Recent Activity About Blog Press Releases Calendar Products Feeds Contact
 

E85: Consumer Interest or Consumer Consistency?

By Stephanie Dreyer
April 27, 2011   |   16 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

16 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 16
Anonymous
April 27, 2011
The author, writes: "How do we do that? It's simple. Require auto manufacturers to make every new vehicle in the United States Flex Fuel and increase the number of Flex Fuel pumps that can offer a combination of gas and renewable fuels to consumers."

I find the notion that the government should force every consumer to buy a product that most don't want to be strange; if this is a useful option customers would ask for it. Of course, if you are a lobbyist for the ethanol industry you would view this as good for business even if it isn't good for consumers. Many of us don't want to use a fuel that leads to higher food prices and won't allow a car to start in the winter.
Steven
Comment
2 of 16
April 27, 2011
Steven,

Did you know that there are already 8 million flex fuel cars on the road today? And that the US automakers have already volunteered to make up to 90 percent of their fleet flex fuel by 2015?

A flex fuel vehicle gives the consumer more choice than he has now. With a flex fuel vehicle, you can choose conventional gasoline or you can choose an ethanol blend.

If you do not want to use ethanol, Growth Energy supports your decision, but for those who want a cleaner earth, stronger economy and safer nation, flex fuel vehicles will give them that option.
Comment
3 of 16
April 29, 2011
Wait until gasoline hits $6 a gallon.

Ghaddafi's military are mining Misrata harbor at this moment.
Comment
4 of 16
May 3, 2011
I already own a flex fuel vehicle and I have tried E85. Here is the reality, E85 cost me the same amount (dollars/gallon) as gas and cut my gas mileage by 25 to 30 percent. That means it cost me a lot more to go from point A to point B. Ethanol is way less energy dense than octane so that all fits. I say take away the subsidies for both ethanol and the oil industry and then I will buy the best product once all the real costs are reflected in the price at the pump.
Comment
5 of 16
May 3, 2011
--------" I say take away the subsidies for both ethanol and the oil industry and then I will buy the best product once all the real costs are reflected in the price at the pump."--------

Fair enough. Now check into a natural gas conversion on your car. You should be able to use gasoline, gasoline and ehtanol mixtures and/or CNG. CNG costs less than 1/4 the price of an equal amount of energy from petroleum.

Natural gas is methane, methane is both a fossil fuel and a biofuel----same stuff.
Comment
6 of 16
May 10, 2011
Advanced Biofuels USA published a paper, Advanced Biofuels USA Publishes Paper and Slide Presentation on Truly Optimized Flex Fuel Vehicles: Benefits and How to Achieve Them http://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/advanced-biofuels-usa-publishes-paper-and-slide-presentation-on-truly-optimized-flex-fuel-vehicles-benefits-and-how-to-achieve-them

We believe that the car manufacturers are very close to producing vehicles that will get you just about the same mileage regardless of gasoline/ethanol blend is in the tank. If high ethanol blends are less expensive, then the owners of these can easily choose those without worrying about mileage penalties. If high blends cost about the same as low (E10), then the mileage penalty won't contribute to or cause that "lack of consumer interest" noted by the Des Moines Register.

This seems to make so much sense. Even if EPA doesn't test cars with E85 or other high ethanol blends, consumers will see/experience the positive difference. Then they will not just find out that they are driving FFVs, they will make it a point to purchase truly optimized FFVs.
Comment
7 of 16
July 9, 2011
'We must also increase the number of Flex Fuel pumps at retail stations in order to deliver higher blends of ethanol to these cars.'

Don't you just love it when an industry spokesperson invokes the pronoun 'we'? In other industries, 'we' is the industry, and they don't go around talking about how 'we' must do something. They evaluate the options and then just do it.

When an industry that was born subsidized says 'we', however, they really mean 'you, the taxpayer'.

I agree with the first commentator, but Stephanie Dryer's response is disingenuous. She must know full well that the only reason that there are so many E-85 capable vehicles (mainly SUVs and pick-up trucks) registered in the United States is because of the 'dual-fuel' loophole that give carmakers enormous credit towards meeting their corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for every FFV they sell. Most owners of FFVs (other than government agencies, which were required to do so) did not purchase their vehicle because of the FFV option, and studies have shown that many were not even aware of the option.

It constantly amazes me how the industry can with a straight face employ the language of the market in a business that has little to do with market forces. Their PR writers must have cheeks that are permanently distended by the tongues that they so often thrust into them.
Comment
8 of 16
July 9, 2011
If it were ethanol that had gotten into the Yellowstone River, no one would even have noticed.

It certainly would not be in the news. There would be nothing to report.
Comment
9 of 16
July 9, 2011
"If it were ethanol that had gotten into the Yellowstone River, no one would even have noticed. It certainly would not be in the news. There would be nothing to report." -- Fred Linn

Another popular myth debunked: Ethanol and other biofuels can and do cause fish kills:

http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/spills.pdf
Comment
10 of 16
July 9, 2011
------" Another popular myth debunked: Ethanol and other biofuels can and do cause fish kills:"-------

An opinion full of hearsay by someone who was not even there.
-------"Whatever the cause, the fish kill was "caustic" and of "short duration," according to Illinois Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist Dan Sallee, "-----

Caustic = alkaline(ph above 7.0) ethanol is ph 7.0 acid/base neutral, ethanol is not caustic



There is not even any mention anywhere of ethanol in the newspaper coverage of the wreck.

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x135719492/Train-derails-One-dead-nine-injured
Comment
11 of 16
July 9, 2011
Ethanol is toxic at high concentration and can oxidize to acetaldehyde, which is toxic at lower concentrations. The breakdown of ethanol in surface water consumes dissolved oxygen from the water column which can stress or kill fish and mussels.
Comment
12 of 16
July 9, 2011
----" Ethanol is toxic at high concentration and can oxidize to acetaldehyde,..."-------

The presence of acetaldehydes are what make expensive wines expensive. The presence of acetaldehydes are easily detected by their odor----they have a sweet, fruity odor, which is a highly coveted part of the winemaking process. Without acetaldehydes, all wines would taste and smell like Vodka.

I don't recall mention of anyone saying the river smelled fruity or sweet---or like fine wine.

Ethanol is soluble in water. It disperses in water and would be carried away with the currents. It would be impossible to have high concentrations of ethanol by dumping it in a river anywhere except maybe a small area at the point of entry.
No image available
Comment
13 of 16
Anonymous
July 9, 2011
I cannot imagine why Fred would choose to quibble with the obvious fact that ethanol is toxic at high concentrations. Certainly eventual dilution makes such spills into rivers a transient problem as compared to an oil spill, but the initial stages of the spill do indeed cause environmental damage.
Steven
Comment
14 of 16
July 9, 2011
----"I cannot imagine why Fred would choose to quibble with the obvious fact that ethanol is toxic at high concentrations."----

That is true---it is the reason that healthcare workers wash their hands with ethanol alcohol several times an hour---it is toxic to pathogenic bacteria. But it is not toxic to humans who wash their hands with it.

---" Certainly eventual dilution makes such spills into rivers a transient problem as compared to an oil spill, but the initial stages of the spill do indeed cause environmental damage."-------

In the opinion article cited by Ron blaming ethanol for a fish kill in Illinois---the article said that 53 miles of river were affected. It would take far more ethanol to kill fish along a 53 mile stretch of river that one tank car, or even and entire trainload of ethanol. There just would not be enough ethanol.

The assertion that the fish kill is ethanol caused is to far separated from reality to even be seriously considered by anyone familiar with the chemistry involved.

It IS possible that something was spilled in the train wreck that could have caused the fish kill----but not ethanol.
Comment
15 of 16
July 9, 2011
From the Meeting Summary of the Upper Mississippi River Hazardous Spills Coordination Group, October 6-7, 2009,
Rock Island, Illinois

http://www.umrba.org/meetings/haz-minutes/h10-09.htm

"Coffey described the fish kill that resulted from the release of ethanol that followed the derailment described by Lauder. He noted that more that 72,000 fish were killed, with the deaths beginning approximately 13 hours after the derailment and taking place over a distance of approximately 54 miles in length and significantly downstream from the location of the derailment. Coffey described the roles of the agencies involved in the environmental investigation and the role of the US FWS in particular. He further detailed how the delayed fish kill was consistent with other ethanol spills and noted that this could be attributed to the biodegradation of ethanol removing dissolved oxygen from the water as the spill plume moved downstream. Coffey further elaborated that ethanol spills appear to cause both immediate toxicity at the point of release (from acetaldehyde and/or ethanol toxicity) as well as delayed drop in dissolved oxygen as total organic carbon and bacteria counts rise. ...

Coffey explained that there is still a lot to be learned in incidents involving ethanol, including answering questions as to what typical levels of breakdown products are in tissue. He noted that a time delay is involved in regard to the depletion of oxygen, as it takes some time for bacteria to consume the oxygen. Coffey indicated that there are really two phases of impact associated with an ethanol spill: 1) initially, a toxic phase due to high concentrations of ethanol, and 2) later, the lowering of DO due to the action of bacteria – and the resulting fish kill. He emphasized that the delayed fish kill is a unique 'signature' of an ethanol spill and that a previous spill in Kentucky had provided information to help understand the downstream effects of an ethanol spill."
Comment
16 of 16
July 9, 2011
What I get from reading the transcript is that they do not know what caused the fish kill---they are guessing.

So, while we are guessing, lets guess this. What about denaturant chemicals added to fuel ethanol? That could also be responsible for a fish kill.

-----" The ethanol itself will break down naturally. There was a small amount of gasoline — 2 percent — that is routinely added to ethanol to prevent people from drinking it."-----

Ethanol spill decision: No cleanup required

http://mankatofreepress.com/local/x519261231/Ethanol-spill-decision-No-cleanup-required

I still say----if something is going to be spilled, we'd be a lot better off if it is ethanol instead of petroleum. There is still petroleum present in the marshlands and sea sediments in Louisiana. One year after the Gulf spill, all Anderson Cooper had to do was get on a boat and go out and take a look to see a thick quagmire of tar/oil covering the marshes in Louisiana. They couldn't even find any ethanol a few hours or days later.

Let's just see how the "clean up" goes on the Yellowstone River in Montana and then compare the two spills.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Growth Energy

View Growth Energy's Profile
About: Growth Energy represents the producers and supporters of ethanol who feed the world and fuel America in ways that achieve energy independence, improve economic ... more »
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters