Any "zero ethanol" gas stations in Baltimore, MD?

Why do you want one?

 

E10 contains fewer BTUs per gallon than "pure" gasoline. The result is "decreased" fuel economy. I'm guessing that the OP is looking for an FE bump.

There are other posts here (I don't remember where) about how much the decrease is. I don't know that I've ever seen "pure" gas in my Prius, for as long as I've had it the gas stations were I fill-up have been selling E10.

 

Don't think you'll find any on the East Coast. Might want to try the Mid-West!

 

E10 reduces MPGs 3%; for a Prius that means 1 or at most 2 MPGs. E10 burns cleaner, which reduces air pollution and reduces carbon deposits inside the engine. These are good things and well worth it.

 

In the grand scheme of things, the polution resulting from the burning of fosil fule needed to convert corn to ethanol more than negates any polution-savings its use in automobiles may produce. And it raises the price of food stuffs as corn is diverted to ethanol production, and lands previously used for the production of other grains is diverted to the production of corn. And it . . . well, I think you get the point. But at least it works politically, doesn't it?

 

Yo, can't tell from yr sig if yr from Mobtown or not. Hope U R.

When Wayne made the run from Chi-town to the Big Apple on one tank of
gas, he topped of with non-ethanol fuel to get max BTU's in his tank:

Prius - Chicago to New York on a single tank Wayne's Progress - CleanMPG Forums

Well, here's some indication of what preceeded the actual driving, in post
#24, they're talking about topping off with non-ethanol before the drive.

Prius on a single tank from Chicago to New York driving 95% + highway? - CleanMPG Forums

If it's good enough for "Mr. Hyper-Miling," it's good enough for me. I hope one
of our Ballamer folk can finger a non-ethanol supplier. But if it's over to
Dundalk, or Essex, or even in S. Ballamer, say Brooklin or even Glen
Burnie, that's gonna be a b(H)ummer. Too far to go to top off and get back
home and see any real benefits in the long run -- total gas used as opposed
to simply MPG.

 

In many states, the 10% ethanol is used to replace the MTBE formerly used in gas. MTBE has been found to contaminate ground water and is a cancer causing agent. This 10% use of ethanol is sensible, even if you lose a few MPG.

While ethanol has it's problems, you really do not want to be drinking MTBE by using MTBE fueled gas.

 

Outrage about E10 should be directed toward stupid US agricultural policies. Sourcing fuel ethanol from corn is a welfare program for big business and landowners and a distortion of the market. Contact your Congressanimals and tell them to eliminate corn prices supports and the $0.54 tariff on imported fuel ethanol. Use your home ZIP code to find their contact info here:
Congress.org Home

 

Help me out here. The Ethanol in E10 is replacing MTBE (which is bad stuff). If we are to eliminate the E10, what is to be used in it's place?

 

We would not eliminate E10; we would change the source of the ethanol used from food grains to cane sugar (domestic and imported) and then, when feasible, cellulosic sources. It's sheer banditry to subsidize agribusiness and landowners while taxing cheap imported ethanol.

 

Gasoline is required to be oxygenated so if you aren't using E10, you are using MTBE. There are other chemicals than can be used, but they are not commercially because using ethanol satisfies two mandates at once.

Those that insist on using "regular", no ethanol mixed fuel are effectively saying that getting 3% better fuel economy is more important than the water supply in their community.

Most critics complain that ethanol only returns 1.3% of the energy input or that the use of ethanol drives up the cost of food for the poor. These people are looking at the wrong driver. Yes, ethanol diverts foot crops from the food market but so does all meat production.

The world currently used 3% of the grain supply for biofuel production while using 34% for livestock feed. The waste from ethanol production is sold to the AG community for high protein livestock feed. (Distillery Grain) The waste from livestock is just waste. It also takes far more calories of grain to produce one calorie of meat. The ratios are below:

Fish: 1.5 to 2.0
Poultry: 2.1 to 3.0
Pork: 4.0 to 5.5
Beef: 10

So next time you eat your quarter-pounder remember that you have taken 2.5 pounds of grain out of the global supply in order to have your tasty treat.

 

This tidbit of dogma doesn't hold true. This past year, farmers chose to plant fewer acres of corn and instead chose to plant wheat or soybeans instead because they are more lucrative.

US corn decrease sparks price fears

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

 

I was wondering about E10. I've got my first tank of it, in my car, now, and I'm averaging 42.8 mpg, as opposed to my normal 48-50 mpg.

I went on a 500 mile round trip over the holiday, and when I left I had about 150 miles on that present tank. I was averaging about 49 mpg, which it stayed pretty much at, until my wife took over the driving and starting doing 80-85 mph. I quietly sat in the passenger seat and bit my lip as the average dropped slowly to about 48.2.

On the return trip, shortly after starting, I stopped for gas and saw the E10 sign on the pump. I checked to make sure they all had it, and I wasn't just at an E85 pump. I went ahead and filled up, and with highway driving at about 70 mph, I was averaging about 41-42 mpg. I thought maybe the tire pressure was down, or I was going against a strong headwind... I couldn't figure it out.

Even after another 100 miles (have about 323 on this tank) of city driving, I still haven't gotten it higher than 42.9 mpg.

This will be my last E10 tank, if I can help it. Oh, and I didn't let my wife drive on the trip home.

 

In general, it's not a choice you can make. It's not like you can go to the station across the street or a couple of mile down the road to get "the good stuff".

Ethanol is added to gasoline in certain regions of the country because they are required to. It's not because the oil companies particularly want to, but rather because government mandates it.

If you are in a region that requires that gasoline is oxygenated, then E10 is what you get no matter which gas station you go to. It used to be MTBE that they used, but that contaminated ground water.

 

Hmm, I don't know. I'm in central Texas and I've seen no gas stations in the area with E10. This tank was from just south of Dallas, so maybe they have it here.

I guess if I'm in the area and have to get it, I'll get just enough to get me back into a non E10 area.

 

As Oliver Hardy was wont to say to Stan Laurel when things got sticky:
"Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into."

FWIW, there's an active thread on MPG hits from E10 on CleanMPG:

E10 RFG vs. Straight Gas test--final results - CleanMPG Forums

On a related topic, it looks like areas required to use E10 are
determined/published by county.

Can anybody point to a site where such a map or maps -- by state? --
can be seen?

 

Oh, for...! That was an amateur experiment which gives no hint whether they controlled for ambient temperature or even tire pressure. And we don't know what the vehicle was: was it modern enough to adjust its own fuel/air ratio and timing? Or was it a '72 Dodge? That kind of result is worthless, but no doubt because of it there will be some number of doofusses driving 40 miles out of their way to buy ethanol-free gas. Sheesh.

 

That objection I understand. Your previous post worried me that you were (indirectly) supporting a return to MTBE. If people write their congressman, then they should make this distinction clear.