Putting E15 (a mix of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline) on sale in the U.S. has been all but official since April, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the first applications to make E15. Now, "all but official" has become official, with the EPA giving approval for retailers to start selling the biofuel. Just because stations can, though, doesn't mean that drivers will be able to get E15 right away. It will take time for the increased biofuel blend, made from corn ethanol, to make it to market, even though most gasoline sold at pumps across the U.S. today is E10.

Also unsurprisingly, there remain critics of the shift to making E15 available. The EPA – which doesn't require any fuel station to sell anything in particular – admits that E15 should only be used in Model Year 2001 and newer vehicles. In response to the sales approval, the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) released a statement calling E15 "dangerous" and that it might "destroy or damage generators, chain saws, utility vehicles, lawn mowers, boats and marine engines, snowmobiles, motorcycles, ATVs, and more." The EPA does not approve using E15 in these sorts of devices. More on the E15 discussion here, here and here.
Show full PR text
EPA Decision to Permit 15 Percent Ethanol (E15) in Gasoline Puts Consumers and Equipment At Risk, Says Outdoor Power Equipment Institute

Alexandria, Va – June 18, 2012 -- The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute issues a warning today that the EPA's ruling providing their approval of the sale of 15 percent ethanol (E15) into the U.S. consumer marketplace for automobiles made since 2001, is dangerous. The government's test results that show E15 is harmful to outdoor power equipment, boats and marine engines and other non-road engine products. The fuel used for automobiles and other engine products would have to be divided, substantially increasing the risk for misfueling, significant engine damage and consumer hazard.

"For the first time in American history, fuel used for some automobiles may no longer safe for any non-road products. It may, in fact, destroy or damage generators, chain saws, utility vehicles, lawn mowers, boats and marine engines, snowmobiles, motorcycles, ATVs, and more," says Kris Kiser, President and CEO of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, one of the industry groups who have been sending warnings to the federal government about E15.

In September 2011, members of the Engine Products Group (OPEI, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Global Automakers) filed a formal legal challenge to EPA's E15 partial waiver decision. The EPG asked the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the E15 waiver decision. The decision on this matter is expected to be issued at any time by the court.

Said OPEI's Kiser, "EPA purports to educate tens of millions of Americans using hundreds of millions of engine products, asserting it will educate these users with a 3 inch by 3 inch pump label. It's frighteningly inadequate."

Many times OPEI has pointed out that the EPA's prior experience with the introduction of new fuels shows that labeling alone is insufficient to prevent misfueling. As the EPA led the transition to unleaded fuels, the Agency reported a misfueling rate of nearly 15 percent almost ten years after the introduction of unleaded gasoline, and even with a physical barrier at the pumps.

______________

The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) is an international trade association representing more than 80 engine and equipment manufacturers worldwide in the utility, forestry, landscape, and lawn and garden industry. OPEI is a recognized Standards Development Organization for the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and active internationally through the International Standards Organization (ISO) in the development of safety standards. For more information, visit www.OPEI.org.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 51 Comments
      diffrunt
      • 3 Years Ago
      When I use real gas in my Terrain , it costs 10% more, improves mileage by 20%
      Rick
      • 3 Years Ago
      Thank you greenies for wrecking older cars and wreaking havoc on the environment. This volatile high temperature junk will damage wreck my exhaust system as it overheats more water vapour, corrode fuel tanks lets say a classic car just laid up over the winter, bubbles will form in the carb causing loss of engine power as it will be unable to flow corruptly, will have to shift fuel lines away from heat source or fit some heat defectors or baffles. Any metal that zinc and galvanised, brass, copper, lead, tin or even aluminium with E100 will get wrecked, Buna-N, Neoprene seals will get damaged as will urethane rubber, acrylonitrile-butadiene hoses, polybutene to many others like cork gaskets & polymers to cut & paste here none of what the average owner will realise will be wrecked or need replacing. E15 is an absolute disgrace, it will wreck millions of perfectly serviceable older cars once the mandate is out that o E15 is the only norm to be used in the EU, E5 will be phased out in 2013 so the rot will start to set in with E10 as the LCD. What a total disaster for the environment nothing has ever wreaked so much havoc since a Blue Brothers movie, but on a massive million to one bigger scale leaving a tsunami of wrecked cars.
        brotherkenny4
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Rick
        Yes, there should only be one fuel and it should be the one that makes the most money. It's gonna be very hard for me to pay attention and select a grade when I fill my gas tank. Why should I be put through this hell just because some people think we spend too much money on foriegn sources of fuel. Life is so hard and difficult. Moo-Wah, Moo-Wah, Moo-Wah!!! That's a crying cow in case you didn't guess.
        MTN RANGER
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Rick
        Not so much greenies as it is the National Corn Growers Assn's efforts. :-)
        carney373
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Rick
        Were you running around howling about the phase-out of lead as well? Only a small minority of cars on the road are more than 12 years old. It's perfectly reasonable for EPA to PERMIT, not even MANDATE, the sale of E15 given the extensive proof that it's completely harmless in any car made after 2000.
          Ryan
          • 3 Years Ago
          @carney373
          Come to Ohio. I would say a large number (30-40%) of cars are older than 12 years. Maybe even more. I know my car is 17 years old, but I still can get 40mpg. I'm not sure it will like E15, but how likely will it be to find gas stations that sell it?
          JamesJ
          • 3 Years Ago
          @carney373
          Leaded gasoline was still available 15 years after new car where require to use unleaded gas. Also you could add lead substitute to your car, it is much more difficult to remove ethanol from your gasoline.
      Rob J
      • 3 Years Ago
      There are very few upgrades require to run e15 on
      Greg
      • 3 Years Ago
      I have a problem with articles like this using language such as "doesn't mean that drivers will be able to get E15 right away." "Be able to get"? That implies drivers want it. There was no movement or petition from drivers for E15. Drivers aren't asking for it, and in general, they don't want it and will resist buying it if at all possible. Rather, the issue on people's minds isn't how long until they CAN buy it, but how long until they HAVE to buy it. It's nearly impossible to find E0 anymore, so it's reasonable to expect E15 to eventually displace E10 as the default fuel choice, which of course will make pre-2001 (and very likely some post-2001) vehicles inoperable.
        PR
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Greg
        Greg, Let me get this straight. You are equally paranoid that absolutely nobody will buy E15, and at the exact same time, you are paranoid that soooooo many people will buy E15 that you won't be able to even find E10 anymore. How much does your neck hurt from the whiplash of making an instant 180 degree flip-flop in mid-post? So which is it? Nobody will buy it, or absolutely everyone will buy it? Here in the real world, E15 will look much like E85 sales. The people who want to buy it will, people who don't want to buy it won't. Pretty simple. No reason to go all paranoid conspiracy on us. E15 has absolutely zero to do with the conversion from E0 to E10 to replace MTBE to fight smog. So trying to compare to E10 to replace MTBE is a false comparison.
          Ducman69
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          Someone has reading comprehension issues. He is paranoid that government mandates will make it impossible to get no or low ethanol fuel. You cannot get no ethanol fuel in the Houston area, and its by LAW not by demand.
          AndrewH
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          Wow... you complete misread that. That's not at all what he said.
      PR
      • 3 Years Ago
      There is a very simple way to keep from wrecking cars that are 12 model years or older, and power equipment that cannot legally be filled with E15. Don't break the law! As long as you don't break the law and fill vehicles and power equipment with E15 repeatedly over and over, there is absolutely zero chance of E15 destroying anything.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 3 Years Ago
        @PR
        Why would you offer e15 for sale anyway then? e10 contains more gasoline, which at this time is cheaper, contains more energy, and does not pose a risk to old cars. That is like saying don't break the law and throw a dollar or two on the ground every time you fill up. Do you really think they're not going to eventually mandate e15 as a standard fuel?
          2 Wheeled Menace
          • 3 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          Did i ever say that there weren't benefits to relying on a domestic source? LOL, red scare? I'm wondering if you ever read my post. You seem to have read some into things that don't exist. All i'm saying is that it will be mandated eventually. Otherwise there would be no other reason for it to exist. e85 has never been popular even for people who bought e85. If you are given a choice, why wouldn't you buy a fuel that gets you better economy?
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          2WM You've been reading and posting on ABG for how long, and you STILL can't rattle off half a dozen positive benefits for replacing some imported oil with US produced renewable ethanol? Seriously? Now you are just being intellectually dishonest. I really think that with the political climate in the US, that E15 will not be mandated. Please list the super-majority of 60 US Senators, and the list of the majority of US House Representatives that you think would pass such a mandate if you think I'm wrong. Otherwise, lay off the red-scare style BS that has absolutely zero basis in reality.
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          2WM Upon what facts do you claim that E15 will be mandated? Do you make the same claim about E85 being mandated? Why or why not? You can stare at your crystal balls all day long, and the ONLY facts on the table are that there are zero legislative proposals for either an E15 or an E85 mandate. You are simply making sh!t up without a single ounce of factual support. LOL right back at your paranoia over legislation that doesn't exist, and nobody is proposing!! It's the same right-wing conspiracy paranoia that played out as the "red-scare" in past decades. You are using the exact same tactic of fear-mongering that something might happen just because of your baseless fears. It's a common and repeated right-wing tactic to play on people's fears for political benefit, and you are doing it right now. Own it, and stop crying about being called out on it (even if you can't see what you are doing yourself). There is a long list of reasons of the benefits of buying fuel with ethanol, and you damn well know a long list of them yourself. I'm not going to bother with answering questions you already know the answer to. Stop pretending to be ignorant, and answer your own question for yourself. You've been here long enough to engage your brain and figure it out yourself. Here is your homework. List half a dozen benefits of burning ethanol, then I'll add another half dozen. If you are serious about wanting to know an answer to your own question, you will have it. Otherwise, stop trolling and pretending to be stupid.
      bhtooefr
      • 3 Years Ago
      And we've already got reports of E10 hurting fuel economy big time on some vehicles (in some cases, to the point that the E10 may as well be inert, due to how badly it appears to affect the combustion process - granted, this tends to be in very low compression engines), combined with the fact that corn ethanol is an inefficient use of farmland (and corn is horrible to the land), and only returns 1.1 units of (solar plus whatever was in the soil before the corn was planted) energy for every unit of petroleum energy (fuel used in farming, fertilizers, and processing costs) obtained.
        Julius
        • 3 Years Ago
        @bhtooefr
        Umm, yes it has less energy, and therefore has less "fuel economy". However, properly tuned vehicles can actually make more power on E10.
      ducman69
      • 3 Years Ago
      E15 is a joke and is adoption is pure politics, particularly when they are using inefficient and highly subsidized corn to produce it (and despite your tax dollars being pumped into Monsanto's pockets for all the wholesome GMO goodness, its STILL not cost effective with today's crude prices). And if there is any doubt as to the safety of ethanol blended into your fuel, ask the FAA what they think about using even E10 in autogas approved aircraft. Oh what's that? Following safety testing they cited dangers to system components and banned its use in all aircraft regardless of manufacture date? Yup. Fact is that if it weren't mandated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and manufacturers pressured into supporting it by CAFE standards that give an outrageous bonus to fleet fuel economy standards for high ethanol vehicles (such as E85), no one would be using ethanol blended fuels. -Its not cost effective. -Its bad for the environment due to the farm land, water, pesticides, and heavy diesel use in the life-cycle of creating and distributing ethanol especially when using inefficient corn as the carbohydrate. -It reduces fuel economy since it produces about half the BTUs per volume. -It reduces gasoline shelf life. -It increases the risk of damage from old fuel in high humidity environments since ethanol is so very hygroscopic. -It can damage fuel system components and seals in some vehicles including deterioration of gas tank resins (common in boats or such as that which protects the C5 Corvette's fuel gauge meter).
      Rick
      • 3 Years Ago
      Must be destroying million older cars what a disaster for the environment sending them to an early grave, energy used scrapping, and manufacturing processes used in making a new car is are massive. Very few pumps are marked up with E10 or E15 in the UK, you really have to look to find out those that do to find what junk you are putting in, as it might wreck your car.
        carney373
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Rick
        E10 is PROVEN harmless in any car made since the mid 80s. E15 is PROVEN harmless in any car made since 2000. And the vast majority of cars on the road are both.
          miles
          • 3 Years Ago
          @carney373
          Yeah LTAW, it's amazing how quickly I'm forgetting my statistics. The guy down the street with the 34 Tudor is messing up my mean, uh, median, uh, mode? No, that's not it either... HE'S JACKIN' UP THE CURVE!!!! :D There's still too many millions of cars on the road that would choke on E15.
          miles
          • 3 Years Ago
          @carney373
          Carney, I think (in the US) the average age of a car is 11 years. So just under half of cars are over 12 years old. Do they really fall apart that quickly where you're from?
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @carney373
          Greg, No, it is you who is missing the point. 1) E0 is hard to find only because smog has caused states and cities to mandate E10 sales in order to lower smog levels. That mandate does not change with the introduction of E15. 2) Currently we can only produce 8% of our fuel as a nation as ethanol. In order to have every single pump putting out E15, we would first have to double our ethanol production. At the current rate of ethanol production increases, it would take decades to produce enough ethanol to fill all those gas station tanks with E15 (assuming that E85 sales don't increase a single bit). Gas stations can't sell ethanol that doesn't exist, so any fear mongering about E15 being your only choice is false. If you are crying over the prospect of 30+ year old cars having a hard time finding E10 sometime after 2030, I think you should start worrying MUCH more about the much bigger problem of global oil demand far outpacing global oil supply by 2030 making it nearly impossible to affordably buy any oil product at all for any vehicle! If your long-term worry for the 2030's is whether or not you will have problems with 30+ year old vehicles running E15, you are deeply in denial of what the real threats are to our lifestyles. 3) If you are that paranoid about E15 displacing E10, then you must be super paranoid about E85 replacing everything, right? Because it's been out for over a decade, and no such takeover has happened. Just offering a product absolutely does not mean that product will take over. Why so paranoid?
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @carney373
          Miles, that's not how "average" works. Your statement would be correct if the median age was 11 years.
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @carney373
          miles -- So don't fill them with E15. Pretty simple. The reality is that there wouldn't be enough E15 available to fill every single car in the US right now. We just don't produce enough of the stuff. It would take at least two decades to produce enough the speed the ethanol production is increasing. By some time in the 2030's, all these 30+ year old cars will be a tiny fraction of the US fleet of vehicles. We all heard the same crying when Lead was phased out of gasoline. But here we are decades later, and the sky hasn't fallen.
          2 Wheeled Menace
          • 3 Years Ago
          @carney373
          Both of my cars are diehard, super reliable mid 90's Japanese cars. But thanks, i needed a push to convert them to electric :)
          Greg
          • 3 Years Ago
          @carney373
          PR, you're missing the point. The expectation is that when E15 makes it to market, E10 will become as hard to find as E0 is today. "Don't use E15" becomes useless tripe at that point.
      mapoftazifosho
      • 3 Years Ago
      Yeah, there really aren't any greenies pushing this Rick...
        george costanza
        • 3 Years Ago
        @mapoftazifosho
        I am not pushing it after reading about it in pop science and pop mechanics. I was also against cash for clunkers and it rewarded giant hemis who just traded in for newer model and penalized people already thinking ahead. but of course obama didnt really care about what the citizens think. he already won the election.
          SNP
          • 3 Years Ago
          @george costanza
          it wasnt an election thing or penalize anyone thing. gas prices were sky high, auto sales were tanking and the average vehicle targeted by cash for clunkers was running in the high teens. Those were all replaced by vehicles in the mid 20's mpg. That's a huge improvement when you consider the number of vehicles affected in a one shot stimulus/getting off foreign oil argument.
      george costanza
      • 3 Years Ago
      one way to artificially stimulate the economy is ensure your engine of your $30000 automobile breaks down faster or as soon as you are done making payments. no more of this keeping cars running for 20 or 30 yrs bu!!**** which only helps consumers. ignorance is strength. war is peace. right wing hate big govt but arent even cognizant of this evil sh!t which slips under the US MSM non actual news radar.
        PR
        • 3 Years Ago
        @george costanza
        I now understand why you use the "george costanza" name to post under. Complete comical lunacy that only applies in a fictional world....
        carney373
        • 3 Years Ago
        @george costanza
        How appropriate that you chose as your nickname one of modern pop culture's most famous losers.
      Campisi86
      • 3 Years Ago
      I don't mind E15 being a choice, but the problem is that soon it won't be a voluntary choice anymore. My cars and motorcycles back in the States are mostly from the early Eighties or older (younger guy, "useless" degree, new economy, etc.), and despite "having the option" of avoiding ethanol-blended gasoline there is exactly ONE gas station within thirty miles of me that offers non-blended fuel (at both an absurdly-low octane rating and a substantially higher cost per gallon, on top of a mandatory co-op membership).
        PR
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Campisi86
        Camp-- Your early 1980's and older vehicles are spewing emissions at an order of magnitude higher than current vehicles. Even if you are getting great MPG, you are likely polluting more than everyone else on your block combined (assuming they aren't also driving old clunkers). It is not the "voluntary choice" of all the people around you to breath your pollution. You are forcing it on them. If there is only one station within 30 miles with straight gas, it is likely because your state has a smog problem, and the E10 has been proven to cut down the amount of smog that others are forced to breath. E10 replaced MTBE to reduce smog so that everyone around you isn't forced to have health problems because of your "voluntary choice" to drive around a bunch of old clunkers. Why do you feel so personally entitled to pollute so much more than the majority of the rest of the folks in the US?
          Julius
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          Oh, and BTW - from CARB's own materials: "There is a common misconception that MTBE is the primary reason for the reduced emissions from cleaner-burning gasoline. While MTBE does help gasoline burn more completely, other ARB requirements are more directly responsible for the reduced emissions. These requirements are explained in an accompanying fact sheet, "Cleaner-Burning Gasoline: An Update." Refiners typically use MTBE to help their gasoline meet these other requirements and to boost octane levels. ARB allows refiners to reduce or eliminate oxygenates in their gasoline as long as they can demonstrate, using ARB-approved procedures, that the "non-oxygenated" gasoline will not increase emissions. At least three refiners have routinely produced non-oxygenated cleaner-burning gasoline that meets all ARB requirements. This gasoline has mostly been sold in the San Francisco Bay Area where federal law does not prohibit the sale of non-oxygenated gasoline." http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/cbgmtbe.htm, paragraphs 4 and 5.
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          Julius All you have done is to confirm that either directly or indirectly that oxygenators added to gas helps refiners meet smog requirements for their standard fuels. The fact that specialized boutique fuels also meet that standard without oxygenators is the exception that proves the rule. This just shows that it would take specialized fuels to replace the current standard gas + oxygenator combination in order to cut smog. In other words, you've proven that refiner's standard gasoline (E0) causes more smog than boutique specialty fuels. And you've proven that (E0) causes more smog than E10. Because it either takes specialty fuels OR E10 to produce less smog than E10. The fact that there are different levels of impact for different cars does not support the claim that smog mitigation is "no longer needed in more modern oxygen-sensor equipped vehicles". That is a huge leap in logic. Less is not the same as none.
          Julius
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          @ PR: 1) the E10 replacement of MTBE was partly because of New York and California's complaint of MTBE leaking into groundwater. The fact that the switch was made (rather than just using E0) was the fact that the 1990 Clean Air Act standard requiring oxygen as 2% of weight of fuel that was still on the books - all the way up to 2006. To wit: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/16/nation/na-epa16 And from the DOE: "The use of E10 was spurred by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (and subsequent laws), which mandated the sale of oxygenated fuels in areas with unhealthy levels of carbon monoxide." http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/ethanol_blends.html Otherwise, I fail to see why CALIFORNIA would push to remove MTBE and ethanol from fuels. 2) The fact that E10 is still around is because of the corn lobby pushing for, in essence, subsidized crop production. Yes, it's a domestic fuel - but one that competes for food prices. The fact that it's being pushed as a "renewable fuel" has nothing to do with emissions - except for the fact that many studies are showing that corn-based ethanol is actually net carbon-producing. http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_07/article1.aspx And in any case, if Campisi was to buy a car that could handle E10, I'd think that he'd need to buy a post-'90s car, rather than a post-1985 car which would be much more expensive. Regardless, a well-cared-for 80's car has the potential to emit less than a poorly-cared-for 2000's; like anything, YMMV.
          Julius
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          @ PR: 1) I'm not sure who you're replying to - I'm not "V". 2) tonnage is tonnage. And the link describes EXACTLY what the nutritional value is. Besides, distiller's grains aren't grown independently of corn - it's corn that's been processed. So acreage is acreage, and the fact that approximately 18 pounds of distillers grains are created from 56 lbs (one bushel) of corn still means that there is a net reduction of corn available - and THAT information is from the ethanol lobby itself. http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/The_Facts_on_Food_and_Fuel-1.pdf In any case, I'm not sure how comparing metric ton to metric ton is not valid. Besides, it's not like distiller's grains are grown any differently - the grains' feedstock is still corn. and 3) I never mentioned anything about silo spoilage or fallow lands - just that the payments to farmers for not producing excess corn are being reduced. And in any case, I'd rather see ethanol production succeed - just from a non-food source (or other biofuel - e.g. algae biodiesel), but you seem to conveniently forget that and just downrate my posts.
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          Julius -- Nothing you provided supports your claim that oxygenator additives are "no longer needed in more modern oxygen-sensor equipped vehicles". Do you have any facts to support this or not? Because it is utterly false, as proven every day by lower smog levels reported in E10 mandated cities and states over when they did not mandate E10 sales. You are wrong about when cars were built to run with E10. In the 1980's, car manufacturers successfully lobbied for there to be a voluntary auto manufacturer's conversion of the US automotive fleet to be compatible with E10. Except for a very, very small numbers of vehicles, all of the cars sold in the US were voluntarily certified to E10. So while it wasn't until 1995 that all cars were required by law to be E10 certified, unless you buy an oddball specialty vehicle between 1995 and 1985, you are perfectly safe to run E10 in 1985+ vehicles. But even buying a 1995 vintage vehicle shouldn't be a problem for someone who admits to owning multiple 1980's cars, and multiple 1980's motorcycles. A 1995 car should cost much less to maintain too. The claim of poverty is false. --------- Your BS about ethanol competing with food is junk also. That is because there are two byproducts of producing ethanol. There is the ethanol itself, and Distiller's Grain. The Distiller's Grain is put right back into the food chain as cattle feed, just like the corn would have been used for in the first place. On a per-calorie basis, more than 3/4 of the crops are going right back into the food chain. On top of that, one of the main reasons for making ethanol in the first place was the massive OVER-supply of corn just rotting in storage because of the complete excess of corn, and the excess farm land that we pay farmers to keep fallow. There has actually been very little impact on overall consumer food prices due to making ethanol.
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          V - You have just re-repeated your same initial mistake. You've again quoted tonnage, where there is absolutely zero linkake between tonage and anything important. Like acres of land needed to create those tons, or the nutritional value, etc. This is just a re-hash of the USA Today link, but using a different source. You said earlier that the problem of waste grain rotting away in silos is getting better, and that paying for fallow land is less of a problem than before. Yes, ethanol has successfully helped address both ot these issues. Thanks for pointing that out. Would you have us drop ethanol production, and then be surprised when these issues came back with a vengance? Would you think that would be better?
          Julius
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          Oh, and one other point - even though distiller's grains have three times the amount of protein that corn does (but about half that of soybeans), it's not as "readily digestible" to pigs and poultry than cattle. And even with that, the USDA itself has noted that the "amount displaced" from distiller's grains vs. field grain is roughly 1:1.22 (1 metric ton distiller's grains replaces 1.22 metric tons of other grains - mainly corn and soybeans together), so I doubt we'd get down to that "10% displacement" level you mention - especially since most feeds cap distiller's grains at 30% of total feeds, because animals still need gross calories, not just protein. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FDS/2011/09Sep/FDS11I01/FDS11I01.pdf And besides, even at 10%, moving to 15% would still be significant, as we continue to have ever more mouths to feed worldwide. I consider this akin to the Medicare crisis we're having - it wasn't a problem when it started because we had more people paying into the system than getting out. With more demand on food grains, and a greater population looking for food - without a switch to cellulosic sources of ethanol, pushing for more use of food-sourced ethanol will only drive up food prices further.
          Julius
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          " All you have done is to confirm that either directly or indirectly that oxygenators added to gas helps refiners meet smog requirements for their standard fuels."... Whoa... this is a logical fallacy. The only reason those blends are "boutique fuels" is that they have a legal waiver to make them. Everyone else is mandated to add alcohol BY LAW. And CARB mentions that other refinement issues, such as volatility standards and sulfur content were the big changes that improved air quality, not just (or even mostly at this point) ethanol. If it were that simple to make clean gasoline by "just adding alcohol" without other refining improvements, I'd think that there would be no market for non-ethanol blends to exist (which seems to run counter to what CARB is saying. Now I'm not saying ethanol is not a long-term good idea, most notably if they can get cellulosic ethanol production to work commercially. What I am saying is that current ethanol mixtures have more to do with politics than science.
          Julius
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          @ PR: 1) the point of MTBE, and E10 following it, is to add an "oxygenator" to fuel - one that's no longer needed in more modern oxygen-sensor equipped vehicles. The only reason E15 is being pushed is it's a sop to domestic ethanol producers. 2) you might have a reading comprehension issue - note that Campisi86 said "younger guy, "useless" degree, new economy, etc." - which suggests that his choices are just as much economic as "green". So I wouldn't argue about what his purchase habits are, that is, unless you're willing to personally subsidize his purchase of a Prius...
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          Julius -- your first point is just completely and utterly false in every way. In fact, the E10 replacement of MTBE happened in the 2003-2009 time frame long AFTER the modern oxygen-sensor equipped cars became ubiquitous. You are just dead wrong on the facts. I absolutely read and comprehended Camp's post. He has made the choice to purchase and own multiple cars and multiple motorcycles built prior to the 1985 mandate that all vehicles be E10 compatible. He made this choice to spend his money on multiple pre-1985 vehicles in a region with a smog problem so bad that E10 is required to mitigate health problems from harming/killing other US citizens. Camp's claim of poverty to justify his purchase of multiple pre-1985 vehicles instead of post-1985 vehicles, and then complaining he can't buy E0 fuel simply doesn't hold water. Camp certainly could have afforded to buy one single post-1985 vehicle, or even multiple post-1985 vehicles for the similar amounts of money. And I outright reject any claim of poverty as an excuse in the context of owning multiple cars and motorcycles. Camp believes that since he made multiple and repeated poor choices over and over to buy multiple pre-1985 vehicles, that he somehow is standing on the moral high ground in demanding his right to choose E0 gas despite the direct health problems his choice would force upon others.
          Julius
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          From the EPA itself: "• Older technology vehicles (carbureted and oxidation catalysts) benefit more from the use of oxygenated fuel. The amount of pollutant emissions is smaller in newer technology vehicles (fuel injected and adaptive learning, closed loop three-way catalyst systems). Also, the percentage reductions in CO and hydrocarbon emissions from use of fuel oxygenates are found to be smaller in the newer technology vehicles compared to older technology and higher emitting vehicles." http://epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ostpexec.pdf, page iv. And according to this: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-02-09-corn-low_N.htm "At this year's level, 39% of U.S. field corn is used to produce the gasoline substitute. A third of that comes back into the food supply as distillers' grains, a by-product of ethanol production, which can be added to animal feed, bringing the total down to 24%." Therefore, a full quarter of production is used for ethanol, of which there is not enough to maintain the E15 standard, much less nationwide E10. And many of the original farming subsidies you mention are being phased out as redundant. And sure, even if Campisi's mid-80's cars can now handle E10 - they are not able to handle E15, which is part of his original contention. Then again, unless you are demanding that the Federal Government seize any vehicle made prior to 2001, then he has the right to drive what he wishes, so long as it meets the standards for when it was manufactured. And as for the "BS" that I'm mentioning, at least I'm adding references for my contentions.
          PR
          • 3 Years Ago
          @PR
          Julius -- The USAToday story makes the classic mistake of trying to calculate distiller's grain replacement of corn on a by-volume basis. This is a common mistake made by many because distiller's grain production is reported by producers like POET and Valero measured in tons. But 1 ton of distiller's grain does not equal 1 ton of corn feed in terms of nutrition. In fact, Distillers’ grains carry significantly more protein than corn—about 30 percent for the dried, processed product versus 8 or 9 percent for corn. This denser nutritional value for distiller's grain means cattle need to eat LESS by weight than if they ate feed corn. When calculated by nutritional density (what matters) instead of by just weight (which doesn't matter) then distiller's grain effectively displaces much more corn than the USAToday story would have you believe. It effectively pushes ethanol from 39% down to somewhere around 10% when calculated by the nutritional value distiller's grain displaces instead of just tonnage (although this isn't exactly that direct, because some of the distiller's grain displaces soy and other feed crops grown to feed cattle). The mistake of comparing feed corn to distiller's grain by weight is the same as eating 1 pound of chocolate cake one week, and 1 pound of lettuce another week. Then wondering why you gained weight the week you ate the cake and lost weight the week you ate lettuce, based on the logic that they both weighed 1 lb you should gain 1 lb each week... (that's a logical failure just in case you are wondering about replacing your lettuce intake with chocolate cake.) I've grown so tired of posting links to original source material on ABG ethanol blogs that I rarely bother re-posting after the first dozen times of the original source material being completely ignored. All the links are here in the archives if you want to search for my posts.
      Smoking_dude
      • 3 Years Ago
      In Germany we have the same rabbling about E10. E10 is available in the states for 40 years. In 1925 there was a Reichskraftsprit introduced containing 25% Ethanol. Today ppl whine and complain about 10%. E10 is lame I used E30 to E85 pure in several cars. none broke down, no car failed. In contrary the engines ran quiter and much smoother on the evil ethanol.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Smoking_dude
        OK, you also have different emissions equipment than we do. It is the expensive emissions equipment in our cars here in the USA that could actually end up being the problem. You can't be for sure that our cars will react the same. I've seen how German automakers kludge on emissions equipment for the USA market because i've worked on German cars quite a bit. I wonder how your emissions equipment compares to ours.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X