EPA approves 15% Ethanol
10-14-2010, 09:57 AM
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sheboygan, WI
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EPA approves 15% Ethanol
Does anyone have comments to share on what, if any, the potential problems or long term damage that could happen to our marine engines with the now approved 15% ethanol blend in gasoline?
http://www.jsonline.com/business/104917099.html
David
http://www.jsonline.com/business/104917099.html
David
10-14-2010, 04:23 PM
#2
Registered
where ever i go i just use 91 or up, there isn't ethanol in premiums.
i love stuff like E85 for cars and hot rods, it's cool stuff. BUT to mandate ethanol in all 87-89 fuels sucks ass!
i love stuff like E85 for cars and hot rods, it's cool stuff. BUT to mandate ethanol in all 87-89 fuels sucks ass!
10-14-2010, 04:49 PM
#3
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now making it 15%, plan on having extra money sitting around for repairs, especially on boats and 2 cycle equipment! Ethanol in gasoline will attract moisture and separate from the gas therefore causing a lean burn, and possibly detonation to pistons. In 2cycle applications, its gonna be a nightmare. The extra alcohol in the gas, can strip cylinder walls of protective oil film also causing a lean ratio, which will lead to excessive wear. Make sure to use a high quality synthetic oil in your 2cycles, because the synthetic will adhere to the cylinder walls much better and also creates a much high film strength, therefore protecting better against the ethanol.
Last edited by 07DominatorSS; 10-14-2010 at 04:53 PM.
VIP Member
10-14-2010, 07:46 PM
#5
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sheboygan, WI
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also live in a county where the 10% blend is not mandated. The gas stations however are becoming less and less that offer the non blended even in premium. I am finding myself out of convenience filling the boats gas tank with the 10% blend more and more as result. I am wondering if anyone has experienced failures that have been a direct result of using ethanol blended fuel?
As the 15% rolls out I suspect the tanks at the gas stations will now be filled with 10% and the 15% and squeezing out the non blended all together.
Are people using some type of additive in their fuel where ethanol blend is all that is available?
David
As the 15% rolls out I suspect the tanks at the gas stations will now be filled with 10% and the 15% and squeezing out the non blended all together.
Are people using some type of additive in their fuel where ethanol blend is all that is available?
David
10-14-2010, 07:47 PM
#6
Charter Member #232
Charter Member
__________________
Put your best foot forward!
Put your best foot forward!
10-14-2010, 07:51 PM
#7
Charter Member #232
Charter Member
I also live in a county where the 10% blend is not mandated. The gas stations however are becoming less and less that offer the non blended even in premium. I am finding myself out of convenience filling the boats gas tank with the 10% blend more and more as result. I am wondering if anyone has experienced failures that have been a direct result of using ethanol blended fuel?
As the 15% rolls out I suspect the tanks at the gas stations will now be filled with 10% and the 15% and squeezing out the non blended all together.
Are people using some type of additive in their fuel where ethanol blend is all that is available?
David
As the 15% rolls out I suspect the tanks at the gas stations will now be filled with 10% and the 15% and squeezing out the non blended all together.
Are people using some type of additive in their fuel where ethanol blend is all that is available?
David
I find that if you are going to burn the fuel in a few weeks you are ok. If you are going to burn it over many months then you should add something like the blue startron or equivelant.
__________________
Put your best foot forward!
Put your best foot forward!
10-14-2010, 09:04 PM
#8
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toms River, NJ
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also live in a county where the 10% blend is not mandated. The gas stations however are becoming less and less that offer the non blended even in premium. I am finding myself out of convenience filling the boats gas tank with the 10% blend more and more as result. I am wondering if anyone has experienced failures that have been a direct result of using ethanol blended fuel?
As the 15% rolls out I suspect the tanks at the gas stations will now be filled with 10% and the 15% and squeezing out the non blended all together.
Are people using some type of additive in their fuel where ethanol blend is all that is available?
David
As the 15% rolls out I suspect the tanks at the gas stations will now be filled with 10% and the 15% and squeezing out the non blended all together.
Are people using some type of additive in their fuel where ethanol blend is all that is available?
David
http://www.starbrite.com/sproductdetail.cfm?ID=1537
I have used this last year at every fill up in my old wellcraft excalibur not knowing what the inside of my fuel tank looked like. It ran 100% all year and never had issues with fuel. I have since pulled the sending unit from the tank to suck out all the fuel from it since it has been sitting this past season since I was building a motor. All the fuel pumped out of the tank I ran in my daily driver and it ran good. The inside of my tank is spotless! Ready for fresh fuel next year!
10-15-2010, 04:37 AM
#9
Gold Member
Gold Member
I've been running Startron or Marine Stabil everytime I fill up, Had the boat since before blended fuels, don't know if the fuel additives helped, but I've had zero fuel related problems.
I richened up the jetting 2% when the 10% blend came out to make up for the change in fuel density....may have to bump the jets another size.
I richened up the jetting 2% when the 10% blend came out to make up for the change in fuel density....may have to bump the jets another size.
10-15-2010, 05:21 AM
#10
A complicated mess it is.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2300...n?source=yahoo
"On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) increased the amount of ethanol that it allows to be blended in certain cars from 10% to 15% (E15). This change applies only to light fleet automobiles with the model year 2007 and later, representing about 20% of the US fleet. The EPA is currently finalizing its testing of model years 2001-06 and is expected to make an announcement in late November on whether these vehicles are safe for E15.
Why did the EPA revise the “blend wall”?
First generation ethanol is the dominant biofuel in the United States, accounting for roughly 95% of the domestic biofuel market. Largely produced via corn fermentation, the U.S will utilize approximately one-third of its corn crop to produce an estimated 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol in 2010.
Given that ethanol only contains two-thirds of the energy density as gasoline, ethanol will displace about 8.4 billion gallons of gasoline in 2010 --- or 6.1% of the U.S. gasoline market on a btu basis. On a volumetric basis, 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol production represents more than 9% of the gasoline market, perilously close to the 10% limit that is considered safe for autos. Since an additional one billion gallons of production capacity will come online in the next year, the U.S. is set to surpass the 10% blend wall sometime in 2011 (see Biofuels 2010: Spotting the Next Wave).
Assuming that vehicles from 2001-2010 represent 60% of the U.S. market and for the foreseeable future, these autos are the only ones approved by the EPA to use E15, this would expand ethanol’s addressable blend market from approximately 13.7 to 17.8 billion gallons.
How did we get here and what are the implications of this change?
Prior to the banning of MTBE in the mid-2000s by 25 states, ethanol was used primarily as a fuel oxygenate. When Congress passed the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2005” (EISA) mandating escalating amounts of biofuel into the nation’s liquid transportation fuel supply, it changed the equation as ethanol began being used as a substitute for gasoline.
Flush with agricultural lobbyist money, Congress revisited EISA in 2007 and revised the “Renewable Fuels Standard” component of EISA to require the consumption of even more corn ethanol. While carving out portions for “cellulosic”, “biodiesel,” and “advanced” biofuels, Congress mandated that 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply by 2015. With subsidies (see Congressional Budget Office Paints Dismal Portrait on Ethanol Subsidies) estimated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to surpass $7.6B in 2010 in the form of a $0.45/gal Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (aka the “Blender’s Credit”) and the $0.54/gal import tariff on Brazilian sugarcane, corn ethanol has become big Business as companies like Valero (VLO), Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM), and Sunoco (SUN) have become major players.
In recent years, the EPA has faced considerable pressure from lobbyist groups like the Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy --- via Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle --- to defer rigorous scientific testing on the safety of higher blends of ethanol and the lifecycle greenhouse emissions of corn ethanol. Senators Harkin, Grassley, and Nelson even threatened to scrap EPA funding in a 2010 Senate Appropriations Bill if the EPA did not play ball.
This might make some believe that the blend wall announcement was an example political pandering upstaging science.
In conversations with senior EPA officials involved in the decision to change the blend wall-- who spoke on the condition of anonymity-- the officials adamantly stated that despite constant calls from politicians from corn-rich states, politics played no role in relaxing the blend rate.
Misguided Congressional policies that have stacked the deck in favor of one technology without considering the implications of that technology “winning” is at the root of why a blend wall revision even needed consideration. For example, when Congress passed revisions to EISA in 2007, it did not provide a roadmap or the requisite funding to upgrade the up or downstream liquid transportation infrastructure to handle increasing blends of ethanol.
While it only costs $100-$500 to retrofit an automobile to accommodate “E85” (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline), the costs of replacing one gasoline pump and retrofitting the equipment to carry E85 at an existing site is estimated by the EIA to cost between $22,000-$80,000. This cost disparity partially explains why there are an estimated 8 million Flex-Fuel Vehicles (vehicles that can run off 85% ethanol) in the United States while only 2,300 of the 170,000 gas stations in the United States are equipped to handle E85 blends.
In light of the blend wall change, it remains to be seen how gas stations will handle a situation in which E15 is proven to be safe in one set of automobiles but not others. Station owners will need to clearly demarcate whether the fuel is E10 or E15 --- which could prove onerous and an impediment to widespread adoption.
Additionally, it is unclear who will be liable if a car owner with a 1997 Ford Taurus accidentally puts the wrong fuel in and suffers damage. It seems likely that unless the EPA approves all automobiles for E15, gas stations will be less inclined to put variegated blends of ethanol in its gasoline pumps which should temper expectations that a partial increase in the blend wall will lead to a short-term spike in ethanol consumption. That being said, the change in blend wall takes a significant step towards compliance with the 31 billion gallons of corn and cellulosic ethanol required to be used in the nation's gasoline supply by 2022 under the Renewable Fuels Standard."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2300...n?source=yahoo
"On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) increased the amount of ethanol that it allows to be blended in certain cars from 10% to 15% (E15). This change applies only to light fleet automobiles with the model year 2007 and later, representing about 20% of the US fleet. The EPA is currently finalizing its testing of model years 2001-06 and is expected to make an announcement in late November on whether these vehicles are safe for E15.
Why did the EPA revise the “blend wall”?
First generation ethanol is the dominant biofuel in the United States, accounting for roughly 95% of the domestic biofuel market. Largely produced via corn fermentation, the U.S will utilize approximately one-third of its corn crop to produce an estimated 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol in 2010.
Given that ethanol only contains two-thirds of the energy density as gasoline, ethanol will displace about 8.4 billion gallons of gasoline in 2010 --- or 6.1% of the U.S. gasoline market on a btu basis. On a volumetric basis, 12.6 billion gallons of ethanol production represents more than 9% of the gasoline market, perilously close to the 10% limit that is considered safe for autos. Since an additional one billion gallons of production capacity will come online in the next year, the U.S. is set to surpass the 10% blend wall sometime in 2011 (see Biofuels 2010: Spotting the Next Wave).
Assuming that vehicles from 2001-2010 represent 60% of the U.S. market and for the foreseeable future, these autos are the only ones approved by the EPA to use E15, this would expand ethanol’s addressable blend market from approximately 13.7 to 17.8 billion gallons.
How did we get here and what are the implications of this change?
Prior to the banning of MTBE in the mid-2000s by 25 states, ethanol was used primarily as a fuel oxygenate. When Congress passed the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2005” (EISA) mandating escalating amounts of biofuel into the nation’s liquid transportation fuel supply, it changed the equation as ethanol began being used as a substitute for gasoline.
Flush with agricultural lobbyist money, Congress revisited EISA in 2007 and revised the “Renewable Fuels Standard” component of EISA to require the consumption of even more corn ethanol. While carving out portions for “cellulosic”, “biodiesel,” and “advanced” biofuels, Congress mandated that 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply by 2015. With subsidies (see Congressional Budget Office Paints Dismal Portrait on Ethanol Subsidies) estimated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to surpass $7.6B in 2010 in the form of a $0.45/gal Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (aka the “Blender’s Credit”) and the $0.54/gal import tariff on Brazilian sugarcane, corn ethanol has become big Business as companies like Valero (VLO), Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM), and Sunoco (SUN) have become major players.
In recent years, the EPA has faced considerable pressure from lobbyist groups like the Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy --- via Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle --- to defer rigorous scientific testing on the safety of higher blends of ethanol and the lifecycle greenhouse emissions of corn ethanol. Senators Harkin, Grassley, and Nelson even threatened to scrap EPA funding in a 2010 Senate Appropriations Bill if the EPA did not play ball.
This might make some believe that the blend wall announcement was an example political pandering upstaging science.
In conversations with senior EPA officials involved in the decision to change the blend wall-- who spoke on the condition of anonymity-- the officials adamantly stated that despite constant calls from politicians from corn-rich states, politics played no role in relaxing the blend rate.
Misguided Congressional policies that have stacked the deck in favor of one technology without considering the implications of that technology “winning” is at the root of why a blend wall revision even needed consideration. For example, when Congress passed revisions to EISA in 2007, it did not provide a roadmap or the requisite funding to upgrade the up or downstream liquid transportation infrastructure to handle increasing blends of ethanol.
While it only costs $100-$500 to retrofit an automobile to accommodate “E85” (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline), the costs of replacing one gasoline pump and retrofitting the equipment to carry E85 at an existing site is estimated by the EIA to cost between $22,000-$80,000. This cost disparity partially explains why there are an estimated 8 million Flex-Fuel Vehicles (vehicles that can run off 85% ethanol) in the United States while only 2,300 of the 170,000 gas stations in the United States are equipped to handle E85 blends.
In light of the blend wall change, it remains to be seen how gas stations will handle a situation in which E15 is proven to be safe in one set of automobiles but not others. Station owners will need to clearly demarcate whether the fuel is E10 or E15 --- which could prove onerous and an impediment to widespread adoption.
Additionally, it is unclear who will be liable if a car owner with a 1997 Ford Taurus accidentally puts the wrong fuel in and suffers damage. It seems likely that unless the EPA approves all automobiles for E15, gas stations will be less inclined to put variegated blends of ethanol in its gasoline pumps which should temper expectations that a partial increase in the blend wall will lead to a short-term spike in ethanol consumption. That being said, the change in blend wall takes a significant step towards compliance with the 31 billion gallons of corn and cellulosic ethanol required to be used in the nation's gasoline supply by 2022 under the Renewable Fuels Standard."
