PDA

View Full Version : Why Your Gasoline Won’t Take You As Far As it Used To




Swordsmyth
05-04-2019, 03:47 PM
Over the weekend, I saw a passing reference on Twitter to the declining energy content of gasoline. Intuitively I know this to be correct for reasons I discuss below. But the poster linked to data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that I hadn’t previously seen.

The EIA doesn’t directly tabulate the energy content of gasoline. But they do provide two pieces of data that let us calculate it ourselves from two relevant tables in the April 2019 Monthly Energy Review (https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf).


Table 3.5 provides Petroleum Products Supplied by Type in thousands of barrels per day, while Table 3.6 provides Heat Content of Petroleum Products Supplied by Type in trillion Btus per year.
From the annual numbers, doing the appropriate conversions (which includes accounting for leap years) provides the energy content of gasoline, in BTUs per gallon, since 1949. What we find is that the EIA reported a constant energy content of gasoline from 1949 to 1992 of 125,071 Btu/gallon. I have always typically used 125,000 Btu/gal as the standard value for gasoline.

https://d32r1sh890xpii.cloudfront.net/tinymce/2019-05/1556919703-o_1d9vqal3fjr51go8egjr7l1gbh8.png

The energy content of gasoline
Starting in 1993, the EIA shows the energy content start to decline. The decline accelerates in 2006. What happened then? I have seen two explanations floated.
I have heard some suggest that the shale oil boom in the U.S., which created an abundance of light oil, ultimately lowered the BTU value of gasoline. This is unlikely for a couple of reasons.
First, to change the energy content of gasoline you must change the composition. As I explained in a previous article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/04/21/why-gasoline-pump-prices-are-spiking/), adding butane is a recipe change that takes place seasonally. It impacts the vapor pressure of the gasoline, but it also impacts the energy content. Butane has an energy content of 103,000 BTU/gal, so the more butane, the lower the energy content of the gasoline blend. This means that winter gasoline, which contains more butane, has a lower energy content.

But the other reason that shale oil can’t be the culprit is that U.S. oil production didn’t start to move higher until 2009. By then, the EIA was already reporting that U.S. gasoline’s energy content had fallen to 121,167 BTU/gal.
Here’s the real culprit:

https://d32r1sh890xpii.cloudfront.net/tinymce/2019-05/1556919733-o_1d9vqbgta1nhe1nc987a1lpq18np8.png

The impact of ethanol blending on the energy content of gasoline
The 2005 energy bill gave us the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandated that an increasing amount of ethanol had to be blended into the fuel supply. As the mandate ramped up, so did ethanol production. In turn, the energy content of gasoline declined.
As was the case with butane blending, adding ethanol is fundamentally changing the recipe of gasoline. The energy content of ethanol is 76,000 Btu/gal, so as ethanol blending ramped up, the energy content in a gallon of gasoline fell.
But we also know ethanol is the reason because the EIA table actually includes the footnote: “Beginning in 1993, also includes fuel ethanol blended into motor gasoline.”
To be clear, it’s not a huge decline in energy content. It’s about 4% across the national gasoline pool (~140 billion gallons per year), and it is masked somewhat by the rising fuel economy standards of automobiles.
Falling energy content in gasoline has a couple of implications. One is that most vehicles will now require more gasoline to travel the same distance. In other words, fuel efficiency will have declined along with gasoline’s energy content.

More at: https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Your-Gasoline-Wont-Take-You-As-Far-As-it-Used-To.html

Zippyjuan
05-04-2019, 04:03 PM
"To be clear, it’s not a huge decline in energy content. It’s about 4% across the national gasoline pool (~140 billion gallons per year), and it is masked somewhat by the rising fuel economy standards of automobiles."

Instead of 100 miles with the same car and amount of gasoline you may now get 96 miles. If the engine is more efficient, you will go farther.

ATruepatriot
05-04-2019, 04:11 PM
Yep...

ATruepatriot
05-04-2019, 04:16 PM
See the lack of sense in what they do? Mandate cleaner standards which reduces efficiency, and then mandate that the fuel mileage must increase. It's an oxymoron. And in most cases impossible to have both.

timosman
05-04-2019, 04:16 PM
"To be clear, it’s not a huge decline in energy content. It’s about 4% across the national gasoline pool (~140 billion gallons per year), and it is masked somewhat by the rising fuel economy standards of automobiles."

Instead of 100 miles with the same car and amount of gasoline you may now get 96 miles. If the engine is more efficient, you will go farther.

Instead of 25MPG you will get 24MPG. :tears:

JohnCifelli1
05-04-2019, 04:20 PM
Dingus,
I paid the market price for that fuel efficiency. Nobody goes into a car dealership and argues the price down because the efficiency of the engine they're buying is lost to less effective fuel.

Pauls' Revere
05-04-2019, 05:08 PM
I wonder how much gasoline over the years nationwide had to be purchased to compensate for the 4% reduction AND what does all that extra gasoline mean as far as tax revenue for states, AND how much more drilling had to done to produce all that extra fuel. It's got to be a huge number. 4% may not seem like a a lot, but I bet it has huge ramifications. I mean 4% of a million is a lot of money where I come from.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2019, 05:17 PM
The loss of energy in diesel fuel is even worse.

RonZeplin
05-04-2019, 05:20 PM
Since ethanol is gov subsidized, the feds have mandated taxpayer funded inefficiency.

oyarde
05-04-2019, 05:32 PM
Four percent tax increase for them .

Zippyjuan
05-04-2019, 05:35 PM
I wonder how much gasoline over the years nationwide had to be purchased to compensate for the 4% reduction AND what does all that extra gasoline mean as far as tax revenue for states, AND how much more drilling had to done to produce all that extra fuel. It's got to be a huge number. 4% may not seem like a a lot, but I bet it has huge ramifications. I mean 4% of a million is a lot of money where I come from.

https://static3.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2016/4/40672195_14599967207906_rId42.png

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ipn75t9cyshM/v1/-1x-1.png

Stratovarious
05-04-2019, 05:50 PM
"To be clear, it’s not a huge decline in energy content. It’s about 4% across the national gasoline pool (~140 billion gallons per year), and it is masked somewhat by the rising fuel economy standards of automobiles."

Instead of 100 miles with the same car and amount of gasoline you may now get 96 miles. If the engine is more efficient, you will go farther.

About 4% is a massive loss of power, crop based fuel/additives compete with Food, so tell me zikkiup, what is the
upside here?

: )

Some jkoff gets to stand up on a podium and lie to us about how he's helping the environment.........

Swordsmyth
05-04-2019, 05:56 PM
About 4% is a massive loss of power, crop based fuel/additives compete with Food, so tell me zikkiup, what is the
upside here?

: )

Some jkoff gets to stand up on a podium and lie to us about how he's helping the environment.........
The only upside (and it in no way compensates for the downside) is that we buy slightly less oil from people like the Saudis.

Stratovarious
05-04-2019, 05:59 PM
The only upside (and it in no way compensates for the downside) is that we buy slightly less oil from people like the Saudis.

From what I've been hearing , we don't actually even need mid east oil anymore.

Stratovarious
05-04-2019, 06:02 PM
Whatever the real power loss figure it, its energy lost or evaporated, that is not a good case for
using retarding additives.
I'll bet its more than 4% and the worst thing you can do to an engine or even an injun for that mater
is fuel it with vegetable oil.

Dr.3D
05-04-2019, 06:05 PM
That stuff plays hell on two stroke engines too.

Swordsmyth
05-04-2019, 06:05 PM
Whatever the real power loss figure it, its energy lost or evaporated, that is not a good case for
using retarding additives.
I'll bet its more than 4% and the worst thing you can do to an engine or even an injun for that mater
is fuel it with vegetable oil.
Mineral oil for engines and animal fats for Injuns.

ATruepatriot
05-04-2019, 06:06 PM
From what I've been hearing , we don't actually even need mid east oil anymore.

This would be true if the EPA standards were not as stiff as they are. Most of the domestic crude and Canadian crude is high sulfur crude. The EPA will not allow us to burn this in our own country and most is exported. We can only consume "sweet crude" products here which is low sulfur and most still has to be imported to meet their requirements.

Zippyjuan
05-04-2019, 06:19 PM
This would be true if the EPA standards were not as stiff as they are. Most of the domestic crude and Canadian crude is high sulfur crude. The EPA will not allow us to burn this in our own country and most is exported. We can only consume "sweet crude" products here which is low sulfur and most still has to be imported to meet their requirements.

More sulfur just means the oil needs more refinement. That means that sweet oil is cheaper to make gasoline from so it is preferable. Canada is our #1 supplier of imported oil.

Stratovarious
05-04-2019, 06:22 PM
Mineral oil for engines and animal fats for Injuns.

: ) I'd throw in a pint of Whiskey for good measure.

ATruepatriot
05-04-2019, 06:24 PM
More sulfur just means the oil needs more refinement. Canada is our #1 supplier of imported oil.

Yes they are, but you might want to look into it more. I did a study on it a few years ago. and most of what we import from them is exported.

Zippyjuan
05-04-2019, 06:33 PM
Yes they are, but you might want to look into it more. I did a study on it a few years ago. and most of what we import from them is exported.

Because they don't have the refinery capacity to handle their oil. We use a good chunk of it here too. We were doing the same with Venezuela. We export about 700,000 barrels of refined oil products per month and import about three million barrels of oil per day.

Link for distillates to Canada figures: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MDIEXCA1&f=M

Canada Oil Exports: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/crude-oil/20064

ATruepatriot
05-04-2019, 06:48 PM
Because they don't have the refinery capacity to handle their oil. We use a good chunk of it here too. We were doing the same with Venezuela. We export about 700,000 barrels of refined oil products per month and import about three million barrels of oil per day.

Link for distillates to Canada figures: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MDIEXCA1&f=M

Canada Oil Exports: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/crude-oil/20064

The question is about grade of the crude and EPA standards for domestic use. I have to go burn some bird and I will pick this back up again later. I may have still have my study references. I will try to find them.

RonZeplin
05-04-2019, 06:52 PM
Whatever the real power loss figure it, its energy lost or evaporated, that is not a good case for
using retarding additives.
I'll bet its more than 4% and the worst thing you can do to an engine or even an injun for that mater
is fuel it with vegetable oil.

The heavenly smell of Castor Bean oil was very pronounced on the starting line at Motocross races in the '70's. Through the blue haze you could occasionally see the participants. Not all vegetable oils are created equal.

http://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images2/1/1106/11/vintage-blendzall-motocross-racing-oil-full-metal_1_8051b8e535d02f99a72735e5af989abe.jpg

Castor Bean oil on the right.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2019, 06:52 PM
"To be clear, it’s not a huge decline in energy content. It’s about 4% across the national gasoline pool (~140 billion gallons per year), and it is masked somewhat by the rising fuel economy standards of automobiles."

Instead of 100 miles with the same car and amount of gasoline you may now get 96 miles. If the engine is more efficient, you will go farther.

Yeah, and every small engine you have will be destroyed, by this adulterated horseshit called gasoline.

Not to mention that by the time all the energy is expended to turn corn into usable liquid motor fuel, it is a net energy loss.

Thank you Uncle Sucker.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2019, 07:02 PM
More sulfur just means the oil needs more refinement. That means that sweet oil is cheaper to make gasoline from so it is preferable. Canada is our #1 supplier of imported oil.

You make it sound as if it's just a matter of "refining it more".

The actual process to de-sulfur liquid fuels is very complex and expensive, which is why diesel, in addition to having less energy per given volume, which means more has to be burned to achieve a given amount of work, thus resulting in more emissions, is also more expensive than premium unleaded gasoline now, where it used to be 20-40 percent cheaper than regular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodesulfurization

Thank you Uncle Sucker.

Stratovarious
05-04-2019, 07:03 PM
The heavenly smell of Castor Bean oil was very pronounced on the starting line at Motocross races in the '70's. Through the blue haze you could occasionally see the participants. Not all vegetable oils are created equal.

http://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images2/1/1106/11/vintage-blendzall-motocross-racing-oil-full-metal_1_8051b8e535d02f99a72735e5af989abe.jpg

Castor Bean oil on the right.

Most of your finer Manhattan restaurants use these as 'House Dressing's ' and if they run low, there's
always a YZ250 2 stroke in the parking lot for such emergencies .

Anti Federalist
05-04-2019, 07:16 PM
The heavenly smell of Castor Bean oil was very pronounced on the starting line at Motocross races in the '70's. Through the blue haze you could occasionally see the participants. Not all vegetable oils are created equal.

Whether it's a Top Fuel rail or an RC model, to this day, I love the smell of burning nitromethane and castor oil.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Podz2GZOZ9c


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3CYGLURsf0

euphemia
05-04-2019, 07:27 PM
See the lack of sense in what they do? Mandate cleaner standards which reduces efficiency, and then mandate that the fuel mileage must increase. It's an oxymoron. And in most cases impossible to have both.

It’s the plan. Make cars so expensive to own and operate that we have to give them up and depend on the government for what limited travel we are allowed.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2019, 07:33 PM
It’s the plan. Make cars so expensive to own and operate that we have to give them up and depend on the government for what limited travel we are allowed.

Theye realize that it would be too much of a shock to the system to just outright ban them.

That's where Elon Musk and the rest of the EV hustlers come in.

They'll make EVs hip, green, with it and sexy...until you actually try to use one in day to day use.

That will ease everybody into less mobility, and never being able to go anywhere unless plugged in and tethered to a grid.

kcchiefs6465
05-05-2019, 08:07 AM
After months of false starts, President Donald Trump will tell Iowans on Tuesday during a campaign rally in Council Bluffs that he's opening the door to year-round access to gasoline with higher ethanol blends.

A senior White House official said Monday that Trump directed the Environmental Protection Agency to begin rule-making that allows for year-round use of gasoline with 15 percent ethanol or E15.

The announcement sets off a review that could make E15 available to consumers as soon as next summer.

In addition, the president will seek reforms to biofuels credit trading that the White House says will provide greater transparency and help reduce volatility in the market.

E15 is banned during the summer months, based on concerns it contributes to smog, a claim ethanol advocates say is unfounded. Almost all gasoline contains 10 percent ethanol.

The move should help Iowa farmers and U.S. consumers at a time when years of record harvests — and Trump trade wars with Canada, Mexico and China — have helped depress corn and soybean prices.

U.S. farm income this year is expected to be 50 percent below a 2013 high.

"It's wonderful for the American farmer. It's great for biofuels producers. And it's great for the American consumer, so we're thrilled," said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, a Washington, D.C., ethanol advocacy group.

Skor said increased adoption of higher ethanol blends could boost corn use by 2 billion bushels.

That's big news in Iowa, the nation's largest corn grower and ethanol and biodiesel producer.

About half of Iowa's corn crop is used to make ethanol and a high-protein byproduct called distillers grain that's fed to livestock.

"This action will be good for agriculture industry as well as the economy overall," the official said.

The announcement could shore up GOP support in some competitive statewide races, including Republican incumbent Kim Reynolds' run against Democrat challenger Fred Hubbell.

While farmers backed the president in the 2016 election, many are weary about his approach to trade. A trade war that could cost Iowa about $2.2 billion has hit some of his farm support hardest.

Farmers have gained some certainty with Trump's new trade deals with Canada and Mexico announced earlier this month, which would replace the 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement.

The U.S. is still involved in an ongoing trade dispute with China, the largest buyer of American soybeans and second-largest purchaser of pork, based on volume.

Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, said Trump deserved credit for getting year-round E15 when other administrations did not.

"This is something we've worked on for seven years — non-stop," Shaw said, adding that he sees few problems with the reforms proposed to trading biofuels credits, called renewable identification numbers or RINS.

"This is the first president that's taken action," Shaw said. "It was a promise made and a promise kept."

The president wants more frequent compliance reporting, public disclosure of biofuels credit holdings, and limits on who can buy the credits and how long they can be held.

The president seeks the changes to provide oil refiners "price stability," the senior White House official said.

"This action is specifically directed at increasing the supply of biofuels and providing consumer choice and is in line with the president's free market approach to the energy market," he said.

The White House official said the administration is confident year-round E15 access can withstand expected legal challenges.

He said Trump has been meeting with stakeholders and members of Congress to find an answer.

While ethanol has had bipartisan congressional support, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst have fought efforts by the oil industry to tie year-round E15 access to what's seen as anti-ethanol restrictions.

Shaw said reducing consumer confusion around E15 availability will lead to more large gasoline retailers offering higher ethanol blends — and to consumers using them.

E15 is safe to use in 2001 vehicles and newer. That's about 90 percent of cars on the road. Shaw believes that E15 could become as popular as E10.

"The important thing for us is to increase demand," he said.

hxxps://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2018/10/09/donald-trump-iowa-rally-year-round-e-15-fuel-agriculture-council-bluffs-ethanol-white-house-epa/1568235002/

Creating jobs and taking names.

So much winning.

RonZeplin
05-05-2019, 08:41 AM
Low energy Trump, E15 pi$$water subsidized by the taxpayers. More people buying gas because they don't get too far on a tank.

Will this bring back gas lines like under Jimmy Carter?

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/11/09/ap740315056-1d3d2abeb66fc378fe3a846f2f7144acb4c041da-s800-c15.jpg

106459
05-05-2019, 06:20 PM
Hmm. I read this thread on ZeroHedge, and it kinda pissed me off at the time. I really don't understand the conclusion the author is trying to drive.

From article:
"But the other is that today’s daily consumption of 9.3 million barrels per day of gasoline is equivalent in energy terms to the consumption of 8.9 million barrels per day 20 years ago.".

But it's not though. You're talking about 100% gasoline being sold vs what's 90% gasoline, 10% ethanol. And that "huge drop" in the chart is going from 125k to 120500, or a 3.6% drop in energy content.

Ok. So my Mazda3 could go 429 miles on a 12.5 gallon tank, but now it can only go 412 miles. Not really a big deal.

So what is his actual point? Would e0 gas actually be cheaper than e10 gas at the pump, meaning we put ethanol in it for no good reason? Or do we save 4% on the price of gas for a 4% drop in efficiency? Is it more, or less? Who knows, the article doesn't care apparently.

There's a much more important discussion on what this costs and why we're doing it. As AF noted, putting ethanol in fuel will screw with fuel systems, if they aren't designed to handle it, so auto manufacturers had to adjust to that. It's very energy-intensive to grow corn and turn it into ethanol, so it looks like there's a whole debate on how much net-energy is gained (if any). There's also the problem of cost, farmer's/corn gets subsidies from the government, so it doesn't make sense if the gas is "cheaper" when in reality they're sucking tax dollars from the backend to pretend it's actually cheaper, when it isn't.

On the whole, this all started because of a government mandate, so I don't really buy the benefits of it. If it's so beneficial - let it stand on its own merits, not by force of government fatwa.

I'd be much more interested in a more comprehensive discussion on the benefits of e10 fuel against any gas shortages/embargos, actual economic gains/losses, etc etc. But I'm not terribly impressed by an article that says "hey guys - our gas has less energy in it now", "also, the chemical composition is now 10% ethanol which is only 60% as potent of a fuel".

Pauls' Revere
05-12-2019, 03:34 PM
It’s the plan. Make cars so expensive to own and operate that we have to give them up and depend on the government for what limited travel we are allowed.

This will be extended into everything you need in order to live. Food, Water, Travel, etc. As of now I voluntarily choose not to smoke therefore avoiding the taxes, but when revenues from those items go up in smoke (pun) they will shift the emphasis to items we absolutely need. Healthcare, medicine, or to those items they want us to avoid (behavior modification) such as beef, carbon based fuels, etc.