• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ethanol Mandate: 4 Gallon Minimum?

Mike

Well-known member
Drive an older car or own a moped, motorcycle or lawnmower? Depending on which fuel pump you use, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring that you buy at least four gallons of fuel—although some vehicles that require the minimum four gallon requirement don’t even have a four gallon fuel tank.

According to a recent letter by the EPA to the American Motorcyclist Association, motorists buying E10 fuel (a mixture that contains 10 percent ethanol) from a hose that also supplies E15 fuel (a mixture that contains 15 percent ethanol) must buy at least four gallons to protect customers following behind. Ethanol is hard on engines and less efficient than regular gasoline. E15 can even cause engine failure in smaller or older engines. So if you’re using a blender pump to buy E10 that sells both E15 and E10, the residual amount of E15 left in the hose from the previous customer could cause significant damage to those smaller and older engines—unless you purchase at least 4 gallons.

In 2010, the EPA began allowing up to 15 percent of ethanol to be blended into gasoline for cars and light-duty trucks model years 2007 or newer. A year later, the agency included model years 2001 to 2006. Automotive equipment manufacturers warn that the EPA’s acceptance of E15 is premature and conducted tests that show out of eight engines tested, “two popular gasoline engines used in light-duty automotive applications of vehicles from model years 2001 through 2009 failed with mechanical damage when operated on intermediate-level ethanol blends (E15 and E20).”

The controversy over E15 and the 4 gallon minimum fuel requirement are part of a larger problem: the ethanol mandate. The ethanol mandate, also known as the renewable fuels standard, was created in 2005, increased in 2007, and requires the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by the year 2022.

Slower demand for gasoline, however, has made the ethanol targets for each year difficult to meet. So now producers are over-supplying a government-created market. Instead of working to develop a product that consumers want to purchase, ethanol interests want the government to create an even larger artificial market for ethanol. One way was to encourage the EPA to allow for a higher percentage of ethanol to be blended into gasoline.

Allowing more ethanol to be blended into our fuel mixture isn’t necessarily the problem. We should encourage a competitive fuel market by removing regulatory barriers that prevent alternative fuels from reaching the market. Fuel choice and a more diverse fuel market can be beneficial when it’s driven by producers and consumers in a free market. The problem occurs when the federal government creates artificial markets through mandates. Inevitably, such policies lead to unintended consequences. In the case of the ethanol mandate, these consequences include potential engine damage and minimum fuel requirements.

Congress established and President Bush signed into law the ethanol mandate to address high fuel prices, dependence on foreign oil, and environmental concerns with the hope that renewable technologies could stimulate the economy. Sound familiar?

Thanks to Congress’ efforts to solve perceived problems that could have and should have been left to the market and American ingenuity to tackle, Americans have one more real problem to add to the heap of real problems the ethanol mandate has created.

On top of the E15 debacle, the ethanol mandate is driving up food prices, has caused more environmental harm than good, and is driving up fuel prices. Although fuel that is 85 percent ethanol appears cheaper at the gas station, it is less energy dense, so you’re actually paying more. In essence, for every problem the ethanol mandate was supposed to address, the opposite effect is occurring. This is why politicians are calling for waiving the ethanol mandate and the European Union is scaling back the amount of biofuels developed from food crops.

A lot of questions remain as to what fuel is safe for a motorist to use, but one thing is certain: Congress needs to repeal the ethanol mandate.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I don't know of a single motorcylist that will run any ethanol to begin with. Many even shy away from 87 octane.

I know this isn't popular with my farmer friends, but the ethanol mandate needs to be dumped for several reasons. First of all, this country has no business subsidizing industries that can't stand on their own. Secondly, as the article states, there is less energy in ethanol. It is priced 3% less than 87, but only has 90% of the pop. It should be 40 cents less instead of a dime.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
There are some positive aspects to ethanol. That being said it should live or die on its own without any mandates.
If someone wants it fine if they don't they shouldn't be required.
The farmers should be able to sell their crop to whoever wants to buy it. society doesn't have the right to say that all corn be used as food. Farmers and ranchers should be able to sell their product to the highest bidder without the government mandating regs.

The by product of ethanol production serves a usefull purpose in providing protein to help fill a deficient world protein supply. I don't really think corn used as ethanol directly hurts the cowman but it does in the bids they get from their stockers and feeders they sell. So in the long run it hurts. The worst part of it all it seems to divide the ranchers and farmers and pit them against each other.

What would the fuel supply be if we had used 10% more fuel in the past??? Just something to think and debate.
Ethanol has taken the fall for the higher prices of food when the rise in fuel is a big culprit. As a few years ago when we had the grain priice spike and food went up but then when grains and fuel went back down you didn't see food come down. The grocers took a little extra profit and blamed it on the ethanol.

But above all ethanol as with any alternative energy needs to live or die on it's own merits
 

Steve

Well-known member
I don't know of a single motorcylist that will run any ethanol to begin with. Many even shy away from 87 octane.


I had been running 94 until it became unavailable here on my two stroke jet-skis.. I still use the best octane I can get.. and I am really particular who I buy from.. and what cans I use if I transport the fuel..

over the last 12 years I have dealt with five engine failures.. two were older high hour engines. that were in good overall condition. and had upper end piston failure caused by lean or insufficient fuel on one cylinder. . the carbs clogged by fuel line or tank residue..

This year I had three engines go.. two were direct injection two strokes.

the one engine with common rail injectors had clogged injectors.. the fuel lines.. (2006) disintegrated. and is an easy rebuild.

the two Direct injections both had moderate hours.

one thing every engine failure I have had over the last couple of years.. has not been wear , but fuel related...

I have a race ski with a high compression high torque carbureted two stroke, I built for alcohol... it is running like a top....

the marine industry is seeing the early effects of ethanol.. it won't be long until the effects are seen in other less intensive engine use..

ethanol is hard on fuel lines, tanks and attracts water, causing phase separation.. when a dirty tank is drained, the effect is obvious with a trapped water layer mid way up and not on the bottom. with the ethanol and fine dirt suspended.. it looks like a layer of eggs.. really odd...

and it can kill an engine .....


but will the consumer know it is the fuel or just think it is a crappy engine?
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Your warranty is void if you do not use the fuel the manufactures tell you to use in your book. Had a few friends find this out the hard way! The outfits are not made to run on this fuel. They are putting the cart before the horse.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Ethanol has taken the fall for the higher prices of food

the real effect on food is seeing companies switch back to sugar.. such as sodas. ect..

and it will become a more viable product in our country.. which is actually good..

The sugar program guarantees growers a minimum price by controlling supply

When the supply is high and the price low, the program goes further, allowing for loans that farmers can satisfy by forfeiting their crops to the government. Since the 1970s, as a result of the price supports, the U.S. price of sugar has been nearly double the world price most years.

The inflated U.S. price of sugar has also contributed to widespread use of high-fructose corn syrup as a lower-cost alternative, although in recent years the price of high-fructose corn syrup has risen with demand for corn ethanol while the price of sugar has held mostly steady. Meanwhile, by limiting imports into the United States, the sugar program has depressed the world price of sugar by about 8.5 percent,

while I am all for helping farmers in lean years... programs such as sugar and peanut controls.. ends up making a few wealthy and puts the rest out of business.

there has to be a point in the middle where small farmers are saved in really bad years and the market works in good years...
 

jcummins

Well-known member
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/18/with-e15-the-ethanol-industry-wins-but-american-consumers-lose/

Perhaps the strongest indictment of EPA’s certification of E15 came from automakers in a response to Congressional inquiries. Without exception, the auto manufacturers responded that use of E15, even in their newest vehicles, would damage engines, void warranties and reduce fuel efficiencies. Interestingly, the gas caps of many new cars sold today explicitly warn consumers NOT to use E15.....YET OBAMA'S EPA ...STILL WANTS TO FORCE US TO US IT. This is a very bad deal, for sure it will wreck every small gas engine you've got.
 
Top