
So as you can see, by using these alternate fuels to normal ULP you do reduce your emissions by about 10% from the tail pipe. What about the cost I here you say?
Well based on today’s average prices for the same energy content (it is all about the energy) here are the results;
So what does that mean? Well, it means that even though E10 may look cheaper at the pump, it cost in this example, $171.86 more to drive the same distance, even though you are lowering your emissions by 10%. On the other hand, LPG still cuts emissions by 10%, but cost $7,320.70 less to drive the same distance. LPG wins hands down, even if you throw in the one off cost of between $2500-$4000 to convert your vehicle to this fuel. This investment would pay itself off within a couple of years.
So if you think you are helping to reduce your personal carbon footprint by using LPG and E10, you can rest assured that you are, however E10 does not make sense financially for just a 10% reduction unless of course you are willing to pay the premium for this reduction as I do. It would be better to catch public transport and make an even bigger difference for far less cost as I also do. I drive the 7km to the train station and catch the train the rest of the 37km to work each day. You and I could even buy a nice bike for the difference it costs us. Then we would save a fortune in emissions and fuel costs!
I hope this post has made sense (kinda anyway), and that you have learn a little something today about energy content of transportation fuels. Just remember, its all about the Joules!
I did some E10 calcs and came to pretty much the same conclusion – E10 costs more, for a marginal reduction in emissions.
I’m also concerned at how E10 is produced. How much carbon is emitted in the production of the E10, as compared with ULP? If the ethanol is from fermented grain grown by industrial monoculture, then it may well have a larger carbon footprint than ULP alone. I’ve read various opinions on this, but would love to find some hard numbers.
In the end, we may be better off buying ULP and paying that extra $171 to an emissions offset scheme (but then there’s a whole new can of worms!).
Just following up to partially answer my own question here:
Your latest post (Myths For The Peak) says that the EROEI for ethanol is pretty bad – it takes roughly a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of ethanol.
So that means E10 is actually worse for the environment than ULP! For every 10,000 L of E10 burned, you’d be effectively burning an additional 1,000 L of fuel to create the 1,000 L of ethanol it contains.
The above EROEI info is probably from the US. I wonder whether Australian ethanol is produced in the same way, and with a similar energy input?