Filed under: Ethanol
Department of Energy not providing any new money for E85 stations in 2007
Flex-fuel vehicles have been available for sale since at least the early 1990s. Few of these hundreds of thousands have ever had a drop of E85 ethanol in their tanks because of lack of availability of the fuel in the United States. In the last few years many new E85 pumps have sprung around the country, but they are still relatively uncommon. In recent months, the effort to expand E85 availability has started to hit some speed bumps.
Recently, Underwriters Labs backed off on certification of complete ethanol compatible fueling systems because they determined that they needed more information about the corrosion resistance of the complete systems. The US Department of Energy has been providing grants to stations to help cover the cost of adding E85 pumps. Last September they gave out $5.4 million to the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition to distribute to stations. Unfortunately, that amount turned out to be the full amount of funds available for the 2006 and 2007 fiscal years and there are now no additional funds available until 2008. NEVC won't be able to help out any additional stations with E85 installations until next year, unless Congress approves additional funding for the program.
[Source: GreenCarCongress]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1985 Gripen 12:02AM (2/20/2007)
I know I'm going to sound pretty cynical, but shouldn't they have been spending that money to install E85 pumps in areas with the highest population densities (the coasts), not the midwestern states, which already have a strong concentration of the pumps? It seems like every few days I was reading about new pumps being installed in Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, etc.
The most densely populated parts of the U.S. (New England, New York, California, etc.) currently have a single E85 pump open to the public (there are no E85 pumps in New England or New York and one in California).
I've mentioned it here before, but I think that the companies and entities which are to benefit most from selling ethanol should fund its distribution fully, not the taxpayers (free market system). So far private investment appears to have simply been hollow promises and "greenwashing". For example, look at this press release announcing a partnership between Chevron, Pacific Ethanol, GM, and the State of California to bring E85 pumps to the State, released over a YEAR ago. How many pumps have been installed in California in the 13 months since this announcement? NONE.
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/environment/news_issues/news/e85_010406.html
As for UL wanting to do a study on the corrosion potential of ethanol in pumping systems, I say let's just skip over ethanol and go straight to biobutanol!!!
Reply
haqitman 12:13AM (2/20/2007)
I thought this article would be of interest -
http://www.idahostatesman.com/101/story/72197.html
The article is
pertinent to this site and I would like someone to post it if they
agree. Pete
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 10:19AM (2/20/2007)
"In recent months, the effort to expand E85 availability has started to hit some speed bumps."
Like the fact that ethanol is a mediocre, uneconomic, and unprofitable fuel -- for which there are at least two superior alternatives, and possibly more. In addition to it's mediocrity, use of the sub-optimal, but Politically Correct, corn feedstock is driving up the cost of some groceries -- which (fortunately, even if for the wrong reasons) renders it a little less Politically Correct.
As for the article link to the Idaho Statesman (per haqitman), the reason that the proposed ethanol production is on hold pending federal loan guarantees is that investors have figured out the true economics of ethanol, and have mostly quit funding it. The lenders have gotten the message that these loans are high risk, so they want the government to assume that risk before committing any money to these money-losers.
It's about time the DOE cut this nonsense, although it may only be a matter of time before the Politically Correct crowd finds a way to override this.
Reply