Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BigGreen

Immunity for Misuse of E85 (Non-OEM-FFV vehicles) in IN

Recommended Posts

Which by the way the US Government calls a AFV vehicle (Aftermarket Alternative Fuel Vehicle).

Look a the grammar. '...vehicle equipped to operate when ... fueled'. Vehicles are usually equipped to operate. But liability only applies when such vehicles are '...fueld entirely with E85.' So me blending means they are all liable.

 

What a mess. Glad that I don't care. E85 it is, no logical reason not to.

 

BTW: Each state has different rules/laws/regulations. Check the federal law (see other posting).

Immunity for Misuse of E85

E85 sellers, suppliers, distributors, manufacturers, and refiners are immune from civil liability for personal injury or property damage resulting from a person fueling any vehicle with E85 that is not a flexible fuel vehicle. This includes any vehicle equipped to operate when fueled entirely with E85. This immunity does not apply if an E85 seller, supplier, distributor, manufacturer, or refiner does not display all E85 warning signs that federal or state laws require. (Reference Indiana Code 34-30-24)

 

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/6032

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what "personal injury or property damage resulting from a person fueling any vehicle with E85 that is not a flexible fuel vehicle" are you expecting to see?

 

I'll take my chances.

Edited by TD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good thing and minimizes the chicanery of oil industry per their attempts to sabotage ethanol use. Meaning if they could phony up a miss fuel case and make national news to intimidate the independent gas station owners, that would be devastating to ethanol sales growth. Earlier in ethanol's history, opponents tried just this with a national sad story of some soccer Mom who miss fueled and suffered a check engine light. The story of tow truck and mechanics that had to drain her tank change the fuel lines, filter, and fuel pump as one can't be to safe. The repair bill breached $1,000. So, in total, the miss leading information together with the hack job of reporting were solely for the purpose of hurting ethanol image. Much of the antics of this particular person probably motivated for the purpose of financial gain or repay. Take that motivation away and the consumer not so enraged and the matter becomes s just a minor problem that one can easily navigate or avoided in the first place. Just drive your car and quite using such a large percentage of E85 fuel in a non-flex vehicle. By the way I just finished a trip and was able to compare non flex Ford focus MPG with high level ethanol blend. Every thing was as equal as best could be determined. E10 tankful averaved 37.4 Mpg as compared to 50:50 blend of E10 and E85 achieving 36.2 Mpg. Same cruise control setting and full tank refills. Tank fulls of E10 in between to moderate the blend. Fill up was from very low level tanks.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be getting a 30% spreads with E85 if the ethanol processor delivered directly to retail. Typical distribution of ethanol, through fuel blenders do nothing to lower the E85 price as they pocket the RIN for the petrol side. Petrol, then complains of the cost. It's like writing a check to your utility for wind power, then receiving a rebate back for the difference back. If you only inform the public of the RIN cost, it is dishonest. The RIN is suppose to cost the petrol side. It's an incentive to get more ethanol into the fuel distribution channels. Petrol have found a loophole and like to pretend they are a victim to public. This gets short circuited if the ethanol plant distribut a complete E85 fuel. When the ethanol plant delivers directly to retail the distribution system is more efficient and the consumer gets the RIN value. Ethanol becomes a bargain. Ethanol processors are waking up to this. Since they get the same spread, some processors don't care as they can sell all of their ethanol to petrol. You see the problem. With the traditional distribution, ethanol is totally reliant on the good faith of petrol. If the RFS law changed they would be out of business tomorrow as petrol wouldn't buy anything over what they would be need for E10. Petrol probably would threaten the ethanol industry (produced it themselves) if ethanol industry acted up. They have the industry under control if they control the distribution. When the ethanol industry controls the distribution both the industry and the consumer wins.

 

E85 through the petrol industry is a joke. E85 through the ethanol industry is a incredible value. The petrol industry is very susceptible to consumers learning the true value of ethanol. As long as they control the distribution that true value is hidden. Also, as they control the blend stock, they can play games with taking the ethanol advantage away and make it a petrol advantage. If they are forced to sell E15 they will have a blend stock that will eliminate the true value of the additional ethanol component. They will sell inferior fuel as a base stock that could only become fuel with the addition of ethanol to improve. They will complain, this cheap base stock is expensive and sell it at a higher premium to rob ethanol, as well, of any advantage per customer perception. EPA is playing along with this game as they will not remove the vapor pressure requirement. Keeping E15 to this benchmark does little for the environment, but will guarantee that petrol will "develop" a blend stock to sabotage the fuel. If ethanol delivered their fuel directly to the fuel station, it would be much more difficult for petrol to play these games. The only way to beat the EPA and Petrol collusion is to motivate legislatures to pass laws. I think this could be accomplished on state or federal level.  Other than that, best to work the direct distribution channel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With my E85 conversion kit E50-E55/60 range is the best bang for buck fueling in regards to MPG comparison and a 12-15% or greater price spread.

 

That's about what I'd expect with a stock (non-FF) tune. You'd need more timing (and higher compression) to do much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the ethanol blends. Given the EPA won't budge on the 1 psi waiver for E15. You notice that E30 RVP comes in at the 7 PSI limit? So, what is this gamesmanship the regulators are playing? If in fact, given the EPA is required by law to lower pollution including GW emissions, what's the holdup? The agency has good data on the Brazilian ethanol fuel blends. They know this country has not experienced any damage of converter or pollution control equipment? Even to E100 blend and hydrous blends.  The data shows all of Brazil's emissions drop with ethanol blends, except for aldehyde. But, that emission is just a factor of short warm up and proper tuning. This emission appears not to be a priority and can be tuned or engineered to minimize. Meaning automotive hasn't worked or addressed the problem yet.

 

Look at current status of minimizing GW emissions. All analysis projects the U.S. will miss agreed upon international targets in the future as the battery car sales and power grid improvements will be slow coming. Our transportation sector has steadily increased to number one emission. Most argue that biofuel will be needed. Currently, our regulator actions result in throttling the biofuel capacity to just maintain as compared to the historical fast pace of increased production. This slow growth phase is an regulated phenomena and not based upon actual or real constrictions. It appears the intended result is to halt ethanol growth per compromise with petrol.

 

What would an independent EPA shoot for? First, given that our entire transportation fleet utilizes fossil fuel, anything that improves this fleet would indeed be a powerful solution. They know this and work to improve CAFE numbers upon new vehicle production. Interestingly, ethanol has even a more powerful solution that is not properly given credit for. Add it up:

 

1. The entire fleet of spark ignition engines can benefit per lower emissions upon higher additions of ethanol fuel, including four cycle small engines. Wow, that is a huge base to work upon. Just improving 1% would make an incredible difference. Do you really think holding this improvement hostage to a possible miss fuel for the small two cycle engine family is a worthy holdup? Making a big issue of this is just dishonest.

 

2. Consider vapor emissions are huge and what I read the current number one emission when tabulated up from all the sources. Given this and the huge present mass of use of fossil fuel, you would expect the regulators would do everything they could to decrease vapor pressure of fuel. You would expect them to start with E30 blends and place maximum incentives to automotive market to develop E100 vehicles. E100 fuel would be a tremendous reduction in vapor emissions starting with E30 blends. It appears all of our four cycle engine fleet has absolutely no issue with E30 fuel.   

 

3. Diesel fuel has very unhealthy emissions and require expensive pollution control equipment, so why does the EPA have a CAFE system to maximize MPG? MPG is not a factor of emissions, maybe indirectly, but not a good scale. The scale should be carbon emission including other emissions per mile. Isn't this what they desire? CAFE regs work to advantage heavy carbon fuels. That is unless you phony up some battery car regs per artificial calculations based on efficiency of an electric motor. One can easily see the bias at work here.

 

4. Ethanol fuel has been utilized, proven, and field tested per the E85 Cummings engine to be a potent heavy truck fuel. The engine actually proved E85 power, cost, and emissions to be a much superior choice. It beat gasoline for MPG and matched diesel for cost per mile with a smaller engine that required typical automotive catalytic pollution control equipment. The E85 engine was a much less costly engine as compared to diesel. Emissions were much less. So, folks we have a solution here and a path forward to drastically lower cost and decrease emissions. Ethanol, nowadays, is cheaper fuel than gasoline, especially when it is delivered directly to gas stations by ethanol processors. So, the Cummings analysis of achieving lower costs is more valid today. The lower emissions are more valid today given the steep reduction of carbon emissions per improved technology of ethanol processors. We can fully expect cellulosic ethanol to drop to negative carbon in the future. 

 

5. Small four cycles engines are a big polluter of air emissions. They can run E30 fuel per reading of private citizens experience. Their reports claim no change required and longevity of engine isn't harmed. Since they are low compression engines, running lean will produce minimal NOx. So, all in all when one evaluates the small engine concerns, it is a concern of fuel variability. It's not ethanol, it's a new fuel what ever that fuel is and the variability therein. So, one would think a decision of high blend ethanol given the emission improvement would be the standard fuel for small engines. A rock solid formulation for small engine manufactures to adjust to and re-calibrate to. The fuel would improve their engine performance and will emit less pollution. Two cycle engines would have a better lifespan, more power, and much less air pollution as compared to present day.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to explain some comments on my prior post. 

 

RVP measure and concerns are due to harmful vapor emissions, within the portion of car emissions. Not a comparison to all emissions in general.

 

Also, the work to improve diesel pollution continues at a rapid pace. Much more so that gasoline. The modern day engine has 1/10 the emissions, but at best barely equivalent to gasoline. Problem is the growing health concern of PM 2.5 emission that the cleaner diesel are more productive within. The U.S. has gone through an expensive diesel fuel cleanup that removes a large portion of the harmful sulfur. The modern diesel will achieve higher engine efficiency as compared to gasoline and as a result less CO2 per mile traveled. But, the Cummings E85 engine experienced proved ethanol can match and surpass the best of diesel and do so with much less harmful pollution. Ethanol has exact chemistry and eliminates the nasty tailings of fossil fuel emissions. The Cummings report described a tested jump in combustion efficiency per E100 fuel. Also, the summarized opinion of test Engineers concluded, that more efficiency could be produced if the engine had a turbo after cooler for intake air. Also, the test engine lacked sufficient strength to maximize the E85 fuel horsepower production. Since their engine already surpassed diesel efficiency, this would be an additional factor for the ethanol solution to high torque needs at low cost and less harmful emission. What most analysts like to forget when comparing carbon efficiency, is that although ethanol fuel has carbon, the carbon rating or actual carbon emission is but a fraction. This fraction is upon a decreasing slope as opposed to diesel increasing slope. 

 

Also, I just read an analysis of foreign state of pollution within gasoline and diesel engines. The majority of our earth's ICE operators have no exemplary control of their emissions as compared to U.S. The have high sulfur diesel fuel and very little emission control of their engines. They often burn leaded gasoline. So, when EPA phonies up a ILU penalty for ethanol per some imagined factor are they then forgetting the huge potential to moderate the fossil fuel harm of developing countries? That, if ethanol can be produced within these countries the steep decrease in emissions that will naturally be produced. This appears to be a very large factor of environmental health and economic health of poor nations. It may just be the impact of ethanol upon international markets may be a very large win for the environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...