Florida switching to E10 ethanol blended gasoline
The Florida legislature is debating a 10 percent ethanol mandate in all gasoline sold in the state. Most gas stations are in fact already selling the E10 blend, including ExxonMobil, BP, Hess, and Shell. Chevron will follow suit in July.
Gas stations aren't making a big advertising pitch for their E10 blended product, by the way. It's not being promoted on the neon price signs at stations. If you want to know if your pump is
ethanol blended gasoline look for a sticker on the pump which should say something like "this may contain up to 10 per cent ethanol." That's what my local Shell station has done.
(I just went and checked and my Shell station pump now says this: "All gasoline products contain up to 10% ethanol by volume." - click on photo to enlarge)
Click here for an article in The Miami Herald.
- David Adams



It takes more energy to produce ethnaol that it puts out! A complete sham!
Posted by: gene | April 28, 2008 at 09:14 AM
Another uninformed move by our state leaders. What the consumer can expect is a zero reduction in the cost of fuel, and a 4-5% reduction in gas mileage, by using E10. In addition, the continued use of ethanol will, and has already resulted in an increase in the cost of many food products. I know our own governor is pushing for an ethanol production facility in Tampa and this will result in much more fresh water consumption during an already critical situation. Any gains from using a 10% mixture of ethanol are offset by the many negatives that result from using a product that consumes so many of our necessary commodities in it's production. Common sense apparently is not something that our leaders in Tallahassee have in great abundance.
Posted by: Ron | April 28, 2008 at 09:30 AM
It also drives the mpg down on most vehicles. Add that to the added cost to produce, the effects it has on the ag. industry and food costs, and I say, we're being had again.
Posted by: Kathryn | April 28, 2008 at 09:31 AM
Gene - You know that is a lie, why keep spreading stuff like that? What is your solution? Why are you so angry? Has someone hurt you? Did your daddy touch you bad? Is mommy seeing lots of men and drinking alot? Is uncle bob making you feel dirty?
Posted by: Tony | April 28, 2008 at 09:32 AM
Sorry Tony, Gene is right. Currently our ethanol is primarily from corn and corn is VERY fertilizer intensive - fertilizer that is petroleum based!
Posted by: kevin | April 28, 2008 at 09:51 AM
Since the gas mileage of E10 is less than regular unleaded, I think that gas stations should be required to post that fact more prominently. Right now there is an inconspicuous sticker on the pump.
The gas station near my house sells E10 at the same price as regular unleaded across the street, but customers are receiving less BTUs for the same dollar.
Posted by: Tino | April 28, 2008 at 09:56 AM
Yeah, we really need to keep paying the Arabs instead of the American farmer. Ethanol causes food price increases of less than a percent but did the cost of high diesel increases have nothing to do with food price increases? Wake up-its oil company propaganda. EtOH does not effect your food prices, the cost of diesel does 100X more. Every item in the grocery store is moved there by diesel.
Posted by: Wain | April 28, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Compare your gas mileage, you will get less out of a gallon of E10 gas because of the energy value of the ethanol. What a wonderful idea the government has. Make you buy gas that gives you worse mileage so they can collect more taxes.
Posted by: Concerned | April 28, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I did not mean to parrot everyone, I wrote the message got a phone call and talked for awhile then posted. At least the message is out now.
Posted by: | April 28, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Tony, simply put:
Gene is right. Production of ethanol fuel has a larger carbon footprint than gasoline. It requires more energy from carbon based fuel to convert corn into ethanol than can be yielded energetically. We only want this b/c we already subsidize corn, but if we had a good sugarcane source (like Brazil does) this would be a better solution. E10 will drop our mileage and result in more frequent fill-ups. The end result of this is the use of more gas, more coal, etc.
I am an environmentalist and a chemical engineer, but what you have to understand is all alternative fuel sources come with a price. None are perfect, and corn-based ethanol is a poor choice period. We need to stop making it corporate responsibility to make the changes, and we need to be personally responsible and active in the formation of these policies.
What I hope is that this will move us towards more fuel efficient vehicles (and yes I know electric cars are not the perfect solution either), more energy efficient appliances and that will drive down our personal costs. It will move our economy to support these personal choices, allowing for the production of these goods to become more cost efficient and finally, we will use less energy, which will drive down the use of coal and hydrocarbon fuels to produce our energy.
Also understand our oil does not exclusively come from the middle east. And the main reason why gas is so high priced is because years back oil companies opted to invest money instead of anticipating heightened demand from giant SUVs and Hemipowered trucks. They failed to build sufficient refineries and process plants and now they are trying to "catch up." (Remember economics class: we want supply to equal demand) The first 10 years or so of operating a new plant are the years where cost is recuperated, so thats what is going on. Well that combined with some of the factors affecting the middle east.
I think we can expect the price of fuel to increase more, but eventually (think years here) start to decrease as profits are turned and technology research costs are regained.
Anyway, sorry for the tangent... I hope we don't mandate the whole E10 blend deal. But politicians rarely consider the whole picture.
Posted by: J | April 28, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Well stated J. Everything that you wrote is correct. I am in the petroleum business and believe me, everyone in our industry knows that Ethanol is a joke. I am not a liberal by any means but this time the Govt. has it ALL WRONG. Unfortunately, our politicians have been listening to the wrong people about this for a long time. This is going to get much worse before it gets better. I'm not looking forward to this summer...
Posted by: Joe | April 28, 2008 at 10:55 AM
It takes 4 gallons of water to process 1 gallon of ethanol. Ethanol is a sham.
Right now China, Venezuela, Mexico, India, Pakistan, and Cuba are all planning on drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Do the environmentalists really think that these countries will have the adequate safeguards in place that the US would?
Does anyone know how much oil leaked out of the platforms off of Louisiana during Katrina and Rita? I do. NOT A
SINGLE DROP!
J you are absolutely right. We don't need ethanol plants. We need new, more efficient, gasoline refineries!
Oh and by the way. The only reason Brazil is energy independant is because they use sugarcane. But the sugarcane wasn't always there. It replaced the rain forrests that were slashed and burned in the 80's. Strange how no one seems to remember or mention that!
Posted by: Marty S | April 28, 2008 at 11:03 AM
The only way to increase consumers use of E!) is for the stations to reduce the price per gallon below the price for regular gasoline. Who cares what its made of. It's the PPG that counts. Reduce the price, use goes up and E10 becomes the favored product, investors and innovators see the value and figue out how to poduce it more efficiently than is being done now.
Posted by: Doc | April 28, 2008 at 11:07 AM
What a great idea. We're now paying more for food and for gas *and* getting worse mileage because of it. I used to avoid E10 when I saw it at the pump (would go to another station), but it's getting hard to avoid.
Posted by: Jon | April 28, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Ron wrote:
"Another uninformed move by our state leaders. What the consumer can expect is a zero reduction in the cost of fuel, and a 4-5% reduction in gas mileage, by using E10."
This decrease in mileage means people have to fill up more often. That means the state gets more gas tax revenue
Posted by: Eric | April 28, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Lovely, going from bad to worse, and sanctioned by the State...
Posted by: John | April 28, 2008 at 11:35 AM
We get 5% less miles per gallon, so for example a trip of 200 miles used 20 gallons originaly. Now the same 20 gallons gets us 190 miles. To get back the other 10 miles, we need another 3/5 of a gallon, not just 1/2. Use more gas and at the same time go shorter distance. Deminishing returns.......
Posted by: Paul | April 28, 2008 at 11:57 AM
On August 5.05, President Bush signed into law the 2005 Energy Policy Act which includes a 7.5 billion gallon renewable fuels standard by 2012. This mandates the use of ethanol in the American fuel supply. It's the only alternative fuel that will pump in existing fuel systems, hence its appeal. Supposed to reduce emissions also.
Posted by: C | April 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM
It's not that Florida is switching to ethanol. The gasoline companies are switching to ethanol. Chevron, Motiva (Shell/Texaco), Hess, Marathon, Transmontane are all in the process of forcing stations to purchase E10 gasoline. Why? Not because of Florida mandate. There is none. Not because they are Green. The fact is that ethanol increases the gasoline companies profits. The ethanol subsidy is a $.51/gal credit that goes to the blender at the wholesale truck rack. By controlling the availability of "clear" gasoline, the gasoline companies are controlling the credit. The wholesale price for ethanol is $0.90/gal cheaper then gasoline after the credit. Think about that before making absolute statements like "ethanol doesn't work." It works so well that gasoline refining margins are the lowest in 15 years. Per corn subsidies, they will be the lowest per bushel is 15 years because they are based on farmer income. Corn is subsidized to be cheap, when corn farm income raises, direct payments fall.
Posted by: Tom | April 30, 2008 at 04:51 PM
According to a article in Tampa Bay Business Journal, United States EnviroFuels LLC is set to break ground on its corn based biofuel facility at the Port of Tampa by the end of 2008. The plant is expected to produce 45 million gallons of the biofuel annually.
Posted by: C | May 02, 2008 at 03:24 PM
Just replaced the fuel pump on my 2007 MINI Cooper with 11K miles. Fuel pump locked up - said to be caused by E10 in Florida that had more than 10% ethanol in it. Anyone have any info on fuel system problems caused by ethanol or water absorption of the ethanol? Meanwhile, I'm searching for no-ethanol gas in Tallahassee, FL. Even tho my family grows corn on our farm in the midwest, I am not an advocate of ethanol! I already knew that it was inefficient, both to produce and to burn, but I didn't know it was going to be harmful to my new car. Friend of mine with a motorcycle says he is having ethanol problems too. I do, however, support alternative sources of energy and fuel - just that ethanol is not the answer. I dread a mandate. Would appreciate comments. Thanks.
Posted by: Lynette | August 06, 2008 at 07:41 PM
Interesting discussion here...I'm wondering why more has not been posted on the (1) Negative "solvent and water-absorbing" effects E10 has on older and vented (e.g. marine) conventional engines; (2) Why E85 makes more sense (used only in FFV's) to meet federal Renewable Fuel quotas (See RFS, EISA, Clean Air Act, etc.), until a better alternative fuel/vehicles are available in the U.S.??? Manufacturers of the majority of older cars, motorcycles, lawn and marine engines strongly advise or forbid against use of any alcohol gas-blends (gasahol, E10). - Check your owners manual fuel recommendations section before switching to E10 -Therefore any state mandate for E10 only will eventually fail. U.S. dependence on foreign oil imports at 70% is a disgrace and threatens our national security and economic stability. I suggest the FL lawmakers, who seem to want to become the most ethanol-friendly state in the U.S. to INSTEAD focus their efforts on encouragiing new car buyers to choose flex-fuel vehicles/E85 and give conventional engine owners a choice at public pumps, for alcohol or non-alcohol gas. And yes, E10 which has lower energy, generous subsidies/tax credits, and costs less than petroleum per gallon, should always be offered to the consumer at a lower price. With a range of 2 to 20% decrease in mpg (depending on vehicle type, year and condition) I'm confident that owners of newer small 4 cyl engine autos (which expereince minimal decrease in mpg) will continue to purchase E10 (if at a lower price)...Others will proudly purchase new E85 FFV's vehicles (assuming E85 gas pumps become widely available in every town/county in Florida)...Which will allow and protect the rest to use the correct and most economical (non-alcohol) gasoline, if indicated for their engine type. Ask anyone in FL who's spent $$$ repairing an engine, b/c they had no other choice than to use E10 in an engine not designed for it - Lack of choice is simply turning off too many consumers to all alternative/renewable fuels. We need to cure our petroleum addiction, but what's going on now in FL is causing more problems, expense and inconvenience to public and doing very little (if anything) to decrease both petroleum consumption and pollution. Speak-out louder FL residents and get your politicians to do what's best for all - They already know what the local petroleum and farming industry wants - it's time for them to hear from you, the consumer to get back on the right path.
Posted by: Gail | September 12, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Gail,
Lawmakers will never turn their back on ethanol now -- entire farming communities have bet their life savings on it.
A politician who questions ethanol will be accused of taking food from the mouths of the children of hardworking, American farming families.
And we wouldn't want that, would we?
Posted by: Tino | September 12, 2008 at 03:43 PM