E85 is getting killed by low gas prices

Messages
1,658
Location
Wisconsin
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
E0 gasoline is NOT banned in Texas, but sells att a legislatively mandated disadvantage due to FEDERAL legislation and promulgated rules. TiredTroller is caught in his own doublespeak. Here's an additional USEPA link to complement all the other factual links I've already posted. https://www.epa.gov/.
Here in Wisconsin there are several old 2 tank stations that sell only 87 in different ethanol blends from E0 onward with a lower than average price increase on e0 I have bugged the owner "Riiser" to bring back the old cheap midgrade / premium gimmick that used 2 tanks with a blender to provide multiple octanes and they aren't interested. It seems that in the last 8 years stations have started to enjoy the $1.50 a gallon premium price for premium. I would love a cheap e15 90 octane source just as much as I love e0 for winter fuel on small motors. Ah well, can't bring back the fuel freedom of 2005
 
Messages
6,736
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
There are alternative oxygenates that don't have issues of phase seperation, also high octane, widely used outside the US including Western Europe. In their heydey in the US these proved to be economically superior to ethanol as a gasoline blending agent. Banning those proven alternatives in the US at the national level is one piece of nationwide legislation that's s crutch propping ip ethanol here.
Well - MTBE is pretty much a nonstarter these days. I get that it's not necessarily all that toxic (especially compared to gasoline itself) but when it started getting affecting the taste of drinking water supplies, it kind of got everyone's attention. I understand that most of those drinking water supplies contaminated with MTBE were generally safe to drink, but the odor/taste was unacceptable. Even in states where MTBE is still legal, a lot of fuel marketers won't even touch it because of all the lawsuits and settlement money over the years to clean up water supplies. I don't really care if my fuel contains MTBE, ethanol, or some alternative oxygenate that works as well. But I understand that there's a place for fuel ethanol right now that's beyond mere attempts to prop up the farm lobby.
 
Messages
780
Location
E. Tennessee
Just my uninformed opinion: Mandate all cars in the USA must be E85 Flex-fuel capable (via the ECU adjusts for E0 to E85, 87 octane to 93+ octane for best performance/MPG and not emissions), drop all subsidies and let the market decide fully what they what to run. So enabled, a turbo car on E85 can be quite fun!
 
Messages
1,658
Location
Wisconsin
Originally Posted by WhizkidTN
Just my uninformed opinion: Mandate all cars in the USA must be E85 Flex-fuel capable (via the ECU adjusts for E0 to E85, 87 octane to 93+ octane for best performance/MPG and not emissions), drop all subsidies and let the market decide fully what they what to run. So enabled, a turbo car on E85 can be quite fun!
Add hydrous e100 to that list and I fully support It takes under half the energy to produce compared to anhydrous e85
 
Messages
3,561
Location
Central Iowa
Since it causes some such angst, I suggest they don't buy the stuff. Problem solved. Since none of your money is going to ethanol at the Federal level since ethanol subsidies were eliminated at the end of 2011, and the federal RFS mandated does not prevent the sale of non ethanol fuels, you really shouldn't have such a problem. It really is that simple. Just don't buy it! There are a few folks around me that just don't buy ethanol dosed fuels. Similar mindset folks should do the same. Oh wait... it was stated it was Federally mandated. Last I checked, Iowa, Nebraska, and many other states are still part of the U.S. Why is it they have ethanol free fuels readily available if it is a Federal mandate? Ahhh... Again, it is one's hired help in their state capitol that is the issue. One can rant at me all they want, but their problem is not with me, it is with their state capitol. Only 7 states REQUIRE E10 blends. See if you state is one of them. If it is, then it falls on you to decide if you want to stay there and deal with it or leave. https://www.greencarreports.com/new...line-only-seven-states-require-e10-blend From the article...... Under the Renewable Fuels Standard passed in 2007, the Federal government requires certain volumes of ethanol to be blended into the U.S. transportation fuel supply. However, states have discretion as to how much (or how little) ethanol goes into fuels sold within their borders. Only seven states--Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington--have mandates that require ethanol to be blended with the fuel supply. Louisiana and Washington require ethanol to make up 2 percent of the total volume of fuel sold, while the other states specify E10--a blend of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Texas may be playing some sort of game regarding ethanol free gas sales, but not all states do similar. In Iowa, I can get ethanol free at dozens of outlets near me and at a price that only is higher in that the price of gasoline on the commodities market has been typically higher than ethanol prices on the commodities market. Same taxes are applied to both fuels at the pump. Right now, ethanol free regular gas is selling on average about 20 cents more a gallon than E10 in my area. That is within the fair market trading range, and accounts for cost of importation of all petroleum fuels into the state whereas ethanol production is local. So when those factors are taken out of the equation, ethanol free gasoline and E10 are similar in pricing structure. No conspiracy going on here.
 
Messages
2,744
Location
San Antonio, TX
Yet nationwide RINs costs and trading, nationwide ban of MTBE, nationwide vaolatility waivets for E10 and pending for E15 make the legislatively guaranteed market and financially disadvsntage all other gasoline blend stocks as well as E0, which the o e-party-system fks decry being pointed out as "hatred" in their quest to duck the truth, to the point of telling tode who point out the truth to leave the country. The NATIONWIDE "game" of RINs, volatility waivers, and banning alternative economically superior oxygenates is across all 50 states and always has been. E0 is not the same evonomics a EXX due to RINs costs and trading and that fact remains across all 50 states. Cost of production of E0 is not the same due to legislation that grants special volatility waivers to E10 now and E15 soon, across all 50 states. Yet you see the non-factual statement that a state is exempt from these FEDERAL games. No state can roll back the FEDERAL ban on MTBE. Show ANY state to be exemt from USEPA rules including RINs costs and trading, ban of MTBE, and volatility waivers for E10 and pending for E15. You can't. Just like I challenge you to use the "quote" feature to show where I said something besides RINs costs and trading, ban of MTBE, and volatility waivers for E10 and E15 ate mandated. If you're posting the truth, this should be easy. You studiously aboid these specifics every post you make. Amazing how the fact deniers would say the USEPA is headquartered at ANY state capitol, no difference to their false use of terms like "rely", "never", "depend" etc. It's the plain fact those folks cannot handle the truth and look to suppress it every way possible. The same tactics as single party leader-for-life totalitarian regimes use to get in power and maintain power. States CANNOT enact less stringent rules than FEDERAL rules under "anti-backsliding" provisions, and things have been this way for decades. It's extremely obvious the angst exists in the minds of those that deny the truth but they attempt to project that externally upon those who desire the truth come to light and speak the truth. Just more of the tactic of emotional demonization of those that speak the truth.
 
Last edited:
Messages
28,123
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
There's no angst. I cannot buy it, because it's not a money making proposition here. You don't get tax credits to sell it. You only have to sell a certain amount of ethanol here over entire gasoline volume sold. No oil company, convenience store chain, or independent gasoline retailer has seen a profit in E85 here. Hence, it's unavailable.
 
Messages
2,744
Location
San Antonio, TX
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
There are alternative oxygenates that don't have issues of phase seperation, also high octane, widely used outside the US including Western Europe. In their heydey in the US these proved to be economically superior to ethanol as a gasoline blending agent. Banning those proven alternatives in the US at the national level is one piece of nationwide legislation that's s crutch propping ip ethanol here.
Well - MTBE is pretty much a nonstarter these days. I get that it's not necessarily all that toxic (especially compared to gasoline itself) but when it started getting affecting the taste of drinking water supplies, it kind of got everyone's attention. I understand that most of those drinking water supplies contaminated with MTBE were generally safe to drink, but the odor/taste was unacceptable. Even in states where MTBE is still legal, a lot of fuel marketers won't even touch it because of all the lawsuits and settlement money over the years to clean up water supplies. I don't really care if my fuel contains MTBE, ethanol, or some alternative oxygenate that works as well. But I understand that there's a place for fuel ethanol right now that's beyond mere attempts to prop up the farm lobby.
MTBE is a non-starter due to legislation, and angst by folks like TiredTroller. Western Europe has been successful with not contaminating their drinki g water with MTBE, and if the US had inspected and enforced existing tules on underground storage tanks (UST's) there likely wouldn't have been an issue in the US. As I previously posted, there is no technical reason with today's UST construction and inspection requirements the US couldn't mirror the success Western Europe has demonstrated with using MTBE and similar ethers ETBE and TAME as gasoline blend stocks. Those agents never received any volatility exemption waiver sucj as E10 was granted starting 1988 and is about to be granted to E15, basically stating ethanol's contributions to VOC emissions are required by nationwide legislation to have a blind eye turned toward. Here in sunny Texas we have our share of ozone action days especially the period where E15 cannot meet the technical requirements to be sold, again as previously posted. But we're required to ignore those caused by E10 over and above any other motor gasoline blend. MTBE and related gasoline blending ethers have suffered a worse fate than the DC-10 for airline passenger service, as I don't recall any federal agency banning airlines from using DC-10's for passenger service. But similarly, DC-10's continued to be used for airline passenger service safely and successfully outside the US.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,736
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
MTBE and related gasoline blending ethers have suffered a worse fate than the DC-10 for airline passenger service, as I don't recall any federal agency banning airlines from using DC-10's for passenger service. But similarly, DC-10's continued to be used for airline passenger service safely and successfully outside the US.
DC-10s suffer from old plane syndrome. You don't see any US-flagged passenger 747-400s either. It costs too much and they're too loud without hush kits. MTBE isn't coming back. It was handled badly back in the 90s, and nothing is going erase the memory of that.
 
Messages
2,744
Location
San Antonio, TX
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
MTBE and related gasoline blending ethers have suffered a worse fate than the DC-10 for airline passenger service, as I don't recall any federal agency banning airlines from using DC-10's for passenger service. But similarly, DC-10's continued to be used for airline passenger service safely and successfully outside the US.
DC-10s suffer from old plane syndrome. You don't see any US-flagged passenger 747-400s either. It costs too much and they're too loud without hush kits. MTBE isn't coming back. It was handled badly back in the 90s, and nothing is going erase the memory of that.
DC-10s dropped out of US airline passenger service LONG before exhibiting "old plane syndrome" and quite factually remained in passenger service outside the USA for a long time, as I posted to begin with. It was from US public perception, not legislation. I rode more than one DC-10 outside the US up to around 2009, KLM is one example of an airline that retained the DC-10 in passenger service long into the last decade. Simple fact. MTBE wasn't badly handled as use outside the YS including Western Europe demonstrates. YS handling of underground storage tanks is factually what was mishandled, if the USTs weren't allowed to leak so badly we'd have a track record of MTBE use like Western Europe exhibits. However you demonstrate the opinion that mishandling of UST's in the US isn't the root cause of why MTBE wound up in drinking water supplies despite real world comparison with Western Europe. Again simple facts. History didn't begin in 2010.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,736
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
MTBE and related gasoline blending ethers have suffered a worse fate than the DC-10 for airline passenger service, as I don't recall any federal agency banning airlines from using DC-10's for passenger service. But similarly, DC-10's continued to be used for airline passenger service safely and successfully outside the US.
DC-10s suffer from old plane syndrome. You don't see any US-flagged passenger 747-400s either. It costs too much and they're too loud without hush kits. MTBE isn't coming back. It was handled badly back in the 90s, and nothing is going erase the memory of that.
DC-10s dropped out of US airline passenger service LONG before exhibiting "old plane syndrome" and quite factually remained in passenger service outside the USA for a long time, as I posted to begin with. It was from US public perception, not legislation. I rode more than one DC-10 outside the US up to around 2009, KLM is one example of an airline that retained the DC-10 in passenger service long into the last decade. Simple fact. MTBE wasn't badly handled as use outside the YS including Western Europe demonstrates. YS handling of underground storage tanks is factually what was mishandled, if the USTs weren't allowed to leak so badly we'd have a track record of MTBE use like Western Europe exhibits. However you demonstrate the opinion that mishandling of UST's in the US isn't the root cause of why MTBE wound up in drinking water supplies despite real world comparison with Western Europe. Again simple facts. History didn't begin in 2010.
Exactly what did you think I meant by "handled badly" other than leaking tanks? But DC-10s? They were loud and ETOPS allowed the use of far more efficient aircraft for the same routes. But I've flown on an MD-11. Wasn't bad, but apparently two is better than three when it comes to efficiency.
 
Messages
3,561
Location
Central Iowa
Originally Posted by Nyogtha
MTBE is a non-starter due to legislation, and angst by folks like TiredTroller.
Except I really don't have any dog in the MTBE hunt. I could care less if they use it in place of ethanol as an oxygenate. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. So no angst on my part. Interesting how you will call me TireTroller as some sort of dig, but at the same time you will lie about what I say. Speaks volumes.
 
Top