Renewable fuels and prices survey: the readers speak

January 1, 2014 | Jim Lane

In our recent survey on renewable fuels and prices, we received quite a mailbox full of comments. The survey, in general, aimed to present a series of social or environmental benefits claimed for biofuels — for readers to consider how much more (or less) they would pay for a fuel that contained those benefits.

Please note: the Digest is not, in this survey, endorsing or vouching for economic, environment and social benefits that have been reported by scientific organizations such as Argonne National Laboratory or EPA. For the purposes of conducting the survey, we asked readers to evaluate benefits and respond with how they viewed it would impact their payments at the pump.

In some cases, respondents chose to challenge the premise of the question — challenging whether these benefits are, in fact, real — using the E85 ethanol question to advocate for fuels that are more infrastructure-compatible fuels. Others sought to give more nuanced responses — for example, judging fuels based on underlying feedstocks.

But most stuck to the task at hand — putting a value (or not) on benefits.

Here’s a sampling of comments:

E85 ethanol

Another flawed plan by the Corn Farmers

I support ethanol because it’s domestically produced – American jobs, support for rural economies. But mostly I’ve noticed that we never hear about our Marines getting blown up protecting Iowa corn fields – weird, huh.

There are other factors that enter into cost for both oil based and ethanol gasoline. If ethanol were more habitat friendly and production of corn was done in a more sustainable way I would by E85 at a price equal to regular gasoline despite the loss of mileage.

I’d be willing to pay a premium – if it meant the price fluctuations would also be reduced. Gas prices have fluctuated nearly 25% over the past year when I fill up. I’d just like to see more consistent pricing. (unfortunately I don’t have a flex fuel vehicle and am also concerned about the availability of 85% pumps)

think about it;

fine particle emissions down 50%!!!!

carbon monoxide 30%

That is worth something!

I currently have a 2006 Buick Lucerne with the 6 cylinder engine which is not a FlexFuel model. I cannot use full E85, but I do mix E85 and E10 to achieve E30 and I only have about a 5 pecent mileage loss compared to E0. The only station near me that sells E85 charges almost the same for E85 as E10.

I have small children and I want to do whatever I can to give them cleaner air and sustainable fuel for their future.

AS second generation fuels come on line, and we move away from crop based ethanol, I can see even greater savings as shale oil is quickly depleated and imports rise again.

Would have to be sure the pollutant reductions are real, especially CO2 reductions. Also need a vehicle that can use E85. Not my current vehicles.

We should pay world prices – which includes whatever taxes any particular level(s) of government(s) want to impose. Probably around $7/gal today – and that would be for ANY fuel. Add on top of that amount whatever environmental cost/benefit there might for the PARTICULAR fuel being sold.

More/cheaper fuel is the wrong way to go, even at 100% biofuels. We need more efficient engines, public transit, highspeed rail etc etc – not just more fuel.

The question response is based on the emergence of cellulosic ethanol as opposed to corn starch ethanol.

It’s worth paying a little extra for me because of climate Change.

My vehicle loses 30% mileage on E85 vs regular gasoline. Break-even is the number I look for when deciding whether or not to use E85.

I don’t have a car that would run on E85 but I am assuming I did.

If car engines were designed and tuned for ethanol, they would get approximately the same mileage, and I would be happy to pay the same price as gasoline.

Such engines would make diesels unnecessary, and ‘drop-in’ fuels irrelevant in a decade.

It would be great if manufacturers optimized engines for E-85 so that we would get equivilant mileage.

This will need a policy support to convert all fuel to contain ethanol.

I would like to see automakers calibrate into their flex-fuel vehicles the ability to utilize an “octane “table” that would take the relative octane of the vehicle’s current ethanol concentration into account, when setting engine performance parameters. This would utilization of E85’s additional octane to ofset some or all of the current MPG efficiency loss.

Would like to be sure my vehicle is okay with E85.

It would depend on my driving usage. Driving with a heavy load makes E85 more desirable because of increased performance.

I would pay a small premium to gasoline energy equivalent basis.

E85 needs to be price competitive ……. based on fuel economy…

A minor reduction in price would be an incentive for consumers to switch and splits the premium between consumer and producer. The decrease would give some sense of getting a “discount” at time of purchase, even though they would be aware of the reduced mileage. It would help them decide on going green and helping the environment

Reduced performance and potential engine problems would keep me away without a very significant discount.

All LD vehicles sold in US should be flex fueled (or at least those manufactured here). Eliminate consumer confusion at the pump of E-10 vs E-15.

Ethanol would have to be created using a process that was a more significant net energy producer.

I don’t have flex fuel car. Also I prefer to go to drop in fuel. It is price conparable and creates green jobs and energy security.

I would switch to E85 (if I had a flex fuel vehicle) at a slight increase to my per mile cost knowing that the other benefits were offsetting some of that additional cost.

Water accumulation is corrosive and a pain

I was in Georgia recently, and when I stopped for gasoline, I noticed the E85 pump was closed. When asked, the attendant said that the distributor would not provide a “competitive” price, so they discontinued selling it.

I still try to fill my car with 100% gasoline when possible

I favor a carbon tax on fuels similar to that enacted by British Columbia. The tax would be based on the green house gas (GHG) profile of the fuels. Soconventional gasoline would be taxed most heavily, then conventional diesel, then corn ethanol, then cellulosics and advanced fuels

Corn ethanol is environmentally even with petroleum products given the water footprint and the food v fuel debate. Domestic green jobs are not a deciding factor as solar, wind, hydropowers are also green jobs that simultaneously offer energy security.

Must have a greater discount to cover risk of harm to my older vehicle’s fuel system.

5 % premium seems OK

If we are going to do something to improve the environment, let’s make sure that it not only benefits the enviroment, but let’s do it in a way that benefits the consumer. This will win people over much more quickly than the typical “value added” line. It needs to break even at a minimum and not create any more mechanical issues than a vehicle currently has.

I think that we should “defund” the Arab states that hate us , or harbor their citizens that hate us. And we should create more American (even South American, like Brazil) jobs through home-grown green-energy projects. E85 only needs more ethanol, and I’d prefer to see this come from sugar cane or cellulose.

I would want the price to reflect actual costs and savings from the removal of tax incentives for petroleum based fuels. If savings are had to our national budget, I would pay same price.

If E85 Ethanol fuel has a 20% lower mileage rating than regular I think it’s reasonable to expect to pay a discounted rate for a less efficient fuel even though it offers greater social benefits to the nation. E85 Ethanol fuel will be competing with hybrid and electric fueled autos providing increased mileage vs a 20% reduction in mileage

People need to understand that here in the Midwest we have been running optimum blends of ethanol, E20 and E30 for over a decade. And in many modern High compression small turbo engines mileage does not change and in fact in some cases improves over regular unleaded. There is a value to octane, and more so there is a value to homegrown renewable fuel.

I would gladly pay at least a $1 per gal more to bring our kids in the armed forces home.

This is such a no brainer.

I would be willing to pay parity costs for fungible renewable fuels like biobutanol, but avoid ethanol at all costs.

State and Federal mandating cleaner and greener fuels is a must as the comsumer will not usually pick the greener unless there is there is also an economic benefit.

The fuels also need to drop into current tech or the change will decades to go to better fuels.

The true economic benefit isn’t appreciated from an import/export perspective, and economic terroism.

Split the difference in half between benefit and millage loss

I would not buy ethanol blended gasoline, I would prefer to buy an advanced biofuel.

The price per energy fuel content should be comparable to E10 before I would spend the money on switching my car to E85.

Burning food for fuel is insane!

If E85 is based on corn, then I wouldn’t pay anything above the mileage-adjusted equivalent of other fuels. If it was cellulosic, subject to broad sustainability criteria, then I would. But the solution is to make people pay more for FOSSIL fuels, to account for their many economic, environmental, and societal impacts. Then let renewable fuels compete on that leveled playing field, and make each type of renewable fuel pay for any adverse impacts of its own, too.

I have switched to E85. While the price has been break-even per mile most of the year the benefits are so big that I’d pay the same per gallon. I think your CO2 savings are very conservative and believe my Focus gets the gasoline equivalent of over 70 MPG based on CO2 emissions using an 85% blend.

I would pay this at a renewable fuels outlet not associated with a big oil firm, such as a partnership between CENEX (a coop also involved in grain and perhaps a firm like POET or Green Plains Renewables.

ethanol is still very tough on (older) engines

At leat 15% cheaper than PREMIUM (not the Regular!) E10 gasoline from a Top Tier Brand like Shell; higher octane and detergent properties of E85 are just as good for my modern high compression direct injected engine and one should value that fact.

Reductions in fine particulates might be worth something, but not worth paying for

This addiction has to stop. We subsidize fossil fuels that are causing climate change. The Europeans and others pay far more for gasoline. We subsidize petroleum and pay less of our average wages. See Bloomberg slide show, Aug 2012

http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012-08-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide6

85 ethanol is not available in Mexico

E 85 provides me with a free choice and I would make that determination. The Government doesn’t need to make that decission for me.

There is enough oil reserves in the United Staes tosupply our needs for several generations if they would allow the mining and exploration of new found oil reserves in the West. This would also produce jobs and reduce gas prices and not have to sacrifice fuel economy. These reserves are large enough to supply our needs for several generations to come until some point technology improves and eliminates the need for the use of fuel as we currently use. Other countries with out reserves may benifi

Not that E85 will ever be available in FL, but my car can’t use it.

What will it cost to modify my car so it can use E85?

I understand some cars can be “tuned” to run on E85 – what does that cost?

The industry should do more to promote the octane. The gasoline blenders are taking advantage of this cheap octane in blending up their low grade gasoline. Look at what happened to the ethanol inventory and ethanol price when EPA announced their mandate reduction. Furthermore, the industry should promote high compression engine designs for improved mileage of E85 vehicles. Studies show the improved thermal efficiency nearly eliminates the loss in gas mileage.

When I had my prevous car, a Saab, I used ethanol blends up to E20, which gave both power and good fuel economy. Howver, the real key to fuel economy resides in the driver’s right foot.

10% is needed to make it work. You have to show consumers a ready comparison ethanol is significantly cheaper, after that few will do the math to remain aware that they are actually losing 10% of the value with ethanol vs gasoline.

The mileage difference which I have actually measured in my flex-fuel vehicle is ~30% lower per gallone for E85 compared to E10. I have also seen this confirmed in other tests. I would like to answer the question as 25% becasue I am willing to pay a little more per mile for ethanol but 25% in your survey choices gives the wrong impression. The energy content of pure ethanol is 67% that of gasoline, the kind of misinformation in this question is what is hurting the ethanol industry.

The societal benefits have great value for me.

I would pay the same as gasoline if the engine compression

performance was optimized for ethanol.

I would need to be assured that the life expectancy of my engine or other parts was not compromised. Also willing to purchase a new car within 4 years that could take advantage of biofuels

It has to be economically viable. Rule of capitalism.

The BIG ISSUE is octane requirements for the new small bore high compression motors that are currently under development in order for the auto manufacturers to meet the upcoming CAFE standards. 95 octane is going to eventually be the new standard instead of 87 octane. The only cost effective way to get to 95 octane is to blend 30% ethanol. The question is…will the oil companies try to manufacture their own ethanol from nat. gas??? If so, they will regain control of the entire market.

I would not mind paying same price per gallon as gasoline if I am guaranteed that it is cellullosic ethanol.

The millions of small motors that have been destroyed due to E85 has offset any benefits that were suppose to come with E85. Government subsidies given to farmers to turn food products into biofuels? Im all for biofuels, but until everyone that needs to be is involved,is, its just another form of out of control temporary fix energy consumption with countless major flaws.

I do not believe use of corn based ethanol makes any economic or environmental sense at all

I could pay the same price as gasoline. However, I will drastically reduce the use of car for personal transportation. If this contribute to long last our earth, then I will.

At the same price ethanol and other biofuels would need to be marketed (through consumer education) in a similar way to Fairtrade (effectively a 33% price premium) to ensure widespread uptake. A fairer system would be to ensure that gasoline is taxed according to its additional climate change impacts and to reflect the fact that its a finite rather than renewable resource, so that it is more expensive than biofuels, and so that fuel use per capita falls

the range 15-25% premium for biofuels is perfectibly handled. XXI century swift also human behavior.

Displacing oil imports has a positive effect on our economy and national security.

Is there a capital cost to convert car? Question is unclear

I clicked what most people look at: the overt short-term bottom line. Few understand the longer-term savings associated with cleaner-burning within the engine.

It must have no negative effect on the equip

Most US consumers do NOT understand what E85 ethanol is, nor the distinction of a flexible rule vehicle

They just know hybrids are more expensive, and that 10% ethanol is in regular unleaded gasoline

The environmental impact and domestic job growth associated with FFV and use of E85 ethanol are NOT marketed clearly to consumers. Most people will not be able to answer this question.

Would prefer NO ethanol

There would need to be a significantly lower price to justify the inconvience of having to fill-up more often.

With our new preparation technologies for alternative/synthetic/renewable fuels, the cost shoud go down and the environmental effects will be reduced from the current negatives.

Main problem: no E85 pump currently in our area. I do own a Flex-fuel Ford Fusion.

I would be willing to pay a premium for E85. This increase would be more than offset by the reduction in costs due to the collateral damage from gasoline use.

I will actually blend e85 and E-10 at the pump to. Get E-20 or E30 for an even lower mileage loss. We should have blender pumps and E-30 and I would not have to do this.

On long trips you have to refill 20% quicker

Reducing emissions is the most important point. You need to keep your priorities straight.

I would pay more if the ethanol came from non-food crops grown responsibly for environmental benefit.

The degradtion in fuel mileage with E85 is due not only to its lower energy per gallon, but also because the engines are designed with a compression ratio that is lower than optimum for use with ethanol (they are optimized for gasoline). A true flex fuel vehicle would adjust compression ratio for teh fuel for optimum efficiency.

My employeer wants E-85 used in their flex-fuel cars at any cost but often the issue is finding locations that sell E-85.

Insufficient into to respond:

What is the loss in mileage? I would expect to pay the same as I do for the same mileage. Therefore if one loses 10% mileage, then I would expect to pay 10% less.

As long as it’s made in the USA, I’d pay more. We buy Chinese junk while we grow the Chinese middle class and they use more gas as they grow. Spend more money in the USA, and we will stop helping them grow. Pay now or pay later.

Actually my car requires premium fuel and runs the same on E-85

5% premium for sustainability

Provided I had a flex-fuel car, I would like to pay a little less for my fuel even if I’m losing on the mileage side.

I’d like to see auto manufacturers introduce wider choices of FFV models as well as E-100 optimized engine design, in order to provide more consumer choice of ethanol blends!!

I expect to have parity in Energy Equivalent v. Price. The clean air and cleaner performance are a mute point or a negative as the new vehicle to utilize these benefits is costly.

Less, due to the decreased mileage w/ E85.

There is an additional important return from a switch to biofuels: the now left-aside soils would re-enter the enterpreneurial arena as powerful assets of development

I would rather pay for a local or a USA based farms helping us in producing renewable energy as opposed to feeding pockets of offshore governments and our crooks in Big Oil.

by switching to E85 we contribute to enhance clean fuel/energy and lessen the potential problem on global warming.

I have been using E-85 for 5 years in both of my Vehicles and no problems. I want to support our own Country. I have 100,000 miles on each of my Vehicles. It is a very clean fuel. Why would anyone want to buy Foreign fuel from countries that are killing our young fighting Men and Women!!! Wake up America.

Not interested – prefer drop in renewable fuels that does not require a modified engine and be at market prices

Must deliver more cost savings than MPG loss because I have to stop and fill up more often. All conditional on not having any negative impact on maintenance cycles or costs, or longevity of the vehicle’s parts; no loss of performance in extreme temperatures, and no negative impacts from long-term fuel storage such as absorbing water.

The amount to pay for ethanol depends on the gas mileage decrease. If that can be quantified than the price point can be nailed down easily.

I already put E85 in my flex-fuel vehicle at every fill-up, irrespective of price.

Will not use ethanol based fuels until guarantee they are not detracting from food production, or being grown using open-cut agriculture methods. Would only use if ethanol sourced from algal farms.

A terribly written and biased survey designed to direct the uninformed to a preconceived result. Shameful.

In order to promote a green business, we should be prepared to accept initial higher costs. It may become an imperative in not so distant future due to global warming and lesser availability of fossil fuels. If we strive to be prepared before the impact, the shock will be much less.

I’d pay the premium of five percent higher on a cost per mile basis because of all the other benefits, though I would expect the same energy equivalent pricing (20 % as stated above)after near future advancements in engine/fuel technology.

If a car is tuned right there could be no loss in mileage.

Be interesting to calaculate if the forecast economic benefit of the “green jobs” created approaches or equals the loss of domestic jobs in the “conventional” fuels industry (e.g., refinery and associated service workers and oil & gas production employees). I am not certain anyone has taken a good look at the total potential economic impacts on the conventional sector.

It is a token payment that recognizes the loss of power but the benefits of shutting down big oil.

e15 where is it…I want it under the holiday tree

Any amount of ethanol replacing gasoline is worth the money.

I like to contribute wiion and emission reduction and the creation of gren jobs.

I would to pay more for cellulosic- and alternatives than corn-based ethanol fuels. For corn-based, I’d pay a ~10 – 15% less. For alternative more sustainable sources, I’d pay same price to 10% less.

I have experienced issues with my lawn mower, snow thrower and chain saw engines which the reputable Toro, Honda, & Stihl dealer attributed to the ethanol in the fuel. They recommended I add an enzyme fuel treatment which helps, but drives up the cost of using fuel with ethanol. I believe biobutanol, biodiesel, and natural gas are far better alternatives for fueling America’s future.

Food to fuel is a foolish idea. I would only buy non-corn fuel

As long as the ethanol doesn’t come from food derived plants.

Ethanol is a tremendous fuel that burns much cooler and with no engine deposits. I run E85 in both my vehicles and love the long engine life, power increase and longer intervals between oil changes.

Between simple greed and the economy, the only way to make the change over is to keep the price per mile the same or better. With the technology out there, its possible. If we put a distillery and a biodiesel processor in every county, we would create jobs, employ farmers and cut costs on distribution. Therefore reducing the over all carbon footprint. Over the road tanker jobs lost would be offset by the need for harvested crop transportation, and keep the truckers home and close to family.

paying the same price per mile basis and having all advantages as upside will be the right formula for me

In Denmark we/(I) gladly pay 12 cents more per gallon for 2G bioethanol (cellulosic). The blend is a E5-blend.

Less ethanol Means more what….? Correct gasoline – the choice is easy!

I prefer to pay the same price, knowing the benefits

In Brazil the economic relationship between unblended hydrated ethanol and gasoline is 70% of the price of the last one.

Some cars could use a high relation as function of the mileage with ethanol.

We do not have E85 with anydrous ethanol,you have to make it roughly using two pumps, one for gasoline blended with 25% anhydrous ethanol and other for hydrated ethanol.

Its a no win for motorists if not breakeven ,so on balance the motorist consumer will not care I believe in the Green benefits at lower mpg .It is necessary to see green policies take hold for the positives they produce therefore good pricing/mpg has to be the incentive . Selling the idea of climate change and peak oil has to be a slow change .

Butanol is a near drop in gasoline replacement and can use existing pipeline infrastructure. It can be made from corn. The mileage loss would be more than halved. I would pay the same price.

I am not a fan of ethanol and would not want to risk damaging my vehicle with its us. I would rather buy a diesel and use biodiesel or electric.

No reason that we can’t be using new crops, such as sweet sorghum to produce cheaper fuel (in addition to more gallons per acre). The ‘do nothing’ administration that wants to control everything should demand that the E85 fuel savings are passed down to the consumer.

E85 presents some operational issues that make it incompatible with the hybrid cars that I drive. Therefore, I cannot use ethanol blends above 15%. However, in general, I have no objection to E85 as a fuel.

I don’t want the government mandating any higher percentages of ethanol in our gasoline. And I don’t believe the oil companies should be mandated to produce greater volumes of gasoline with ethanol in it. Too many technical issues unresolved and the farming practices are wreaking havoc on the environment.

Engines should be 100% ethanol.

Hydrocarbon fuels no matter their origin are an economic dead end. Plasma is your best option.

The reason for my answer is it is cost neutral considering mileage loss. Corn to Ethanol is now mature and has to be competitive.

Economy wise it must be better.

the bottom line is cost…if its going to cost more to switch, then why bother…

All fossil fuels are finite and dirty

There has to be a cost benefit as well as no net harm done to agriculture. Corn used for ethanol should not take away or put strain on the corn market used for animal feed. Better yet, where are we on getting ethanol production from excess sugar, sugar beets, or sugar cane in the USA?

I would pay more per gallon, despite loss in mileage

price incentive.

I would pay 15% less and I would adjust my daily trips for reducing fuel comsumption and my montly gas bill another 5% to 10%.

There are other side effects to the vehicle maintenance and in land pressure when growing / using ethanol

Misuse of word”like” in the question. I don’t care about CO2 emissions, as they have no discernible effect on the climate, and help increase plant growth. I do care about energy security. But these things will eventually be settled by the free market and dwindling fossil fuel supplies.

Ethanol ( 12.7 B/Y taget consumes about 34% of the rear 2012 Corn size crop, Going to the 36 B/Y Congress has approved will take the whole corn crop. Is Congress trying to create a famine?

Fuel other thsn food crops is finr with me.

change of fuel should not penalise on pricing

B2 Biodiesel

Biodiesel and Ethanol from an investor or lender side is a flawed business model. They have had 8 years of subsidies ($1 gallon, RINS) and they still cannot be profitable without a subsiday. Very flawed business model.

2% isn’t enough to matter much, and I don’t have diesel engine. If B100 or close was available, I’d think about getting a diesel.

The growth of soybean production has ravaged native habitats. Sustainable production needs to occur before I would buy this.

I am willing to pay for B2 but wish it was easier to find. One challenge with diesel is the two nozzle sizes one for large tractor trailers and one for cars and pickups. If the B2 is at the semi truck pump I will likely skip it instead of the hassle and mess of using those nozzles.

For a barely perceptable increase like 2% – the premium of 3 cents would be lost in the noise.

If from waste sources, I would pay a greater premium %0.25 per gallon, than if from virgin feedstocks.

I also have a 2004 Dodge Ram 2500 with a diesel engine. I use B20 when I travel as often as I can, however it is not currently available within 30 miles of where I live. I am willing to pay 20 cents more per gallon for B20. The fuel distributors near me have told me that just about all the diesel in my area is already B2 to B3.

FAME Biodiesel from seed oils has not shown to provide substantial environmental benefits. I would pay a premium for renewable diesel from non-food feedstocks that shows a path to price parity / advantage with fossil-based diesel. Under a post-RFS world, diesel might be 25% renewable or 75% renewable, but I would not need pump labeling or mandated minimums. The market would sort that out on price competition.

I would first like to see country of origin labeling at the pump for oil and biofuels. Tale of 2 stations: the Love’s offers B20 at $3.89. Station across the street offers pure diesel at $3.69. What is this price differential going to be if the $1 biodiesel tax credit expires? The tax credit cant live forever (see ethanol). NBB going to have to learn at some point to survive without it and still be competitive.

Also, we import biodiesel from Argentina, Indonesia, etc.

This will need a policy support to convert all diesel fuel to contain bio-diesel.

Have no knowledge of performance of diesel fuel, so no choice.

I would pay a small premium for biodiesel.

I don’t use biodiesel, so my answer is only theoretical at best.

Does the improvement of lubricity help with reducing oil change frequency?

There are disadvantages to biodiesel not mentioned here. I would only use if it was discounted enough to offset them.

The question states only the benefits and not the disadvantages. This is not a survey.

I live in a very cold climate and would be concerned with the cold flow properties of Bio-Diesel especially in the winter.

I drive a diesel vehicle and I currently pay 10-20 cents per gallon more for B20 for the added benefits and to support the industry.

assuming the quality and cloud point are under control.

Again, water accumulation is corrosive

Soy biodiesel is environmentally even with petroleum products given the water footprint and the food v fuel debate. Domestic green jobs are not a deciding factor as solar, wind, hydropowers are also green jobs that simultaneously offer energy security.

Diesel fuel might not be promoted unless tiny particle emission is resolved

Again, I think parity is the winning game if one wants widespread acceptance of biofuels. Innovation is the name of the game to get costs aligned.

Same as previous comment Additionally we should be collecting every ounce of kitchen grease generated by restaurants and household, using every ounce to create more biodiesel.

I would gladly pay >$1 per gal if it supports production and another $1 per gal directly to the pockets of politicians if they would throw a finger to any big oil money they see.

Aside from lubricity, which can be achieved in other ways, BD is demonstrably WORSE in many ways for use in existing diesel engines. Moreover, at present we can only produce meaningful quantities of BD from virgin veg oils, a biofuel source MUCH WORSE than corn for ethanol. When veg oils are sustainably available for fuels, they should be converted to HRD and HRJ, not FAME biodiesel.

I looked at diesels before settling on a flex-fuel car. The CO2 benefits were driven by the biodiesel blend and most cars could only handle B5. Anyway, B2 doesn’t have enough bio to make a difference with CO2.

This would be my estimate for the loss in life of the engine to rebuild.

Premium set at assumed parity with retail price of an aftermarket lubricity booster and the benefit of avoiding the trouble of using it each time one refuels.

Engine manufacturers have solved the compatibility issues associated with lower lubricity so paying more to solve a non-problem is non-sensical

We need to pay something closer to the European cost of fuel to wean ourselves from fossil fuels and to facilitate implementation of drop-in bio-fuels.

WE are exploring additional benefits with the GOVERMENT,EXISTING OR CREATED IN THE FUTURE

We should not have to pay more for diesel fuels with the reserves and new oil fields found in the western states.

A B2 blend is only a few tablespoons (just over 5) in the gallon – not very impressive.

I may more for a higher blend ratio – if I had a diesel vehicle.

In my local area, Knoxville TN, B20 sells for roughly the same price as gasoline.

I don’t own a diesel car but I would be willing to pay more for transportation of goods.

I don’t believe there’s enough bio oil for biodiesel to have a sustainable future. The only sustainable option is to convert all future engines to run at higher compression to favor advanced ethanol fuel economy versus gasoline .

The information provided is too generic on the benefits. It would help having percentages as in the aforementioned case of E85. It is not very clear the actual benefits that a 2% change in the blend with biodiesel will cause.

The additional fuel cost might be offset by decreased maintenance costs.

The cost at the pump is what you would like to know about,but how about the cost beyond the pump? I’m all for biofuels, but once again just like fossil fuels only the product at the pump is in question.

Biodiesel is not the solution

I could pay even a higher price as diesel. However, I could find the route to drastically reduce the use of this fuel.

As above, I think diesel should be taxed accordingly re additional impacts on climate change and its finite nature rather than renewable, so biodiesel should actually be priced lower after such taxes are applied and fuel use per capita falls

Again, most are looking just at short-term cost trades, without putting a number to a longer-term benefit like restoring lost lubricity.

Most consumers do NOT drive cars that use diesel, and will NOT know how to answer this question, but merely guess at what a commercial truck might do if the person is small business fleet manager, they will require the cost to be the same as diesel, however if part of a corporation with sustainability metrics, they might allow for a small premium over diesel. Perhaps, “if FedEx had to raise prices to run on gasoline made renewables, would you pay a premium of $___ per pack

Given that ULSD may contain up to 5% biodiesel and still be considered ULSD, I would not expect to pay more for a 2% blend.

will not use cold weather use it is bad fuel

Looking forward to B20 or higher

Reducing engine wear, and emissions, would probably make it worthwhile in the long run for me. Green jobs and energy security would be a bonus.

if it comes from non-food sources with environmental benefits.

Actually more important to have maunfacturers not void their warranties for B2 or better

B2 is such a small blend percentage. I’m willing to pay more for renewable content, but won’t pay much of a premium when much higher blends can be effectively achieved.

The dearth of diesel products in America will take a decade or more to overcome and now with the single rail design the cars have the same foibles as computer based gas powered cars. the savings isn’t as great as the sales pitch would have you believe due to the higher commercial cost of the diesel fuel, so the actual gain is less than advertised…

Currently I drive a diesel. If I could consistently find B2, I would buy it. Diesel, B2, gasoline and such NEED to be more consistent in pricing…not linked so closely to the ups and downs of the USA/World economies.

since B2 emits less air pollutnats spedially co2 I still prefer it than fossil diesel.

I would only buy B2 if it was cost neutral and fuel performance is equivalent to petroleum – i.e. cold weather performance (cloud point), long-term storage (no water absorbed, no algae growth), no negative impact on maintenance cycles or costs, and no negative impact on the longevity of vehicle parts. These are the real limits of B2 and why I consider it a low-quality, last-resort fuel. If I owned a diesel vehicle today I would go out of my way to avoid B2.

How about B100?CNG? What are we waiting for? HOw about a new non deficit Government.

I would also expect that all direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuel are removed. In such a situation, biodiesel would become cheaper than regular diesel.

I would pay a little more for B2, but even more for B100.

It should also be a lot higher than B2

Any renewable, in this case biodiesel, is worth its money.

Because of the emission reduction I will pay 5% more per gallon.

No food to fuel. 2 percent is insignificant.

let’s reduce pollution,it’s a no brainer

Biodiesel comes from many crops, many not even discovered yet. If we grow the crops here at home (USA), through the farming, processing, and distribution we can improve our economy and the environment at the same time.

I believe we should implement the technology that allows us to use biodiesel when it is available. The diesel industry stands to create a great deal of jobs and money, retrofitting the vehicles already in use. It’s a WIN, WIN for diesel, biodiesel, the economy & the environment.

in case the Biodiesel is produced from recycling such as used cooking oil or animal fat i would pay 10 cent per gallon more

The environmental advantage is too small to pay extra

make the connection to live jobs as a result of the price change then consumers would tolerate a % increase ; it might even tolerate 10%

I would, however, only purchase B2 is the manufacturer of my diesel SUV qualified it for use.

Why B2? All passenger car diesels will accept B% and nearly all light truck and OTR will accept B20.

we can use 30% 120 proof hydrous ethanol (separate tank, airstream injection), with a cost of approx. $2 a gallon with 70% diesel. Documented, confirmed 37% increases in horsepower. 200F degrees cooler running, 45% reduction in particle and NOx emissions. This is a better use for ethanol. Why will the administration not pay attention to this???? Can be used with B2 for a superior fuel, and no more urea.

Frankly, B2 does not have high enough renewable content for me to bother with thinking about it. If it is the same price as diesel or heating oil then I would use it. Otherwise, I would look for a higher blend like B20.

All engines should be 100% ethanol.

I would be more willing to pay more for drop-in renewable diesel (hydrotreated oils and fats) rather than biodiesel.

I would even buy B100…as long as it were less than diesel…

We should all support agriculture and this is one way.

There is a new method to make ULSD via oxidation rather than hydro-treating. Lubricity is not affected in the oxidative process.

I would pay more per gallon for higher blends

pay for the benefit.

There are issues with cold temperatures with biodiesel

I do not care about creating “green” jobs. That is not a net benefit to the economy if it means less jobs that are not called “green.”

no commercial impact on business / operations.

In my region of the country there is a 3% difference in price/gal. even among the cheapest gas stations (for regular unleaded gas) which amounts to 10 cents a gallon. For the environmental benefits of even just B2, I would certainly pay what amounts to just 10 cents more than being a little less picky about which gas station to use.

Drop-in fuels

Commercial Airlines are financially unstable and a poor credit risk. I would look at the hundeds of millions of dollars spent by each airline on hedging against the price of fossil fuel. I would use that money to build algae production facilities at strategic locations throughout the US.

If producers were held to higher standards and production was more sustainable I would support ethanol. The govt. subsidizes them, they add to air and water pollution, and loss of habitat, then the govt. pays to them to fix those issues. They need to be held accountable for erosion, chemical pollution, nitrogen in the groundwater, etc. if taxpayers are going to finance them and remidiation of these issues.

5 cents and I my job depends on this – I’d pay more if it meant consistent pricing – so you could budget spending better.

As stated above shale gas by its very nature is not going to keep up with demand! The more we ring out of the spong the sooner it will dry up. By growing our fuels we have a better chance to create good jobs in the sector and improve farm income.

Would need convincing life cycle study.

See my comment to #1. On top of world prices, any environmental costs should be added. No discount for CO2 reductions, but a penalty/tax for fossil CO2 emision.

But I would still want labeling/certification assurances that I am purchasing a domestically-produced (preferably in-state) drop-in renewable. And I would likely pay more if I knew for sure it was a fuel from a producer like KiOR who also supports the local logging sector.

If the fuel was produced locally (Colorado) I would probably be willing to pay a premium of up to 1.00/gallon especially if the fuel was generated from biomass in Colorado.

I would pay a small premium for the positive environmental aspects and also, “Made in the USA” quality of the renewable gasoline.

Fuels are basically equivalent with no disadvantages for the renewable, so I would pay the same and be indifferent. Absolutely no willingness to pay for reduced CO2 emissions or the other “feel good” stuff.

No subsidies.

Don’t trust performance and effect on engine systems

Renewable drop-in fuels have the biggest environmental benefit per unit of cellulosic or algal feedstocks. These 3rd gen fuels will have a lower threshhold in terms of marketplace penetration, and are finally meaningfully addressing climate change mitigation issues. For this reason, a premium of 10% or more over convention fuels is warranted.

Bottom line, it has to cost the same or less. Innovate!

Again, at this point, EPA is so screwed up, I’d pay anything to circumvent the strangle big oil has on America.

Net energy & job loss

Still preferable to penalize conventional fossil fuels than to pay a premium for renewables.

equivilent BTU value, with much less emissions. And renewable!

We need to pay closer to the European cost of fuel. If we jump to that price suddenly, it would shock the economy. We need to move there over the next 3-5 years, but sooner than 10 years. Put everyone on notice now.

New technologies such as Hydrogen fuels and propane gas at cheaper prices makes better sense.

Hydrogen seperated from water with water as an exhaust is the way of the future.

I don’t care about CO2, but I do care about fuel diversity.

It all boils down to individual economics.

I support environmental remediation locally and nationaly and am willing to pay extra at the pump as part of my committment.

Main motivation would be energy security and jobs

For me that’s just $2 per tank. An easy choice.

If advanced ethanol can’t beat the cost of gasoline then it’s not worth paying extra in this new depressed world economy where cash is king. The average citizen can no longer afford the extra expense.

However the only energy source with a future will be advanced ethanol.

Ideally it would be nice to have some tax deduction as I already feel I am paying too much tax in this country although I am in favor for domestic green jobs and would support that.

With the development of research, technology and production, I would expect the prices to be reduced in the future. Even cheaper than regular fuels.

What does it take to get this fuel to the pump? That’s the renewable/biofuel question.

I would not want to fly in an airplane using any biofuel

Anything that I can do to reduce the environmental pollution I am willing to contribute. I think we must rethink the usage of fuels.

As above

I believe that US Govt should mandate a fuel performance spec for fuels/vehicles including well to wheel emissions penalties(albeit potentially arbitrary) to account for renewable fuels benefits. These are social costs that are not currently paid for by the users.

Most people just look at fuel operating costs. They have no figures for the other benefits.

Pump must declare the 60% cleaner properties of the fuel vs diesel #2. Call it diesel #2 C

Most US consumers need to understand that gasoline made from agricultural products, as opposed to oil, can have same engine performance as traditional gasoline, but with 60% less CO2 emissions, and improved jobs, energy security, etc. “Drop In renewables” will be lost on consumers as industry related jargon.

i would not use at all if given a chiose

The states could also tax them 5 cents less.

Ask if we favor that because the states will NEVER volunteer a reduction in revenues.

again, nonfood sources.

The issue with paying more for the benefits is that I expect drop-in renewable fuels will be sold from the same dispensers as nonrenewable fuels so the consumer would not be able to tell the type of fuel they are purchasing.

I’m all for paying a premium for renewable fuels, but fuel prices are already high so let’s keep the premium reasonable.

Needed to equate taxpayer burden

For renewable fuels to truly get consumer adoption, they will need to deliver on both price and performance – like any other consumer good. Do that and sky’s the limit. Demand subsidies and mandates for more expensive and/or inferior products and the industry will never be a true success.

My reasons for paying higher for renewable fuels may be selfish as I am awaiting commercialization of second & third generation renewables technology for starting my own venture but, they are not entirely selfish. The humanity will have to decide on this subject and soon.

Only in the event that other non-drop in alternative fuels are not available for spark ignition passenger cars and light trucks

Because these fuels are more expensive to produce and must be made in significantly larger quantities than biodiesel, they are seldom locally produced by community businesses. Therefore, I’m not willing to pay more to support large, multi-national corporations when very little of the dollars spent will remain in my community.

Production of drop-in biofuels is done by gasification/FT catalytic synthesis. It is not just expensive technology as such but the wrong technology because gasification destroys all wood components irrespective of their intrinsic value. Hence all components are value only by their carbon content and the market value of the co-product which could be made from it. I take it, as far as emissions are concerned, a biogasoline is as dirty as a petro-gasoline. That is not what we want.

i choose cleaner air

I drive a 2007 Diesel box truck at this time. I figure I either pay now or I pay later. I say start low, because we know the greedy ones will always push it higher. If the USA alone switches its bio and petro fuels to homeland production only, the vise of foreign powers would release.

in case renewable fuel will be generated from waste, biomass etc, i would pay 3 cents per gallon more.

in case it is produces from coal, NG etc, i would pay the same

I think that you would be better served to express this as a “percent higher” scale. That way, the information is not “time locked” in relation to today’s fuel prices. A percentage stays a percentage forever.

Every car and truck should run on 100% ethanol.

I believe this would give us a cleaner environment and air quality to breate

green and more jobs.

I would pay up to 25 cent/gal more and I would adjust my daily trips for reducing fuel comsumption and my montly gas bill 5% to 10%.

I have no idea what drop-in gasoline or diesel is. I think you are discussing a partially-oxygenated fuel ( e.g. ethanol , etc) in that case you must get more CO2 per energy unit delivered

For a B100 type fuel I would be willing to pay more than 25 cents/gal. more than conventional petroleum fuel(s). Assuming a really cheap price for “gas” (or diesel) of $2.50 (not a realistic price today, but assuming some drop in the market price), a 25 cent/gal premium for a drop-in 100% renewable and sustainable fuel is a bargain at a tiny 10% premium. Imagine how much cleaner our sky would be with jet fuel being sustainable and with lower emissions besides. “Heavenly” is a word it suggests.

Even though these fuels meeting ASTM specs, there are ranges within the spec. Its might be stastical “noise” for this survey, however in drop-in jet, there are important differences.

Renewable Jet Fuel

If I were the airlines I would charge a CO2 Emission Footprint Charge based on the anount of miles traveled and what was ther CO2 Emission Footprint.

Make the production more sustainable and I’ll pay $32.

The ticket is more about the service of getting me there then it is fuel prices. I would hope that the benefits would be important enough to the airline to use this fuel.

The key for all of this is that the benefits are nice to have and costs come first. That said, once price is comparable renewables would get 100% of my business.

See my comments for #1 and #3

I just want to arrive safely. Kudos if they can do it on a renewable blend. Honestly, fuel blends are the last thing on my mind when flying. Check-in hassles, TSA pat-downs, cramped cabins, looser electronic devise rules, and greater airline consolidation concerns pushes the fuel type way down the list. I wish it was my greatest concern….

The end use customer will be paying and I support the extra charge if it is also made mandatory to use bio-aviation fuel in the blend through policy.

Don’t trust the airline industry.

Studies from Wright Patterson AFB suggest that the airline saves with lower engine maintenance costs. I would initially be willing to pay more to push a biofuel.

A very rough estimation of a 1000 mile ticket is about $200 coach bought a month in advance. So I would be willing to pay 5% more for the positive aspects of renewable jet fuel.

Absolutely no willingness to pay for reduced CO2 emissions or the other “feel good” stuff.

Same comment as gas

The cost of airfare is so high, I imagine I would be able to spend $10 more and consider it to be in the noise of the cost of travel.

Not trustworthy at this point; would prefer a discount to accommodate risk of renewable fuel… No matter how much it is prequalified.

Renewable jet fuels can have signficant environmental benefit if derived from cellulosic or algal feedstocks. These 3rd gen fuels will have a lower consumer adoption threshhold in terms of marketplace penetration, and will finally meaningfully address climate change mitigation issues. For this reason, a premium of 10% or more over convention jet fuels is warranted.

Important to consider global pollution and to promote cleaner technologies

Why should a consumer have to pay more for green? Let cost parity drive this and get the proper technologies in place. If firms are going to make money in this, it should be due to a cost advantage in production and not on the backs of “green” energized people. In the end, that is what it is going to come down to. Can “green” compete on an equal basis. It has to do this to be widely accepted.

Again, I would gladly pay more if I knew big oil was out of the supply chain. And I would support taxes that would shut them down.

Don’t be a dummy.

We need remember that people are cost conscious – I am putting four kids through school.

I would be willing to pay more, but would need to be informed that the additional cost is due to the choice in fuel.

“Benefits” not vslid

Still preferable to penalize conventional fossil fuels than to pay a premium for renewables.

Beyond that, like many business travelers, I do not pay for much of my travel, so the question is, would BUSINESSES (and the Federal Government) be willing to pay the extra cost?

equivilent BTU value, with much less emissions. And renewable!

It is time to stop using fossil fuels where ever possible. We need to pay the price in dollars and not pay the price in a damaged environment that we don’t know how to fix.

It is not necessary to pay more for this fuel any more than the other fuels.

Until they get rid of the TSA I doubt I will be flying.

I don’t think the industry will do well by looking for higher alternative fuel prices to compete. Generally speaking, folks just do not understand or equate the benefits of biofuels to their personal cost of transportation. Some people still drive multiple miles to save a few pennies a gallon. Makes no economic sense. Biofuels must compete head-to-head on an $/mile basis. Biofuels benefits must be translated in the form of higher fossil fuel costs.

Only because jets are such unregulated polluters.

I would be prepared to pay more because of the need to support development of new clean air technology and in the expectation that prices will come down substantially as the technology is more widely adopted.

Main motivation would be energy security and jobs

The impact of this switch would be easy to see.

Again people are broke so the advanced ethanol transition will have to wait until the centralized fossil fuel market collapses. This will occur when cost of oil and refinement collapses due to the world economy collapsing.

Airlines should bear most of fuel cost as part of corporate responsibility. Airlines are already too pricey while reducing passengers comfort.

Renewable jet fuel would be a great plan, but what is at stake to make this renewable jet fuel? Is it renewable or is it? The one failure in all of this is the connection between renewable and sustainable.

Must be vary careful with jet fuel. Last place we should be experimenting with.

Similar reason than before. I cam contribute to long last the environment by decreasing the use of fuel. Then I can make an effort to pay more if it is possible to have a better environment for the future.

The airtransportation and seashipping industry must be obliged to enter into renewable biofuels usage; step by step, no matter if its projected for the following 50 years (at 2% rate of its yearly consumtion)

Airlines will not just pass-on an added cost, they routinely attempt to profit by massively overcharging for all sorts of items. People know that, and will insist that renewable fuel blends not drive up ticket prices.

same comment as #3 for the first part of the question, but the price per ticket example is great.

I would be concerned that the fuel is not, in fact, identical and the differences may pose a risk to the engine and thus the passengers. A blend may be more in line with my expectations (2% – 5% and increase over time as we learn more about renewable jet fuel)

Again ask the state and federal tax question

I would make fewer trips, though.

The environmental impacts of flying justify reducing its use as much as possible.

In the grand scheme of things, $20 more for a 1000-mile airline ticket is a minimal additional expense and well worth the support for renewable jet fuel.

As an individual, we have little choice in what the huge corporations do, and they have demonstrated a pattern of ‘nickle and diming’ us to the max… so they will use biofuels only if it benefits them on the bottom line.

To me, it is a “slippery-slope” to have the price of an airline ticket based upon the benefits of the fuel.

Biofuels MUST compete on price with petroleum if they are to succeed. Airline customers are very price sensitive; I would not regard it a smart business model to expect even small premiums for the same net utility to the buyer. If you can achieve price parity the airlines will buy every drop that industry can produce.

No more Taxes ,costs or government BULLSHIT

My reasons in this case are the same as for (3) above.

But only if the airline provided fuel price information traceable to Platt’s or other industry rack/retail pricing. I would go for the “trust us, our renewables cost us more”

A carbon tax would solve all these issues.

This attacks pollution at the highest and most dangerous levels and the people on those planes owe it to society to do something. $10 is not extravagant.

I would be willing to spend more on a flight operated with cleaner fuel.

I will pay $ 10 more per ticket because of the benefits.

I’ve developed and commercialized bio-chemicals. I understand there are other benefits, but if the customer cannot quantify them, they won’t pay more. Plus, there far better uses for land and our tax dollars than growing more feed corn to support ethanol plants.

Given that the same material would go into diesel, I see no advantage to make this fuel given the blending headaches.

whatever is less pollution

The cost will eventually come down. Gotta start somewhere though.

The airline industry is going to charge, charge, charge you for the air you breath on their planes. Give it time and there will be a HEPA filter tax on your ticket. They make enough, that they should have already changed over to biofuels. Please, what ever you do keep fighting the fight. If we take BIOFUEL and turn it into a BIOTOOL we can fix our country.

in case renewable jet fuel will be generated from waste, biomass etc, i would pay 1$ per ticket more.

in case it is produces from coal, NG etc, i would pay the same

I am working on aviation environment and I do know the benefits.

The cost of fuel has nothing to do with the way airlines price their tickets. They will charge whatever they can get away with.

All airline engines should run on 100% Ethanol.

It’s like paying the $10 as a subsidy for further Research

jet has very much effect on air and atmosphere.

Same comment as for #3

Even though these fuels meeting ASTM specs, there are ranges within the spec. Its might be stastical “noise” for this survey, however in drop-in jet, there are important differences.

Category: Top Stories

Thank you for visting the Digest.

Free Subscription

The Biofuels Digest newsletter

The most widely-read biofuels daily — 20,000+ organizations subscribe — why not you too?

Renewable fuels and prices survey: the readers speak