Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
716 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just don't like this.

EPA Delays Decision on Whether or Not to Okay Higher Ethanol Blend in Gasoline
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which was expected to decide this month whether American car engines can handle higher concentrations of ethanol in gasoline, has postponed the decision until at least September.
The agency had been expected to decide by this month whether to increase the maximum blend from 10 to 15 percent.
The EPA said Thursday that initial tests on a 15-percent blend, up from 10 percent, "look good" and should be completed by the end of September. A decision will come after the Energy Department completes the testing of the higher blend on vehicles built after 2007.
The ethanol industry claims a 15 percent ethanol blend in motor fuel doesn't harm car engines. The refining industry, some engine manufacturers and environmental groups disagree.
The EPA has indicated in the past that it will raise the blend, saying a congressional mandate for increased ethanol use can't be achieved without allowing higher blends of the renewable fuel, most of which comes from corn despite overwhelming evidence than corn ethanol is bad for the planet.
Congress has required refiners to blend 12.9 billion gallons of biofuels in 2010, of which 12 billion gallons would be ethanol. The mandate soars to 36 billion gallons, mostly ethanol, by 2022.
This is the second time the EPA has announced a delay of its decision on the blend. The agency pushed the decision to June last December, saying further testing was needed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
Porsche says nothing about the maximum percentage of ethanol allowable in gasoline, in either the owners manual or the warranty manual. It might just be German naivety with our silly American farm subsidy and special interest agendas, but it would seem like E15 will not void our warranties. BMW and Mercedes, for example, are more specific, and list E10 as the maximum ratio they will warrant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
It won't do them any good, regardless of what the USEPA tells you!
 

·
Northeast Member
Joined
·
747 Posts
Ethanol costs more than gasoline, is less efficient than gasoline, may harm engines and is subsidized by the taxpayer.......who thinks this is a good idea other than corn farmers?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
Ethanol costs more than gasoline, is less efficient than gasoline, may harm engines and is subsidized by the taxpayer.......who thinks this is a good idea other than corn farmers?
No one. As we all know the problem is that billions have been invested in Ethanol production (with a large farmer ownership factor), and the people that have invested lobby Congress for laws requiring ethanol use. While farming is not a large segment of the US economy by population, farming does drive a lot of expenditures in equipment, chemicals, fuel, and whatever, so a lot of pro-farming lobbying goes on.

I think the ethanol industry sees E15 as a quick way to riches, as opposed to driving demand for E85 and its infrastructure requirements. Let's just hope the EPA has a backbone and fends off this silliness, revealing E15 for the bad idea it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
Are cayman engines more susceptible to the harmful effects of ethanol than other cars on the road? If not, E15 should be voted down for that reason alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
Here's another way to look at it. If an Ethanol plant was required to account for the energy chain that went into producing the corn, transporting it to the plant and then power the plant with the Ethanol it produces, not one drop of Ethanol would come out of the pipe at the end. In other words, it takes more energy to produce the Ethanol than is in the Ethanol produced.

Insanity!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
I have had a recent opportunity to run my 2008 BS on non-ethanol 93 octane. over the same commuting route I got better mileage than with 10% ethanol 93 octane. 19.5 MPG on gasohol and 20.2 MPG on non-oxygenated. It was only 2 tankfuls in row on non-oxygenated but the work commute is so standard that I think the data is reliable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,581 Posts
I have had a recent opportunity to run my 2008 BS on non-ethanol 93 octane. over the same commuting route I got better mileage than with 10% ethanol 93 octane. 19.5 MPG on gasohol and 20.2 MPG on non-oxygenated. It was only 2 tankfuls in row on non-oxygenated but the work commute is so standard that I think the data is reliable.
i experienced a similar reduction in fuel economy when hawaii law required the use of e10...if i recall correctly, i experienced a 3% (give or take a percentage point) reduction in my mpg.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,521 Posts
No surprise there. Less energy content in alcohol than gasoline.

Biggest worry I'd have is E15 is even more prone to separating into it's individual components than E10. It was my understanding that 10% was the limit for this kind of mix and it will still separate if the alcohol absorbs enough water. Real mess then. But of course any logic isn't permitted since it's politics.

Still haven't figured out why they keep saying renewable energy source. With the upside down energy balance you lose in the end. Maybe if the some of the alternate production methods talked about ever come on line it may be different but using food to distill fuel that takes more energy to produce and requires burning more to do the same work just doesn't get it for me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
311 Posts
As most of you know, use of E85 in our cars is an absolute no-no while E10 is considered OK. All gasoline in the New England region is now E10. Somewhere in between E10 and E85, our cars will start to develop problems. Is that threshold at E15 or is it higher? Who knows? Clearly this is a trend that is heading in a bad direction. As already pointed out, mandated production of ethanol-based fuels is all about propping up the agricultural sector.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
This is a political football that I had hoped would be gone by now, but the lobbiests (can you say ADM?) are earning their pay on this one. Yes, there is nothing good about ethanol for the motorist, but its great for the farmers, and especially the alcohol producers, not to mention the lobbiests and the pols they are paying off. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the 800# gorilla in this fight, and they throw millions around to Congress to make sure their subsidies stay in effect and that E10 or better is a Federal mandate.

Besides the bad things ethanol does to our engines, the phase separation can cause irrepairable damage to them, and now we learn that even E10 is causing big problems in the supply chain. I used to be a gasoline distributor and still get some of the publications about the industry, and it seems that alcohol is corroding parts in the pumps, tanks, eating holes in fiberglass tanks, and other things that definitely aren't good. But none of this matters as long as the Federal mandate is in effect, and EPA is in the back pocket of ADM. Alcohol prices rise and fall as the price of oil/gasoline does, and I used to follow it although I never sold it. They price ethanol so it remains economically viable for the distributors to blend it. The Federal 6 cents/gal. tax break makes it attractive, as does the fact that ethanol is an octane booster so you can blend ethanol with regular and get 92 octane premium. 93 octane requires that a little unleaded premium be added to the mix.

I hate the stuff, and try not to buy it. I'm fortunate in that here in my home town the distributor that bought me out still doesn't blend(yet) and I get most of my gas from him. On the road I look for signs that say "no corn in our gas" or similar, but they are few and far between.

Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes don't really like ethanol, but can't forbid its use, for obvious reasons, but their mere warnings about it should tell us that it ain't good!

All I can say is write your Congressman, and if enough people protest, it will get changed. I don't see a groundswell of opposition to ethanol, however.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top