AP sources: EPA expected to OK more auto ethanol

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

The Environmental Protection Agency is poised to approve higher levels of corn-based ethanol in gasoline for all cars manufactured in the past decade.

Two people familiar with the decision said late Thursday the agency is expected to announce on Friday that 15 percent ethanol in gasoline is safe for cars manufactured between 2001 and 2006. Both officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the decision.

In October, the agency approved 15 percent ethanol for all cars and light-duty trucks manufactured since 2007. The maximum gasoline blend has been 10 percent ethanol.

The EPA has said there won't be a decision any time soon on boosting the ethanol concentration for cars and light trucks manufactured before 2001 — or for motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles or non-road engines — because there is not sufficient testing to support such an approval.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110121/ap_on_re_us/us_epa_ethanol

[DJ13]

1. Ethanol hurts fuel mileage

More isnt the answer.

[Maine_Nurse]

2. Safe, maybe mostly

but also very detrimental to fuel economy.

[jtuck004]

3. The corn lobby must be working overtime... n/t

[James48]

4. NOT detrimental to fuel economy.

Sure, you get fewer MPG on E85 than you do on gasoline.

You COULD say the same thing about gasoline vs. diesel fuel. You get more MPG on diesel fuel than you do gasoline. Does that mean you should abandon gasoline engines in favor of diesel ones?

The point is that when you use E85 flex-fuel, your money is going to Mid-west AMERICAN FARMERS instead of middle-east folks who wish us harm.

Ethanol is renewable fuel, and has a positive energy balance, burns cleaner, and puts money in the pockets of farmers.

In the next few years, the next generation of switchgrass and sugarbeet/woodchip/sugarcane ethanols will be adding to the mix.

Municipal waste is already being converted to ethanol on a commercial scale in Iowa.

It's the wave of the future.

[Maine_Nurse]

5. It is more than a few MPG

unless you actually own a flex-fuel vehicle with the appropriately sized injectors and proper line pressure. In a non-flex vehicle, you either pony up an awful lot of money to have your injection system changed, or you lose 15-30% right off the top. Mine went from 20-21 down to 16. My flex vehicle dropped from 18 down to 16.

[James48]

11. Only becaue your engine is designed for gas, not ethanol.

If the engine was designed for ethanol, it would be comparable MPG.

Most flex-fuel cars get about 15% fewer MPGs.

The new Buick Turbo Regal gets THE SAME MPG on E85 as it does on gasoline, because the engine is direct-injection, and is designed to optimize fuel mixtures.

The SAME MPG on E85 as on gas. It's the net generation of engines.

[Psephos]

16. GM does not claim the Buick Turbo Regal gets the same mileage on E85.

GM says it will get about 5-7% less mileage on E85 (vs. the usual 15% hit). Where are you getting your figure?

It's a SAAB engine that takes advantage of ethanol's higher octane rating (i.e., detonation resistance) through direct injection and increased manifold pressure via turbocharger. It costs more (in money, materials, energy, however you want to gauge it) to make such an engine, and engines such as this will not be in cars the masses drive.

[Maine_Nurse]

17. you are correct, but

most vehicles out there are not even flex-fuel capable, although that number is slowly increasing. It is still going to be a couple decades before most vehicles could become properly oriented, and that is if that is all that was made from this point on.

[James48]

19. There are TEN MILLION Flex-Fuel vehicles today

And they are being added at the rate of a million a year.

If Congress wanted, they could mandate flex-fuel capability. It only adds about one hundred dollars to the price of the vehicle, and COULD make a HUGE difference in our oil import rqeuirements.

I'm not saying ethanol is the ONLY answer. It's PART of the answer. We'll also need CNG powered cars, electric cars, and other technologies.

But ethanol is easily used TODAY, and a minimum extra cost ($100). Compare that to the tens of thousands more for am electric car, or thousand more for a CNG car.

Ethanol is a workable fuel today, and the next generation of cellulostic fuel is on the way.

[Maine_Nurse]

24. Ten million isn't much

out of 135 million (as of 2006 from Bureau of Transport Statistics). And you cannot retrofit non-flex vehicles without spending a LOT of money. And ethanol isn't easily used today unless you own one of the less than 10% of the vehicles out there with existing flex-fuel capability. The current blend is bad enough, E85 is going to be worse. And what about non-auto uses? "Regular" gasoline is very difficult to purchase in many areas now, but ethanol blends are not suited to sleds, ATVs, home power equipment, generators, etc.

[NickB79]

20. "If the engine was designed for ethanol"

And therein lies the rub: almost no cars on the road today were specifically designed for ethanol. Even vehicles rated as E-85 capable aren't usually tuned to run optimally on E-85; the primary difference is better gaskets that won't degrade when exposed to fuel with higher ethanol content.

[Maine_Nurse]

25. And the injectors themselves are different

I had one Flex Ranger and one non. Same year and engine (3.0l Vulcan), aside from the fuel difference. Nearly the entire fuel feed system is different and quite expensive to retrofit.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Well, no, it wouldn't; it's impossible that it could be.

Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline which has a lower energy density than diesel fuel, which is why in terms of miles per gallon it's always going to be ethanol < gasoline < diesel. And a gasoline/ethanol blend has lower energy density than unblended gasoline. First law of thermodynamics; this is very simple and basic.

[Omaha Steve]

6. Iowa subsidizes the E85

Anybody know if the lower subsidized price means the cost per driving mile comes close to being equal?

[wuushew]

7. Corn ethanol is crap

do you really want to increase the price of food beyond what it is already? You are not remotely coming out ahead.

Food is always a more important budget item than fuel. I see no clear cut evidence that ethanol is the winner of the post petroleum future.

[Psephos]

8. Corn is a poor choice as a fuel feedstock, and its use as fuel has harmed millions of poor.

Sugarcane is a far more efficient feedstock plant. We could buy Brazilian ethanol for way less than we pay to make it here...if there wasn't a huge tariff against it (thanks to the ag lobby and the Congressional votes they've purchased).

So really, corn-as-ethanol is a fancy way to hand out welfare to farmers - most of them big companies - while making lots of poor people worse off.

[James48]

10. Farmers don't make a cent of subsidies on it.

The subside goes to whoever blends the ethanol with gasoline. It's a blender's credit. That goes to...OIL COMPANIES.

[Psephos]

15. Do you think that huge increases in demand don't affect price? ADM doesn't.

A third of the US corn crop is now being used to make fuel.

Also, you're mistaken about the "blender's" subsidy. It's not the blending that's subsidized, it's the production of ethanol. Huge difference.

Without the free government money, US-made ethanol from corn is far more expensive than Brazilian ethanol made from sugarcane.

Free government money to make food into fuel, when the government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends, is madness.

[NickB79]

21. And when the companies that get the subsidies go to buy corn for ethanol

Who do you think they buy it from?

That's right, farmers.

The half-dozen farmers in my family LOVES them some corn ethanol, because the jump in corn prices over the past few years has paid for new houses, new tractors, new trucks, etc.

[liberal N proud]

9. High fructose corn syrup demands must be down.

[tammywammy]

12. We need to STOP corn ethanol.

We shouldn't be using a food product to make fuel, we need to be increasing research into other sources like algae.

The only thing this will do is increase food prices.

[James48]

13. How much does corn cost?

About $6 a bushel.

For a box of corn flakes, that's about 11 cents worth of corn.

For the whole box.

The price of food is much more tied to the cost of oil/gasoline than it is to the cost of corn.

For each bushel of corn used to make ethanol, you get 2.7 gallons of ethanol.

But making ethanol only uses the starch from the corn. All of the valuable protein, minerals and nutrients remain.

One bushel of corn produces about 2.7 gallons of ethanol AND 11.4 pounds of gluten feed (20% protein) AND 3 pounds of gluten meal (60% protein) AND 1.6 pounds of corn oil.

The Dried Distillers' Grain (DDG) produced by making ethanol is used for animal feed (cattle, pig, chickens, mostly).

DDG is also exported to other countries as well- it's the fastest growing export to China.

[wuushew]

14. Fuel Vs. Food: Ethanol Helps Boost Meat Prices

The U.S. corn crop is enormous. But about a third of it doesn't go to cereal or cows — instead, it helps run your car. To boost our use of renewable fuels, the federal government subsidizes corn-based ethanol.

This has the meat and dairy industries up in arms over the high cost of their main feed. The rise of ethanol has pitted livestock producers against the oil industry.



http://www.npr.org/2010/12/22/132082743/if-your-meat-prices-rise-you-can-blame-ethanol

[ProudDad]

28. Only because it's HEAVILY subsidized...

Every step of the way...

[MadHound]

18. More ethanol stupidity,

Ethanol drives up grain prices, thus driving up food prices. Not to mention the fact that ethanol kills two cycle engines, along with many four cycle engines. All for getting worse gas mileage.

Ethanol is nothing but a scam to help out Monsanto and the other Big Ag folks.

[Owl]

26. +1

[NickB79]

22. Nothing better than converting precious topsoil into disposable auto fuel

:eyes:

The US has already lost a huge amount of topsoil, and the losses continue today through industrialized farming practices. Promoting those practices to produce not only food but now fuel as well is criminal to say the least. The end result can only be long-term food shortages for future generations.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/348200_dirt22.html

"The National Academy of Sciences has determined that cropland in the U.S. is being eroded at least 10 times faster than the time it takes for lost soil to be replaced."

[ProudDad]

27. Another step in the war against obesity...

Burn up food to run your fucking cars...!!!