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."

19 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone by elashish14 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case it's probably not bribes (common as that is), but politicians putting their corn-growing state before the country. Corn is not a good source of ethanol but it's great for the economies of states like Iowa and Illinois.

      As to causing people to suffer, the pumps are labeled. Put E-15 in your '69 Mustang and you're just stupid.

    2. Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As to causing people to suffer, the pumps are labeled. Put E-15 in your '69 Mustang and you're just stupid.

      True enough, till they decide that not enough people are using the E15, and make it mandatory.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There were MUCH stronger reasons to take the lead out of the fuel.

    4. Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nonsense. Brazil has been using E20 and E25 for decades. All it requires is some small tweaks.

    5. Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone by stevew · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep - this is right up there with the MTBE debacle in CA about 10 years ago.

      The Cal EPA (yes California has it's own set of idiot Environmental Regulators) decided that we needed Oxygenation in our fuel mix. The Refiners had this great additive that they had NO market for called MTBE that they claimed would do the job. A report was done describing the effect of use of the additive. CalEPA literally removed dozens of pages of negative results from the report documenting that the additive would corrode the neoprene used in Gas Hoses in most vehicles! Did I mention that MTBE is a major carcinogen!

      So the state merrily adopts the stuff!

      Well, sure enough, CHP starts to have a huge number of car fires in their patrol vehicles as proof that the original report (the suppressed part) was correct! The bureaucrats can't sweep that CHP fleet numbers under the rug.

      Then the stuff starts showing up in drinking water all over the place!

      The bureaucrats are running around in circles (think circular firing squads) pointing fingers at each other. Turns out that once MTBE enters the Ecosystem, it doesn't leave. The bureaucrats (without any scientific basis) start banning motorboats on reservoirs arguing that they must be all leaking the stuff. Nope - rain! The stuff is in the air, and the rain is bringing it down into the entire water shed.

      Finally tally - 20K drinking wells are polluted with the stuff.

      Next - it turns out that MTBE doesn't really do the original job it was claimed to!

      Well - the public is incensed! How could this all happen! This is about the time the rest of the original report shows up documenting the fact that MTBE destroys gas engines. Everything from lawn mowers to cars had problems with the stuff. A new form of gas hosing was invented to contain this mess.

      The public outrage grows and eventually the governor decrees that the stuff will not be allowed into CA gas.

      Final insult. The biggest manufacturer of the stuff sues CA for 1 billion dollars because of voided contract with them - and wins!

      Excuse me - I've seen this movie before and know how it ends.

       

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    6. Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Speaking as someone that lives in a socialist country, bills get passed that favor the politicians, not the corporations or the people.

    7. Re:A clear example of how lobbying hurts everyone by danaris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But then I guess when you are dealing with the "religion" of Leftism that is controlling much of the government, irrational things are to be expected.

      A quick tip (which you ought to have been able to pick up from the summary, for Cthulhu's sake): This isn't something most left-leaning people in the US support. Note where it says that environmentalists are against it?

      It's important to remember that not every issue in this country is one of Left vs Right. Many of them, in fact, are issues of Politicians/Lobbyists vs Real People. This is one like that.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  2. Recipe For Disaster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  3. Who cares about some damage to a few cars... by ericloewe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real issue here is that food is being used to make fuel.

    1. Re:Who cares about some damage to a few cars... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The real issue here is that food is being used to make fuel.

      Almost. The real issue here is that topsoil is being used to make fuel. Corn for ethanol is grown continuously, which means not only do they not let fields lie fallow, but they actually don't even practice crop rotation! This leads to rapid depletion of the soil, turning it into dirt. What's the difference? Soil is mostly organic material. Dirt is mostly minerals. Soil can support plants we like to eat, dirt can't. So the corn for ethanol is basically grown hydroponically, in a dirt medium, using oil for fertilizer.

      Nobody is starving because we make corn into fuel. You think that they are, but there's actually plenty of food to feed them, going to waste. People are starving because nobody cares.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Who cares about some damage to a few cars... by caseih · · Score: 5, Informative

      I actually farm, so I feel the need to step in here and correct you a little bit. The richest soils I know are only 5% organic matter. And while I share your concerns over ethanol production in general, you don't appear to know a whole lot about soil science in general. Continuous cropping of any kind does deplete the soil. But it doesn't deplete it in terms of organic matter (though it can affect that). It depletes the soil of macro and micro nutrients (minerals). And you are wrong about corn being produced by top soil. Crops can grow in soils without any organic matter at all (I know because I've done it), but without organic matter you have to provide 100% of the nutrients the plant needs. N, P, K, S, Cu, Bo, and a host of others. That's part of the core problem with corn ethanol in general: corn is produced by feeding the plants the vast majority of their required nutrients through synthetic fertilizers, which come from fossil fuels (natural gas is the main one).

      High organic matter soils are rich because they have a greater capacity to produce the fundamental nutrients by breaking down plant matter. But no matter how you cut it, if you aren't fertilizing in some way (synthetic or manure) you're just mining your soil of nutrients and eventually you'll run out.

      Crop rotation has little to do with organic matter or soil richness. Crop rotation is almost all about disease and weed management. Corn farmers do rotate for this reason. Usually it's corn, soybeans, wheat, repeat, which is not enough. There is a small benefit to the soil of doing rotation, particularly when you grow legumes, which fix their own nitrogen and replenish the soil's nutrient levels.

      I'm also in a position to comment on your thoughts on food production. The real problem with corn ethanol and food production is that it's driving up costs of all food commodities (wheat, beef, dairy) and inputs at a dramatic rate on a global level. This makes basic food more expensive all across the world. It's now cheaper in Africa to import grain than to grow it themselves, because of the input costs which are priced on a global market (yay for globalization). Not only is this an inflationary cycle, it also directly is affecting starvation in third-world countries who are now dependent on imports and handouts. So while starvation has nothing to do with the amount of food in the world, it's our practices that are directly contributing to it. Hence the criticisms of corn production replacing food production are indeed warranted.

  4. Irony by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Too much ado about nothing by SIGBUS · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!
  6. Greenwashing at its finest by Tridus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. E15 may be an issue... and not just for cars by Constantin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Too much ado about nothing by NIK282000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  9. Re:Care to back that up? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  10. RTFA (or summary for that matter) by Reschekle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The environmentalists are actually against it