Topic: Force 15% Ehanol in Gasoline - to the detriment of ALL of US!

[Gaither]

FWIW, this is NOT "political" it is about the survival the fuel systems in our motorcycles, cars, trucks, mowers, etc.

Well, the dummies have finally done it! What a bunch of self-serving, inconsiderate fools!

An EPA decision, backed by Congressional Mandate (pushed by farmer's coalition) and pushed by bamer - they are now gonna cram it down our throats - make that fuel tanks! Announced in today's in "News" paper.

EPA states "safe" for cars/trucks (no mention of any other vehicles/equipment) mfg between /01 and '07 (no mention of '08 - '11 or earlier years). "They" obviously do not care about the millions of us who drive earlier vehicles or use motorcycles, mowers, etc that cannot survive 15% Ehanol. In other words, "to Hell with all of us"!

This is a rediculous position to be taken by the EPA since Ethanol is proven to reduce mileage by 10% (they profess [lie] to want to conserve fuel!) and creat MORE air pollution! So, the EPA blatantly violates (lies) their own proffessed claim to want to reduce pollution!

For what little good it may/may not do, I know who I'm gonna call, email, write to voice my disgust. May not help the situation but at least "they" will know how I feel about this all too rediculous situation. I hope their phones & emails are swamped by others who feel the same!

I repeat, this is NOT in any way political. It is about too much Ethanol in gasoline (ANY is too much!).

[Joel]

Do you have a link to any studies that show ethanol-gasoline is more polluting than regular unleaded?

[Gaither]

Joel

I don't have anything handy on it to post. However, I have read numerous reports that proved Ethanol in gasoline burns "dirtyer" than Ethanol free gasoline. You can research it on the "net".

I have personally measured a 10% drop in mileage in my '97 CV interceptor due to Ethanol. The same applies to our '02 CV HPP.

For simplicity, how can I (we) burn 10% more fuel per mile and not expect more pollultion as a result? And, we can expect greater mileage reduction  from a 50% increase of added Ethanol! This, along with the destruction of our fuel system components.

[nomad]

This, along with the destruction of our fuel system components.

I haven't started looking into this yet (had planned to).  What components exactly do we as vintage motorcycle owners need to keep an eye on when it comes to burning E10/E15?  What fixes/ improvements can one make to help counter the issues associated with ethanol?  Does one need to switch to stainless fuel lines for example?  Would we benefit from different spark plugs?  The only thing I know about ethanol is that it isn't a good thing.  Someone please enlighten me.   

[MCRider]

Do you have a link to any studies that show ethanol-gasoline is more polluting than regular unleaded?

Ethanol is such a boondoggle.

I can't answer your question directly, but I'll say this. It takes more energy to produce a unit of Ethanol energy than that unit of Ethanol energy produces. So whether it is more efficient in a car or not is not the point. It is a net energy drain to produce.
http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/news/2005/0705/070705/ethanol.shtml

From The Peoples Republic of Berkeley no less.

[MCRider]

PS: we are scroomed:
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/10/13/energy-the-epa-will-put-more-ethanol-in-your-tank%E2%80%94but-its-going-to-cost-you/

[Gaither]

+100, MCRider!

If Ethanol was so wonderful and could contribute anything, why does the Gov (can you say "Tax Payers"?) have to subsidize it to the tune of 45 Cents Per Gallon???

So, we are paying for this crap TWICE!!!

This, plus the unknown cost to attempt to maintain our vehicles!

It is all so rediculous! All we need is to Drill Now and build 3 or 4 New Refineries. We are nowhere near our of gas/oil reserves. The "Powers that be" simply have their feet on our necks!

[Gaither]

Joel

Have you read the article in MCRider's link on the 6th post down?

Can anyone imagine a "Mandate" that will force gas stations to install additional pumps (which will, in mosts cases, require additional tanks!) What a stinking mess!!!

[nomad]

This sounds weird, but I've seen it suggested on a couple of sites...

If you want an "ethanol free" supply of gas to keep at home in the garage, mix your ethanol laden gas with water in a big container that has a drain valve at the bottom of it.  Then let it set over night.  Since the ethanol bonds with water (and the gas floats), it'll mix and settle at the bottom of the tank.  Drain the ethanol water mixture from the bottom and you're left with plain old gasoline.  I'm not sure of a mix ratio though and am not sure that it really matters as long as it's more than the ethanol you have in the gas.

It sounds like a simple solution (if you only need to refuel at home that is).  I know that one of the items on a small airplane's preflight checklist is to check the tanks for water by draining a small amount into a clear container to visually verify there's no H2O in the tank.

So, if you get a large fuel container to keep in your garage and you do this little water mixing trick, anyone see why it wouldn't work?  Then if you're out and about and need to refuel with ethanol gas, go ahead and do it, then when you get home, drain the motorcycle's tank and mix it into your larger tank you have at home.  That way you can refuel with pure gas and you're not running ethanol gas for extended periods.

[Goofaroo]

This doesn't sound good. As of right now some stations here have fuel with and without Ethanol. Others have a big sign that advertises "100% gas".  I get about 10% better fuel economy in my Subaru on 100% gas.

I don't know if the Ethanol is hard on internal parts of our bikes but it will be interesting to find out. My concern with Ethanol fuel is that it absorbs moisture from the air. It seems that I read somewhere that it will absorb water something like 60 times worse than 100% gas. Probably not a big deal an a fuel injected daily driver with a sealed system but on a carbureted engine that is vented to the atmosphere and is only ridden or driven occasionally, it could be a real problem.

[Gaither]

Nomad

That might work. It seems a lot of exercise just so the dummies can have their way. Although, it might be easier than replacing a lot of seals, O rings, etc.

I'm already angry at these idiots (liars). Imagine how furious I'll be at 'em by the time I got done with all of that excercise!

I'm running Techron and Stabil in the bike fuel to protect 4 rebuilt carbs and to prevent the "ethanol film" from accumulating in 'em. Even with 10%, this fuel is crap!

Goofaroo, ethanol is very hard on all air cooled engines. This 15% mess ain't gonna be fun! And, it's gonna mess up millions of cars/trucks.

Some auto mfg's already have law suits in progress (for all the good it'll do). We, too, must protest this foolishness! These bastards are supposed to be working FOR us - not AGAINST us! It is all about greed and votes!

[nomad]

Nomad

That might work. It seems a lot of exercise just so the dummies can have their way. Although, it might be easier than replacing a lot of seals, O rings, etc.

Yeah... that was my thinking on it.  I'm getting ready to rebuild my engine within the next couple of months and I'd hate to invest all that time, money and hard work just to have the fuel I put into it mess it up again!

I'll gladly take the effort of occasionally draining water/ ethanol out of a fuel tank over rebuilding and replacing parts of my engine any day.

[Gaither]

Nomad

You are right! But, ain't all this a shame (sham)!

[TwoTired]

http://www.ewg.org/letter/Factual-Analysis-Debunks-Corn-Ethanol-Industrys-Call-to-Waive-Clean-Air-Act-Fuel-Standards

Technically, ethanol fuel is especially bad for all engines that don't employ an ox sensor and a loop feedback mechanism to make fuel ratio adjustments.
(This assumes that the fuel delivery system without an ox sensor isn't "retuned" for the alternative fuel.)

It is unfortunate that what should be a technical decision was indeed a political decision pushed by the corn lobby onto a willing administration.

What better way to stimulate an economy than by requiring the repair or replacement of all engines that use a controlled fuel supply.
Sales of new vehicles that use the "new" fuel garner taxes and fees for government's further expansion of increased control over the populace.
Or, the repair industry gets a boost, also garnering taxes and fees for government.
Either way, repair or replacement helps government state and federal with the current cash flow problems.

If the corn lobby is placated and the economy improves, how could an administration not condone the change?
(especially under the guise of "saving the planet", and offering some "free benefits" like helping the farmers, general health care, and saving Social Security.

[scunny]

hers an interesting article from the New Zealand point of view. it's old (march 2008) but still valid imhohttp://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/325528

[FunJimmy]

A bit off topic, but it speaks to the fools that cram these supposedly well intended restrictions on the public are better for us all, as of 2012 we will no longer be able to purchase incandescent light bulbs in BC.Canada. Only compact florescent as they are supposed to be more energy efficient. What scientists are now saying is that those incandescent bulbs give off approx 5% of the average homes heating needs and without them furnaces will need to take up the slack, but because BC is a hyrdo electric producing province that heating loss will create more green house gasses as the public fires their gas powered furnaces for longer. The equivalent of 61000 cars per year in  BC alone. Go figure.

Now add into the equation the fact that compact florescent bulbs cost 10x more than incandescent bulbs, contain mercury vapor and can not be disposed of in the garbage but have to go to a hazardous waist disposal center, give off UV light that some people are sensitive to and create radio interference, but our politicians assure us that this will have a positive impact on something. Just what that something is, is unclear!

Oh ya, what was that you where saying about ethanol?

[nomad]

Now add into the equation the fact that compact florescent bulbs ... can not be disposed of in the garbage but have to go to a hazardous waist disposal center

Luckily we can take ours to the local Home Depot/ Lowes Home Improvement and they'll take them for disposal.

[Retro Rocket]

A bit off topic, but it speaks to the fools that cram these supposedly well intended restrictions on the public are better for us all, as of 2012 we will no longer be able to purchase incandescent light bulbs in BC.Canada. Only compact florescent as they are supposed to be more energy efficient. What scientists are now saying is that those incandescent bulbs give off approx 5% of the average homes heating needs and without them furnaces will need to take up the slack, but because BC is a hyrdo electric producing province that heating loss will create more green house gasses as the public fires their gas powered furnaces for longer. The equivalent of 61000 cars per year in  BC alone. Go figure.

Now add into the equation the fact that compact florescent bulbs cost 10x more than incandescent bulbs, contain mercury vapor and can not be disposed of in the garbage but have to go to a hazardous waist disposal center, give off UV light that some people are sensitive to and create radio interference, but our politicians assure us that this will have a positive impact on something. Just what that something is, is unclear!

Oh ya, what was that you where saying about ethanol?

But they are much cheaper to run, so they actually save you money in the long run, once again, they have been around fro years here {and are cheap}, Fluro lights have always been common here. Led's are now taking off. I have a friend that runs all his lighting off 12 volt and it virtually costs him nothing for lighting, he converted his own fluro's to 12 volt with a simple home made device. I find it kind of stupid that we use so much power for lighting when we don't need to at all. I Australia we have 240 volt mains power, who in their right mind needs that much power to run lights.!!!!!!!. I am seriously thinking of wiring my next place for 12 volt lighting, i will also be using solar hot water system and solar panels on the roof, this stuff is very popular here and very widely used........Who needs heating anyway.....
I will have NO power bills when set up......


Mick

[FunJimmy]

Who needs heating anyway.....

Ya but Mick, you down under types are a bit off the beaten path anyway.
I have some good friends that moved to Duneden NZ 5 years ago and the first house they bought didn't have central heating. WTF

FJ

[Retro Rocket]

Who needs heating anyway.....

Ya but Mick, you down under types are a bit off the beaten path anyway.
I have some good friends that moved to Duneden NZ 5 years ago and the first house they bought didn't have central heating. WTF

FJ

It just doesn't get that cold here mate, in Tasmania it gets reasonably cool but nothing like what you guys experience....No snow here unless you are up very high and that is only in one area. New Zealands south Island is very mountainous and has piles of snow but still there's not much central heating and what i have seen there used to be quite a bit of thermal heating but that has slowed of late...
My family in NZ have no central heating at all and only use small heaters if needed but it really doesn't get that cold unless you are up high or way down south.....

Mick

[50BMG]

I understand Harley stated useing 15% Ehanol gas will void new bike warranty . at least this is what the dealship told me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41182799/ns/us_news-environment/
http://www.annapolishd.com/news_article.asp?id=3743

[Joel]

Joel

I don't have anything handy on it to post. However, I have read numerous reports that proved Ethanol in gasoline burns "dirtyer" than Ethanol free gasoline. You can research it on the "net".

I have personally measured a 10% drop in mileage in my '97 CV interceptor due to Ethanol. The same applies to our '02 CV HPP.

For simplicity, how can I (we) burn 10% more fuel per mile and not expect more pollultion as a result? And, we can expect greater mileage reduction  from a 50% increase of added Ethanol! This, along with the destruction of our fuel system components.

The results I found when searching all seemed to refer to a study done by Stanford University.  I couldn't find the original study anywhere online.  Here's one post referencing it.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/su-evg121409.php

It seems the study was comparing E85 to gasoline and found increased ozone.  The bigger increases were for operating temperatures below freezing.  The only other emissions difference I could find was a reduction in CO.  I couldn't find much confirming VOCs or NOx either way.

I also wasn't able to find any reliable data on energy balances but I'm sure gasoline likely outperforms ethanol.  Because ethanol is a renewable fuel and gasoline is not, it will take more energy to produce per gallon than gasoline.  Both are simply methods of energy storage and not energy sources.

As for the mandates and subsidies, I don't agree with them.  If ethanol is better than gasoline, it shouldn't need them.  I think ethanol can be a better fuel when used in the proper form in the proper engine but mixing it with gasoline in engines designed for pure gasoline isn't it.

Just like the incandescent versus fluorescent already mentioned, the consumer should have the choice.

[Retro Rocket]

Do you guys have the warnings at the fuel pumps like we have here.? There are warnings against using ethanol fuel in boats, generators, lawn mowers and most small engines......Thats got to tell you something doesn't it...!!!!!!!!!!

Mick

[Gaither]

Joel

You might want to read the 7th para in your link again. It mentions more than just ozone. It just omits the details of other very undesireable effects.

Frankly, the "man made" ozone fear is another farce. Thunder storms around the world produce more ozone daily than man can create in many, many years and there is not a ripping thing the EPA can do about thunder storms. Rather, EPA, and the media simply ignore that fact as they go on their merry way attacking industry and the public about ozone.

The EPA's position on ozone is exactly like their position on freon (recall the "ozone hole"). The oceans of the world exude millions of times more of the "dreaded effluent" daily than could be caused by ALL of the freon ever produced (not leaked) since it was invented. The EPA nor the media told us about this but they sure outlawed freon in cars and will soon outlaw it entirely. The only fault with freon is that DuPont's patent expired and anyone could make it (and sell it for a dollar a can in parts stores). Ironically, DuPont holds the patent on R-134 - a product far less efficient than freon!

**Also, please read the attachments in other posts here. Some are lengthy but very informative. You will find much info on reduced mileage, damage and additional pollution from E10 (which is bad enough by itself) and E15. The info is in these links, if you wish read it. The guys on here have done their homework - all you have to do is click and read.

[Retro Rocket]

Ozone isn't the problem, We have the highest sun cancer rates in the world because there is a massive hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica.    The ozone hole is caused by ozone depleting chemicals in the atmosphere, which have been produced by industry, for example CFCs. 

Over the last 50 years we have introduced chemicals into the atmosphere that are capable of destroying ozone through photochemical processes.  Chloro-fluoro-carbons (CFCs) are widely known, but there are also other ozone depleting substances such as halons (bromo-fluoro-carbons) and methyl bromide.  In certain circumstances the chlorine or bromine from these substances can react with ozone to turn it back into oxygen.  In most parts of the world the reactions are very slow and there is little damage to the ozone layer, however over the Antarctic a dramatic hole opens in the ozone layer every spring and fills in again by mid-summer.  This is created by the unusual atmospheric conditions that exist during the Antarctic winter

 This is most notable while we were last holidaying in NZ, it is much cooler in NZ but you get sunburnt much faster than in warmer Australia...

Mick