First off…I’m all for banning ethanol from gasoline and will go further. I want all the legislators that passed this asinine law fired or have their pensions cut by at least half. I’m feeling good today since Christmas is almost here so I will remove “firing squad” from the table.
@MM.hate to see you ona bad day(chuckle) but the good thing about ethanol as an additive,nature can handle it, a bit at a time,but its really not the best fuel for our cars at the present time(due to cost,etc),one thing that got me was I thought Alcohol was going going to be produced by our waste and surplus grain,not switching production from food to fuel-makes no sense particulary,because it wont exist on its own merits,if it costs me(a taxpayer) in several ways(just like wind farms) I say -can it!-Kevin
@MikeInNH -‘We still need an oxygenater in our gas.’
Not really, it makes very little difference as far as pollution on a modern car.
Not really, it makes very little difference as far as pollution on a modern car.
Says who?? The Texas oil industry? It’s been proven to be very beneficial during the winter months here in the north. Maybe not so much in the southern sates.
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/08/politics/maine-house-takes-stand-against-ethanol-in-fuel/
Our oft times backward state did show some initiative. IMHO, states can prompt the federal govt. to move in the right direction by making their feelings known. At the very least, we can use ethanhol at the limit it takes to replace MTBE. I have confidence that with all this brainpower, we can come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone. The snowmobile , outboard, generators and chainsaw owners really take a hit with this crap. Maine needs good running snowmobiles, outboards, generators and chainsaws just to survive. Ayah !
@Dag,I heard dat,actually the local Guys been telling me the same around here(“Dickels for drinking”) lets save the alcohol for heaters and solvent use {ask any organic chemist how acetic acid and ethonal mix with standard plastics}-Kevin
@MikeInNH - Here’s the study I remembered, it indicated no net benefit overall of E85 over E0. From that I would doubt much benefit of E10 overall. Might it help a little in cold weather? Sure, but overall little or no difference, I would think.
And no, Scientific American is not a “Texas oil industry” publication…
We don’t need ethanol to get the right anti-knock peformance; there are other additives available. The death of MTBE did not mean we had to have ethanol to fill the gap. Ethanol has some slight benefit in reducing NOx, oxides of nitrogen that cause smog. However, today’s combustion controls with exhaust gas recirculation and catalytic converters ensure we get the reduction we need.
The final reason for this stuff is that is a “renewable” resource, and over the lifetime, the new growth of corn takes the CO2 out of the atmosphere. That made it a “moral” product.
Republican voting corn farmers in the Mid West don’t understand all this; they want to grow more corn and get paid well for it.
Ethanol is a product that with good intention, generates significant negative “unintended consequences”!
I’ve tanked it twice in the last 10 years, and luckily live near a number of stations that till dispense 100% gasoline.
@texases
You are right. With ethanol we did trade one polutant for another. But, the accumulative affects of MTBE were worth doing something about it immediately. Maybe, politics instead of science made ethanol the solution, but it did fill a need for a time. I just feel there are better options as regardless what additives we use, we will not get rid of polutants entirely burning petroleum products. But in our state, not only did a little ethanol make sense in the winter, but doing something about our potential to contaminate so many wells, initially made it an easy sell for our citizens. But, we have traded one problem for another. It just shows you what happens when you chase your own tail. IMO, the timing is right and really, no one is to lame. It’s just time to move on and I appreciate you using science as a reason to do so.
I’m fine with banning MTBE and using ethanol as needed, as economic. I’m not fine with government-driven mandates for ethanol use.
I think we have to realize that if we are fine “using ethanol as needed” it’s not going to happen without mandates by the govt. whether it’s MTBE, or asbestos or cigarettes or food additives. Industries are sometimes very slow to move where profits are concerned and human health is at stake. We have too many examples in the past where govt. mandates were too slow in coming.
MTBE might still be in our gasoline and polluting our ground water if industry decided alone and only used "ethanol as needed. " I understand the not liking govt. intervention, but in reality, no matter how much we hold the govt. in distain, it is all to often the only way industry will "listen " to the concerns of the average consumer. I’m not deaf dumb and blind so I don’t paint all industries and all decisions they make as not having public safety in mind. But, working together with govt. can saved lives, which IMHO, is a great industrial decision. Because, those lives are potential customers. I would like the oil companies to publicly take the lead ( I’m sure they work on it as we speak ) in finding a good substitute for ethanol, without givt. Intervention.
Agree with texases. The problem is that ethanol morphed from being just an MTBE substitute into being a “renewable fuel” with well-intended but misguided government mandates.
@jesmed
It’s an evolution. Ethanol replaces MTBE replaces lead. Would you rather go back to lead ? There will always be temporary substitutes for additives in something that initself, will always be a polutant. If govt. fear drives us to let industry do what they want, we would still have lead. I submit that each has improved the situation, but we are a long way economically from making clean burning petro, regardless if how we regulate it or aditives we put in. The industry needs to take the lead in public safety and avoid govt. mandates.
@dag, you misunderstand me. I agree with mandatory use of ethanol to the extent necessary to replace MTBE. But not mandating 15% or more ethanol content for the purpose of using more and more ethanol.
Dag, I don’t get your point. What’s wrong with using a few percent ethanol for octane, instead of MTBE? The government mandates on ethanol don’t help with pollution, they’re to help farmers.
What would you propose?
@texases @jesmed
"I’m not fine with govt…mandates…ethanol" …When it was a govt. mandate that firt introduced it as a substitute for MTBE. That’s what I an addressing.
I try to address the need for govt. mandates. No more, no less. NO ethanol would be in gasoline as a replacement for MTBE which IS an improvement over the lead it replaced without mandates. It isn’t govt. that runs a muck, it’s govt and industry working in collusion where decisions are given to the highest bidder that had run a muck. Oil industry is just as responsible for adding ethanol as the grain industry by not having a viable substitute they could champion. Besides, NO decision is made in Washigton as far as mandates are concerned that doesn’t ultimately get a collegial cooperation of those involved.
Enough people that feel as we do…ethanol in high doses has it problems, are convincing states, like my own, to vote against it’s sale. That’s what moves it. But, the final govt mandates, what ever they are, are necessary. As in the past, mandates are made often with industries cooperation. This happens only when politicians feel as much … from voters as from corporate donations.
Without mandates, the automobile industry and all those industries affiliated with burning petro based products would be at risk. They need to make products that co operate with the fuels that they use. Mandates are necessary for industries to coexist.
Of course. We’re talking about a particular misguided one, not all of them. I see ethanol as a reasonable octane additive, nothing more. A 10% max limit would be fine, less if economic, no gallons/year requirement unlike now.
I agree 100%. But, I am selfish enough to want something other then ethanol. It’s still a problem. But just like MTBE and Lead before it, there will be some problem with the next additive. We just keep muddling trying to add something better that industry hopes, someone will profit on.
I think the whole point of oxygenators in fuel was to effectively make the air fuel mixture leaner for lower emmissions, but with modern EFI and oxygen sensors in the exhaust, the EFI just delivers more fuel to offset the oxygenator to keep the air fuel mixture stoiciometric, so ethanol or MTBE has little effect on emmisions on these systems.
Except perhaps in areas where a lot of people still drive old clunkers with carburettors, eliminating the ethanol should make little difference in pollution.
Then there’s always the ultimate oxygenator, nitromethane, but if you think ethanol creates corrosion problems, you ain’t seen nothing.
The government mandates on ethanol don't help with pollution, they're to help farmers.
Yes it did…ESPECIALLY with ground pollution.
http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/waste/pdf/usteth2.pdf