Not Good

[denjac]

Ethanol15 approved

• Email
• Print
• Comments1

jQuery.getScriptCache('http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/c/?js=espn.tools.r4.js', function() { espn.core.init.tools('5685457','http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmaster/conservation/news/story?page=b_con_EthanolControversy_101014'); });By Robert Montgomery

Bassmaster.com

Archive

Gerald CrawfordThe lack of general public understanding of the differences between E10 and E15 increases the risk that boaters may misfuel their engines once E15 becomes readily available.Washington, D.C. — Despite broad-based opposition that included sportsmen, environmentalists and industry, the Obama administration has approved production and sale of gasoline with up to 15 percent ethanol for 2007 and newer motor vehicles. Until the Oct. 13 announcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the maximum allowed had been 10 percent.

"Thorough testing has now shown that E15 does not harm emissions control equipment in newer cars and lights trucks," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "Wherever sound science and the law support steps to allow more home-grown fuels in America's vehicles, this administration takes those steps."

But just because the fuel is "home-grown" does not mean that it's a wise move, insist critics who include the National Marine Manufacturers Association, Friends of the Earth and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, among others.

"We are extremely disappointed that EPA is allowing this fuel to enter the market without the appropriate scientific data or consumer and environmental safeguards," said NMMA President Thom Dammrich.

"This decision not only adversely impacts marine manufacturers, but creates a significant risk of misfueling for the nation's 66 million boaters who will be left holding the bag for performance issues and expensive repairs. We are astonished that EPA has decided to move forward with a fuel that will increase pollution and damage hundreds of millions of existing products."

Margaret Podlich of BoatU.S. echoed Dammrich's concerns, adding that the newest marine engines are warranted up to only 10 percent ethanol. "Many boaters already are working hard to keep ethanol out of their engines," she said. "They'll have to work even harder now."

For older marine engines, as well as lawnmowers and other products that burn gasoline, the problem with ethanol is that it is a potent solvent. Along with destroying rubber and plastic parts, it dissolves gunk from tank walls, which then blocks fuel lines.

Of course, anglers and other boaters will not be required to run their engines with E15, just as they were not with E10. But adding another option at the pumps creates complications that the EPA has not addressed.

"We understand that E10 is in about 75 percent of gasoline now," Podlich said. "There are some areas where boaters can find ethanol-free and others where they can't."

Now availability almost certainly will become more limited, as gas stations are not likely to add more storage tanks and pumps. Instead, they'll eliminate one option — possibly ethanol-free or low octane E10 — so that they can offer E15. "And either from ignorance or from not paying attention, people will be more likely to use the wrong fuel," Podlich explained. "That's a huge issue."

In addition to the damage that it can do to older engines, ethanol is a less efficient fuel than petroleum, according to opponents who point out that its production is water intensive and harms the environment.

[skeeter]

OMG !!! Those fracking idiots ! There goes food prices again...+ MPG's will decline. They have learned nothing and obviously do not listen. Another reason to vote them all out. Total idiots from the top right down to the bottom. Write your so-called representatives and complain !

[Mitch f]

just drink the Kool-Aide

[Al Agnew]

Yeah, not to get too political, but this is a bipartisan screw-up. Missouri's delegation has been one of the most vocal for ethanol, which has so many technical and environmental problems that it should have been slowed a long time ago until better ways of producing it were worked out. But the corn lobby in this state and across the middle of the nation loves it.

[joeD]

Did you know? If you took a piece of your hair and had it analyzed, the main "ingredient" or "substance" contained in your hair would be corn and corn by-products. We ingest corn all the time on an absolute massive and destructive basis. Democracy for the good of the people is an antiquated notion that has been surpassed by the short-term profit motive of large multi-national conglomerates that have no interest in our well being.

[Terry Beeson]

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying I approve of this measure... BUT... this brings up a point:

For years we have been crying, moaning, yelling, and otherwise asking for a way to 1- reduce our dependence on foreign oil, 2- help farmers (I already know the argument, so don't go there...), 3- find alternatives to fossil fuels replacing them with renewable energy sources.

Now comes the ethanol thing. This could help us do all three things I listed.

BUT!!!...

Using ethanol (now at the E15 stage) could ruin our fuel systems in our cars, contaminate the water system, and cause grocery prices to go up...

Interesting how we want it all... I hope we figure out how to do that, but I don't see it coming.

[skeeter]

Yeah, not to get too political, but this is a bipartisan screw-up. Missouri's delegation has been one of the most vocal for ethanol, which has so many technical and environmental problems that it should have been slowed a long time ago until better ways of producing it were worked out. But the corn lobby in this state and across the middle of the nation loves it.

Yep, read the post from AR on the Table Rock thread on the subject about Ethanol free 89 octane. He expects folks to swallow his contention that use of corn to produce ethanol has not driven up food prices dramatically. The MO legislature actually turned down 15% last year because several were cattlemen that had seen their feed prices triple since corn based ethanol 10% content came along.

[Al Agnew]

The large agribusiness corporations don't need "saving", but in the name of saving family farmers, we've simply enriched the big guys enormously...and they've snickered all the way to the bank.

Unintended consequences. A lot of people thought corn-based ethanol WAS a great idea, until it became entrenched in our fuel supply and we started seeing all the problems. Now it IS entrenched, which only makes it harder to do what we need to do and turn in a different direction.