Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/../photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg One problem is E15 can be E16 (nytimes.com/2009/05/10/automobiles/10PUMP.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/ethanol-fueling-b.jpgChristopher Jensen - NY Times (nytimes.com) - May 8, 2009

Special interests are trying to prevail over the common good. -- Ed.

Groups representing the nation’s service station operators say they fear the possible legal and economic consequences of increasing the amount of ethanol in gasoline to 15 percent, from 10 percent, a change that ethanol producers have urged the Environmental Protection Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to make.

The station owners say they fear lawsuits from customers claiming their cars were damaged by the E15 fuel. But they also note that existing pumps are not certified by Underwriters Laboratories as safe for use with E15 — and U.L., which certifies the safety of a wide range of products, says it will not provide that certification.

John Drengenberg, U.L.’s consumer safety director, said previous testing showed that the existing pumps were safe for up to 15 percent ethanol. But U.L. will not guarantee them for 1 percent more, he said... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/automobiles/10PUMP.html

Is it just me, or is anyone else worried that we'll have some be ethanol-electric hybrid vehicles running around soon? I feel like that's where this is headed. It'll get us off foreign oil, with other consequences of course, but as long as they move from corn to switchgrass and other organic material not used for food, what would be the holdback?

Ricardo,

I'm afraid your concerns are well-founded. Seems like special interests can find a way to derail US energy policy. :(

Is it just me, or is anyone else worried that we'll have some be ethanol-electric hybrid vehicles running around soon? I feel like that's where this is headed. It'll get us off foreign oil, with other consequences of course, but as long as they move from corn to switchgrass and other organic material not used for food, what would be the holdback?

First, no mandates. It doesn't matter whether farm land grows corn or switchgrass, but rather whether the land is devoted to food or fuel. Land diversion is what starves the starving from this standpoint. It is important (at scale) that the land used for switchgrass or other cellulosic input is not traditional cultivation acreage.

Second, any incentives should be modest to avoid wholesale shift of resource allocation (including the tax dollars) at the expense of large-scale green energy production and conservation incentives.

In other words, we need to consider all energy sources and conservation measures, then allocate limited resources to achieve an efficient and diversified result. We could put wind mills on every rooftop and generate "huge" amounts of "green" electricity, but perhaps it would be a better use of resources to encourage selected conservation measures together with concentrated solar thermal plants and tidal wind energy.

I only know rumors, but I've heard that the manufacturers declined to submit the current E10 equipment for E15 certification because they don't want to pay for another round of tests unless they get a bunch of new sales. UL won't do testing unless somebody pays for it....and you get the picture.;)

(BTW: The correct terminology probably is dispensers or dispensing systems -- the actual pumps are only part of the concern and they usually are submersed in the tank where their failure would only be a minor business inconvenience as opposed to an environmental or safety hazard.)

Never underestimate the ability of special interests to trump good science and common sense. Sorry that was redundent.

Electric propulsion is looking better and better all the time.

I can accept the E10, but the cars I work on barely run on 10% and at 15%+ they usually start arriving by flatbed! A few have even been filled with e85 by accident, and won't fire at all. The newer generation engine with direct high pressure injection systems are VERY unforgiving of ethanol content.

Maybe I don't know everything about the whole issue here, but it seems ok to me to allow some ethanol content for reducing petroleum consumption and emissions but at some point it is going to start being to much of a burden.

Hi All:

___About an actual reduction in oil consumption... The picture is not entirely clear on this. Ethanol currently takes about 30% of our corn crop and even if the entire countries corn production went to just ethanol, we would still cover only 18% at most of our daily requirements.

___Second issue is blending. With a 10% increase in volume, we consume at least 3% more in fuel to drive the same distance. Ethanol cannot be pipelined; it has to be trucked to the refinery/distributors for blending which consumes even more fuel.

___It is not entirely clear that ethanol allows a clear net drop in crude imports given the FE reduction plus transport costs and this is all due to Corn based Ethanol.

___Regarding the push to E15, the more fuel consumed, the more tax dollars collected which appears to be Minnesota’s main motivation for promoting an ever higher percentage of Ethanol use. It has little to do with reducing crude oil imports or lowering emissions.

___If there is a way to run cellulosic or from Sugar Cane for example, no problem but from Corn, there is a huge problem.

___Good Luck

___Wayne