E.P.A. Expects to Raise Amount of Ethanol 15%

There are really two threads here

The EPA is required to approve or deny applications for new fuel formulations in the US. This is to ensure a new formulation doesn't cause additional pollution. The Agribiz folks applied, with obvious reasons, for approval to sell 15% ethanol gas in the US. The EPA approves or denies the new fuel on the basis of how clean it burns versus existing formulations. The 15% stuff is therefore not a new pollution fighting initiative by the EPA. You can be sure they do not care about the impact on older vehicles.

Then there is the separate issue of Euro5 emissions standards in the future for motorcycles. Who knows what additional restrictions CARB will throw in the mix? Plug in bikes would seem to be looming large in our future. Or a direct injection turbodiesel might be simpler technologically than a gasohol bike?

Here's an interesting quote:

Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, says, just because the agency can approve higher ethanol content doesn't mean anybody is forced to sell it. Refiners are saying they won't put more ethanol into their gasoline unless Congress gives them protection from potential lawsuits from motorists or consumers who claim the ethanol hurt their engines.

The key legal issue for EPA is whether the higher ethanol content, which causes engines to run hotter, could damage emission controls and increase air pollution. EPA has options including approving E15 for all automobiles, boats and equipment or allowing E15 only for automobiles made since 2004, which have more advanced engines and emission systems.


From today's Wall Street Journal. A perfect example how politically motivated bureaucrats in the EPA make policies within the broad range of US laws without any direct involvement by our elected representatives.

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.

An "endangerment" finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions -- even if Congress doesn't pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

This dangerous pollutant (carbon dioxide) is a necessary component for all human life. Plant require carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis Carbon dioxide levels increase and decrease with natural warming and cooling periods in our earth five thousand million year old history.

If " According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a traditional gas powered lawn mower produces as much air pollution as 43 new cars each being driven 12,000 miles.", imagine how much pollution the farm equipment used to produce the corn produces. The farm equipment is many times larger, used for many more hours and much of it is older and more polluting.

Ken

Yes, it could be argued that a motorcycle engine (and to the EPA that's all cycle engines) may run dirtier than a car or SUV engine, per mile. But, a cycle engine uses far less fuel per mile. It takes FAR less energy to produce and dispose of a cycle for its useable life. Over its life of production and use, I'd bet any cycle requires less overall energy than does a car or SUV or truck. Perhaps a better statement is total environmental impact rather than fuel or emissions impact.

Now, if every cycle owner and rider in the country REALLY used their motorcycles as much as they could, then I say yes the cycles that do run dirtier are contributing to greater emissions. But really, most riders use their bikes more for recreation than anything else, and as such rack up minimal miles.

But to push 15% Ethanol on the market is bull. That is being done more by those lobbying for Ethanol (those being the Ethanol producers) than by any green thinking politicians. Everyone knows Ethanol produces less performance and mileage per gallon than gasoline. So we end up paying up front for a lesser fuel, and then paying more again because we have to buy more of it for the same miles we'd have covered on gasoline.

Ethanol is also known to create fuel and engine problems that gasoline does not cause. So we'd end up paying more again.

Andy VH said:

Yes, it could be argued that a motorcycle engine (and to the EPA that's all cycle engines) may run dirtier than a car or SUV engine, per mile. But, a cycle engine uses far less fuel per mile. It takes FAR less energy to produce and dispose of a cycle for its useable life. Over its life of production and use, I'd bet any cycle requires less overall energy than does a car or SUV or truck. Perhaps a better statement is total environmental impact rather than fuel or emissions impact.

Click to expand...

The other day, I rode with four others to our weekly Wednesday ROMEO (Retired Old Motorcyclists Eating Out) lunch here in Kansas, since we received 10 inches of snow earlier in the week.

The car was a late-model Buick that averaged 28 mpg. We usually ride as a group on four motorcycles that average about 40 mpg. If you combine four bikes, we average 10 mpg to get us to our location when we ride. When you consider the fact this newer Buick is well within the EPA emissions standards carrying hundreds of pounds of emission control devices, it average less than .05 HC per mile. Our individual bikes average 16-32 times that emission standard. With four bikes, we're emitting 64-128 times the emissions per mile compared to the car. If you buy into the anthropogenic global warming science debate, these facts should bother you. Frankly, I don't.

Its only a matter of time before the EPA gets around to further restricting emissions on motorcycles. They fully understand what I explained above, and plan on using these facts for further regulating motorcycle emissions. Since they no longer do a cost benefits analysis on the cost of regulations to the industry, we have to rely on AMA and motorcycle industry groups to lobby on our behalf in order to put enough political pressure on politicians to save our way of life. If you're on the sidelines on this issue, don't be surprised if the only version of motorcycle available in the future, plugs into a socket in your garage.

kenk said:

When you consider the fact this newer Buick is well within the EPA emissions standards carrying hundreds of pounds of emission control devices, it average less than .05 HC per mile. Our individual bikes average 16-32 times that emission standard. With four bikes, we're emitting 64-128 times the emissions per mile compared to the car.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a succinct statement of a technical issue

kenk said:

we have to rely on AMA and motorcycle industry groups to lobby on our behalf in order to put enough political pressure on politicians to save our way of life.

Click to expand...

You protect your way of life with lawyers and politicians. I'll try my luck with science and technology. BMW has been advertising the advantages of a flat torque curve for years. You can't get a flatter torque characteristic than an electric motor.

36654 said:

Sounds like a succinct statement of a technical issue



You protect your way of life with lawyers and politicians. I'll try my luck with science and technology. BMW has been advertising the advantages of a flat torque curve for years. You can't get a flatter torque characteristic than an electric motor.

Click to expand...

Sounds great...if your science is back to the future. Sitting in the Eisenhower Presidential Museum is an electric car made almost 100 years ago that belonged to the rich parents of Mamie Eisenhower. It went 100 miles between charge. Not much has changed.

That electric motor is charged by some form of energy. It's usually coal energy (50% of America's Power). The Nickel batteries are highly toxic and require the creation of a superfund cleanup site to mine. One accident and your family is covered with toxic Nickel along with a hazardous spill. Do you ever wonder why there is no government information of the dangers of toxic nickel batteries? Doesn't sound like good technology, and it's certainly not based on good science. Follow the money.

kenk said:

Sounds great...if your science is back to the future. Sitting in the Eisenhower Presidential Museum is an electric car made almost 100 years ago that belonged to the rich parents of Mamie Eisenhower. It went 100 miles between charge. Not much has changed.

That electric motor is charged by some form of energy. It's usually coal energy (50% of America's Power). The Nickel batteries are highly toxic and require the creation of a superfund cleanup site to mine. One accident and your family is covered with toxic Nickel along with a hazardous spill. Do you ever wonder why there is no government information of the dangers of toxic nickel batteries? Doesn't sound like good technology, and it's certainly not based on good science. Follow the money.

Click to expand...

Run to your politicians............ They'll happily take your vote and money. A few empty campaign lines and they got you.

You can't out-Chinese the Chinese. Protecting the same old technology will only result the lowest cost producer dominating the markets.

So, what are you protecting? The opportunity for all Americans to work at Chinese, Vietnamese or Bangladesh pay scales.