The Fatal Flaw...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
One more time. Ethanol is a replacement for MTBE. No amount of oil pumped out of the ground is going to change that.

Is the market broken for Ethanol? Of course! Has anyone offered a cheaper/viable alternative? Nope, just a lot of whining.

The ethanol mandates are spelled out in a law called the Renewable Fuels Standard, not the MTBE Replacement Standard.
 
I buy premium gas at my local Shell every fill-up that doesn't have ethanol.

They must have figured out a way around that darn MTBE regulation.

Ethanol is sold in gas here here because it is regulated as a requirement, not due to MTBE replacement.
 
Originally Posted by Danno
I buy premium gas at my local Shell every fill-up that doesn't have ethanol.

They must have figured out a way around that darn MTBE regulation.

Ethanol is sold in gas here here because it is regulated as a requirement, not due to MTBE replacement.

Tomato, Potato..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE_controversy

"Some U.S. states have enacted laws to ban MTBE in certain areas. California and New York, which together accounted for 40% of U.S. MTBE consumption, banned usage of the chemical in gasoline, effective 2002 and 2004, respectively. As of 2007, 25 states had issued complete or partial bans on the use of MTBE.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 prompted gasoline refiners to transition to the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive, in place of MTBE"
 
Last edited:
The use of an oxygenate such as MTBE or ethanol in gasoline is only mandated in those areas which are designated EPA non-attainment, such as here in Southeastern Wisconsin. However, to meet the requirements for RFG in those areas the concentration of of ethanol would only have to be around 6%, not 10% or 15% or 85%.
 
Not saying I agree with the 15% ethanol additive but I regularly run a 50/50 mix of E85 and E10 for price and performance reasons in my non flex fuel 96 grand marquis. The car loves higher octane although not required. Without I have a slight octane type knock or rattle under load like climbing a hill. When I run the mix it climbs much stronger and no rattle. Have been doing this for the past 4 years with no ill effects yet. Car is now alomst 210,000 miles.
 
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
One more time. Ethanol is a replacement for MTBE. No amount of oil pumped out of the ground is going to change that.

Is the market broken for Ethanol? Of course! Has anyone offered a cheaper/viable alternative? Nope, just a lot of whining.

The ethanol mandates are spelled out in a law called the Renewable Fuels Standard, not the MTBE Replacement Standard.


Without the phase out of MTBE its highly unlikely that ethanol would've ever gotten off the ground. Govt being what it is created the RFS because it was good optics from a political perspective.

Originally Posted by kschachn
The use of an oxygenate such as MTBE or ethanol in gasoline is only mandated in those areas which are designated EPA non-attainment, such as here in Southeastern Wisconsin. However, to meet the requirements for RFG in those areas the concentration of of ethanol would only have to be around 6%, not 10% or 15% or 85%.


There are a lot of areas in the US, Atlanta for example, with a lot of vehicles which can't meet the AQ requirements w/out ethanol. As for the min percentages I don't know but at this point the genie is already out of the bottle. It's just another example govt subsidizing an industry.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the article (and most of the posts in this thread) is that only 7 states "force" people to use any percentage of Ethanol. While the EPA does mandate ethanol as a fuel in the system, it doesn't dictate that if be forced on anyone. Any state is free to have ethanol free fuel right along side ethanol blends and let the consumer decide.

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...line-only-seven-states-require-e10-blend

And ethanol is price according to the commodity exchange price. Neither the refiners, the states, or the Feds have anything to do with the price. Retailers might to take advantage of folks. Price today on the commodity exchange for ethanol is $1.31. Price for gasoline is $1.65. Some folks do not suffer from an enlarged paranoia gland when it comes to ethanol, so they let their wallet decide and choose to select the lower priced fuel, which is usually E10. And one thing that is common among retailers, they will stock what sells the most.

No one, unless a state or locale forces it, will be required to use E15 either. If that happens, blame your hired help in your state, not some dweeb in the EPA, a farmer in Iowa, or the World Communist Union.
 
Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
The problem with the article (and most of the posts in this thread) is that only 7 states "force" people to use any percentage of Ethanol. While the EPA does mandate ethanol as a fuel in the system, it doesn't dictate that if be forced on anyone. Any state is free to have ethanol free fuel right along side ethanol blends and let the consumer decide.

Well that's half the story, there are also EPA designated nonattainment areas where RFG must be sold. MTBE is a ground water contaminate so generally ethanol is used. I live in the southeastern Wisconsin area and E0 is unavailable here even at the Milwaukee marina. The same applies in all the areas in this list:

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html

These are large cities, so yes, the EPA does dictate that RFG be forced on a significant population in this country and in practical terms it means ethanol. Anyone living in the areas in that list is not free to decide anything about our choice of fuel. Don't forget too that some local municipalities also mandate the use of E10 even without the EPA forcing them to do so. We have several of those communities here in Wisconsin. Most all of the State of California has similar local or county laws as well as the state-wide Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Since MTBE is banned in California, that means ethanol is used in all RFG sold in that state. So while you are correct that ethanol in and of itself is not mandated, RFG is mandated, and since MTBE is banned it means ethanol is the only practical choice for blenders.
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Without the phase out of MTBE its highly unlikely that ethanol would've ever gotten off the ground.

I get where you're coming from, but at least one very large energy company was experimenting with and marketing ethanol enhanced blends up here before this MTBE business even hit the news.
 
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Good read on the ethanol industry... enjoy....

"The Fatal Flaw in the Ethanol Industry"



One fatal flaw I can see coming is that ethanol production will likely decline over the next year due to low corn yields through much of the country as well as some fields that were never planted.
Much of the country saw an extremely wet spring which resulted in late planting or precluded any corn planting at all.
As a consequence, the surplus corn that the ethanol industry was intended to soak up won't be out there and every E10 dispenser I've seen includes the words "up to". Given the effective fifty dollar ceiling on oil, I'd expect most fuel sold as E10 to be closer to E0 and E15 to be about the same. E85 will likely cease to exist for at least a year or two. Also, many ethanol production facilities are owned by farmer's co-ops and many of these will likely end up in liquidation.
We can also look for sharply higher meat, poultry, egg and dairy prices next year as a consequence of tight feed supplies and therefore higher prices.
 
Well, let's see.... corn hit $4.47 in mid 2009. Accounting for inflation, corn today should be a least $5.39 on the market. The price closed at $3.57 today and the December futures price is at $4.12. Sure doesn't seem that the corn market... and subsequent ethanol production.... is affected at all. Especially since corn is cheaper now, literally, and on an inflation adjusted basis than it was 10 years ago.

The markets always give us a clue on what the economic outlook is for various commodities. And the wet spring and flooding hardly made a difference, else there would be substantial futures pricing. So I guess it isn't the "fatal flaw" that you presuppose.

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Good read on the ethanol industry... enjoy....

"The Fatal Flaw in the Ethanol Industry"



One fatal flaw I can see coming is that ethanol production will likely decline over the next year due to low corn yields through much of the country as well as some fields that were never planted.
Much of the country saw an extremely wet spring which resulted in late planting or precluded any corn planting at all.
As a consequence, the surplus corn that the ethanol industry was intended to soak up won't be out there and every E10 dispenser I've seen includes the words "up to". Given the effective fifty dollar ceiling on oil, I'd expect most fuel sold as E10 to be closer to E0 and E15 to be about the same. E85 will likely cease to exist for at least a year or two. Also, many ethanol production facilities are owned by farmer's co-ops and many of these will likely end up in liquidation.
We can also look for sharply higher meat, poultry, egg and dairy prices next year as a consequence of tight feed supplies and therefore higher prices.
 
Ethanol does help clean up exhaust emissions. But the biggest impact from this forced feeding is government subsidy of domestic agriculture, and increased domestic fuel production (reduced foreign dependence).
I really don't understand how it's OK to force 15% ethanol on millions of vehicles that are not designed to run over 10% and the manufacturer clearly states that damage will/may result. This has to be a mistake... or the feds will repair (or buy out) millions of damaged vehicles.
 
Originally Posted by DGXR

I really don't understand how it's OK to force 15% ethanol on millions of vehicles that are not designed to run over 10% and the manufacturer clearly states that damage will/may result. This has to be a mistake... or the feds will repair (or buy out) millions of damaged vehicles.

That's my position.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by DGXR
Ethanol does help clean up exhaust emissions. But the biggest impact from this forced feeding is government subsidy of domestic agriculture, and increased domestic fuel production (reduced foreign dependence).
I really don't understand how it's OK to force 15% ethanol on millions of vehicles that are not designed to run over 10% and the manufacturer clearly states that damage will/may result. This has to be a mistake... or the feds will repair (or buy out) millions of damaged vehicles.


How do you know they can't run E15? It's highly probable that because only E10 and E85 were available at the time automakers would only mention E10. It would not make any sense for them to say anything different.
 
I've run e15+ On and off since 2001 when it first showed up on the market .

All my cars run better on higher octane and when I've tested e0 regular I really can't find any significant fuel economy difference.

Lately e15 has been running over 20 cents a gallon cheaper (a few weeks ago 30 cents a gallon cheaper)

Economically it's well worth paying less and having more smooth power and no noticeable change in economy.

(Folks better get your comments in, when I post there is usually a thread lock coming
wink.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by DGXR
Ethanol does help clean up exhaust emissions. But the biggest impact from this forced feeding is government subsidy of domestic agriculture, and increased domestic fuel production (reduced foreign dependence).
I really don't understand how it's OK to force 15% ethanol on millions of vehicles that are not designed to run over 10% and the manufacturer clearly states that damage will/may result. This has to be a mistake... or the feds will repair (or buy out) millions of damaged vehicles.


How do you know they can't run E15? It's highly probable that because only E10 and E85 were available at the time automakers would only mention E10. It would not make any sense for them to say anything different.

My OM reads in black and white anything more than E10 will damage the engine... that's about as clear as it can be stated.
 
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
I've run e15+ On and off since 2001 when it first showed up on the market .

All my cars run better on higher octane and when I've tested e0 regular I really can't find any significant fuel economy difference.

Lately e15 has been running over 20 cents a gallon cheaper (a few weeks ago 30 cents a gallon cheaper)

Economically it's well worth paying less and having more smooth power and no noticeable change in economy.

(Folks better get your comments in, when I post there is usually a thread lock coming
wink.gif


Cheaper than what?..an E10?..or E0 straight gas? Remember, as the alcohol content goes up the energy content (BTU's) goes down, so it should be cheaper.

Fwiw a gallon of E0 92 octane generally runs about ~25c more than the equivalent E10 in my area.
 
Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by DGXR
Ethanol does help clean up exhaust emissions. But the biggest impact from this forced feeding is government subsidy of domestic agriculture, and increased domestic fuel production (reduced foreign dependence).
I really don't understand how it's OK to force 15% ethanol on millions of vehicles that are not designed to run over 10% and the manufacturer clearly states that damage will/may result. This has to be a mistake... or the feds will repair (or buy out) millions of damaged vehicles.


How do you know they can't run E15? It's highly probable that because only E10 and E85 were available at the time automakers would only mention E10. It would not make any sense for them to say anything different.

My OM reads in black and white anything more than E10 will damage the engine... that's about as clear as it can be stated.


Right, but we don't know if your manual says that because the automaker only tested E10 and E85. Make sense?
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
How do you know they can't run E15?

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Right, but we don't know if your manual says that because the automaker only tested E10 and E85. Make sense?

You sound pretty confident... so you should run E15 for 10 years in your "E10 only" (per the manual) vehicle and let us know how it goes.
I'm unwilling to be a guinea pig although that is the direction we are headed, **without a choice** It sounds like many others are also unwilling... are you saying we are all crazy for reading, and wanting to follow, the owner's manual?
 
Originally Posted by DGXR
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
How do you know they can't run E15?

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Right, but we don't know if your manual says that because the automaker only tested E10 and E85. Make sense?

You sound pretty confident... so you should run E15 for 10 years in your "E10 only" (per the manual) vehicle and let us know how it goes.
I'm unwilling to be a guinea pig although that is the direction we are headed, **without a choice** It sounds like many others are also unwilling... are you saying we are all crazy for reading, and wanting to follow, the owner's manual?

This 👆..i pride myself in keeping all my vehicles until they die of natural causes (my Camry had over 300k). The one I have now, even though it has 164k miles on it, is in EXCELLENT running condition and the interior is impeccable. The paint is a bit faded but still looks good... i plan to give it to the kids in a couple years and let them rack up another 100k+ God willing. I'm not going to do anything to jeopardize that plan like running an E15 or whatever, especially when my OM specifically says not to.

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Right, but we don't know if your manual says that because the automaker only tested E10 and E85. Make sense?

In a roundabout way yes.. and you could very well be right but that's not a risk I'm willing to take.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top