Fabulous: We’ll Just Put More Ethanol in your Gas Anyway

posted at 6:59 am on January 31, 2011 by
[ Obama's Cabinet ]   

It’s been a very busy couple of weeks news-wise, and you don’t need a list of breaking stories to remind you of all that’s been going on. But somewhere in this hectic season I managed to miss a long awaited decision by Obama’s EPA which showed up with the previous Friday’s news dump.

WASHINGTON — Nearly two-thirds of cars on the road could have more corn-based ethanol in their fuel tanks under an Environmental Protection Agency decision Friday.

The agency said that 15 percent ethanol blended with gasoline is safe for cars and light-duty trucks manufactured between 2001 and 2006, expanding an October decision that the higher blend is safe for cars built since 2007.The maximum gasoline blend has been 10 percent ethanol.

This decision was made despite repeated warnings from industry experts who have been pleading for more time to perform exhaustive testing. Were they being overly cautious? That’s a difficult argument to make, particularly since we told you last month that one delay in testing came from the fact that the higher ethanol blend fuel was melting down the seals in pumps and storage tanks during testing.

The laundry list of potential problems from this decision is extensive. Asking distributors to carry yet another fuel (even if it doesn’t melt their pumps) will require logistical juggling, equipment changes, new signs and other expenses which are inevitably passed on down to the consumer. Ethanol burns hotter than conventional fuel, leading to earlier failure of catalytic converters. (An expensive fix, as any of you who have been hit with it at the garage will attest.)

All of this is still being pushed under the cloak of a more environmentally friendly solution to energy challenges, a claim which current science has increasingly put in doubt. But would it at least produce any type of savings as we fight to get the budget under control? Precisely the opposite, as noted by Craig Cox of the Environmental Working Group.

Rather than furthering his goal to make America “the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” however, Obama’s focus on biofuels as the way “to break our dependence on oil” would have the opposite effect if it means sending billions more taxpayers dollars to corn country to finance ethanol infrastructure, Cox said. “Building an ethanol infrastructure at taxpayer’s expense will just lock us further into the past rather than lead us to tomorrow’s energy future,” added Cox, who heads EWG’s Ames, Iowa, office.

This is clearly a victory for King Corn, but lies in stark contrast to the President’s stated goals of Winning the Future. Exit question: Even if gas stations manage to offer this for cars built in 2001 and after, how will they ensure drivers of older vehicles don’t wind up putting it in their vehicles without retooling the entire delivery system?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Exit question:

epic fail…

the fact that the higher ethanol blend fuel was melting down the seals in pumps and storage tanks during testing.

sounds dangerous…not liking this one bit…

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 7:48 AM

Never let reality interfere with a utopian dream, ESPECIALLY when you can connect it with CASH money for passing the laws and rules.

golfmann on January 31, 2011 at 8:43 AM

Where was I just reading that it takes more energy to create ethanol than what you get out. Aaarrgh, can’t find it. But corn requires a lot of fertilizer, fertilizer that is petroleum based, so you use petroleum to create fertilizer, to get the corn to replace the petroleum you used to get the corn. Brilliant! Only an environmentalist could come up with that.

odannyboy on January 31, 2011 at 9:55 AM

We drive only older Volvos (our newest car is a ’97), and there is only one gas station we can patronize that carries ethanol free gasoline. When we are out of town and don’t know the location of any stations that are ethanol free, we are forced to use fuel with ethanol. So, when my engine blows, is the EPA going to pay to have it fixed? My husband drives a ’91 Volvo and has a ’72 as a hobby car. We can’t afford to buy new cars, nor do we want to. What are we supposed to do? Duh!

College Prof on January 31, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Better not be any ethanol in my fuel. Poor little diesel engine wouldn’t deal with it very well.

Crawford on January 31, 2011 at 11:40 AM

All of the avail. gas here is 10%. There seems to be no way to store or stabilize it for long. My extensive amount of farm, boat, landscaping, generator, gas-powered equipment are getting fuel-related repairs at a good clip, as are my vehicles, which average mid-70s vintage. I cannot get a break from fuel taxes for road repair for non-road travel vehicles, and part of those taxes are (illegally, imho) are diverted into bike lanes and inefficient mass-transit.
Using food for fuel-what a bunch of g-ddammed idiots.

trl on January 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM

…Better not be any ethanol in my fuel. Poor little diesel engine wouldn’t deal with it very well.
Crawford on January 31, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Urea is the new diesel “helper”. Wee-weeing into the engine (heh).

trl on January 31, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Where was I just reading that it takes more energy to create ethanol than what you get out. Aaarrgh, can’t find it. But corn requires a lot of fertilizer, fertilizer that is petroleum based, so you use petroleum to create fertilizer, to get the corn to replace the petroleum you used to get the corn. Brilliant! Only an environmentalist could come up with that.

odannyboy on January 31, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Our current method of ethanol production is as head-deskingly bad as the solar panels the greenies so vaunt: obsolete and energy-negative. Corn-based ethanol is an exercise in futility and the old way of making solar energy basically involves melting rock to make the panels.

There are ways to make both much better, but they aren’t even being given the time of day, publicity-wise.

Dark-Star on January 31, 2011 at 11:57 AM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Ed Morrissey on January 31, 2011 at 5:48 PM

one delay in testing came from the fact that the higher ethanol blend fuel was melting down the seals in pumps and storage tanks during testing.

Hmmmmmm… ethanol breaks down the seals and leaks out……

Wouldn’t that be sort of….. I don’t know…

Dangerous to the enviroment?

Chip on January 31, 2011 at 1:07 PM