Ethanol lobby denounces auto industry study on E-15

May 6, 2010

The automotive industry study has claimed E-15 can affect catalytic converters in non-Flex Fuel Vehicles, but the ethanol lobby says insufficient testing has been carried out
Ethanol lobbyists yesterday denounced research from the automotive industry claiming that higher ethanol blends in gasoline will damage car engines.

Growth Energy, the pro-ethanol group co-chaired by retired General Wesley Clark, said the study funded by the auto and oil industry was “inconclusive”, stating a believe that it had “failed to complete sufficient vehicle testing”.

The report in question was published by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) last week, as fuel suppliers and the automotive industry await a decision from the US Environmental Protection Agency as to whether it will approve use of 15% ethanol blend in gasoline, known as E-15.

The EPA is expected to make its decision in the next few weeks.

A decision to approve E-15 in cars made after 2001 would provide more market demand for ethanol, as fuel suppliers seek to meet their obligations to supply biofuels under the EPA’s Renewable Fuels Standard.

CRC Report

The CRC report issued a brief summary of preliminary findings from its ongoing research into the affect of higher-blend ethanol-gasoline fuel on non-Flex Fuel Vehicles, ordinary cars not set up to use a range of fuel types.

Among its claims, the preliminary CRC study suggested 35-45% of the US fleet would suffer problems with catalytic converter degradation on blends higher than the currently permitted 10% ethanol blend, E-10.

The report also states that automakers have seen “sensitivity” to ethanol blend levels in their car engines, but states that it is “unclear” at what level higher-blend ethanol-gasoline fuels start to cause damage above the existing 10% level.

In response, Growth Energy said the auto study had “ignored a pile of data” from academic, government and third-party research supporting the use of E-15 fuel in non-Flex Fuel Vehicles.

The group said the (Coordinating Research Council) was due to test 16 engines from cars made between 2001 and 2009, but only half of these had undergone testing, while only four engines had had testing completed.

“Inconclusive and incomplete”

Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, said yesterday: “The CRC’s results are inconclusive and incomplete: only half of the vehicles completed durability testing. It would be foolish to accept these results as fact.”

It would be foolish to accept these results as fact” – Tom Buis, Growth Energy

Mr Buis said that the EPA’s own testing had suggested vehicles made after 2001 could be eligible to use E-15. Citing a December statement from the Agency, he said the EPA had revealed that its uncompleted testing had so far indicated “that the robust fuel, engine and emissions control systems on newer vehicles (likely 2001 and newer model years) will likely be able to accommodate higher ethanol blends, such as E15”.

The ethanol group said other research supports the use of E-15 fuels.

The Growth Energy CEO went on to say: “The EPA has told us in writing that they intend to complete their testing on E15 before making a decision, and we are confident they will.

“We are also confident that the testing will show what we already know: that E15 can run just fine in today’s modern engines, all while creating good paying jobs here in America,” Mr Buis added.

Add your comments

David
Mr. Buis stated that “It would be foolish to accept these results as fact.” I guess he's right. Why would I expect automobile manufactures to know anything about cars and what kind of fuel they need? How many cars did the ethanol industry or EPA ever manufacture? I guess many a wise man would put higher blends of ethanol in his car knowing that the car maker warned against it and will no longer honor the warranty. Is Mr. Buis promising to pay my repair bills?
walter66
Its fools like you who think the auto industry and oil industry have your best interest in mind. Please grow up and believe me that they want us all as slaves or at least our money. I can tell, you either live on the East Coast or the Left Coast, because the independent thinking part of your brain has been dismantled or was installed backwards. Please help us save the planet. Demand cleaner fuel sources. “Clean Coal” give me a break.
David
I'm so sorry. I didn't even realize that I was talking about clean coal. I thought I was just commenting on possible damage to my car from too much ethanol and whether or not the warranty would be good. But I'm fine now. I have saved the comments from both you and Mr. Buis to show the dealership if I ever encounter such a problem. How could they possibly refuse to repair my car after reading such profound, well-reasoned arguments? I don't live near a coast but I'm sure there are many good hard-working people living everywhere who don't want to take a chance on ruining their cars just because somebody wants to sell more ethanol.
http://www.microfueler.com Tom Quinn
Why is it when the auto industry is discussed people act so inapt compared to the high tech industry. Who in their right mind thinks fossil fuel has a future or that solar or wind generators will replace the world's energy demand when it's gone? Wake up America, ethanol is the only viable and sustainable energy future. When Microsoft releases a new operating system consumers flock to electronic stores to spend billions on upgrading their computer hardware to invest in the future.
However when some auto industry report states higher blends of ethanol could possibly damage a vehicle's catalytic converter, people don't view this as an investment in our future?
Consider that the International Energy Agency predicts world oil consumption this year will exceed 86 million barrels per day, surpassing the previous record set a few years ago that drove oil prices to 148 dollars per barrel. Although the US is reducing its oil demand China, India and other developing nations are making up the difference and then some. This means more expensive fossil fuel is in our future and the faster we prepare our vehicles for ethanol the better off Americans will be.
David
Why the great urgency for using more ethanol, anyway? We are already using a significant amount of corn ethanol. We have devastated the dairy, livestock, and poultry industries with higher feed costs. It is obvious that we can’t produce a great deal more corn ethanol without even more serious unintended consequences for the ethanol industry itself and the other users of corn. The ethanol industry is doing poorly now, primarily because of the high cost of corn in relation to the price of ethanol. The math as far as energy conversion of ethanol production, energy content of ethanol compared to gasoline, and the size of our current corn crop reveals that if we eliminated the use of gasoline and depended entirely on corn ethanol we would have the following options:
1. Use our entire current corn crop for ethanol production. We would have virtually no food and could drive our cars about 2.5 days each month.
2. Use about one-third of our corn crop for ethanol (as we are already doing). We would have high-priced food but could only drive our cars about 1 day out of 36.
3. Increase our corn crop by 1200 percent (yes, twelve hundred percent) and use it all to make ethanol. We could replace all the gasoline we currently use but would still be in sore need of food.
Yes, there is the argument that we need to develop infrastructure so that we can market cellulosic ethanol if it is ever produced. Despite many millions of dollars of government grants and loan guarantees, there is not one economically viable commercial scale cellulosic ethanol facility on earth. Nor is there any guarantee that there will ever be such a facility. Development has been “five years away” for many years and seems to remain about the same now. I saw an advertisement the other day for a vintage 1960's Brumberger Tri-level Service Station/Parking Garage Playset for $105. That could handle most of our current need for cellulosic ethanol marketing infrastructure.
Justin
Screw the effing ethanol lobby. We'll all be spending $1,000 every six months having your motors rebuilt running this garbage. Screw them. Stupid theives will screw up every small engine in America.
There is no difference between the ethanol lobby and Al Queda. They hate you.
Justin
Screw the effing ethanol lobby. We'll all be spending $1,000 every six months having your motors rebuilt running this garbage. Screw them. Stupid theives will screw up every small engine in America.
There is no difference between the ethanol lobby and Al Queda. They hate you.