Comments on: Problem? What Problem?

By: bobby_b

bobby_b — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:08:09 +0000

“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.)

By: caryc

caryc — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:33:27 +0000

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.

By: just plain Bob

just plain Bob — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:04:56 +0000

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.

By: Tomteboda

Tomteboda — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:18:39 +0000

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.

By: alamn

alamn — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 03:39:40 +0000

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.

By: bobby_b

bobby_b — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:24:47 +0000

"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.

By: alamn

alamn — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:57:40 +0000

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?"

By: caryc

caryc — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:17:51 +0000

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!!!

By: bobby_b

bobby_b — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:33:59 +0000

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.

.

By: alamn

alamn — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:50:40 +0000

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?