http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/220311.html

Quote :

" Bruce Siceloff - Staff writer The EPA agreed with automakers and other engine manufacturers today that more testing is needed to determine whether American cars would be damaged by a proposed 50 percent increase in the concentration of ethanol allowed in gasoline. The agency said it hopes to rule by mid-2010 on an ethanol industry petition to approve 15 percent ethanol (E15) for gas-fueled cars and trucks, up from the current 10 percent (E10) standard. Also expected next summer is an EPA ruling on fuel pump labels to help consumers avoid pumping more ethanol than their cars and lawnmowers can handle. That's an issue with drivers who accidentally damage their cars with 85 percent ethanol (E85) fuel (see recent Road Worrier column with reader comments). The EPA has proposed stiffer warning labels that would say E85 use is prohibited except for flex-fuel cars designed to use it, and that E85 can damage other cars. Preliminary tests of cars built after 2001 suggest that their fuel and emissions systems are built tough enough to stomach E15, an EPA official said in a letter to Growth Energy Inc., an ethanol lobby group. And the letter indicated that the EPA looks favorably on the E15 proposal as it pushes to meet a congressional mandate for more renewable fuels. "To achieve the renewable fuel requirements in future years, it is clear that ethanol will need to be blended into gasoline at levels greater than the current limit of 10 percent," said the letter signed by Gina McCarthy, assistant EPA administrator. Former Gen. Wesley Clark, Growth Energy's co-chairman, told reporters in a conference call that EPA's letter was "basically a positive answer," The New York Times reported. Automakers have warned that an increase above the 10 percent limit could damage some cars and void their warranties. Makers of boat and other engines that use gas also have expressed worry about ethanol damage. The high alcohol content of E85 makes it more corrosive than gasoline to metal and rubber engine parts. More E15 car test results will be availalbe next May, McCarthy's letter said."

12/1/2009 1:27:25 PM

my scooter is designed to run on E20 gasohol

12/1/2009 1:35:32 PM

This is fucking retarded.

Worse gas mileage for everyone

Higher food prices across the world

Higher gasoline prices

EVERYBODY LOSES!!!

12/1/2009 1:48:11 PM

^

12/1/2009 1:56:51 PM

^^ Agreed.

Quote :

"Makers of boat and other engines that use gas also have expressed worry about ethanol damage. The high alcohol content of E85 makes it more corrosive than gasoline to metal and rubber engine parts."

It's not just the corrosion...It's the fact that the stuff breaks up all the crud in the fuel system and releases it into the carb. Most boat mechanics were swamped this past spring with customers whose boats were fucked by leaving e10 in the fuel system over the winter. Vented fuel systems + ethanol + years of crud buildup = hell on carb jets, fuel filters, etc. Of course, the corrosion problems are the $$$ ones.

[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 2:11 PM. Reason : l]

12/1/2009 2:07:09 PM

Quote :

"Makers of boat and other engines that use gas also have expressed worry about ethanol damage."

My dad recently had to have about 5 gallons of water pumped out of his boat's gas tank because it wouldn't run. The mechanic said it's common to have to do this, particularly to boats that sit for long periods, due to the enthanol in gas.

More corn-based ethanol in gas is going to hurt everyone but the corn industry. There is a sliver of good news to hold onto; the EPA is agreeing to test whether is causes engine damage before enacting the regulation.

12/1/2009 2:17:07 PM

If I have learned anything, is that you shouldn't trust the EPA.

If they are unable to realistically determine gas mileage in new cars, I shudder to think how many older cars will be damaged by their poor testing standards.

12/1/2009 2:45:18 PM

Brazil's primary fuel for cars is ethanol and they don't allow car manufacturers to import cars but rather are required to build plants in brazil because you can't sell cars that don't have a flex fuel engine that can alternate between using ethanol and gasoline.

This has worked very well for them...they even consider gasoline as an alternate fuel.

Brazil has proved that it works and works well. The only other issue is, would a sudden increase in sugar cane fields being transformed into fuels rather than food be bad. Currently Brazil only uses about 1% of their agricultural land for fuel purposes. This could also put a huge demand on clearing more of the Amazon jungle for this purpose which isn't very 'green'

Also, corrosion isn't as big of an issue anymore as it once was.

[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2009 2:48:57 PM

I just don't see ethanol as economically viable when it only comes from corn. There's a lot of research being done into turning other types of biomass into ethanol cheaply, but nothing has come to fruition yet.

12/1/2009 2:55:09 PM

^sugar cane.

12/1/2009 2:56:34 PM

^^ miscanthus

[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM. Reason : or, really, any cellulosic biomass...corn is retarded]

12/1/2009 2:58:56 PM

if we have to do this can we at least compromise and remove corn subsidies?

12/1/2009 3:02:52 PM

^ that would be awesome...not gonna happen

12/1/2009 3:19:57 PM

Quote :

"If I have learned anything, is that you shouldn't trust the EPA"

Exactly. Let's not forget that this agency is trying to make a HUGE power grab in Washington through CO2 regulation under the CAA (something it was never written to regulate). Of course they're cherry picking how they'll regulate it as well, which is illegal (not in line with CAA).

I love it.

[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason : CAA]

12/1/2009 10:34:40 PM

Who gives a shit, we should all be driving diesels anyway and keep the gassers as play toys.

12/2/2009 12:19:37 AM

^^ Its the Environmental hippy conspiracy bro

12/2/2009 7:43:24 AM

Quote :

"sugar cane."

It's definitely more viable than corn and is working nicely in Brazil, which also has cars that run on natural gas.

It won't work here. The US is a large country with a large population, and things that work in small countries won't necessarily work in large countries. Not to say we shouldn't be looking at alternatives, but the solution won't be an agricultural one.

12/2/2009 8:40:22 AM

^thats what I was saying...if there was suddenly a huge demand for sugar cane as a fuel it would negate the whole point of being more 'green'

12/2/2009 10:11:19 AM

oh yeah i hadn't read your longer post.

12/2/2009 10:36:57 AM

haha

12/2/2009 10:42:46 AM

Damn ethanol is cracking my new carb boots already.

12/2/2009 1:23:04 PM

BUMP

4/3/2012 10:23:25 AM

Quote :

"EPA gives E15 go-ahead despite objections, approves production applications As predicted and expected, the Environmental Protection Agency today approved the first applications to make E15, a blend of gasoline with 15 percent ethanol in it. This means that E15 is now a "significant step" closer to production and sale in America."

If this continues to go through it would mean that (as a result of the ended corn industry subsidies) most of our ethanol would come from Brazil. Brazil, where they are tearing down the rain forest as fast as possible to grow more sugar cane for ethanol.

So the EPA is encouraging deforestation of the most prized eco-system on the planet. Good to know

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/02/epa-gives-e15-go-ahead-despite-objections-approves-production-a/

[Edited on April 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM. Reason : link]

4/3/2012 12:26:03 PM

but not ours...

4/3/2012 12:29:11 PM

fuck the goddamn government

4/3/2012 2:06:09 PM

What a genius move to stimulate the economy. Think of all the extra money people will be spending on new fuel/engine components!

4/3/2012 2:11:24 PM

Quote :

"fuck the goddamn government"

Also, why are there not stations advertising/selling E0 gasoline? The E10 isn't mandated at this point, is it?

4/3/2012 2:56:23 PM

It's a NC statewide mandate. I don't believe it's a federal mandate at this time.

4/3/2012 2:59:41 PM

^^ I believe there is a station at the corner of Airport blvd. and NC-54 that sells ethanol free gasoline.

4/3/2012 3:04:55 PM

^according to http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=NC it's 90 octane only

There's an exxon on glenwood with 93 at least.


I'll swing by after work today and check.

[Edited on April 3, 2012 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2012 3:10:13 PM

^^That station is 1/4 mile from my office.

^what is 90 octane? Ethanol free gas? Also where is ethanol free 93? Both my cars only take 93 so that makes no difference to me.

Nevermind I got it. None of those places (offering 93) are remotely close to me. Sadly not worth the trip

[Edited on April 3, 2012 at 3:15 PM. Reason : k]

4/3/2012 3:13:16 PM

^I'm hoping it's a typo, I need 93 as well

http://pure-gas.org/station?station_id=5417 has 93 for sure (recently confirmed per this website)

it's near the chipotle on glenwood I believe.

4/3/2012 3:15:39 PM

I'll double check octane at the marathon on 54 tomorrow afternoon.

4/3/2012 3:16:24 PM

i'm not gonna argue broadly for ethanol, but i will state that at oil prices this high, ethanol actually helps keep our gas prices lower than they would be otherwise, as it's a much lower cost fuel than gasoline when oil is over $100/bbl (even after adjustments for energy content). this was absolutely the case during the run-up in 2008 (when oil went over $140/bbl), and probably is to a lesser extent today. there was a McKinsey report done in 2009 that did a detailed estimate on this, may try to see if i can find it again.

i didn't realize we had actually cut the subsidies?? nice if so! but at these oil prices it's still economical to make corn-based ethanol domestically, so it's unclear what impact that would have on Brazil's rainforests. not sure what's happened to tariffs on imported ethanol (used to be 51 cents per gallon or so iirc), but that would have an impact as well.

[Edited on April 3, 2012 at 4:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2012 4:38:47 PM

they could offer E10 for half the price of E-free and i still wouldn't put that shit in my boat

FUCK

THAT

SHIT

4/3/2012 5:26:02 PM

Quote :

"i didn't realize we had actually cut the subsidies?? nice if so! but at these oil prices it's still economical to make corn-based ethanol domestically, so it's unclear what impact that would have on Brazil's rainforests. not sure what's happened to tariffs on imported ethanol (used to be 51 cents per gallon or so iirc), but that would have an impact as well. "

Once you factor in the reduced fuel mileage due to lost energy content I'm sure it's even closer. Also Brazilian sugar cane can produce 9 times the ethanol of corn, given the same plot of land.

4/3/2012 6:20:43 PM

I've recently started adding Seafoam whenever I go to fill up the wife's car and my motorcycle to counteract the ethanol. Honestly, the motorcycle seems to run smoother. I admit it could be placebo affect, but I swear it likes the additive. I don't know about the Lexus though, as my wife primarily drives it. I do not want to risk corrosion in my fuel pump/fuel lines/fuel rails.

The mazda is an old beater that runs on regular octane gas. It's held up very well considering the ethanol additive, so I'll let it keep fighting for it's place in the stable





[Edited on April 3, 2012 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2012 8:06:42 PM

You should read the MSDS on Seafoam. It's between 10 and 20% isopropyl alcohol. Interesting, yes?

4/3/2012 8:28:01 PM

^ So instead of 1.5oz of seafoam per gallon, do you suggest using 1oz of IPA per 3 gallons of gas?

4/3/2012 8:32:31 PM

funny thing is, engines are certified on E0 fuel.

4/3/2012 8:43:19 PM

Hurry up and get Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture Ethanol out of Washington.

Ethanol isn't good for anything currently. Shit has driven feed costs for animal agriculture sky high and isn't worth the trouble it is to make it (out of corn, at least).

4/3/2012 8:44:01 PM

they tried to mandate cellusoic ethanol (basically, ethanol from a bunch of random plant stuff) but it hasn't gotten off the ground in an economical way

4/3/2012 8:45:52 PM

Apparently, it's good for pollution management/control/reduction.

4/3/2012 8:46:03 PM

Ethanol was introduced partly as a replacement for MTBE, which is an fuel oxygenate that actually had harmful side effects. I have seen some literature indicating that ethanol can reduce engine-out emissions. When you mix the catalytic converter in there things get more murky in terms of quantifying the benefit of ethanol.

As I mentioned above emissions certification is usually done with California Phase II fuel which contains no ethanol. Thus new vehicles are meeting emissions targets without ethanol. And new cars produce almost zero pollution anyway.

4/3/2012 11:06:27 PM

Quote :

"Preliminary tests of cars built after 2001 suggest that their fuel and emissions systems are built tough enough to stomach E15, an EPA official said in a letter to Growth Energy Inc., an ethanol lobby group."

And so those of us with cars prior to 2001 are just fucked?

4/4/2012 10:02:38 PM

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

4/5/2012 12:06:20 AM

btw that marathon on 54 had only 90. It was a separate pump with just one option. Oh well.

4/5/2012 1:32:10 PM

bizarre

4/5/2012 1:44:55 PM

I agree that this is a shitty decision but:

Quote :

"Let's not forget that this agency is trying to make a HUGE power grab in Washington through CO2 regulation under the CAA (something it was never written to regulate). Of course they're cherry picking how they'll regulate it as well, which is illegal (not in line with CAA). "

is totally wrong. The EPA was sued by several states under the CAA because it wasn't regulating CO2. The Supreme Court found that CO2 was a pollutant under the CAA and that compelled the EPA to do something about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

They were forced into regulating it, by the CAA.

4/5/2012 6:28:09 PM

Exxon next to the Chipotle on glenwood has ethanol free 93 octane. I got some last week.

4/23/2012 1:06:00 PM