RD, Bill, their conclusion is right about poorer performance with ethanol addition. No doubt the research was driven by global warming concerns. But from the "do-gooders point of view", the ethanol is a renewable resource whereas the remaining 90% or so is fossil fuel - so a theoretical net environmental gain. Well-meaning maybe but with the issues of grain production and poorer performance etc, I wonder if the overall net environmental gain is closer to zero?? 
Here in Oz, all the advice I have had from mechanical maintenance workshop people is not to use ethanol fuels for the performance and rubber issues whilst such fuel is available. So I use 95 Octane petrol unleaded with no ethanol but preservative added (usually Mercury outboard fuel conditioner from my nearest shop) for everything - ride-on mowers, bikes, several stationary engines for water pumps, cultivator etc, and couldn't be happier. I have tried 98 but no benefit for my low-performance motors and it doesn't keep long. Anything lower than 95 is shite over here. The old Fordson tractor is diesel.
BTW my water pumps are getting a workout for the past month - the mud has turned into a hard crust and dying plants due to no rain.
Col
Col,
You have been "sucked in" by some crafty BS
Running ethanol in your petrol does zero to combat pollution apart from a 2% reduction in CO2 emissions for every 10% ethanol ( because it changes the C to H ratio of the fuel ).
E10 burns a little cooler so in theory should reduce the nitrates/nitrides in the exhaust ( also a green house gas that everyone ignores )
In OZ it was done to bolster the sugar cane industry & the fact that the ex -PM's brother was the majority shareholder & MD of the only company licensed to make fuel ehanol helped the mandate along.
Weather it is grown right now or grew 10,000 years ago the CO2 produced is the same
Then there is the production pollution
Brewing ethanol generates a lot of methane ( bacteria farts ) most of which is flared off in a lazy yellow flame because it is too expensive to capture it so that adds both CO2, Methane & particulate pollution.
From an economic point of view it does reduce the amount of fuel that is imported so that is good for the foreign exchange account.
Gasahol was first used on a large scale during the BS pretend South African embargo because while essential minerals like Molly & cash items like gold & diamonds could be smuggled across the borders then traded freely massive oil tankers & fleets of oil trucks would be very visible so SA went to Gasahol ( e75 - e90) & banned all 2 strokes
Then there is the problem of imported ethanol.
Chopping down forests in third world counries in order to grow cane / beet or any other fermentable crop is a big negative particularly as we desperately need massive re-forrestation to counter global warming .
Both sides of the arguement selectively use data & exagerate grossly in order to advance their positions.
All of the graphs & charts you see showing CO2 production since the industrial revolution totally ignore deforestation and population increases .
The fact that over 40% of all forest have been cut down gets ignored and that includes Australia where all of the dairy farms were originally forest and most of the wheat belt was forest / scrub.
Remember that much of the Arabian & African deserts were created by deforestation , Easter island was a paradise till the natives cut down all the tress and they all starved to death .
The symbosis between forest & grasslands is only just being started to be understood because there was no money for the research because if forest have to be replanted the economic costs to the 5% of the population that control 95% of the money is considered ( by them ) to be too great .
Replant them all and the CO2 problem vanishes.
But those wo control the narative ( the 5% ) want to accumulate even more of the 95% money by pushing the EV solution so we will continue to buy stuff from them in ever increasing volumes .
