value if you can get it for the same price or less than 91 (which you can in my part of brisbane...then again i'm in one of the worst suburbs for fuel prices grrr....). My EF definitely makes more power on the 95 e10 than on 91 based on seat of the pants and it burns no more. I had a bad run on 91e10 with bad economy and idle so stay away from that stuff.... Its hard to say why so many people report poor fuel economy and power on 91e10 but conversely good results on 95 e10. The power makes sense i suppose based on octane but the burn is quite good on 95e10....sometimes even better than 91.

I think its all based on the stock non ethanol base fuel they use. The 91e10 must use pretty rubbish stuff if its only 91 after the octane boost E10 gives...hence the poor burn. Just a theory....

As for the relative merits of ethanol production from a economics/life cycle point of view its not as simple as it seems. Gov policies, varying crop stocks, production techhniques and of course fuel/oil prices all have a part to play. I don't much like the idea from an engineering standpoint but as a member of a cane sugar growing family i see the other side of it. Just as an aside i think people need to take into account changes in production technology and the fact that in australia (at present and likely into the future) ethanol is made from molasses or at very least low sugar content masecreate (spelling....basically sugar laden molasses) not from refined or even raw sugar crystals.

This changes the cost efficiences substantially and in using a by product you at least partially skirt the issue of wasting valuable food production in a time when the world is already struggling to feed itself (which is a main gripe of min). Given this comparing australian or evnen brazilian ethanol production to the USA is like comparing a falcon to a fiesta. They are both fords and both cars but alot of other stuff is very different under the skin....

[Foylema]

E10 pfff E85 FTW lol

[flappist]

Originally Posted by jpd80

If our government was serious about reducing CO2 and supporting cane farmers,
they would skip E85 and opt for E25 as the new greener fuel to be used by all
new vehicles beyond a set date and leave 91 for older cars but have a sunset
clause on its cessation in the future, like they did with leaded fuel.

E25 promises a lot of power from high compression, high boost turbo engines
and would allow significant capacity down sizing whilst allowing forced induction
to really take hold, driving up fuel efficiency.

But our government would never do something as sensible as looking at Brazil
and what they did with their sugar crops and reducing imported oil dependency.

I am just wondering what would have happened if that had done this 20 years ago, just before the drought that ended only last year?
You know, the one that almost wiped out most of our agriculture.

You do realise that water is needed to grow cane and apart from Antarctica we are on the driest continent on the planet....(despite the once in a century flood)

[ebxr8240]

Cane grows fairly good in Queensland...

[TruBlu351]

The sugar cane here isn't grown just for ethanol production.....primarily for sugar, but a byproduct of this process, molasses, is then fermented and used to produce the ethanol.....so a nice way to use the scraps ;)

Just need to weigh that up in the whole argument of this whole "using food land to make fuel."

Not sure when northern Queensland had it's last drought!

Food vs Fuel
It is important to realise that not all ethanol is equal, especially when it comes to sustainability.

There has been much debate around use of biofuels taking resources away from food production. This debate mainly refers to the overseas production of ethanol and specifically the use of corn and grains to produce ethanol.

The sugar/molasses based ethanol situation is different, sugar is a sweetener not a food staple. Unlike corn and grain, sugar contains no protein, fat or vitamins.

Other benefits of sugar/molasses based ethanol include:
•The molasses used to produce Sucrogen Ethanol is a by-product of sugar production and is not a “food”
•Ethanol produced from Sugar has 4 times the C02 reduction of ethanol produced from grain.
•Sucrogen BioEthanol recycle nutrients back to the source; and
•Usage of our Liquid One Shot (LOS) fertiliser reduces the volume of nitrogen required compared to other fertilisers. Nitrogen is a source of Greenhouse Gases
•60% of Australian sugarcane is now grown without irrigation. Water management practices have been implemented by sugarcane farmers through a Rural Water Use Efficiency Project (RWUE). The RWUE project has lead to 91% changing the layout of their farm to improve efficiency of irrigation and/or harvesting operations.
•The land used to produce sugar in Australia has been used for this purpose for over 100 years, there has been no change of land use involved in the production of Sugar and molasses in Australia.