E15 will replace E10! EPA deadline for comments =5/21/2009. - Page 7 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > The Pub > General Discussion (Off-Topic)
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-03-2009, 06:51 PM   #61
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Either that, or they're just ignoring vehicles over 20 years old, figuring that people may either ruin the fuel systems & junk them, or spend the cash to convert them to run on higher concentrations of alcohol.
__________________

__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 08:49 AM   #62
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1
Country: United States
Ethanol is controversial, but only "facts" will resolve debates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dkjones96 View Post
DURABILITY OF VARIOUS PLASTICS: ALCOHOLS VS. GASOLINE (condensed)
Isn't water absorption a good thing? If I got water into my tank I would pour alcohol in there to absorb the water so it can pass through the fuel system instead of clogging stuff up. It's not like it absorbs water and then tosses it to the bottom of your tank to pool up.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion, get your facts straight before coming to an inaccurate conclusion:
1. Ethanol (alcohol) is a strong "solvent" and "cleanser"- While newer engines (should) have parts resistant to high alcohol, older engines do not. (Compare materials used in a FFV that runs on E85 to a 1970-something conventional Ford engine.
In the same respect, compare materials used for an E85 gas pump, to a conventional E10 or non-ethanol pump.
2. Ethanol is an "octane enhancer" - When gas "phase-separates", the ethanol molecularly joins with the water and octane-enhancing ethanol also drops to the bottom of the tank.
Since the octane of pure ethanol is about 113-115, the fuel your engine is now running on, in the upper petroleum layer withOUT ethanol, is now octane deficient.

Octane reading drops about 2-4 points after phase separation of E10 gasoline. E.G. 87 octane fuel will become about 84 octane, which can damage engine.
When Non-alcohol fuel absorbs water the octane reading only drops slightly, if at all.
Only 2-3 teaspoons of water per gallon gas will phase separate E10 fuel. Condensation/humidity during storage is enough to "phase separate" E10/E15.
Ethanol can absorb 40-50x it's weight in water.
NON-ALCOHOL gas does not have these risks.

Go purchase an FFV (runs on E85 -85% ethanol) if you want to support ethanol as a fuel replacement.
The PS/WC problems are insignificant since E85 only contains 15% oil.
Oil and water do NOT mix, primary alcohols such as ethanol are miscible (attract and absorb water)...Simple science.
Plus,
- Food debates are a waste of time - Since technology/science is here to make ethanol out of cellulose, grass, garbage, and other non-food sources, etc.
- "Government subsidizing ethanol" arguments are valid - Any product that REQUIRES taxpayer government funding to survive, is sure to fail (long term) in an American capitalistic free society, and will encourage greed and corruption.
- The MPG drop can not be reasonably discussed without comparing exact engine to engine. Drop is minimal (below 3%) in a well-tuned, fuel injected, small fuel-efficient engine with a computerized fuel emissions system.
An older large carbureted engine may notice a mpg drop as high as 20%.

Studies I've reviewed that include ALL engine types, support we USE MORE PETROLEUM since widespread switchover to E10 -
There's more older gas guzzling engines on the road, waterways, in your garage and lawn (etc.) than newer fuel efficient small engines that can easily adapt to the higher oxygen content of ethanol blends.

(sarcasm) Maybe our government should use the billions of dollars spent subsidizing ethanol over the past 2 decades, to buy us all new fuel-efficient cars and engines so E10 will truly decrease our petroleum consumption?
In the meantime I can think of better ways to spend our taxes.

Reality: Until ALL engine manufacturers approve of 15% increase (not likely) be prepared to pay out-of-pocket if higher 15% blend damages your engine. NOT A SINGLE CONVENTIONAL ENGINE MANUFACTURER APPROVES OF USE OF E15 GASOLINE- UP TO 10% (E10) HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE LEGAL MAX.
-----------------------
If you want me to continue discussion here, please first get your facts straight:
Here's some good informative links to start with:
1. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ostp-3.pdf (ethanol fuel efficiency)
2. Clean Cities Ethanol Fact Sheet
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/43835.pdf
"How FFV's are different", "Ethanol reduces mpg", etc.
3. http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/e10Tips.pdf (dangers of ethanol in marine engines)
4. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...SS01/706030325 (pollution caused by ethanol plants)
5. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/warranty/ (manufacturer ethanol warranty statements, includes warnings and damage caused by ethanol blends).
6. Dangers of alcohol/ethanol oxygenates in classic cars:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pd...lassic_car.pdf
7. Discussion on ethanol "mandates and quotas":
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4308
8. Retail station management issues (problems) with ethanol:
http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/new-fuel/files/UST-prep.pdf
9. Just for fun...
"Rod Blagojevich" is the current chairperson of "Governor's Ethanol Coalition" organization, which was "created in 1991 to promote the increased use of ethanol".
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/aboutus/histry.htm

Above info and much more is included on our website(s):
Index/directory is here: http://www.fueltestkit.com/directory.html
or http://www.fuel-testers.com/

My conclusion that E15 must be opposed is based on many years of independent research and factual data. I strongly support replacing petroleum with any alternative fuel type - but E10 and E15 has become a political, profit-driven scam in recent years.
America needs to re-focus to get energy-efficient alternative fuel vehicles on the roads ASAP! (To succeed they must be cost-effective, protect the environment, reduce foreign oil dependency, etc.).

Solar, wind, hydropwer, electric, hybrids and so many alternative engine types, show much more promise for the long term, compared to ethanol.
__________________

Fueltesters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 09:36 AM   #63
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Since you seem to be interested in logic instead of rhetoric, there's a couple things to consider...

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't feel strongly about the issue. I just want to examine the logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fueltesters View Post
the ethanol molecularly joins with the water and octane-enhancing ethanol also drops to the bottom of the tank.
[B]Since the octane of pure ethanol is about 113-115, the fuel your engine is now running on, in the upper petroleum layer withOUT ethanol, is now octane deficient.
Since when were fuel pickups at the top of the tank? Anyway, it's not a problem with E10 now, and I doubt there's ever enough water to monopolize all (or even most) of the ethanol. Adding more ethanol would merely ensure that there's always ethanol mixed with the gasoline that the engine is drinking.

Anyway, I'd rather have it burn low-octane fuel than pure water not bonded to ethanol, which it would do if water got in and acted as you describe. As you said: "Oil and water do NOT mix"

Quote:
- Food debates are a waste of time [...]
- "Government subsidizing ethanol" arguments are valid [...]
- The MPG drop can not be reasonably discussed without comparing exact engine to engine.[...]
Agreed. Good points.

Quote:
Studies I've reviewed that include ALL engine types, support we USE MORE PETROLEUM since widespread switchover to E10 -
There's more older gas guzzling engines on the road, waterways, in your garage and lawn (etc.) than newer fuel efficient small engines that can easily adapt to the higher oxygen content of ethanol blends.
The correlation is right, but your reasoning is wrong. Except possibly for carbureted engines which may use 20% more E10 than straight gas if your numbers are correct, adding 10% ethanol cannot cause it to burn more gasoline. At worst, the 10% ethanol does nothing and it burns the same amount of gasoline while the ethanol is just taking up space.

The reasons we're using more petroleum include but are not limited to:
  • More miles driven per person
  • More people driving
  • Higher average speeds (due to higher speed limits and more capable cars)
  • Newer cars are far less efficient than cars were when E10 was uncommon. They're far larger, far heavier, far more powerful, and some fuel economy is probably sacrificed for lower emissions.

Quote:
(sarcasm) Maybe our government should use the billions of dollars spent subsidizing ethanol over the past 2 decades, to buy us all new fuel-efficient cars and engines so E10 will truly decrease our petroleum consumption?
They'd have to convince manufacturers to build them, first...then you'd have to convince the public to drive them, which could be tough to do even for a free car.

Quote:
America needs to re-focus to get energy-efficient alternative fuel vehicles on the roads ASAP! (To succeed they must be cost-effective, protect the environment, reduce foreign oil dependency, etc.).
Actually, to succeed, they'd have to exceed merely "cost-effective", but more importantly you'd have to find a way to convince people to drive them. A few kooks like me driving them wouldn't make a difference.

Quote:
Solar, wind, hydropwer, electric, hybrids and so many alternative engine types, show much more promise for the long term, compared to ethanol.
Wind? Hydro? Are you talking about electric cars with those?
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 09:42 AM   #64
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
Deleted.
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 01:01 PM   #65
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
"NOT A SINGLE CONVENTIONAL ENGINE MANUFACTURER APPROVES OF USE OF E15 GASOLINE- UP TO 10% (E10) HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE LEGAL MAX."

Could that be cuz they weren't ASKED to approve anything but E10???
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 01:08 PM   #66
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1
Country: United States
R there any benefits to approving E15? If not, object to EPA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
(Condensed) Since you seem to be interested in logic instead of rhetoric, there's a couple things to consider...

1. Since when were fuel pickups at the top of the tank?

2. Actually, to succeed, they'd have to exceed merely "cost-effective", but more importantly you'd have to find a way to convince people to drive them. A few kooks like me driving them wouldn't make a difference.

3. Wind? Hydro? Are you talking about electric cars with those?
REPLY:
1. Sort of irrelevant -Most engines fuel pick-up is near bottom of tank. After phase separation bottom of tank contains only water & ethanol (no oil) - Few (conventional) engines will start, run or accelerate on only water and alcohol.
But if pick-up is still coming from upper, octane-deficient petroleum/oil layer, this now sub-octane fuel can cause damage (e.g. pistons).
Again, E85 makes more sense than E10 or E15, if you wish to support subsidized ethanol.

2. I am also a "kook" who is distraught by the high number of (gaz-guzzling) pick-up trucks here in GA, that are not used for business or carrying anything...Why don't they drive a small fuel-efficient auto instead? Maybe they don't care about America's future, or maybe they simply don't know the facts on our oil crisis/dependency.

Money talks, so POSSIBLY an added tax on non-fuel efficient vehicles would help or instead a refund/credit when you buy the most efficent (alternative fuel) vehicles? California did and it helped, and I believe Obama is considering this ($7000 credit for autos) right now.

I recycle everything, and avoid purchase of products packaged in plastic (also made from petroleum), ride my bike whenever possible...Keep my thermostat above 82 in summer and below 67 in winter, eat mostly natural un-packaged food...etc. etc.
No I'm not your "typical American consumer".

But what disturbs me the most is your average consumer's lack of basic knowledge on America's energy dependence (crisis). Oil comprises 10% of our GNP.
We've been talking about it since the 1970's, and instead of becoming less dependent, we've gone from 10 to 70% dependency on foreign oil imports.

I believed after 9/11, not a single penny should have been sent to Iraq/Iran (for gasoline). Obviously our past-President Bush did not agree with my views.
8 years went by and our petroleum dependency has only got worse.
So much for the subsidized E85 pumps and FFV's helping. Many Americans still don't even know what an "FFV" is!

VIEW Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government (current petroleum imports): http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html
Excerpts:
"three countries exported over 1.00 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States...Saudi Arabia (1.099 million barrels per day), Venezuela (0.960 million barrels per day)...Iraq (0.554 million barrels per day),..." etc.

Americans were disturbed that President Obama "shook hands" with Venuezula's leader Hugo Chavez, but how come they don't seem to mind purchasing almost a million barrels of oil/day from this country? Very discouraging.

3. Becoming "Energy Independent" is far greater than the vehicles we drive.
Anything that can replace petroleum, should be considered. No source of energy is perfect, but it sure beats imported petroleum-based energy that pollutes our environment, and-
threatens our national security and domestic financial stability.

Did I mention the amount of oil that is necessary to distill and transport ethanol? Certainly important when you try to determine how ethanol "might" decrease our oil dependency. Or how about the amount of pollution created during the process of making and getting ethanol to the gas pump? (Again, E10/15 makes no sense).

In the meantime, approving increase of E10 to E15 is like putting a cheap bandaid on a deeply infected cut. ...Very discouraging.

Somebody will profit from subsidized E15, and it won't be your average consumer or America. - The extra (un-approved) 15% ethanol will likely damage or decrease useful life of engines, decrease mpg & increase gas costs, cause increased occurence of (water) contaminated fuel, and will do little to nothing to decrease our petroleum consumption and pollution.

I still have confidence in the strength of America, all I am trying to do is make consumers aware of what's going on so they are better able to take action, for positive change.

Few Americans are even aware that this E15 waiver was submitted on 4/21/09, and the EPA only allotted 30 days for public objection.
Same thing happened when E10 waiver was submitted (around 1978- few knew, opposed or suggested restrictions). But everyday I listen to customers complain about e10.

After E15 is approved, we'll spend years talking about damage it causes engines not made to withstand this higher alcohol blend -
Ethanol is not new, it's been used as a fuel for over 100 years, (Ford Model T)but ethanol promoters want us to NOW completely ignore the damage/inconvenience that may occur when used in conventional engines.

The irony of all this E15 discussion is my company certainly will sell more alcohol fuel test kits (profit) after E15 is approved. (Several states still do not require pump labeling, when ethanol is added).

ACE and the ethanol producers are not looking out for the best interests of America. Their E85 plan failed over past decade, now they're just looking for lame ways to make their businesses survive and profitable, (sell more ethanol) at the expense of all consumers.
Support farmers by purchasing real foods, ethanol has not really helped them that much anyway, and certainly won't if we switch to cellulosic ethanol.

Florida is now importing ethanol from S. America- So much for my past (benefit) that domestically produced ethanol benefits the U.S.
Now we're foolishly importing ethanol too!

Ethanol has become a complete scam, probably more due to greed than anything else.
Ethanol can safely power engines - But our government has done little to protect/educate consumers on this type of fuel.

- - Deadline to oppose E15 increase is 5/21/09. - -

More suggested reading, not major but interesting:
- Florida's 1st to build an underground ethanol pipeline:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/20...egins-service/
- Exxon, Chevron Face Ethanol Class Action Lawsuit:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/st...4788002&EDATE=
Fueltesters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 01:30 PM   #67
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Although 70% of our oil is imported, only 35% is from OPEC countries such as the ones you named.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...im0_mbbl_a.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...adc_mbbl_a.htm
2007 Total crude oil: 5,518,611 barrels
2007 US domestic produced oil: 1,862,441 barrels (~33.7% of total)
2007 Imported oil:3,656,170 barrels (~66% of total)
- OPEC - 1,968,765 barrels (~35.6% of total, ~54% of import)
- Non-OPEC - 1,687,405 barrels (~30.5% of total, ~46% of import)
-- Canada - 680,533 barrels (~12.3% of total, ~18.6% of import)
-- Mexico - 514,480 barrels (~9.3% of total, ~14% of import)
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 01:41 PM   #68
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fueltesters View Post
Americans were disturbed that President Obama "shook hands" with Venuezula's leader Hugo Chavez, but how come they don't seem to mind purchasing almost a million barrels of oil/day from this country? Very discouraging.
Exactly the reason I do not purchase fuel from 7-11/Citgo anymore.

-Jay
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 02:14 PM   #69
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
I don't agree at all that Ethanol decreases engine life. Have you seen what an engine looks like that has been running E85? It's amazing how clean they run.
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 03:51 PM   #70
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
No reason I'm aware for ethanol to damage an engine.
__________________

__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
YAY! The fit is here! Matt Timion General Discussion (Off-Topic) 45 10-21-2006 02:43 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.