
EPA Looks to Move Forward with Blending More Ethanol in Summer Gasoline - tomohawk
http://www.thedrive.com/news/26947/epa-looks-to-move-forward-with-blending-more-ethanol-in-your-summer-gasoline
======
exabrial
Who is behind the lobbying on Ethanol? The decrease in gas mileage is not
worth it, and I'm fairly certain the product is hardly profitable without
heavy government subsidies.

~~~
lenticular
The corn lobby is very powerful. Nobody else thinks ethanol is a good idea,
especially from corn (one of the worst crops you could use). The carbon inputs
to make the ethanol are around the same as if you just burned petroleum in the
first place. Once you burn the ethanol as well, it's much worse than just
gasoline. It also encourages expansion of farm land into virgin land and
increases food prices. Not to mention it is horrible for engines, especially
in older vehicles.

Hilariously, gas sold for non-highway use (like farms) is not required to
contain ethanol, and usually doesn't. They'll push it on all of us, but won't
use it themselves.

~~~
magduf
Also, a lot of small engines (with carbs) demand non-ethanol gasoline;
apparently ethanol gums up the carbs I think.

Of course, it'd be better if we just stopped using those small engines
altogether... one leaf blower being used for one day puts out as much
pollution as a Ford Raptor pickup in 100,000 miles.

~~~
esaym
Ethanol does not "gum up" (note I am not defending anything here). Just open
up your bathroom cabinet. I bet you got a bottle of isopropyl alcohol in
there. Its probably years old too. How "gummed up" is it?

The gumming up of ethanol mixed fuels is due to the poor quality of gasoline
base that is used.

~~~
massivecali
The gumminess comes from degrading rubber hoses and seals, neither of which
are found in a plastic bottle.

~~~
lutorm
Well, it also comes from dissolving years of gasoline deposits, if you've been
using non-ethanol gas before. Ethanol is a very effective cleaner.

------
maerF0x0
I feel like the game is being played backwards.

Instead of subsidizing a single solution to some kind of externality we should
be taxing the cost of the externality itself and allowing all potential
solutions to bid on the mitigation...

------
flyinghamster
Wonderful. /s

My car's owner's manual specifically says not to use fuel with greater than
10% ethanol. I don't want to play Russian Roulette with my fuel system.

~~~
SkyPuncher
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is most modern (non-carburetor) cars
can run 100% ethanol without issue. The problems arise, not from the
combustion process, but from the increased acidity causing increased wear on
non-metal components like seals and gaskets.

Most consumer gasoline already has ethanol mixed in, I doubt a modest increase
will be an issue.

\-----

Also, most consumer stations have 10% (unleaded), 85% (e85), or 100% (racing).
I'm not aware of any stations that consistently offer anything between 10% and
85%.

I suspect your car's warning it warning against e85 and racing fuel.

~~~
bluGill
Most computers don't know how to adjust the air-fuel ratio for higher levels
of ethanol. It isn't impossible to do that but it is additional effort to put
in those mappings.

There are a lot of stations in Iowa that offer E15. Few other states even have
one. Even in Iowa a lot of stations have said they won't sell it because of
the legal issues.

~~~
lutorm
There are also cold-starting issues when running very high ethanol fractions.

------
kingnothing
How heavily are taxpayers subsidizing corn used for ethanol?

What would a gallon of E15 cost without the corn subsidy?

~~~
merpnderp
Well, since it takes more than a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of
ethanol, we can assume it's completely subsidized.

~~~
jhayward
This statement is logically unsound. The addition of ethanol is as an additive
to reduce emissions, just as other petroleum-based additives are used. There's
no constraint that such additives be net energy positive.

~~~
merpnderp
This is the first I've heard of ethanol being useful for reducing emissions.
First off, the net effect is obviously more emissions since the fuel burned to
create the ethanol is mostly diesel in farm equipment. Second the local
reduction of emissions seems to be benzene, but is replaced with acetaldehyde,
which sounds like a wash, or barely an improvement.

The emissions argument seems like a complete loser for ethanol.

~~~
jhayward
> _This is the first I 've heard of ethanol being useful for reducing
> emissions._

Why would the EPA be involved, if not for emissions reasons?

The argument about net-zero or negative energy life-cycle return isn't what is
meant by "emissions". In automobiles the exhaust pipe is considered a point
source, not the combined sum of the production process including a tractor
being run a thousand miles away from downtown LA or Houston.

~~~
merpnderp
I addressed this with my local emissions comment about benzene. Maybe you
missed it.

------
jrochkind1
> The use of biofuel products, such as ethanol, is heavily subsidized in the
> United States.

OK, so we subsidize ethanol production... because? It's not because turning
what could be food into fuel is good for "the environment" really. It's
definitely not good for actually feeding people. (Diversion of what could be
food-productive land to ethanol is responsible for increase in subsistence
food costs for poor people worldwide).

But anyway, we subsidize it. Mostly to help farmers. Fine, you gotta help
farmers somehow.

> The government hopes that by permitting the higher blend of ethanol, drivers
> will be paying less at the pump.

OK, since we're subsidizing it, making it cheaper than gasoline, now we gotta
allow more of it, so consumers will "pay less at the pump". Not because, you
know, it's inherently cheaper or anything, but just because we subsidize it.

But at least people will get to pay less for gas. Uh, what's that you say?

> But for consumers, more ethanol means lower overall fuel economy since
> ethanol only possesses two-thirds the energy content of a gallon of
> gasoline. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that a 10
> percent ethanol blend into gasoline will decrease a car's overall fuel
> economy by three percent; this means that increasing ethanol to a 15 percent
> blend will bring the average fuel economy down 4.5 percent when compared to
> just straight gasoline.

Okay, so maybe they're not paying _as much_ less at the pump as they thought.
Presumably the per-gallon cost is at least 4.5% less than gasoline, so at
least they're still paying _something_ less at the pump... I hope. If it's
less than 4.5% less than straight gasoline, of course they're paying more,
they just don't realize it. (And let's not talk about older cars whose engines
can't handle it and which will be harmed, unless you knew that and... bought
the premium gas instead? Still saving money at the pump?)

But at least it's PROBABLY not releasing MORE air pollution than gasoline, if
you believe the ethanol industry's researchers over other researchers. Great!

The whole thing MAKES NO SENSE. The whole ethanol thing is garbage policy.

That was originally promoted as somehow "good for the environment." (It is
not). This is why "oh, maybe it won't help that much, but every little bit
helps" is never a good reason to do things "good for the environment." Some
things are just BS. (And don't get me wrong, i think we DESPERATELY need to do
a LOT more "good for the environment" (and climate change), which is why this
kind of BS is SO BAD).

At least this article is better than most and gives you enough facts to
connect the dots if you're paying attention.

~~~
lutorm
The problem is not with the ethanol. It's with the corn.

~~~
jrochkind1
At least you can EAT corn instead of burning it as a poor more-polluting more-
expensive substitute for gasoline!

