EPA wants to hear your thoughts on E15
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a call today that asks for comments on what would happen if E15 became common in the national gasoline supply. In early March, Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers submitted an application for a waiver that would allow them to increase the blend of ethanol in gasoline from ten (E10) to fifteen percent (read the PDF). Since 1978, the EPA has used the Clean Air Act to set the limit for gasoline that will be burned in vehicles that are not designated as flex-fuel vehicles at E10. Flex-fuel vehicle can handle everything up to E85. The EPA will be looking for any harmful emissions that E15 might cause and is accepting comments for the next 30 days. Engine and auto makers will likely put in their two cents regarding possible negative effects that E15 in the general supply would have on their products. The EPA must respond to the waiver request by December first.
[Source: EPA]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jharlan 6:38PM (4/16/2009)
If it's home grown ethanol, bring it on. What are we waiting for, the middle easterners and oil companies to buy up all the ethanol producers?
Reply
Rich 8:03PM (4/16/2009)
It makes no sense to use a fuel that will not give as good of gas milage as straight gas. I own a Saturn ion, and Saturn won't program it to run correctly on E15 or anything beyond E10. Although, I would be open to it IF I could get my car set up right but at a reasonable price. The only other thing that bothers me is that E15 would cause food to go up, all fuel no food thing.
Reply
Jeff Grant 8:43PM (4/17/2009)
Rich,
I've run my 03 Ion on blends up to E50 without any driveability problems, check engine lights, etc. After trying many blends for a couple of years, I personally think the Ecotec in the '03 runs the best on ~E25. I've run my '97 SOHC SL on E85 with the higher flow injectors from an DOHC SL2 for over two years and it still runs great. In fact, it always runs smoother for me on the high blend compared to E10. I wouldn't take the manufacturers word for squat. They're just protecting themselves legally, because they only officially tested with up to E10, but my cars have been out of warranty a long time.
why not the LS2LS7? 8:00PM (4/16/2009)
Stop it.
This will reduce mpg another 3% due to the reduced energy in ethanol compared to gasoline.
And this ethanol is grown using fertilizers made from fossil fuels anyway.
Reply
Ron 8:43PM (4/16/2009)
Not just no, but "Hell NO"!! Why legislate a specific fuel to be used. If you want to reduce emissions, legislate the amount that a vehicle can emit and leave it to the auto manufacturers to best determine how to get there. What sense does it make for the government to pick a fuel, especially for the government to subsidize the production of a particular fuel??
If they're gonna do that, why not subsidize solar cars, wood burning cars, coal powered cars, pedal powered cars, and on and on and on and on . . . . .
Reply
Ian Bruce 10:46PM (4/16/2009)
Cellulosic ethanol, as the name implies, is made from inedible biomass, which requires neither fertilizers or pesticides. That's why Monsanto and Ortho Chemical hate the idea.
As much as 75% of the gasoline that runs from the tank to the engine in a typical car is simply wasted as heat, parasitic drag, friction, and raw fuel expelled out the tailpipe -- so let's not split hairs about a few percentage points either.
What we need are more thermally efficient engines, with dynamically variable compression, that allow them to run on a variety of spark ignited fuels -- pure or blended.
I'm confident that we're on the road to the production of cheap, sustainable, domestic biofuels -- possibly as cheap as the magic $1 per gallon. That's when market forces really kick in. I'll happily accept 75% of the potential energy at 33% of the price of its fossilized alternative.
Reply
ltclloyd 1:27AM (4/17/2009)
I've found after extensive research and testing, not only a cost savings through use of higher then E-10 ethanol blends but an actual mileage INCREASE. Remember most arguments are taking into account older OBD-0 and OBD-1 cars. in a modern OBD-2 car fuel trimming can be had up to 25% at that trim evan a poor running OBD-2 car (1996+) can run a mix of up to 50-70% ethanol without even a check engine light. In my research I have not found a loss in mileage that is beyond human error in mixes of 25% or less. however above that significant mileage loss can be documented.. but this does not take into account the price difference. at 70% ethanol the mileage does drop as much as 10% but historically E85 is more then 10% cheaper. plus driving a car that requires "premimum" (91 octane or better) the price savings is significant even with the loss in mileage. but I really found a sweet spot. what I like to call E-47.5 6 gallons of E85 and 6 gallons of E10 (or less) that gives me near factory mileage and saves me on average 40 cents a gallon over the 91-93 octane I normally run.... oh and I get an effective octane of 96 for an average cost less then regular... I'm estatic about this possibility cars that are tuned for good fuel LOVE ethanol... and If E85 becomes more popular in my area I know that raising my compression ratio is a $75 trip to the machine shop. and I'll see even more returns. It's real and I love it!
Reply
Ian Bruce 7:56AM (4/17/2009)
To ltclloyd: Great post, and a terrific analysis. I couldn't add a thing.
DougE 6:54PM (4/29/2009)
Hooray to ltclloyd .... I would even pay more just to quit sending our money out of the U.S. All you citizens need to realize that!
greyfox01 1:18PM (9/25/2009)
Prof. JACOBSON of Stanford University :
Ozone that's formed is formed from the emissions of either ethanol vehicles or gasoline vehicles. And there - or have been technologies that have been introduced that have reduced the amount of ozone significantly. For example, the catalytic converter reduced the ozone. And there are other technologies that potentially could be used to reduce ozone further.
In fact, in this study we assumed there are going to be technological improvements. Just to put in perspective, gasoline vehicles in the United States kill about 10,000 people prematurely each year. Now, if we convert to ethanol, what I found was that this might increase slightly by about 200 deaths per year.
So it's not a large increase over gasoline. But the key is it's not an improvement over gasoline as has been suggested. The key is whether we can do a lot better than gasoline. And there are technologies out there that could eliminate all these deaths, particularly, battery electric vehicles where the electricity is provided by renewable energy such as wind and solar power. And also hydrogen fuel cell vehicles where the hydrogen is produced by wind and solar power and also hydroelectric geothermal power.
Rain 1:36AM (4/17/2009)
Does not bother Me,I intend to be B100 by this time next year in the trucks and continue to Bicycle around the city in the fair weather.
If it keeps the money here at home creates jobs and does not force People to go hungry,then why not?
Just do not subsidize the corporate farms and outlaw their lobbyist's.
The playing field is too steep,benefiting the Walter Mitty's of the World,as it is!
Reply
Herm 6:13AM (4/17/2009)
Think about this:
if your car got 80% less mileage running on 100% water, you still would use all the time, mileage be-damned.
Its not the mileage but the overall cost, and you need to keep records what your cars mileage is with a given fuel.
Reply
Flintstone 8:35AM (4/17/2009)
This is ridiculous! I am tired of all the ethanol bashing by people who don't know the facts. They are not going to mandate a 15% blend, just make it legal. For years I have been running higher ethanol blends in many cars, up to E30, and I have never had a problem and the mileage reduction has been there but inconsequential. And the biofuels causing an increase in food prices has been proven incorrect like 20 times over already, it was a propaganda myth. Increased transportation costs in 2008 c aused that.
If you want no ethanol then fill up at a station that has no ethanol in their fuel. But don't make statements that are not warranted. I do not care you don't wan't to use it. So why do Rich, Ron, and why not the LS2LS7 care if I DO want to use E15????
Reply
Dan 8:51AM (4/17/2009)
This is a stupid idea, ethanol being fertilized, grown and transported by petroleum based products defeats the entire purpose.
Reply
Ian Bruce 12:36PM (4/17/2009)
My, that *would* be a stupid idea -- which is why you wouldn't do it that way.
* Cellulosic ethanol production does not require a fertilized biomass source,
* It's processed and refined at the point of distribution, and
* can be transported with bio-fueled Class 7 or 8 power units.
EOM
Dan 12:55PM (4/17/2009)
I totally agree that Cellulosic Ethanol is a better process, too bad thats not typically how its done stateside...
Its done here so morons driving flexfuel malibus think they're saving the earth.
Warren 2:25PM (5/03/2009)
Dan
The truth is that most of the corn grown in this country is cattle feed. When ethanol is made from corn the starches and sugars are used. The protein that makes it a good feed is still present, thus you still have a top quality feed. The loss of high fructose syrup is the only marketable commodity lost. See my post #28. WJS
Flintstone 1:39PM (4/17/2009)
OK, yeah that's right on the money Dan. It's about the morons.
First of all, there is no flex fuel Malibu nor was there ever.
But the corn ethanol industry evolved as a grass roots alternative to big oil and only one chioce how we power our cars. The advantages of ethanol, both environmentally and economically, as a fuel, became clear.
We know there may be better more efficient ways to produce it, and even distribute it right on the horizon. They are on the verge of exploding. Great bring it on.
Flex fuel vehicles are great, giving everyone more choices. I love running my non flex cars on 20-30% because I get only 5% reduced mileage. And my dollar goes to the small compoay that produces the ethanol and gets in into their company owned stations.
Their product is made from corn, yes, but I hardly think I am saving the world dude.
Reply
Nixon 3:11PM (4/17/2009)
I don't have a problem with allowing some gas companies to mix their fuel at up to 15% ethanol. It isn't a mandate to force every gas station to go to E15, it is a market choice they are being given.
If you don't like E15, you can go to a different gas station. Nothing in this waiver will stop you.
I don't see where people have room to complain. If they personally don't like the product, they can shop elsewhere under this waiver.
Heck, just make fuel pumps that will mix at the pump and provide any mix from E10 to E85 that any customer wants.
Reply
Emil 3:13PM (4/17/2009)
Another option is requiring car producers that every vehicle will be FFV at extra 150$ cost and the owner will be free to decide about the best fuel.
For my best knowledge even E10 is mandated only in few states but not nationalwide.
Reply