Think 10% Ethanol sucks? try 15% !
02-07-2011, 10:24 PM
#129
Registered
I'm just wondering how they got the ECU to understand how to squirt something like 50% more fuel since it wasn't built as E85 for 85%ethanol.
If I had a retro vehicle that I was rebuilding, I'd up the compression to about 16 to 1, and enjoy E85, but they are trying to sell us on the wonders of E85 so we should like E10 in cars with 9-10 to 1 compression ratio; that's too big a stretch.
If I had a retro vehicle that I was rebuilding, I'd up the compression to about 16 to 1, and enjoy E85, but they are trying to sell us on the wonders of E85 so we should like E10 in cars with 9-10 to 1 compression ratio; that's too big a stretch.
Carbs would need to be retuned and rejetted but more than likely they wouldn't be safe to run with E85 for too long due to old, sensitive materials. E85 doesn't magically eat components overnight but it can corrode quickly through certain materials.
I don't think I can even tell power decrease with my Scanguage II on the track.
The point is: gas mileage goes down about the same amount as the # of ethanol in the fuel, all the resources polluting, ruining food prices, etc. is a complete waste, and sometimes the E10 is not stable, causes corrosion, etc.
Like I said, E85 would be a great fuel as long as the car had at least 15 to 1 compression, but the E10 or E15 doesn't work.
They should use all the ethanol in E85, and market it as a racers edge like in drag racing.
The point is: gas mileage goes down about the same amount as the # of ethanol in the fuel, all the resources polluting, ruining food prices, etc. is a complete waste, and sometimes the E10 is not stable, causes corrosion, etc.
Like I said, E85 would be a great fuel as long as the car had at least 15 to 1 compression, but the E10 or E15 doesn't work.
They should use all the ethanol in E85, and market it as a racers edge like in drag racing.
? More like 1/3rd the % unless something is damaged. And the pollution arguement against Ethanol is only effective if there is deforestation to get that Ethanol. Corn Ethanol isn't made from edible corn it's made from feed corn. And since only the starch is used the remainder still makes good animal feed but it is lighter so less distiller's grain is used to feed animals than whole kernel corn. It's been well proven that Ethanol is cleaner than Gasoline from Well to Pump. 
.The video was far from scientific. It did not test two identical vehicles under identical conditions in a controlled environment where they could draw proper conclusions.
I spoke to an engineer friend from our favorite manufacturer (Starts with an M) last night and this topic came up. He did mention the ill effects of ethanol in cars that weren't designed for it's usage. They had to create new parts in Japan to handle 'crap' that they had no issues with in any other country.
Paul.
I spoke to an engineer friend from our favorite manufacturer (Starts with an M) last night and this topic came up. He did mention the ill effects of ethanol in cars that weren't designed for it's usage. They had to create new parts in Japan to handle 'crap' that they had no issues with in any other country.
Paul.
and looking for fuel systems that last 10-20years before they fail.What is most interesting about US cars being incompatible with Ethanol is that Toyota, Ford, VW, etc all make Brazilian cars and Brazil uses 25% Ethanol in all of their grades of Gasoline and even sell just 100% Ethanol. US Fords have been designed to be compatible with E85 since '94 but you don't see Ford advertising that fact. Toyota and VW have had recalls over being incompatible with 10% Ethanol. If they switched over to be 100% compatible with Ethanol than we wouldn't have this problem, and 100% of Gasoline cars could be FFV and none of this Ethanol ate my car stuff.
. All modern EFI vehicles, with exceptions, are designed to have some room for extra fueling so that they don't get to WOT and run lean and go boom.You cannot accurately compare MPG for Gasoline and Ethanol, they have different energy densities. The most effective way is to compare cost per mile or even simply cost per KWH or BTU. The energy density is less for Ethanol but the efficiency is higher especially in a high compression engine. The DOE did a study on a Diesel engine converted to spark with Ethanol and Methanol Mixtures, the results were pretty impressive. The problem with current cars is that they are not designed to be completely compatible with Alcohols so any alcohol in the fuel like 10% Ethanol is a potential gremlin in the system.
And Ethanol is a cheap Octane booster but the Octane increase isn't linear. E50 and E85 have almost the exact same octane rating 95.6 vs 95.8 but ask any hotrodder and it's more like C16.
02-07-2011, 11:02 PM
#130
^ A fair amount of slightly skewed info there, but the main, salient point I need to make is that the RX-8 spends most of its time in open-loop and its compensation range in closed-loop is only 25%, so it goes out of range way before you get to e85 concentrations.
02-08-2011, 09:58 AM
#131
Mileage goes down the same amount as the % ? More like 1/3rd the % unless something is damaged. And the pollution arguement against Ethanol is only effective if there is deforestation to get that Ethanol. Corn Ethanol isn't made from edible corn it's made from feed corn. And since only the starch is used the remainder still makes good animal feed but it is lighter so less distiller's grain is used to feed animals than whole kernel corn. It's been well proven that Ethanol is cleaner than Gasoline from Well to Pump.
The EPA has already shown that vehicles from 2001-now are safe for 20% Ethanol so how far off is E85 from getting the same treatment? You don't find components only compatible with 10% of something they either are compatible or they're not unless they're counting how many years it take for Ethanol to eat through a component and looking for fuel systems that last 10-20years before they fail.
What is most interesting about US cars being incompatible with Ethanol is that Toyota, Ford, VW, etc all make Brazilian cars and Brazil uses 25% Ethanol in all of their grades of Gasoline and even sell just 100% Ethanol. US Fords have been designed to be compatible with E85 since '94 but you don't see Ford advertising that fact. Toyota and VW have had recalls over being incompatible with 10% Ethanol. If they switched over to be 100% compatible with Ethanol than we wouldn't have this problem, and 100% of Gasoline cars could be FFV and none of this Ethanol ate my car stuff.
You cannot accurately compare MPG for Gasoline and Ethanol, they have different energy densities. The most effective way is to compare cost per mile or even simply cost per KWH or BTU. The energy density is less for Ethanol but the efficiency is higher especially in a high compression engine. The DOE did a study on a Diesel engine converted to spark with Ethanol and Methanol Mixtures, the results were pretty impressive. The problem with current cars is that they are not designed to be completely compatible with Alcohols so any alcohol in the fuel like 10% Ethanol is a potential gremlin in the system.
? More like 1/3rd the % unless something is damaged. And the pollution arguement against Ethanol is only effective if there is deforestation to get that Ethanol. Corn Ethanol isn't made from edible corn it's made from feed corn. And since only the starch is used the remainder still makes good animal feed but it is lighter so less distiller's grain is used to feed animals than whole kernel corn. It's been well proven that Ethanol is cleaner than Gasoline from Well to Pump.The EPA has already shown that vehicles from 2001-now are safe for 20% Ethanol so how far off is E85 from getting the same treatment? You don't find components only compatible with 10% of something they either are compatible or they're not unless they're counting how many years it take for Ethanol to eat through a component
and looking for fuel systems that last 10-20years before they fail.What is most interesting about US cars being incompatible with Ethanol is that Toyota, Ford, VW, etc all make Brazilian cars and Brazil uses 25% Ethanol in all of their grades of Gasoline and even sell just 100% Ethanol. US Fords have been designed to be compatible with E85 since '94 but you don't see Ford advertising that fact. Toyota and VW have had recalls over being incompatible with 10% Ethanol. If they switched over to be 100% compatible with Ethanol than we wouldn't have this problem, and 100% of Gasoline cars could be FFV and none of this Ethanol ate my car stuff.
You cannot accurately compare MPG for Gasoline and Ethanol, they have different energy densities. The most effective way is to compare cost per mile or even simply cost per KWH or BTU. The energy density is less for Ethanol but the efficiency is higher especially in a high compression engine. The DOE did a study on a Diesel engine converted to spark with Ethanol and Methanol Mixtures, the results were pretty impressive. The problem with current cars is that they are not designed to be completely compatible with Alcohols so any alcohol in the fuel like 10% Ethanol is a potential gremlin in the system.
First you say Ford has been compatible with E85 since 94, and the EPA has said 2001+ cars are compatible with 20% ethanol, then, you say current cars are not designed to be completely compatible.
All I know is: I seem to be paying the same price for my gasoline, but I get less mpg so even my feeble brain senses a loss.
Last edited by REDRX3RX8; 02-08-2011 at 10:03 AM.
02-08-2011, 10:12 AM
#132
Funny thing though; corn seems to be three times higher in the store, and the rest of the world can't afford grains anymore.
First you say Ford has been compatible with E85 since 94, and the EPA has said 2001+ cars are compatible with 20% ethanol, then, you say current cars are not designed to be completely compatible.
All I know is: I seem to be paying the same price for my gasoline, but I get less mpg so even my feeble brain senses a loss.
First you say Ford has been compatible with E85 since 94, and the EPA has said 2001+ cars are compatible with 20% ethanol, then, you say current cars are not designed to be completely compatible.
All I know is: I seem to be paying the same price for my gasoline, but I get less mpg so even my feeble brain senses a loss.
also, corn used to cost a buck for 10.
now ? u be lucky if u can even get a buck for 3.
to me, thats a loss.
and last I know, we supposed to EAT the FOOD. and they're burning them now.
Last edited by nycgps; 02-08-2011 at 10:21 AM.
02-08-2011, 10:18 AM
#133
Well no, it's an anecdote so it's not scientific but it still has value. Some people are running E85 in non-FFVs and doing just fine. And you're fooling yourself, the Ethanol industry doesn't have money to spend on fake youtube reviews. They're a failing industry remember .
.
It was run on Gasoline before it was run on E85. But yes it is only an anecdote, a scientific study would have cost millions and probably been more detailed but the conclusion would have been the same, that it could be run on E85 without a problem for 150k miles. The EPA has already shown that vehicles from 2001-now are safe for 20% Ethanol so how far off is E85 from getting the same treatment? You don't find components only compatible with 10% of something they either are compatible or they're not unless they're counting how many years it take for Ethanol to eat through a component and looking for fuel systems that last 10-20years before they fail.
and looking for fuel systems that last 10-20years before they fail.
What is most interesting about US cars being incompatible with Ethanol is that Toyota, Ford, VW, etc all make Brazilian cars and Brazil uses 25% Ethanol in all of their grades of Gasoline and even sell just 100% Ethanol. US Fords have been designed to be compatible with E85 since '94 but you don't see Ford advertising that fact. Toyota and VW have had recalls over being incompatible with 10% Ethanol. If they switched over to be 100% compatible with Ethanol than we wouldn't have this problem, and 100% of Gasoline cars could be FFV and none of this Ethanol ate my car stuff.
there are **** loads of problems for cars in Brasil u know, sure the government always say "it works just fine, w00t" , but is it ?
EFI is designed to adjust for different fueling amounts in closed loop. It's really basic EFI info . All modern EFI vehicles, with exceptions, are designed to have some room for extra fueling so that they don't get to WOT and run lean and go boom.
You cannot accurately compare MPG for Gasoline and Ethanol, they have different energy densities. The most effective way is to compare cost per mile or even simply cost per KWH or BTU. The energy density is less for Ethanol but the efficiency is higher especially in a high compression engine. The DOE did a study on a Diesel engine converted to spark with Ethanol and Methanol Mixtures, the results were pretty impressive. The problem with current cars is that they are not designed to be completely compatible with Alcohols so any alcohol in the fuel like 10% Ethanol is a potential gremlin in the system.
And Ethanol is a cheap Octane booster but the Octane increase isn't linear. E50 and E85 have almost the exact same octane rating 95.6 vs 95.8 but ask any hotrodder and it's more like C16.
. All modern EFI vehicles, with exceptions, are designed to have some room for extra fueling so that they don't get to WOT and run lean and go boom.You cannot accurately compare MPG for Gasoline and Ethanol, they have different energy densities. The most effective way is to compare cost per mile or even simply cost per KWH or BTU. The energy density is less for Ethanol but the efficiency is higher especially in a high compression engine. The DOE did a study on a Diesel engine converted to spark with Ethanol and Methanol Mixtures, the results were pretty impressive. The problem with current cars is that they are not designed to be completely compatible with Alcohols so any alcohol in the fuel like 10% Ethanol is a potential gremlin in the system.
And Ethanol is a cheap Octane booster but the Octane increase isn't linear. E50 and E85 have almost the exact same octane rating 95.6 vs 95.8 but ask any hotrodder and it's more like C16.
so what "problem" does this Ethanol bullshit actually solved other than some people's pockets ?
02-08-2011, 10:37 AM
#134
Anyone notice how many times "ch" (for chemical) shows up in Allch Chcar?
Seems like initials for one of those government fed agrichemical companies.
Any company would protect their money supply with bias; it's human nature.
Seems like initials for one of those government fed agrichemical companies.
Any company would protect their money supply with bias; it's human nature.
02-08-2011, 12:53 PM
#135
Registered
Funny thing though; corn seems to be three times higher in the store, and the rest of the world can't afford grains anymore.
First you say Ford has been compatible with E85 since 94, and the EPA has said 2001+ cars are compatible with 20% ethanol, then, you say current cars are not designed to be completely compatible.
All I know is: I seem to be paying the same price for my gasoline, but I get less mpg so even my feeble brain senses a loss.
First you say Ford has been compatible with E85 since 94, and the EPA has said 2001+ cars are compatible with 20% ethanol, then, you say current cars are not designed to be completely compatible.
All I know is: I seem to be paying the same price for my gasoline, but I get less mpg so even my feeble brain senses a loss.
I said that because Ford, GM, and Chrysler have been changing their platforms to be compatible with E85 for awhile now. They are not 100% FFVs, so there are glitches/nuances with running E85 in a nonFFV and I don't recommend just pour and go anyway. Imports look to just be waiting for E85 to go away and taking advantage of the CAFE rules that help MPG ratings for gas guzzlers. Domestics at least are adding FFVs, the 2012 Focus is going to be FFV eventually as is the 2012 Buick Regal. I might add that all manufacterers are taking advantage of the CAFE rule for FFVs to help their gas guzzlers :\.
And burning renewable fuels is better for everything than burning dead dinos.
When something is nothing but full of ****, what kind of value does it hold ? i mean really.
EPA will say whatever the lobbyist ... I mean err the government told them.
Whhhhaaaaat ?
there are **** loads of problems for cars in Brasil u know, sure the government always say "it works just fine, w00t" , but is it ?
I don't care about whatever blah blah more efficient or whatsoever. All I know is MPG & Power go DOWN while cost going UP. oh, did I mention we get more pollution from corn based ethanol too?
so what "problem" does this Ethanol bullshit actually solved other than some people's pockets ?
EPA will say whatever the lobbyist ... I mean err the government told them.
Whhhhaaaaat ?
there are **** loads of problems for cars in Brasil u know, sure the government always say "it works just fine, w00t" , but is it ?
I don't care about whatever blah blah more efficient or whatsoever. All I know is MPG & Power go DOWN while cost going UP. oh, did I mention we get more pollution from corn based ethanol too?
so what "problem" does this Ethanol bullshit actually solved other than some people's pockets ?
And cars don't lose power with E85 unless they run lean. Heck many hotrodders/tuners have found out that E85 is top shelf stuff. And even low compression cars with 10:1 compression gain power with premium. Ethanol gets better results than premium.
I didn't become an Ethanol fan till after I'd spent years researching alternatives like CNG, Hydrogen, Electric, heck I even researched water to gas. Eletric is still my favorite but the batteries are going to be expensive for awhile and the range and recharge are always going to have limits. Plus liquid fuels still have plenty of advances to wring out.
I don't do this for money, I doubt anybody would pay me as my writing sucks. But I did want to discuss this and maybe get you guys thinking. Ethanol isn't crap, junk, or worthless. It's 113 Octane and really it is underated as the octane system is only good for Petroleum products. Yes the MPG are less but market prices for 100% Ethanol are around $2 and with Gasoline at $3 that is actually comparable per mile. So if anything gasoline is crap. I'm young so I don't have an addiction to Oil like most older car people.
I can link to most of the stuff I mentioned and I can probably find the rest if you want a link although I'd encourage you to find the info yourself.
02-08-2011, 08:47 PM
#137
The price of Oil has a bigger impact on food prices than the price of grain. Look it up, very easy info to find. The price of grain is not as big of a deal in the US as the price of Oil. Plus Ethanol is made from feed corn so the only thing it would affect would be meat prices.
Fields are being converted at an outrageous pace because ethanol farming is more profitable (because of the subsidies) than food farming.
The environmental costs are equally outrageous. Try looking into how much water is needed to make a single gallon of ethanol.
This is such a factually bereft statement that I'm not even going to bother to address it.
02-08-2011, 09:58 PM
#138
Administrator
Read this paper
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentation...-isaf-no55.pdf
it's the definitive paper on the topic of power and efficiency with Ex blends and high compression
2 others that are worth a read as well
http://papers.sae.org/2010-01-2154
http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-3568
02-08-2011, 10:58 PM
#139
wow. simply wow.
Ethanol produce less power - fact
it cost more to make than it produce - fact
Corn is not even the best thing to make Ethanol - fact
Many farmers switch to feed grade corn cuz they get money out of it, result in food grade corn more expensive - fact
E85 create tons of problems, even in cars that's designed for it - fact
this industry still exist simply because our government ppl never admit "defeat", or shall I say they never accept the fact that "yeah, we fucked up"
instead, they just gonna pump more money into it and "hope" that one day it might work. wait, where the money came from again ? no wonder we have so many trillions of debt !
not even gonna try to counter the "E85 is top shelf stuff", it makes me wanna rofl.
Ethanol produce less power - fact
it cost more to make than it produce - fact
Corn is not even the best thing to make Ethanol - fact
Many farmers switch to feed grade corn cuz they get money out of it, result in food grade corn more expensive - fact
E85 create tons of problems, even in cars that's designed for it - fact
this industry still exist simply because our government ppl never admit "defeat", or shall I say they never accept the fact that "yeah, we fucked up"
instead, they just gonna pump more money into it and "hope" that one day it might work. wait, where the money came from again ? no wonder we have so many trillions of debt !
not even gonna try to counter the "E85 is top shelf stuff", it makes me wanna rofl.
02-09-2011, 07:10 AM
#140
If I may correct something here - The Goverment - does not approve of ethanol mixed fuel. Then again the government as a whole doesn't approve of anything ever. Who does though is the agriculture side of it. With transportation and shipping becomming so fast farmers were no longer needed. So in some areas in order to prevent farms from being lost they subsidized with corn. The industry that drives it more than any other might surprise you. Its the fast food industry that uses it the most. Its a filler for most companies products. Here is just one article for you on the subject: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...st-food-anoth/
A simple google search will help you find more.
Now if you take into account that feed corn is subsidized for (fuel, dog food, fast food, etc. Heres your complete list : http://www.ontariocorn.org/classroom/products.html) many different things then you will see why they push it so hard. Now you would think most of them use food corn, but in fact some of them are using feed corn too. Its really unhealthy though. But so is fast food, and junk food so really whats to loose on thier part?
Now back on subject. The Department of Energy does no approve it, The department of Ecology does not approve it above 2%, The department of Buisness and Economic Development does not approve it, The outdoor power equipment institute who does the research for the EPA does not approve it, and thats just to name a few. As for your cleaner air theory heres one for you: "The WA State Department of Ecology stated in 2008 that any more than 2% ethanol in our fuel causes Seattle to exceed EPA Ozone Attainment Levels."
Heres a quote from the Department of Energy: " The EPA has been silent on the environmental health problems associated with ethanol use, which includes the dramatic rise of ground level ozone. "
Now here is where they got away with it. The usefull life of a vehicle used to be around 200,000 miles. But as of Jan this year they signed a waiver, and changed that mileage to 100,000 miles. So they know it damages vehicles but in order to sell the product they changed thier own doctrine and here is the quote for you: "In order to protect the emission control systems of vehicles and engines, the Clean Air Act prohibits the introduction of fuels or fuel additives that are not substantially similar to the fuels or fuel additives used in certifying vehicles and engines to emission standards. However, the Act authorizes EPA to grant a waiver of this prohibition for a fuel or fuel additive if it can be demonstrated that vehicles and engines using the otherwise prohibited fuel or fuel additive will continue to meet emission standards over their “full useful life” (100,000 or 120,000 miles, depending on the vehicle type and model year)."
Sneaky politics huh? They put in a clause that has allowed them to go around the very law designed to protect our vehicles.
A simple google search will help you find more.
Now if you take into account that feed corn is subsidized for (fuel, dog food, fast food, etc. Heres your complete list : http://www.ontariocorn.org/classroom/products.html) many different things then you will see why they push it so hard. Now you would think most of them use food corn, but in fact some of them are using feed corn too. Its really unhealthy though. But so is fast food, and junk food so really whats to loose on thier part?
Now back on subject. The Department of Energy does no approve it, The department of Ecology does not approve it above 2%, The department of Buisness and Economic Development does not approve it, The outdoor power equipment institute who does the research for the EPA does not approve it, and thats just to name a few. As for your cleaner air theory heres one for you: "The WA State Department of Ecology stated in 2008 that any more than 2% ethanol in our fuel causes Seattle to exceed EPA Ozone Attainment Levels."
Heres a quote from the Department of Energy: " The EPA has been silent on the environmental health problems associated with ethanol use, which includes the dramatic rise of ground level ozone. "
Now here is where they got away with it. The usefull life of a vehicle used to be around 200,000 miles. But as of Jan this year they signed a waiver, and changed that mileage to 100,000 miles. So they know it damages vehicles but in order to sell the product they changed thier own doctrine and here is the quote for you: "In order to protect the emission control systems of vehicles and engines, the Clean Air Act prohibits the introduction of fuels or fuel additives that are not substantially similar to the fuels or fuel additives used in certifying vehicles and engines to emission standards. However, the Act authorizes EPA to grant a waiver of this prohibition for a fuel or fuel additive if it can be demonstrated that vehicles and engines using the otherwise prohibited fuel or fuel additive will continue to meet emission standards over their “full useful life” (100,000 or 120,000 miles, depending on the vehicle type and model year)."
Sneaky politics huh? They put in a clause that has allowed them to go around the very law designed to protect our vehicles.
02-09-2011, 07:16 AM
#141
There is also some very concerning reading found here: http://www.ewg.org/biofuels/report/E...-Engine-Damage
Some footnotes for you to think about if you don't want to read all of it:
1.The Growth Energy petition is rife with misleading interpretations of the published scientific literature and ethanol fuel testing data.
2.Most of the studies cited by Growth Energy in support of its petition suffer from serious scientific and technical weaknesses. Overall, these studies fail to provide the necessary vehicle and engine testing data needed to support a waiver from Clean Air Act provisions, thereby making it unlawful to increase concentrations of ethanol in blended fuels.
3.There is compelling evidence that intermediate ethanol blends would cause engines, vehicles and equipment to fail to meet their emissions standards over their useful lives.
4.Many studies show that transitioning the legacy vehicle fleet to intermediate ethanol-gasoline blends would increase emissions of multiple air pollutants, such as acetaldehyde and oxides of nitrogen, and would lead to higher levels of ozone and particle pollution.
5.There is incontrovertible evidence from numerous authoritative sources that ethanol blends exceeding 10 percent damage small non-road engines and pose risks to operator safety.
Heres your facts: http://www.ewg.org/letter/Factual-An...Fuel-Standards
Ethanol mixed fuels produce two exhaust chemicals not found in pure fuel. Those chemicals are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Acetaldehyde: Increases your risk for Alzheimers, Causes organ damage, and is a known carcinogen(its scientifically proven to cause cancer).
Formaldehyde: Extremely toxic to humans in small doses. Above .046 PPM its considered a danger to human health. Its considered an extreme risk for being a carcinogen, causes respiratory problems, vison and ocular gland problems, painful breathing, heart problems, and the list can go on. The standard for exposure is .2mg for kg of body weight.
Formaldehyde changes by fuel type:
E0-E10 there was a Median change of 5%, and a Maximum increase of 137% depending on where the fuel was bought. (Average of .337PPM was found in the exhaust gases)
E0-E85 there was a Median increase of 73% and a Maximum increase of 164%.(Average of .871PPM was found in the exhaust gasses)
Since these are aerosol tests of the evaporative contents of exhaust gas. This means you would would probably see about .45PPM of formaldehyde in your daily exhaust gases with E15. Safe levels again are .046PPM. This is something that is known to cause a very wide array of problems. Its so hazardous that at our hospital it has to be transported with a seperate neutralizing chemical. If its spilled you have to put on a hazmat suit to clean it up after you have neutralized it. I personally don't want to be breathing anymore of this than I have to. By the way the EPA doesn't recommend being inside of a building that has more than .045PPM and won't approve a safety inspection of a building that does. Yet they will approve a car that exhausts .871PPM?
Some footnotes for you to think about if you don't want to read all of it:
1.The Growth Energy petition is rife with misleading interpretations of the published scientific literature and ethanol fuel testing data.
2.Most of the studies cited by Growth Energy in support of its petition suffer from serious scientific and technical weaknesses. Overall, these studies fail to provide the necessary vehicle and engine testing data needed to support a waiver from Clean Air Act provisions, thereby making it unlawful to increase concentrations of ethanol in blended fuels.
3.There is compelling evidence that intermediate ethanol blends would cause engines, vehicles and equipment to fail to meet their emissions standards over their useful lives.
4.Many studies show that transitioning the legacy vehicle fleet to intermediate ethanol-gasoline blends would increase emissions of multiple air pollutants, such as acetaldehyde and oxides of nitrogen, and would lead to higher levels of ozone and particle pollution.
5.There is incontrovertible evidence from numerous authoritative sources that ethanol blends exceeding 10 percent damage small non-road engines and pose risks to operator safety.
Heres your facts: http://www.ewg.org/letter/Factual-An...Fuel-Standards
Ethanol mixed fuels produce two exhaust chemicals not found in pure fuel. Those chemicals are acetaldehyde and formaldehyde.
Acetaldehyde: Increases your risk for Alzheimers, Causes organ damage, and is a known carcinogen(its scientifically proven to cause cancer).
Formaldehyde: Extremely toxic to humans in small doses. Above .046 PPM its considered a danger to human health. Its considered an extreme risk for being a carcinogen, causes respiratory problems, vison and ocular gland problems, painful breathing, heart problems, and the list can go on. The standard for exposure is .2mg for kg of body weight.
Formaldehyde changes by fuel type:
E0-E10 there was a Median change of 5%, and a Maximum increase of 137% depending on where the fuel was bought. (Average of .337PPM was found in the exhaust gases)
E0-E85 there was a Median increase of 73% and a Maximum increase of 164%.(Average of .871PPM was found in the exhaust gasses)
Since these are aerosol tests of the evaporative contents of exhaust gas. This means you would would probably see about .45PPM of formaldehyde in your daily exhaust gases with E15. Safe levels again are .046PPM. This is something that is known to cause a very wide array of problems. Its so hazardous that at our hospital it has to be transported with a seperate neutralizing chemical. If its spilled you have to put on a hazmat suit to clean it up after you have neutralized it. I personally don't want to be breathing anymore of this than I have to. By the way the EPA doesn't recommend being inside of a building that has more than .045PPM and won't approve a safety inspection of a building that does. Yet they will approve a car that exhausts .871PPM?
Last edited by DocBeech; 02-09-2011 at 07:46 AM.
02-09-2011, 05:02 PM
#144
Registered
Do you all believe that?
02-09-2011, 08:51 PM
#149
Registered
. With a tune it's a different story.