Flex vs Standard Fuels and the new E series of gasoline.

[rigney]

I know this was put out by FOX NEWS, but even I question its authenticity. I've looked around but haven't found much on the issue. Perhaps some of you are much more up to date than myself?

 

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2000862202001/

[iNow]

What is the question you're asking about this fuel? For now, it appears you only want to know whether or not others here at SFN are more familiar with it than you.

[rigney]

What is the question you're asking about this fuel? For now, it appears you only want to know whether or not others here at SFN are more familiar with it than you.

Yea! Thought someone on the forum might know more about this new fuel than to simply ask another dumb assed question like I did. So, what's your take on the situation?

Edited December 28, 2012 by rigney

[Bignose]

Brazil has been using E22 for over 20 years now. It isn't going to just kill every single car. And it makes me wonder why they don't have the 'phase separation' issues the video mentions. That physical behavior is dependent on the amount of water that is also in the blend... so it becomes critical that the producers of the fuel make sure water doesn't get into the tank, and then it is also on the station owners to ensure their tanks remain intact.

 

Now, that said, I wouldn't just shove it into your car willy nilly, either. The computer has tuned the engine to work as best it can for a certain fuel, and I don't think it is worth changing that up. Even the people with the flex fuel vehicles say that it takes the car some time to start running smooth if they change from an E10 to and E75 blend and back -- and those cars are designed to handle the changes. It doesn't seem worth it to throw your car a curve ball and give it E15 for no good reason. And, I have little doubt that the manufacturers are going to stick to their guns of not honoring warranties because 1) they probably haven't done as much testing with it as they want and 2) the gov't hasn't forced them to honor the warranties. Again, that said, they all sell vehicles in Brazil just fine. In 10 years, when all gasoline is E15, the gov't will offer the companies a deal: the OEMs will have to honor their warranties, and the gov't will let them out of those aggressive fuel standards that were recently passed.

[rigney]

I had absolutely no idea about the conditions facing an uninformed public on this matter. So, my question now is; How does a nation of this size cope with such an unknown? I don't want to sound ignorant or stupid, but how do I keep from wrecking the engine of my 2009 auto other than not using the E series?

[iNow]

Perhaps your vehicle's manual states clearly which fuel to use?

[rigney]

Perhaps your vehicle's manual states clearly which fuel to use?

There is information in the manual about what fuels to use in my 2009 including E-10, but nothing on E-15 or above. Isn't it a bit odd that the government just tossed this out to us with no information? But I did find tons of stuff on google. This one for instance.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/05/e15-alcohol-wreck-engines-tests-dispute-epa-growth-energy/1

Edited December 29, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

From your link, quoting the CRC study:

Automakers advise consumers to continue to follow the guidance on fuel selection in their vehicle owner's manuals.

[Bignose]

I don't see what the problem is. No one is forcing anyone to put E15 into their cars now. This seems to be to actually be a proactive move to get E15 distributed and available ahead of when cars will be able to make good use of it.

 

Again, it is something the manufacturers can do.... Brazil's gas has been at least E22 for years now, and is commonly E25 to even E30. The car makers can make cars that run just fine on that fuel. And the gov't can mandate that they do just that.

 

As I wrote above, I can actually see this is a grand compromise coming. The gov't will let them get out of meeting those very strict and aggressive mpg regulations they are supposed to hit (54.4 mpg by 2025)... so long as they make cars that can handle E15, E20, maybe even up to Brazil's E30.

 

But, in the meantime, it sounds like only MY2013 and later cars can handle E15. So, in 4 years as 4 more years of cars that can handle it are on the road, then there might actually be some stations selling it.

 

It should be very clearly labeled, you really shouldn't be putting into your car unless you want to.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Bignose

[ewmon]

To begin with, FoxTV, as with conservatives in general, communicates with a far greater emotion-to-intellect ratio than liberals. The same goes for mercury in CFLs (oh my!), even though there's mercury in all fluorescent lamps, including the ones over your food in the kitchen and the ones over your kids in their rec room.

 

EPA approval. So, the EPA has approved E15 fuel, but it may have drawbacks for some cars. Well, the EPA has approved diesel fuel (and it's sold in pumps right next to gas pumps, oh my!), and it definitely won't work in most cars. And the EPA also approved E10 that's commonly used in most cars. Oh my! Remember that the EPA is only the federal Environmental Protection Agency, not the federal consumer protection agency.

 

More expensive food. E15 is made with ethanol, which is made from corn, which drives our food prices higher. (As we all know, America is not obese enough!) But the very common E10 is also made from ethanol with a similar impact on food prices.

 

Phase separation. This involves water in the gas tank, so anyone concerned about phase separation should first be concerned about water in their gas tanks, and water is much heavier than gasoline. Engines cannot run on water. And for water in our gas tanks, the historic cure has been a can of "dry gas", which is, not surprisingly, alcohol.

 

Volumetric efficiency of ethanol. FoxTV also whined a little about this. Ethanol has only half the volumetric efficiency than gasoline. So, a gallon of E10 is 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol, meaning that a gallon of E10 is equivalent to 0.95 gallons of gasoline. Likewise, a gallon of E15 is equivalent to 0.925 gallons of gasoline. Studies have shown a similar drop in fuel economy.

 

Minnesota mandates E20 by 2015. Fox didn't mention this, but Minnesota mandated use of E20 and originally set the date as 2013, but it recently pushed its E20 mandate forward to 2015.

 

Fox, Fox Fox ... scare, scare, scare.

 

Beware of the ancient saying — Caveat emptor.

[ox1111]

Ethanol based fuels are foolish. It is one thing to use ethanol to achieve an oct. rating to allow the fuel to run correctly in an engine. To use ethanol as a fuel when peto is avail. is crazy and I will tell you why. It is est. that 2 gallons of diesel fuel are burned to farm, harvest and manu 1 gallon of ethanol. Like most green tech it causes more damage than the old way. I am a fan of green, but most of it is worse than the old way and the gov. should make green market prove the effectiveness of it products.

[Bignose]

Be careful, there, ox. The 2 gallons of diesel to 1 gallon of ethanol isn't just straightforward. It assumes a lot of 'worst-case' scenarios; for example completely tilling the field after harvest. When, today, if the farmer is going to grow corn cycle after cycle after cycle, no-till practices are pretty well established. Also, it doesn't account for cellulosic use of the corn -- that is, fermenting the entire plant, not just the corn kernels.

 

I do agree that just-kernel ethanol is kind of silly, and that hopefully as more and more cellulosic plants come on line, that form of fermenting will become more common. Possibly even in the form of harvesting the kernels, and then baling the stalks and other residue for the cellulosic fermenter. Or, hopefully developing a crop that is better suited for ethanol creating, like Brazil has done with the sugarcane crop. Most of the U.S. isn't the right climate for sugarcane, but again something like switchgrass is an excellent fast-growing, study crop that could be perfect for the cellulosic plants.

 

In short, I think that while it may not be a really great trade off at the moment, I think that there is potential to make it really great.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Bignose