E85 is great stuff if you want higher fuel costs

Mario Lewis on the Renewable Fuel Standard.  From Global Warming.org, EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard Proposal Ignores Root Cause of Blend Wall

10% seems to be the limit unless they go to E85.  USDA is subsidizing E85 fueling to the tune of $100 million.  And if you go to E85?  The annual estimated fuel cost estimate increases between $800 and $1300, depending on the vehicle. So, there is a limit, but the limit is how much we spend.

So even if every gas station has an E85 pump, consumers will avoid the fuel in droves, because it is a bad buy. Lower energy content, inferior fuel economy, and higher consumer cost are the root cause of the blend wall. The same factors also explain why the “choice” to buy ethanol must be mandated.

And the CO2 emissions from corn ethanol is higher than equivalent energy from tar sands.  Such a choice we have.

Advertisements

4 responses to “E85 is great stuff if you want higher fuel costs

  1. The fuel economy of cars can be compared by using the EPA’s own fuel economy numbers. But, the normal economy numbers are off. For testing of emissions, the basis of the normal fuel numbers, the test is conducted using E0 (E-Zero). The test is done using gasoline with no ethanol added. It is amazing that cars pass the emissions test with no ethanol. But the EPA requires ethanol to help reduce emissions.

    • The oxidative catalyst should be able to handle CO and VOC (non methane hydrocarbon) emissions from an engine once it heats up to it’s “light off” temperature, something around 500°F and it should be able to handle E0. The purpose of oxygenated fuels was, I believe, to reduce VOC during a cold start through the catalyst light off. Ethanol was a replacement for MTBE which was in the fuel in the PPM level AND to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It seems to me that we have more ethanol than needed to handle pollution and we have succeeded in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, or at least unfriendly foreign oil.

      • Wrong the EPA required MTBE or ethanol be used, with MTBE found to be a water pollution problem that stopped its use. Why not just require an injection system for start. Also, gasoline sold in Alaska does not contain ethanol in winter at least. Alaska should have longer warm up time for catalytic converter to reach “light off”.
        Another problem is that ethanol is not moved in the normal pipeline system. Ethanol is moved in rail or truck tanks and then mixed at the distributor before delivery to gas stations. Extra expense, more fuel used in movement. Ethanol crop production takes food from people, uses large amounts of water, fertilizer, and diesel to produce.
        More domestic oil production using fracking is a better way to reduce “our dependence on foreign oil, or at least unfriendly foreign oil.”

  2. The entire federal government, with the bureaucrats in the various agencies being in the lead, is a sad, sick joke that is being played on the American people. And Congress consists of two parties with most members being parasitic crony socialists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s