There is a supply glut of ethanol right now, so ADM corp. has asked the EPA to allow 12% ethanol in gas now while it is still studying the 15% proposal. There are worries that higher blends will damage older vehicles. Like my older vehicles, maybe?

That's because you're behind the times, Joe. You need to go and buy a C6 so you won't have to worry about that extra 2%....

Matthew

It's doing a number on my boat and every other boat that puts that shit in it. Not enough regular gas stations around to fill the boat. Closest one I know is about 40 miles from me. Sucks........

Our government may look at it as, hey, it's even better (worse) than "cash for clunkers".

Yeah, because it'll kill the older cars. The "up to 10%" ethanol is already causing problems.

My 1999 bike is a victim. It turns rubber parts into petrified turds.

This just makes me want to move somewhere with E85 pumps and convert my car over. Better than worrying about all the crap its going to do to my car with E10 much less E15

plus MORE POWA

Side note

Can the ZR1 (2009-2010) run on E85?

Quote:

We have plenty of E85 here, but you really don't want to live here. Oh sure, we have some really nice days, but those are just to sucker in unsuspecting tourists.

Quote:

No way in hell can i live where there is snow on the ground 6 months a year

I just need to get out of my town that is stuck in the 1980s
I still may convert my car over when it comes time for some more power and im out of this time warp

The folowing statements taken from
PDF] Delaware's good nature depends on you!
349k - Adobe PDF - View as html
new fuel of fuel additive will not cause or contribute to engines, vehicles, or ... ethanol concentration such as E10, E12 or E15 becomes the "base" fuel it ...
regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?...

_________________________________________________

Issues With Automobiles
In June 2009, at least a dozen gas stations in the Hampton Roads, Virginia area received deliveries of gasoline that contained higher-than-allowed amounts of ethanol. Field testing conducted by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services revealed ethanol levels from 16% to 50% at some of the stations, and levels may have been higher, because the field test kits will only register levels as high as 50%. Within a few days, 532 consumer complaints were received. Engines on most cars today are equipped to handle fuel that is no more than 10% ethanol. Vehicles sensitive to high ethanol levels can experience performance issues, might see decreased fuel efficiency, and run hotter. Excessive amounts of the fuel can also trip sensors in vehicles that trigger the “check engine” light. The interference of higher amounts of ethanol with the on-board diagnostics should, by itself, be sufficient to justify denial of the waiver request. Ethanol levels exceeding 10% can harm fuel lines, spilling small amounts of fuel into the engines and potentially decreasing engine life. Fuel pump problems are frequent with higher ethanol levels.
In early 2009, Lexus issued a massive recall of 2006-2008 models. According to the recall notice, the problem is that “Ethanol fuels with low moisture content will corrode the internal surface of the fuel rails,” meaning that pinpoint leaks appear in the fuel system, causing a fire hazard. In cases where engines are damaged by elevated levels of ethanol, the factory warranty no longer applies.
According to Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the 11 Alliance members are very concerned that mid-level blends could “severely damage millions of vehicles on the road designed only to operate on blends of up to 10% ethanol. We believe additional testing is necessary before a decision is made by EPA. Even adding small amounts of ethanol to the blend could do exponential damage to a majority of vehicles on the road.”
EPA has stated that long-term exhaust emissions testing of vehicles is essential to ensure that the full useful life of the vehicle or equipment would not be adversely affected by E15. Growth Energy asserts that long-term testing is not necessary for approval of the waiver. Both car and equipment manufacturers are concerned with these effects and almost all owners manuals for non-flex fuel vehicles specifically state that the use of ethanol-blended gasoline over 10% may result in a denial of warranty claims.
Reports vary on the degree to which ethanol blends will cause corrosion of fuel system components. However, tests using ethanol concentrations up to 20% have shown a notable increase in wear on fuel systems in vehicles produced up to and including model year 1995. Deterioration of such systems in vehicles built prior to 1990 has shown a greater rate of damage. Fuel pumps, tanks, seals, hoses and other rubber components are particularly subject to failures. Fuels must be readily available to supply these legacy vehicles.
Growth Energy’s Waiver application states that Ford Motor Company signed a letter supporting introduction of higher ethanol blends. It mentions Ford’s endorsement of blends up to E15. The February 2009 letter from Susan Cischke of Ford to Jeff Broin of Poet states that “Ford endorses efforts to increase base-level blends up to E15 and collaborate with key stakeholders to overcome challenges with introducing these higher levels of ethanol in the base fuel blend used by all vehicles in the near term.” (Emphasis added). Ford spokesperson Jennifer Moore said that it is not true that Ford approves the use of E15 in its vehicles. She said Ford favored the use of biofuels but still had concerns about E15 because not enough research had been done. “Ford endorses efforts to increase base-level blends up to 15%. By that, Ford means that it favors research.” Since the Waiver Request was submitted to EPA, there has been no rush by automakers to announce that they would extend vehicle warranties to cover 15% ethanol or higher.
Most U.S. and foreign-made cars driven in the U.S. today are warranted for gasoline containing no more than 10% ethanol. Older vehicles would be more susceptible to damage from the higher ethanol levels. E.P.A. is considering the possibility of issuing a split or partial waiver for legacy vehicles built after a certain year (which still wouldn’t be warranted for higher level blends). E.P.A. needs to consider the willingness of station owners to spend tens of thousands of dollars to install extra storage tanks to deal with differing levels of ethanol content, or the large expense of reconfiguring a station to blend differing percentages of ethanol. If a split waiver was granted, all retail facilities would require extensive, expensive modifications to handle distribution of both E10 and E15, and there is no dispensing equipment certified for E15. Certification of equipment and installation of new equipment to handle E15 could take years. Does EPA even have the authority to suggested, “the possibility that a waiver might be granted, in a conditional or partial manner.”? A partial waiver has not been requested.
EPA recently told the Petroleum Transportation and Storage Industry (PTSA) that it is concerned about an increase in the marketing of ethanol blends with concentrations of between 10 and 85% at retail stations. EPA enforcement officials are seeing E-20, E-30 and E-40 blends being marketed without restriction on which vehicles may fuel with the blends. The EPA is warning marketers that they must take steps to ensure that conventional fueled vehicles are not using ethanol concentrations above 10%, and that any dealer who “knowingly” allows the ethanol blends greater than 10% in conventional vehicles is subject to maximum fines of $32,000 per day per occurrence. Similar problems will occur if the allowable ethanol percentage is raised for certain vehicles.
EPA is currently having trouble enforcing which blends people are using to fueling their engines in areas where higher concentrations are available. It isn’t clean how EPA could manage to ensure that gasoline containing no more than 10% ethanol would be available for those who need it unless they mandate that it is available at all retail gasoline stations.
In the waiver notice, EPA states that “Any approval, either fully or partially, is likely to elicit a market response to add E15 blends to E10 and E0 blends in the marketplace, rather than replace them. Thus consumers would merely have an additional choice of fuels.” In the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for changes to the Renewable Fuels Standard, EPA has different thoughts as to what would happen. “In addition, from an ethanol consumption standpoint, we have focused on an E10/E85 world. While E0 is capable of co-existing with E10 and E85 for a while, we assumed that E10 would replace E0 as expeditiously as possible and that all subsequent ethanol growth would come from E85.” EPA further predicts that E10 would be available only as premium, providing a further economic incentive to misfuel.
In the first case, retailers would need storage capability for E0, E10, E15, and E85 – not very likely. In the second case, it would seem that I would have a choice of fueling my car with premium E10, which it doesn’t need and is way too expensive, or with E85, which might kill it.
In addition, offering multiple percentages of ethanol at a station invites confusion and mis-fueling, whether intentional or unintentional. The consumer might choose to fuel with whichever blend is cheapest, not considering compatibility. That works in Brazil, with large numbers of flex-fuel vehicles on the road. The consumer can choose from 100% gasoline to 100% ethanol – whatever is the most economical.
Issues With Boats and Airplanes
Numerous lawsuits have been filed by boat owners, stemming from the fact that ethanol broke down the resins in fiberglass tanks, destroying marine engines. A 2006 article in Boat U.S. magazine warns of dissolving fiberglass gas tanks, ruined carburetors and intake valves, and the threat of engine failure while miles out at sea. According to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, testing has not yet shown that the higher levels of ethanol are acceptable and safe. Mercury Marine and Evinrude engine makers are also uneasy. In an “Update for Boat Owners,” published by the Renewable Fuels Association, a warning is given on the use of ethanol-blended fuels in older boats. “In rare instances, older marine and two-stroke outboard engines and fuel systems have proven incompatible with ethanol-blended fuels, resulting in catastrophic failures. Of special concern are older, in-hull fiberglass tanks. The polyester resins used in the fiberglass of older watercraft (generally prior to 1991) may not be compatible with ethanol blends. Gasoline-ethanol blends should not be used in these older watercraft tanks: state regulating agencies may have fuel composition information available for your area.”
In Delaware, a large number of complaints were made by boat owners after the introduction of E10, with the fuel damaging fuel tanks, carburetors, and fuel lines. There is no E0
availability in the state. Has the E10 caused as much damage to boats as is going to happen, or will the problems grow worse with E15?
Aircraft engines are capable of using conventional non-ethanol gasoline or 100LL aviation gasoline which contains four times the amount of lead that automotive gasoline used to contain. The presence of any ethanol makes it unsuitable for a number of reasons: Ethanol can clean out deposits within the fuel system causing fuel system problems all the way to the carburetor or injector; Long term use causes corrosion of metal parts within the fuel system; Hoses, gaskets, fuel tanks, and o-rings in airplanes are damaged by ethanol; Range is reduced with 10% ethanol by between 10-15%; Vapor lock becomes more likely with ethanol because it raises vapor pressure; Water can be absorbed into the fuel tanks in humid environments at a rate so swift as to cause a rough running engine or engine failure within a few hours flying time; Allowing fuel with ethanol to sit in an airplane for as little as 30 days can result in fuel system and carburetor damage.
Correcting any of these issues in order to allow the use of ethanol in airplanes is next to impossible because modifications cannot simply be “made” to a precertified airplane. The FAA must approve any change made to an aircraft fuel system.
Issues With Small Engines
According to the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, “We need to acknowledge that current equipment, including boats, chainsaws, lawn movers, snow mobiles, motorcycles, generators, and other small engine equipment – may be permanently damaged and poses a safety risk if E15 fuel is used. Current equipment is neither designed, built, nor warranted for mid-level blends.” DOE testing indicated: Engine exhaust temperatures rose to an extent that may cause premature engine and equipment failure; Safety hazards dramatically increased due to unintended clutch engagement caused by high idle speeds; Products were damaged to the point they could no longer operate; and Numerous adverse operational issues arose – such as erratic engine and equipment operation, stalling of engines, and dramatic power reductions.
The DOE study shows that of the 28 engines tested, all 28 had some significant problems with higher ethanol blends that the engines were not designed to operate on.
Briggs and Stratton warns that “Ethanol-blended gasoline can attract moisture, which leads to separation and formation of acids during storage. Acidic gasoline can damage the fuel system of an engine while in storage. B&S strongly recommends removing ethanol-blended fuels from engine during storage.” Briggs and Stratton spokeswoman Laura Timms said “As of now, we are finding lots of issues.” Small engines lack sophisticated fuel systems that can compensate for higher amounts of ethanol. As a result, the small engines can overheat, malfunction, and be permanently damaged when burning ethanol blends greater than 10%, and the damage would not be covered by many warranties.
The International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association warns that there has been insufficient testing of higher concentrations of ethanol in gasoline, and that higher concentrations pose serious problems regarding: Overall performance; Drivability; Starting; Possible gasket leaks; Probable increased emissions; and Damage to engine parts.
Issues With Ethanol Fires/ Firefighting
The Ethanol Emergency Response Coalition (EERC) recently concluded testing on various foam agents against ethanol fires to determine which foam type were most effective in extinguishing and maintaining vapor suppression. Alcohol-resistant, aqueous film-forming foam (AR-AFFF) was the only foam agent that successfully passed all the tests against both 95% ethanol solutions and 10% ethanol solutions blended with gasoline. Specialized training is necessary in how to use the foam effectively.
Many fire departments around the country don’t have the foam, don’t have enough of it, or are not well-trained in how to apply it. It is also more expensive than conventional foam. Wrecks involving ordinary cars and trucks are not a major concern, because a large amount of conventional foam is sufficiently effective to extinguish a fire with modest amounts of fuel.
The real danger involves the many tanker trucks and railcars that are carrying 85-95% ethanol. In June 2009, a 114 railcar train, 74 carrying ethanol, derailed on the edge of Rockford, Illinois. One person was killed, several were injured, and hundreds of area residents were evacuated from nearby homes. Fourteen rail cars burned after the derailment. Five cars were still burning the next day. Allowing the fire to burn itself out was thought to lessen the impact on the nearby creek. The Illinois EPA says up to 75,000 gallons leaked into the ground and a nearby creek. A large fish kill, extending up to 50 miles
downstream, was identified by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and is believed to be related to the ethanol spill.
In June 2009, a tanker truck in Long Beach, California, hauling 8000 gallons of ethanol crashed and exploded, killed the driver, and sent a river of flames into storm drains.
On May 14, 2007, a tanker carrying 8,000 gallons of ethanol overturned and burst into flames
on an interstate in Baltimore, Maryland, killing the driver and sending a burning stream of
ethanol into the street below, igniting a row of parked vehicles.
On October 21, 2006, an eighty-six-car train carrying ethanol derailed in New Brighton,
Pennsylvania, sending some of the tank cars into a river while others burst into flames.
Since much of fuel ethanol is transported by train, accidental releases of large amounts of ethanol could occur wherever these trains are routed. It is extremely difficult to have sufficiently large quantities of the specialized firefighting foam available in close proximity to wherever a train derailment is possible. If trained personnel and the proper firefighting foam are not available near these types of large ethanol spills, many of the resulting fires will just be allowed to burn themselves out, resulting in damage to soil and groundwater supplies.
Storage Tank Issues and Compatibility
Both Federal and State regulations state that the underground storage tank system must be made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the substance stored, and that the tanks and pipes must be properly designed and constructed in accordance with a code of practice developed by a nationally recognized association or independent testing laboratory (e.g. Underwriters Laboratories, ASTM, NACE). In addition, owners and operators must install, operate, and maintain all equipment such that manufacturer’s warranties are not voided. As yet, there is no E15 certified dispensing equipment.
A July 2009 GAO report, based on testimony by Anu Mittal, Director of Natural Resources and Environment of the GOA, before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, states that
“Ethanol is highly corrosive and poses a risk of damage to pipelines, and underground and above-ground storage tanks, which could in turn lead to releases to the environment that may contaminate groundwater, among other issues. These leaks can be the result of biofuel blends being stored in incompatible tank systems -- those that have not been certified to handle fuel blends containing more than 10 percent ethanol. While EPA currently has
some research underway, additional study is needed into the compatibility of higher fuel blends, such as those containing 15 percent ethanol, with the existing fueling infrastructure.”
Page 7 of Growth Energy’s Waiver Request states that UL has gathered data as part of the organization’s ongoing research to investigate the impact of using higher ethanol blends in fuel dispensing systems and that data supports that existing dispensers may be used successfully with ethanol blends up to E15. This is an incorrect statement. According to a December 2008 memorandum issued by Underwriters Laboratories, most dispensers in use in the U.S. are not UL approved to sell fuel blends with more than 10% ethanol. “Because UL often uses safety margins during testing, some subassemblies have been tested with fuels containing 15% ethanol, leading to some technical references to this level, but that does not mean that those dispensers are certified to dispense fuels containing more than 10% ethanol.” UL has stated that they will not retroactively certify products for fuels that have not been tested and certified.
Proponents of increased levels of ethanol in gasoline might argue that tanks and piping compatible with all levels of ethanol up to 100% are currently available. While that may or may not be true, there is still the fundamental question of whether new fuels are compatible with the tank and piping infrastructure that are in the ground now.
The National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) has expressed the concern that most of the equipment at retail motor fuel stations is only certified to legally sell gasoline with up to 10% ethanol and that warrantees on more than 95% of vehicles (those that are not specifically designed to run on E85) will be void if consumers use fuel with more than 10% ethanol. Retailers will have two choices, according to John Eichberger, vice president for government relations at NACs. One, sell a product with noncompatible equipment, violate those rules and open themselves up to gross negligence lawsuits. Or try to find compatible equipment and replace their entire system. Unfortunately there are no dispensers certified for E15.”
Existing leak detection-methods for tank systems may also be a challenging obstacle with higher ethanol blends, because ethanol blends act very differently in the presence of water than ordinary gasoline. With E10 blends, phase separation occurs with 0.5 percent water, allowing a significant ingress of water to be detected relatively quickly. A slow leak of water into the tank, however, can be absorbed into the gasoline. With higher levels of ethanol, increasing quantities of water are required to induce phase separation, which is a problem with existing automatic tank gauges being able to detect leaks quickly. With E85, concentrations of water can approach 15% of the product volume before phase separation occurs, rendering the water-detection abilities of an ATG useless in these circumstances.
Delaware’s definition of a Regulated Substance includes ethanol blends up to concentrations of 100% so we would consider E15 an alternative fuel. Delaware is concerned that using
E15 fuel would be inconsistent with our regulations with regard to general requirements for UST systems which include ensuring that E15 is compatible with the UST system, that its use wouldn’t void manufactures warranties, and that the equipment would be approved by Underwriters’ Laboratories or third party approved. Currently E15 fails to meet any of these requirements. Regardless of what our regulations say about maintaining warranties, compatibility with product stored, equipment required to be UL and/or 3rd Party Approved etc. the base fuel cannot be held to full regulatory scrutiny even if it violates our regulations. At the current time there is not a single E-10 storage and dispensing system in full compliance with our regulations, but we can't close every regulated facility in the state for non-compliance.
When a particular ethanol concentration such as E10, E12 or E15 becomes the “base” fuel it should not be officially considered an “alternative fuel” because every dispensing facility has no choice but to carry that fuel and regardless of whether that concentration complies with our regulations or not we can’t prevent its’ use. Once the base fuel concentration is voluntarily exceeded then we should consider those concentrations above the base fuel as alternative fuels and require compliance with our regulations.
As is the case with E10 the majority of equipment is not UL approved or other 3rd Party approved for E15 as required by our regulations. A few manufacturers do warrant their components (mainly dispenser manufacturers) up to E15 but most do not. Use of E15 will void most manufacturers’ warranties. However, if E15 becomes the new base fuel there is nothing we can do and we should also expect to see a rise in releases over what was seen with E10 due to an increase in non-compatible equipment failures. So logically it would be expected that non-compatible new or legacy equipment will not function as intended.
It is generally regarded that ethanol corrosivity maxes out at around 20% ethanol. Therefore, it follows that E20 is more corrosive than E85. With that in mind consider leak detection equipment. The overwhelming majority of leak detection equipment was never tested for any concentration of ethanol.
What equipment might work: Interstitial Sensors and Sump Sensors but once they come in contact with ethanol blends they would most likely have to replaced with new sensors due to degradation of the sensors caused by incompatibility.
What equipment may or may not work: Automatic Tank Gauges (ATGs), Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR), Tank & Line Tightness Test Methods and Automatic Line Leak Detectors. The big issue with ATGs, SIR and Tank & Line Tightness Test Methods is the ability to detect water ingress into the tank with ethanol blends. No water detection floats have been tested or approved for any ethanol blend.
In April 2009, the National Commission of Energy Policy released a report by the Task Force on Biofuels Infrastructure
(http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/10238). The report outlines what changes are needed to accommodate the RFS mandates, from transportation needs right down to the gas stations. Certified equipment needs to be available that can withstand storage of biofuels, and adequate lead-time (and financial assistance?) is essential to allow these upgrades. Given the average expected lifespan of 20 years for underground equipment and 12 years for dispensers, we might be ready to start dispensing higher ethanol concentrations of gasoline in 10 to 15 years.
When the transition was occurring between MTBE and ethanol in California, California advised their tank owners that pre 1984 tanks may not be ethanol compatible. Dates for E10 compatibility for tanks and lines vary by years among different manufacturers. In Delaware, we still have about 100 pre-1984 fiberglass tanks in the ground, which may not be compatible with E10, much less with higher concentrations of ethanol.
In the RFS2 Proposed Rulemaking, mention is made of the potential for leaks from underground storage tanks way in the back of the proposed rule. It states: “With the increasing use of ethanol in the fuel supply nationwide, I is important to understand the impact of ethanol on the existing tank infrastructure. Given the corrosivity of ethanol, there is concern regarding the increased potential for leaks from existing gas stations and subsequent impacts on drinking water supplies. In 2007, there were 7500 reported releases from underground storage tanks. Therefore, EPA is undertaking analyses designed to assess the potential impacts of ethanol blends on tank infrastructure and leak-detection systems and determine the resulting water quality impacts.”
Federal and state regulations require owners and operators of underground storage tank systems to provide for financial responsibility in case of leaks from the tank system. In some states, a state fund provides coverage in case of leaks. In other states, proof of private insurance is required. If, by storing a substance not certified to be compatible with the tank system, you void the warranty for any part of the system, you can be almost guaranteed that your insurance claim will be denied, because you would be considered to be out of compliance with the regulations. Or, you would be required to prove that storage of the potentially incompatible substance did not cause or contribute to the release.
Other Ethanol Infrastructure Issues
The 1 psi Reid Vapor Pressure in Section 211 (h)(4) of the Clean Air Act Amendments applies only to volume 10% denatured ethanol in gasoline. The RVP Waiver does not apply to higher concentrations of ethanol in gasoline. Without a change in legislation, higher ethanol concentrations will require that the blend stock for match blending be sufficiently low to actually meet the RVP specifications without the 1 psi waiver. It is not clear how much flexibility refiners have to produce large quantities of a blend stock with a sufficiently low
RVP for match blending with ethanol. If gasoline is to be available as E0, E10, E15, and E85, a different blendstock would be needed for each blend.
Match blending, as opposed to splash blending, is normally done at the refinery. However, pipelines are often used to transport gasoline from the refinery to the distribution terminal, where trucks and rail then transport the fuel to the end-user. However, ethanol blending can only be done at the refinery for fuel that is not to be transported by pipeline, because ethanol is hydrophilic, and in pipeline systems, the fuel is inevitably exposed to water. Therefore, most ethanol is currently splash-blended into gasoline at the distribution center or at ethanol production centers. The various blendstocks would need to be transported separately to the distribution centers.
As increasing amounts of ethanol are required to be blended with gasoline, there will be a need for increasing the number of rail cars, tankers, and barges to transport the ethanol, or specially designed, dedicated pipelines will need to be constructed for ethanol transport.
Soil and Groundwater Issues from Spills and Leaks
As we change the composition of fuels that we use, we need to be aware of how they will behave when released into the environment. Once released into the environment, fuel constituents partition into air, water, and soil. Based on our knowledge of chemical properties and how much of each fuel component is present, we can predict some behavior of a multi-component fuel. However, ethanol has some characteristics that are predictable, and some that aren’t. The major properties that influence fuel-component behavior are solubility, volatility, sorptivity, and biodegradability. Along with the amount of each chemical resent in the fuel, these properties determine how the chemical interacts with the environment, including its persistence.
Based on our knowledge of the chemicals in gasoline, it was expected that adding approximately 1-% ethanol to a gasoline release would cause the BTEX plume (benzene, toluene, Ethylbenzene, and xylenes) to extend farther away from the source area because microorganisms would preferentially degrade the ethanol and degrade the BTEX compounds to a lesser extent than normal. However, modeling, and field and laboratory studies with E95 spills have shown that the ethanol phase, dissolved in water, partitions into the soil. Groundwater impacts, when they appear, are happening months or years after the spills.
We need to understand how releases containing ethanol will behave in the environment to allow us to know how and where to sample, what analytical methods to utilize, and what remedial technologies will be most effective in case of a release.
The report of EPA’s Blue Ribbon Panel on the use of oxygenates in gasoline included as one of its recommendations that EPA should “conduct a full, multi-media assessment of (effects
on air, soil, and water) of any major new addition to gasoline prior to its introduction.” Had
that been prior to the introduction of MTBE into gasoline, hundreds of millions of dollars in
cleanup costs would have been avoided. While it is not anticipated that ethanol could cause
the same magnitude of problems if released into the environment, those regulators that will
be dealing with releases from storage tanks and other spills need to be armed with the
knowledge and skills to effectively do their jobs. If E15, E20, or E30 are stored in storage
tank systems that have been certified for E10, gasoline will be released into the
environment. Who will be paying for the cleanups when the warranty has been voided and
the insurance won’t pay?
Growth Energy has provided almost no data for E15 blends, and no data for blends between
10 and 15 percent. Due to the non-ideal behavior of hydrocarbon and ethanol blends, it is
not possible to extrapolate data for intermediates. Waiver requests must be decided based
on sound scientific analysis of data relevant to the criteria established by Congress.
We (the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control) respectfully urge EPA
to consider all the data and scientific studies related to the effects E15 has on both short
term and long term emissions from a wide variety of light duty vehicles and the vast
assortment of non-equipment. We are especially concerned about the effects the increase in
ethanol by fifty percent may have on evaporative emissions, engine operation and exhaust
after–treatment. It is our belief that the petitioner, Growth Energy has not provided
adequate supporting documentation for any category of emissions for any class of engines or
vehicles, for any time scale. Consequently, we urge EPA to deny this waiver request.

wow

Attach file:

---

  Sucka Punch.jpg (126.01 KB)

Tommy can you sum that up for me?

I didn't read the whole article.... but what is the point of all this ethanol crap anyways? It costs more to produce than gasoline and is not sustainable!

The ethanol is for a couple of reasons...

1, they had the dream of producing cheaply... so far, not true, but, the research is coming along and at some point, it will. 2, oxygenate. MBTE was being phased out, ethanol replaced it. MBTE will fuck up about anything... nasty stuff.

Quote:

According to Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the 11 Alliance members are very concerned that mid-level blends could “severely damage millions of vehicles on the road designed only to operate on blends of up to 10% ethanol.

Top Tier gasolines


http://www.examiner.com/x-4493-Orland ... the-best-gasoline-quality

There are 4 ethenol plants within 25 miles of me and they use a ton of corn each year. Since a lot of people like me make their living supporting the guys who do raise corn we love ethenol. Bring on E12 or E15 the more the better we will just make some more. We need oxygenators so why not use something we can supply. Remember that the govt. is always going to subsidize farming, ethenol is one way of doing that without just handing the farmer a check.

It takes energy to make energy, Does anyone know how much it takes to crack a barrel of crude?

Quote:

I dunno, but apparently less than the total life cycle cost of ethanol.

BTW, who says these older cars were even designed for E10? E10 didn't exist in 1980.