Ethanol15 Approved!

[GeoFisher]

The marine industry WILL adjust.

A few years back the EPA passed regulations that were going to make 2 stroke motors obsolete. ALL Marine motors were going to be 4 stroke due to the regulations.

The Marine Industry kicked BUTT and created Optimax and Etec motors to meet those 2006 epa standards and guess what. 2 stroke motors are STILL AROUND.

When it becomes a serious issue, Marine companies will adjust and support ethanol.. Right now, it is a non issue.

Later,

Geo

[artcarney_agr]

A few years back the EPA passed regulations that were going to make 2 stroke motors obsolete. ALL Marine motors were going to be 4 stroke due to the regulations.

The Marine Industry kicked BUTT and created Optimax and Etec motors to meet those 2006 epa standards and guess what. 2 stroke motors are STILL AROUND.

That's kind of what I was referring to. I'm just wondering when the next round of it will happen...and what the issue will be...

Tougher standards on emissions?...ethanol?...fuel efficiency?....noise?

[HURRICANEBOB]

The marine industry WILL adjust.

A few years back the EPA passed regulations that were going to make 2 stroke motors obsolete. ALL Marine motors were going to be 4 stroke due to the regulations.

The Marine Industry kicked BUTT and created Optimax and Etec motors to meet those 2006 epa standards and guess what. 2 stroke motors are STILL AROUND.

When it becomes a serious issue, Marine companies will adjust and support ethanol.. Right now, it is a non issue.

Later,

Geo

I agree, they adapt and overcome. The 2012 Ranger bass boats are supposed to come with an optional spinnaker and mainsail!

[walkeraviator]

These companies look forward quite a bit. I would not be surprised to learn that they are indeed already testing engine designs that will survive the onslaught of gasahol. But I can see the motors getting heavier as it seems aluminum is the metal that is most damaged by the ethanol.... Or am I wrong?

[Rudypoo4444]

You can put away your tin-foil hats, here is some more info for you. Be sure to read the part where the EPA IS NOT mandating the use of E15, but they are allowing it. Some of you are getting worked up over nothing.

http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/home/5...marine-engines

Home
Recent News
Blogs <UL><LI class=item20>Dealer Outlook<LI class=item53>Trade Talk Blog</UL>
Columns
Archives
Calendar of Events
Subscribe <UL><LI class=item28>Subscribe to Trade Only<LI class=item29>Renew Trade Only<LI class=item33>Digital Edition<LI class=item27>Change of Address<LI class=item47>Subscribe to Daily E-newsletter<LI class=item32>Subscribe to Soundings Magazine<LI class=item74>Contact Us</UL>
Advertise
Home
Classifieds
UPDATE: E15 decision excludes marine engines

Posted on October 13, 2010 [COLOR=#000000]ShareThis[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]http://www.fishin.com/images/m_images/rssButton.png[/COLOR] http://www.fishin.com/templates/beez/images/trans.gif http://www.fishin.com/images/M_images/printButton.png

The Environmental Protection Agency today waived a limitation on selling fuel that is more than 10 percent ethanol for model-year 2007 and newer cars and light trucks.
See Related Articles

ValvTect won’t sell E15 at certified marinas
E15 ‘confusion’ is a growing concern
Hearing set on proposed E15 pump-label rule
Industry braces for E15 impact
Voices speak out against E15 approval

The waiver applies to fuel that contains as much as 15 percent ethanol, known as E15. The decision excludes marine engines and other non-road engines, such as those on snowmobiles, lawn and garden equipment, and other small gasoline-powered engines.
Marine industry groups, including the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Marine Retailers Association of America and BoatU.S., have vigorously opposed E15.
The NMMA is concerned that the EPA does not plan to take significant steps to address anticipated problems that involve consumer confusion and the risk of misfueling. The EPA also will not take action to ensure that compatible fuels remain available for the nation's 13 million registered boat owners or the hundreds of millions of owners of gasoline-powered equipment, the association said after the EPA's decision.
"We are extremely disappointed that EPA is allowing this fuel to enter the market without the appropriate scientific data or consumer and environmental safeguards," NMMA president Thom Dammrich said in a statement. "This decision not only adversely impacts marine manufacturers, but creates a significant risk of misfueling for the nation's 66 million boaters, who will be left 'holding the bag' for performance issues and expensive repairs.
"We are astonished that EPA has decided to move forward with a fuel that will increase air pollution and damage hundreds of millions of existing products," he added.
The EPA says it has done vigorous testing to ensure that E15 is safe for cars from model-year 2007 and later and the agency reiterated in a press conference that it was holding off a decision on older-model cars. Also, Gina McCarthy, EPA's assistant administrator for air and radiation, stressed that marine engines and other smaller engines were not included in the waiver.
Also, she said, the waiver is not a mandate to force the use of E15.
"EPA is not requiring the use of E15. This decision is not a mandate," she said. "This decision is about allowing the use of E15."
"Thorough testing has now shown that E15 does not harm emissions-control equipment in newer cars and light trucks," EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a statement. "Wherever sound science and the law support steps to allow more home-grown fuels in America's vehicles, this administration takes those steps."
A decision on the use of E15 in model-year 2001 to 2006 vehicles will be made after the EPA receives the results of additional testing that is expected to be completed in November.
However, no waiver will be granted this year for E15 use in model-year 2000 and older cars and light trucks - or in any motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles or non-road engines - because there are no test data to support such a waiver.
Additionally, steps are being taken to help consumers easily identify the correct fuel for their vehicles and equipment. The EPA is proposing E15 pump-labeling requirements, including a requirement that the fuel industry specify the ethanol content of gasoline sold to retailers.
An E15 petition was submitted in March 2009 to EPA by Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers. In April 2009, EPA sought public comment on the petition and received about 78,000 comments.
The petition was submitted under a Clean Air Act provision that allows the EPA to waive the act's prohibition against the sale of a significantly altered fuel if the petitioner shows that the new fuel will not cause or contribute to the failure of the engine parts that ensure compliance with the act's emissions limits.

[MagikSmallie]

Rudy no one ever said they were MANDATING the use, its the fact that an increased Ethanol content fuel is being ALLOWED. The Ethanol debate is purely political. Ethanol is not nearly as efficeint as gasoline, it takes more energy to create 1 gallon of ethanol than is contained in 1 gallon of ethanol, its a waste of energy just to create it. If you have ever traveled down south in states like SC, FL, GA, TN you will notice that the MAJORITY of the gas pumps have a sign that says "Contains 10% Ethanol" and now they may read 15%. but the point is, is that in some places you can't find regular gas and thats a problem! The politics behind this has to do with Corn and farm subsidies. Its obsurd. If the point of ethanol is to rid ourselves of foreign oil there is a much better and easier solution than ethanol its called domestic drilling!!! But again, no one ever said the EPA was mandating this, its just the fact thats its available and will be widespread and very difficult to get away from, and i think the ill effects of ethanol are obvious and have been well documented both scientifically and well discussed on this thread.

[roadrunner]

Rudy no one ever said they were MANDATING the use, its the fact that an increased Ethanol content fuel is being ALLOWED. The Ethanol debate is purely political. Ethanol is not nearly as efficeint as gasoline, it takes more energy to create 1 gallon of ethanol than is contained in 1 gallon of ethanol, its a waste of energy just to create it. If you have ever traveled down south in states like SC, FL, GA, TN you will notice that the MAJORITY of the gas pumps have a sign that says "Contains 10% Ethanol" and now they may read 15%. but the point is, is that in some places you can't find regular gas and thats a problem! The politics behind this has to do with Corn and farm subsidies. Its obsurd. If the point of ethanol is to rid ourselves of foreign oil there is a much better and easier solution than ethanol its called domestic drilling!!! But again, no one ever said the EPA was mandating this, its just the fact thats its available and will be widespread and very difficult to get away from, and i think the ill effects of ethanol are obvious and have been well documented both scientifically and well discussed on this thread.

I think we are missing a point here Ethanol E 10 is mandated by the fact that oil companies can no longer use the oil based oxygenate it once used because of ground water contamination so it has to use ethanol 10% but now can use 15%.

The problem is hauling, extra pumps mislabeling etc. etc. Ethanol is not a good substitute for replacing foreign oil and that is not what it was meant to do it was meant to burn gasoline cleaner.

As far as farm subsidies they are paying farmers to not produce corn. So I think we would be better off to not pay the farm subsidies and let them grow all the corn they can and turn it to ethanol. When you say it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it replaces you do not take into account that after the alcohol is taken from the corn it is still a valuable feed stock in fact you do not lose hardly any feed stock. They now have a process that takes the corn oil out of the corn before it is processed into alcohol and still do not lose any feed stock. The corn oil is used to make biodiesel.

I do agree drill baby drill.

[kydonky]

[QUOTE=MagikSmallie;it takes more energy to create 1 gallon of ethanol than is contained in 1 gallon of ethanol, its a waste of energy just to create it. [/QUOTE]

Not convinced on the cost of production of ethanol. When gas hit $5.00 a gal about 1 1/2 years ago, T Bone Pickens came out with a full assault on gas companies with a plan for solar, wind and ethanol alternatives. Was ready to act. However, that gas spike was just the final straw to tank the economy. With a credible threat to really confront big oil they rolled the price back to make alternatives not so attractive. T Bone backed off.

But guess what, big oil will put $5.00 gas out there again as soon as they see an opportunity and will not stop at $5 or even $10. They will bleed us for what they can. In 07-08 these companies yearly profits were in the $500 billion (yes billion) range.

So you can't hardly even find E85 east of the Mississippi river. But if you take a drive to Kansas City you will find lots of E85 and it is priced 20-30 cents cheaper than regular gas. So I don't think it costs more to produce or they would be charging more.

I know of at least 10 stations that have gas with no ethanol and I use these in my boat. I burn E10 in my truck (actually seams to run better). Its a 2006 so I may have to think about E15.

So EPA is not mandating etnanol. Its just a domesticly produced fuel source. Domestic drilling is not long term solution....it will run out..still will cost $10. after they get all the permits and approval (then they will jack it up).

Long term is alternate renewable fuels (ethanol for one). Bet I get a flex fuel outboard as my next outboard. My next truck will be flex fuel.


Till then I will be careful filling up my boat.

[MagikSmallie]

I didn't say it costs more to create it, I said it takes more energy to create 1 "unit" of ethanol that is contained in that 1 unit. Therefore, it may be cheaper to create ethanol but it is far less efficient. In other words: more energy is used to grow and process the raw material into ethanol than is contained in the ethanol itself.

[MagikSmallie]

I didn't say it costs more to create it, I said it takes more energy to create 1 "unit" of ethanol that is contained in that 1 unit. Therefore, it may be cheaper to create ethanol but it is far less efficient. In other words: more energy is used to grow and process the raw material into ethanol than is contained in the ethanol itself.

Here is a link from Cornell University to back up my statement.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...hanol.hrs.html

[MagikSmallie]

here are some Findings from the above mentioned Link:

o An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

o The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."

o Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

o Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol."

o The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."

Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile:

o The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.

o If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.

[Moveon]

Amen. I myself like to have clean water to drink and fish from.
If not for agencies like the USEPA or the Board of health we would be living in a cess pool still just like in Mexico or China.

I like to know that somone is watching out for the waters and the fish I catch to eat are safe to eat and not contaminated with toxic metals etc.

There is nothing wrong with protecting the environment that we all have to work and play in.

Kydonky, you hit the nail on the head. Its never black and white like the media or politicians would like you to think. Ethanol can be a problem in some situations but this new fuel isnt going to take over the world, its meant to be an option like anything else. As for those that don't like the EPA all I can say is ignorance!!! Think about the last Olympics in China when they had to shut down all the manufacturing so everyone coming to China could breathe! How about Mexico, theres a reason people say don't drink the water because unlike the U.S. they don't always have safe potable water. As for FISHING what this forum is about, ask your local fishery biologist how important clean water is. Prior to the formation of the EPA and clean water act in 1970 most of the waters in this state were being filled with straight pipes from toilets and whatever the factories wanted to dump in. Take Green River in Hart County, years ago you could see water in multiple colors coming out in places like Hicks Springs from legally dumped wastes from factories in Horse Cave. Those same wastes today are handled as hazardous waste. It always blows me away that outdoorsmen don't like the EPA???