AutoblogGreen

Stupid Iowans.
The label is vague enough already.

Reply

There is no need to provide a warning label if there is no risk of damage to the vehicle. However, it's up to the ethanol and auto industries to provide consumers with official confirmation that their specific model and year is compatible with E10 blends.

Regular unleaded costs ~$2.90 a gallon in Iowa right now, so at ~$3.00 the ethanol-free high octane premium fuel costs ~3.4% more. Using premium fuel in an engine designed for regular unleaded does not improve fuel economy. However, ethanol only contains 70% as much energy by volume as gasoline, so an E10 blend contains 3% less energy per gallon - i.e. fuel economy is 3% worse. From the consumer's perspective, the two fuel grades therefore deliver virtually identical fuel cost per mile.

Depending on whose study you believe, corn ethanol requires almost as much or more fossil fuel energy to produce as the product contains. Therefore, corn ethanol blends don't do much for GHG emissions nor for national energy security - in fact, it may make things worse.

That leaves local jobs and state tax revenue as the only cogent - but powerful - arguments for Iowans to fill up on E10 rather than premium gasoline. Of course, Sen. Kibbie wants out-of-state motorists to also buy E10, but maybe it isn't currently in their interest to do so. That's because their federal taxes are funding hefty subsidies, without which the price-per-mile parity at Iowa pumps would not be possible in the first place.

Note that in Europe, the biofuel content of a blend is never advertised because politicians pander even more to the farm lobby. There is currently a big row in Germany over the number of legacy vehicles that could not tolerate a switch from E5 to E10 that is planned for 2010. Ethanol is currently made there from locally grown sugar beets or wheat(!) or else imported from tropical countries, some of which have clear-cut rain forest land to make room for energy crops. This practice results in a large net release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Biofuels only make environmental/strategic sense if they contain substantially more energy than is invested in their production, no forests are cut down to make that possible and, there is no significant impact on food prices. While the notion of renewable fuels is fundamentally a good one, most of what is produced worldwide right now does not meet the above criteria for sustainability. Ergo, politicians ought not to endorse biofuels too strongly until second-generation production techniques become technologically and economically viable at industrial scales. Of course, they still do because all they really care about is votes.

Reply

The fact that 10% ethanol is safe for ALMOST all cars should be enough require the sign. If it can't go in any vehicle, it needs a sign.

Reply

What is the deal in Iowa? Only 87AKI has 10% ethanol?

I wouldn't mind of mid-grade had 5% ethanol, IF the AKI was raised from 89 to 90.

Same for 'high test' If it has 5% ethanol, then make it 92, 10%-93AKI.

The president of the Iowa senate should be thrown out on his ass!

Reply

Lol, if you can't sell Ethanol in Iowa....

http://greyfalcon.net/iowa2
http://greyfalcon.net/iowa

Reply

Gee whiz, if you have to hide the truth from consumers to get them to buy your product, I must question the viability of the product. If you can't get people in "Ioway" to buy a corn based fuel, then why would you expect folks just passing through to buy the fuel? I will be reaching retiremnt age in a few years, but at the rate politicians are driving up prices for everything prison is becoming a viable retirement option.

Reply