Sources: RFA [1; PDF], 
quote: 3) It attracts water ( hydrophilic ). Not good for things where gas sits around for a while.... boats, lawnmowers, snow blowers, atv's, etc. Ask a marine mechanic what he thinks of ethanol. The water goes to the bottom where your fuel pickup tube is.... Oh fun! Engines work so well with water in them!
quote: There's a lot of complaints about ethanol, but I don't anybody sticking their hands up with viable alternatives that can be used now.
quote: A 2001-2008 vehicle (the older vehicles examined in the study) may be damaged by ethanol. Or it may not be. It likely depends on the vehicle. Likewise it will probably be difficult for a vehicle owner to determine with absolute certain whether it was ethanol, or simply other factors like lifetime wear that took out their 2001 or 2002 era vehicle.
quote: After some tuning, cars run great on a mix of approximately 90% nitromethane and 10% methanol. For some reason, that will void manufacturer warranties
quote: And on a fundamental chemistry basis, it makes NO sense for E15 to be so bad for engines but E10 to be fine.
quote: Hardly surprising that you would say anything you can to support any action taken by the EPA and the Government.
quote: Testing has already proven otherwise.
quote: On a "fundamental chemistry basis", 5% is hardly an insignificant increase.
quote: Learn to read, dip****.
quote: FYI, if nobody governed this, the market would be free to offer any ethanol blend it wanted. Banning E15 goes against your own principles, but you're too blinded by gov't hate to notice.
quote: No it didn't. It was a crap study.
quote: 5/16 cars failed with E20, and 2/6 failed on E0. But they counted the 2/6 as 2/16, because 10 other tests were assumed to pass.
quote: Then why didn't one single study compare E15 with E10? Why did they have to exaggerate results using E0?
quote: One pump, identified as Pump N, was shown to have a greater failure rate with standard E15 in comparison to standard E10 in one study, yet did not fail on Aggressive TF10 or Aggressive TF20 in a previous study, and thus the results are inconclusive.
quote: Stay classy, my friend.Maybe that's why you resort to call people dip****s?
quote: And where did he advocate that? I think he was advocating removing the current artificial demand
quote: You've already misrepresented my opinion
quote: Says the internet expert....Umm again, studies have,
quote: The data presented in these studies did not show any evidence of deterioration in engine durability or maintenance issues for E15 (or E20) in comparison to E0 and E10
quote: Stay classy, my friend.
quote: There is no market for E15 (or E10 for that matter) if the government didn't create it.
quote: Ethanol RIN prices were less than 5c/gallon most of the time before 2012, so E10 got underpriced by less than a tenth of that. Still, consumers voluntarily chose E10. Yes, the RFS had targets, but the market was meeting them voluntarily, likely because E10 is cheaper to make.
quote: In reality, 99% of all RFG produced in the nation is E10 and in California all of the gasoline producers are making E10 all the time because it is the most convenient blend to meet RFG requirements, winter oxygenate requirements and their ethanol blending quota.
quote: Gov't accelerated corn ethanol, but most of the demand was self sustaining.
quote: Banning E15 goes against your own principles, but you're too blinded by gov't hate to notice.
quote: OR they would persist, on their own.
quote: I'm getting really sick and tired of all these accusations of tainted scientists in every field under the sun.NREL is right: the CRC studies were complete and utter garbage. They had woefully few samples, and didn't even test E10 as a control (simply assuming it would have no failures).
quote: The study's general criticism against blocking free market availability of consumer goods makes a valid argument, to an extent.And the authors have a point...The study's general criticism against blocking free market availability of consumer goods makes a valid argument, to an extent.In other words automakers are held to a much higher (and more expensive) testing standard than the research studies reviewed in the report, which were admittedly small, short-lived, and inconclusive. But while it's not entirely clear who is right and to what extent, the law makes it clear who will pay if things go wrong -- the automakers.
quote: And on a fundamental chemistry basis, it makes NO sense for E15 to be so bad for engines but E10 to be fine. It's possible to have a catastrophic difference from 0% to 1%, or 1% to 10%, but not 10% to 15%.
quote: I too wish we never used corn to make ethanol, but the cat is out of the bag now, and corn can be made into an economically competitive fuel without subsidy.
quote: Unlike you, I did my research and read the source PDF
quote: when the review itself instead suggests that there's significant variability in how it will affect older vehicles
quote: If you had take even a basic undergraduate organic chemistry lab, you should know that a 5 percent difference in purity by no means is trivial chemistry-wise.
quote: We can't undo the technology.
quote: Besides, the effect on prices is overblown.
quote: In an alternative universe without E10 and the RFS, increased fertilizer costs and an end to subsidies would have raised food prices anyway.
quote: Just let E15 fail on its own.
quote: We already know that the EPA will adjust down the mandated levels of ethanol, as they've done it many times.
quote: Florida got rid of the ethanol mandate, but only a very few stations offer non-ethanol gas. I'm not sure why, but suspect that undoing technology is easier than undoing government corruption.
quote: To argue that our gov't must continue to engage in mass market manipulation
quote: Even from a basic conceptual standpoint are you really insane enough to think that manipulate the market to force several billion dollars in product to be sold that otherwise would have little or no demand will have little effect?
quote: Wait, didn't you just spend a wall of text criticizing me for my critical commentary about the RFS and its role in creating artificial demand for corn ethanol?
quote: Do you even know how the RFS and RIN system works?
quote: If I mandated 100 millions smartphone to be sold in 2012, would it have made a difference? Of course not, because even more were sold without the mandate anyway.
quote: Yes, because that 1 gallon would now cost more than it did before.
quote: Mint in any Government oriented discussion, you suffer from an appalling lack of solid principles that have been time proven.
quote: I seem to recall you making this same kind of argument about Obamacare. How are those health care premiums looking today, have they lowered yet?? hmmm.
quote: They have cut the target once and ONLY once
quote: Corn will NEVER be made into an economically competitive fuel without subsidy. Corn is a hugely wasteful crop. It consumes massive amounts of inputs for very little in return.
quote: Without the subsidies ethanol producers and corn growers would have to SIGNIFICANTLY increase their pricing to remain in business.
quote: The study [PDF] was not even a peer-reviewed literature review, much less a peer-reviewed scientific study