Slashdot Mirror
The New Ethanol Blend May Damage Your Vehicle
Hugh Pickens writes writes "About 80 percent of the gasoline consumed in the U.S. is blended with ethanol, primarily with a 10 percent mix of ethanol, generally derived from corn. Now Kate Sheppard writes that the Environmental Protection Agency has approved a new policy that will allow states to raise the blend to up to 15 percent ethanol (also known as E15), approved for use for cars and light trucks from the model year 2001 and later. A few weeks ago, AAA issued a statement saying that the EPA's new policy creates the 'strong likelihood of consumer confusion and the potential for voided warranties and vehicle damage.' AAA surveyed vehicle manufacturers, and found that only about 12 million of the 240 million vehicles on the roads today are built to use E15 gasoline. The EPA will require that gas pumps with E15 bear a warning sign noting the blend and that it is not recommended for cars older than the 2001 model year. But what happens if you accidentally use it? 'Nobody really knows what negative effects [E15 is] going to have on the vehicle,' says Brian Lyons, Toyota's safety and quality communications manager. 'We think that there needs to be a lot more study conducted to make sure there are no longer term effects on the vehicle. So far everything we've seen says there will be.' The concern is that repeated, long-term exposure could cause the higher-alcohol-content fuel to degrade engine parts like valves and cylinder heads — which could potentially cost thousands of dollars to replace. Gas station owners don't like it very much either, because they'd likely have to upgrade their equipment to use it. Nor are environmental groups big fans of the EPA's decision, arguing that increasing the use of ethanol can drive up food prices, and isn't the best means of reducing our reliance on foreign fuels. The ethanol lobby is the only group that really seems to like the new rule. 'We've force fed a fuel into every American's car that benefits a few thousand corn farmers and ethanol refiners at the expense of virtually every other American,' says Scott Faber."
Politicians who make decisions based on the bribes they are going to receive, rather than what serves best the public interest causes people to suffer like this. This is why ignorance is one of the strongest poisons in a democracy.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Here in NJ we are not allowed to pump our own gas. That's right, we get Full Service whether we like it or not (it is very convenient on cold or bad weather days).
Who is going to be responsible if they start putting this E15 into cars older than 2001? The attendant? The gas station owner?? The distribution company??? If we get E15 it is going to happen, the only question is how frequently and will our astronomical insurance rates cover it?
The real issue here is that food is being used to make fuel.
Actually, let's mind the car. Think of all those new jobs that are created whenever you pump the wrong fuel into your tank. Only way it could get better is if we pay people to break cars. New economy, here we come!
There's a lot of irony to this. For starters, the actual change in regulation by the EPA won't require E15 gas. It simply allows individual states to require it if they want. So in other words this is the federal government giving the states more control, which normally is a good thing. However there are states that are so influenced by corn production that they will certainly make E15 the standard in their state, but for all the wrong reasons. So it might be a bad thing for the Feds to give up some control here, which I hate to have to say.
The second irony is this is the EPA making this decision, and this decision will harm the environment. If the valves and rings in older cars wear out faster from using higher ethanol fuel than they were designed for, then they will begin burning oil, vastly increasing harmful emissions. I thought the EPA was supposed to protect the environment?
Better known as 318230.
My 2010 Honda's manual very specifically says not to use ethanol blends higher than 10%. I'll trust Honda's word over those of the corn lobby.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
i have found that it generaly fouls sparkplugs, especially in stationary motors (generators -fixed speed)
around 1/4 plug life.
Corn Ethanol is the ultimate in greenwashing. It's not green at all. It's not even energy positive. We're not gaining energy here. We're just using fossil fuel based products to grow corn and turning the corn into an inferior fuel without any gain whatsoever.
Shows the power of the corn lobby, but it's a disaster for the overwhelming majority of the population. If they want an easy thing to cut as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, all ethanol industry subsidies are a great place to start. They're a total waste of money.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
The percentage of ethanol is not just an issue for cars... boat owners have reported extreme issues with molded-in-place gas tanks where the fiberglass resin mix wasn't just right, which then led to the resins softening and dissolving into the gas. The resin juices then proceeded to destroy the engines in the boats by coating / clogging the fuel system and the chambers with this juice. Folks were allegedly going up and down the coast looking for gas stations that could guarantee 0% ethanol gas or forced to undertake a $$$ diesel repower of their power boats.
It's not as if refineries are going to ship a different blend of gas to most ship docks, doesn't make sense, is a distribution nightmare. They're going to ship whatever they have.
And here's the rub: The ethanol will also result in worse gas mileage because the stuff does not have the same bang per cubic volume as gasoline (i.e. 66%). Thus, the higher the ethanol volume fraction, the lower your vehicle's range is going to be. It's why cars designed to run on E100 in Brazil and elsewhere feature bigger gas tanks than cars designed for use with gasoline, for example.
At the end of the day, the ethanol debate is one of the best examples of how lobbying results in extreme market distortions, i.e. the adoption of a fuel substitute at the behest of the corn farmers in the midwest and the large corporate interests (ADM, etc.) which profit from the processing and marketing of the stuff. Now that natural gas is too practically too cheap to meter, expect even more fuel conversion efforts of this sort.
That's true for every gasoline engine that isn't specifically designed for alcohol. Alcohol makes rubber gaskets dry out and crack, it also does a pretty good job at taking the lubricating oil off of everything. Its a wonder that old motors last hours let alone years on the 10% stuff.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Ive been watching the pumps around my area, the E-10 regularly is cheaper than the E-85.
I dont understand the big push to ethanol anyway (well yeah I do, the big grain growing states get a kickback) it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than 100% gasoline.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Ethanol in gasoline fuel breaks specific parts in your car.
Fuel lines and parts of the fuel circuit that contain rubber. Unless special formulated rubber is used that is ethanol proof, the rubber will deteriorate.
Fuel pumps and injectors. Some of these are still manufactured from materials that are not adapted to ethanol.
Carburetors. Older cars that are not using injection systems, may have parts inside the carburetors that dissolve in the ethanol. Most common carburetors will have replacement parts available that are resistant to ethanol, so retrofits can often be done.
This is mostly a cost issue and for only $100 more or so a new vehicles components can be resistant to ethanol in such a way that you could easily run E85 without problems for the life of the vehicle. Any modern car that is not capable of doing so, is made so on purpose. Even your 69 mustang can be made to run just fine on ethanol, providing you retrofit the carbs with some new floats and seals and replace the fuel pump and fuel lines with something modern too. Corn Ethanol may not be cost effective or "green" in the USA, but in large parts of the world, ethanol is the cheapest and most environment friendly fuel option. Don't hate on Ethanol just because the way it's being done in the USA isn't right. It has it's place and merits, if you do it right.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Second, no manufacturer is going to extend a warranty beyond minimum requirements. Can you imagine going to a dealer, after not changing the oil for a year, saying they would fix an unrelated warranty issue? Of course not. The purpose of a dealer is deny as many warranty repars as possible. So why would they say they would warranty a uncovered fuel that might mean even an additional warranty repair. Much better to blame the fuel even if the repair is unrelated. Of course flex fuel cars are warrentied to run on flexible fuels.
Third, the issue with ethanol is really an issue with corn production in the US as our only crop for such purposes. Corn is about the worst thing one can use for ethanol, but the US has a corn economy. There are many weeds that can be made into ethanol, but little money has been put into developing that technology. Sugarcane can also be used, but the sugarcane economy in the US has been systematically decimated in the US by northern interests who value politics over national security.
So it is clear that this is just another FUD article to promote the fossil fuel economy. Things are going to change, interests that have become fat and lazy on the backs of americans workers are going to become less fat and lazy, and this simply scares them, so they have to scare us.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
...it's the fuel storage and delivery systems in the vehicle that are suffering the damage... all the rubber, plastic, and aluminum components that are getting dissolved or corroded by the ethanol.
A piston engine can run just fine on ethanol, but everything from the tank, the pump(s), hoses, seals, fuel injectors, etc, all must be made from materials that specifically can withstand constant contact with ethanol, and ethanol with water dissolved in it, without deteriorating. Most automotive fuel system component materials really cannot withstand this (even E10 is harmful over time), and materials that can withstand the ethanol are expensive and have shorter limited service lifespan too.
Also keeping all the water out of the fuel is problematic too. The entire fuel system must be sealed from the atmosphere since ethanol will absorb water vapor from the air anytime there is exposure to the atmosphere.... even for a few seconds.
Article is pretty bad, of course people know, it's just that no one can say it without boring non-technical people to death. Sounds like this article was written by those pommie top gear clowns, as soon as anything technical related is mentioned, they cut it out and proclaim it dark mysterious magic!
I think the problem will probably be that the fuel map won't be made to cater for a 15% blend, issue with ethanol is that the stoichiometric mixture requires more fuel relative to mass than hydrocarbon gasoline, since the car can't identify the fuel, and it either sticks to a predetermined fuel map, or uses O2 sensors to adjust, i'm not sure what they'd have selected to do, and i'm not sure what by product gasses you get when you have lean alcohols (being oxygen, hydrogen and carbon). With that said, if the mixture isn't made stoichiometric, then you will be down on power and NOx emissions will go up, which the latter is probably why manufacturers state not to use higher mixtures of ethanol.
I doubt the engine or other parts would suffer any damage, aluminium doesn't like alcohols, corrodes with them, but i don't think 15% is high enough to cause problems, still, and rubber parts might not last as long if in contact with ethanol, but again, just as before, upping the concentration to 15% won't has serious and immediate effects. Valve and cylinder head issues is completely wrong, all cars made to run unleaded have hardened valve seats and valves as it was the tetraethyl lead that reduced wear in those parts, with that being long gone, manufacturers have been making the engines withstand unleaded, this remain unchanged with ethanol mixes.
The real drawback with ethanol is that the energy density is about two thirds of ordinary hydrocarbon gasoline, which means operating with stoichiometric mixtures, ethanol engines won't be significantly changed with power, but to do the same amount of work, will consume a higher volume of fuel as opposed to gasoline engines. So from a simple cost benefit point of view, 1 unit of ethanol is worth two thirds of straight, unadulterated gasoline, therefore to get your money's worth, 15% ethanol should be approximately 1.7% cheaper than 10% ethanol, and 5% cheaper against straight gasoline.
Any energy gain would be similar to the energy produced by photovoltaic arrays, which have the advantage (over corn) of not needing fertile soil and water.
This research:
Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2005 doi:10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8
Which was cited by the article you cited.
Here is another discussion:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/25/221617/881
The latter is more interesting because not only does it point out the economic issues, but also that there are other issues such as water consumption, soil erosion, political costs etc. associated with using ethanol for fuel.
The Oil Drum is a very worthy site because it presents a useful hard economic view of alternative energies. I think it's probably overly pessimistic, however it's probably a lot closer to the truth than a lot of the advocacy positions that appear in the media.
The environmentalists are actually against it
Man what?
Ethanol is not dissolving fluorinated polymer seals anymore then octane or the other components of gasoline are - you know, given time and contact. In all the fear-mongering people forget that regular octane is a pretty damn effective solvent.
reality. hydrocarbons have high energy density, while whatever alternative you are imagining we should use does not.
Because the power density of hydrocarbon fuels far outweighs any other technology presently available.
10 gallons of gasoline weighs around 90 pounds. In even a fairly inefficient car (like, say my 1985 Volkswagen Vanagon Camper) that will get the car about 150 miles. Most compact cars easily get twice that from a 10-gallon tank. My other car, a Volkswagen New Beetle (which is diesel), gets close to 40 MPG (easily over if you drive conservatively), and while that's burning diesel fuel, the weight is comparable. So, 150-400 miles on 90 pounds of fuel for your "inefficient hydrocarbon burning internal combustion engine."
By comparison, the LiIon batteries in many electric vehicles weighs in the range of 90-200 pounds, depending on the car (The Tesla, I'm told, weighs even more). At most, the range of a typical electric is 200 miles, and most manufacturers only promise between 100 and 150 miles between charging.
CNG weighs a little less (the fuel is significantly lighter, but the tank is heavier). LNG weighs about the same as gasoline. Both will range at the lower end of the MPG figures quoted above. Fuel cells may alter the dynamics a bit, but the best sources of hydrogen for them is still hydrocarbon fuels.. they will just push the kW/gallon energy output higher, potentially increasing MPG if we can get the weight of a fuel-cell generator and electric motors to something close to an internal combustion engine.
Pound for pound, hydrocarbon fuels provide the most bang for the pound of any power technology we presently have available.
I dont understand the big push to ethanol anyway (well yeah I do, the big grain growing states get a kickback) it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than 100% gasoline.
That is not true. Corn Ethanol is not the best source of Ethanol but it's still Energy Positive [wikipedia.org].
I would file both of your answers under the category of neither right nor wrong, but rather not even wrong. The minimum EROI required to sustain a modern civilization has been estimated to be anywhere from 3:1 to 15:1 (with broad variations depending on assumptions of things like what "minimums" might still constitute a modern civilization). If we have to argue the fine details of Ethanol's energy balance to determine if it is energy positive or not, we are already answering the wrong question.
For small-scale, local purposes, a low EROI may be acceptable for its non-energy benefits -- but a large-scale reliance on such a power source would be disastrous.
Brazil has been using E20 and E25 for decades. All it requires is some small tweaks.
If by "small tweaks" you mean replacing every single component in the entire fuel system that has rubber (which means all the seals, any lines that aren't completely metal, all the fuel injectors, the fuel pump, which is often inside the fuel tank and very difficult to reach, and the fuel pressure regulator), adjusting the engine computer's timing maps (not really possible except in vehicles made after 2000 or so, which tend to have electronically-reflashable computers) *and* better-sealing the fuel system (ethanol is very hygroscopic.) ...then yes, "small tweaks." You're probably looking at upwards of $1,000 in labor alone, and at least half that again in parts (fuel pump, injectors, fuel pressure regulator, and replacement lines, mostly. Seals are comparatively cheap.)
Please help metamoderate.
It's been a while since I've used a full-service pump but they ALWAYS ask you what kind of gas you want in your vehicle..
What, do you think that people who drive diesels are constantly getting regular gasoline in their tanks because the pump boy doesn't know how to ask you what fuel you want?
You may not know this, but leaded gas, unleaded gas, and diesels fuel pumps all have different O.D. spouts. E85 doesn't - it's the same as E10. If the nozzle doesn't go in, that's usually an indicator that it *shouldn'* go in. (Somebody screwed up with E85, and didn't spec the spout...damned near pumped it into my care before I realised what I was about to do.)
In fairness, though, I can actually understand why people bringing out the example of the Soviet Union would annoy a true socialist, because as a libertarian it annoys me when people describe the system in countries like the U.S. as capitalist. It's not even close -- when the policy makers of a powerful central state cooperate with executives who run large businesses for mutual advantage, that's corporatism, not capitalism.
(Because it's Christmas I thought I'd give you a real answer in addition to the sarcastic one.)
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
The stuff fresh out of the pump is perfectly fine (for a while), but in humid environments the ethanol sucks in water which can cause corrosion problems in those motorcycles, lawnmowers, chain saws etc especially if the level of the fuel is constant for days or weeks at a time. The corrosion happens in the metal adjacent to the surface of the fuel, and it's not just in the tank since there will be some fuel sitting for extended times in a lot of portions of the engine. That's why it's a bigger deal in engines that are not run a lot - it's apparently a huge deal in outboard motors for boats that are only run on weekends.
I use ethanol fuel (E10) in my car at times but only if I know I'm going to be driving a lot and get the stuff out of the system in under a week if the weather is humid. I don't use it in my lawn mower. If I didn't live in the humid subtropics I probably wouldn't care about it. If there isn't much water in the air a few percent of ethanol alone isn't very corrosive so the time you can leave it in the tank is a lot longer.