Register now to get rid of these ads!

EPA Ethanol Increase update

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by v8ford, Jul 8, 2009.

  1. v8ford
    Joined: Sep 29, 2007
    Posts: 117

    v8ford
    BANNED

    After emailing the epa on the proposal increase ethanol in gasoline. I finally got a response.
    I wanted to share this response with you. And hopefully notify any one who doesn't know if it. I have the proposal document if u want that feel free to email me.

    The current limit on the amount of ethanol that can be blended into
    a gallon of gasoline is at ten volume percent ethanol (E10) for
    conventional (non flex-fuel) vehicles. Growth Energy and 54 ethanol
    manufacturers submitted an application to EPA on March 6, 2009 which
    requested a waiver from EPA to allow the use of 15 volume percent
    ethanol in conventional (non-flexible fuel) vehicles. The statutory
    provision calls for EPA to make a decision on the waiver request within
    270 days of receipt, which is December 1, 2009. The original public
    comment period was to end on May 21, 2009, and will now end on July 20,
    2009. The comment period extension will not change the timeframe for EPA
    to make a decision.

    The directions for how to comment on the notice that EPA published
    in response to the application from Growth Energy which requested a
    waiver from EPA to allow the use of 15 volume percent ethanol in
    conventional (non-flexible fuel) vehicles are contained in the notice
    itself. Below is an except from the notice which describes how to
    submit comments and a copy of the notice. Please refer to the notice
    for a full discussion regarding the submission of comments.

    Best Regards

    (See attached file: E15FRNotice4-21-09.pdf)

    Submit your comments,
    identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
    OAR–2009–0211, by one of the
    following methods:
    • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow
    the on-line instructions for submitting
    comments.
    • E-mail: [email protected].
    • Fax: (202) 566–1741.
    • Mail: Air and Radiation Docket,
    Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
    0211, Environmental Protection Agency,
    Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
    Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Please include a total of two copies.
    • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
    Public Reading Room, EPA West
    Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
    Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Such deliveries are only accepted
    during the Docket’s normal hours of
    operation, and special arrangements
    should be made for deliveries of boxed
    information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to
    Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
    0211. EPA’s policy is that all comments
    received will be included in the public
    docket without change and may be
    made available online at http://
    www.regulations.gov, including any
    personal information provided, unless
    the comment includes information

    claimed to be Confidential Business
    Information (CBI) or other information
    whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Do not submit information that you
    consider to be CBI or otherwise
    protected through http://
    www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
    http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
    an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
    means EPA will not know your identity
    or contact information unless you
    provide it in the body of your comment.
    If you send an e-mail comment directly
    to EPA without going through http://
    www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
    address will be automatically captured
    and included as part of the comment
    that is placed in the public docket and
    made available on the Internet. If you
    submit an electronic comment, EPA
    recommends that you include your
    name and other contact information in
    the body of your comment and with any
    disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
    cannot read your comment due to
    technical difficulties and cannot contact
    you for clarification, EPA may not be
    able to consider your comment.
    Electronic files should avoid the use of
    special characters, any form of
    encryption, and be free of any defects or
    viruses. For additional information
    about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
    Docket Center homepage at http://
    www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.


    Jeff Herzog, Mechanical Engineer
    U.S. EPA
    National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
    Assessment and Standards Division
    2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105
    (734) 214-4227
    Fax: (734) 214-4816
    [email protected]
     
  2. so what would a 5% increase mean for performance in regular and hot rodded engines?
     
  3. rc.grimes
    Joined: Aug 14, 2007
    Posts: 697

    rc.grimes
    Member
    from Edmond, OK

    I was just recently at a training update with Stihl for their power equipment and they said they have not been able to get any of their equipment to run above 12% ethanol. Several other equipment manufacturers have the same problem. They would have to change carbs/jetting and timing.
    That may relate somewhat to our hotrods but those alterations are fairly easily handled. The biggest problem I have at work is fuel phase seperation when it becomes saturated with water. The ethanol attracts the mositure from the air so quickly with just 10% I dread what it will be like with 15%.
     
  4. bzt
    Joined: Aug 22, 2007
    Posts: 63

    bzt
    Member
    from venice fl

    time for a little more compression and ignition timing. water expands 1600 times it size when turned to steam, so it has plenty of energy.
     

  5. RAY With
    Joined: Mar 15, 2009
    Posts: 3,132

    RAY With
    Member

    Look for real shitty gas mileage and poor performance. Flow rate of ethanol and gasoline are two different animals in the same cage and don't fit. The use of 10% ethanol has cost American consumers close to 5 million miles a day loss. If they allow this to continue to 15% look for additional lost miles. Our personal loss has averaged 90 miles per tank (14 gallons). We went to http://www.fpc1.com/index.htm and it has brought up our mileage to acceptable MPG increase. FPC is also a sponsor of NASCAR and I have started using it in my street rods for better performance and mileage and it really works. Since all major cities have to use this crap the regular gas (non ethanol )is still available in the small towns a couple of counties away.
     
  6. Dale Fairfax
    Joined: Jan 10, 2006
    Posts: 2,585

    Dale Fairfax
    Member Emeritus

    Further, I wonder what will be the impact of another 5% on fuel pump diaphragms, synthetic fuel lines, and accelerator pump pistons. I've already experienced premature (like in less than a week) failure of pump pistons that Echlin claimed were good for 15 %. If existing fuel is really limited to 10% ( Here in Indiana the pumps are no longer labelled as to ethanol content) then I guess I had a bigger gripe that I thought I did. I didn't argue with them (Echlin)- I found some leather cupped pistons and cured the problem.





     
  7. It means ya gotta have bigger jets. The problem is that there are still gas stations that sell real gasoline if you leave your neighborhood and don't know which ones it is you may happen to buy gasoline, so if you've set it to run well on gasahol you run fat.
     
  8. Truckedup
    Joined: Jul 25, 2006
    Posts: 4,660

    Truckedup
    Member

    Vehicles with carbs can always be fiddled with to run on a slightly higher Ethanol content in the fuel.Hey,we modify engines all the time.
    The majority of vehicles on the road are 1990 and newer with electronic fuel injection.I'm thinking the engine management systems in most newer engines won't be able to deal with higher than the current 10 percent alcohol.It appears that every owners manual of newer vehicles says no more than 10 percent alcohol in the fuel.Otherwords,they know high alcohol content will mean a shit load drivability complaints and maybe warranty issues.
    I sent in my complaint to the above gov't form.If you spend time reading ,you'll see those who want more alcohol are corn growers.That's expected cause farmers need to make money.The rest are talking heads who have no idea what the consequences are.
     
  9. I gotta worry about all the soft parts in the fuel system.

    My buddy is a tech at dealership, he said they make good money on cars when the owners think they can use e85.
     
  10. So by adding more ethanol, I lose milage, so I have to go out and buy and use more gasoline?

    I mean.. if I lose 10% of my milage, so say normally I get 20 MPG, with 10 gallons I go 180 miles instead of 200. So I have to buy 1.1 more gallons to go the full 200 miles. That means I use the same amount of actual gasoline content (9.99 galons), but it costs me about three more bucks at the pump.

    Okay, why the hell are we putting ethanol in gas again? And they want to add more? How long before it cuts into the efficency so much we're actually using MORE gasoline than without the stuff?
     
  11. rc.grimes
    Joined: Aug 14, 2007
    Posts: 697

    rc.grimes
    Member
    from Edmond, OK

    15% ethanol breaks down traditional fuel lines. Welch plugs installed with sealant will loosen and the sealant goes directly into jets and needle/seat. Pump diaphragms deteriorate with just 10% ethanol so 15% ought to wipe them out in a hurry. The little clear glass inline fuel filters come apart quick when ethanol wipes out the orings and that is with just 10%.
    Quadrajet style acc pumps turn to slime in their bore on 10% ethanol so I suspect just about every fuel system component will have to be updated.
     
  12. rc.grimes
    Joined: Aug 14, 2007
    Posts: 697

    rc.grimes
    Member
    from Edmond, OK

    Thats the exact problem. We are "increasing" fuel consumption by 10-20% with the current ethanol blend. Expect that to be quite a bit worse with the 15% ethanol. I was thrilled a couple weeks ago when upstate and got gas in my late model daily that was non ethanol blended. I used a third of a tank less on my return trip and it ran a hell of a lot better.
     
  13. Ned Ludd
    Joined: May 15, 2009
    Posts: 5,050

    Ned Ludd
    Member

  14. plym_46
    Joined: Sep 8, 2005
    Posts: 4,018

    plym_46
    Member
    from central NY

    The secret is in the numbers RustyNY posted. The oil companies discovered this years ago and are now running a government approved scam on all of us. More ethanol less mileage, less milage more sales more sales greater profits. And the best thing for them is they don't make the stuff so they can let their refinery capacity go down hill at the same time saving all the maintanence / upkeep money. then they can complain to the Govt that they don't have the capacity to refine more gas so they need to put more ethanol in it.

    The result is we get poorer and they get richer. Remember Exxon Mobile's Profits a year ago were nearly that of the GNP of several medium sized countries.........
     
  15. nateluke
    Joined: Aug 8, 2008
    Posts: 8

    nateluke
    Member
    from Montana

    It's also largely because of pressure coming from the environmental crowd. Corn is a renewable resource and supposedly it burns cleaner than gasoline, so they feel that it offsets the lower mileage. The only good part is that ethanol is a higher octane (E10 is 87-93, E85 is 105, 100% ethanol is 116). They should just offer both straight gas and E85 so you can buy whatever you want. Don't make us upgrade our fuel system and engines just for politics.
     
  16. Bphotrod
    Joined: Sep 19, 2006
    Posts: 271

    Bphotrod
    Member
    from da U.P.

    The few ethanol stations around me cant give the stuff away. Have a close friend whos job deals with ethanol refineries, says they are closing up steady. Thought it was a stupid idea forced on american consumers.
     

  17. My Stihl weedeater is running E10-E14 with no issues

    I get good performance with Ethanol, the 54 still gets over 20 MPG with the smallblock

    I would bet it has to do more with the crappy offshore parts we are getting than the fuel.

    The soft parts are fine, those folks wrecked O2 sensors and leaned out an engine not designed to use that mix.

    I get better mileage with my flex fuel truck running alky blends. What I want to know is why the fuck did the Model T get 25+ MPG and Detroit has not figured out anything better in 90 years? GM did have the Saturn project in the early 80s that got 100+ per gallon, all the crash protection derailed the project.
     
  18. George
    Joined: Jan 1, 2005
    Posts: 7,726

    George
    Member

    Why milage goes down is there is less energy in ethanol than gas, though the octane (speed that the fuel burns) is higher. There for 87 octane E-10 has less energy, & poorer milage, than 87 pure gas. Supposedly E-10 reduces the amount of crude that we import. An australian Govt study showed a lot of crud on the valve stems with E-10 vs even E-5. Right now ethanol is made from corn, so it's keeping the price of corn high. even if 100% of the corn crop was used in ethanol, it'd replace only about 20% of crude used, & that doesn't take lower milage into account. Sawgrass is supposed to be a better source, but the farmers are unlikely to give up a Govt. subsidy on corn w/o a fight.
     
  19. Kilroy
    Joined: Aug 2, 2001
    Posts: 3,227

    Kilroy
    Member
    from Orange, Ca

    I think if you want to run more ethenol, build the engine for e85/90...

    By that I mean, fuel injection only and some sort of boost.

    E85 is burns cooler and produces slightly less energy but can take way more compression/boost with the right mixture.

    I've heard people running 22lbs with no pinging in an injected/ecu car.

    It's not period correct or anything but it would be fun to build a hot rod specifically to perform on moonshine...
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2009
  20. nateluke
    Joined: Aug 8, 2008
    Posts: 8

    nateluke
    Member
    from Montana

    I forgot to add the point about ethanol having less energy density, thank you. You are exactly right, everyone is focused on reducing foreign oil dependence but at what cost? Valve sludge, new fuel lines, less mileage AND higher price per gallon, higher prices for food corn...A good idea yes, but not thought out.
     
  21. notlowyet
    Joined: Jul 5, 2009
    Posts: 32

    notlowyet
    Member

    Last edited: Jul 8, 2009
  22. Kilroy
    Joined: Aug 2, 2001
    Posts: 3,227

    Kilroy
    Member
    from Orange, Ca

    Perhapse not, but the alternative is the internal combustion engine and consequently Hot Rodding as we know it, going the way of the Do-Do...

    I think we need to embrace anything "green" that allows us to still run Hemis and Flatheads... Because if we don't, the powers that be are just going to shove fuel-cells and electric motors down our throat and the only people with Hot Rods will be guys like Leno with bank accounts large enough to create their own fuel for their once a year drive in their kooky old cars...

    Will that happen in the near future... Probably not... But the writing's on the wall. And if we don't find a way get 'green' and still do what we do, sooner or later, we become dinosaurs.

    The E85 infrastructure is out there, and at the very least it will slow down the push for alternative power sources if it's adopted with any kind of enthusiasm.

    Methanol is an option too... But it isn't as easy to produce and will likely cause even more issues than Ethenol...

    So I say, jump in with both feet and build your next car to run e85 if you can... You might help keep the sport relevant a little longer.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2009
  23. Kilroy
    Joined: Aug 2, 2001
    Posts: 3,227

    Kilroy
    Member
    from Orange, Ca

    The argument is that at 10/15mpg, the emissions are way cleaner... And I think it's safe to say, a flex-fuel vehicle is never going to touch the efficiency levels of a dedicated e85 vehicle. If they ever embrace e85 all the way, I think those MPG numbers will come more closely in line with 87 octane.
     
  24. 392_hemi
    Joined: Jun 16, 2004
    Posts: 1,736

    392_hemi
    Member

    It means decreased gas mileage, decreased performance and increased maintenance. Bad deal for us, good deal for big agribusiness. There is no net beneft from ethanol in terms of reduced energy consumption, reduced polution, etc. Even the tree huggers have come to realize this. It is nothing more than a subsidy for farmers.
     
  25. 392_hemi
    Joined: Jun 16, 2004
    Posts: 1,736

    392_hemi
    Member

    They will go to smaller, turbocharged powerplants and make the cars lighter. That's the easiest and cheapest way to do it. Result is more wear on powertrain, less performance and reduced safety.
     
  26. Von Rigg Fink
    Joined: Jun 11, 2007
    Posts: 13,404

    Von Rigg Fink
    Member
    from Garage

    This is nothing new..there are shut down ethenol plants all over the USA..
    think they tried to cram this down our throats (and the auto makers) back in the early 80's
    (not exactly sure what years)
    Any idea that takes a food source and tries to make a fuel out of it is stupid in my book, especially when we have problems feeding people in our own country, let alone else where on this 3rd rock from the sun.
    And even more so stupid, when it doesnt improve fuel mileage or reliability in any of our vehicles but does the polar opposite, and costs the end user (us) more money in maintenance and loss of fuel economy..

    Ignorance..brought to you by....well ,you know who.
     
  27. George
    Joined: Jan 1, 2005
    Posts: 7,726

    George
    Member

    Forgot to mention...it's been said that E-85 can't be sent through existing pipelines, so it has to be trucked, resulting in more energy being used than is being saved by using E-85.
     
  28. Locally had a brewery closed a number of years ago, turned into an ethanol plant, lasted about a year, went bankrupt.

    I've also seen some numbers that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of corn ethanol than you can get from the resulting gallon. Supposedly switchgrass changes that percentage a bit, both through less energy to grow and I think more out of the finished product, or more of the finished product.


    I know my two O/T later model DD Suburbans, one got a high of 17 but was in the 10 range on 10% and the other I got 15 out of but it's dropped back some since I occasionally get gas that can have the 10% mix - I find if I buy by price, the cheapest places all sell that.

    Now it's not worth saving 10 cents a gallon if it costs me $2.75 more to go 150 miles and I saved a buck or so on the cheaper priced gas.
     
  29. 39 All Ford
    Joined: Sep 15, 2008
    Posts: 1,530

    39 All Ford
    Member
    from Benton AR

    Why even discuss the problem?

    Whatever the action in regard to this issue that makes the most sense will be ignored in the interest of politics anyway.....

    That is about the only thing we can count on... so get used to it.
     
  30. You think that Regular gas just leaps into the tanks at the gas stations? I'll give you a hint, most all of our fuel is trucked to the stations from as far away as 500 miles as it is. Outdated pipelines and refineries being part of the reason.

    I am looking forward to the alky we are starting to produce out here from forest waste. Since the west is covered by dead trees from the pine beetle there is plenty o raw material anyway, thank the Sierra Club:rolleyes:;)
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.