Howdy, Stranger!


The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol



  • newdavidqnewdavidq Posts: 146
    Six gas stations in and around Kansas are now offering E15 (15% ethanol 85% gasoline). This is a 50% increase in the amount of ethanol added to gasoline. This forum has aired a lot of opinion and information in the past; I think its time to reactivate it and take another hard look at this development and why this is a very bad thing for American motorists.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    I would be curious as to the mileage difference in a FFV. I would NOT run that stuff in a vehicle not rated as FFV. I can tell a big difference in my Sequoia on the highway, when I run RUG with no ethanol vs the crap we get here in CA. If it costs 15% less it is probably a wash. I still contend ethanol is a net negative on the environment using Corn. The farm subsidies are just too much for the big ag companies to ignore. Corporate welfare to the max.
  • fezofezo Posts: 9,328
    Ah! You're up early!

    As always completely agree on corn ethanol. Only there because Iowa is a perpetual swing state.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    edited October 2012
    good point. I think I read over 90% of the land in Iowa is farmed. Mostly corn. Both parties protect those stinking farm subsidies for their rich constituents.

    I am always up at 5 AM old habits are tough to break.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    edited November 2012
    EPA OWNED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS like ADM...Screw the Consumers... :confuse:

    EPA rejects bid to relax ethanol mandate
    2012 drought prompted request over corn fuel use


    The move is a victory for corn farmers who have seen corn prices jump 400 percent in recent years. But it is a loss for pork and beef producers who say the diversion of corn to ethanol raises feed prices and ultimately prices at the supermarket. - relax-ethanol-mandate

    Wanted a pound of bacon the other day, $7 a pound. I can live without it.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,141
    I can understand preferences when alternative energy is being started and the fuel situation was different when ethanol was first brought on, but there comes a time when these things need to either be able to stand on their own merits or fade away. Same goes with wind energy. Personally, I've always been skeptical that ethanol may actually use more resources and energy than it provides. As for wind, I don't think people factor in the operation and maintenance costs over time to operate those gigantic windmills. I'm thinking we'll see a lot of them abandoned and rusted out a decade from now.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    Right on with both. I cannot think of any thing positive to say about Ethanol. Many windmills are being torn down. Worn out and too expensive to maintain. The subsidies are gone which makes them no longer profitable to the operators. Time will tell with home solar. If they do in fact last 20-25 years they will pay for themselves.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,408
    edited November 2012
    Well it's the intelligent man who can change his mind once new data presents itself.

    Haven't you ever supported something and lived to regret it? I sure have.

    It's also admirable to confess in public to choosing political ambition over common sense. I have no problem with politicians confessing their sins. Few do you know.

    It's the people who never change their mind about anything that worry me the most.

    Science is, after all, the process of science disproving itself. That's what science does.


  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    In the case of Corn ethanol science refuted its viability from the start. Politicians pushed it as a payoff to big Ag. Yes Gore admitted his error. Too bad the President and the wonks in the EPA refuse to be honest.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,141
    Well, the corn belt is pretty much a mix of red and blue states, so I guess we'll be stuck with ethanol regardless of its merits. What galls me even more than this decision is the EPA wanting to stick us with 15% ethanol when the industry tries to tell them it will mess up many engines. I think that agency is run by zealots that are out of control and devoid of impartiality or common sense. Of course agriculture is really big business these days, so besides the electoral votes there is probably plenty of lobbyist payola to go along with it.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850

    Many congress people in the Midwest are owned by the big ag lobbyist.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    AAA urges EPA to halt approval of E15 for vehicles

    Washington &#151; AAA, the nation's largest travel organization, on Friday urged the Obama administration to halt the sale of E15 &#151; a new fuel with a higher blend of ethanol &#151; because of possible engine damage to most vehicles on the nation's roads.

    With little consumer understanding of E15 and less than five percent of cars on the road approved by automakers to use the fuel, "AAA is urging regulators and the industry to stop the sale of E15 until motorists are better protected."


    General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. have approved the use of the fuel for new model vehicles only. Chrysler Group LLC said this week it still doesn't approve the use of E15 for any of its vehicles. approval-E15-vehicles?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

    Not to mention lower mileage with more ethanol content.
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla MarylandPosts: 700
    Don't worry, the EPA will still push this, for the good of the planet.

    And that's what's really important, you know.

    We should be willing to bear any burden, carry any cost to ensure that our Mother Earth is free from the ravages of man-made pollution.

    Praise our glorious mother!

  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850
    Study: New E15 gas can ruin auto engines



  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,167
    Were we wrong about ethanol? From yesterday's New York Times...

    Greentech Squeezing More From Ethanol

    Published: May 3, 2013

    "WASHINGTON &#151; Faced with a crop of lemons &#151; too much ethanol, a population of cars not tuned to burn it effectively and a driving public leery of the fuel&#146;s properties &#151; the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to make lemonade.

    ADVOCATE C. Boyden Gray sees benefits in E30 gasoline blends. The effort to untangle itself from this sticky situation is part of a larger proposal by the federal government to make the most sweeping changes in gasoline since lead additives were banned.

    Tucked inside the E.P.A.&#146;s March announcement of a plan to cut the amount of sulfur allowed in gasoline was an audacious suggestion that sought to solve all three ethanol challenges at once. The proposal, for a fuel that is 30 percent ethanol, could reduce tailpipe emissions and improve fuel economy &#151; and even encourage drivers to use more ethanol.

    'You make the dog like the dog food," said William H. Woebkenberg, senior engineer for fuels policy in the United States at Mercedes-Benz.

    The idea is that while today&#146;s typical pump blend &#151; E10, which is 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline &#151; has drawbacks, a blend of 30 percent ethanol and 70 percent gasoline could take advantage of ethanol&#146;s strengths. Unlike a flexible-fuel vehicle that can use E85 formulations but offers little financial or performance benefit, an engine tuned specifically for E30 would perform better on that fuel than on the standard E10, creating a market incentive.

    The idea has widespread support among technical experts.

    It also has another appealing aspect: current ethanol policy is probably unsustainable, because Congress has ordered the oil companies to use ever-larger amounts of ethanol. To comply with the mandate, ethanol levels would have to exceed 10 percent of each gallon of fuel, yet many automakers advise against using higher concentrations unless the car is equipped for it. With a declining demand for gasoline, the problem becomes more acute.

    The 30 percent idea is laid out deep in the 938-page text of the proposed Tier 3 rule, which would lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline by two-thirds, to the level required in California. In the proposal, the E.P.A. asked automakers to comment on E30.

    Like other efforts to introduce new fuels, it would require big investments at gas stations for blending pumps and storage tanks.

    Still, there is a powerful incentive in the E.P.A. plan: offering automakers the option of having their cars certified on E30. Before a new car can be sold in the United States, the company must submit data on the vehicle&#146;s pollution output and fuel economy to the E.P.A. Certifying with E30 would call for engines optimized to take advantage of the blend&#146;s octane rating of 93 or perhaps higher.

    Using high-octane premium-grade gas in an engine that does not require it offers no benefit. But in engines designed to squeeze the fuel-air mixture to very high pressures before igniting it with the spark plug, high-octane fuel burns predictably and can produce more horsepower. (On the other hand, burning low-octane gas in an engine tuned for premium grade can cause erratic combustion, or knocking, and result in severe engine damage.)

    Ethanol contains only about two-thirds as much energy as gasoline, gallon for gallon. But if it is burned in engines designed for high cylinder pressures, it will produce competitive horsepower.

    In general, the oil companies have opposed using higher concentrations of ethanol. The oil industry is trying to get Congress to change federal rules so they can use less ethanol, not more.

    But various engine and fuel experts like the idea, because the E.P.A. is inviting the auto companies to take advantage of the good characteristics of ethanol, including an octane rating that is well over 100.

    'That&#146;s getting smarter,' said Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan. The way ethanol is used now, she said, if anybody does notice there&#146;s any ethanol in the fuel, it&#146;s always in a way that is negative.'

    The trouble with the flexible fuel vehicles on the market now, which can run at blends of up to 85 percent ethanol, is that they are still mostly optimized for gasoline, not ethanol, she said. While there are millions of such vehicles on the road, they run mostly on E10 because that is a better bargain for the driver.

    Higher concentrations are no better, and ethanol companies are struggling for acceptance of E15 with drivers, who show little enthusiasm. '15 is the answer to the question nobody asked,' said
    Woebkenberg of Mercedes-Benz. 'It is a detriment.'

    But an E30 blend in an engine designed to use that fuel would be attractive to car buyers, he said, 'with ridiculous power and good fuel economy,' and owners of those cars would seek out the fuel, unlike owners of flex-fuel cars.

    'I hope that the E.P.A. agrees to do it,' said C. Boyden Gray, a former aide to President George H. W. Bush who is now a Washington lawyer representing energy clients. In coming years, Mr. Gray and others say, more cars are going to be engineered for high-octane fuel so they can get better fuel economy as automakers move to double economy, and high-octane fuel with 30 percent ethanol is cleaner than blends relying more heavily on gasoline.

    But Mr. Gray and other experts said that the E.P.A. would probably have to do more than just give automakers the option to certify vehicles on E30; it would probably have to mandate its availability to give car shoppers confidence that they would be able to refuel such vehicles."
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 39,993
    Just read that story with my morning coffee - makes sense to tune the engine to the predominant fuel, but we're going to wind up with stations blending six or eight different fuel types.

    Maybe it'll wind up like McDonalds where you can mix your own soft drink flavor. Eight gallons of E10, two gallons of E30 and a splash of diesel for tartness. :D


  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,167
    edited May 2013
    That's scary. Also of concern, with all those different blends, is the increased vulnerability for mistakes. For example, there would be more opportunities for distributors to mistakenly putting E30 in E10 pumps, or some variation on that.

    When you order a grande skim carmel cappucino at Starbucks, and you notice that the barrista gets it wrong, he/she apologizes with a smile and pours a new one for you. If E30 comes out of the pump that reads E10, how are you going to know before your car suffers damages? If E30 has higher octane, and your car's computer adjusts for it, you'd think you had a tiger in the tank, while the wrong blend ruins the critical rubber and plastic parts under your hood.

    That said, the benefits of E30 mentioned in the NYT article sound very exciting. If true, E30, or some variation on it, could be a big net positive for motorists and our country alike. I look forward to reading more about it.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850

    Simplist solution is to buy a diesel vehicle. On this trip I have only had one tank of gas that gave me 18 MPG. It was Shell gas bought in Arkansas. The rest are 16s. Not much better than than our CA crap designer gas. Have not seen any real gas all ethanol laced. I agree that mixing all the different formulas will be confusing and dangerous for the public. Still no scientific evidence that ethanol can be made using less energy than it takes to make it. Or that it is CO2 neutral. Plus the damage to the ecosystem dumping into the gulf. The only positive is the cash flow into the pockets of ADM and Monsanto.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,511
    That whole E30 idea only works with engines of higher compression ratio than can run E0 or E10. So now we'll have a fleet of cars INCOMPATIBLE with current fuel sources.

    Folks don't like a bad idea (E10)? Then mandate a worse idea (E30).
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,850

Sign In or Register to comment.