Ethanol Organizations Pushing for Mid-Range Blends; Splash-Blending Pumps for Retailers
31 October 2008
 |
| A splash-blending pump. Click to enlarge. Source: EPIC/ACE |
The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) and The Ethanol Promotion and Information Council (EPIC) are pushing for wider deployment of mid-range ethanol blends via the use of splash-blending pumps at retail sites. Mid-range ethanol blends (e.g., E15, E20, E30, etc.) can legally be used in flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs) in the US. Use in non-FFVs is not currently legal, although it is under focused study. (Earlier post.)
In a webinar primarily targeted to petroleum marketers (e.g., fuel station owners) Ron Lamberty from ACE outlined the organization’s immediate rationale for opposing universal E10 blends, which is derived from the current structure of financial incentives around ethanol provision and use in the US, and its focus on preserving splash blending.
Under the current policy, the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC) of $0.51 per gallon of ethanol goes to the blender of record. In creating a gallon of E85, for example, a blender can theoretically receive a tax credit of about $0.43 (85% of $0.51) per gallon, depending upon the actual ethanol content of the gallon.
ACE’s opposition to a universal E10 delivery is based on the assumption that the benefit of VEETC at that blend level would not be passed on to consumers, or to the retailer—i.e., the oil companies would incorporate the ethanol, take the VEETC credit (about $0.051 per gallon), and sell the product to the retailers without passing on the VEETC credit in the form of a price break. A number of oil companies, Lamberty charged, have gone to mandate an E10-only product slate, and are pushing terminals to allow only E10.
Two states (North Carolina and South Carolina) have passed laws requiring terminals to offer an un-blended petroleum product that is suitable for later blending with ethanol—i.e., by the retailer. Sixteen other states are considering similar legislation, Lamberty said.
 |
| Stations currently equipped with blender pumps and offering mid-range blends, as of 24 October 2008. Click to enlarge. Source: American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) |
The ability to deliver a range of splash-blended ethanol mixtures would provide the retailer with some flexibility in being able to recoup their costs of expanding their offerings. In the splash-blending pump scenario, two tanks—one with ethanol or E85, the other with straight unleaded gasoline) are connected to the pump, which in turn, given appropriate consumer labelling, creates the blend on-the-fly for the consumer.
If the retailer opts for straight ethanol in the tank, then he or she will end up taking the tax credit directly. If the retailer uses E85 as the blending agent, the original E85 blender will have benefitted from the credit—but presumably the price break (or a portion thereof) would still be passed to the retailer in the cost of the E85. Ethanol plants, Lamberty said, will sell E85 direct, bypassing the “big oil markup”. Lamberty recommends the E85 route for those retailers that don’t have the experience of the desire to go through the requisite tracking and paperwork to file for the blend credit.
In assessing the market opportunity for mid-range ethanol blends above 10%, Lamberty noted that without some sort of accommodation for mid-range ethanol blends, the E10 blend wall, even with aggressive adoption of full E85 flex-fuel vehicles, will result in a “blend gap”—a gulf between the amount of ethanol produced to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard, and the amount that can actually be used in the fleet.
All cars in the US can legally run on blends of up to E10—a nationwide E10 policy would create a “blend wall”—i.e., maximum legal utilization—of about 14 billion gallons per year for non-flex-fuel vehicles. Even with a new fleet that is 50% flex-fuel capable, and assuming that the E85 infrastructure was present to provide the fuel, the combination of E85 and E10 vehicles is still insufficient to use the ethanol that will be produced to meet the RFS, Lamberty said. That’s the blend gap. Shifting to a universal E15, for example, would close the gap.
 |
|
| The E10 blend wall and blend gap. Click to enlarge. | The E15 blend wall and blend gap. Click to enlarge. |
There are some cost challenges for the blender pumps, and there are some potential liability issues with offering mid-range blends. While it is legal for a station to offer a mid-range blend, station owners may be liable for misfueling—i.e., fueling a conventional car with a mid-range blend—just as they may be liable for misfueling with diesel.
However, Lamberty noted, the stations that are currently selling mid-range blends (ACE has a list of 84 so far) have yet to receive a complaint or damage claim. Lamberty was optimistic about the studies underway evaluating the affect of mid-range blends in conventional vehicles, and described anecdotal evidence about cars running on E30 with no problem.
In that view, the ethanol supporters may be more sanguine that the automakers (and the EPA), who look at the same data but see potential issues such as higher exhaust temperatures affecting catalyst lifetime and performance. The study series on mid-range blends is due to go through 2010.
I am a Biofuels spokesperson for General Motors, which supports E85 ethanol as the best near-term solution to offset oil demand, even in the current environment of falling oil prices. In his webinar this week, Mr. Lamberty made a strong, if incomplete, case for midlevel blends. He was very selective in his use of facts. To wit: There are more than 7 million flex-fuel vehicles in the US. And more than 1,800 fueling stations that offer E85. The Detroit Three automakers - GM, Ford and Chrysler - have committed to making 50 percent of their vehicles flex-fuel capable by 2012, which would lead to about 18 million FFVs being available by then. (Growing the fueling infrastructure is an important part of this.) If widely adopted and supported, E85 would offset a great deal more petroleum use than any incremental increase in the blend to meet the growing supply required by the Renewable Fuel Standard. When you add up all the ethanol required under the RFS (36 billion gallons a year by 2022 including cellulosic and other advanced biofuels), there is no amount of midlevel blending that will reach that amount. More imporantly -- and largely overlooked by Mr. Lamberty -- is the fact that ethanol blended beyond 10 percent can cause damage to non-FFVs. In tests conducted by Oribital Engine Corp. in Australia in 2003, four of 10 vehicles tested exhibited catalyst failure from overheating, leading to unchecked tailpipe emissions. The very Oak Ridge DOE tests Mr. Lamberty cited also showed similar catalyst overheating (29-35C higher than on E0) in six of the 13 vehicles tested. And the impact of higher blends of ethanol on the 200 million small engines in the US - snowblowers, weed whackers, etc. - is unknown but predicted to be very damaging. Coleman Jones, the manager of biofuels implementation at GM, was quoted in a recent issue of US News & World Report as saying, "The bottom line is that we need to test it. We need to test it thoroughly, because these guys are proposing to change gasoline for all of us, forever." And if there is a change made to the blend of ethanol that causes problems for motorists, ethanol's reputation could suffer irreparable harm. And then it won't matter what the ethanol blend is because the public won't want anything to do with it. We need to allow science to lead policy, not the other way around.
Posted by: Alan Adler | 31 October 2008 at 06:18 AM
Alan, are you saying the FFVs on the market have different catalytic converters than non-FFVs? Were the catalytic converters in the Australian test the same as the ones on American cars? Weren't those results you stated during tests strictly in closed-loop? Why give the results of E0 to midlevel blends, and NOT E10 to midlevel blends?
Do you have evidence of any catalytic damage occurring as a result of the thousands of consumers splash-blending that has taken place over the years.
Do you think we're all completely stupid?
Posted by: Kum Dollison | 31 October 2008 at 06:56 AM
The above comments by Mr Adler are extremely misleading, although his concernsregarding public perceptions are probably right on. I have one of his cars, a 1995 grand am (3100 v6)with 130,000 miles on it, and have been running Exclusibely E20 from a local blender pump since the station went up two years ago. Not one problem, and the mileage went up from averaging 22 MPG overall with regular gas/E10, to a full 24 MPG consistently with E20. This is just one consumers data, not some test data. The car was recently in the shop to have new CV joints on and the mechanic commented on how good the engine was running for a car of its age and mileage. Now, I have EVEN run 2 full tanks of E85 in the past 4 months, which I know is wrong, but it has been almost E20 exclusively for 2 full yrs, no problems at all. That being said I realize there have been few conclusive tests on higher ethanol blends, however, I know testing is being done, and I know what they will find. E 20 is perfectly fine in all vehicles, and after 100K miles, your rings, and Valves will be cleaner and more efficient.
Posted by: Steve-O | 31 October 2008 at 07:19 AM
how does something that has less BTU's than gasoline raise the exhaust temp to wear it is damaging to the catalytic converter.
Posted by: bg | 31 October 2008 at 07:28 AM
Louisiana Enacts the Most Comprehensive Advanced Biofuel Legislation in the Nation
__________________
Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative Benefits Consumers, Farmers and Gas Station Owners with Localized “Field-to-Pump” Strategy
Tampa, FL (October 31, 2008) – Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law the Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative, the most comprehensive and far-reaching state legislation in the nation enacted to develop a statewide advanced biofuel industry. Louisiana is the first state to enact alternative transportation fuel legislation that includes a variable blending pump pilot program and a hydrous ethanol pilot program.
Field-to-Pump Strategy
The legislature found that the proper development of an advanced biofuel industry in Louisiana requires implementation of the following comprehensive “field-to-pump” strategy developed by Renergie, Inc.:
(1) Feedstock Other Than Corn
(a) derived solely from Louisiana harvested crops;
(b) capable of an annual yield of at least 600 gallons of ethanol per acre;
(c) requiring no more than one-half of the water required to grow corn;
(d) tolerant to high temperature and waterlogging;
(e) resistant to drought and saline-alkaline soils;
(f) capable of being grown in marginal soils, ranging from heavy clay to light sand;
(g) requiring no more than one-third of the nitrogen required to grow corn, thereby reducing the risk of contamination of the waters of the state; and
(h) requiring no more than one-half of the energy necessary to convert corn into ethanol.
(2) Decentralized Network of Small Advanced Biofuel Manufacturing Facilities
Smaller is better. The distributed nature of a small advanced biofuel manufacturing facility network reduces feedstock supply risk, does not burden local water supplies and provides for broader based economic development. Each advanced biofuel manufacturing facility operating in Louisiana will produce no less than 5 million gallons of advanced biofuel per year and no more than 15 million gallons of advanced biofuel per year.
(3) Market Expansion
Advanced biofuel supply and demand shall be expanded beyond the 10% blend market by blending fuel-grade anhydrous ethanol with gasoline at the gas station pump. Variable blending pumps, directly installed and operated at local gas stations by a qualified small advanced biofuel manufacturing facility, shall offer the consumer a less expensive substitute for unleaded gasoline in the form of E10, E20, E30 and E85.
Pilot Programs
(1) Advanced Biofuel Variable Blending Pumps - The blending of fuels with advanced biofuel percentages between 10 percent and 85 percent will be permitted on a trial basis until January 1, 2012. During this period the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Division of Weights & Measures will monitor the equipment used to dispense the ethanol blends to ascertain that the equipment is suitable and capable of producing an accurate measurement.
(2) Hydrous Ethanol - The use of hydrous ethanol blends of E10, E20, E30 and E85 in motor vehicles specifically selected for test purposes will be permitted on a trial basis until January 1, 2012. During this period the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Division of Weights & Measures will monitor the performance of the motor vehicles. The hydrous blends will be tested for blend optimization with respect to fuel consumption and engine emissions. Preliminary tests conducted in Europe have proven that the use of hydrous ethanol, which eliminates the need for the hydrous-to-anhydrous dehydration processing step, results in an energy savings of between ten percent and forty-five percent during processing, a four percent product volume increase, higher mileage per gallon, a cleaner engine interior, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Act No. 382, entitled “The Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative,” was co-authored by 27 members of the Legislature. The original bill was drafted by Renergie, Inc. Representative Jonathan W. Perry (R - District 47), with the support of Senator Nick Gautreaux (D - District 26), was the primary author of the bill. Reflecting on the signing of Act No. 382 into law, Brian J. Donovan, CEO of Renergie, Inc. said, “I am pleased that the legislature and governor of the great State of Louisiana have chosen to lead the nation in moving ethanol beyond being just a blending component in gasoline to a fuel that is more economical, cleaner, renewable, and more efficient than unleaded gasoline. The two pilot programs, providing for an advanced biofuel variable blending pump trial and a hydrous ethanol trial, established by the State of Louisiana should be adopted by each and every state in our country.”
State Agencies Must Purchase or Lease Vehicles That Use Alternative Fuels
Louisiana’s Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative further states, “The commissioner of administration shall not purchase or lease any motor vehicle for use by any state agency unless that vehicle is capable of and equipped for using an alternative fuel that results in lower emissions of oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, or particulates or any combination thereof that meet or exceed federal Clean Air Act standards.”
Advanced Biofuel Price Preference for State Agencies
Louisiana’s Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative provides that a governmental body, state educational institution, or instrumentality of the state that performs essential governmental functions on a statewide or local basis is entitled to purchase E20, E30 or E85 advanced biofuel at a price equal to fifteen percent (15%) less per gallon than the price of unleaded gasoline for use in any motor vehicle.
Economic Benefits
The development of an advanced biofuel industry will help rebuild the local and regional economies devastated as a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita by providing:
(1) increased value to the feedstock crops which will benefit local farmers and provide more revenue to the local community;
(2) increased investments in plants and equipment which will stimulate the local economy by providing construction jobs initially and the chance for full-time employment after the plant is completed;
(3) secondary employment as associated industries develop due to plant co-products becoming available at a competitive price; and
(4) increased local and state revenues collected from plant operations will stimulate local and state tax revenues and provide funds for improvements to the community and to the region.
“Representative Perry and Senator Gautreaux have worked tirelessly to craft comprehensive advanced biofuel legislation which will maximize rural development, benefit consumers, farmers and gas station owners while also protecting the environment and reducing the burden on local water supplies,” said Donovan. “Representative Perry, Senator Gautreaux, and Dr. Strain, Commissioner of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, should be praised for their leadership on this issue.”
About Renergie
Renergie was formed on March 22, 2006 for the purpose of raising capital to develop, construct, own and operate a network of ten ethanol plants in the parishes of the State of Louisiana which were devastated by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Each ethanol plant will have a production capacity of five million gallons per year (5 MGY) of fuel-grade ethanol. Renergie’s “field-to-pump” strategy is to produce non-corn ethanol locally and directly market non-corn ethanol locally. On February 26, 2008, Renergie was one of 8 recipients, selected from 139 grant applicants, to share $12.5 million from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Renewable Energy Technologies Grants Program. Renergie received $1,500,483 (partial funding) in grant money to design and build Florida’s first ethanol plant capable of producing fuel-grade ethanol solely from sweet sorghum juice. On April 2, 2008, Enterprise Florida, Inc., the state’s economic development organization, selected Renergie as one of Florida’s most innovative technology companies in the alternative energy sector. By blending fuel-grade ethanol with gasoline at the gas station pump, Renergie will offer the consumer a fuel that is more economical, cleaner, renewable, and more efficient than unleaded gasoline. Moreover, the Renergie project will mark the first time that Louisiana farmers will share in the profits realized from the sale of value-added products made from their crops.
Posted by: Brian J. Donovan | 31 October 2008 at 07:34 AM
Quoth bg:
Over-lean mixtures raise EGT (to a point), and a fuel with less oxygen demand per volume will tend to run lean. So does slow flame speed, which causes less energy to be converted to work and more left as heat as combustion occurs later in the power stroke. However, this would be accompanied by a substantial loss of fuel economy and nobody appears to be making that claim.Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 31 October 2008 at 08:01 AM
I said many times before and i repeat: Foods have to be eaten and expel before been turn to bio-fuel(methane)at
the sewage plant. It's not complicated and it's better like that as starvation goes. AS wood chips and myschantus goes, then it's silly, these are not unlimited feedstock like petrol and natural gas and cost way way more as a feedstock. Without destructive subsidies it's not economical and will lead to a castastrophy with artificial benefit but end-up as tax in the form of subsidies.
Posted by: a.b | 31 October 2008 at 08:15 AM
"Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative"
"Advanced Biofuel Price Preference for State Agencies
Louisiana’s Advanced Biofuel Industry Development Initiative provides that a governmental body, state educational institution, or instrumentality of the state that performs essential governmental functions on a statewide or local basis is entitled to purchase E20, E30 or E85 advanced biofuel at a price equal to fifteen percent (15%) less per gallon than the price of unleaded gasoline for use in any motor vehicle."
LULZ @ Louisiana Kleptocracy.
Posted by: John Galt | 31 October 2008 at 08:48 AM
a.b,
Get your facts straight on food mass and energy flows before you start spreading the eco-nutter food-vs-fuel myth. Virtually all of the U.S. corn crop would have to be converted to ethanol before any dent in human food supply takes place. Starch simply isn't used by ruminants, which is where most corn (and soybeans) goes to. Cattle manure contains more fermentable sugar per pound than even sugar beets. Cow shat beer anyone?
Oh yeah, and then there's the whole 150 million acres worth of other grains, hulls, straw and stover. And soybean sugars. And wasted culls of every other crop that doesn't make it to market. Or the crops thrown out even after they get to market. Plus the winter covercrop biomass harvested in the spring, because we didn't want to freak out the eco-nutters with their doomer fears about "soil erosion" due to removing stover from Iowa corn fields.
Posted by: John Galt | 31 October 2008 at 09:00 AM
I have a suggestion. Just get rid of the credit and this whole issue goes away.
Posted by: David | 31 October 2008 at 09:04 AM
Fine, and let's take back the $13 BILLION for Oil Companies in the latest "energy bill."
And, while we're at it, let's consider why diesel is, now, almost $1.00/gal more expensive than gasoline at the pump. (Hint: There's no widespread alternative to diesel, like there is for gasoline.)
Posted by: Kum Dollison | 31 October 2008 at 09:21 AM
re: Louisiana Ethanol program.
At 600 gal/acre it would take about 1.5 acre to supply enough ethanol feedstock for one gas guzzle.
USA has close to 300 million acres of crop land.
Using 100% of all USA crop land could produce enough feedstocks to produce enough ethanol for about 200 +/- million gas guzzlers. The other 60 million gas guzzlers would have to be parked and many humans would be very thin within a few months.
There must be better ways.
Accellerated massive vehicle and HVAC electrification + building many more clean Solar, Wind, Geothermal and Nuclear power plants would be more sustainable and have less negative effects on essential food supplies.
Farmers could always export their surpluses. The world's food shortage is growing. Foreign aids could be mostly surplus food. It could cost less than current oil wars.
Posted by: HarveyD | 31 October 2008 at 09:24 AM
@Alan
Thanks for raising the issue. I will keep in mind for future reading.
@Kum
When considering the higher cost of diesel fuel you may want to keep in mind the difference in energy content, additives for winter diesel blends, and the winter home oil heating demand.
Cause and effect, Kum you may want to keep that in mind before asking someone to consider you intelligence.
Posted by: Kit P | 31 October 2008 at 10:22 AM
difference in energy content, additives for winter diesel blends, and the winter home oil heating demand.
I take it all these factors weren't in effect a few years ago when gasoline cost more than diesel, huh?
BTW, you'll notice that none of my previous questions have been answered.
Posted by: Kum Dollison | 31 October 2008 at 10:34 AM
What a load of crap! I'm for ethanol, but this is pure unadulterated corporate GreenWashing.
Posted by: DS | 31 October 2008 at 12:27 PM
I'm for ethanol,
Sure you are.
Posted by: | 31 October 2008 at 12:55 PM
I'm about to get bashed again.
Who foist this utter crap upon us? Is it some little known but all powerful pump lobby?
Does anyone consider that we don't make enough ethanol for universal 10%? And that we won't for several years?
Yet across the nation we have perhaps 30 schemes promoted by states, feds, farm interests, auto makers, or the oil industry to use all sorts of blends: 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, 85%. Did I miss any?
Not only are many blends promoted but attempts are made to put price controls on the blends. And mandates to consume the stuff. Then inevitably we pay inspectors to enforce the lunacy.
We see subsidy bills carefully written to favor one producer or method or crop over others regardless of technical merit.
Blends over 10% are known to damage many cars. Sure, some will tolerate more; finding out just how much more can be expensive. But I urge you to get out there and bet your pocketbook. Or should I say bet your engine?
Get a GD grip America! Standardize and sell 10% until the ethanol supply will easily allow more. Meanwhile we can make a rational decision about the next step.
Posted by: K | 31 October 2008 at 02:38 PM
Well, I did bet mine, and it worked. Admittedly, I didn't (and wouldn't) bet a new car on it, I bet an 11 year old car on it. But I will say E20 is a better fuel for that old car that e10 or straight petroleum.
So my little personal story is not really all that relevant, but frankly, I have not seen any accounts of ethanol blenders having ruined engines or fuel systems. I am no engineer or scientist, and some of the technical stuff in this forum is over my head (but still a cool read LOL), but simple logic tells me that if everyone says 10% is OK than that means 20% is going to eat through my fuel lines, destroy my fuel pump, and eat through my pistons and trash my injectors??? Baloney shoot!
I would like to see evidence of high percentage ethanol ruining these car parts I list abovem then maybe I'll believe it. It may very well exist but I haven's seen it yet.
Posted by: Steve-O | 31 October 2008 at 02:57 PM
@Kum
It has been a long time since I have owned a diesel POV, had a house with heating oil, or been responsible for stationary diesel generators and fueling systems. Also spent lots of time lots of time investigating biodiesel and synthetic business opportunities for my company.
The basic issue is that biofuels require careful integration into a system. Ethanol production is growing so fast that the integration has not had time to be resolved. Maybe gasoline costs are being driven down.
Biodiesel is still too insignificant of the market to have an effect but is growing fast. However, I was not able to find anything to support your position but this is what I did find:
“Historically, the average price of diesel fuel has been lower than the average price of gasoline. However, this is not always the case. In some winters where the demand for distillate heating oil is high, the price of diesel fuel has risen above the gasoline price. Since September 2004, the price of diesel fuel has been generally higher than the price of regular gasoline all year round for several reasons. Worldwide demand for diesel fuel and other distillate fuel oils has been increasing steadily, with strong demand in China, Europe, and the United States, putting more pressure on the tight global refining capacity. In the United States, the transition to ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel has affected diesel fuel production and distribution costs. Also, the Federal excise tax on diesel fuel is 6 cents higher per gallon (24.4 cents per gallon) than the tax on gasoline.”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/diesel/index.html
If you want to blame higher diesel prices on someone, try Bill Clinton, Californians or the Chinese.
Posted by: Kit P | 31 October 2008 at 03:00 PM
The subject of missfueling has been touched on,
"While it is legal for a station to offer a mid-range blend, station owners may be liable for misfueling—i.e., fueling a conventional car with a mid-range blend—just as they may be liable for misfueling with diesel."
"given appropriate consumer labelling"
What can I say? This is a real problem that requires serious consideration. Although there would be more room for error with splash blending pumps, the problem does not go away by not including. Consumer education or an extreme suggestion an inexpensive tag and reader on handpiece may be effective.
A problem with motorcycles and very small volume sales is another possible garuantee issue.
There are choice advantages for the consumer that may encourage higher ethanol percentage choices which are two edged. On the one hand the most suitable, cheaper blend is available for higher blend vehicles opposed to consumer desire to save a few cents per liter that may lead to engine damage.
There are several desirable technologies that cannot otherwise be comercialised (Induction mixing, boost and high water mixes that require seperate on vehicle storages) which would be feasible with the widespread introduction slash pumps.
I think that there are more advantages to this concept which will only become clearer over time as more ethanol options are introduced.
A tag and reader may be appropriate for a wide range of fuel options including B*, deisel / ethanol mixes,premium (high octane) and with aproliferation of standards, above ground driveway space could become the more costly factor.
Posted by: arnold | 31 October 2008 at 04:02 PM
The future of the ethanol industry depends on who is elected President next week. John McCain votes against higher fuel efficiency standards, and he votes to continue subsidizing Big Oil. McCain wants to do away with the Renewable Fuels Standard, end the ethanol blending subsidy, and flood the market with Brazilian ethanol. That would damage our domestic biofuel industry and cost us jobs and a loss of tax revenue.
In contrast, Obama wants to fulfill the RFS, continue the blending subsidy, and keep the 54 cent per gallon ethanol import tariff intact. Obama wants to keep stimulating American made biofuels, so our domestic ethanol industry will continue to expand, create jobs, and generate revenue.
On another front, we have the American Petroleum Institute and the National Petrochemical and Refiner’s Association challenging the North Carolina Blending Act in court. Big Oil is trying to prevent retailers from taking over the ethanol blending subsidy at the pump. Another advantage of the splash pump is that it can be supplied with ethanol directly from a local ethanol refinery, instead of the ethanol being shipped to a far away terminal to be blended and then shipped back to the pump. That changes everything, because localized ethanol is more efficient and less expensive. There’s also the prospect that retailers will pass along all or part of the 51 cent per gallon blending subsidy to the consumer.
We should make it mandatory for 100% of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be ethanol friendly, not just half of them. It costs less than $200 to build flex into a new vehicle. Well worth the investment. Ethanol is not a cure all, but as the industry expands, it will gradually reduce our consumption of foreign oil.
We pay for imported fuels and foreign oil with government bonds and debt instruments borrowed from the Federal Reserve. Every year, this is one of the things that is driving the National Debt higher and higher and forcing us to pay floating interest on imported oil and fuel. Domestic Biofuels are now a key component of our National Security and our Economic Security. ‘Bottom line is that blender pumps will provide us with cheaper domestic fuel.
Oil companies should Not be allowed to have a monopoly on blending biofuels in terminals. Retailers have the right to blend their own fuels, and we should make sure they are supplied with raw gasoline.
We should also develop 4% hydrous ethanol into the blending system. This is something that gives you a lot of bang for the buck. The tests that are being conducted for higher ethanol blends should include tests on blends of hydrous ethanol. If the last 4% of water doesn’t have to be distilled from ethanol, that results in additional savings. Again, cheaper prices yet at the splash pump, and according to recent studies better mileage.
I think you should be allowed to pull up to a blender pump and put whatever percentage of ethanol you think your vehicle can handle, at your own risk. Farmers in the Corn Belt have been running their cars and pickups on 50% ethanol for years. Remember, the government and the EPA is strongly influenced by big money and big oil, interests that want to limit ethanol use. Their information may be skewed. What we need is diligent, unbiased, independent testing, so we can expand ethanol use as soon as possible. One idea being floated is adding a natural additive that will solve the problem. And another idea is to convert the fuel into a gaseous vapor. ‘Some kind of mass produced fuel vaporizer add on device.
Posted by: Jeff Baker | 31 October 2008 at 04:26 PM
Steve-o: I won't argue with you at all. If your car had no problems at 20% then it had no problems. Facts are facts.
Over at Google I found little definitive information about the effects of blends. Good studies no doubt exist but they can be devilishly hard to locate among the thousands of hits Google makes. 99% of those hits are heavily biased or simply repeat other opinions.
This much seems agreed upon. Ethanol will damage some engines. Smaller ones, such as in lawnmowers, seem more affected. Car makers say 10% is safe, otherwise older cars must take their chances.
The situation is complicated by the fact that some car makers and engine makers saw this coming and began to choose materials more tolerant to ethanol years ago. So not all cars or lawnmowers of a given age will have the same response to ethanol.
My point however is we have no sensible plan. We have a greedy scramble.
Why sell five or ten blends when there isn't enough ethanol anyway? Why are state legislatures dictating prices and subsidies and trying to mandate how much is sold in their state?
Why not have different AC voltage in each city or state? Or unique traffic signals? Or require houses to be built with lumber from local forests with window glass made from local sand?
Some things work best with national standards. On others it doesn't matter.
Posted by: K | 31 October 2008 at 04:47 PM
K,
what you don't realize is that within just a year, and a couple of months we will be producing right at 14 Billion gallons of ethanol/yr.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/
That's about 910,000 barrels/day. That is likely to be more than 10% of gasoline usage. It could, literally, kill the industry if we don't allow them to sell it.
There's, absolutely, NO reason not to allow a fifteen, or twenty percent blend. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people have been "splash-blending" higher blends for years with NO reported problems. Our cars have been built to utilize ethanol since the seventies.
The only difference will be, on average, slightly better mileage than on E10. Those small engines (of the older variety) that have trouble with ethanol (E10, and E20) usually just need their brass needles, and cork floats replaced. BTW, I don't, personally, know anyone whose small engine has had problems with E10.
This isn't a Big Deal. It's just a Large Industry trying very hard to kill a nascent, threatening technology. We will import a lot less oil, and pay less for our transportation (as is already happening - again, check unleaded prices against diesel.) GM, they of the %5.00 stock, are merely afraid that it will eat into their flexfuel sales. They've been all turned around on ethanol the whole way; and they still are.
Anyhoo, it's a "stone winner" for me, and thee; and, with a little luck, it'll go forward. Have a nice night, and a not-too-scary halloween. :)
Posted by: Kum Dollison | 31 October 2008 at 08:03 PM
EP:
Effects of different ethanol/gasoline blends on engine performance are very well researched. In a nutshell:
Each 10% ethanol increase in the blend increases octane number by about 5%.
Due to higher latent heat of vaporization of ethanol, temperature of intake air is decreased, and consequently volumetric efficiency of engine increases, which translates in about 5% increased max power for E10.
E10 contains about 3.5% less energy than straight gasoline, but presence of oxygen atom in ethanol increases speed of combustion (do not mix up combustion and ignition properties). As a result, thermal efficiency of E10 powered engine increases 1-2%, which does not compensate lower specific energy of E10, and in sum mileage (mpg) decreases only by about 2% instead of expected 3.5%.
With high ethanol blends (20-30%) there is possibility of higher exhaust temperature on. Example: after vehicle was run on straight gasoline and oxygen sensor adjusted fuel injection rate to produce stoichiometric mixture for gasoline, cold vehicle is refueled by E30 blend, and run at full power while oxygen sensor is still cold. On-board computer still does not know that new fuel has less energy per volume, and as a result engine is run substantially lean (until oxygen sensor heats-up and adjust injection map back to stoichiometric conditions). Theoretically, such event could damage catalytic converter. To avoid such occasion, modern flex-fuel vehicles have sensor which senses fuel properties right away.
Posted by: Andrey levin | 31 October 2008 at 08:52 PM
" let's consider why diesel is, now, almost $1.00/gal more expensive than gasoline at the pump. (Hint: There's no widespread alternative to diesel, like there is for gasoline.)"
WRONG!
We export Diesel to Europe because its more profitable to sell it in the European market where 50% of the vehicles are diesel fueled. refiners can make more profit per gallon shipping it to europe than selling it here, this creates a short fall here, which raises prices here as well its a win win for the refiners i should know I am after all in the oil industry on the exploration side.
Posted by: | 31 October 2008 at 09:40 PM