Advantage of ethanol free fuel?

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
Only 7 states mandate the use of ethanol in all gasoline. That leaves 43 that don't. If ethanol free is not readily available, the is due to either one's state legislature or the local retailers. It is not the EPA, the Corn Lobby, or whatever. It is a problem in one's own state.

Do you have me on block or do you just choose to continue to post incorrect information?


Nope. Not on block.

This was an article from 2015. Nothing much has changed in terms of ethanol requirement by Feds. Any nonsense is mostly state directed. Some states support and have incentives for ethanol blended fuels, but that doesn't mean they ban ethanol free fuels, that is, except for 7 states. That is down from 9. Some states, especially Maine, have been trying to pass legislation to ban all ethanol blended fuels in the state. If only 7 states mandate ethanol blended fuels, and a couple that did have since rescinded that position, and some states are actually considering banning ethanol blended fuels, then that by default means the EPA has no say in mandating ethanol blended fuels by each state. Only on a overall national level that ethanol be used. How it is used, or if it is used, is up to each state.

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

And from another source that delves a little deeper and verifies the above link.....

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2015/...in-your-fuel-fewer-than-you-might-think/

You can believe whatever floats your boat and bury your head in a bucket of..... whatever.

 

[kschachn]

Belief? Head in a bucket of whatever? What are you talking about?

I have shown you that there are geographic areas where RFG is mandated by the EPA, and how that effectively mandates the use of EtOH as an oxygenate. I have no agenda in this issue whatsoever, I live in an EPA nonattainment area and I personally have no issues with RFG or EtOH in any of my vehicles. But your focus on state mandates is misguided since that isn't the only factor that will mandate the use of oxygenated fuels, and subsequently E10.

The one burying a head is you since the reality is that large metropolitan areas throughout the US are required to use RFG and subsequently EtOH blended gasoline. Did you even look at the long list of counties in that link I gave or do you not understand what I'm saying?

Yes it is correct that the EPA may not directly mandate the use of EtOH, but it does indeed mandate the use of RFG. Since MTBE is no longer utilized as an oxygenate then that means ethanol is indirectly mandated by the EPA. I see it everywhere here in the five-county nonattainment area in southeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not mandate the use of EtOH as a state measure but you cannot buy E0 here, not even at the Milwaukee marina. Therefore ethanol is mandated by the EPA.

 

[hatt]

Iowa corn haulers are not a valid resource for ethanol information.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted by hatt
Iowa corn haulers are not a valid resource for ethanol information.


Who would that be?

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Belief? Head in a bucket of whatever? What are you talking about?

I have shown you that there are geographic areas where RFG is mandated by the EPA, and how that effectively mandates the use of EtOH as an oxygenate. I have no agenda in this issue whatsoever, I live in an EPA nonattainment area and I personally have no issues with RFG or EtOH in any of my vehicles. But your focus on state mandates is misguided since that isn't the only factor that will mandate the use of oxygenated fuels, and subsequently E10.

The one burying a head is you since the reality is that large metropolitan areas throughout the US are required to use RFG and subsequently EtOH blended gasoline. Did you even look at the long list of counties in that link I gave or do you not understand what I'm saying?

Yes it is correct that the EPA may not directly mandate the use of EtOH, but it does indeed mandate the use of RFG. Since MTBE is no longer utilized as an oxygenate then that means ethanol is indirectly mandated by the EPA. I see it everywhere here in the five-county nonattainment area in southeastern Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not mandate the use of EtOH as a state measure but you cannot buy E0 here, not even at the Milwaukee marina. Therefore ethanol is mandated by the EPA.


Reformulated Gas may be implemented by states and municipalities, but all the EPA does in provide oversight. It does not ban ethanol free fuels from being made available. I took this snap from the EPA's website, specifically their reformulated gas section.....

It still is true... the EPA doesn't mandate the use of ethanol by anyone. It is state and municipality directed. What I said is factual. But given that there is a LOT of ethanol free fuel available in Wisconsin, well, one has to decide how they will approach what they perceive to be a problem. If it is primarily for one's lawn mowers, weed eaters, chain saws, etc, which is reasonable, then drive a short distance to one of many locations in Wisconsin and Illinois that sells ethanol free fuel and buy the amount you need. But when it comes to vehicles, I still think the ethanol outrage is simply irrational paranoia on steroids.

 

[kschachn]

Your post below does not accurately represent the reality of what the EPA does. Yes, the EPA does in fact mandate RFG in some areas including the six-county nonattainment area here in Southeastern Wisconsin. Non-RFG gasoline is banned here and cannot be sold. Wisconsin cannot opt-out of selling RFG in this area.

Quote
Mandated RFG Program Areas

The Act mandates the sale of reformulated gasoline ("RFG") in the nine worst ozone nonattainment areas beginning January 1, 1995. EPA determined the nine covered areas to be the metropolitan areas of Baltimore, Chicago, Hartford, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Diego.

Any ozone nonattainment area that is reclassified as severe becomes a mandated RFG program area. Inclusion in the RFG program occurs one year following the date of reclassification. Sacramento was reclassified from serious to severe effective June 1, 1995 and became a mandatory RFG area effective June 1, 1996.


https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/special/pdf/rfg2.pdf

These areas are some of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States. It affects a huge number of individuals, by the list in that linked file it is 63,161,000 which is almost 24% of the entire population.

In addition the EPA will mandate the use of RFG for some areas that the state's governor may request:

Quote
RFG Program Opt-In Areas

Any area that is currently or previously designated in nonattainment for ozone under the national one-hour ozone standard (since enactment of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act on February 15, 1990) may be included in the RFG program at the request of the Governor of the State in which the area is located. EPA is to require the sale of RFG in the "opt-in" areas within 1 year after an application is received. Although EPA has discretion to establish the effective date for the sale of RFG in these areas, EPA does not have discretion to deny a Governor's request. The effective date for a potential opt-in area may be extended beyond 1 year based on a determination by EPA that there is insufficient domestic capacity to produce RFG (63 FR 52093, Sep. 29, 1998).


Note that contrary to your post below it is the EPA which gives the mandate, not the state. These Opt-In areas add an additional 34.7M people.

So while it is technically true EtOH is not mandated, RFG is mandated, and since MTBE use is becoming more rare every day this leaves EtOH as the sole additive.

And no, I am not driving a half-hour each way to get non-RFG. I haven't seen any deleterious effects in any of my vehicles or OPE.

Originally Posted by TiredTrucker
Reformulated Gas may be implemented by states and municipalities, but all the EPA does in provide oversight. It does not ban ethanol free fuels from being made available. I took this snap from the EPA's website, specifically their reformulated gas section.....

It still is true... the EPA doesn't mandate the use of ethanol by anyone. It is state and municipality directed. What I said is factual. But given that there is a LOT of ethanol free fuel available in Wisconsin, well, one has to decide how they will approach what they perceive to be a problem. If it is primarily for one's lawn mowers, weed eaters, chain saws, etc, which is reasonable, then drive a short distance to one of many locations in Wisconsin and Illinois that sells ethanol free fuel and buy the amount you need. But when it comes to vehicles, I still think the ethanol outrage is simply irrational paranoia on steroids.

 

[Olas]

with a plastic fuel tank and KR, ethanol has very few downsides. with a metal fueltank and no KR ethanol is the devil.

latent heat of vaprisation and octane rating make for a denser charge than gas alone, that can take more spark advance than gas alone. the lower energy per unit volume is offset by the improved conditions allowed eg colder, denser, more advance, so the power should be broadly similar in any modrn vehicle with feedback.

tuners and carbs are a different question, but for a normal guy with a normal car it shouldnt make a jot of difference.