7 ms·
EPA Looks to Move Forward with Blending More Ethanol in Summer Gasoline
- exabrial 8y agoWho 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.
- dragontamer 8y agoI'd assume corn farmers. Ethanol somewhat made sense before fracking: US needed a source of fuel that didn't come from overseas. But now the US is a net exporter of oil due to the fracking boom, so we've solved the "US-sourced" fuel problem.
- merpnderp 8y agoIt never made sense because it requires more than a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. It is a horrible idea, and only exists due to pure unadulterated corruption.
- ams6110 8y agoEnvironmentalists were enthusiastic about ethanol for a while, along with biodiesel from soybean oil (another bad idea) before they realized it was a net negative.
- lutorm 8y agoFirst, it's not even true, according to most studies I've seen. Second, it only applies to ethanol made from corn, which is a highly inefficient way of making it.
- teilo 8y agoCorn is how almost all ethanol in the US is made, so it's absolutely true.
- jbob2000 8y agoThat’s exactly it. Gotta keep Iowa employed.
- ortusdux 8y agoIt's a handful of senators playing to farmers in their home state. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-plans-to-allow-sales-of-gas-with-higher-ethanol-blend/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-plans-to-a...
- lenticular 8y agoThe 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.
- pfranz 8y agoOne reason farmers likely avoid it is that ethanol fuel only has a shelf life of about three months[1] while regular fuel can easily last a year or more. I'm sure that's an issue on a farm where fuel isn't always cycled out constantly. [1] http://www.fuel-testers.com/expiration_of_ethanol_gas.html http://www.fuel-testers.com/expiration_of_ethanol_gas.html
- bluGill 8y agoThat link is full of half-truths that I don't have time to address, so I'll just add your one point. E10 is not regular gasoline with some ethanol added. E10 is a lower grade of gas with ethanol added. That lower grade of gas degrades in a few months.
- pfranz 8y agoThanks for bringing up some criticisms. This past year I was stocking up fuel for emergencies and ran into fuel stabilizers and ethanol-free fuel (there's farmland nearby), but haven't done too much research into how long things should be stored, what happens, and why. Do you have any suggestions where you find more accurate more info? This West Marine webpage seems quite a bit more reputable, a lot less alarmist, but seems to similar assertions: https://www.westmarine.com/WestAdvisor/Busting-Ethanol-Fuel-Myths https://www.westmarine.com/WestAdvisor/Busting-Ethanol-Fuel-...
- bluGill 8y agoThere are no subsidies for ethanol, and haven't been for years. There are crop insurance subsidies, but they cover the farmer not ethanol which has to compete on its own. You look into oil subsidies before you say more on this topic. Farmers are behind it. They grow far more food than people eat, turning it into fuel keeps a large majority of them on the farm. If you don't like it don't buy it - right now it isn't even legal for you to buy E15 half the year. (all cars since 2001 can use E15 safely, but legally only flex fuel cars are allowed to use E15 in summer) E15 is generally cheaper than E10 by a small amount - farmers figure they can make E15 cheaper by enough to make it worth it for some drivers.
- mikeash 8y agoRequiring people to mix it into their gasoline should be considered a subsidy.
- maxerickson 8y agoIt depends on the cost and the cost of the alternative. It fulfills the role of oxygenate, which reduces noxious tailpipe emissions. The previous major additive, MTBE, is a persistent environmental contaminant. So you have a matrix of the cost of adding the oxygenates and the costs of not adding them and so on.
- mikeash 8y agoIf it's cheaper than the alternative then it wouldn't need to be mandated. If the goal is to control emissions, then set standards on the emissions and let people use any solution that achieves those standards. If ethanol is the best way to achieve good emissions standards then people will choose it on their own.
- maxerickson 8y agoWell, except markets love to ignore externalities like environmental damage, which is something I was including in my usage of "cost" up there.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lutorm 8y ago"The decrease in gas mileage is not worth it" That statement presumes that you know what ethanol-free gasoline would cost. It is often possible to find ethanol-free gas if you look for it, but at least here in HI it is substantially more expensive.
- kingnothing 8y agoHow heavily are taxpayers subsidizing corn used for ethanol? What would a gallon of E15 cost without the corn subsidy?
- merpnderp 8y agoWell, since it takes more than a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol, we can assume it's completely subsidized.
- jhayward 8y agoThis 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.
- imtringued 8y agoThe tractors and other farm equipment still run on fossil fuels and then there is the carbon cost of transporting the ethanol.
- merpnderp 8y agoThis 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.
- jabl 8y agoIt can be used as an oxidizer, as in some places MTBE has been banned.
- jhayward 8y ago> 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.
- jrochkind1 8y ago> 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 8y ago
- flyinghamster 8y agoWonderful. /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 8y agoI'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.
- esaym 8y agoBeyond 10% you run in the acid issues as well as needing a higher fuel to air mixture.
- maxerickson 8y agoEthanol is corrosive to lots of materials but it isn't acidic.
- bluGill 8y agoMost 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 8y agoThere are also cold-starting issues when running very high ethanol fractions.
- maerF0x0 8y agoI 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...