Secrets of the City

If the UL says the pumps are only rated for a 15% mix, this is going to be a problem with ALL gasoline pumps when the state’s ethanol mandate jumps to a 20% blend in six years.

I have read that ethanol is also tough on motors whose gas tanks are ventilated, like boat motors. The ethanol absorbs water, causing stalls and loss of power. Ethanol is also a solvent and picks up contaminants from storage containers easily.

The water-absorbing problems don’t seem to appear in cars because that fuel system is typically closed.

If the ALA is really confused, they’re misunderstanding the function and mandate of UL.

UL examines products, under specific and exact criteria, and decides whether or not to issue its own seal of approval of that product under that criteria.

That’s it. That’s all. What’s happened is, the existing pumps carry the UL seal, but are now being used in a manner that was not contemplated in their testing process. UL is only saying that, with the new, higher-ethanol fuel, it can not certify the pumps for that use without additional testing. Given ethanol’s known tendancy to degrade seal products, it needs more review.

No one at UL is saying, these pumps are unsafe; they’re simply saying, if you want the UL seal on them, we have to review them first.
Sounds reasonable to me.
.

Ethanol and gasolie are not the same and are not interchangeable. Ethanol doesn’t give off as much energy as gas, which is why fuel economy drops with E85. Ethanol absorbs moisture from the air, which is why is basically impossible to transport by pipeline, and can lead to winter starting problems in cara. Ethanol can also cause problems when it’s used (or MANDATED) in devices that are not designed or engineered to handle it’s unique chemical porperties. Sees there is now some concern about erosive damage to gasoline pumps.

In spite of the black hole of heavy subsidies, ethenol may still one day actually help reduce dependence of foreign energy. The very real problem of today is caused by politicians and lobbyists that are so bent on Ethanol Everywhere Now that almost nobody is pausing to see if ethanol will work up and down the supply chain, or in all the things people own that use gasoline.

Good points, Mr. Fleagle, but there are still a number of questions on this issue. E85 is not really “new,” and flex fuel vehicles have been on the US market since 1995. The UL is very much aware of the possible consequences of its actions. Here’s a link to more on this story.

As for the issue with marine motors, I believe Pete is correct that ethanol-blended fuels are not recommended.

As for the alternative fuel in question, E85, I believe that it will continue to sell well (and be distributed safely) here in the Midwest. Public awareness of E85 nationwide is around 62%, even in states where it is not sold — yet.

The subtext here is that this is somehow a devious, agenda-driven decision, and I really doubt that.

Go to K-Mart and buy a clothes iron, and it will have a UL seal on it. If six guys in Ely figure out that their cars start easier on cold mornings if they duct-tape an iron flat against their gas tanks, I doubt UL is going to take any notice. But, if Ford starts selling its cars with an iron duct-taped to the gas tanks, UL is likely going to say, whoa, that’s not what we’re certifying.

Point is, UL puts its good name on the line when it certifies something, and it has put its name behind a certification that the gas pumps are safe when used for gas, and for blends containing up to 15% ethanol. Now that E85 is being pumped through its certified pumps on a regular basis – regular enough so that someone can say that UL should know that they’re being used that way – UL has to protect its reputation, and make it clear that its seal wasn’t granted for that use, and that it will now begin testing to see if the product should be certified for this new use.

.

I guess I would rather have ethanol in my gas instead of MTBE or BTEX.

No one ever got hurt by a Shakers spill.

The Minnesota State Fire Marshal has reviewed the issue and determined that installation and use of E85 pumps can continue in Minnesota, so it won’t be an issue here. In other states, however, it could kill this alternative fuel just as it was getting started.

I’m betting they’ll simply get the waivers, predicated on regular documented inspection. No corrosive issues identified so far, right?

.

I hope so…what concerns me is the public relations angle involved — people tend to remember the glaring headline, not the small follup story on page 16. Case in point from the Orlando Sentinel’s headline:

“Lab reports strong blend of ethanol hurts pumps”

Wrong. Lab reports strong blend of ethanol could hurt pump, in theory.

Big difference. See why I’m concerned?

Yes. I’m a conservative Bush supporter. I am very familiar with the injustice misleading, agenda-driven headlines can do to the truth.

(At the end of the day, I doubt ethanol sales, or the overarching theme of a switch to ethanol, are going to depend on these kinds of issues.)

Price. Price. Price.

.

I’m not concerned with this, they should be doing long-term testing of these pumps before they can be certified. Yes the article is a bit reactionary but that’s true of just about any news article.

Beyond that, I really don’t care about E85 as a commuter fuel – it’s a useless government-subsidized bandaid for a far bigger problem.

E85 IS good however for racing – whenever I build my trackday car with custom management, I’m totally going to be tuning an E85 map for it. Woooo 103 octane!!!

The price of E85 almost always beats regular unleaded in MM. See for yourself on the world’s only E85 price forum:

Yes, ethanol is great for racing. Indy is going all ethanol next year.

BTW caryc, sure ethanol production is subsidized, but E85 is sold on the free market like any other fuel. Minnesotans buy it because they like it. The 10% ethanol in your car is subsidized, too.

Isn’t air pollution a “bigger problem?”

“Minnesotans buy it because they like it.“

I think this is a seriously misaimed statement. Minnesotans aren’t going to “choose” ethanol – it’s more like, will they “un-choose” it when they pull up to a pump and it’s E85. You need to sell it to outlets, but I think the average consumer, if they don’t have a reason to say no, will simply pull out the handle and fill.

No, I think a strong case can be made that Minnesotans really want E85, and are willing to go a little out of their way to get it.

Having 300 stations with E85 is great, but it is hardly in every station, even here in Minnesota. Personally, I know I drive by at least three stations with E85 when I drive to work every day — I drive by dozens more that offer only gasoline or diesel. Owners of FFVs are clearly making an effort to seek out this fuel.

I am confused as to when ethanol became a corrosive substance. Under NFPA 704, it has a “0″ for health hazard, “3″ for flamability, and “0″ for reactivity, with no special labels.

In plain English, it isn’t corrosive.

The MSDS of ethanol backs it up, as does the EU classification. Therefore calling ethanol corrosive is complete bunk.

Tomteboda is correct that ethanol is hardly an exotic chemical — after all, many of us have been enjoying it for years in beer, wine and cocktails — but it is true that high ethanol fuels like E85 should not be used in vehicles not specifically designed to be flex fuel. That said, it is hardly “rocket science” to design and produce an FFV (GM alone is planning 17 FFVs in their 2007 lineup), and in Minnesota we have proven the pump and storage system works — even at 30 below or 102 degrees. The UL science teams will meet next week to address this issue, and hopefully will put it to rest.

My point is – e85 purely on the free market without subsidization – would be just as if not more expensive than regular gasoline.

Now if they get off their duffs and figure out a cheaper way to make ethanol – great. But for now, it’s not really a viable fuel for the ordinary driver.

“Corrosive” is probably not the correct term for ethanol. It does dissolve some plastic and rubber parts found in engines (and fuel systems) not designed with ethanol in mind. Once designers and manufacturers decide to build towards ethanol, this shouldn’t continue to be an issue.

(Of course, the vapor lock, and water-absorbent qualities, need to be addressed, too.)