E15 fuel a reality?
 

What, now we are going to have 2 different levels of blended fuels??

The Environmental Protection Agency today waived a limitation on selling fuel that is more than 10 percent ethanol for model-year 2007 and newer cars and light trucks.
The waiver applies to fuel that contains as much as 15 percent ethanol, known as E15. The decision excludes marine engines and other non-road engines, such as those on snowmobiles, lawn and garden equipment, and other small gasoline-powered engines.
Marine industry groups, including the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Marine Retailers Association of America and BoatU.S., have vigorously opposed E15.
The NMMA is concerned that the EPA does not plan to take significant steps to address anticipated problems that involve consumer confusion and the risk of misfueling. The EPA also will not take action to ensure that compatible fuels remain available for the nation's 13 million registered boat owners or the hundreds of millions of owners of gasoline-powered equipment, the association said after the EPA's decision.
"We are extremely disappointed that EPA is allowing this fuel to enter the market without the appropriate scientific data or consumer and environmental safeguards," NMMA president Thom Dammrich said in a statement. "This decision not only adversely impacts marine manufacturers, but creates a significant risk of misfueling for the nation's 66 million boaters, who will be left 'holding the bag' for performance issues and expensive repairs.
"We are astonished that EPA has decided to move forward with a fuel that will increase air pollution and damage hundreds of millions of existing products," he added.
The EPA says it has done vigorous testing to ensure that E15 is safe for cars from model-year 2007 and later and the agency reiterated in a press conference that it was holding off a decision on older-model cars. Also, Gina McCarthy, EPA's assistant administrator for air and radiation, stressed that marine engines and other smaller engines were not included in the waiver.
Also, she said, the waiver is not a mandate to force the use of E15.
"EPA is not requiring the use of E15. This decision is not a mandate," she said. "This decision is about allowing the use of E15."
"Thorough testing has now shown that E15 does not harm emissions-control equipment in newer cars and light trucks," EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a statement. "Wherever sound science and the law support steps to allow more home-grown fuels in America's vehicles, this administration takes those steps."
A decision on the use of E15 in model-year 2001 to 2006 vehicles will be made after the EPA receives the results of additional testing that is expected to be completed in November.
However, no waiver will be granted this year for E15 use in model-year 2000 and older cars and light trucks - or in any motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles or non-road engines - because there are no test data to support such a waiver.
Additionally, steps are being taken to help consumers easily identify the correct fuel for their vehicles and equipment. The EPA is proposing E15 pump-labeling requirements, including a requirement that the fuel industry specify the ethanol content of gasoline sold to retailers.
An E15 petition was submitted in March 2009 to EPA by Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers. In April 2009, EPA sought public comment on the petition and received about 78,000 comments.
The petition was submitted under a Clean Air Act provision that allows the EPA to waive the act's prohibition against the sale of a significantly altered fuel if the petitioner shows that the new fuel will not cause or contribute to the failure of the engine parts that ensure compliance with the act's emissions limits.

Idiots But There Are Idiots

Just what we need! :(

If The Republicans Win Any Reg That Cost More Than 100 Mil Will Have To Be Voted On By Congress
It,s To Try To Control These Lib Bureaucrat

That's just great. I understand some parts of the country can still buy 93 octane that is ethanol free......around here, if it's gas, it's got ethanol. There is nothing else out there but diesel and aviation fuel without it.

It looks like M A D D wants all the alcohol in the gas tank.......why is all women on this EPA board,letts get some motor heads in there........just kidden calm down girls lol

we can thank the mid east they had another town vote in there sand huts and said we have used to much gas this summer. and voted to push the price up. gas has gone from 2.51 a gal to 2.79 around here in the last 3 weeks. there phucking us again gas did not go up over the summer like they hope and when it was down to 50 a barrel they cried they wanted at 70 to 80. which its at for no reason. thanks obama your doing a good job and a real good one on the gulf coast yeah all the oil is done yeap suuurre. maybe we should rejet our carbs for e15 a friend built his 2000hp twin turbo to run on E15 he said its cheaper to run oh and its in a Donzi boat not a car.but these arabs are screwing us once again wish we could run on straight corn then what would they do morons.:angry-smiley-038::evilb:

I wish these phucks would stop screwing with the fuel blends. As if we haven't seen enough problems and distruction with 10% ethanol... now they think we need to add even more???? WTF!

Adding the ethanol in the older engines (w/o modern FI) not only causes the typical fuel system issues, but it also results in leaner mixtures if the carbs aren't rejetted for it... which means we have to burn even more gallons of fuel to go the same distance.

About the only good thing about adding more ethanol is that it by nature has a higher octane (E85 is great for performance engines!) The down side in these lower blends (E10/E15) is that allows them to add more heptane in the mixture to bring the octane rating back down to 87/89/91/93 at the pump... so we dont even get to see the increase in native octane rating of the additional ethanol. :(

I see no personal up side to E15...

www.pure-gas.com for ethanol free

Everything in southern New England has ethanol in it, unless you buy racing fuel. :(

This whole goddamned ethanol issue just infuriates me! It's preposterous to even contemplate using ethanol as a fuel, yet alone mandate it.

This should truly illustrate to everyone how idiotic our environmental advocates and politicians are!!!!!!

Facts:

Regular gasoline yields 115,500 BTU's of potential energy.
Ethanol yields 76,000 BTU's of potential energy.
That's 33% LESS!!!

That means that:
E10 lowers mileage by 3.4%, and
E15 lowers mileage by 5.1%

And it would take 1.52 gallons of ethanol to drive the same distance as you could on 1.0 gallon of gasoline!

Wow!!!!!

And if that's not bad enough, consider that it costs more to produce a gallon of ethanol than it's worth, and it requires more energy to produce ethanol that it will ever yield!!

Where's the sense in that? There is none! Welcome to the U.S. government.


Between fertilizer, pesticide, farm equipment fuel, irrigation, electricity and bulk transport, it requires about 81,000 BTU's of energy to simply grow the corn.

The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. This all amounts to an additional 50,000 BTU's of energy per gallon of ethanol.

131,000 BTU's of energy in to get 76,000 BTU's out.

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!


An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol.

But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $385 per acre. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

In total, Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline.

if it weren't for government subsidies no one would dare venture into producing ethanol. It's a $ loser.

It's no wonder that corn farmers and processors burn gasoline in their equipment and not ethanol. They couldn't afford to.

the real culprits here are the corn growers lobby and the crooked politicians
where do you think the millions and millions of dollars pumped into the corn lobby goes?
in pockets, that's where

What? You mean it's not about environmental protection?

:D

Wellfare for rich men that drive tractors.....