backtop


Print 129 comment(s) - last by th3pwn3r.. on Jun 30 at 2:20 AM


The Supreme Court has cleared the way to start pumping E15 onto the market.  (Source: DigitalTrends)
E15 also expected to create higher carbon emissions, higher food prices

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a complaint filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Alliance of Automobile ManufacturersAssociation of Global AutomakersOutdoor Equipment InstituteNational Marine Manufacturers Association, and the American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers, which might have challenged upcoming EPA rules which allow E15 blends (15 percent ethanol, 85 percent gasoline).

The decision upholds the District of Columbia’s Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the complainants lacked the legal basis to challenge the sale of E15.

In the U.S. the government does not currently demand stations buy blended ethanol, however it constricts the supply of unblended gas by forcing refiners to buy "blending credits" based on the quantity of ethanol they blend in.  To meet upcoming quotas, refiners will virtually have to sell at least some E15 to stations and consumers.

While stations have been slow to adopt higher ethanol blends due to fear of consumer backlash, automakers fear that the decision to back the 15 percent ethanol blend will ultimately force refiners to start pushing E15 out onto the market.

Current prices of ethanol are around 29.66 cents per gallon less than gasoline [source].  But the threat of fines will likely force refiners to bite the bullet and starting pumping out E15, now that their appeal is dead.

E15 permeates and damages parts made of rubber, plastic, metal, and other materials in engines not specially sealed to allow the use of higher ethanol blends.  All automakers certify their vehicles for E10. Some automakers certify their vehicles for E15 use, but many don't. 

Chrysler Group LLC, Toyota Motor Corp. (TYO:7203), Nissan Motor Comp., Ltd. (TYO:7201), Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW), and Volkswagen AG (ETR:VOW) all warn customers not to use E15, saying it will void their warranty.  No ATV or motorcycle manufacturer in the U.S. currently approves of E15 use, according to The Detroit News -- using E15 in any standard motorcycle will void its warranty.

The nation's largest travel organization, AAA, has already warned that the results of allowing E15 to be sold at the pump will be disastrous -- millions of Americans may have their vehicles damaged and warranties voided.  AAA President and CEO Robert Darbelnet, comments, "AAA believes it is both premature and irresponsible to sell E15 to consumers while these issues remain unresolved."

But the EPA's perspective appears to be that Americans should ditch the bikes, ATVs, and older cars, and buy "green" sedans instead; and if you don't like that "tough".

The Renewable Fuels Association is pleased with that approach.  Its CEO Bob Dinneen commented SCOTUS ruling, "I am pleased that today’s Supreme Court action ends a long and drawn-out petroleum industry effort to derail the commercialization of E15.  The uncertainty created by this lawsuit has chilled commercial activity that would provide American consumers more affordable choices at the pump."

corn profits
Big corn is pleased with the decision. [Image Source: Agriculture.com]

E15 is indeed more affordable, but in addition to the engine damage potential, it also gets significantly lower MPG than pure gasoline fuel.  Thus customers may not realize any savings; in fact they may even overall end up paying more when using E15 with compatible vehicles.

In addition to all the aforementioned issues, studies have suggested that going from the corn-field to fuel pump corn ethanol is an energy negative process, consuming more energy than it produces, and offering up higher life-cycle carbon emissions that standard gasoline.  And use of feed corn on ethanol has "accidentally" driven food and livestock feed prices upward.  The ethanol industry again, is relatively unsympathetic, offering the vague argument that corn ethanol preserves domestic security and feeds money into the U.S. economy.

Sources: Renewable Fuels Association, AAA, Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Death to the RFA
By Motoman on 6/24/2013 9:45:10 PM , Rating: 5
The "Renewable Fuels Association" is a fraudulent scam against humanity. And the retards at the EPA are in bed with them.

There is no POSSIBLE excuse for making fuel from food crops. And naturally that's where this is coming from...corn in the USA, sugar from elsewhere. Anyone and everyone who thinks any such activity has even the slightest justification seriously needs to be kicked off the island.

And the next idiot who says something about "lessing/ending foreign oil dependence" gets a Mighty Boot to the mouth for being that catastrophically stupid.

But of course this gets compounded when the anti-citizen agencies such as the EPA and the RFA get together and start mandating things like E15 - and then SCOTUS lets them get away with it?!

As noted in the article, E15 will void the warranty in essentially any vehicle you put it in...BECAUSE IT WILL DESTROY YOUR FUEL SYSTEM AND ENGINE.

"Well, no big deal" the mouth-breathing whoreds will say. "People who don't have E15-certified vehicles will be able to buy other fuels still."

First of all...people are stupid. And if they can save 5 cents a gallon by buying E15 instead of E10, that's what they're going to do. And they're going to blow their motors up, and the manufacturers are going to give them the finger, and before you know it we've got cats and dogs living together, total chaos, and twinkies the size of the Empire State Building. People WILL put this fuel in their existing vehicles, because it will be there and it will be cheaper.

Secondly...virtually all gas stations that are relatively modern use blender pumps. Which is to say, there's not really 3 (or 5, or whatever) different tanks of fuel to correspond with the number of buttons on the pump. There's a tank full of, say, 93-octane premium, and a tank full of 87-octane regular, and if you select the 90-octane option, it just blends the 2 together for you.

Now the problem results in the fact that up to something like 4 gallons of fuel will be held within the final part of the hose system after a given fill-up. So, if someone got E15, there would be up to 4 gallons of pure E15 in the hose already, that has to come out before anything else can get to your tank. Obviously, if you're wanting the 93-octane premium (which is probably E10, or maybe pure gasoline), you're going to get that 4 gallons of E15 first.

When looking at a car with a ~20 gallon tank, maybe that's not that big a deal. But the fact of the matter already is that you're not getting the product you paid for. You're not getting 20 gallons of premium - you're getting 16 gallons of premium and 4 gallons of E15. And you're supposed to be OK with that.

"Hey man, my 20-piece bucket of chicken only has 16 pieces of chicken, and then 4 pork chops in it..." "Close enough - just shut up and eat."

But it still gets worse. Imagine you own a motorcycle. No motorcycles can support E15. None of them. It *will* void your warranty, and it *will* cause engine failure. Unbeknownst to you, you pull up to the pump after some raging dooshbag filled up with E15. Now, remember, there's 4 gallons of E15 in that hose that has to come out before anything else can...and you slide your card in and select 93-octane premium. Take a guess at how big your gas tank is on your motorcycle. Mmmm...good chance it's less than 4 gallons. Like, really good chance. Actually...almost no chance it isn't smaller than 4 gallons. So the fuel that goes into your bike is going to be 100% E15. Despite the fact that you paid for premium, and despite the fact that E15 will void your warranty, and despite the fact that E15 will destroy your motor.

At one point the EPA was saying they'd "fix" that problem by requiring a minimum 8 gallon purchase. Ummm...what? Yes, they really are that stupid.

So now, motorcycle riders are going to be unknowingly putting E15 through their bikes, unknowingly killing their engines over time, at no fault of their own. Eventually, if and when engine failure occurs, maybe that rider experiences a lockup at highway speed in traffic and then gets run over by a few dozen cars. It's entirely possible - in fact, positively certain - that motorcycle riders will experience engine failures at the worst possible times, and it will get them killed.

And the RFA and EPA will shrug their shoulders and continue to not care...about any of us. Not our food supply/cost. Not our vehicle warranties. Not our vehicle repair costs. And not even our lives.

Note that the same issue will kill motors in lawn mowers, when you get gas in your 2.5 gallon container for it. Or your snowmobile...your outboard...your jet ski...etc. Anything that runs on gas where you'll be getting 4 or less gallons at a time.

So, I have a suggestion. I suggest that we all chip in and buy a shiny new motorcycle for everyone who works at the RFA and the EPA. And then we force them to ride them, all the time, instead of driving a car. And we force them to run E15 in those bikes.

And when those bikes eventually lock up on the highway and pitch the rider under a 16-wheeler, we can all just shrug our shoulders and continue not caring about them.




RE: Death to the RFA
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: Death to the RFA
By superstition on 6/24/2013 11:34:11 PM , Rating: 5
Hippies have NOTHING to do with policy like this. This is corporate welfare sleaze.


RE: Death to the RFA
By maugrimtr on 6/26/2013 8:57:10 AM , Rating: 1
Hippies are happy about "good" things. The EPA forcing adoption of ethanol produced by corn which a) is not environmentally sound, b) increases global food prices for poor people and c) artificially inflates corn demand as an effective subsidy worth billions? This does not make hippies happy. It makes them foam at the mouth in horror.

The enemy of your enemy can be your friend...at least on this one!


RE: Death to the RFA
By TerranMagistrate on 6/25/2013 12:00:34 AM , Rating: 5
And then you wake up...

The U.S. government is absolutely out of control. The problem is systemic and voting for either party will make little to no difference.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Schadenfroh on 6/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Death to the RFA
By Invane on 6/25/2013 1:06:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...corporations / special interests groups do not cast ballots.


Correct, they just purchase them.


RE: Death to the RFA
By dgingerich on 6/25/2013 6:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
Corporations and special interest groups pay money to the campaigns, which the politicians use to get people's attention.

The worst part about humanity as a whole, not just the US, is that most will go where they are lead, ignoring common sense and logic, buying what's trendy and voting for what the media tells them is right, without thinking about it. Apple products, climate change, etc.

The media stole the 2012 elections, plain and simple. Whoever controls the media controls the sheeple. I'm not just talking getting Obama reelected. I'm also talking about getting Ron Paul, a perfect candidate that would have beat Obama and done a FAR better job than any other candidate, defeated in the Republican primary. It was the media that pushed Romney, knowing he'd be too polarizing to win. Ron Paul, and near center Republican, showed very strong support within the Republican party at first, then it slacked off as the media beat him down over not supporting "Republican ideals" well enough.

The media also beat down another strong candidate, Sarah Palin, just on their own spite. They never brought up a single issue of real value, but rather just rode her down on their nit picking, mean spirited name calling, like some elementary schoolyard bullies. They made fun of her accent, her family, her hair style, but nothing is real substance. She's a highly intelligent, capable woman, and would have been a real value to this country. (OK, her family isn't perfect. Who's is? I'll vote for the head of the first perfect family I see.) She just wasn't strong enough to handle the mean spirited media.

We need to make the media accountable for the travesty that is the "news" today. Don't listen to them. They're brainwashing you.


RE: Death to the RFA
By superstition on 6/26/2013 12:27:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm also talking about getting Ron Paul, a perfect candidate that would have beat Obama and done a FAR better job than any other candidate, defeated in the Republican primary. It was the media that pushed Romney, knowing he'd be too polarizing to win. Ron Paul, and near center Republican, showed very strong support within the Republican party at first, then it slacked off as the media beat him down over not supporting "Republican ideals" well enough.


You should watch Ben Swann's coverage of Ron Paul and the Republican primaries. In contrast to your claim, he was an example of the media shedding light on corruption in the Republican party, corruption that was sabotaging Paul's candidacy.

Then there are journalists like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald who have defended Paul against attacks by people like Bob Schieffer. "The media" isn't monolithic, although it is true that it is too corporate, often too captured by government, and not nearly as adversarial and investigative as it should be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94XumhCBkTM

There are multiple Ben Swann videos about the primary corruption. This happened in multiple states, at the very least.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Dr of crap on 6/25/2013 12:49:13 PM , Rating: 3
AMEN !!
I find refreshing when I find others with my view.
There are so few of us!

When will other political parties be allowed into the dance with FULL honors as everyone else???


RE: Death to the RFA
By Motoman on 6/25/2013 12:54:30 PM , Rating: 3
Which is why I keep saying that if we want any chance for a valid government, we need to do at a minimum 2 things:

1. Ban political parties. Which, BTW, does *nothing* to inhibit free speech. People can still gather and talk about whatever they want...but there will be no parties listed on ballot sheets, or otherwise in conjunction with candidates...there will be no Majority This or Minority That positions on Capitol Hill, so on and so forth.
1a. Voters who wish to participate in the system will simply have to *pay attention* to the candidates and, with any luck, actually elect people based on their stances on important issues - not just checking off all the D or R entries on the ballot.

2. Ban lobbying. Lobbying is fully corrupt, through and through, and it serves only to further corrupt our government. Make all lobbying illegal, and then corporations and special interest groups lose their leverage, and then elected officials *just might* start doing the "right thing" - instead of doing the thing which they were paid to do by the lobbyists.


RE: Death to the RFA
By JediJeb on 6/25/2013 5:02:23 PM , Rating: 3
George Washington said that the worst thing that could ever happen to our government would be the establishment of political parties. There were none until he left office, and we have gone down hill ever since.


RE: Death to the RFA
By roykahn on 6/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Death to the RFA
By Strunf on 6/25/2013 9:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the potable water in the US is used to ... water your lawn, so if water is a problem it's easy to cut on its use without much of trouble.


RE: Death to the RFA
By weskurtz0081 on 6/25/2013 10:11:21 AM , Rating: 3
Wait.... what? You think that, if the XL pipeline is put in, that all of the sudden we are going to have problems with oil pipelines in the US? Have you any idea how many pipelines there are that already cross the country? Did you know that there are already pipelines bringing tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast? So, what exactly about THAT SPECIFIC pipeline is going to cause so many problems?


RE: Death to the RFA
By Mint on 6/25/2013 11:09:03 AM , Rating: 4
The XL pipeline propoganda reminds me a lot of the anti-nulear movement from a few decades ago.

Bravo, Greenpeace: You stopped new nuclear plants from being built, and in its place we expanded coal production since it was the only practical substitute. Now they rail against the XL pipeline, and bitumen is instead transported by diesel-burning rail and ship instead.

I'm generally a liberal, too, but my god is the environmental movement stupid at times...


RE: Death to the RFA
By Cerin218 on 6/25/2013 11:33:09 AM , Rating: 3
Well, when your decision is based on what makes you feel good, rather than logic and sustainability, then you get dumb liberal ideas. Usually they can't understand the root causes of problems so create horrible ideas and they usually end up a victim to the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Like Ethanol. Makes GREAT sense to use your food supply as a fuel using a method that creates more pollution than it offsets all so you can feel warm and fuzzy that you are helping the environment.
Hey, you destroy everything you put it in but specially prepared vehicles causing environmental pollution to repair (where do you think the engine fluids go when you rebuild it) but you stopped greenhouse gasses right?

I have found that with liberalism a great deal is promised, very little is delivered, and what is delivered usually costs more than it's worth while causing greater problems than it solves, which the leadership usually blames on someone else.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Mathos on 6/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Death to the RFA
By Cerin218 on 6/25/2013 1:43:43 PM , Rating: 3
Liberalism of the 1700's isn't the Modern Liberalism of present day. Since about FDR on. Liberals made some of the WORST decisions. FDR prolonged and worsened the Great Depression with his New Deal and Keynesian economics. Woodrow Wilson gave us the stupidity of the Federal Reserve. And LBJ gave us Vietnam and the War on Poverty. The liberals of 1700 believed in the rights of individuals. which is why the Constitution and Bill of rights is brilliant. But I don't see much freedom or rights in Modern Liberals. In fact I see a movement of quite the opposite. Some of them may need to actually read the definition of Liberal next time they decide to be politically active. Which is what I am talking about.

"The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves Democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!" -Ludwig von Mises

Republicans aren't much better, but there isn't much you can defend the Democrats with when the Republicans come up with or implement bad ideas and then then Democrats take the bad ideas so much FURTHER. Patriot Act under Bush, BAD. Patriot Act under Obama, WORSE. E10 wasn't bad enough? Try E15!! The Right starts the stupid, and the Left shows WAY more efficient ways to increase the stupidity.

Recently there was an attempt to dismantle the government subsidies for ethanol production that were blacked by key Democrats that felt the 6 BILLION dollar industry would suffer without government favoritism. Reality is that the free market would not and does not support ethanol without the government essentially paying for it. If the befits and cost effectiveness were there, it would support itself.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Mint on 6/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Death to the RFA
By JediJeb on 6/25/2013 5:10:54 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't it ironic that a true Conservative is one who works to preserve the original Liberal ideals of our Founding Fathers.


RE: Death to the RFA
By roykahn on 6/25/2013 5:39:53 PM , Rating: 1
All such pipelines are a risk. The XL is much larger than anything done before, hence the XL moniker. Are YOU happy with the huge environmental impact that the XL will create if built? The problems with leaks, the extraction process in Canada, the continued burning of fossil fuels, the erosion of farmer's rights, the disregard for people's health concerns, the collusion between government officials, regulators/assessors, and big business, etc.

Things are bad enough as it is. If I recall correctly, our atmosphere now has over 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide which is well past the tipping point. The XL will XLerate that :P


RE: Death to the RFA
By Schrag4 on 6/26/2013 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, well, if we're past the tipping point then I guess there's nothing we can do. LOL

You might want to look into earth's history, well beyond 100 or 10,000 years ago. You'll find that the periods when the earth had many times 400 PPM saw life in much more abundance than we have today. If there's some tipping point below 400 PPM, how are we even here?


RE: Death to the RFA
By JediJeb on 6/26/2013 1:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
One article I read said the tipping point that caused the glaciers to begin to form in Antarctica was when it dropped below 600ppm CO2. Even during the Jurassic period when there was very abundant life on the planet it is estimated CO2 levels were anywhere from 750ppm to 3000ppm, if they can be that high during a time when life was very abundant on Earth then I don't think we have a problem with the current rise causing some mass extinction, well maybe an extinction of our preferred comfortable way of life but not life itself.


RE: Death to the RFA
By BRB29 on 6/26/2013 1:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even during the Jurassic period when there was very abundant life on the planet it is estimated CO2 levels were anywhere from 750ppm to 3000ppm, if they can be that high during a time when life was very abundant on Earth then I don't think we have a problem with the current rise causing some mass extinction, well maybe an extinction of our preferred comfortable way of life but not life itself.


All these reports and analysis about rise in temperature concentrated on the destruction of certain habitats. It completely ignored the creation of new warmer climates in the northern and southern regions where it is usually cooler.

If the temperature rise a few degrees, we will actually have more life naturally. Some species will go extinct while many more will be emerge. We are afraid of this change in temperature because we will lose land, property, infrastructure, etc... It will cause trillions and trillions of damages to the global economy. People don't like to say this because it makes them look greedy and insensitive. So they concentrate on things that gets people's emotions like extinction of species, less land to live, flooding, death etc...
Basically, it comes back to money and property more than nature itself.


RE: Death to the RFA
By roykahn on 6/27/2013 4:20:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
extinction of species, less land to live, flooding, death etc

Huh? You just listed four very good reasons to be concerned about climate change. I don't see why you need to be emotional to accept that we need much more attention and action regarding climate change.

I really don't understand your opinion. Why should we ignore all the risks of climate change? Do you think it's too expensive to address, or your way of life will be negatively impacted, or are you just sick and tired of hearing about the issue?


RE: Death to the RFA
By BRB29 on 6/27/2013 7:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the part about new species and new habitable lands?
with a rise in temperature, all that will happen is moving the warmer climates further towards the poles. You may see some places become deserts. But places like Siberia(huge), Canada Northern Europe will have a massive increase in life and even new species. So we may actually see more usable land.

The real reason rich people are extremely against climate change is monetary reasons. Insurance companies would go bankrupt immediately trying to cover even 5% of this cost. All those beach front properties, hotel chains, resorts, etc... will be gone when the water level rises. Flooding will cause more damage and go in further. Florida and New Orleans is at sea level or even below it in some part. You'll see a lot of land disappear.

In essence, it is bad for humans and our society and that's the reason why it's pushed so hard. Because seriously, we feel bad when we hunted tigers and elephants into extinction but when was the last time that affected our life? Human society didn't even flich, some of us just feel bad and donated a dollar then forgot about it the following week.


RE: Death to the RFA
By roykahn on 6/27/2013 11:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In essence, it is bad for humans and our society and that's the reason why it's pushed so hard.

Again, I can't quite grasp your argument. You're in favor of human suffering and mass deaths, extinction of many current species (animal and plant), because new species MIGHT evolve and some areas of our planet MIGHT become more hospitable? I'm sorry, but I don't share your wishful thinking.

Animal extinction can have dramatic effects on the environment. While the effects might not be felt by your average city-dweller working in an office, it can affect large areas of land and many people that don't visit this web site. Maybe you don't yet appreciate the relationship between various animals, plants, insects, fish, bacteria, water, etc.

It's kinda like arguing that the last US invasion of Iraq was okay because its population was suffering. Was that affecting US citizens? No. Yet drastic action was taken (that has greatly worsened Iraq). Funny how we, as a species, can't act as decisively against our greatest current threat.

If there's one thing I wish I could impart on you it's that climate change means more than just humans shifting to new land areas. There's plenty of information available on the subject, you know :-P


RE: Death to the RFA
By Schrag4 on 6/28/2013 9:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
You're sceptical that "new species might evolve" to adapt to a new climate? Do you believe that the current set of species is "the perfect" set of species and must be preserved at all costs? What do you think has been happening for millions of years when the climate was much hotter or much colder than it has been for the last couple of centuries? I'll ask the question from one of my other posts again, in a different way: If mother nature decided it was time to cool the earth off a few degrees celcius, would you pump up the carbon output in an attempt to save those species who are struggling to survive in the colder regions?

Also, I think your claims of "human suffering and mass deaths" are a bit dramatic. I suppose if you believe the models, which can't be used to predict past warming or cooling, then you'll believe anything.


RE: Death to the RFA
By roykahn on 6/29/2013 4:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
You're comparing the change in temperature and atmosphere over thousands or millions of years to what is currently happening over decades. Evolution for most species doesn't happen that quickly. If you're happy with climate change then perhaps you're not fully aware of the effects.

Global climate models are very complicated, but we must have some respect for the peer reviewed work climatologists perform. Some skepticism is fine, but to be so dismissive of climate change just seems so illogical to me.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Schrag4 on 6/27/2013 10:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
What do you suppose would happen to the earth's climate if humans stopped burning fossil fuel overnight? Do you think the earth reached a CO2 concentration of 3000PPM because of the burning of fossil fuel? You're willing to spend trillions of dollars (of other people's money) to try to stop something that perhaps cannot be stopped?

Maybe you would try to circumvent the natural cycle of warming and cooling that takes place over hundreds or thousands of years by drastically changing some other variable in the climate models we've been using in an attempt to offset any warming that might naturally occur. I'm not saying CO2 has no effect, and that we have no effect on CO2, but for one thing I think it's blown way out of proportion, and also (more importantly) if "man-made" warming is bad, isn't naturally occurring warming also bad?


RE: Death to the RFA
By boeush on 6/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Death to the RFA
By thefrozentin on 6/26/2013 1:50:06 PM , Rating: 1
Eric Cartman...is that you???


RE: Death to the RFA
By hyvonen on 6/26/2013 2:11:46 PM , Rating: 1
I know you're always whining about government regulation. Now, EPA is RELAXING regulations that prevent high-ethanol blends from the market place, and you still whine?

Oh, I get it. You WANT regulations that fit your individual preferences, and complain about anything and everything else. Hypocrite.

How about if you just let the market decide if it wants 15% ethanol blends or not, instead of artificially try to limit the choice in the market place.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Tedtalker1 on 6/24/2013 11:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
I hate ethanol but I seriously doubt there is four gallons of fuel left behind in the underground hose from the previous grade pumped. Maybe four ounces? Four gallons sounds absolutely absurd. Can you prove your claim?


RE: Death to the RFA
By bah12 on 6/25/2013 9:31:41 AM , Rating: 2
About a 1/3 of a gallon.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122944043385810527...
Although he's full of crap on that point, F**ck the EPA and E15 it makes no sense in any way even without the harm to engines argument.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Motoman on 6/25/2013 11:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/19/the-epas-4-gal...

Actually it does look like I got my numbers mixed up. The EPA mandated purchase level is 4 gallons minimum - not 8, to account for the residual fuel in the lines.

Regardless, the point stands that a 4 gallon minimum purchase is simply physically impossible for motorcycles and many gas cans that normal people use (2.5 gallons is a *very* popular gas can size).

I'd correct my OP if there was an edit button.

But you're right - ethanol makes absolutely no sense as a fuel at all, and if "we" had brains in our heads we'd outlaw it, not push it to higher levels.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Mint on 6/25/2013 4:30:14 PM , Rating: 1
E15 is a fuel OPTION that's going to have a big warning label on it. If we had no EPA, it (and many other fuels) would have been offered a long time ago without any gov't testing.

As long as people follow the rules, let it be introduced and see what happens. My guess is that it'll mostly flop, and few people will use it.


RE: Death to the RFA
By bah12 on 6/25/2013 6:08:48 PM , Rating: 3
That sounds good on the surface, but it isn't capitalism bringing this to market because it makes sense. It is government mandate and tax payer's money propping up another sudo-green tech that doesn't stand a chance on it's own.

If there were really no cost to me as a consumer and tax payer, then sure fire away. But that simply isn't the case here, I'll pay taxes for the subsidy and pay for it in the increased vehicle price. Ford/GM/... at the very least will offer it as an option. That option drives up their operating costs, and has to be absorbed through their enire product line. Retooling to support an option (especially an unpopular one) costs capex that will be passed on. So even if I don't take the option it will still minimially drive up the cost to Ford and all their customers by extension.

Point is it isn't free to me so I'm not ok just "seeing what happens".


RE: Death to the RFA
By jthistle on 6/25/2013 10:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
Nice Ghostbusters quote.

Also a good point about the blender pumps, it is likely many gas stations only have 2 tanks 1 for regular and 1 for premium, maybe a 3rd for diesel. To offer both E10 and E15 regular the station would need to add a tank and separate pumps.

Instead of adding additional equipment it is more likely stations will just switch to E15 regular figuring they can draw more people by having a lower price than their competitors.

Hopefully some station owners will recognize the damage E15 will do to their customers cars and will stay with E10 as long as they can.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Mint on 6/25/13, Rating: -1
RE: Death to the RFA
By Motoman on 6/25/2013 11:55:55 AM , Rating: 4
http://www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies2012/CM-...

Um, no. 3 of 8 motors tested failed on E15 in a comprehensive CRC study.

And ALL manufacturers will void your warranty if you put E15 in your vehicle that doesn't support it.

You have no proof for your assertions. How much is the EPA paying you anyway?


RE: Death to the RFA
By Mint on 6/25/13, Rating: -1
RE: Death to the RFA
By Motoman on 6/25/2013 5:17:59 PM , Rating: 4
Uh-huh. Let's compare that to the study you linked to back up your claims...oh. Right.

I guess we'll just go ahead and believe you, without any proof, and against the advice of essentially every motor vechicle manufacturer in the world.

Hey, don't worry guys...Mint says it's OK.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Mint on 6/28/2013 7:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously have zero science background if you can't tell how flawed that study is.

What are these groups asserting? E10 is fine, E15 is not.

What does your study test? E20 vs E15 vs E0 in three engines (one of which failed with all fuels), E20 vs nothing in five engines. E10 was not tested. How does that not raise red flags?

It says "five passed on E20 and by assumption E15 and E0". That assumption creates a bias: You will never have an engine pass on E20 and fail on E0. Vehicle 8 failed on all fuels, proving that their testing methodology can produce failures unrelated to ethanol.

If I flip a nickel and dime and ignore the times the nickel is heads and dime is tails, then of course my results will show the nickel is tails more often than the dime. That doesn't mean the dime is a more reliable way to get heads.

There is no basis for saying E15 "WILL DESTROY YOUR FUEL SYSTEM AND ENGINE" from this study.

Here's a far more expansive study from ORNL:
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_upd...
There's no threshold effect between E10 and E15. Some emissions went up while others went down, but it's all linear.

Look, I don't like corn ethanol being used as a fuel. I wish we never went down this road. However, it's now economically competitive without subsidies and the cat's out of the bag. The free market should be allowed to accept or reject E15.


RE: Death to the RFA
By Wolfpup on 6/25/2013 12:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Wow...this whole this is moronic and scary...i mean not your post of course, what they're trying to do.

We use up our planet's limited oil reserves faster, increase food (and for that matter, oil) prices, and destroy our cars in the process? What a great deal!

And I hadn't really thought of how much gas is in the line already in these pumps. That's scary... if they really do this, they HAVE to have separate pumps with no (or at least no more than 10%) ethonol being dispensed.


RE: Death to the RFA
By In2Boost on 6/25/2013 5:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
+6, if not for the well delivered and valid argument, then for the Peter Venkman quotes. =)


RE: Death to the RFA
By EricMartello on 6/26/2013 4:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for saving me a whole lot of typing, motoman.


RE: Death to the RFA
By th3pwn3r on 6/30/2013 2:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
I can't say no enough times. Running E15 or E85 is not going to destroy your fuel system and engine. There are plenty of running our turbocharged Hondas on E85. It's a cheaper alternative to race gas(although not as good) and has a better resistance to detonation than 93. Anyhow, I'll update when my engine has been magically destroyed because I daily drive it and run E85.


Spitball Math
By CaedenV on 6/24/2013 9:54:09 PM , Rating: 5
So it looks like E15 gets somewhere around 26-30% less mileage, while saving ~30 cents per galon. Current gas prices in my area (Cincinnati) are at ~$3.30-3.50/gal for a savings of 9%.... which means you have to purchase 26% more fuel to save 9%... that is pretty damn expensive!

So my car has a 16 gal tank, and costs me ~$53 to fill up at the moment. With E15 I would have an upfront cost of $48, but I would have to fill up every 4 days instead of every 6, which means that over a year period then I would be paying $4,380 a year on E15 instead of the $3,212 that I would pay using regular gas (assuming prices were static... but you get the point).

All that this is going to do is hurt poor people. They already cannot do math, and think that something cheaper up front is cheaper in the long run. If they have driving habits like mine they are going to end up paying an EXTRA $1168 (or more if prices rise) every year. And on top of that they are going to screw up their older cars that they can barely afford to maintain in the first place.

... but it is their fault because they should buy newer green cars in the first place (that they also cannot afford).

Don't worry, we are from the government, we are here to help the unions and the lobbyists. We would never hurt anyone else in the process.




RE: Spitball Math
By superstition on 6/24/2013 11:37:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
All that this is going to do is hurt poor people.


Welcome to government.

Hurting the poor is what they do best.

The business of government is maintaining elite privilege.


RE: Spitball Math
By StevoLincolnite on 6/24/2013 11:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it looks like E15 gets somewhere around 26-30% less mileage, while saving ~30 cents per galon. Current gas prices in my area (Cincinnati) are at ~$3.30-3.50/gal for a savings of 9%.... which means you have to purchase 26% more fuel to save 9%... that is pretty damn expensive!


I'm paying around $0.60 cents a liter for LPG, Petrol on the other-hand is $1.50 a liter. (3.77 liters in a gallon.)

I don't think I'll ever go with Petrol again, the cost savings is massive being on LPG, it's cheap, plentiful and readily available here in Aus.
You don't loose *that* much in fuel economy either, plus it's a cleaner burning fuel and current cars can be converted to it easily enough.

I'm surprised more nations don't push for it.


RE: Spitball Math
By fredgiblet on 6/25/2013 2:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
They don't push for it because I'm assuming the propane lobby is weak or non-existent.


RE: Spitball Math
By Cluebat on 6/25/2013 11:01:31 AM , Rating: 4
The only woman I'm pimping is sweet lady propane! And I'm tricking her out all over this town.

-Hank Hill


RE: Spitball Math
By sorry dog on 6/28/2013 10:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
My father and I once had a Morgan Plus8 that ran on propane.

We had to go to U-haul to fill it up. This was back in the 90's when gas was $1.50, but it was slightly more expensive for a propane fill up. The car was imported and converted so that it could pass emission controls with the old Buick/Rover V8 that it had.

We converted it after a few years because it was such a pain in the ass to plan trips around u-haul stations... it basically made it a city car. We put on 450 four barrel Holley and probably picked up 20 horsepower and nice burble sound in the process.

LPG prices seems to follow gas prices closely enough that I don't see a big enough advantage there. Now with CNG, the prices seem more favorable to put up with the inconveniences and performance loss.. a gallon gas equivalent of CNG is $2.00 a gallon today at my local depot, and mileage is usually within 10%. The biggest problem with CNG is have those tanks rated for 3,000 psi taking up your truck space.


RE: Spitball Math
By sorry dog on 6/28/2013 10:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
Correction...there's another station 10 miles away that is $1.55.

I knew $2 seemed a little pricey for CNG and it went up 50 cents in 3 months... it's the local city bus depot, so they probably decided to subsidize the money pit city bus system with fuel surcharges.

That is one thing that I expect to see more and more where politicians propose to subsidize public transport systems with taxes, fees, etc. on private cars... especially democrats.


RE: Spitball Math
By siconik on 6/25/2013 5:48:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So it looks like E15 gets somewhere around 26-30% less mileage, while saving ~30 cents per galon. Current gas prices in my area (Cincinnati) are at ~$3.30-3.50/gal for a savings of 9%.... which means you have to purchase 26% more fuel to save 9%... that is pretty damn expensive!


Where are you getting these numbers from, because they make no sense. (Hopefully not Jasons's out of place E85 chart right there) Taking a fuel (gas) and adding 15% of another, admitedly less energy dense fuel (ethanol) will cause them mixture to have ... 30% less energy density? So Ethanol (that DOES burn BTW) is worse at combustion than water, in fact its flame-retardent apperently. Its made of sand!

Let's do math.
Gasoline: 33.41 kWh/Gal
Ethanol: 22.27 kWh/Gal

E10: 33.41 * 90% + 22.27 * 10% = 32.296 kWh/Gal, 96.67%
E15: 33.41 * 85% + 22.27 * 15% = 31.739 kWh/Gal, 94.99%

You lose less than 5% by going from pure gasoline to E15, provided the engine is correctly tuned to the combustion dynamics of the new fuel.


RE: Spitball Math
By PaFromFL on 6/25/2013 8:07:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. There is only a theoretical 3% decrease in gas mileage when you run on E-10.

No. Based on long trips on I-95 back in 2008, I discovered that E-10 reduced my gas mileage around 10% with my 300C Hemi and around 7% with my 330i. Around town, my Saturn Astras suffered about a 10% loss (with a larger margin of error). This is much worse than the expected the energy density loss. Perhaps highly optimized modern engines are very sensitive to fuel quality.

Corn ethanol does not reduce net oil consumption, wastes diesel fuel for production and transportation, depletes the Midwest aquifers, destroys small engines, and drives up world food prices (destabilizing some poor countries). I’m not a big fan of class-action lawsuits, but something needs to be done about this scam. Florida recently repealed the E10 mandate (although it is not clear if any stations will stop selling crap fuel).


RE: Spitball Math
By Mint on 6/25/2013 10:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
Your sample of 3 cars from a couple trips is not enough to quantify fuel efficiency loss for the average person. Do something like this guy if you want to do a test yourself:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.ph...

Insufficient samples sizes can give you the opposite result, too, with E10 coming out on top:
http://www.nbc15.com/news/headlines/3225356.html

There have been plenty of proper studies, e.g.:
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/06/09/study-finds-i...
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/ACEFuelEcon...


RE: Spitball Math
By PaFromFL on 6/25/2013 11:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
The BMW and 300C were both tested during 1600 mile round trips down I-95 under relatively constant traffic conditions. I learned how to design meaningful experiments while earning my Ph.D. in Physics. The gas mileage of my Astras was tested over a couple of months of around-town driving, so there is more weather and traffic uncertainty in the results.

I am one of very many drivers who has experienced a much greater than 3% degradation of gas mileage when using E10.


RE: Spitball Math
By Schrag4 on 6/25/2013 9:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
I know just about zero about cars, but I think it's incredibly naive to think that a vehicle's gas mileage will scale linearly with the energy density of the fuel that it's fed.


RE: Spitball Math
By Nutzo on 6/25/2013 11:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between lab theory, and real life.

Here in California we have E10. Pure gas is not available.
However, over the past 2 years, we’ve taken a couple long driving vacations, where I tracked the mileage.
A few times in other states I was able to filled up with gas with no ethanol, and I saw at least a 15% improvement in mileage each time.

This was on a 2006 Toyota Sienna.

Ethanol causes gas to burn at a different temperature, and with most cars, the loss in mileage will be much worse than the theoretical calculations.


RE: Spitball Math
By Chillis604 on 6/25/2013 4:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
Your idea of adding up the energy densities of gasoline and ethanol to get the difference in energy is completely wrong. It is much more complicated than that, you need to look at the effects of introducing a foreign fuel(ethanol)has on the thermodynamic cycle designed to work with gasoline only.

If the ethanol doesn't burn up in the power stroke, than you might as well use 100% gasoline but dial down the throttle by 15%. Every engine has to be tuned specifically to use a certain fuel to maximize efficiency, you throw in something else without retuning the engine it will kill its efficiency.


RE: Spitball Math
By Mint on 6/25/2013 10:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it looks like E15 gets somewhere around 26-30% less mileage
Complete and utter BS.

Where did you get this from, some anti-ethanol yokel from some message board?


RE: Spitball Math
By Avatar28 on 6/25/2013 3:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... but it is their fault because they should buy newer green cars in the first place (that they also cannot afford).


Never mind that as far as I know the vast majority of cars being sold are STILL not rated for anything higher than E-10. Oh, you didn't know and you've been putting E-15 into that one year old car and now your engine died? That sucks. Enjoy your $2000 engine rebuild that you can't afford.


I run non-ethonal
By Souka on 6/24/2013 7:47:19 PM , Rating: 5
When I can, I go to a nearby place and get non-ethonal fuel. In both my 2004 Prius and 2009 Acura MDX, I get about %8-13 better fuel economy...depending on if summer or winter blend fuel is being used.

I also only use non-ethonal fuel in my lawn and generator equipment.... if you don't do this, START DOING IT!

Yes it costs more per gallon, but the cost per mile is nearly identical, and by not using the E5/E10 gas my car's engine will "last longer", I get more miles between fill ups, and I'm producing less CO2 per mile as well.

Check out http://pure-gas.org/ for a local station selling it near you.

My $.02




RE: I run non-ethonal
By TheEinstein on 6/24/2013 8:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
If I could I would rate you up.


RE: I run non-ethonal
By superstition on 6/24/2013 11:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm driving a diesel car and have been letting people know that they may want to consider diesel as an alternative.

Of course, despite VW's clear warning about oil dilution stemming from going beyond the limit of 10% biodiesel, once E15 is in place, the next target will probably be diesel -- with mandatory 20% corn biodiesel.


RE: I run non-ethonal
By PaFromFL on 6/25/2013 8:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
When it comes to small engines, older cars, and outboard motors, there is nothing cheaper than non-ethanol gas. E10 clogged my 2005 boat engine carburetor. The fuel filter was pristine, but the carburetor was clogged with grit that precipitated out when the fuel evaporated. E10 dissolved the fuel lines in my three Ryobi weed wackers, spilling fuel onto my garage floor. E10 split the gas tank in my lawnmower. E10 has destroyed older boats with internal gas tanks.

I use non-ethanol gas in all my small engines, and also in two cars that I seldom use. Over time, E10 can separate out water in your gas tank. Also, E10 goes sour much more quickly than pre-E10 gasoline.


RE: I run non-ethonal
By Nutzo on 6/25/2013 11:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
It dissolved the gas line on my lawnmower. Luckily I didn't keep the tank full, or I would have had a much larger puddle on gas on the garage floor.
It was also good that my gas water heater in installed on a raised platform, or the gas fumes could have ignited and burned down the house.

But there’s no problem with Ethanol in gas :(


Petition
By cg62fcni on 6/24/2013 10:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
Please make your voices heard & sign the petition forcing the Supreme Court to hear the case against E85:
http://wh.gov/lOmPo




RE: Petition
By ebakke on 6/24/2013 11:49:59 PM , Rating: 2
So where exactly does the WH have the power to force the Supreme Court to do anything, much less hear a specific case?

It's disappointing ~100k people either a) don't understand our government, or b) don't care and want the executive branch to have that power.


RE: Petition
By ebakke on 6/24/2013 11:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Aww, that's embarrassing. ~100k left not 100k signed. {sigh}


RE: Petition
By cg62fcni on 6/25/2013 12:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
Not much, unfortunately. I suppose they could draft an executive order asking the court to examine the case. Unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn't have a petition page up and running, so we have to make due... ;)


RE: Petition
By GatoRat on 6/25/2013 2:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose they could draft an executive order asking the court to examine the case.

Do you understand our system of governance? The executive branch can simply order the EPA to not enforce the new standards assuming the law gave them the authority to do so. The real solution is for CONGRESS to fix this. It's their responsibility and within their power. (They could pass a simple law denying the EPA power to regulate alcohol in gasoline.)


RE: Petition
By GatoRat on 6/25/2013 2:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
You don't petition the Supreme Court outside of hearing a case or filing a friend of the court brief. In this instance, the court said that the plaintiffs have no standing. The solution is to petition CONGRESS to act and rein in the EPA.

The reality is that Congress is failing in its constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch of government. This goes way beyond the EPA.


Question about E15
By lagomorpha on 6/25/2013 6:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
Is E15 going to be put into regular pumps without any warnings on them or is it going to be put off to the side with a big warning saying "E15 use only in approved vehicles" the way E85 is?

Because if the later, eh only idiots will use it and it won't make much difference. If the former...




RE: Question about E15
By Nutzo on 6/25/2013 11:17:27 AM , Rating: 2
Except when you might have no choice, when really need gas and E15 is all the stations are selling.


RE: Question about E15
By lagomorpha on 6/27/2013 2:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that was my question. Is this going to replace E10 in normal pumps at gas stations or are stations that sell E15 going to need to add an additional pump for it labeled as E15 next to the E85 pump? That's what no one seems to be answering.

If it replaces E10 in normal pumps this is a very bad thing. If it is sold in a seperate pump then these articles are scaremongering.


unwelcome
By chromal on 6/24/2013 7:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
I am against this because I have a new Mazda with 5500 miles on it, a 6-year 60000-mile powertrain warranty, and an owner's manual that say I must not run gasoline that contains greater than 10% ethanol.

If you want to sell more ethanol, encourage more E85 use, leave me out of it.




Better than the Onion!
By androticus on 6/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Better than the Onion!
By Mint on 6/25/2013 12:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
Same old Mick with his exaggerations.
quote:
To meet upcoming quotas, refiners will virtually have to sell at least some E15 to stations and consumers.
Says who? The US consumes 9M barrels of gasoline per day, or 138B gallons per year. The RFS quota for corn ethanol is 13.8B this year, and maxes out at 15B gallons/year from 2015 to 2022.

E10 plus some minimal E85 and industrial ethanol usage is enough to meet the quotas. E15 is simply about providing another option. The labeling headache is enough to make it an option only where there's demand for it.


Ethanol
By btc909 on 6/25/2013 3:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
Your MPG will drop. Your range will drop.

You will need to have your fuel system cleaned more often. Yes Ethanol is great for removing carbon deposits but it leaves a varnish which has the same results as carbon deposit buildup.

If you have older vehicles expect to have problems. Older meaning as recent as a 2xxx vehicle.

I see Ethanol as a means of forcing people to turn cars over more often.

E20 is already in the works.

This is more good news for Tesla.

Ethanol is another reason to go Diesel.

Auto manufactures need an automatic fuel system cleaner. When your oil life hits 20% the car goes through a cleaning process. Cleaning fluid would have to be refilled of course.




Corn feed
By coondini on 6/25/2013 12:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And use of feed corn on ethanol has "accidentally" driven food and livestock feed prices upward.


That doesn't bother me any...you should avoid eating beef from corn-fed livestock in the first place. Grass-fed beef is so much leaner and better for you and much richer and more natural. The only reason why they use corn is to fatten them up so they can sell them for more and make more of a profit at the expense of making everyone fatter and less healthy. Support your local farmers and buy local meats.




enough?
By DockScience on 6/25/2013 3:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Had enough government yet?
Or do you need SOME MORE?




It could be good
By dsquare86 on 6/26/2013 6:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
Person blows up vehicle running E15 because they should have known better. I purchase said vehicle for dirt cheap and make repairs. Keep or sell to the next person.




Studies show the fallacy of ethanol
By jimpeel on 6/26/2013 11:16:28 AM , Rating: 2
A study several years ago showed that if every arable acre of land in the entire United States were converted to growing corn -- to the exclusion of all other crops; and every single ear of corn were converted to ethanol -- there would only be a 12% reduction of our dependence on foreign oil.




Another Win for the Obama Administration
By stm1185 on 6/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Expunge on 6/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By zhivaji on 6/24/2013 7:46:02 PM , Rating: 5

Is there any evidence Obama had something to do with this bill ? Or if the Republicans would've done things differently ?


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/24/2013 7:48:05 PM , Rating: 5
RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By lennylim on 6/24/2013 7:58:41 PM , Rating: 5
Hey, get with the program.

1. If Obama started it, it's his fault.
2. If Bush started it, it's Obama's fault for not stopping it.
3. If any politician anywhere, regardless of political party started it, it's Obama's fault.
4. If China or Russia did it, it's Obama's fault.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By TheEinstein on 6/24/2013 8:56:00 PM , Rating: 1
Booooosh

Anyhow

1) Obama could END IT but instead seeks to ramp it up. a Good President following a Bad President would end it. Obama is not good.

2) Bush to Obama comparisons are funny, Obama does everything Bush did bad but on steroids with mutagen added. Domestic Spying, Taxation, Spending, Corruption, Concealing things from Transparency, using Treason statutes against Media, and more.

Why his own supporters follow him is a mystery


By Dorkyman on 6/24/2013 9:26:29 PM , Rating: 3
It's a religion to them. There is no "logic" to it.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By superstition on 6/24/2013 11:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Congress, the Executive branch, and the Supreme Court are all in favor of corn ethanol.

Don't expect the policy to change just because someone will take over for Obama.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Samus on 6/25/2013 1:48:26 AM , Rating: 5
As a 'retired' automotive engineer, and as I've mentioned before, going from E10 to E15 will have very negligible impact on vehicle performance, reliability or fuel economy.

The chart compared to E85, a fuel that isn't even regulated by states' Department of Weights and Measures, the GAO, or the DoE. One would believe E85 to have high octane (being mostly ethanol) but since it isn't verified by any agency it can fluctuate considerably. This will yield inconsistent between tank results as different and even different batches of fuel at the same station could be anywhere from 85-110 octane. Since E85/Flexfuel vehicles are required to have very sensitive knock sensors, there is rarely reports of damage from detonation as the vehicle just reduces performance in the case of low octane fuel.

E15 is nothing like E85. It must adhere to the same standards E10 does. When E10 entered the market over a decade ago, the only people who had problems were customers with carburetors using pre-nitrile seals and gaskets and non-HNBR o-rings (these things have been pretty standard since the 70's so we're talking very old vehicles here) or people running marine applications where the ethanol in the fuel doesn't get stirred up properly in the sump and causes difficulty starting.

The industry is overreacting, politicians are overreacting, people are overreacting, this isn't news, when E10 entered the market, 99.9999% of forgot about it the next day because it had no impact and this will be the same case.

If you want me to chime in on why the auto industry is overreacting, I can tell you from experience working for one of the big 3 that they always want something in the pipe to blame a recall on, and apparently this sounds like a plausible reason to DT readers to recall an engine failure that will probably have nothing to do with fuel.

In order to be monetarily successful, manufactures must build vehicles that are idiot-proof throughout their warranty. It started with temperature sensors and oil-pressure shutoffs, then inertia switches, and lately knock sensors and cam timing. The knock sensor being among the most important innovations in preventing engine damage because you could run a vehicle on moonshine while effectively eliminating bottom-end damage. You can still mess up valves and pistons but even then, with a good implementation, it's very, very hard to destroy a recent engine with poor quality fuel.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By FITCamaro on 6/25/2013 7:29:38 AM , Rating: 2
All I know is that my owners manual says using fuel with over 10% ethanol voids my warranty. Whether or not fuel caused the engine damage, you can be damn sure in the future if someone brings in a vehicle with engine damage, they'll try to blame it on the fuel if they can.

Also in a time when they keep pushing higher and higher mpg, how the hell does this help? You say its negligible. Well why put any kind of block up? Automakers are spending billions on anything and everything to meet standards the government is imposing on their industry. All to force people to move to electrics or hybrids as their ever higher standards on fuel economy, emissions, and safety make it nearly impossible to keep up.

Even my Cruze Eco doesn't meet the standards that are coming. I run 93 octane because the tune that I bought to get better mileage requires it (and FI engines in general run better on it).


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Samus on 6/25/2013 1:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
Most European vehicle gas caps say 91+ octane, but the vehicles are detuned when imported to run 87 octane anyway. Why? Liability.

It is far to expensive/difficult/inaccurate to test the octane or quality of fuel if an engine blows up. The solution: make sure the engine doesn't blow up. Ethanol is the same way. Not that I'm recommending it, but you could put E85 in your Eco and it'd drive fine. The computer would reduce compression and performance, reducing fuel efficiency in addition to the lost energy density from a mostly ethanol fuel, but your engine would survive. Aftermarket tunes can change things. Some of them even disable the knock sensor and downstream O2, both necessary to react to detonation and poor fuel.

However, I don't disagree with you tuning the engine. The emissions restrictions and gigantic safety net implemented in OEM tunes reduces drivability and economy. No OEM programming can match a custom datalog tune. But there are a number of reasons vehicles are neutered from the factory. If you really want to be safe running any kind of fuel under the sun, consider a J&S Safeguard; many newer vehicles such as your Eco already have such good safeguards in the ECU that aftermarket protection isn't really necessary unless you're trying to make a mess of things.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Florinator on 6/25/2013 2:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
How does a computer reduce the compression? I thought the compression is an inherent measure of cylinder design...


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Motoman on 6/25/2013 3:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
It can't.

I guess in theory you could put a decompression valve in each cylinder and have it automated via solenoid or something. But that's actually a pretty stupid idea in and of itself.

Realistically all you can control from the computer is timing and fuel charge.


By Samus on 6/25/2013 6:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
You can reduce/eliminate pinging and knocking (preignition) by retarding timing. This can be done by retarding spark of either/both cams. Vehicles have had this technology for over a decade, which is why modern engines are so reliable and flexible with various fuels.

Retarding cam and/or spark timing effectively reduces the dynamic compression ratio.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By bitterman0 on 6/25/2013 3:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
91 RON European means exactly 87 AKI US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating#Measure...


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Samus on 6/25/2013 6:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. But people feel the need to run premium fuel in vehicles that are already detuned to run regular 87 octane/91 RON. Very few vehicles sold actually require high octane fuel. Even the dealers will encourage people to run higher octane fuel in vehicles that don't need it out of sheer ignorance.


By Lord 666 on 6/26/2013 2:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
Go diesel and forget about all of this nonsense. Yes, there is a measure for diesel potency; 40 cetane is the standard.


By kamiller422 on 6/25/2013 11:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently Obama is powerful enough to hijack 1/3 of the U.S. economy with Obamacare but not powerful enough to rollback or modify policies passed under Bush. Sad to see our president so weak and helpless. :-\


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Souka on 6/24/2013 7:50:53 PM , Rating: 3
I'm prety sure the Ethonal gas movement really got approval from the Bush administration.

I hate the ethonal gas for several reasons...food being a big one.

More farmers are ditching other crops to go make $$$ on corn. This raises prices not only on corn (and corn-feed) but because other crops like wheat are not being produced as much which result in prices going up.

Beer and Pizza prices have gone up...attributed to rising wheat prices in the US.

My $.02


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By superstition on 6/24/2013 11:22:00 PM , Rating: 5
There is no Obama "War on Fossil Fuels".

There is, however, a continuation of crooked agriculture "lobbying/donations" that explains why we have irrational products like high fructose corn syrup, corn ethanol, and such.

Companies like Monsanto have been unofficial parts of the government for some time now.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Samus on 6/25/2013 2:00:41 AM , Rating: 3
Corn is a switch crop, and we have too much Corn and the filler they use to grow in its place between seasons. Yes, we could potentially ship the edible portion of corn (very little of which ends up being turned into ethanol since it is still more profitable as food) to places that need food, but potatoes are far more nutritious than corn and that isn't saying much.

Corn syrup is scientifically identical to cane sugar. They are made of up the same molecules and if processed similarly, are nearly identical. Find me a reputable source that says otherwise. If you want to knock a sweetener, knock something that is actually artificial.

The problem with Corn Syrup would be the same problem if it were to have never existed:

-The industry puts too much sugar in food. Period.
-Food is too expensive. Period.
-Quality food isn't locally grown/isn't available in many places. Period.

Blaming HFCS on the corn industry is like blaming dialysis/kidney disease on the salt industry (Morton, etc.) It isn't their fault their customers (McDonalds, Nestle, Kraft, etc) put too much of these ingredients in their products.


By TSS on 6/25/2013 10:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed...

if any of that is true, even just a tiny little bit of it, that high fructose corn syrup is far more dangerous then you realise. Heck even growing more corn is going to be highly dangerous as it takes away the soils ability to grow anything else.

Also, sugar has tariffs on it by the US government, along with the subsidies on corn. Otherwise it would be cheaper.

Though i will agree with you that without the HFCS they would just pour in the regular sugar. It's still the easyest way to make something unedible, decent. And it gives a sugar rush ofcourse so you'll keep coming back for more.


By vXv on 6/25/2013 2:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is, however, a continuation of crooked agriculture bribes that explains why we have irrational products like high fructose corn syrup, corn ethanol, and such.


Fixed it for you ;)


By Reclaimer77 on 6/25/2013 4:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Companies like Monsanto have been unofficial parts of the government for some time now.


Okay Fox Moulder, are they also part of the secret shadow Government alien conspiracy too? Omg FEMA!!!


By Captain Orgazmo on 6/24/2013 7:53:35 PM , Rating: 1
OK then, big FU to all politician slimeballs who voted this down for special interests and lobbyist payoffs.

I have been forced to buy premium gasoline for my vehicles since they started adding this corrosive, water-trapping, energy deficient, farmland consuming, moonshine to gas (up to 15% in regular, 5-10% in mid-grade, 0-5% in premium).


By superstition on 6/24/2013 11:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
I hope your engine is tuned to use premium.


By makius on 6/24/2013 8:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
A big facepalm to anyone who actually thinks it would make a difference...


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By shmmy on 6/24/2013 9:02:25 PM , Rating: 5
The only clown here is you and people like you who are either to stupid to understand how things work, or too ignorant.

The real issue is lobbyist in congress who pay them to vote for this crap so the companies or unions they represent can make more money. Its really that simple. Congress votes for what they are paid to vote for, or what is popular at the time.
Congress has a 10% approval rating and 90% re-election rate. So if you want to point fingers start with looking in the mirror.

Please do everybody a favor and learn how things really work in the government. Educate yourself then speak, or save it for the Fox News forums. People here tend to have more brain cells and some critical thinking ability. :)

Took a whole 5 min of looking up.

Seems Pre President Obama to me.
"Ethanol production was expected to continue to grow over the next several years, since the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required 36 billion US gallons of renewable fuel use by 2022."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_U...

FYI The Supreme Court was not set up by the current president. You can wrap yourself in a blanket of hate for the President to stay warm at night, but when you bring it out to the public it just makes you look silly.

This will probably fall on deaf ears but what the heck I am an optimist. :)


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Dorkyman on 6/24/2013 9:34:38 PM , Rating: 1
Geez, I'm so tired of the "Fox News" slam. Talk about a lack of brain cells, surely you've seen at least a few of the surveys that show Fox to be the most balanced of the major news sources out there.

Please try not to be such a sheeple.

And yeah, I thought W to be a pretty good guy. You probably thought him "stupid." Funny how he got better grades in Yale than that genius named Gore.

Messiah? What a creep. Great example of Affirmative Action at work.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By stm1185 on 6/24/2013 10:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
How can you still be blaming Bush? I voted for Obama to get away from Bush, him continuing and ramping up Bush policies is not a step in the right direction. Yeah I got suckered in 08.

And Im in my 20s, I dont watch the news. That's what the internet is for.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By Cerin218 on 6/25/2013 11:05:43 AM , Rating: 1
Seriously YOU are the problem with this country. You voted for Obama because you were trained to hate Bush. How horrendously STUPID!!! If you had done ANY research on Obama you couldn't POSSIBLY have found the man worth voting for. Look at his associations read his books. He isn't anything he didn't tell people was. He's a progressive. Keynesian, redistributionist that associates with radicals and KNOWN domestic terrorists (Bill Ayers). He's financed and puppeted by George Soros who is quite open about his hatred of America and capitalism in general and hypocritically uses capitalism to generate money that he uses in his quest to destroy capitalism. Read some of Soros works. It was Soros that created Obamacare because he KNOWS that you need to control health care to control people, specifically when health care is 1/6rh of the economy.

Obama did EVERYTHING Bush did BUT WORSE. If all you voted for was Obama because he wasn't Bush, then I blame YOUR stupidity for not CARING enough about this country to choose BETTER. At least Romney doesn't have a HATRED for this country. Obama and the Democrats are SLAVE OWNERS. Your apparently happy to be a slave.


By shmmy on 6/25/2013 5:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
You have not said one thing dignifying a response. Your arguments are weak at best. Mostly just ignorant, or stupid. Turn off the TV, get off the couch, and educate yourself on the subject. Then come back with some legitimate issues that are created, or caused by President Obama.

Please read my response to my previous post for more info on the subject.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By DukeN on 6/25/2013 10:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Messiah? What a creep. Great example of Affirmative Action at work.


LOL this has to be one of the all time dumbest things on AT/DT.

Of course such gems of brilliance aren't particularly surprising coming from a Fox News fan.


By Cerin218 on 6/25/2013 11:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly there aren't any gems of brilliance to be found from the Left. All Leftist/collectivist ideologies are self defeating and horribly flawed. Majority of the Leftists aren't even smart enough to know what philosophy and epistemology their ideology is based on. Leftists are MILITANTLY ignorant.


RE: Another Win for the Obama Administration
By shmmy on 6/25/2013 5:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
Fox News balanced? maybe but doubtful. The surveys are nonsense for one thing.

Fox News fills most of the day with bias opinion TV shows, NOT NEWS. Maybe 2 to 4 hours of the day is actual news and I am being generous. So yes as a whole Fox News is horrible, like most 24 hour "news" channels.

Nobody cares what you think of Bush. His administration took the country from a surplus to doubling the debt. They also sat through one of the biggest economic disasters since the great depression. Up until the stuff hit the fan they sat back and said everything was "OK" just let the free market work itself out. These are FACTS, not my opinion. Also they started two wars over a complete fabrication that evidence pointed to be false. So yeah it was a train wreck. If you never identify the problem or choose to ignore it, the problem never gets fixed. Like I said many times, stupid people point fingers at Obama and never identify the real problem so nothing gets done. Its a viscous circle of stupidity\ignorance. I don't even have the time to get into Katrina...

About Bush Jr...
Personally he could save baby's from burning buildings on a weekly basis, it does not make him a good president. The fact that you even think that I was attacking him personally shows you are so blinded by the fact that the Bush administration caused or sat on huge problems, and your knee jerk response is "well Obama sucks more!" As with most misinformed mouth breathing general public.

I am probably just typing to a brick wall at this point but like I said I am an optimist. Judging from the responses people are pretty thick. LOL

All that has been taken from what I said is Fox News is bad and Bush is stupid... Sadly I don't have the time or will power to write a Book for each comment I leave on this site to explain in the level of detail needed so stupid people can not have anything to complain about. Yet I feel like they would always have something to complain about... :)

OK I am done you can stick your head back in the sand! ;P


By roykahn on 6/26/2013 4:05:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am probably just typing to a brick wall
Welcome to the internet, my friend.


Awesome
By gbk99 on 6/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome
By superstition on 6/24/2013 11:36:04 PM , Rating: 3
Way to completely miss the point by ignoring the many serious drawbacks.

Take a break from the "mad fun" sometime and join us in the real world.


RE: Awesome
By gbk99 on 6/25/13, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome
By ritualm on 6/25/2013 1:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, your car's gonna blow alright.


RE: Awesome
By DrKlahn on 6/25/2013 5:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
Part of what you're saying is accurate. E85 is significantly higher octane and can allow a forced induction engine to run more boost. BUT it must be tuned and modified for it. To run E85 properly on a boosted engine the fuel pump and injectors have to have their fuel delivery volume significantly increased. The air/fuel tables and the target fuel ratio has to be modified in the car's computer. This is to deal with the decreased energy per volume that ethanol suffers from.

If your BMW was not engineered to run on E85 and you mix it with premium you have a good chance of damaging your engine. Not only does Ethanol burn hotter, you have introduced a lean condition which also creates heat.

As far as the mileage debate is concerned, with current gas mileage E10 does not represent a cost savings on any of our vehicles. I have one car that I run premium in, even though it can run on 89 octane (mid grade) simply because premium ends up costing less in the long run.

And as others have said, do not run it in small engines or equipment. Many of these are air cooled and the added combustion heat can cause damage. As well as the concerns with the erosion of the fuel system.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki