While We're Fighting E15, Germans Won't Even Use 10-Percent Ethanol Blend

Add to the fact that it is immoral to be producing fuel from a food source and that farm subsidies are disgusting.

Imagine if the US government had to make a recall of itself, and then replace about 150 million gasoline engines (engines that can handle the ethanol, of course). Hey, it's only money-- and, and we're doing it for the environment!

I thought ethanol reduced gas mileage drastically. Gotta look at the EPA specs again.

E85 has less BTUs in it....so you use more of it.

I'm not averse to the sugarcane ethanol run in IndyCars, or various algae based biofuels that are being developed (in fact, I'm a big fan of them), but corn-based ethanol is definitely not the way to go. Numerous studies have found that it has few environmental benefits. And the only reason we're keeping the corn-ethanol industry afloat is because of all the farm subsidies. Coming from a Midwesterner, I've seen E10 for quite some time, and while I've put it in my tank, I agree with acbayard that we are using it for all the wrong reasons.

funny how Germany has a choice, yet we don't. i had to retrofit my fuel system because the ethanol content in our fuel destroyed my injectors. how fair is that?

I think as long as it stinks more than water and comes out of a gas pump, americans will put it in their cars.

1.) I don't believe in fuel subsidies for any fuel. Gas, alcohol, diesel. Nor do I believe in exorbitant tariffs on foreign fuel sources (read Brazilian sugar ethanol) to protect local producers.

2.) I love ethanol as a motor fuel. It isn't appropriate in high concentrations in cold climates, but in general, even if you take out the subsidies, I find it has more benefits than drawbacks.

3.) In term of emissions, if I dump a gallon or two of E85 into a car fueled on regular 91 octane (10% ethanol), it invariably results in reduced emissions readings. A borderline fail on the tailpipe test becomes a solid pass.

4.) My 500 hp 4cyl street car running on E85 with a factory catalytic converter was so clean at its last emissions inspection the tech insisted on checking his equipment for problems and running the test again.

5.) In my experience, as long as your car was made in the last decade or so, and has a sealed fuel system, ethanol is a safe fuel to run provided you upgrade the capacity of your fuel pump/injectors and have an engine management system capable of handling it.

In summary, fears about ethanol content for modern vehicles is exceptionally overblown and misguided. Yes, ethanol absorbs more water than gasoline. But is also capable of holding orders of magnitude more water in suspension than gasoline can (because water and alcohol are miscible, gasoline and water are not), so it actually tolerates more water contamination while being a viable fuel. Less than 1/2% water contamination in gasoline will render the fuel useless. Ethanol can hold 3-4% no problem.

To be sure, if you're running an old boat engine/lawnmower/muscle car without a sealed fuel tank that sits for long periods of time, high ethanol content needs to be considered. But for modern vehicles, it is not a problem.

I think E15 is too much for non-flex-fuel cars, as they came from the factory. I also don't happen to think ANY ethanol is really the best thing to run if the car has no means to sense the amount of alcohol in the gas. Cars from the 90s and earlier I have noticed do get worse mileage on E10, which annoys me to no end.

Later model cars seem ok with E10 at least. And I like the general solvent properties from a fuel system cleanliness perspective.

If ethanol was associated with octane in terms of what you can buy at the pump, I would like that, in theory. Instead of E10 93 octane (east coast), we should have E0 93 but maybe E10 95. Of course, the tiniest percentage of people would benefit from this (those who do their own tuning), so it's probably a stupid idea.

1) MTBE has not been found to be a carcinogen. It was once thought to be, but it has since been moved off the list. It was banned in the US because it gets into drinking wells and makes the water undrinkable due to taste.

2) Ethanol does pose a problems to engines, pipelines, and storage tanks. Ethanol has water in it. Over a short amount of time (2-3 weeks) the water can separate from the ethanol and create a situation where rust and/or bacteria can form. The rust or the waste from the bacteria can have adverse affects on a variety of surfaces and machines.

3) Ethanol increase the amount of low-level ozone. Low level ozone creates smog. This is one reason why initially California fought the EPA on ethanol.

Ethanol does not have water in it (it's ethanol, not ethanol-water). Ethanol absorbs water more easily than gasoline, but as I pointed out, it also holds more of it in suspension than gasoline can. Any sealed fuel system (which is all automotive fuel systems made in the last 15+ years are sealed. And any good storage facility will have sealed systems as well because of pollution/contamination issues.

As for ethanol increasing low level ozone, best go reread your sources. No one has actually studied the effect on ozone in the real world. All that has been done is a guy at Stanford running some simulations on a computer model. The simulation was run in 2007 and then again rehashed in 2009 by another Stanford researcher. The study predicted a increase of 7 parts per _billion_ in _some_ areas (other areas would see reductions) if the entire US auto fleet was converted to ethanol. IOW, this is a pointless simulation and even if you believed all of its premises and the accuracy of its conclusions, 7 ppb is still in the margin of error.

What a great excuse to run a photo of the best looking car VW has ever made (yes, better than a CC IMHO).

I think that Archer Daniels Midland Midland and Cargill should pay for damages cause by E15. After all, they and the ag industry are pushing for subsidies to turn corn into ethanol.

Whenever possible, I purchase fuel which contains no Ethanol. Usually Sunoco in our area. I think Ethanol is bad politics. My vehicles also perform worse when it's in the tank.

I haven't read the article yet, but had to comment on the photo: Fawesome! :D

Germans are no the only ones. The "No Ethanol" movement has a toehold in the USA. Check out this link...

http://pure-gas.org/

Boat owners are especially concerned because the engines are older and the gas tends to sit in the system and evaporate.

bodyblue: "Add to the fact that it is immoral to be producing fuel from a food source and that farm subsidies are disgusting."

Ethanol is made from the starch of feed corn (not sweet corn), which isn't well processed by livestock anyway. As a result, they can use existing corn production to produce ethanol AND still use it to feed livestock.

The anti-ethanol crowd seems to miss the above when trying to measure the resources used in producing ethanol. They fail to mention, most of those resources are already being consumed to produce the feed corn to feed livestock. Any resource claims should only consider the additional resources above and beyond that.

This Food vs Fuel FUD needs to stop.