E15 gasoline incoming...

[ctilsie242]

Leaving this link here. I am not aiming to be political with this, but just a heads up... more booze in our dino juice is headed our way.

[Atlee]

Ford says NO E15 gasahol, nor the E85 fuel for my 3.5L Ecoboost.

ctilsie242 wrote:
Leaving this link here. I am not aiming to be political with this, but just a heads up... more booze in our dino juice is headed our way.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Immersing suspected vulnerable material under a layer of 100% HEET alcohol for a few months would answer this question. Try an inch of fuel hose to start off with. What do you end up with?

[beachcomber_1]

Ethanol caused burned valves, softened seals and fuel lines. Not all rubber and plastic part were compatible with ethanol.

[Straylight]

You're absolutely right. I mixed up Grassley with Graham.

[Atlee]

If you're going to argue politics, at least get the senators in the right states. I can assure you, Lindsey Graham is NOT from the great state of Iowa. He's from South Carolina.

Kinda messes up your statements when you get something like that wrong.

Straylight wrote:

That being said, the EXTENT of certain policies is certainly political. Ted Cruz doesn't give a **** about the health of your engine, and Lindsey Graham doesn't give a **** about lowering MTBE levels; when they lobby the President to side with gasoline (Ted) or ethanol (Lindsey), they are entirely concerned with protecting the moneybag industries in their respective states (Texas and Iowa).

[maillemaker]

Bait and switch...."If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

As I have to keep telling my elderly mother, nothing the federal government did changed your health care plan. That was all the insurance companies' doing. There was no reason for them to continue to offer the old plans that offered much less coverage when they could simply cancel them and you would have no choice but to sign up for the newer plans that had much greater coverage (and of course cost more).

The federal government allowed for those plans to be grandfathered. The insurance companies simply chose not to because they could charge more for the newer plans.

[Itinerant1]

Bait and switch...."If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

[ljr]

I’m wondering what this means for ethanol free gas availability. That’s all I use. It’s already scarce in Central PA. What happens when the stations that do carry it need the tank for a new, mandated product?

[Lynnmor]

wa8yxm wrote:
ok i will say this again. Alcohol does not have the "Punch" of gasoline that is less energy is contained in a gallon of ETOH than Gasoline.

So you do loose MPG and thus E-10 does not result in a 10% savings. it might result in SOME savings but clearly not 10%.

Then you have the cost of producing the ETOH. (Alcohol) this includes the fertilizer for the farmer's field. (Petrolum based in many cases) the fuel for his tractor to plough plant clutivate and harvest, fuel for the trucks that haul the corn to the still. fuel for the still and more.. The result. per several studies is an INCREASE in oil consumption.

All we are doing is "Spreading it around" from the city to the country. but we are still burning it, and burning more of it.

That said. I'd rather see the booze in the tank than the driver

You are absolutely correct, but since we are not allowed to discuss the real reason for the existence of ethanol here, lets just say the whole swampy thing is a scam.

[wa8yxm]

ok i will say this again. Alcohol does not have the "Punch" of gasoline that is less energy is contained in a gallon of ETOH than Gasoline.

So you do loose MPG and thus E-10 does not result in a 10% savings. it might result in SOME savings but clearly not 10%.

Then you have the cost of producing the ETOH. (Alcohol) this includes the fertilizer for the farmer's field. (Petrolum based in many cases) the fuel for his tractor to plough plant clutivate and harvest, fuel for the trucks that haul the corn to the still. fuel for the still and more.. The result. per several studies is an INCREASE in oil consumption.

All we are doing is "Spreading it around" from the city to the country. but we are still burning it, and burning more of it.

That said. I'd rather see the booze in the tank than the driver

[rexlion]

Straylight wrote:
Back when I worked as a corporate editor instead of a dirtbag poet, I worked on the transcript from this woman's talk. Here's a blog that hits the high points: https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/08/20/real-energy-independence-making-oil-no-longer-strategic/

Her basic argument is that gasoline enjoys a monopoly and does not act like other commodities because people HAVE TO buy it to run their cars. She suggests pushing to (1) adapt current engines so they can take methanol (if I recall, she cited a $500 upfront cost to the owner, and suggested a govt tax benefit therefrom?) and (2) adapt gas stations so they can sell methanol (by making it economically viable for them to spend the money).

She argues that these steps will allow consumers to choose between whichever fuel is cheaper right at the pump, which will in turn drive the cost of gasoline down because it will ACTUALLY have to compete with another fuel.

Worth adding to the conversation.

We already have had bi-fuel gasoline/CNG engines for 20 years (or close to it), but CNG popularity has not taken off. I did have such a truck for a year or two.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

I do not understand how or why because some gas station tanks had leaks in them MTBE polluted ground water. And straight additive laced gasoline went through the same cracks and holes and somehow did not poison the groundwater?
O.K. then double wall tanks were introduced but the ether compound remains verboten?

Ether versus alcohol is in my most humble opinion like comparing couvoussier to ripple. Ether raises octane numbers, provides better fuel economy per lb.

As far as alcohol being nice I invite anyone in love with alcohol to attend a racing event that has alcohol or do as I did stand on a street corner in Sao Paulo, Brazil and choke on those clean air fumes. I look forward to November to April when Mexico adds ether to the fuel.

[JaxDad]

Straylight wrote:
...it also has well-documented benefits in re: oxygenation and octane boost without MTBE, and on top of that, a valid and apolitical argument can be made that allowing a renewable resource to shoulder 10% of the demand for gasoline is a decent idea.

Theres some serious flaws with that notion.

Those ‘well-documented benefits’ are laboratory derived. Not very many people drive their vehicles in a laboratory, they drive them up and down the roads. In the ‘real world’ moisture and all sorts of other issues appear. That usually more than negates the benefits because now the vehicle isn’t running at peak performance either.

As for ‘shouldering’ anything, just look at Mex’s earlier post about genuine 1st person results. A 10% drop in mileage running E10 means you are burning every bit as much gasoline is you ever did plus an additional 10% of ethanol. The Ethanol is IN ADDITION to the gasoline, it’s shouldering ZERO.

The other dirty little secret nobody likes to talk about is the quantum of ethanol itself. If you look at the total amount of ethanol produced and compare it to the quantity of gasoline sold, amount exported, and the other uses you will see the numbers don’t jive.

The retail petroleum industry is rife with rumours and speculation surrounding the ‘spiking’ or ‘doping’ of gasoline, with the skinny margins in retail it’s awfully tempting to add a few extra gallons of cheap Ethanol to the in ground tanks, especially if you’re pocketing all the various taxes as well as the cost difference.

[Straylight]

I'm not sure about PURELY political---while ethanol gas has well-documented drawbacks in re: maintenance of small engines and health of old engines, it also has well-documented benefits in re: oxygenation and octane boost without MTBE, and on top of that, a valid and apolitical argument can be made that allowing a renewable resource to shoulder 10% of the demand for gasoline is a decent idea.

That being said, the EXTENT of certain policies is certainly political. Ted Cruz doesn't give a **** about the health of your engine, and Lindsey Graham doesn't give a **** about lowering MTBE levels; when they lobby the President to side with gasoline (Ted) or ethanol (Lindsey), they are entirely concerned with protecting the moneybag industries in their respective states (Texas and Iowa).