The EPA is a federal agency, part of the executive branch. It was established by statute signed into law by none other than Richard M. Nixon. It's general mission is governed by statutes enacted by Congress. For the most part, the specifics of how it carries out that mission are governed by regulations that it enacts pursuant to those statutes. Sometimes Congress decides that it knows best and will pass statutes telling the EPA how to fulfill its mission. This E85, E10, E15 stuff might be an example of that sort of Congressional meddling. I don't know the details on that.

Two things are interesting to note about the EPA:

First, Richard Nixon proposed it and signed the law creating it, which is a striking example of how far to the right this country has shifted. Nixon couldn't get elected these days - too liberal. If you said that back in 1970, people would think you were crazy.

Second, for all of its screw ups, and this ethanol thing seems to qualify as a screw up, we have seen great improvement in the environment under its watch.

I have heard that the BTU does go down by that much. However, what I don't know is whether that is fact that has been proven by random samplings or just a theoretical guess? Have they included other factors like the lubricity agents that might be affecting something? That is what I don't know. Also, when refining it to that, is that a best case scenario with the best equipment or do they consider the state of the equipment that is generally being used?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Other than a slight reduction in fuel economy, 10% ethanol does not do any of that. On the other hand, gas line anti-freeze or "dry gas" is no longer needed.

Is that supposed to be meaningful that it was signed into law by Nixon?

IOW, yes, it takes it's marching orders from Congress.

Well, if Nixon signed it who are we to argue? Hardly worth mentioning.

Have we now? In the short term, we have seen that you have to use more fuel to get the same mileage or power or whatever you call it. Ethanol has lower BTU. Also, because of the push for corn, we know that it has greatly upset the fertilizer market. What is the long term effect by leaning towards corn? Not sure yet. Also, isn't ethanol energy negative from the standpoint it takes more to get the same power from ethanol or is that carbon negative?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Why would that not be meaningful?Yes, although the idea is to have Congress establish the mission and the agency to fill in the details about how to execute the mission. If the EPA establishes a regulation that Congress doesn't like, Congress can overrule it by passing a new statute.You lost me on this one. You don't find it interesting that a Republican president would propose such an expansion of the Federal government?I'm no expert, but everything you said about ethanol sounds right to me. The EPA is far from perfect, but I think it has done more good than bad.

Unless it was done by EO, it has to pass thru congress. Congress takes an idea, tacks on their crap, perverts it and hands it up for signature. Either Nixon tosses out the baby with the bath water or keeps everything. No line item veto.

IOW, a mouthpiece. It has no independent authority.

You really believe the Republican speeches about reduction in govt? Really? How about the Democrat speeches? Them too? Ever heard of the word "gullible"? Govts say much and it sounds good. They believe in few of what they said. They do even fewer unless there is some gain in it for them. So no, not interested who was in congress and the monkey's signature on the document.

Pardon my skepticism but I wouldn't be so sure if you weigh all the factors in. In certain actions, yes. Govts achieve the stated goals. However, what side effects, and there are always side effects, might not be considered. A crude example is this. If you save $100, is it good? Sure. But if you saved $100 but further down the line create other problems with $300, it might not be so good. I doubt anyone has done all the proper work to check out all the side effects of each item in the bill to create the EPA and all the side effects of each action. However, if the direction the country is headed is an indicator, I suspect the results will be no different.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I work with people who are required to test every delivery of diesel before it is put in service. There is plenty of actual data on the heat rate of ULSD. In some cases, seal materials do have to be changed to prevent leaking. Each diesel engine manufacturer had it's own recommendations. I have not seen any significant problems.

Well, I suppose if it has been tested and the consensus is that it is really about 1-2% loss, between LSD and ULSD, I suppose I will accept that. Hard to argue against an actual test.

Do they say why? There was a theory that the LSD impregnates the rubber seals and when leeched out from the ULSD due to osmosis and it achieves a sulfur equilibrium in the material and ULSD, it causes a shrinkage and hence the leak.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I don't know the chemistry of the interations between the fuel and the seal materials, I am not a chemist. This document includes some additional info, but it's just a summary:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/2006/in200622.pdf

Perhaps true, but what about E15?

For that matter, I'm thinking it would depend on the particular vehicle or piece of equipment what effect E10 would have. Note the first few posts in this thread, relating that people are already having equipment failure issues with just E10.

And apparently upping it to 15% has an even stronger possibility of causing issues, hence the EPA saying only 2006 and newer vehicles initially would be required to use it, and they're seeking "input" from the OEM's as to whether or not earlier vehicles could handle it without problems.

What's your definition of "slight" reduction in fuel economy? My parents and friends back in NC have complained of as much as a 3 to 4 mpg drop on their vehicles since this E10 nonsense started.

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

Not true. It could also be by regulation established by the EPA.Nixon? What does he have to do with E15?Wrong. It has all sorts of authority. Congress can take the authority away, but until then the EPA has bunches of authority.Heck no, but today's GOP generally does not expand government by establishing new agencies with names like "Environmental Protection Agency." They do it through all sorts of other ways.Really? You don't think that we have made progress with the environment over the past 40 years?

What about E15? Most, if not all, car makers say E15 is OK.
I rarely believe any mileage claims, down, up or sideways because the computation is not done accurately. Fuel economy should drop by about 3 1/2 %. If your friends lose 3-4 mpg then their cars are getting 85 mpg or more. I simply don't believe them or you.

While I am strongly against Ethanol as a fuel here in the US, at least the Corn based that is/was the rage.

I thought that the addition of Ethanol as an additive IS beneficial to most vehicles, those not affected by rotting of rubber parts.
The ethanol is used to take some of the place of lead and PBE(?) that were both found to be very harmful too the environment. It though it helped prevent knock type problems.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was my understanding.

The current EPA increase proposed does not make sense though, except to support the Ethanol industry. Which our fantastic forward thinking government threw billions of dollars at with little to show.

Although our politicians did do well with the huge campaign contributions from the ethanol industry. So I guess some good came out of it .

__________________
KLK, MCSE

1990 500SL

I was always taught to respect my elders.
I don't have to respect too many people anymore.

Nah at least not in CT, my trucks mileage hasn't dropped off yet. But I suspect anytime, when I fill up next week I bet I see it.

Winter fuel is HORRIBLE, I lose almost 2mpg.

__________________
2006 CL500
2009 C300 4matic
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Unless Nixon established the EPA via EO, it went thru congress. There might be a different way to do it but those are the 2 common ways.

Again, I was talking about the formation of the EPA.

Technically, you are right. It has power. Practically, as long as Congress give it power and can take it away, it has no real power of it's own. Make a move congress doesn't like, you are gone. What real power is there?

Point is, I don't believe anything said by a politician of ANY stripe. Only a fool does.

Not sure what your point is. I said "when you weigh all factors in". Gain in 1 point is not good enough if the gain comes at the expense of a lot more.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow