The New Ethanol Blend May Damage Your Vehicle 375
Hugh Pickens writes writes "About 80 percent of the gasoline consumed in the U.S. is blended with ethanol, primarily with a 10 percent mix of ethanol, generally derived from corn. Now Kate Sheppard writes that the Environmental Protection Agency has approved a new policy that will allow states to raise the blend to up to 15 percent ethanol (also known as E15), approved for use for cars and light trucks from the model year 2001 and later. A few weeks ago, AAA issued a statement saying that the EPA's new policy creates the 'strong likelihood of consumer confusion and the potential for voided warranties and vehicle damage.' AAA surveyed vehicle manufacturers, and found that only about 12 million of the 240 million vehicles on the roads today are built to use E15 gasoline. The EPA will require that gas pumps with E15 bear a warning sign noting the blend and that it is not recommended for cars older than the 2001 model year. But what happens if you accidentally use it? 'Nobody really knows what negative effects [E15 is] going to have on the vehicle,' says Brian Lyons, Toyota's safety and quality communications manager. 'We think that there needs to be a lot more study conducted to make sure there are no longer term effects on the vehicle. So far everything we've seen says there will be.' The concern is that repeated, long-term exposure could cause the higher-alcohol-content fuel to degrade engine parts like valves and cylinder heads — which could potentially cost thousands of dollars to replace. Gas station owners don't like it very much either, because they'd likely have to upgrade their equipment to use it. Nor are environmental groups big fans of the EPA's decision, arguing that increasing the use of ethanol can drive up food prices, and isn't the best means of reducing our reliance on foreign fuels. The ethanol lobby is the only group that really seems to like the new rule. 'We've force fed a fuel into every American's car that benefits a few thousand corn farmers and ethanol refiners at the expense of virtually every other American,' says Scott Faber."
A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians who make decisions based on the bribes they are going to receive, rather than what serves best the public interest causes people to suffer like this. This is why ignorance is one of the strongest poisons in a democracy.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case it's probably not bribes (common as that is), but politicians putting their corn-growing state before the country. Corn is not a good source of ethanol but it's great for the economies of states like Iowa and Illinois.
As to causing people to suffer, the pumps are labeled. Put E-15 in your '69 Mustang and you're just stupid.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
True enough, till they decide that not enough people are using the E15, and make it mandatory.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
This will only happen once a suitable alternative is found to keep running old vehicles. Washington isn't about to mandate a fuel 95% of car owners can't use. We had the same arguments when lead fuel was eliminated. Actually the very same "Oh but what about my '69 Mustang" arguments.
Well here we are today, no lead in the fuel and a small additive on the market for owners of vehicles which required leaded gas.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
There were MUCH stronger reasons to take the lead out of the fuel.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:4, Interesting)
Just think of all the 'contributions' they'd get from the automobile industry if they did force-obsolete 95% of all cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This will only happen once a suitable alternative is found to keep running old vehicles. Washington isn't about to mandate a fuel 95% of car owners can't use. We had the same arguments when lead fuel was eliminated. Actually the very same "Oh but what about my '69 Mustang" arguments.
Well here we are today, no lead in the fuel and a small additive on the market for owners of vehicles which required leaded gas.
Not just older vehicles. E-15 should also not be used in new motorcycles, lawnmowers, chain saws, ATVs and light-duty trucks. Anything not covered by auto regulations in 2001 to make engines more alcohol-safe.
Re: (Score:3)
Ethanol is very nasty stuff when it comes to small engines like generators. Because most of these are use carburetors, they are very sensitive to varnish and bad gas. In the past, one could leave gasoline in a tank over the winter and be OK. With E10, using stored gas of that length can result in a carb rebuild, or in some cases (newer Onans), a possible replacement.
Yes, one can use Sta-Bil or other additives, but they are more of a band-aid solution than anything else.
Humidity (Score:4, Informative)
I use ethanol fuel (E10) in my car at times but only if I know I'm going to be driving a lot and get the stuff out of the system in under a week if the weather is humid. I don't use it in my lawn mower. If I didn't live in the humid subtropics I probably wouldn't care about it. If there isn't much water in the air a few percent of ethanol alone isn't very corrosive so the time you can leave it in the tank is a lot longer.
Re: (Score:3)
Try a marina or gas station right next to a popular boat ramp.
You can get genuine 110 octane tetra-ethyl lead pure gas goodness at a light airport. Get lubed up before you go. Still cheaper then replacing all your light engine tools and only option in some areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Aviation gas is still leaded. I think the aviation market is so small (comparatively) that the EPA is not so concerned, and the FAA doesn't want to go through the legwork to make piston aircraft unleaded capable.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
But then I guess when you are dealing with the "religion" of Leftism that is controlling much of the government, irrational things are to be expected.
A quick tip (which you ought to have been able to pick up from the summary, for Cthulhu's sake): This isn't something most left-leaning people in the US support. Note where it says that environmentalists are against it?
It's important to remember that not every issue in this country is one of Left vs Right. Many of them, in fact, are issues of Politicians/Lobbyists vs Real People. This is one like that.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:3)
Errr, I work in a refinery. Diesel is either a cut straight from the crude tower, hydrotreated (which in our process requires sulphur removal to avoid poisoning the catalyst), separated in a fractionation column and then its run down to storage. The other way we make it is by feeding hydrocracked residue through the same hydrotreater and fractionation column and then run it down to storage.
The only additive that is added to diesel is an antistatic additive. There was no requirements to do anything else, or
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll be using E0 for as long as possible. A few stations still have it.
Living where I do, between two states where all gasoline is E10 (because the politicos stupidly thought getting rid of MTBE justified it), the closest gas station that has ethanol free gas is 100 miles away. And they don't even have the octane rating I need.
Yes, ethanol in the fuel is bad. Wicking and phase separation (where the alcohol sucks up moisture from the air and forms a sludge at the bottom of the gas station's tank) has stranded more than a few cars, and many a gasket has been eaten away too.
You
Re: (Score:2)
Well, put anything besides 100% gasoline in your '69 Mustang and you're just stupid. Unfortunately, in some states, like Texas, you have no choice. Even the regular blended Ethanol is bad for cars and disastrous for small engines.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Brazil has been using E20 and E25 for decades. All it requires is some small tweaks.
not "small" "tweaks" (Score:4, Informative)
Brazil has been using E20 and E25 for decades. All it requires is some small tweaks.
If by "small tweaks" you mean replacing every single component in the entire fuel system that has rubber (which means all the seals, any lines that aren't completely metal, all the fuel injectors, the fuel pump, which is often inside the fuel tank and very difficult to reach, and the fuel pressure regulator), adjusting the engine computer's timing maps (not really possible except in vehicles made after 2000 or so, which tend to have electronically-reflashable computers) *and* better-sealing the fuel system (ethanol is very hygroscopic.) ...then yes, "small tweaks." You're probably looking at upwards of $1,000 in labor alone, and at least half that again in parts (fuel pump, injectors, fuel pressure regulator, and replacement lines, mostly. Seals are comparatively cheap.)
Re: (Score:3)
We were speaking of an industrialised nation where your car is 8 years old max.
I agree with houstonbofh [slashdot.org]. If your industrialized nation is throwing away cars every eight years or less, then you're massively wasting resources. Mind you I don't really care about waste, but I find it deeply hypocritical to change the formula of gas in order to obsolete a large portion of your automotive fleet - all in the name of environmentalism no less.
Re: (Score:3)
You and I may know that more than 10% ethanol can be a problem for some cars, but there's a lot of people who don't. If it was at least counterbalanced by a clear benefit and VERY PROMINENT warnings, it might be acceptable, but it's going to be more ethanol made using the least suitable feedstock available.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't put it in small engines either. The 10% stuff caused a leak in a generator fuel tank. It leaked at the shutoff valve/tank seal. The tank was almost empty or I might have lost the house.
Re: (Score:3)
Airports.
RTFA (or summary for that matter) (Score:4, Insightful)
The environmentalists are actually against it
Re:RTFA (or summary for that matter) (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they need to scream a little louder about this one, because guess who is going to receive the blame for it? "Oh, we had to do the ethanol route! The environmentalists demanded it! It's good for the planet!" - part of being a politician is knowing who to blame, while collecting money for making the mistake.
And while they're at it, if they could undo the NIMBY / anti-nuclear stuff, it would be much obliged. Yes, yes, I know they are now behind nuclear technology, especially when faced with coal and other fun alternatives...but the old propaganda from their fore-bearers / similar groups is still driving the people away from it, and it's really getting out of hand. Something needs to be done before people are so scared of electricity generating technologies, that they turn to burning forests for warmth. And yes, we are approaching that level of stupidity: "Nuclear is bad, oil is bad, coal is bad, but wood is a renewable resource! So, let's just light the forest on fire, and all our neighbors will be warm with us!."
And before you say it, you know someone, somewhere will do this.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:5, Informative)
Yep - this is right up there with the MTBE debacle in CA about 10 years ago.
The Cal EPA (yes California has it's own set of idiot Environmental Regulators) decided that we needed Oxygenation in our fuel mix. The Refiners had this great additive that they had NO market for called MTBE that they claimed would do the job. A report was done describing the effect of use of the additive. CalEPA literally removed dozens of pages of negative results from the report documenting that the additive would corrode the neoprene used in Gas Hoses in most vehicles! Did I mention that MTBE is a major carcinogen!
So the state merrily adopts the stuff!
Well, sure enough, CHP starts to have a huge number of car fires in their patrol vehicles as proof that the original report (the suppressed part) was correct! The bureaucrats can't sweep that CHP fleet numbers under the rug.
Then the stuff starts showing up in drinking water all over the place!
The bureaucrats are running around in circles (think circular firing squads) pointing fingers at each other. Turns out that once MTBE enters the Ecosystem, it doesn't leave. The bureaucrats (without any scientific basis) start banning motorboats on reservoirs arguing that they must be all leaking the stuff. Nope - rain! The stuff is in the air, and the rain is bringing it down into the entire water shed.
Finally tally - 20K drinking wells are polluted with the stuff.
Next - it turns out that MTBE doesn't really do the original job it was claimed to!
Well - the public is incensed! How could this all happen! This is about the time the rest of the original report shows up documenting the fact that MTBE destroys gas engines. Everything from lawn mowers to cars had problems with the stuff. A new form of gas hosing was invented to contain this mess.
The public outrage grows and eventually the governor decrees that the stuff will not be allowed into CA gas.
Final insult. The biggest manufacturer of the stuff sues CA for 1 billion dollars because of voided contract with them - and wins!
Excuse me - I've seen this movie before and know how it ends.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Ethanol destroyes all the little O-rings in your fuel pump, destroyes your fuel lines and injectors. Ethanol also reduces fuel economy so yes it does hurt the enviroment by introducing more co2 into our globally warmed atmosphere.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Making ethanol from the corn is more energy intensive than distillation of oil into gasoline. For every gallon of ethanol you produce, energy equivalent to more than one gallon is burned just to distill it (never mind farming, ferilization, and transportation). Distillation is done with, yup, petroleum products.
Ethanol is nowhere near cabon neutral, given the way we produce it. We'd be closer if we used cane sugar, but tarrifs are so high that it's not economically viable. That's also the work of the corn lobby.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:4, Informative)
Ethanol from plants may or may not be carbon neutral actually. It really depends on how much CO2 was used in the growing of the plants. If you use more fertiliser (from oil often), use heavy machinery to plant, grow and harvest the plants, etc., you may end up putting more CO2 into the air than you would otherwise if you had have just burnt the oil directly in your car. Check where your ethanol is coming from, and see whether or not subsidies are making the production inefficient and/or producing more CO2 than is otherwise saved.
Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking as someone that lives in a socialist country, bills get passed that favor the politicians, not the corporations or the people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Speaking as someone that lives in a socialist country, bills get passed that favor the politicians, not the corporations or the people.
1) Everyone who lives in a first-world nation lives in a socialist country. A better retort to the parent would be, "you're making a distinction without a difference" or something similar that highlights that there are no capitalist and socialist countries -- it's just the ones that are afraid to embrace policies that are construed as socialist limit their ability to run effectively. He happens to call the countries he views favorably as socialist but any government that subsidizes anything is socialist.
2)
Re: (Score:3)
That must be why the USSR was an environmentalist's paradise [gerdludwig.com]!~
Re:For what I hope is the last time (Score:4, Insightful)
In fairness, though, I can actually understand why people bringing out the example of the Soviet Union would annoy a true socialist, because as a libertarian it annoys me when people describe the system in countries like the U.S. as capitalist. It's not even close -- when the policy makers of a powerful central state cooperate with executives who run large businesses for mutual advantage, that's corporatism, not capitalism.
(Because it's Christmas I thought I'd give you a real answer in addition to the sarcastic one.)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we make it an executable offense for this level of stupidity?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we elect career politicians again? Has the country improved at all since this became status quo?
Recipe For Disaster? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in NJ we are not allowed to pump our own gas. That's right, we get Full Service whether we like it or not (it is very convenient on cold or bad weather days).
Who is going to be responsible if they start putting this E15 into cars older than 2001? The attendant? The gas station owner?? The distribution company [patch.com]??? If we get E15 it is going to happen, the only question is how frequently and will our astronomical insurance rates cover it?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to be responsible if they start putting this E15 into cars older than 2001?
I suspect it's going to be rather more complex than a 2001 cut off date. Newer cars could quite easily contain older parts and some older cars may have no problems with the fuel at all.
Re: (Score:2)
There are dual pumps that also have diesel. Basically there are two hoses, one for gasoline, the other for diesel. There are four buttons, three to select the grade of gasoline and the forth selects diesel. But you have to have the green colored diesel hose unhooked to get diesel. The small service station near me has two such pumps. One for diesel/gasoline and one for E85/Gasoline.
Here is an example: http://www.racetrac.com/aboutus/ourfuel/diesel.aspx [racetrac.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Requesting "regular", et al, is different from requesting "regular, ethanol 10 or less", especially if the driver doesn't know that they may encounter E15 and/or what it could do to their engine. And the possibility of the wrong grade gasoline at a pump - doesn't have to be the aviation fuel at a gas station linked to by the OP - then what? Getting regular instead of high-test won't cause the same problems as getting E15 when your car can't handle it.
Come on, it will be just like Starbucks "Low Octane grande with two shots of E-10, no whip". If people can get it straight for coffee, they can do it for gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
Oregon is (maybe was, this was a couple of years ago) the same way.
Who cares about some damage to a few cars... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue here is that food is being used to make fuel.
Re:Who cares about some damage to a few cars... (Score:5, Interesting)
The real issue here is that food is being used to make fuel.
Almost. The real issue here is that topsoil is being used to make fuel. Corn for ethanol is grown continuously, which means not only do they not let fields lie fallow, but they actually don't even practice crop rotation! This leads to rapid depletion of the soil, turning it into dirt. What's the difference? Soil is mostly organic material. Dirt is mostly minerals. Soil can support plants we like to eat, dirt can't. So the corn for ethanol is basically grown hydroponically, in a dirt medium, using oil for fertilizer.
Nobody is starving because we make corn into fuel. You think that they are, but there's actually plenty of food to feed them, going to waste. People are starving because nobody cares.
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply not possible as corn is very cold intolerant. And unlike winter wheat and some other crops, it doesn't go dormant when the air or soil temps go too low... it simply dies.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is starving because we make corn into fuel. You think that they are, but there's actually plenty of food to feed them, going to waste. People are starving because nobody cares.
Probably, but at the very least it's driving prices up for the benefit of a small group of individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Soil is mostly organic material. Dirt is mostly minerals.
I think you have those two words defined exactly backwards.
Also crops are still regularly rotated between soybeans, alfalfa, and corn even among farmers who sell corn for ethanol production.
Beyond that, I suppose you're technically correct. Heaven knows most of us would benefit from eating a little less food.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have those two words defined exactly backwards.
No, he has it almost exactly correct. Soil is a mixture of minerals, water, air, and organic material (e.g. organisms, living and dead). Soil develops over long periods of time, and lies in layers (horizons), each with its own composition and properties. Soil is alive and in situ---it has history and context. Dirt, on the other hand, is what you track into the house after playing in the soil.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Food shortage is an economic issue. The problem isn't an inability to grow enough food - there's enough to around. It's just that the starving population of Elbonia can only afford to pay so much for the food they need to live, while the more wealthy populations of the world will happily spend far more on food for luxury purposes like producing far more meat than the human diet really needs. Or making ethanol.
Re:Who cares about some damage to a few cars... (Score:5, Informative)
I actually farm, so I feel the need to step in here and correct you a little bit. The richest soils I know are only 5% organic matter. And while I share your concerns over ethanol production in general, you don't appear to know a whole lot about soil science in general. Continuous cropping of any kind does deplete the soil. But it doesn't deplete it in terms of organic matter (though it can affect that). It depletes the soil of macro and micro nutrients (minerals). And you are wrong about corn being produced by top soil. Crops can grow in soils without any organic matter at all (I know because I've done it), but without organic matter you have to provide 100% of the nutrients the plant needs. N, P, K, S, Cu, Bo, and a host of others. That's part of the core problem with corn ethanol in general: corn is produced by feeding the plants the vast majority of their required nutrients through synthetic fertilizers, which come from fossil fuels (natural gas is the main one).
High organic matter soils are rich because they have a greater capacity to produce the fundamental nutrients by breaking down plant matter. But no matter how you cut it, if you aren't fertilizing in some way (synthetic or manure) you're just mining your soil of nutrients and eventually you'll run out.
Crop rotation has little to do with organic matter or soil richness. Crop rotation is almost all about disease and weed management. Corn farmers do rotate for this reason. Usually it's corn, soybeans, wheat, repeat, which is not enough. There is a small benefit to the soil of doing rotation, particularly when you grow legumes, which fix their own nitrogen and replenish the soil's nutrient levels.
I'm also in a position to comment on your thoughts on food production. The real problem with corn ethanol and food production is that it's driving up costs of all food commodities (wheat, beef, dairy) and inputs at a dramatic rate on a global level. This makes basic food more expensive all across the world. It's now cheaper in Africa to import grain than to grow it themselves, because of the input costs which are priced on a global market (yay for globalization). Not only is this an inflationary cycle, it also directly is affecting starvation in third-world countries who are now dependent on imports and handouts. So while starvation has nothing to do with the amount of food in the world, it's our practices that are directly contributing to it. Hence the criticisms of corn production replacing food production are indeed warranted.
Re: (Score:2)
Solyent Gas
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue here is that food is being used to make fuel.
Well, even if those corns are not used to make ethanol, they probably will be turned into high fructose corn syrup.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on what kind of corn is used - there's more than one kind and not all are really edible by humans.
Economic Remedy? (Score:2)
Could the additional internal cash flow improve the country's general economy?
Re: (Score:2)
See: Broken Window Fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't applying the Broken Window Fallacy ignore my point that we are currently paying other countries money that could be spent within this country. My understanding is that acknowledging the Broken Window Fallacy only acknowledges that money spent on repairing damage could just as well have been spent on something constructive, but that the overall spending within the system is the same. But we are spending on something external to the country when it could be more internal.
I had not encountered the Brok
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were referring to potential damage since that's the topic of this discussion.
Damage aside, you're right that it would be better for the local economy to "in-source" some fuel production.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I should have emphasized the word internal.
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot of irony to this. For starters, the actual change in regulation by the EPA won't require E15 gas. It simply allows individual states to require it if they want. So in other words this is the federal government giving the states more control, which normally is a good thing. However there are states that are so influenced by corn production that they will certainly make E15 the standard in their state, but for all the wrong reasons. So it might be a bad thing for the Feds to give up some control here, which I hate to have to say.
The second irony is this is the EPA making this decision, and this decision will harm the environment. If the valves and rings in older cars wear out faster from using higher ethanol fuel than they were designed for, then they will begin burning oil, vastly increasing harmful emissions. I thought the EPA was supposed to protect the environment?
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words this is the federal government giving the states more control, which normally is a good thing
Rather a large number of us non-TeaBagger US citizens disagree 100% with that statement. IMHO there is no logic whatever in allowing different states to generate contradictory laws.
big $$$ for ngk (Score:2, Interesting)
i have found that it generaly fouls sparkplugs, especially in stationary motors (generators -fixed speed)
around 1/4 plug life.
Greenwashing at its finest (Score:5, Insightful)
Corn Ethanol is the ultimate in greenwashing. It's not green at all. It's not even energy positive. We're not gaining energy here. We're just using fossil fuel based products to grow corn and turning the corn into an inferior fuel without any gain whatsoever.
Shows the power of the corn lobby, but it's a disaster for the overwhelming majority of the population. If they want an easy thing to cut as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, all ethanol industry subsidies are a great place to start. They're a total waste of money.
Care to back that up? (Score:2)
First, we are only currently using fossil fuel based products to grow corn. That can easily change, especially with the advances we're seeing with green energy.
Secondly what research indicates that growing corn for energy on a wide scale would use more energy than it produces? There are many studies that conclude ethanol from corn is Energy Positive [wikipedia.org].
Re:Care to back that up? (Score:4, Interesting)
Any energy gain would be similar to the energy produced by photovoltaic arrays, which have the advantage (over corn) of not needing fertile soil and water.
Vehicle range (Score:2)
Re:Care to back that up? (Score:5, Informative)
This research:
Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2005 doi:10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8
Which was cited by the article you cited.
Here is another discussion:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/25/221617/881 [theoildrum.com]
The latter is more interesting because not only does it point out the economic issues, but also that there are other issues such as water consumption, soil erosion, political costs etc. associated with using ethanol for fuel.
The Oil Drum is a very worthy site because it presents a useful hard economic view of alternative energies. I think it's probably overly pessimistic, however it's probably a lot closer to the truth than a lot of the advocacy positions that appear in the media.
E15 may be an issue... and not just for cars (Score:5, Insightful)
The percentage of ethanol is not just an issue for cars... boat owners have reported extreme issues with molded-in-place gas tanks where the fiberglass resin mix wasn't just right, which then led to the resins softening and dissolving into the gas. The resin juices then proceeded to destroy the engines in the boats by coating / clogging the fuel system and the chambers with this juice. Folks were allegedly going up and down the coast looking for gas stations that could guarantee 0% ethanol gas or forced to undertake a $$$ diesel repower of their power boats.
It's not as if refineries are going to ship a different blend of gas to most ship docks, doesn't make sense, is a distribution nightmare. They're going to ship whatever they have.
And here's the rub: The ethanol will also result in worse gas mileage because the stuff does not have the same bang per cubic volume as gasoline (i.e. 66%). Thus, the higher the ethanol volume fraction, the lower your vehicle's range is going to be. It's why cars designed to run on E100 in Brazil and elsewhere feature bigger gas tanks than cars designed for use with gasoline, for example.
At the end of the day, the ethanol debate is one of the best examples of how lobbying results in extreme market distortions, i.e. the adoption of a fuel substitute at the behest of the corn farmers in the midwest and the large corporate interests (ADM, etc.) which profit from the processing and marketing of the stuff. Now that natural gas is too practically too cheap to meter, expect even more fuel conversion efforts of this sort.
Re:E15 may be an issue... and not just for cars (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not as if refineries are going to ship a different blend of gas to most ship docks, doesn't make sense, is a distribution nightmare. They're going to ship whatever they have.
Actually in many cases the ethanol is added post blend of the gasoline giving refineries exactly that level of control. A station in some state wants zero ethanol, send them straight gasoline. If they want it blended, dump some into the tank before sending it out.
Heck in some cases it's not even the refineries themselves which blend ethanol but rather the distribution terminals. Although there is a trend towards making refineries do the blending since they have an in house lab and if they certify the product they can actually hit the octane target. The alternative is having to hit the octane target without ethanol and then adding it after. Since ethanol has a high octane it results in giveaway (product better than spec)
Re: (Score:3)
Even then there can still be problems. Just see the recent contaminated gas in the Chicago-land [chicagotribune.com].
Re:E15 may be an issue... and not just for cars (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting conclusion by the paper. This is actually par for the course and can typically happen once a week at a refinery the size of whiting. It is the job of the lab to pick this up, and the fuel should have been independently retested after transfer to ship/distribution facility/pipeline etc. That's one of the reasons you typically don't trust the QA certificates when you buy oil / fuel. But it happens all the time. The lab sends through the certificates, a different department plans the load, and then operations lines up the wrong tank to the pipeline and you get off spec product at the other end.
One of our vendors sent us a case study on a large terminal with 100+ tanks which suffered on average 400+ valve lineup issues each year. Some small picked up quickly, some quite bad. The ones that really cause a shitstorm is when you blend the wrong dye into fuel. So the petrol looks like diesel and then you send it to the other end without noticing and suddenly you have a tank full of flammable liquids which is not designed to hold flammable liquids.
I can actually give you another problem caused in part by ethanol. It's hygroscopic. The company I worked for released standard unleaded to the local pipeline to send to a terminal, all certificates were in order and all specs met. When it got to the terminal it was put into a tank which had a water layer in the bottom. The ethanol absorbed the water and the terminal's laboratory failed the batch as not meeting spec. Shitfight ensued while both sides were trying to figure out what happened. In this case it was caught and not sent out.
Boat owners also report problems... (Score:2)
when they put diesel in their gas engines.
Not every change deserves a corporate conspiracy theory. The fuel you use has never been just gas. There's always been many various additives, octane, levels, season mixes, etc.
High ethanol mixes have been available in many countries without a major collapse in infrastructure. I'm pretty sure we'll do alright as well.
more corn lower price (Score:3)
Ive been watching the pumps around my area, the E-10 regularly is cheaper than the E-85.
I dont understand the big push to ethanol anyway (well yeah I do, the big grain growing states get a kickback) it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than 100% gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not true. Corn Ethanol is not the best source of Ethanol but it's still Energy Positive [wikipedia.org].
Right, Wrong, and Not Even Wrong (Score:3)
I dont understand the big push to ethanol anyway (well yeah I do, the big grain growing states get a kickback) it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than 100% gasoline.
That is not true. Corn Ethanol is not the best source of Ethanol but it's still Energy Positive [wikipedia.org].
I would file both of your answers under the category of neither right nor wrong, but rather not even wrong. The minimum EROI [wikipedia.org] required to sustain a modern civilization has been estimated to be anywhere from 3:1 to 15:1 (with broad variations depending on assumptions of things like what "minimums" might still constitute a modern civilization). If we have to argue the fine details of Ethanol's energy balance to determine if it is energy positive or not, we are already answering the wrong question.
For small-s
Ethanol breaks specific parts (Score:3)
Ethanol in gasoline fuel breaks specific parts in your car.
Fuel lines and parts of the fuel circuit that contain rubber. Unless special formulated rubber is used that is ethanol proof, the rubber will deteriorate.
Fuel pumps and injectors. Some of these are still manufactured from materials that are not adapted to ethanol.
Carburetors. Older cars that are not using injection systems, may have parts inside the carburetors that dissolve in the ethanol. Most common carburetors will have replacement parts available that are resistant to ethanol, so retrofits can often be done.
This is mostly a cost issue and for only $100 more or so a new vehicles components can be resistant to ethanol in such a way that you could easily run E85 without problems for the life of the vehicle. Any modern car that is not capable of doing so, is made so on purpose. Even your 69 mustang can be made to run just fine on ethanol, providing you retrofit the carbs with some new floats and seals and replace the fuel pump and fuel lines with something modern too. Corn Ethanol may not be cost effective or "green" in the USA, but in large parts of the world, ethanol is the cheapest and most environment friendly fuel option. Don't hate on Ethanol just because the way it's being done in the USA isn't right. It has it's place and merits, if you do it right.
Re: (Score:3)
Man what?
Ethanol is not dissolving fluorinated polymer seals anymore then octane or the other components of gasoline are - you know, given time and contact. In all the fear-mongering people forget that regular octane is a pretty damn effective solvent.
A few things (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, no manufacturer is going to extend a warranty beyond minimum requirements. Can you imagine going to a dealer, after not changing the oil for a year, saying they would fix an unrelated warranty issue? Of course not. The purpose of a dealer is deny as many warranty repars as possible. So why would they say they would warranty a uncovered fuel that might mean even an additional warranty repair. Much better to blame the fuel even if the repair is unrelated. Of course flex fuel cars are warrentied to run on flexible fuels.
Third, the issue with ethanol is really an issue with corn production in the US as our only crop for such purposes. Corn is about the worst thing one can use for ethanol, but the US has a corn economy. There are many weeds that can be made into ethanol, but little money has been put into developing that technology. Sugarcane can also be used, but the sugarcane economy in the US has been systematically decimated in the US by northern interests who value politics over national security.
So it is clear that this is just another FUD article to promote the fossil fuel economy. Things are going to change, interests that have become fat and lazy on the backs of americans workers are going to become less fat and lazy, and this simply scares them, so they have to scare us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Higher temperatures? Ethanol burns cooler than gasoline...
FUD (Score:2)
Safeguards can obviously be taken if needed. For instance, surprisingly it's also bad for the car to put diesel in your gas engine. Yet just about every station sell both types of fuel. Personally, I'm looking forward to E25 [wikipedia.org], which has been used in Brazil since the late seventies and they seem to be doing ok with that decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of this, I hope E25 never comes on corn, and prefer there to be an E0.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree Corn is not the best crop for producing ethanol. But it can be used as a stepping stone since it's readily available here.
I'm guessing at some point Ethanol producing firms will seriously investigate other crops and challenge the Corn lobby. But none of this will happen until Ethanol becomes a bigger part of our fuel consumption.
No one knows! (Score:3)
Article is pretty bad, of course people know, it's just that no one can say it without boring non-technical people to death. Sounds like this article was written by those pommie top gear clowns, as soon as anything technical related is mentioned, they cut it out and proclaim it dark mysterious magic!
I think the problem will probably be that the fuel map won't be made to cater for a 15% blend, issue with ethanol is that the stoichiometric mixture requires more fuel relative to mass than hydrocarbon gasoline, since the car can't identify the fuel, and it either sticks to a predetermined fuel map, or uses O2 sensors to adjust, i'm not sure what they'd have selected to do, and i'm not sure what by product gasses you get when you have lean alcohols (being oxygen, hydrogen and carbon). With that said, if the mixture isn't made stoichiometric, then you will be down on power and NOx emissions will go up, which the latter is probably why manufacturers state not to use higher mixtures of ethanol.
I doubt the engine or other parts would suffer any damage, aluminium doesn't like alcohols, corrodes with them, but i don't think 15% is high enough to cause problems, still, and rubber parts might not last as long if in contact with ethanol, but again, just as before, upping the concentration to 15% won't has serious and immediate effects. Valve and cylinder head issues is completely wrong, all cars made to run unleaded have hardened valve seats and valves as it was the tetraethyl lead that reduced wear in those parts, with that being long gone, manufacturers have been making the engines withstand unleaded, this remain unchanged with ethanol mixes.
The real drawback with ethanol is that the energy density is about two thirds of ordinary hydrocarbon gasoline, which means operating with stoichiometric mixtures, ethanol engines won't be significantly changed with power, but to do the same amount of work, will consume a higher volume of fuel as opposed to gasoline engines. So from a simple cost benefit point of view, 1 unit of ethanol is worth two thirds of straight, unadulterated gasoline, therefore to get your money's worth, 15% ethanol should be approximately 1.7% cheaper than 10% ethanol, and 5% cheaper against straight gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
My undertanding is that E15 also eats rubber and plastic quickly, so think all your seals, hoses, fuel pump etc.
Even if your guess is right (and I am a long way from convinced you're right), that valve seats etc wont get more harmed by burning E15, just the side-effects of long-term running with incorrect timing (i.e. caused by unnig E15 with any ECU not explicitly rpogrammed for it) will surely wear out your engine much quicker.
As for the potential for damage, you only have to imagine the increased danger
Lost yard equipment to E10. Now I'm more careful. (Score:2)
I didn't really care about the difference between 100% gas and E10. I thought it was a bunch of hoopla from competing political interests. Then I lost a trimmer and a tiller to ethanol's corrosive powers. Within a couple of weeks of being fueled with E10, both had developed holes in the gas tanks and were dead. Happily my mower didn't suffer the same fate.
The moral? Don't let E10 sit in your trimmer or other yard equipment. In fact, use 100% gas in them when possible.
quit pandering to corn lobby - not green energy (Score:2)
ethanol is a horrible fuel, less energy dense than gasoline, corrodes and dissolves parts, and is net energy loss. We need to stop this nonsense, our lawmakers are out of control and in the pockets of the wealthy.
I don't think we'll see beyond E10.... (Score:2)
....Mostly due to potential engine damage and the fact you have to redesign the fuel-delivery system to take full advantage of E15 fuel--not a cheap option!
Ironically... (Score:2)
Those corn farmers refuse to use the stuff in their tractors. Every gas station in farming areas sells 0% ethanol gasoline. Because farmers refuse to use any blends in their equipment due to the damage even 10% causes.
Why (Score:2)
Why are we still using inefficient hydrocarbon burning internal combustion engines to power automobiles anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
reality. hydrocarbons have high energy density, while whatever alternative you are imagining we should use does not.
Re:Why (Score:4, Informative)
Because the power density of hydrocarbon fuels far outweighs any other technology presently available.
10 gallons of gasoline weighs around 90 pounds. In even a fairly inefficient car (like, say my 1985 Volkswagen Vanagon Camper) that will get the car about 150 miles. Most compact cars easily get twice that from a 10-gallon tank. My other car, a Volkswagen New Beetle (which is diesel), gets close to 40 MPG (easily over if you drive conservatively), and while that's burning diesel fuel, the weight is comparable. So, 150-400 miles on 90 pounds of fuel for your "inefficient hydrocarbon burning internal combustion engine."
By comparison, the LiIon batteries in many electric vehicles weighs in the range of 90-200 pounds, depending on the car (The Tesla, I'm told, weighs even more). At most, the range of a typical electric is 200 miles, and most manufacturers only promise between 100 and 150 miles between charging.
CNG weighs a little less (the fuel is significantly lighter, but the tank is heavier). LNG weighs about the same as gasoline. Both will range at the lower end of the MPG figures quoted above. Fuel cells may alter the dynamics a bit, but the best sources of hydrogen for them is still hydrocarbon fuels.. they will just push the kW/gallon energy output higher, potentially increasing MPG if we can get the weight of a fuel-cell generator and electric motors to something close to an internal combustion engine.
Pound for pound, hydrocarbon fuels provide the most bang for the pound of any power technology we presently have available.
Already Studied for a Half Decade (Score:2)
Minnesota did extensive E-15 and E-20 studies that completed back in 2008. They didn't find a many problems, which is why the EPA passed the waivers without much fanfare. It's been lawful to sell E15-E20 in MN for some time. Here's the thing though, there's no reason to make a big deal out of the blends. Ethanol can be blended at the pump. Give consumers the choice on how much they want and how much they want to pay.
Use of Alternative Fuel == Voided Warranty (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And if we pay some people to dig ditches, while others fill them in, we can employ hundreds of thousands of people.
Re:Too much ado about nothing (Score:5, Informative)
My 2010 Honda's manual very specifically says not to use ethanol blends higher than 10%. I'll trust Honda's word over those of the corn lobby.
Re:Too much ado about nothing (Score:5, Informative)
That's true for every gasoline engine that isn't specifically designed for alcohol. Alcohol makes rubber gaskets dry out and crack, it also does a pretty good job at taking the lubricating oil off of everything. Its a wonder that old motors last hours let alone years on the 10% stuff.
It isn't the engine that's being harmed... (Score:2, Informative)
...it's the fuel storage and delivery systems in the vehicle that are suffering the damage... all the rubber, plastic, and aluminum components that are getting dissolved or corroded by the ethanol.
A piston engine can run just fine on ethanol, but everything from the tank, the pump(s), hoses, seals, fuel injectors, etc, all must be made from materials that specifically can withstand constant contact with ethanol, and ethanol with water dissolved in it, without deteriorating. Most automotive fuel system compo
Re: (Score:2)
Flex fuel cars can actually adjust for a range of gasoline/ethanol mix using a sensor that detects the fuel mix, it's not just a handful of different "profiles."
I'm going to hook up a flex-fuel sensor to my sports car next year but it's more for longevity than performance, I just run whatever pump gas is available and the compression ratio isn't high enough for any meaningful gains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)