House subcommittee hearing raises possibility of forcing automakers to allow larger doses of ethanol
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality met with South Dakota business and agriculture leaders Tuesday. In such a corn-friendly state (it's the home of the Corn Palace), ethanol was a major topic, even for a congressman from Virginia. Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat from the Old Dominion, said he liked a proposal to increase the standard fuel blend from 10 percent ethanol to 30 percent. He explains such a move would help commercialize non-corn-based ethanol. Boucher (shown at right with Rep. Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota), also says the higher dose would require automakers to change warranties."If they're not willing to raise it voluntarily, we might mandate it. That idea alone was worth the trip out here," said Boucher, the subcommittee chairman.
Boucher told the committee there's a "popular assumption" of a technical limit at 10 percent; instead calling it an "artificial limit, opposed apparently in a negotiation between the auto manufacturers and the oil industry."
Boucher said he'll call scientists and automakers before a subcommittee hearing on ethanol blending later in the year. That's a showdown I'd like to hear. I wonder how older vehicles would handle increased amounts of ethanol. We know that automakers have to make special modifications to the fuel system to accept E85. Surely there's a possibility of long-term effects from fuels with blends up to 30 percent.
Testimony indicated corn-based ethanol could fulfill 10-percent requirements at about 15 billion gallons per year, which is called the "blend wall." The country would have to find other sources of ethanol to make up the difference.
[Source: Ben Shouse / Argus Leader]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MikeW 2:40PM (2/21/2007)
Who do I send the repair bill when some of the elastomers fail in the fuel system?
Reply
Glenn 3:42PM (2/21/2007)
Right now, my wife's 2002 Sonata obtains 20% LESS miles per gallon on E10 (10% ethanol).
So why can't we RECALL and get rid of these idiots in Washington?!
My 2005 Prius obtains about 7% less MPG on E10, but if you consider the oil that goes into the production of ethanol, it is a total waste of time, as well.
We need new politicians, and less ethanol in cars. Otherwise we're going to have higher food prices, and higher fuel prices, and no decrease in oil imports whatsoever.
Reply
frank78 6:28PM (2/21/2007)
Ahhh, corn based ethanol. The red herring used by politicians to make it look like they care about energy independence and the environment. However, as many of us know, corn ethanol has doubled the price of corn, which raises the price of meat. The price of maize has doubled, pissing off Mexicans since it is a major part of their diet. Hmm, poor Mexicans end up worse off economically than most of them are already because of ethanol. I wonder where they'll go in their worsening desperation. Oh where oh where might they go to??? Gee let me think.
No less oil is being used thanks to ethanol. Lots of oil is being used to make the ethanol and since, as someone pointed out, you get less MPG with E10, so it takes the same amount of total oil (but more total fuel, so it's more costly to the consumer to go the same distance) to do your driving.
And yes, to what govt office do I send my very expensive repair bills if we have E30??? I'm in sales and have to drive alot. It will cost me alot more to drive the same distances and since my MPG will be lower, I'll still end up using the same amount of petroleum. Niiiiice!!!!!
Until cellulosic ethanol can feasibly cost $1.50, keep ethanol away. If it costs any more than that, due to ethanol's far worse MPG than gasoline, we'll end up taking a big hit in the wallet.
Reply
Jimmy 6:52PM (2/21/2007)
The best step would be to require that all vehicles support either E85 ethanol or B20 biodiesel. This would be phased in over several years of course, but it is a great step in the right direction. Adding flex fuel to a modern vehicle is very cheap for the manufacturer, so think of it as cheap "petroleum insurance". With most of the fleet flex fuel we can use however much ethanol we can make as new technologies come on the market. This should be combined with efficiency increases and plugin hybrids.
Also, it is worth noting that the Univ. of Minnesota has studied E30 in a number of vehicles and did not find any problems. Of course, larger and longer studies would be needed.
#2 Glenn "consider the oil that goes into the production of ethanol"
Several studies have shown that it takes very little oil to produce ethanol. For corn based ethanol, including all the steps from seed to retail delivery it takes about 0.1 MJ of petroleum for each MJ of ethanol. Most of the energy used in current corn ethanol is natural gas.
#3 frank78 "you get less MPG with E10, so it takes the same amount of total oil"
That is completely wrong both via logic and evidence. The MJ/mile with ethanol blended fuel is no different than the MJ/mile with petrol in low tech engines. With more advanced engines which can use ethanol's high octane can have have better MJ/mile with ethanol than petrol.
Reply
MikeW 7:46PM (2/22/2007)
'With more advanced engines which can use ethanol's high octane can have have better MJ/mile with ethanol than petrol.'
That is called gasoline direct injection, the Audi 3.1V6 is 12.5: compression ratio.
Reply
J 12:32PM (2/23/2007)
This is awesome.
Reply