E15 will replace E10! EPA deadline for comments =5/21/2009. - 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 04-25-2009, 01:14 PM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1
Country: United States
E15 will replace E10! EPA deadline for comments =5/21/2009.

This month, on April 21st, 2009, ACE, Growth Energy and 54 ethanol producers submitted a formal waiver application to the EPA, to get approval to increase E10 to E15. If approved, gas will contain 5% more ethanol.

EPA deadline for public comments is May 21st 2009, less than 1 month away.

Increasing E10 to E15 makes no sense and will be costly for all consumers.
- Not a single conventional engine manufacturer approves of use of gas with 15% ethanol. Legal max is up to 10%...
- High levels of alcohol damages engine parts and increases risk of water absorption...
- Ethanol blends have lower energy and reduce mpg...
And many more reasons why we must stop EPA approval of E15.

If you oppose E15, we strongly advise all concerned citizens to review and respond to the EPA, as soon as possible.
E10 was approved by the EPA without restrictions, because no opposition was submitted - Do not let this happen again!

More E15 waiver information and discussion (including EPA contacts):
http://www.fueltestkit.com/petition_e15.html
http://www.fueltestkit.com/epa_publi...15_042109.html

Notices are on EPA's website and in the Federal Register. Page URL keeps changing (reason we placed copy of official notice on our website). When I last checked EPA had it here: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/...y-21/a9115.htm
__________________

Fueltesters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 07:56 AM   #2
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fueltesters View Post
- High levels of alcohol damages engine parts and increases risk of water absorption.
DURABILITY OF VARIOUS PLASTICS: ALCOHOLS VS. GASOLINE

.................................................. ..........Ethanol........Methanol........Gasoline
Conventional Polyethylene...................good...........exce llent...........poor
High-density Polyethylene..................excellent.......exce llent...........good
Teflon............................................ ......excellent.......excellent........excellent
Tefzel............................................ ......excellent........excellent.......excellent
Polypropylene..................................... ..good............excellent...........fair
Polymethylpentene...............................go od............excellent...........fair
Polycarbonate..................................... ..good.................fair...............fair
Polyvinyl Chloride..................................good.... .............fair..............poor
Excellent: Will tolerate years of exposure.
Good: No damage after 30 days of exposure, should tolerate several years of exposure.
Fair: Some signs of deterioration after one week of exposure.
Poor: Deteriorates readily.
NOTE: All tests were made with liquids at 122 deg F.

Additionally, it was mandated many years ago that the rubber used in fuel systems can take up to 50% alcohol in the fuel.

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.
__________________

__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 08:47 AM   #3
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
I just can't wrap my head around this being all bad.

Yeah, it might reduce mpg more than just E10 does but that's just a number. When all is said and done Ethanol in an engine is carbon neutral(or close depending on the process used), unlike gasoline.

The USA burns 380,000,000 gallons of gasoline per day. If we take 5% of that we've replaced 19,000,000 gallons of gasoline with ethanol. Lets say everyone's mileage drops 2.5% from the extra ethanol and you've got 7.5 million gallons of gasoline that people aren't burning anymore. Why is that a bad thing?
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 10:51 AM   #4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,461
Country: United States
Location: north east PA
Water absorption itself isn't bad, but ethanol is very hygroscopic. It sucks moisture out of the air until it is around 95% pure. That water displaces some of the gasoline and ethanol your buying at the pump. It's the reason why ethanol has a wide measured range of energy content.

I think ethanol may not be pumped through our existing pipelines is do to the water. Just because it's everywhere, doesn't mean it's benign.
trollbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 11:14 AM   #5
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkjones96 View Post
I just can't wrap my head around this being all bad.

Yeah, it might reduce mpg more than just E10 does but that's just a number. When all is said and done Ethanol in an engine is carbon neutral(or close depending on the process used), unlike gasoline.
You're assuming that others share your priorities and motivations. Many people don't care about carbon neutrality or environmental impact. Then there's people whose math on ethanol differs from yours, people with political agendas (who does which money support), etc...

Environmentalism isn't a large concern for me. My main concern is saving money. My next priority is continuing to drive classic-style (internal combustion reciprocating piston engine) cars for as much of my life as possible. If oil really is limited, then it means conserving oil for sure; it also means encouraging development of alternative fuels like ethanol. So, for me, ethanol is a good thing.

Others are interested only in the amount of HP or FE they can get from their current equipment, and for most of what's on the road, gasoline delivers that better than ethanol.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 04:20 PM   #6
|V3|2D
 
thisisntjared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,186
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to thisisntjared
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkjones96 View Post
Why is that a bad thing?
the harvesting of ethanol has a long way to go.

when using ethanol no longer interfers with food markets (and i get bigger injectors and a tune for it) then i will be ok with the use of ethanol. why arent we being given an unsubsidized choice??
__________________
don't waste your time or time will waste you
thisisntjared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 04:28 PM   #7
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
I like ethanol.

My non-flex fuel vehicles run on it, or blends of it and regular, depending on outside temps.

Saves money, displaces petrol use.

Food? I don't know about you but the stores and restaurants here are packed with food.
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 08:50 PM   #8
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by theclencher View Post
I like ethanol.

My non-flex fuel vehicles run on it, or blends of it and regular, depending on outside temps.

Saves money, displaces petrol use.

Food? I don't know about you but the stores and restaurants here are packed with food.
lol agreed.

that and the corn you see along the road is very very unlikely its for people consumption.

if you wanna go eat field corn be my guest
VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 09:58 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Yeah, and going from E10 to E15- big whoop, what's it to ya fueltester? You have a horse in this race?
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 10:29 PM   #10
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
I think this is all a bunch of BS. Ok, I understand we need to use less fuel, so we add something to the fuel that makes mileage go down, and we therefore use more? So, knowing that we need to increase the amount of the stuff that reduces our fuel economy. Instead of adding stuff that decreases mileage, how about putting some funding into stuff to add to the fuel that will increase mileage? Doubtful that will happen since the Gov't makes $ on every gallon of fuel sold. If you modified the fuel to deliver better mileage then less fuel would be sold, and less tax revenue would be made.
__________________

__________________






Jay2TheRescue 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 06:03 AM.


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