Support the Elimination of E15 Fuel

[ceebuddy]

SEMA Action Network (SAN) writes:

»Legislation (HR 1315) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to prohibit the sale of E15 (gasoline that is 15% ethanol), capping the amount of ethanol that can be blended into conventional gasoline at 10%. The bill also eliminates the Renewable Fuel Standard’s (RFS) mandate that requires 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol be blended into the U.S. fuel supply each year.

Request support for this legislation by using this link for an overview and lawmaker contact.«

 

[chaparral2f]

I am curious why would we do that?

 

[BigblueC]

The bill also eliminates the Renewable Fuel Standard’s (RFS) mandate that requires 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol be blended into the U.S. fuel supply each year.

I totally support this. It should be market driven, letting the consumers dictate the fuel/fuel blend. The mandate was nothing but political pushing in the first place.

Legislation (HR 1315) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to prohibit the sale of E15 (gasoline that is 15% ethanol), capping the amount of ethanol that can be blended into conventional gasoline at 10%.

This part I don't support. Some vehicles run fine on E85 or any variation of E-blend. Again I feel it should be left to the market to determine.

 

[detmatt]

I am curious why would we do that?

There are still countless machines, boats, small engines and our beloved classics that shouldn't have over 10% ethanol run through them.

 

[chaparral2f]

However over time they might be able to make a fuel completely out of corn. I get that older engines would have issues but I am sure somebody would make a conversion to be able to run it

 

[goldfish65]

However over time they might be able to make a fuel completely out of corn. I get that older engines would have issues but I am sure somebody would make a conversion to be able to run it

I am not an expert on this issue but think about it, does it make sense to go through everything it entails to grow all the corn it takes to produce enough of a fuel that isn't all that great?

 

[BigblueC]

However over time they might be able to make a fuel completely out of corn. I get that older engines would have issues but I am sure somebody would make a conversion to be able to run it

We already do that and have done it for years. Ethanol or "Corn fuel" is what is commonly known as alcohol (the type we drink) and engines that are set up to run it, run fine. If you can cook/distill whiskey you can make ethanol that will run in your car. Some major problems with corn based fuel are 1) is harsh and corrosive on certain rubbers/metals, 2) it has a relatively short shelf life, 3) we are using food (and many other resources) to make it.

I'm all for responsible and efficient use of resources, but I feel that forcing corn based fuels into our gas is neither.

 

[Big_John]

One of the issues with using ethanol is you have to burn more to make the same power. Close to twice as much. When you mix it with gas, your gas mileage will go down.

An older vehicle can be made to run on E85. The compression will need to come up and it will have to be jetted richer. It will work and some guys have been building engines to run on it for a while now. Without mods, you can expect less power and less gas mileage, plus issues with corrosion in the carb and fuel system.

One advantage of living in the Finger Lakes is there are no shortage of gas stations selling ethanol free gas for boats. As long as they don't start restricting what type of vehicle pulls up to the pump, I'm OK.

 

[cantflip]

Sorry in advance for any harsh tones... I am a big fan of getting rid of Ethanol Mandates and outlawing excessive mixtures.

I am curious why would we do that?

First of all... it doesn't work. We drove our food prices up significantly with ethanol mandates and did nothing for the environment but harm in the process. This whole issue is crap. The use of WASTE biomass to produce ethanol made sense when you didn't have to ship it too far. The requirement to make ethanol a fixed percentage of our highway fuels was bogus. Politicians who wanted/needed votes from some parts of the country flipped on this issue, including the guy who won in 2008. It never made sense.

I totally support this. It should be market driven, letting the consumers dictate the fuel/fuel blend. The mandate was nothing but political pushing in the first place.
I would agree that the suppliers should be able to offer other products and let the market correct this. I don't think that will work very easily though. Most folks are complete idiots about their cars. They pump the cheapest crap they can find, sometimes consuming their meager savings to find/get that cheap fuel. Would you like me to explain how many $60k-$100k+ car owners I have had to deal with because they won't even pay for the correct octane rating.

The biggest hurdle in my mind, provided we wanted it all to go back. Our infrastructure for fuel deliver was reworked for the benefit of ethanol. Here in Florida, our entire pipeline was upgraded to be able to with stand the corrosive effects of ethanol. Non-ethanol fuels must be trucked in from port, which raises the prices considerably... Last I heard the pure gasoline was actually cheaper due to the cost of ethanol production attempts to keep up with the mandate (eat or run your car on it... not enough farmland to do both)

This part I don't support. Some vehicles run fine on E85 or any variation of E-blend. Again I feel it should be left to the market to determine.

I emphatically disagree. CONVENTIONAL GASOLINE should describe gasoline only IMO. We have been forced to accept that to describe 5% ethanol before the mandate and 10% since. The laws are written that they can sneak in 15% at will right now and not label the pump once the government blesses it. 15% is a problem for your pre-2004 car (not 100% on this date).

The market cannot correct something that they will never know is there. The mandate that 10% is the top% is a very good move as a compromise. It would be better to rid ourselves entirely of this.

I'm not qualified to go scientific on this... but when you burn more fuel to get the same work out of the vehicle... you negate much of the carbon you tried to save. Changing driving habits would have far better effect... why not lobby for 55 MPH to return? The production of ethanol is costly and polluting as well, but the tree huggers have been too myopic to understand any of that.

Ethanol mandate was pushed through under the guise of low carbon emissions and then reduction of oil dependence. I say we have adequate infrastructure now... so lets moth ball it like they did the steel industry decades ago. We can happily pay a skeleton crew to assure we have the strategic ability to bring it back online after the zombie apocalypse or whatever you want to prep for. Then you're cost of ownership will reduce and food pricing may be able to stabilize. If we keep going with this, the deeper costs will make most of us a fair amount poorer.

Just a few links... lots of places out there to learn about this...

The Clean Energy Scam
Next-Generation Biofuels Are Inching Towards Reality, Gallon by Gallon | TIME.com
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

 

[commando1]

The use of a basic need, valuable food source to make fuel for cars is one of the largest scams ever concocted by a vested interest on the the public.
Right after flu vaccinations.

 

[BigblueC]

One of the issues with using ethanol is you have to burn more to make the same power. Close to twice as much. When you mix it with gas, your gas mileage will go down.

A few years ago I saw a college professor break down the chemical mathematics of available energy in 10%E blend vs straight gasoline. Now I don't remember any specifics other than the 10%E blend provided 4% less available energy than straight gasoline. Real life experience with my truck supports this with about 1/2-1 mpg less with the blend.

 

[commando1]

I think it's Brazil that runs 100% ethanol. This is a section of the world that looks like...

 

[67Monaco]

I am curious why would we do that?

One, it ignores basic physics in the stoichiometric ratio and thus doesn't work. You actually burn more fuel.

Two, Because we already subsidize the corn farmers for limiting corn production, yet at the same time we buy corn to make alcohol to burn in cars. It is a crap fuel that is designed by lawyers.

Around here we have Rec91, no alcohol 91 octane gasoline. Costs 10% more than premium. However, I get 15-20% mileage increase in both the Ram and the Benz. I use it everytime I find when I need to fuel up.

 

[chaparral2f]

I had a rancher/farmer once tell me that the corn for ethanol is not for human consumption it is the same one used for animals. The ethanol used in corn offsets the losses farmers sometimes lose. I am not an expert I just would like as many options as possible.

 

[67Monaco]

I had a rancher/farmer once tell me that the corn for ethanol is not for human consumption it is the same one used for animals. The ethanol used in corn offsets the losses farmers sometimes lose. I am not an expert I just would like as many options as possible.

Farmer welfare already offsets those losses.

Uncle Sugar says Hi Mr Farmer (i.e. multinat corporations), we'll pay you to not plant certain crops on your land. Mr Farmer agrees and doesn't plant certain foods on his land and takes Uncle Sugars money. Now Mr. Farmer with excess land and equipment now plants feed corn or whatever type of plant matter to be used in ethanol production. Not using available land to produce food, reduces the supply, drives up demand and increases prices. And now we have a surplus of mostly corn to use in ethanol production that has to go somewhere. Mr Farmer (i.e. multinational corporation) calls on his buddies in DC that hold stock in Mr. Farmers business to mandate by law they put it in gasoline. Everybody wins.

 

[MoPar Maniac]

It takes more BTUs to make one gallon of corn squeezins that the gallon provides.
We not only use a lot of corn but diesel fuel, nat gas and water to plant, harvest, distill and transport the alk.
And you will burn almost 3x the amount of alk than gas.
And at that mixture you wash down the cylinders and contaminate the oil, filling the sump with alk.

 

[tbm3fan]

It takes more BTUs to make one gallon of corn squeezins that the gallon provides.
We not only use a lot of corn but diesel fuel, nat gas and water to plant, harvest, distill and transport the alk.
And you will burn almost 3x the amount of alk than gas.
And at that mixture you wash down the cylinders and contaminate the oil, filling the sump with alk.

The reason for using ethanol was to decrease dependence on foreign oil. Of course that was before the resurgence of American oil in the last four years which has brought down oil prices worldwide. I'm not sure ethanol really influences prices all that much and was more a feel good, we are doing something for the people thing.

As mentioned above it costs more energy to turn corn into ethanol to mix with gas than to use the missing gallon of gas in a 10 gallon tank. Ironic that it is Ok to burn a little extra gasoline to make ethanol then to just put the gasoline in the tank to begin with. I won't bring up my older cars as in reality there are a small percentage of the cars on the street. I will bring up that my mileage in daily cars, which used to be 33 mpg in 2004, is now stuck at 30 mpg consistently. So that means I get to spend around $200 extra a year basically as a subsidy to corn farming no doubt big corporate corn farming.

 

[chaparral2f]

I guess my problem with this as the idea it is "our oil" since it goes on the open market it is anybody's who bid the most for it. Also most oil companies are subsidized themselves by our govt with huge tax incentives and they are not American companies, most if not all are registered in other countries. They make most of their money in the US however they escape a good portion of our taxes. Sorry I normally do not get involved in these type of conversations.

 

[Wildaugust]

Ethanol blended gasoline has been available here since sometime in the late '80s. I used it occasionally when it first became available and have been using it ever since it became mandated about twelve years ago. I haven't had any issues from using it in any of my vehicles or small engines, but that is likely due to the fact that, at present, only an 8% blend is required by law here. There is some talk of requiring "greener" fuels in the future so, I suppose that could mean increasing the ethanol requirement to 15% among other things.

I have no problem with E-85 being sold at the pumps for people who want it. They could also have another pump dedicated to some other percentage of ethanol or have some type of "blender pump" that would let you squeeze out a mixture from 0 to 85 percent. I do have a big problem with mandating a minimum of 15 percent. I would vote to support the SEMA initiative except that I don't live in the US so, my vote would be moot.

 

[cantflip]

I had a rancher/farmer once tell me that the corn for ethanol is not for human consumption it is the same one used for animals. The ethanol used in corn offsets the losses farmers sometimes lose. I am not an expert I just would like as many options as possible.

Nothing eats ethanol corn... it is a useless hybrid specifically for the production of ethanol. The old scraps from livestock feed used to be the primary source... we never came close to producing enough ethanol that way. The mandates require something that doesn't exist to work... like some other stuff the government has fed us.