• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

EPA proposes cut in amount of required ethanol in gasoline

Joined
10 April 2008
Messages
2,432
Location
Northville, Michigan
Let's hope this comes to pass, the madness must cease!

Brian
________________________________________________

· David Shepardson

· Detroit News Washington Bureau


Washington — The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to dramatically reduce the amount of ethanol going into the nation’s gas tanks from what Congress required in a 2007 energy law.


The decision was hailed as a win for motorists, the environment, and the oil and auto industries. For corn growers, it was a clear loss.

The EPA wants to cut to 15.21 billion gallons the amount of corn-based ethanol and other biofuels required next year to be blended with gasoline under the Renewable Fuels Standard. That’s nearly 3 billion gallons below the 2014 target of 18.15 billion gallons set by the law.

It’s the first time since the law took effect that the EPA is exercising its authority to lower the requirements. In doing so, the federal agency acknowledged the current mandate is not feasible.

When Congress passed the law in 2007, experts forecast that U.S. gasoline consumption would continue to rise, which would support correspondingly higher mandates for ethanol production. That hasn’t happened: Gasoline use has remained nearly flat due to more fuel-efficient vehicles, a weaker economy and higher gas prices.

The standard sets requirements for quantities of renewable fuels such as ethanol to be blended into gasoline in increasing amounts each year — but by total gallons, not as a percentage of the fuel.

Most fuel at gas stations now is an E10 blend — 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Because of the mandate that increasing amounts of ethanol be used despite the fact that gasoline consumption is flat, fuel producers were hitting a “blend wall,” in which it became likely that more E15 fuel — which is 15 percent ethanol — would have to be produced.

Carmakers have argued that higher concentrations of ethanol could damage engine components, especially in older cars. They took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June declined to hear the case.

Automakers are gradually starting to certify E15 for use in newer vehicles. General Motors Co. and Ford Motor Co. allow its use in newer vehicles. Chrysler Group LLC and many others still don’t approve of the fuel and say it could void warranties. More than 90 percent of vehicles on the road are not approved by manufacturers to use E15.

E15 is roughly 10 to 15 cents per gallon cheaper than E10 but delivers less energy, meaning motorists get slightly worse mileage.

AAA, which represents 53 million motorists, praised the EPA announcement.

“The EPA’s proposal to decrease ethanol requirements will help drivers by preventing a surge in gas prices or the premature expansion of E15 gasoline sales. While we would like to increase the use of alternative fuels, it is a plain fact that the Renewable Fuels Standard’s original targets are unreachable without putting motorists and their vehicles at risk,” said Bob Darbelnet, AAA president and CEO.

But the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group representing ethanol producers, says more than 40 million miles have been driven on E15 with no known cases of engine damage or liability claims.

The EPA decision may take pressure off corn prices. Prices fell after the announcement, with futures contracts for December-delivery corn dipping 1 percent to $4.22 a bushel.

The EPA has argued that waiving ethanol requirements would have little impact on corn prices. After this summer’s strong corn harvest, prices have fallen in recent weeks to three-year lows.

Corn growers weren’t pleased with the EPA decision. Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, said, “The EPA proposal turns the (Renewable Fuels Standard) on its head, runs counter to the law and is a complete capitulation to Big Oil. The Obama administration needs to .. decide whether they are serious about cleaner fuels, consumer choice and cutting petroleum dependence, or whether they truly want to adopt the Big Oil status quo.”;

Last year, the EPA rejected a request from eight governors and nearly 200 members of Congress to waive requirements for ethanol after the 2012 drought wilted much of the nation’s corn crop. In addition, a top United Nations official urged the Obama administration to suspend ethanol requirements as fears of worldwide food shortages grew.

Michigan is the nation’s 11th-largest corn producer, harvesting 318 million bushels in 2012, down from 335 million in 2011. Michigan farmers planted an estimated 2.6 million acres of corn in 2013, down about 50,000 acres from the year before.

American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard called on Congress to end the ethanol program completely. Groups affected by higher corn prices — including turkey farmers, chain restaurants and frozen food manufacturers — have joined forces with the oil industry to oppose higher ethanol requirements.

“For the first time, EPA has acknowledged that the ‘blend wall’ is a dangerous reality and that breaching it would have serious impacts on America’s fuel supply and would be harmful for American consumers,” he said. “;

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Detroit’s automakers and others, praised the EPA move. “This is good for consumers. Automakers support using alternative fuels — after all, we’re bringing so many new alternative fuel vehicles to market. However, our concern is for the many customers who are in older vehicles that were never designed or built to withstand ethanol above E10,” spokesman Wade Newton said.

The EPA will hold a public hearing and take public comments for 60 days before it finalizes the 2014 requirements.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131115/AUTO01/311150096#ixzz2mQATaXRD
 
In the beginning ethanol blended fuels were suppose to be cheaper than nonblended. That has not happened here where I live. We have E10. Same price as before.
 
This is a good thing. It is about time!
Trying to find gasoline that has 0% ethanol is getting harder and harder to find. I refuse to use ethanol blended gasoline.
Pure gas is seldom available now. Older cars do not deal with ethanol very well.
Maybe this will convince some farmers to go back to growing food, not corn for fuel that wasn't needed in the first place.

Environmentalists and special interest groups have created too much hype that hasn't provided any good for anyone. The energy used to make ethanol blended gasoline out-ways the benefit.
 
The report is easy to misinterpret. The amount of ethanol on a volumetric basis isn't necessarily changing dramatically or by exactly 3 billion gallons. The issue is congress and the EPA are running up against a (self-imposed) limit in the amount of ethanol put into our fuels. As gas consumption finally increases, they'll have to decrease the amount of ethanol in each unit of gasoline on a percentage basis in order to avoid increasing the overall amount of ethanol consumed. It's a little different scenario than "reducing" our net ethanol consumption, which seems to at least be part of this deal, which is certainly what I would prefer. I don't mind biofuels at all - Brazil, for instance, has a worthwhile program using sugar cane- but corn based fuels are inefficient financially, environmentally, and on a energy input/output basis - 3 strikes and you are out IMO.
 
Last edited:
well if you put the current crap gas in your boat pre 97 it eats the gas tank and you need to rebuild your carb,

and your lawn mower shit throw it away after 10-15 lawns worth as it kills the motors

you can find non ethanol gas every where but its only 87oct. now you can get racing fuel as they call it but its like 11 bucks a gallon.

I wonder how my NSX would perform if it consumed fuel with 93 octane non ethanol would I get better miles, better performance? or just milk my wallet?
 
E85 was such a stupid idea.
When it takes more gas to make an alternative to gas... Yeah, time to double-check your math...
IMO, E85 = Lobbyist and political corruption. Nothing more.

.
 
We had 93 nonblended octane for years here.:wink: Now it's still 93 but E10. I wonder what it actually rates at now. Surely not 93.:frown:
well if you put the current crap gas in your boat pre 97 it eats the gas tank and you need to rebuild your carb,

and your lawn mower shit throw it away after 10-15 lawns worth as it kills the motors

you can find non ethanol gas every where but its only 87oct. now you can get racing fuel as they call it but its like 11 bucks a gallon.

I wonder how my NSX would perform if it consumed fuel with 93 octane non ethanol would I get better miles, better performance? or just milk my wallet?
 
E85 was such a stupid idea.
When it takes more gas to make an alternative to gas... Yeah, time to double-check your math...
IMO, E85 = Lobbyist and political corruption. Nothing more.

.

+100. Ruins engines, Fuel injectors, worse gas mileage and not cheaper!! Damn Corn subsidies and Lobbyists!
 
WA state offers 93 at every pump. AZ, where I'm at now only offers 91. Both states are E10. I stopped at a Chevron station in Orange CO, CA a year or two back and noticed that there was no sign indicating 10% ethanol... not sure if it was an omission, but I did notice more power under my foot...
 
Back
Top