• Gulf Oil and Amoco refused to allow their credit cards to be used for the purchase of gasohol, in spite of the federal mandate.
• Shell imposed an added 3.5 percent surcharge on gasohol.
• Ethanol was disparaged by stations adorned with signs reading “contains no alcohol, ethanol, or methanol,” implying that such gasoline additives make for inferior fuel.
• Some oil companies prohibited ethanol storage at their depots.
• All the major oil companies, save Texaco, required de-branding of gas pumps containing ethanol, again implying an inferior product.
But here is something profound:
Today, there are more than 17 million flex-fuel cars on American roads capable of running on E85, a mix of 15 percent petroleum product and 85 percent ethanol.
Because there are few places to find E85, the tax credits these vehicles bestow on their makers, which limit their liability for fines under CAFE regulations for their otherwise too-thirsty fleets, are undeserved.
Nonetheless, if carmakers know that amount of ethanol can work, why is it that the oil industry is still busy today insisting that fuels with only 15 percent ethanol — certified, incidentally, by the EPA for use in all cars built after 2001 — is a disaster for car owners?
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/war-against-ethanol-finale/
I still can't believe we use FOOD to make ethanol so we can drive SUV's to shopping centers. In addition to contributing to the huge rise in beef prices (have you purchased a prime steak for under $16 a lb anytime in the past 4 years?), ethanol has caused me grief in any motor that I don't run at least once a week (literally every small engine, boat motor and all my motorcycles). The tendency to draw moisture and degrade happens within 60 days. I've had to pull carbs and clean them in a $1,200 hot ultrasonic tank after sitting for 4 months if there was ethanol fuel involved. I no longer purchase ethanol-added fuel for use in anything but my vehicles (and then I add Marvel Mystery Oil to spec on every fill-up).
ReplyDeleteI think all fuel merchants should carry a 100% petroleum-based fuel as an option. I vote with my wallet, and thank the couple of stations in my area for carrying 100% fuel in addition to offering E-10 and E-85 choices.
I am all for variety, I'd like to see 100 and 110 octane gas at the pumps at every gas station. But that has nothing to do with the article I just posted. I don't know why you run ethanol in every motor you have, I wouldn't. Isn't E85 meant for Flex Fuel branded vehicles only? Not lawn mowers, motorcycles, and boat engines. I posted this article to point out the big oil companies played dirty pool, and they got caught doing some nasty stuff, that's it. I did not extol the virtues of any liquid, or fuel, or try to tell you what a wonderful alternative it would be for your boat engine, or lawn mower. Keep focused, and don't lash out at me for problems I haven't caused, I post a bit about nasty advertising and competition and you're laying into me for having to use an Ultrasonic sink... really? I never recommended SUVs either, just look and try to find anything on my website recommending an SUV for getting groceries. Dragsters yes, SUVs - no. As for purchasing steaks, you've got the wrong idea about how much loose change I can find under my car seat
DeleteSunoco purchased a ethanol plant, formerly a Miller brewery, in Fulton NY some years ago after the start up company went bankrupt. I believe they are running at full tilt, CSX serves the plant and their tracks are always filled.
ReplyDeleteThere are 255 MILLION passenger vehicles registered in the US. 17M of which, you say, can run E85 without major damage to the fuel systems. Basic math says that 238M can't run it without said damage. And you're complaining about the oil companies? Sheesh, why don't you point your finger and the corrupt politicians who foisted this E85 boondoggle on the public?
ReplyDeleteYou've rushed to judgement without considering the very 238 million cars you brought up. How many vehicles do you suppose are registered, and running, and not able to survive the drying effects of alcohol/ethanol/methanol on their fuel system's rubber parts? I'd guess half or more. The number of vehicles still registered, but built before the switch to unleaded is probably a couple million at least, and then there are all the museum cars, and collection cars, that simply never will be driven ever again, but their registration is current. The drying effect on the seals, gaskets, fuel lines, fuel pump diaphragm, etc is not something that is news, it's a fact. It's not faulty parts or build, or design... it's material that was never considered to ever be put to a test of running a different fuel type. Like, you can't make a gas engine run on Diesel, and you will certainly realize that the diesel fuel will cause your fuel pump to fail. Same thing for ethanol. You've decided, rashly, that e85 is a boondoggle, or that cars ought to be able to run on fuels they weren't designed for, and that I'm a fool for not realizing those issues are as bad or worse than the oil company issues. Really? If I ever need a rush to judgement type, I'll call you first.
DeleteJesse, I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. E85 is BAD for the 238M cars that are not part of the 17M. Not the oil companies fault. They don't want to sell gas that damages their customers' cars. Simple.
DeleteTake a breath and lay off the ethanol.
It isn't, though I've aced that portion on many tests, like the SAT, ACT, and the ASVAB. My strong suit is cars. I thought you'd have picked up on that... but in your hurry to be clever, you missed the obvious. Yeah, I get that E85 is bad for most cars, ummm... I've already written about that. Did you miss that? It's about two inches up the screen from this very word. Wait, did you mean your reading comprehension or mine, sucks? You must have meant yours. You aren't aware of history, how GM invested into Standard Oil, and killed the ethanol gas, because they couldn't profit from that. I covered it all 2 months ago http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-fuel-of-future-according-to-both.html and cars would never have been made in a way that resulted in E85 damaging them, because they would have remained using an ethanol blend since the 20's. Get it? Read up, be educated. Oil companies don't profit from grain alcohol, it's competing with oil, the product they profit from, and they don't want to, and have never wanted to, be a part of propping up the competing fuel supply business. You said something that was half right, "they don't want to sell gas that" but you finished with the wrong words, they should have been something to the effect of "gas that
Delete"gas that is mixed with the cheaper alternative to the oil company product"
DeleteJesse, the ethanol producers are some of the most aggressive lobbyists in government. Without big government subsidies, ethanol would not be added to fuel. Therefore, they play a "go for broke" strategy in purchasing the best government money can buy. As much as we hate the all companies involved (they are all reprehensible), I hate the control of the market they've legislated even more. I don't have a choice about buying 10% ethanol fuel in my area (I am forced to). I live in one of the 5 counties in southeastern WI where it is mandated. To get pure fuel, I have to drive 10 miles west across county lines.
ReplyDeleteIf you live in Iowa (corn country) you almost want E-85 because it is so relatively cheap (yet not very energy-dense, therefore, your mileage is between 22 - 25% lower per gallon.)
Illinois and the ethanol producers don't deserve any favorable treatment on this wonderful site.
Alcohol should be left to reside in beer bottles for our enjoyment (never before or during driving of course). Corn should be used to make tortilla chips. And slimy old dinosaur guts should be refined into fuel so we can fly through the countryside and clear out the hordes of insects with our windshields!
You've got a point of view I don't share, and my reason for thinking differently is from learning the history of gasoline, and ethanol, and alcohol racing, and Nitro Methane. I'm not saying I disagree with what you've said, just that you haven't taken the long historical view of the whole issue. I just finished reading a lot in order to post about the topic, and also read through Jamie Kitman's articles in Automobile magazine. Yup, lobbyists, yup, politics, yup corn subsidies, and all that. Not all honest and respectable, and neither is big oil companies, gas stations, or car makers. It's a mess. You've said something to the effect that you like my site, thanks! I give dinosaur guts a rough workout, and want more 100 octane at the pumps.. and 110. Hey, that's just me. I dig it all, horsepower in my 60 Dodge, and gas mileage in my Hyundai commuter. I've covered it all on this blog, and I don't think I've ever said I'm lobbying for anyone. I'm just posting my point of view, and I'm not always consistent, not always accurate, and not always sober. But I'm accurate in saying I am consistently posting, and that is good enough for me. Sorry to hear you have to drive 10 miles for gas, I have to drive 15 one way jut to get to work. Waste of time. Keep on reading along, keep on enjoying the good stuff, ignore the rest, and keep the shiny side up, the rubber side down. Use your name though, as "unknown" makes you one of a lot of "unknown"s
DeleteNo one but you might see this post... But the Sunoco plant in Fulton NY that I mentioned earlier, Sunoco is going into the "craft malt" business...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.syracuse.com/business-news/index.ssf/2016/11/one_of_the_uss_biggest_craft_malt_houses_under_construction_at_fultons_old_mille.html#incart_river_home