Corvette Forum : Corvette Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

Web Head
15,763 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here is an atricle about E85 Not fitting the bill, actually costing more than regular gas and causing more pollution.

During the comment period for the RFG (reformulated gas) program, supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards in the program -- 42 U. S. C. 7545 (k) (3) (B) (i) -- would preclude the use of ethanol in RFG because adding ethanol to gasoline increases its volatility and raises VOC emissions, especially in the summertime.

The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995)]

If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it's now -- during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol's actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: "If the government hadn't mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?" Doubtful -- but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand.

Act I, Scenes 1 and 2
The use of ethanol to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is nothing new. We also considered it during our nation's Project Independence in 1974, the year after the first Arab oil embargo. After the second energy crisis in 1979, an income tax credit of 40 cents per gallon of 190-proof ethanol produced was instituted as an incentive for refiners of ethanol to blend this product into gasoline.

Because this federal largesse now existed, within five years, 163 ethanol plants had been built -- but only 74 of them were still in operation. As gasoline availability opened up in the 1980s and gas prices went down, many ethanol plants simply went out of business.

More Autos Stories
Other autos articles from BusinessWeek Online:

Europe’s Hottest Diesel’s
MPG Winners and Losers
Get the Most from Your Fossil Fuel
Return of the High-End Fiat
Shortly thereafter, in yet another attempt to broaden the product's usage, Congress enacted a law that allowed car manufacturers to take excess mileage credits on any vehicle they built that was capable of burning an 85% blend of ethanol, better known as E85. General Motors took advantage of the credits, building relatively large volumes of the Suburban as a certified E85 vehicle. Although in real life that generation of the Suburban got less than 15 mpg, the credits it earned GM against its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) ratings meant that on paper, the Suburban delivered more than 29 mpg.

Other manufacturers also built E85-capable vehicles -- one such car was the Ford (F) Taurus. Congress may have intended simply to create a market for this particular fuel by having these vehicles available for sale. But what the excess mileage credits actually did was save Detroit millions each year in penalties it would have owed for not meeting the CAFE regulations' mileage standards.

Act II, Scenes 1 and 2
In the mid-'90s the Clean Air Act of 1990 kicked in, mandating that a reformulated gasoline be sold in the nation's smoggiest cities. So the Clinton Administration again tried to create an ethanol industry in America, by having the Environmental Protection Agency mandate that fully 30% of the oxygenates to be used in gasoline under that program come from a renewable source. But members of the American Petroleum Institute had already geared up for the production of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), their oxygenate of choice. The ensuing lawsuit was argued before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on February 16, 1995.

The EPA took the position that it had been given a mandate to find ways to conserve the nation's fossil-fuel reserves, so it needed a renewable fuel -- and ethanol neatly fit that bill. But there were problems with that argument, not least of which was the fact that the judges could find no charter or mandate from Congress that gave the EPA the statutory right to do anything about fossil fuel, reserves or otherwise.

Even more damaging, the EPA's own attorney admitted to the judges that because of its higher volatility, putting ethanol into the nation's fuel supply would likely increase smog where it was used. One of the judges, on hearing that the EPA was actively promoting a substance that could in fact diminish air quality, wondered aloud, "Is the EPA in outer space?"

The final decision favored the American Petroleum Institute. The judges agreed that the EPA was bound by law only to promote items that would improve air quality -- not to reverse the nation's advances in smog reduction. That decision was apparently forgotten with record speed. In the summer of 2000, ethanol as an additive was mandated for the upper Midwest, including the city of Chicago and parts of the state of Wisconsin.

More About E85
Learn more about the potential of E85:

Study Boosts Ethanol as Fuel
Does E85 Cost More?
New Ethanol Production Methods
Brazil Paves Ethanol Future
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4
After Asian economies had collapsed in the late '90s, the price of oil had fallen to as low as $10 a barrel. Gasoline was selling in many parts of the U.S. for as little as 99 cents a gallon. But by 2000, the per-barrel price had risen to $32, and gas was averaging $1.55 a gallon nationally. As they are today, the nation's drivers were incensed by the rising prices of gasoline and oil. And then reformulated gasoline made with ethanol hit Chicago and points north. Gas prices there suddenly soared over $2.00, with a few stations selling their product for as much as $2.54 per gallon.

At some stations in southeast Wisconsin, where reformulated gasoline wasn't required and gas cost considerably less, pumps ran dry in the panic, as savvy consumers topped off their tanks. Citing the Lundberg Survey, the Associated Press on June 12, 2000, stated, "Dealers in the Midwest, where many cities use a reformulated gas blended with the corn derivative ethanol, are paying a premium at wholesale."

Just a few months later, Brazil -- which had worked toward energy independence since the mid-'70s oil crisis and had already mandated that the percentage of ethanol in its fuel be raised to 24% -- was forced to import ethanol refined by the Archer Daniels Midland Co. when the nation's sugar-cane crop suffered a devastating drought. Brazil understood that a year of poor crops was just as damaging to its national fuel supply as Iran taking its oil off-market would be to the rest of the world.

Then came the third act in this ethanol play -- and possibly the most misleading and disingenuous PR campaign ever.

Act III: Cue the Fact-Checker
It started with Congress, which mandated that even more ethanol be used to extend the nation's fuel supply. From General Motors, an ad campaign called "Live Green, Go Yellow" gave America the impression that by purchasing GM vehicles capable of using E85 ethanol, we could help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

What GM left out of its ads was that the use of this fuel would likely increase the amount of smog during the summer months (as the EPA's own attorneys had admitted in 1995) -- and that using E85 in GM products would lower their fuel efficiency by as much as 25%. (USA Today recently reported that the Energy Dept. estimated the drop in mileage at 40%.)

But one final setup for the public has gone unnoticed. At the Web site,, which confirms the 25% to 30% drop in mileage resulting from the use of this blended fuel, another feature lets users calculate and compare annual fuel costs using regular gasoline to costs using E85.

But the government site's automatic calculations are based on E85 selling for 37 cents per gallon less than regular gasoline, when the USA Today article reports that at many stations in the Midwest E85 is actually selling for 13 cents per gallon more than ordinary gas. Using the corrected prices for both gasoline and E85, the annual cost of fueling GM's Suburban goes from $2,709 to $3,763. Hence the suggestion that truth in advertising should come back into play. Possibly GM could rename this ad campaign "Shell Out Green, Turn Yellow."

From BusinessWeek

Epilogue: Get this Wasteful Show Off the Road
The other negative aspect of this inefficient fuel is that numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste.

Furthermore, no one has even considered the severe disruption in the nation's fuel distribution that mandating a move into ethanol would cause. Over the past month, gas stations from Dallas to Philadelphia and parts of Massachusetts have had their tanks run dry due to a lack of ethanol to blend. The newswires have been filled with stories bemoaning the shortage of trucks, drivers, railcars, and barges to ship the product. Ethanol can't be blended at refineries and pumped through the nation's gasoline pipelines.

The recent price spikes for gasoline have forcibly reminded the people of Chicago and Wisconsin of what happened when ethanol was forced on them during the summer of 2000. Moreover, the promise of energy independence that Brazil has explored through ethanol is widely misunderstood. Recently a Brazilian official, commenting on our third and most recent attempted conversion to ethanol, said that when Brazil tried using agricultural crops for ethanol, it achieved only a 1:1.20 energy conversion rate, too low to be worth the effort.

Final Bow?
On the other hand, ethanol from sugar cane delivered 1:8 energy conversion, which met the national mandate. Unfortunately for us, sugar cane isn't a viable crop in the climate of our nation's heartland. But the part of Brazil's quest for energy independence that the media usually overlooks is that ethanol wasn't the only fuel source the country was working on: Its other, more important, thrust was to find more oil. To that end, last week Brazil's P50 offshore oil platform was turned on. Its anticipated daily output is high enough to make Brazil totally oil independent.

More smog, infinitely worse gas mileage, huge problems in distribution, and skyrocketing prices for gasoline. Maybe now that we're witnessing the third act in America's ethanol play, the upcoming epilogue will close this show forever. Even great advertising works only if the product does.

911 Posts
Good find, SpiderPat!
An interesting take on the alternative fuel movement for sure.
Ignoring the fact the article seems more than a little biased, there's a few things that should be said.​
First of all, most of what the article says about emissions is either untrue or manipulated so that the general public would believe that E85 is worse for the environment (or at least as bad) than regular gasoline. This just isnt true- as a chemist and biologist, I know from experience that ethanol (and alcohols in general) burn cleaner by merit of their chemical composition than the hydrocarbons that compose standard gasoline. The addition of ethanol to gasoline doesn't increase the emission of hazardous material by the combustion of gas, or increase its volatility - it only adds to what today's smog checking machines can detect. This is of course countered by the decrease in mileage (although not enough to offset total consumption), but I think that's more of a problem of engineers being forced to compromise between an engine that burns E85 well and one that does gasoline just as well.​
It's good that the article brought up cost- because this is one thing that has been misrepresented by the media, the green movement, and the farmers groups. Right now, E85 will be more expensive than gas, just because our production of ethanol is so inefficient right now. The amount of ethanol we can produce is limited by how cost effective it is to make, and it just isn't as long as government subsidies stay at the levels they are now, which they will (big oil money speaks loudly, regardless of administration). Fermentation of corn carbohydrates to make alcohol just doesn't have a high enough yield.​
The solution to this is likely an entirely different means of production, like through bacterial action (there's lots of research on this happening now), but that may come way after we've gotten into entirely different fuels.However, it's important to remember that ethanol at best is a (very) temporary bandaid on a much bigger problem. If we are going to decrease (not eliminate) our dependance on foreign oil, fully renewable sources of energy like hydrogen need to be the standard.​
With that, I'll bet that I live up to my standard as a thread killer by posting way too much to read, and bet that this thread gets maybe one or two more posts (if any, which is unlikely) before it disappears off the front page, never to be seen again.​
Just my $0.02,

The Punisher
7,092 Posts
Interesting read..........Long but very interesting.:D :thumbsup:

Super Moderator
8,482 Posts
LOOK WHO POSTED THAT (INFO) "The American Petroleum Institute "




YES youll get worse mileage PER GALLON with ETHANOL as it takes about 1.7 times as much to make similar heat/power, but what they conveniantly don,t tell you is that if the engine designed to run E85 the compression can easily be boosted to 16:1 and total power goes UP, COST COULD GO WAY DOWN, COST PER MILE TRAVELED COULD BE LESS, REMEMBER THEY "The American Petroleum Institute " TALK ABOUT MILES PER GALLON, NOT MILES TRAVELED PER DOLLAR IN COST,AND TOTAL EMISSIONS WHICH IS THE TRUE ,GAUGE HERE, emissions go down ,if the engine BUILT TO RUN AT THE HIGHER CPR, and since the cost per gallon (minus taxes) is far lower than gas and its renewable the main problem is keeping the #$%%^ GREED in BOTH THE OIL INDUSTRY (PROFITS)AND GOVERNMENT (POTENTIAL LOSS IN TAXES) and a RELUCTANCE TO CHANGE IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY UNTIL FORCED
from screwing it up as a source of fuel

7,511 Posts
wouldnt butanol be a better choice anyway? I understand it burns closer to the 14.7:1 that gas should.

1,354 Posts
Daksin said:
I'll bet that I live up to my standard as a thread killer by posting way too much to read, and bet that this thread gets maybe one or two more posts (if any, which is unlikely) before it disappears off the front page, never to be seen again.[/INDENT]
Just my $0.02,
I read the whole thing...proud of me?

From everything I have read, the compromise comes when you engineer an engine to run on both (as previously stated). The truth in advertising should be turned on the media as they report the supposed windfall profits of the oil companies. I wish Americans would take the time to educate themselves on this subject instead of blindly reacting to everything they see on the nightly news.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts