posted 06-13-2013 07:18 PM                  

Reading a magazine today, and seen this stuff advertised:
http://mystarbrite.com/startron/

STARTRON additive... says it 'cures ethanol fuel problems'

posted 06-16-2013 10:50 AM                  

The Case Against Ethanol
Corn and Fuel Don’t Mix
The Dangers of Pumping Ethanol

Fed a steady diet of corn, a staggering number of vintage vehicles in the United States are now suffering from clogged arteries. The culprit? Ethanol.

The issue is straightforward. Countries around the world are supplementing their gasoline with biofuels, primarily ethanol. In the United States, ethanol is distilled from corn but cellulosic ethanol can also be distilled from switchgrass, sugarcane, wood chips and other agricultural byproducts. Supplementing the petroleum-based fuel supply in this manner may be a well-intentioned effort to reduce oil dependency, but it is not cost-effective and results in severe consequences to your collector vehicle’s engine.

Most new vehicles are constructed with materials that resist ethanol’s potentially harmful properties when small concentrations of the biofuel are used, such as 10% ethanol by volume (E10). However, that is not the case with older cars and current high-performance specialty parts. Condensation created by this gasoline can damage engines and result in corrosion, rust, clogging and deterioration of fuel-system components.

The U.S. Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in 2005 and then set ambitious mandates for the amount of ethanol to be blended into gasoline each year, going from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. In order to meet the ever-growing RFS biofuel mandate, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently permitted the sale of 15% ethanol (E15) in gasoline. In the process, the EPA acknowledged that E15 poses a risk to older cars and therefore made it “illegal” to fuel pre-’01 vehicles. However, the agency is only requiring a gasoline-pump warning label to alert motorists that E15 could potentially cause equipment failure in older vehicles.

The EPA’s decision has spawned a huge battle across America. A coalition of unlikely partners has come together to fight E15. They include organizations such as the SEMA Action Network (SAN) representing collector cars and their owners, along with the boating industry, lawn-equipment manufacturers and the oil industry. It also includes the food industry (corn prices are increasing as a portion of the crop is being diverted to fuel) and environmentalists (the land, transportation and energy costs to produce ethanol undermine the benefits).

The battle’s outcome is still unknown. The EPA’s decision is being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Congress, lawmakers are considering legislation to ban E15 and also reduce the RFS mandates, the driving force behind E15. Both H.R. 875 in the U.S. House of Representatives and S. 344 in the U.S. Senate are supported by the SAN. A timeframe for resolving the debate is unclear, but the issue has become very contentious.

While it is now legal to sell E15 in America, there are only a handful of stations currently marketing the product. The infrastructure for most stations has not yet been certified for the fuel. More importantly, most automakers have not certified their vehicles for E15. Therefore, they may void the warranty for any E15-related damage.
This year, states such as Florida, Maine, Oregon and West Virginia have taken the lead in dealing with the ethanol issue on a local level. In fact, legislation to repeal the requirement that all gasoline offered for sale in the state contain a percentage of ethanol is on a fast track in Florida. As this article went to print, the bill had been approved by the Florida House and Senate and sent to the governor for his signature and enactment into law. Currently, Florida requires that all gasoline sold by a supplier, importer, blender or wholesaler contain 9%–10% ethanol, or other alternative fuel, by volume.

For auto enthusiasts in the United States, the message to lawmakers and regulators about ethanol has been clear: “Hit the brakes on E15.”

posted 06-16-2013 10:56 AM                  

How Increasing Amounts of Ethanol at the Pump Can Affect You
By Sean Crawford – JE Pistons

If you haven’t noticed by now, most gasoline sold in the United States now contains ethanol. In fact, more than 90% of all gasoline contains up to 10% ethanol. The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has mandated that ethanol usage in fuel increase from nine billion gallons per year in 2008 to just less than 14 billion gallons in 2013. The mandate is part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was expanded by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The principle behind the laws was well-intentioned but potentially misplaced—increasing our usage of renewable energy while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Year after year, the annual ethanol targets are scheduled to continually rise until we reach 36 billion gallons in 2022. Most of our consumption today is accomplished through the current E10 fuel (90% gasoline, 10% ethanol) commonly found at the pump. Alternatives, such as E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) for “flex-fuel” vehicles exist as well, but are harder to find in most areas and therefore do not make up the majority of the ethanol usage. It is important to note that gas pump labels for E10 and below are subject to state law. Since a number of states, such as California, don’t require a label, motorists may not be aware that they are putting ethanol in their tank.

Ethanol, as a fuel, has its share of advantages. For example, it can be produced from domestically grown corn or other biofuels that is raised by our own farmers. It can also carry a higher octane rating, assuming it has not been contaminated by absorbing water. For the modern performance enthusiast, E85 has become a popular low-budget race fuel for everything from supercharged modern muscle to turbocharged import vehicles. Some enthusiasts can even be found carrying spare plastic fuel tanks in the back of their vehicles to extend their range between visiting the limited stations that carry E85 fuel. It would seem that a market like ours, with such an emphasis on performance, would welcome ethanol with open arms.

The reality is that there are all types of vehicles and equipment that require pure gasoline. Many were designed long before chemicals, such as ethanol, had been considered during the design and validation processes. Critical components, such as engine seals, gaskets, fuel lines and most internal components, were once tortured on engine dynamometers, scorched in hot weather tests and designed assuming nothing less than 100% gasoline would be cycled through the engine during normal operation. As you can imagine, introducing a new fuel into service can bring a new share of unexpected problems. To start, ethanol is hydroscopic, which means it attracts moisture, which leads to increased levels of water in the fuel system. The current E10 blend has the ability to absorb 0.5% volume before reaching a point where water will actually accumulate outside of the fuel mixture (called phase separation). For a 15-gallon fuel tank, that is about 1.2 cups of water that can be introduced into the fuel and supporting systems. This water formation can lead to metal corrosion and the deterioration of plastics and rubber.
The corrosion issue is most detrimental in carbureted vehicles, which include hot rods, musclecars and a large number of production vehicles. Many of the critical components of a carburetor, such as the main body and float bowls, are die cast from aluminum or zinc. When these materials are exposed to ethanol or the water often contained within ethanol, they create a corrosive combination that can lead to carburetor malfunction and potential failure. In addition, the extra moisture that is introduced into the fuel can lead to buildup or “sludge” that can clog the precision internals of a carburetor responsible for proper fuel delivery. Outside of carburetors, the materials that are commonly used to manufacture gaskets, seals and fuel lines are not consistently manufactured with ethanol-resistant fluorinated polymers. After prolonged exposure to ethanol, these materials can deteriorate, clog fuel filters and result in dangerous fuel leaks.

Today, the EPA and ethanol producers are pushing to allow a 50% increase in ethanol content in gasoline by introducing E15 to more markets. The reason is simple—to meet the federal law’s ever-growing demand for renewable fuels—a demand that cannot be met by E10.

SEMA’s Government Affairs Office is working hard to protect unsuspecting motorists and companies that produce their vehicles and equipment. SEMA is asking that E15 be banned at this time and that the federal law’s renewable fuel mandates be adjusted to reasonable numbers that can be achieved in a free marketplace. Without such a change, E20 and E30 will be the next fuels being pumped into gas tanks.
Need more information? Visit the SEMA Government Affairs homepage to stay up to date. This is one trend that shouldn’t be ignored.

posted 06-24-2013 06:59 PM                  

Asked not to post so here's the link:

posted 06-25-2013 11:57 AM                  

Warning stickers about ethanol content can appear on gasoline pumps. There are 15 states that don't require this, so don't assume that the gas is ethanol free if you travel to another state and there is no sticker.

This chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows how the ethanol content increased through the period from 2009-2011. Already near the 10 percent mark by this point, it is likely higher, due in part to E85 fuel, but could go even higher with the arrival of E15.

This is the sticker found on the few E15 pumps currently being used. It is the only safeguard against misfueling and puts the responsibility on the consumer.

American Automobile Association (AAA) warned its members against the use of E15, citing automaker concerns. The agency has been a vigilant watchdog on the issue.
Companies such as Justice Brothers make fuel additives that can combat the effects of ethanol. Regular use would be helpful, but it’s not a perfect solution for the E15 dilemma.

Some stations can offer “pure” gasoline for limited use. In Florida, a bill has passed to allow this type of gasoline to be sold without limit. There are accusations, lawsuits and legislative measures flying around.

It’s the kind of fight that gets dirty quickly, thanks to misinformation, misleading information and intent to strengthen one position by weakening another.
While the average motorist will be content to let the political parties and special interests hash it out on most occasions, this one could bear watching if you care about the fuel you are putting in your car, whether it be the collector car or the daily driver.

The center of the storm is the next generation of oxygenated fuels that could be coming to market across the nation. It is called “E15” and it is already being sold at limited outlets in three states. Critics say it is bad for your car if your car is more than a few years old. Supporters say the contentions are scare tactics. Naturally, each side has testing and experts to support their position. It comes down to whom you believe.
“It’s hard to understand what’s going on because there is so much going on,” said Stuart Gosswein, senior director of Federal Government Affairs for the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA). “The ethanol industry petitioned the EPA to act to make E15 available, even though it’s OK for some uses and not for others. The thinking is that putting a sticker on the pump will be enough of a protection and a way to inform the consumer, but there hasn’t been any kind of education for the consumer. Everyone is kind of stumbling through it and the question keeps getting asked about the rationale behind making E15 available now.”

At issue is the amount of ethanol in fuel and E15 would represent an increase in it. The fuels currently pumped can contain up to 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. E10, as it is called, is a low level blend that is considered to be “substantially similar” to gasoline without the presence of ethanol. It wasn’t that long ago that the very presence of ethanol in gasoline was a topic for discussion.

Arrival of ethanol
The incorporation of ethanol into gasoline came about with the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which was passed in 1970. The original bill more than 40 years ago targeted air pollution, especially from smokestack industries and the automobile, especially in bigger cities, where air quality was diminished by exhaust. With the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the car once again came under increased scrutiny. Stringent tailpipe emission standards were coupled with efforts to reduce the volatility of fuels being sold. The new rules also called for the production of higher levels of alcohol-based oxygenated fuels.
As the 21st century came into being, environmental concerns continued. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a key player in today’s discussion with the creation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The Renewable Fuel Standard required transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a “minimum volume of renewable fuels.” The effect was greatly enhanced by provisions within the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which sought, as one of its goals, to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil.

Since one of the tenets of the RFS program is a requirement to increase the amounts of renewable fuels in increasing amounts, the 10 percent was in jeopardy of being increased from the start. When you add in the fact that motorists are using far less fuel than anticipated, there comes a crisis. To be in compliance, more of the conventional biofuel (ethanol) has to be added to less of the base stock (gasoline). It becomes a numbers game with perilous consequences to the internal combustion engine and the American consumer.

“With Congress passing the Energy Independence and Security Act and expanding the amount of biofuels that have to be used, it creates a flashpoint. Every year, the biofuels blend is going up and there’s a point where you can’t meet the target. The Renewable Fuel Standard used to be a secondary issue, but it is quickly becoming a threshold issue,” said Gosswein.

Section 202 of the EISA states ‘‘Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this sentence, the Administrator shall revise the regulations under this paragraph to ensure that transportation fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the United States (except in noncontiguous States or territories), on an annual average basis, contains at least the applicable volume of renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel.”

The applicable volume of renewable fuel for the calendar years 2007 through 2022 shall be determined in accordance with the following table:

Year/Barrels (billions)
2007 / 4.7
2008 / 9.0
2009 / 11.1
2010 / 12.95
2011 / 13.95
2012 / 15.2
2013 / 16.55
2014 / 18.15
2015 / 20.5
2016 / 22.25
2017 / 24.0
2018 / 26.0
2019 / 28.0
2020 / 30.0
2021 / 33.0
2022 / 36.0

As you can see, the increase steadily climbs to an anticipated 36 billion barrels within 10 years. Once again, considering the reduction in fuel use, the numbers become unbalanced.

The ethanol industry was probably among the first to sense the trend. Production of corn for use in fuels was stepped up at the expense of producing the grain for food consumption. The re-direction of resources has had an adverse effect on agriculture in that livestock feed has been compromised and the laws of supply and demand take over. The available feed comes with a higher price, which is inevitably passed to the consumer.

Testing
According to Gosswein, the EPA was approached by the ethanol interests in 2009 for a waiver to sell E15, which would require extensive testing before allowing a product for use. The testing and methodology have become one of the latest targets in the battle over E15.

In January 2013, the American Petroleum Institute called for the EPA to pull back the E15 that was available for sale and consumer use in three states. The EPA had granted the sale of the fuel with certain conditions, though there was no requirement for educating consumers about the new fuel and its dangers.

“In 2010 and 2011, EPA gave the green light to use E15 in model year 2001 and later cars and some other vehicles. EPA’s action was irresponsible,” said API Director of Downstream and Industry Operations Bob Greco. “EPA knew E15 vehicle testing was ongoing but decided not to wait for the results. Why did EPA move forward prematurely? Part of the answer may be the need to raise the permissible concentration level of ethanol so that greater volumes could be used, as required by the federal Renewable Fuel Standard.”

The Coordinating Research Council (an organization created and supported by the oil and auto industries) completed testing in May 2012. “That research demonstrated that E15 could damage valve and valve seat engine parts in some of the tested vehicles, which include a number of common brands.”

Additional testing by the CRC was completed earlier this year. “They conclude that putting E15 in America’s gas tanks could damage millions of vehicles and put motorist safety at risk,” added Greco.

Findings questioned
The CRC report found an elevated incidence of fuel pump failures, fuel system component swelling and impairment of fuel measurement systems. The report concludes E15 could cause erratic and misleading fuel gauge readings and faulty engine malfunction lights. The effects could include component breakage and vehicle breakdowns. The problems did not occur with fuels containing no ethanol and 10 percent ethanol.

The Renewable Fuels Association took immediate exception to the findings of the American Petroleum Institute and fired back on the same day. Bob Dineen, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association said the CRC testing was tainted. “API has absolutely no credibility when it comes to talking about E15,” he said. “That point has never been more clear than in this new study where they ‘cooked the books’ by using an aggressive fuel mix to try and force engine damage. This isn’t real testing and it certainly isn’t real life. E15 will not be stopped by feet dragging and forecasts of fictional faults.”

Obviously, each of these players has somewhat of a vested interest in the issue and subject to skepticism of bias. While you may be able to cast aspersions onto any opinion, it is interesting to note what the manufacturers have to say about the matter.

The EPA released E15 for sale with the stipulation that it is not to be used in vehicles that were manufactured before 2001. Unfortunately, there is nothing in place to prevent that from happening, whether through ignorance or accidentally.

Automakers’ reaction
A number of auto manufacturers, domestic and foreign, have spoken out on the consequences of use. In July 2011, Wisconsin Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that spelled out his concerns. “On June 1, 2011, I wrote to 14 auto manufacturers and asked three questions: 1) Will E15 damage engines of model year 2001 or later? 2) Will your warranties cover damage from E15? And 3) Will E15 negatively effect fuel efficiency?

“Engine manufacturers have been nearly unanimous in their beliefs that E15 will damage engines, void warranties and reduce fuel efficiency.”

Sensenbrenner went on to highlight quotes from several manufacturers including Ford and Chrysler.
Ford: Ford does not support the introduction of E15 into the marketplace for legacy fleet. Fuel not approved in the owner’s manual is considered misfueling and any damage resulting from misfueling is not covered by the warranty.
Chrysler: We are not confident that our vehicles will not be damaged from the use of E15. The warranty information provided to our customers specifically notes that use of the blends beyond E10 will void the warranty.
Since Sensenbrenner’s letter, there have been numerous news reports that have echoed the findings and concerns. Viewed by some to be “sky is falling” criticism of E15 without conclusive testing, organizations such as SEMA and the American Automobile Association (AAA) have been watching the matter closely as well.

Lawsuits and legislative action
Almost immediately after the E15 was allowed, the court battles started. The EPA’s authority was challenged in court, which was rejected on the basis that the organizations bringing the suit, including trade associations representing manufacturers, petroleum and the food industry, lacked standing to bring the suit, a decision that was appealed.

In August, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the suit and upheld the lack of standing. The matter has been brought to the Supreme Court. In February 2013, the groups banded together and filed a petition of appeal. “We’ve filed this petition because we believe the D.C. Circuit incorrectly concluded that none of the 17 petitioners had standing to challenge the E15 partial waivers,” said Greco of API.
“Had EPA stayed within its statutory authority and followed proper procedures, it would have waited until ongoing E15 testing on engines and fuel systems was completed before allowing the use of E15. Then, it would have discovered that E15 is not safe for millions of vehicles now on the road.

“Although we hope the court will resolve the E15 problem, we also believe our experience here represents only one of many underlying problems with the Renewable Fuel Standard, so we are calling on Congress to repeal the program.”
There have been a number of bills proposed on both sides of the aisle that deal with E15 and the bigger issue of the Renewable Fuel Standard. Days before the announcement of the Supreme Court petition, legislation was introduced into the U.S. Senate prohibiting the introduction of gasoline containing over 10 percent ethanol into the marketplace.
Introduced by Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, S. 344 received two readings and was sent to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. In April, Virginia Representative Bob Goodlatte brought forth H.R. 1462, which seeks the same purpose as the Senate measure, but also asks to amend certain requirements of the Clean Air Act with respect to the renewable fuel program. The matter carries 28 co-sponsors and has been sent to the House Committee on Energy and Power. The “Phantom Fuel Reform Act of 2013” (H.R. 550) is calling for the renewable fuel program to be amended to require the cellulosic biofuel requirement to be based on actual production. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate (S. 251).

An even bigger measure came to light by Goodlatte with the introduction of H.R. 1461. This measure is called the “RFS Reform Act and RFS Elimination Act”. In his remarks on April 10, Goodlatte addressed the issue (Text supplied by the Congressional Record).

“Mr. Speaker, I have long been a critic of the Renewable Fuel Standard and we must act now to fix this broken policy. While the livestock industry has been witnessing the effects of the RFS mandate for several years, the drought last year highlighted for many the extreme reach of the RFS throughout our economy. But even before the drought, by diverting feed stocks to fuel there have been diminished corn supplies for livestock and food producers. Tightening supplies have driven up the price of corn. The higher cost for corn is passed on to livestock and food producers. In turn, consumers see that price reflected in the price of food on the grocery store shelves and restaurants.

“This year, the U.S. is expected to hit the blend wall – where the ethanol mandate will require more ethanol be produced than can be safely blended into gasoline. In order to address the blend wall by reducing the RFS mandate, EPA is working to push E15. EPA has granted a partial waiver to allow E15 blends for model cars 2001 and newer, despite the fact that a study from the Coordinating Research Council, commissioned by U.S. automakers and oil companies, found that 25 percent of cars approved by the EPA to run on E15 experienced engine damage – and even failure. The EPA should not be promoting fuel that is unsafe on the roadways just to meet a mandate.

“EPA administrators from both parties have constantly refused to use the flexibility granted to them by law to alter the RFS, so Congress must act.”

Goodlatte points out that, while he believes the RFS should be eliminated completely, it may not happen yet, but the policy is broken and needs fixed at best.

Issues with E15
SEMA has been paying close attention to the issue from the start. SEMA is a supporter of alternative fuels and the reduction of the nation’s dependency on foreign oil, but also stands guard against potentially unintentional harm to the enthusiast.

“Ethanol absorbs water and that leads to corrosion,” said Gosswein, speaking for SEMA’s position. “There are a great number of vehicles on the road that have materials that can’t combat the effects of ethanol. Consumers must be educated about fuel, fuel additives and extra expenses. We have done a lot of technical consultations. E15 burns hotter than E10.”

When given proper advance notice, manufacturers are capable of producing vehicles that can deal with the latest twists and turns in the fueling conundrum. Flex fuel vehicles can handle the E15 with ease, but the modern technology isn’t in every driveway. With consumers keeping their cars an average of 11 years or more, the number of consumers affected by change increases.

In their position paper on the matter, SEMA states that ethanol “increases water formation which can then create formic acid. It can corrode metals, plastics and rubber, especially over a period of time when the vehicle is not used.”

As mentioned, there are few safeguards to prevent a consumer from misfueling a vehicle. According to SEMA, there are an estimated 74 million pre-2001 vehicles in the marketplace that may be misfueled with E15 (if it were available nationwide). The number obviously does not include the number of boats, lawnmowers, handheld equipment, etc. that wasn’t designed to receive this fuel. If misfueled, the lifespan of this equipment can be dramatically reduced and owners could face equipment breakdowns. Although motorists could add anti-corrosion additives every time they purchased gas, it would be expensive, burdensome and require consumer education.

At the pump
In June 2011, the EPA issued a rule requiring all gas stations dispensing E15 to place an orange and black sticker on the pumps. SEMA contends that a gas pump label cautioning motorists not to misfuel their older vehicles is an inappropriate response to the threat of damage and injury. The EPA is putting the onus on the vehicle owner to understand the difference between E10 and E15. Misfuelling will occur, whether by mistake, because regular gasoline is not available, or for some other reason. Gas stations, automakers, parts manufacturers etc. would not be granted immunity from lawsuits if a consumer alleges a problem from E15.There are currently 15 states that do not require an ethanol label on their pumps. E10 labeling rules are subject to state, not federal, regulation. Despite the EPA “mandate” for the orange and black sticker, six of the 17 registered sellers of E15 were found to have neglected to put the sticker on the pump.

The presence of flex fuel vehicles should be part of the solution but is actually part of the problem. Many consumers who own flex fuel vehicles will opt to purchase the E10 fuel instead of E85 where offered. The rationale behind the choice becomes price point or, in many cases, E85 is simply not offered. There are nearly 10 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road, yet only three percent of the gas stations in the country offer E85. Lack of E85 sales is actually seen as a contributing factor in the drive for E15 sales.

Finally, there’s the matter of blender pumps. For the stations that use that type of dispensing equipment, the EPA has made it illegal to dispense less than four gallons of E10 after someone has used the E15. The residue left in the system could cause damage for the subsequent customer. This means it is illegal for consumers to fill a gas can or re-fuel a motorcycle after someone before them has used E15, even if they have no knowledge of the previous customer’s transaction.

“This is a primary issue that resonates among hobbyists for a number of reasons,” concludes Gosswein. “We hear it loud and clear. They understand that there could be a problem and it’s not a knee jerk reaction. They can talk and understand the technical side of it. They can let their voice be heard by contacting their legislators and making those that aren’t aware understand their concerns.”

The future
Developments will occur, perhaps taking years. Opponents of E15 want more testing by independent entities such as the National Academy of Sciences. Supporters want to keep the momentum moving, though having 17 outlets in three states means it will take a long time to get the program moving in a significant way.

While the increase in ethanol content is the direction of the EPA, there have been some areas moving in the other direction. House Bill 4001 passed in Florida that would eliminate the requirement that all gasoline offered for sale in the state of Florida contain a percentage of ethanol. It is awaiting the governor’s signature into law.
On the other hand, a bill in the Illinois General Assembly sought to encourage the sale of E15. The measure, H.B. 3369, would allow the state’s Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to provide information to gas stations to encourage the stations to offer E15 as an option for customers. The measure is before the rule committee.
There is no quick and easy answer in the great debate about E15. More information will be forthcoming. Courts and legislatures will do their jobs and the eventual outcome is clearly uncertain. It’s a matter that bears watching for the good of you and your car.

posted 06-25-2013 12:23 PM                  

As gas stations across the country get ready to roll out gasoline blended with 15 percent ethanol – and as the EPA has begun to recommend increasing the ethanol content in fuel to 30 percent – the Antique Automobile Club of America, one of the largest collector car clubs in the country, has come out in opposition to any mandate that places ethanol in automotive fuel.

“We know what E10 does to our cars; it’s very disruptive,” said Tom Cox, the president of the AACA. “So if we go to E15 – and E20 after that, I suppose – that doesn’t bode well for those of us with vintage vehicles.”

Cox and several other AACA members joined representatives from the American Motorcyclists Association and the Specialty Equipment Market Association’s SEMA Action Network (which has also recently vocalized its concerns regarding ethanol in fuel) last Wednesday in traveling to the Capitol in Washington, D.C., to rally in protest against ethanol-blended gasoline. During the rally, the AACA members parked their cars on the National Mall and met with members of the Congressional Automotive Performance and Motorsports Caucus, some of whom spoke out against the use of ethanol in fuel.

According to Cox, while the AACA has been and remains to be careful to keep out of the political aspects of the issue – as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the IRS prevents it from lobbying or endorsing political candidates – seeing the effects of ethanol-blended fuel use in collector cars, particularly on AACA tours, has motivated AACA leadership to take more of a stand in recent years.

“There’s a lot of reasons to be against E15,” Cox said. “It creates vapor lock, it softens rubber parts, it eats up gas tanks and carburetors by causing them to rust and corrode, it pollutes more, and it gets less fuel mileage. I think that, in essence, this constant ratcheting of the levels of ethanol in gasoline is in so many ways achieving the early vehicle retirement goals that we’ve seen come out of Washington before. In all best possible circumstances we’d like to see ethanol out of gas completely because it is destructive – there’s no question about it.”
Cox said that, as a non-profit, the AACA can, and is expected to engage in, educational efforts, so it has undertaken to educate its 62,000 members – and the elected members of the government – about the effects of ethanol on older cars. In addition to the rally, the AACA also printed a pair of editorials arguing against ethanol-blended fuel in the May/June issue of the club’s magazine, Antique Automobile.

“While there is no mandate that motorists put E10 in their collector vehicles, off-road vehicles, motorcycles or small engines, un-blended gasoline is disappearing from the marketplace,” wrote Herb Oakes, the AACA’s director of legislation, in one of the editorials. “The life span of a vehicle and equipment can be dramatically reduced with the wrong fuel, and vintage car owners could be confronted with breakdowns because of it.”

At the federal level, two pieces of legislation introduced in Congress earlier this year – House Bill 875 and Senate Bill 344 – asked the EPA to suspend the sale of E15 until the fuel could be studied further. Both of those bills remain in committee.

However, at least two states have rejected ethanol-blended fuel mandates. Earlier this month, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law a bill (HB4001) that repealed existing Florida legislation that required up to 10 percent ethanol in fuel. Late last month, Maine Governor Paul LePage signed into law a bill (LD 115) that banned all ethanol-blended fuels from sale in the state as long as at least two other New England states followed suit.
Cox said that he believes the rally last week built awareness of the issue, but it also showed that a diversity of automotive organizations (AACA has long been known as catering to the restoration crowd, while SEMA has long been known as catering to the hot rodding and customizing crowd) can come together to speak out on the issue.

posted 06-25-2013 12:29 PM                  

Our new car is designed to run on E85. I need to try it and see how it performs. Don't care about the new ones. The ones that I'm concerned about are the old cars, including Prowler that was designed, engineered and parts sourced in the mid-'90's, those plus all of our small gasoline engines, tractors and boats.

posted 06-27-2013 09:00 AM                  

They cite the demand for corn feedstock to manufacture ethanol has driven food and livestock feed prices to record highs.

Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma says that the cost of RFS credits has cause two refineries in Oklahoma to shut down losing needed jobs and gasoline supply.

posted 08-28-2013 09:02 AM                  

In the 1930s, new engines were being designed that would compress the fuel/air charge, resulting in a higher compression ratio. However, the greater the compression, the greater the engine knock, which lead to changes in automotive fuels offered in those days.

With all of the current controversy about Ethanol being added to gasoline, I thought it would be fun to take you back to the 1930s where an almost exact situation was taking place, and there were some big players involved.
After revolutionizing the auto industry with his electric self-starter, Charles Kettering turned to another problem that he himself had a personal stake in.

Cadillac engineers were complaining that Kettering’s newly introduced self-starter and battery ignition system were making spark plugs misfire, causing engine knock in the cylinders.

However, Kettering suspected it was a problem with the gasoline. New engines were being designed that would compress the fuel/air charge, resulting in a higher compression ratio.

The result was more power from the fuel. However, the greater the compression, the greater the engine knock, Kettering determined. The higher compression was causing the fuel to ignite before the spark. So it was pre-ignition that was causing the knock.

The more efficient high-compression engines were necessary not only to make cars run faster, but also because the experts had determined in 1915, that the world’s oil supply would be depleted by 1940.
Many popular cars of the day, such as the Ford Model T, had low compression engines that used an adjustable carburetor and a mechanical spark advance that made it possible to switch from gasoline to alcohol to kerosene as needed.
Despite Henry Ford’s later support for alcohol fuel in the 1920s and 1930s, the only fuel the Ford Motor Company actually offered for sale was “Fordsol,” which was a mixture of benzene (from Ford ¬factory coking operations) and regular gasoline.

Some early auto manufacturers, such as the Olds Gas Power Company, offered a simple mixer attachment for alcohol and claimed in their advertising that “under actual operating conditions... the fuel consumption per horsepower is about the same, pound for pound, whether using alcohol or gasoline.”

Kettering, who had become General Motors vice president of research and the president of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), noted two directions in fuel research in a 1919 speech to the society.

There was, he said, a strong move in the direction of blended fuels, with blends of up to 20% or more of benzene or alcohol added to gasoline; the other was a low percentage additive, such as iodine, which was too expensive to be practical but points to the possibility of other additives…” Kettering and his research assistant Thomas A. Midgley immediately began intense research into fuel additives using DELCO light plant generators, and World War I airplane engines as test subjects.

In a report on the war research committee, Midgley wrote:
“Engineers have heretofore believed knocking to be the unavoidable result of too high a compression, and while the fact that (ethyl) alcohol did not knock at extremely high compressions was well known, it was (erroneously) attributed to its extremely high ignition point.””
Around 1920, Kettering came to believe that alcohol fuel from renewable resources would be the answer to the compression problem and the possibility of an oil shortage.
“Ethanol (ethyl alcohol) never knocked, it could be produced by distilling waste vegetable material, and it was almost pollution-free.”” (Remember, this is 1920.)
At Kettering’s urging, General Motors began to consider just what would be involved in a total switch from petroleum to alcohol fuel. One GM researcher determined that some 46% of all foodstuffs would have to be converted to alcohol to replace gasoline on a BTU-for-BTU basis.
That was a cause for concern. Despite advantages of cleanliness and high antiknock rating, there were supply problems. In 1921, about 100 million gallons of industrial alcohol supply was available. In reality, enough corn, sugar cane and other crops were available to produce almost twice the 8.3 billion-gallon per year demand for gasoline.
Thus, the supply of an alcohol-based additive would not have been the problem that GM engineers apparently assumed that it would have been.

To promote the idea of alcohol-blended fuels among automotive and chemical engineers, Midgley drove a high compression ratio (for those days) automobile from Dayton, OH, to Indianapolis, IN, for an October 1921 SAE meeting using a 30% alcohol blend.

This occurred just two months before tetraethyl lead was discovered. “Alcohol has tremendous advantages and minor disadvantages,” Midgley told fellow SAE members in a discussion.

Advantages included clean burning and freedom from any carbon deposit... (and) tremendously high compression under which alcohol will operate without knocking...
Because of the possible high compression, the available horsepower is much greater with alcohol than with gasoline. Minor disadvantages included low volatility, difficulty starting, and difficulty in blending with gasoline unless a binder is used.”

In a formal part of the presentation, Midgley mentioned the cellulose project. “From our cellulose waste products on the farm such as straw, corn-stalks, corn cobs and all similar sorts of material we throw away, we can get, by present-known methods, enough alcohol to run our automotive equipment in the United States,” he said. The catch was that it would cost $2 per gallon. (Gasoline was selling for about 28 cents a gallon at the time.)

Meanwhile, leaded gasoline was perfected on Dec. 9, 1921, at the GM research labs in Dayton. During the time, Kettering and Midgley researched anti-knock fuels (1916 to 1925), and especially after tetraethyl lead was discovered in December 1921, there were two “ethyls” on the horizon for GM: The first ethyl premium gasoline went on sale in Dayton in the spring of 1923. GM formed the General Motors Chemical Co. with Kettering serving as chairman and Midgley as president. GM then approached Standard Oil of New Jersey and the two companies formed the Ethyl Gasoline Corp. Since DuPont was a one-third owner of GM at the time, the three major corporations all had a hand in the development and marketing of leaded gasoline.

Interestingly, Kettering and Midgley came up with another fuel called “Synthol” in the summer of 1925, at a time when the fate of leaded gasoline was in doubt. Synthol was made from alcohol, benzene and a metallic additive — either tetraethyl lead or iron carbonyl. Used in combination with a new high compression engine much smaller than ordinary engines, Synthol would revolutionize transportation.

“Looney Gas”
However, an explosion at a Standard Oil Research Lab in October 1924 left 35 men seriously ill from breathing tetraethyl lead fumes. Eight men went to the hospital, where five of them died, one in a straightjacket. He had gone madly insane.

Newspapers across the country headlined the effects of “Looney Gas” and a nationwide panic ensued. The state of New Jersey immediately banned the sales and manufacturing of the new ethyl gasoline. Sales across the country collapsed.

To make matters worse, rumors began to circulate about motorists who had literally gone insane while motoring. The series of events began to have an effect on the national economy. Besides the technology advances, the gasoline market was extremely lucrative.

GM and Standard hesitated, hoping to ride out the storm of controversy. Meanwhile six more men died from injuries related to the explosion. GM quickly ordered production stopped and all sales of the product halted immediately.
Scientists at the DuPont Company were well aware of the danger in manufacturing the new ethyl gasoline, but also had determined it was safe for the customer in its diluted form as used in gasoline (which was 1/10th of 1% by volume).

A federal committee was appointed to investigate came to the same conclusion. DuPont was willing to accept the risks and there was no danger to the general public. Within a year, an intensive advertising campaign was launched and ethyl gasoline was back on the market. When ethyl leaded gasoline was permitted to return to the market, Kettering and Midgley dropped the Synthol idea.

posted 09-01-2013 08:53 PM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJ:
Check website: pure-gas.org

---

posted 09-26-2013 07:16 AM                  

Ethanol Touted as Part of Propulsion-Technology Mix
Aug. 23, 2013 Jim Mateja | WardsAuto

The problem, ethanol marketer Mike O'Brien says, is that few service stations sell E15, a problem compounded by the fact not all auto makers recommend the use of the 85% gasoline-15% alcohol mix in their vehicles.

Backers predict rising CAFE standards to grow demand for E85.

OAK BROOK, IL – There's been so much fuss over gasoline-electric hybrids, plug-in electric vehicles and battery-powered EVs in recent years that ethanol and increasing the amount of alcohol-blended ethanol have gotten little attention, promoters of the fuel say.

"EVs, plug-ins and hybrids have gotten all the press," says Mike O'Brien, vice president-market development for Growth Energy, an organization representing ethanol producers that is trying to spread the word on the merits of the alcohol-gasoline blended fuel.

O'Brien tells a meeting of the Midwest Automotive Media Assn. that while all vehicles today are engineered to run on E10 ethanol, a blend of 10% alcohol and 90% gasoline, the push is on to increase the use of E15 ethanol, with a higher 15% blend, to reduce petroleum consumption in the U.S., currently 18.8 billion barrels of oil a day. The country produces only 5.7 billion barrels a day.
Though not possible to say just how many barrels of petroleum would be saved by using more E15, O'Brien cites estimates that the U.S. saved 465,000 million barrels of petroleum in 2012 by using E10.

O'Brien admits that with its higher concentration of alcohol, E15 reduces mileage 1.5% compared with E10, but insists the loss in fuel economy is offset by a 2.5% decrease in the price of a gallon of E15 compared with E10.
"So the mileage goes down, but the cost per mile driven goes down more to offset it," he says.

But, O'Brien says, few service stations sell E15, a problem compounded by the fact not all auto makers recommend the use of E15 fuel in their vehicles.

The American Automobile Assn., for example, recently told members that nationally only 5% of vehicles on the road today have auto makers’ approval to use E15 – flex-fuel vehicles and ’01-and newer-model cars, light trucks and SUVs. When gasoline prices spike, some consumers fill up with the lower-priced E15 to save money, but AAA warns motorists against using a fuel not recommended for their vehicle.

Andy Randolph, engine technical director for Earnhardt Childress Racing, supports O'Brien’s call for expanding E15’s availability and usage.

"Actually, all cars can use E15 now," he says. "It's just like (how) manufacturers today recommend premium fuel in their cars, but people use regular anyway.

“It's not a combustion problem. Sensors in the exhaust system adjust the air/fuel ratio for E15, since alcohol carries oxygen and E15 has more alcohol and therefore more alcohol than E10. Older-than-2000-model cars can't adjust the air/fuel ratio and as a result (they) flash on the ‘check-engine’ light. As 2000-and-older models leave the road the potential for E15 usage increases."

Higher-alcohol-content ethanol got a big push a few years ago, in part because promoters said the plan was to use garbage to produce ethanol rather than rely on corn, which would reduce both petroleum consumption and the amount of trash in landfills.

"You can make ethanol from garbage or pig manure or kelp from the ocean," Randolph says, "but the key is cost-effectiveness, and to produce it at a cost that's competitive with gasoline by using garbage hasn't been cost-effective."

Growth Energy notes using corn to produce ethanol doesn't rob potential food supplies, estimating that of every $1 spent at the grocery store, only $0.03 to $0.04 represents corn-based products.

"Besides," Randolph says, "we found that by focusing on corn we were able to make improvements and do it even better, like using more of the corn, like the stalks, to increase our yields and the volume of ethanol produced."
As for waiting for more auto makers to recommend E15, O'Brien says "stay tuned," because stricter corporate average fuel economy and emissions levels coming in 2016 will dictate increased use of E15 and even higher concentrations, such as E25.

"We're not saying consumers have to use E15. We’re asking them to try it,” O’Brien says. “When they see it costs less than E10, they'll buy it in greater volumes. And when retailers sell more E15 than their neighbor selling E10, more retailers will add E15.

"It comes down to economics. As more stations add E15, and as the lower price increases station traffic, and as the retailers make more money from the traffic there will be more aggressive E15 marketing and more interest in E15,” he says.

“An E15 education program is starting Oct. 1 in Minneapolis with hopes to add 20 retailers by the end of the year."
O'Brien and Randolph say another way to promote greater use of ethanol would be to allow consumers to "dial up" the amount of alcohol blend at the pump, citing a station in Michigan that does that now. The pump shows the price decreasing as the amount of ethanol blend rises, which proponents hope will increase interest in using ethanol with higher alcohol content.

Discuss this Article 1
is228979
on Aug 23, 2013
The more ethanol that is in gasoline, the worse your fuel efficiency will be. That will offset any savings at the pump. Increasing ethanol content will be a nightmare for those of us who have cars that are 10years old or beyond. Pump gas is already horrible for small engines (lawn mowers, etc.). What do they think will happen when they push it to 15% or more. I hear there's a push somewhere in the government to go to 30%.

I don't agree with Mr. Rudolph's statement. While OEMs recommend premium in some of their vehicles, they do so due to any forced induction method or how far the timing is advanced with the ECU. I wouldn't want to deal with the problems of driving an EcoBoost F-150 and use 87 octane. You don't run a vehicle with a supercharger or turbocharger with "regular" That's asking to destroy the engine.

posted 09-26-2013 02:27 PM                  

Loss of fuel effieciency actually is in the 15% range.

Another issue that is hardly ever discuss is the government subsidies at all levels in the chain to make E fuels competive at retail and encourage producers. Estimates I have seen are in the 30 to 40 cents per gallon range.

We have an dealer outlet that state & federal government paid $70,000 of the $120,000 cost to put in an E85 tank and dispenser. The station only averages 2,000 gallons of E85 a month at 20 cents cheaper than convential E10. The E10 averages 150,000 a month at this station. THE CONSUMER DOESN'T WANT IT AT A SAVINGS OF 20 CENTS! Only use is by military that are forced to use it. Our tax dollars pissed down a rat hole to encourage use of an inferior product.

posted 09-27-2013 10:34 AM                  

If you do try the E85 please check the price difference to E10.

In this market E85 is 20 cents cheaper than E10 due to tax reduction incentives.

posted 10-09-2013 03:17 PM                  

Federal Committee leaders have stated that full repeal of the RFS is unlikely but reform is a viable option. The SEMA Action Network (SAN) supports reducing the RFS mandates and banning the sale of E15. Ethanol can cause metal corrosion and dissolve certain plastics and rubbers, especially in older cars. E15 can also burn hotter than E10 gasoline and cause damage to certain high-performance specialty parts.

Meanwhile, state legislatures continue to limit ethanol blends. Heeding the call of angry consumers increasingly wary of the corrosive effects of ethanol-blended gasoline, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed into law legislation to repeal the requirement that all gasoline offered for sale in the state contain a percentage of ethanol. Under previous law, the Florida RFS required that all gasoline sold or offered for sale by a terminal supplier, importer, blender or wholesaler in Florida contain 9%–10% ethanol, or other alternative fuel, by volume.

In Maine, SAN-supported legislation to prohibit the sale and distribution of corn-based ethanol was signed into law by Governor Paul LePage. Under the new law, 10 other states or a number of states with a collective population of 30,000,000 would have to enact a similar prohibition before the Maine law could go into effect. Earlier this year, Maine also enacted into law a bill to prohibit a person from selling gasoline that contains corn-based ethanol as an additive at a level greater than 10% by volume (E10). That law will not take effect until at least two other New England states have also enacted laws that effectively ban the sale of E15 gasoline.

For the complete list of Legislative Action Alerts, visit semaSAN.com/Alerts.

posted 11-14-2013 11:31 AM                  

On the surface, it appears as though E15 ethanol-blended fuel, commonly thought to cause substantial harm to all vehicles built before 2001, is here to stay. The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear arguments against the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of E15 this summer, and legislative attempts to suspend the sale of E15 have stalled in the U.S. Congress. Yet the EPA now seems on the verge of backing off its push to add more ethanol into the American fuel supply, and a recent Associated Press report has scrutinized the ethanol mandates for causing more harm than good.

Much of the recent discussion on ethanol has centered around the so-called E10 blend wall, essentially the inability of U.S. oil refiners to add any more ethanol to the U.S. fuel supply. While the EPA is charged with implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard as outlined in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act and has thus progressively increased the volumes of ethanol in the U.S. fuel supply chain every year since, U.S. motorists have actually cut back on their fuel consumption in recent years. Allowing the sale of E15 ethanol-blended fuel would have theoretically given the refineries the ability to absorb the additional volumes of ethanol, but gas stations across America have been slow to adopt E15, which they’re not required to do. A report from the Detroit News earlier this year noted that only a couple dozen gas stations across America (out of 180,000) were set up to vend E15.
While the EPA has yet to take steps to avoid the E10 blend wall, it did acknowledge it as “an important reality” earlier this year and could soon – for the first time – reduce the volume of ethanol it expects refiners to add to fuel in 2014.

While many see such a reversal as monumental, it doesn’t mean that E15 – or the Renewable Fuel Standard – will go away anytime soon. By declining to hear arguments against E15 this past June, the Supreme Court effectively backed the EPA by giving its blessing to E15, leaving Congress the only recourse for opponents of E15. Two pieces of legislation introduced in Congress earlier this year – House Bill 875 and Senate Bill 344 – asked the EPA to suspend the sale of E15 until the fuel could be studied further, but no action has been taken on either bill since last spring.

According to a recent Associated Press report, however, a number of former ethanol proponents – including some environmental groups – have soured on corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel. Not only has the use of corn-based ethanol not met some of the envisioned goals of providing a cleaner fuel, the report notes, it has also led to wide-scale destruction of farmland and increasing levels of fertilizer in water supplies and has contributed to an expanding dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Meanwhile, according to the SEMA Action Network, at least two states have taken steps to reduce the amount of ethanol-blended fuels sold within their borders. Florida repealed a previous state law that required all fuel sold in the state to contain 9 to 10 percent ethanol, while Maine passed a law that actually prohibits the sale and distribution of corn-based ethanol fuel in the state as long as a certain number of other states do the same.

posted 11-14-2013 02:55 PM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by ed monahan:
I don't think we have one within 100 miles. The government is here to help, once again. They know what is best for us.
Nothing close in OH or KY but there is one in St. Leon, IND, which is only about 35 or 40 miles away.

---

posted 11-14-2013 03:10 PM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by heynow14:
Since Earth contains 326 million cubic miles of water, I can't think of any adverse enviromental concerns.

---

Not saltwater, fresh water.....you can't grow plants or use salt water for drinking purposes.. Try watering corn with salt water.