EPA explores mandating higher octane gasoline

[silvrsvt]

http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/epa-signals-it-will-start-looking-mandating-higher-octane-gasoline?utm_source=DailyDrive20160825&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_term=headline-

center&utm_content=body&utm_campaign=awdailydrive

 

The downside is we won't see it till 2025 if they did decide to go that route.

[theoldwizard]

I wonder why would it take until 2025 for this to roll out ?

 

The discussion at the auto industry conference in Traverse City, MI was last year and was widely praised by those in attendance.

[BORG]

I use 93 in my MKX to get maximum output and better fuel economy despite the way I drive it, haha.

[fordmantpw]

I can't wait! 5% increase in fuel economy with a 15% increase in cost. Yay for the gas companies!

[lfeg]

Again, remember the Europeans measure octane differently (RON). Our mid grade and premium would be close to their numbers if we used the RON instead of (RON + MON) / 2. Research octane number and motor octane number are different measurements of the same property. The MON is the more severe test, as is run closer to operation under load at higher inlet temperatures.

[twintornados]

First....get ethanol OUT of gasoline.

[jpd80]

Ethanol works if it's used in the proper proportions, E10 does basically nothing

and it's not until there around 20% to 30% concentrations do you get significant

rise in octane rating and worthwhile reductions in CO2 emissions.

 

We need to have more adult discussions about which fuels are mandated in Future,

I thnk unblended fuels should be kept for older cars and more exotic engines

but something like E30 should be mandated for new day to day vehicles,

it would allow turbo engines to produce much more power.

 

So yeah, I would be in favor of replacing E85 with E25 or even E30 for new vehicles

beyond say, 2020 or 2025 as a way of encouraging more efficiency with turbo engines.

Edited August 25, 2016 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

First....get ethanol OUT of gasoline.

Not going to happen. Too much money was spent lobbying FOR it to go back on it now.

[fordmantpw]

First....get ethanol OUT of gasoline.

 

And watch fuel economy improve 2-3% immediately.

[twintornados]

Ethanol works if it's used in the proper proportions, E10 does basically nothing

and it's not until there around 20% to 30% concentrations do you get significant

rise in octane rating and worthwhile reductions in CO2 emissions.

 

We need to have more adult discussions about which fuels are mandated in Future,

I thnk unblended fuels should be kept for older cars and more exotic engines

but something like E30 should be mandated for new day to day vehicles,

it would allow turbo engines to produce much more power.

 

So yeah, I would be in favor of replacing E85 with E25 or even E30 for new vehicles

beyond say, 2020 or 2025 as a way of encouraging more efficiency with turbo engines.

.

Regular unleaded is described as "E10" because it is 10% ethanol.

 

"E85" is 85% ethanol.

 

Ethanol production for vehicles needs to be separated from the gasoline fuel supply and let the market decide if E100 is a viable alternative for cars that can run on it. Chances are...it will not support it. That is why "E10" is literally shoved down your fuel pipe.

Edited August 25, 2016 by twintornados

[jasonj80]

Not going to happen. Too much money was spent lobbying FOR it to go back on it now.

 

Biofuels worse for climate change than gas, U-M study says, apparently the EPA has found similar results in testing as well. I'm thinking there will be showdown coming soon.

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/08/25/u-m-study-biofuels-worse-climate-change-than-gasoline/89265358/

[blazerdude20]

 

Biofuels worse for climate change than gas, U-M study says, apparently the EPA has found similar results in testing as well. I'm thinking there will be showdown coming soon.

 

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/08/25/u-m-study-biofuels-worse-climate-change-than-gasoline/89265358/

The emissions tend to be cleaner but there is a significant cost to farmland and resources to produce it. Especially when we are using corn based ethanol versus cane sugar.

[fuzzymoomoo]

.

Regular unleaded is described as "E10" because it is 10% ethanol.

 

"E85" is 85% ethanol.

 

Ethanol production for vehicles needs to be separated from the gasoline fuel supply and let the market decide if E100 is a viable alternative for cars that can run on it. Chances are...it will not support it. That is why "E10" is literally shoved down your fuel pipe.

Don't forget about small engines. Lawnmowers hate ethanol. Carbeurated car engines don't really like it either. Edited August 25, 2016 by fuzzymoomoo

[Biker16]

I can't wait! 5% increase in fuel economy with a 15% increase in cost. Yay for the gas companies!

It will be only 5cents more expensive.

[fordmantpw]

It will be only 5cents more expensive.

 

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.

 

Right now, near me, regular (87) is $2.09. Midgrade (89) is $2.29. Premium (91) is $2.39-$2.59. Explain to me, then, how increasing the octane will only raise the price 5 cents.

[Biker16]

 

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.

 

Right now, near me, regular (87) is $2.09. Midgrade (89) is $2.29. Premium (91) is $2.39-$2.59. Explain to me, then, how increasing the octane will only raise the price 5 cents.

 

because the pricing is determined not by cost but by an effort to create differentiation between levels of fuel. premium has to coast more than regualr or it isn't "premium"

 

Also I think RON 95 is Equivalent to 89 octane not 93.

[jpd80]

.

Regular unleaded is described as "E10" because it is 10% ethanol.

 

"E85" is 85% ethanol.

 

Ethanol production for vehicles needs to be separated from the gasoline fuel supply and let the market decide if E100 is a viable alternative for cars that can run on it. Chances are...it will not support it. That is why "E10" is literally shoved down your fuel pipe.

I know what the grades mean and was simply explaining that for ethanol blends to be used with any purpose,

they have to

1) significantly increase octane rating for turbo engines and

2) they have to be priced according to energy content (BTUs per gallon)

 

and forget about E100, the reason we have E85 is for safety so that if there's a fire, you can see the flames.

 

Remember the people doing the study that shows Biofuels are bad was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute.

Now that's a powerful lobby group with a vested interest in discrediting alternative fuel sources.

[lfeg]

Don't forget about small engines. Lawnmowers hate ethanol. Carbeurated car engines don't really like it either.

So true, as someone who uses 50+ year old equipment regularly I am lucky to have a nearby fuel station that has 100% gas (no ethanol, MBTE, or other oxygenates in it) available.

 

Ethanol in gasoline is a political solution to several political problems (get the price of corn up, look like something is being done on the environment, etc.). If we were serious about using alcohol as a transportation fuel we would be looking at the heavier alcohols such as butanol that work much better in spark ignition engines.

[lfeg]

 

Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.

 

Right now, near me, regular (87) is $2.09. Midgrade (89) is $2.29. Premium (91) is $2.39-$2.59. Explain to me, then, how increasing the octane will only raise the price 5 cents.

You said it, Our mid grade would be close to the european 95 RON gas, so take the price for that and add a bit more for additives to get the octane up another point or two. Realistically a $0.20 to $0.25 increase would happen.

[jasonj80]

 

 

Remember the people doing the study that shows Biofuels are bad was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute.

Now that's a powerful lobby group with a vested interest in discrediting alternative fuel sources.

 

And remember the group that has pushed ethanol and funded those studies so hard is the Farm lobby which is the most power lobbying group there is.

[jpd80]

 

And remember the group that has pushed ethanol and funded those studies so hard is the Farm lobby which is the most power lobbying group there is.

While they have some push, that pales to the influence of Oil companies, they literally have Billions to play with.

[RichardJensen]

While they have some push, that pales to the influence of Oil companies, they literally have Billions to play with.

 

Flip side:

http://www.finance.senate.gov/about/membership

 

5 of the top ten corn producing states in the US are represented on that committee, 8 of the top 15, and 10 of the top 20 states.

[jpd80]

 

Flip side:

http://www.finance.senate.gov/about/membership

 

5 of the top ten corn producing states in the US are represented on that committee, 8 of the top 15, and 10 of the top 20 states.

Wow, the corn producing states have a lot of pull.

 

What doesn't help is that ethanol from cane producing regions is much easier to produce, the energy

balance is seven times greater in favor of cane based ethanol versus corn based ethanol.

 

So why isn't the US pressing forward with investing in regions like Hawaii and places

like North Queensland in Australia where the depressed sugar economy is ripe for the picking.

 

I guess it comes back to vested interests in corn production over eyes on the end benefit.

If the US was to go down the route of blended fuels then changing the source of ethanol

would be paramount to make the whole exercise less costly and worthwhile in the whole.

 

even if ethanol based fuels are financially unsound, the minimum the US should be looking at

is perhaps 89 mid grade straight gasoline or some form of Methanol blend created from

conversion of Natual Gas to methanol.

Edited August 27, 2016 by jpd80

[Biker16]

You said it, Our mid grade would be close to the european 95 RON gas, so take the price for that and add a bit more for additives to get the octane up another point or two. Realistically a $0.20 to $0.25 increase would happen.

 

Understand that most of the time gas is shiiped by pipeline from refineries to regional nodes where the gas is processed into 89 and 93 octane by adding expensive octane boosters to bring the pipe line 87 octane to premium standard.

 

Once 87 in retired 89 would become the base, be produced more economically at the refinery, which will minimize the price increase

 

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a/aa070401a.htm

[RichardJensen]

So why isn't the US pressing forward with investing in regions like Hawaii and places

 

 

I've explained it periodically, and here's another run through:

 

As a matter of policy, the government wants 'family farms', that is, they want the amount of land that a 'family' operation can farm in a given year to furnish a suitable household income.

 

That's the policy. You can argue its relative merits (as you can argue the relative merits of welfare, home ownership subsidies, tax incentives for investment, etc.), but that is the overall policy of the government.

 

In order to implement that policy the government has had to, in the past, implement a number of price subsidies.

 

The primary subsidy for cereal crops is the "Loan Deficiency Payment" (LDP).

 

This is how the LDP works:

 

At the beginning of the year, the farmer takes out an operating loan.

 

The operating loan is expected to cover the costs of "inputs" (seed, fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, etc.), equipment maintenance, other expenses, etc., it also is, effectively, the farmer's spending money over the course of the year.

 

The operating loan amount is based on an expected price for the crop. For instance, a farmer's operating loan may be calculated such that he's able to pay off the loan if the crop he's growing sells for $5.00 a bushel at the end of the year.

 

At the end of the year, the crop might end up selling for $4.00 a bushel.

 

Enter the LDP. The government basically cuts the farmer a check for $1.00 a bushel in order for him to pay off his loan and stay in business.

 

There are other subsidies, but this has long been a primary one.

 

What ethanol has done, more or less, is boost the demand for crops to such an extent that these subsidies were no longer necessary. Thus the ethanol subsidy is a replacement for other subsidies. For roughly the last ten years, LDPs have been unnecessary in the midwest, largely due to the ethanol subsidy.

 

The ethanol subsidy is history now, but the mandate still exists, and that effectively means that the mandate props up demand for crops, therefore eliminating much of, but not all of, the need for farm subsidies.

 

Basically it's like this: The government is pursuing a policy goal and using various tools to achieve it. Politicians may use certain friendly terms, but they're not aiming to reduce dependence on foreign oil, they're not aiming to preserve limited resources. They're trying to generate a market for a product that would otherwise exist in surplus driving down prices, reducing employment, etc.

Edited August 27, 2016 by RichardJensen