OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency cleared the way Friday for a higher blend of ethanol to be sold nationwide for the third summer in a row, citing global conflicts that it says are putting pressure on the world’s fuel supply.
The agency announced an emergency waiver that will exempt gasoline blended with 15% ethanol from an existing summertime ban. Gasoline with 10% ethanol is already sold nationwide, but the higher blend has been prohibited in the summer because of concerns it could worsen smog during warm weather.
Great, I love saving “up to 25 cents” on gas in exchange for increasing pollution and needing to replace my car earlier.
Bet they’ll also still increase the price when summer comes anyways
Yes. That’s the point. To provide relief from upcoming price surges.
I’ve done a bit of googling around about e15 gas, and I’m not gonna lie, I really don’t know what to make of it, there seems to be a whole lot of contradictory info about it out there, some sources say it’s cleaner, others say it’s dirtier, and pretty much all of the articles I can find feel like they’ve been bought and paid for by one big megacorp or another.
When I kind of try to average together what I’ve read, and make no mistake I’m no scientist so I very well may be way off the mark on this, I think what I’ve come up with, is that it’s worse for smog and general air quality, but better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
It’s also ever so slightly more renewable, though really that’s kind of a negligible difference, 85% of it is still basically just regular gasoline, and the regular gas you usually buy is probably 10% ethanol anyway, so it really doesn’t make a major change in terms of how much petroleum you’re burning at the end of the day.
As far as saving money goes, you may get slightly worse MPG and/or performance using it, although annecdotally when I’ve used it, any difference was completely unnoticeable to me, YMMV (literally) depending on your car, the kind of driving you do, etc.
There’s also a deep rabbit hole to go down about corn subsidies and such that I’m not going to touch with a 10 foot pole right now.
If, and that’s a big “if,” my assessment is right, which I’m by no means confident about so please don’t take this as anything other than the musings of some asshole on the internet who’s skimmed a bunch of articles and is trying to piece together the facts, I kind of feel like this may be a bit of a wash. Probably something that needs to be really considered at the local or individual level to weigh the pros and cons, taking things into account like what your local air quality is like, how efficient your vehicle is, what you’d do with the money you save, etc.
Of course, everyone should do some research about this, make some informed decisions, seek out more info, be skeptical of claims on both sides, etc. Please do not take my word for it, my words, thoughts, and opinions about this issue aren’t really worth anything.
The tricky thing about ethanol blends is that you end up getting into similar issues to literal rocket science. In modern (and modernish) engines, up to E15 is generally well-handled, though does potentially increase wear. The tricky part is “why stop at E15?”. The reason for that is energy density.
You know that mention of rocket science? Well, one of the important things to consider in chemical rockets is the mass and energy density of the fuel. It needs to move both the rocket and itself. When it comes to automotive fuel, energy density is also vital and ethanol has about half of the energy density of petrol. The tipping point where the reduction in energy density overcomes the excess energy stored in the petrol is about 15%.
After the tipping point, the ethanol blend tends to create more pollution per mile/km because if its impact on the fuel’s energy density - more fuel is required to travel a particular distance, causing more pollutants from the petrol to be emitted. At that point, it’s probably less polluting to run a 100% ethanol “blend” in a motor designed for it.
As someone from the flyover states, the subsidies and the monstrous amount of lobbying done by the ag industry are exhausting, but are the majority of the reason behind why the information you’re seeing seems sketchy. Take any pro-e85 argument with that in mind.
Also, as a side note, you don’t need to be perfect to have an opinion :) Your disclaimer is about basic research literacy so don’t fear adding to a discussion because someone might engage in bad faith. And yes, I am projecting my own anxiety onto my perception of your statement, lol.
I just tend to hedge my bets with lots of disclaimers for things I’m not totally sure of. I know I’m not an expert on these matters, and I don’t want anyone taking what I say and spreading it has hard facts when I know there’s a real possibility that I may have it completely wrong. Hopefully no one can read my comment and go “well this guy sure seems to know what he’s talking about, I’m going to take his word for it and tell all of my friends,” but maybe it’ll get them to take a second look, see what info is out there and be mindful about where that information is coming from and try to draw their own conclusions.
And really, as far as having an opinion goes, this shouldn’t really be the kind of thing we’re dealing in opinions about. This should just be a matter of hard facts and numbers, but unfortunately due to industries like agriculture and oil sticking their fingers into, those hard facts are usually too hard for most of us to come by, so we’re kind of left with nothing but opinions based on what spotty facts we have.
It’s up to 25 cents per gallon. And that makes a huge difference to low-wage workers who rely on their cars to get to their jobs.
I am all for reducing pollution and reducing the need for new car sales, but not at the expense of poor people.
Can’t wait to have to replace the car I paid off because we’re running it into the ground faster - I make less than $30k though so I won’t be able to.
Do you support carbon tax? I’d have thought most Lemmings would. Letting prices rise without needing to pass carbon tax legislation should offer similar benefit: If people think twice about using gas due to price, and seek alternate ways to commute, like bikes, trains, carpooling, etc. then that’s good for the environment. And that’s in addition to the environmental advantages of not producing more ethanol.
A carbon tax should be on corporations, not people. Poor people are the only ones who really suffer from high gas prices.
A carbon tax should be on corporations, not people.
One exception to that. Above a certain income high income, it should be on people too.
I’m doing fine financially. I drive on electricity generated from the solar panels on my roof. Both the car and the panels were expensive. Not enough folks have the opportunity to make the choices I did. Those that are well off should either have to use some of that wealth to buy carbon free solutions, or pay the carbon tax that can go toward subsidizing solutions for those that can’t afford it.
Can you point out any evidence that e15 hurts cars post 2001 like the testing tstates? Seems like old boomers and gopers just making shit up.
It is, old cars don’t do well with ethanol gas but it doesn’t affect modern vehicles. Ethanol is great in modern turbocharged direct injection engines as it increases the latent heat of vaporization of the fuel, which cools the charge when fuel is injected. I had a Ford Fiesta ST that ran E40 (mixed E85 and 93 in the tank) and it allowed me to run the boost to the limits of what the turbo could do. That little 1.6L engine had 300ft-lb of torque at 2000rpm, it was wild. All that ethanol did a great job preventing detonation at high boost / low rpm. The downside is higher ethanol makes for worse gas mileage as it’s not as energy dense, and I believe it emits more CO2. There’s also food vs fuel and corn subsidies issues with ethanol as fuel.
‘We’re gonna end Nordstream.’ Also: ‘damn russians blew the pipeline and prices are high.’
