more ethanol on way
10-13-10, 06:01 AM
#1
Pole Position
Thread Starter
more ethanol on way
10-13-10, 12:16 PM
#2
it's only approved for 07 and newer cars. so there will probably be an e15 pump and a regular pump. it'll probably be similar to how some stations have e85 pumps now for flex fuel cars.
10-13-10, 02:03 PM
#4
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: tn
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that reads as if it will be a additional option for fuel if the station wants to carry it. so dont put it into any car, fuel economy will be less and most likely it will cost a little less. what it will do just like the 10% now is have a effect on water in the system and its effect on rubber etc. it is your best bet to add marine formula stabil into the tank and keep her filled up. it is not so much the ethanol in the car but what it does to other parts in the car that hurts
10-13-10, 02:39 PM
#5
Any car built within the last 15 years or so will be fine. That's when they started putting 10% ethanol in gas. Car manufacturers switched to ethanol friendly gaskets, hoses, etc. Before that, ethanol could dissolve some rubber parts in engines.
It's higher octane, but you won't notice a difference in performance. You'll get slightly less mpg. But ethanol is cheaper than gasoline, so it evens out.
It's higher octane, but you won't notice a difference in performance. You'll get slightly less mpg. But ethanol is cheaper than gasoline, so it evens out.
10-14-10, 09:07 AM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
U.S. Said to Allow Rise in Ethanol Content in Gasoline Blends Up to 15%
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-Sai...&asset=&ccode=
The Obama administration will grant a request from ethanol producers to permit higher concentrations of the corn-based fuel additive in gasoline for vehicles made in 2007 and later, according to a person familiar with the decision.
The Environmental Protection Agency will announce as early as today its decision allowing refiners to blend as much as 15 percent ethanol into fuel, up from the current 10 percent, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity before the announcement.
Ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. have pressed the EPA to raise the limit. Opponents, including a coalition of oil companies, automakers and advocacy groups, say adding more ethanol may damage car engines, boost food prices and hurt the environment.
The EPA delayed its decision in December, saying it needed more time to conduct tests on the blend. A decision was again postponed in June, prompting Growth Energy, the ethanol-industry trade group seeking the 15 percent blend, to write to President Barack Obama expressing frustration with the process.
The plan to allow increased ethanol levels was reported late yesterday by the Wall Street Journal.
Raising the “blend ratio” will increase demand. By law, the U.S. must use 12 billion gallons of renewable fuels such as ethanol next year, up from 10.5 billion in 2009, and use 15 billion gallons by 2015.
Closely held Poet LLC, based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is the largest U.S. ethanol producer, followed by Decatur, Illinois-based Archer Daniels.
GM, Ford, Chrysler
General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC have said the government should be cautious about increasing the ethanol percentage in gasoline. AAA, the nation’s biggest motoring organization, said in July 2009 the EPA should reject the Growth Energy request because higher blends may damage exhaust systems, engines and fuel pumps and destroy catalytic converters.
Valero Energy Corp., the largest U.S. refiner, and Marathon Oil Co., the largest refiner in the Midwest, are concerned selling gasoline with more of the corn-based fuel additive may leave them liable for engine damage, according to company spokesmen.
The Environmental Protection Agency will announce as early as today its decision allowing refiners to blend as much as 15 percent ethanol into fuel, up from the current 10 percent, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity before the announcement.
Ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. have pressed the EPA to raise the limit. Opponents, including a coalition of oil companies, automakers and advocacy groups, say adding more ethanol may damage car engines, boost food prices and hurt the environment.
The EPA delayed its decision in December, saying it needed more time to conduct tests on the blend. A decision was again postponed in June, prompting Growth Energy, the ethanol-industry trade group seeking the 15 percent blend, to write to President Barack Obama expressing frustration with the process.
The plan to allow increased ethanol levels was reported late yesterday by the Wall Street Journal.
Raising the “blend ratio” will increase demand. By law, the U.S. must use 12 billion gallons of renewable fuels such as ethanol next year, up from 10.5 billion in 2009, and use 15 billion gallons by 2015.
Closely held Poet LLC, based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is the largest U.S. ethanol producer, followed by Decatur, Illinois-based Archer Daniels.
GM, Ford, Chrysler
General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC have said the government should be cautious about increasing the ethanol percentage in gasoline. AAA, the nation’s biggest motoring organization, said in July 2009 the EPA should reject the Growth Energy request because higher blends may damage exhaust systems, engines and fuel pumps and destroy catalytic converters.
Valero Energy Corp., the largest U.S. refiner, and Marathon Oil Co., the largest refiner in the Midwest, are concerned selling gasoline with more of the corn-based fuel additive may leave them liable for engine damage, according to company spokesmen.
10-14-10, 09:27 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Raising the “blend ratio” will increase demand. By law, the U.S. must use 12 billion gallons of renewable fuels such as ethanol next year, up from 10.5 billion in 2009, and use 15 billion gallons by 2015.
Besides that obvious legal problem, another potential one arises at the pumps....how do the authorities plan to separate the refilling of E10 (for older, pre-2007 cars), from the new E15 fuel for those newer than 2007?
You can't change the size/shape of the fuel-filler nozzle at the pumps, like you did back in the 1970's, for leaded/low-lead and unleaded fuel, because the size/shape of the gas-filler-pipes on new cars didn't change back in 2007 like they did in 1975 with caltaytic-converters and unleaded fuel........this new E15 requirement obviously wasn't anticipated back in 2007. With the way that 2007-2011 vehicles are designed, it will be very easy to put E10 into them, or to put E15 into older, pre-2007 cars......which might (?) cause fuel-system damage in those older models (and maybe even newer ones as well). You could (?) separate the E10 from the E15 by using differently-marked gas pumps....but that still would allow cross-mixing the fuels in older-vs.-newer cars, because the filler-pipes are the same width/shape. Another possibility, of course, is doing away with E10 altogether (which, I suspect, is the real intention down the line), but that would be unacceptable for the millions of engines already out there designed to run on E10, not E15. Unfortunately, this is the kind of stuff that happens when legislators and bureaucrats start making up regulations without thinking first.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-14-10 at 09:41 AM.
Trending Topics
10-14-10, 09:37 AM
#9
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: tn
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THIs fuel they state is only recommened for cars 2007 and up not the past 15 years and even at that the long term effects are not known .i have a 2008 and i am not using it
10-14-10, 09:38 AM
#10
Lexus Champion
United Nations Special Rapportuer Jean Ziegler on biofuels: Biofuels is a "crime against humanity".
IMHO, we cannot ignore that there are cons as well to producing and using biofuels (with the food-for-fuel issue being the most alarming). So unless there are better innovations, R&D, technology, improvements, reduction and/or elimination of impact on food resources, then I believe that there should be caution with regards to adherence of biofuels........and not just go gung-ho and use and worship it like it's our ultimate savior from crude oil.
Btw, I'm not against biofuels in any way. I appreciate the introduction of biofuels and it gives us at least more choices as opposed to only being forced to live with 100% crude oil. Unfortunately, as mentioned, there are some cons and risks with its usage. Hence, there is a need to take and approach these with open mind and with caution and look into alleviate any cons and risks first.
Unfortunately, with the pro-biofuel lobbies being very strong, it's really hard to exercise some caution and achieve balanced and equitable perspective on this.
IMHO, we cannot ignore that there are cons as well to producing and using biofuels (with the food-for-fuel issue being the most alarming). So unless there are better innovations, R&D, technology, improvements, reduction and/or elimination of impact on food resources, then I believe that there should be caution with regards to adherence of biofuels........and not just go gung-ho and use and worship it like it's our ultimate savior from crude oil.
Btw, I'm not against biofuels in any way. I appreciate the introduction of biofuels and it gives us at least more choices as opposed to only being forced to live with 100% crude oil. Unfortunately, as mentioned, there are some cons and risks with its usage. Hence, there is a need to take and approach these with open mind and with caution and look into alleviate any cons and risks first.
Unfortunately, with the pro-biofuel lobbies being very strong, it's really hard to exercise some caution and achieve balanced and equitable perspective on this.
Last edited by Blackraven; 10-14-10 at 09:42 AM.
10-14-10, 10:28 AM
#11
Out of Warranty
This legislation is not about alternative fuels or preserving the environment. It's about funneling even more cash into Archer Daniels Midland. According to Common Cause, ADM contributes millions in "soft money" to political candidates of all stripes. They are obviously funding this legislation, that if passed, will not only increase the cost of gasoline and potentially damage our automobiles, it will also complete with the food on our tables as corn prices soar. It's already happened in Mexico where traditional corn tortillas have doubled in price in the past two years.
10-14-10, 10:54 AM
#13
I hope this fails and fails good, this goes against all the greenies in Washington who constantly scream we need to consume less fuel. Go ahead, add more ethanol, watch gas prices rise, watch food costs rise, watch people travel less and spend less because more of their money will go towards necessities which will cost more than before. The people pushing for that legislation should be hung and dipped in a vat of boiling corn oil.
10-14-10, 10:59 AM
#14
and in unrelated news, corn prices continue to go up. 
when you do stupid things like make corn compete as both a fuel and food, you create huge imbalances in our own food market. If corn is overplanted then we dont have room for other crops we might need. What if we have a bad harvest in one of these crops? We wont have the crop space to even adapt. One of the most horrible ideas possible.
Brazil actually has a viable ethanol system...based on sugarcane. Sugarcane ethanol production has 3x the the yield of corn ethanol.
when you do stupid things like make corn compete as both a fuel and food, you create huge imbalances in our own food market. If corn is overplanted then we dont have room for other crops we might need. What if we have a bad harvest in one of these crops? We wont have the crop space to even adapt. One of the most horrible ideas possible.
Brazil actually has a viable ethanol system...based on sugarcane. Sugarcane ethanol production has 3x the the yield of corn ethanol.
10-14-10, 04:48 PM
#15
They approved it for 2007 and newer for now. They're holding off on older cars until they've done longer studies. But they started using ethanol friendly materials in cars about 15 years ago.