Problems Plague U.S. Flex-Fuel Fleet [Using More, Not Less Fossil Fuel]

Washpost ^ | 12/7/08 | Kimberly Kindy and Dan Keating

[freespirited]

The federal government has invested billions of dollars over the past 16 years, building a fleet of 112,000 alternative-fuel vehicles to serve as a model for a national movement away from fossil fuels.

But the costly effort to put more workers into vehicles powered by ethanol and other fuel alternatives has been fraught with problems, many of them caused by buying vehicles before fuel stations were in place to support them ...

"I call it the 'Field of Dreams' plan. If you buy them, they will come," said Wayne Corey, vehicle operations manager with the U.S. Postal Service. "It hasn't happened."

Under a mandate from Congress, federal agencies have gradually increased their fleets of alternative-fuel vehicles, a majority of them "flex-fuel," capable of running on either gasoline or ethanol-based E85 fuel. But many of the vehicles were sent to locations hundreds of miles from any alternative fueling sites ...

As a result, more than 92 percent of the fuel used in the government's alternative-fuel fleet continues to be standard gasoline. A 2005 law -- meant to align the vehicles with alternative-fuel stations -- now requires agencies to seek waivers when a vehicle is more than five miles or 15 minutes from an ethanol pump.

The latest generations of alternative vehicles have compounded the problem. Often, the vehicles come only with larger engines than the ones they replaced in the fleet. Consequently, the federal program -- known as EPAct -- has sometimes increased gasoline consumption and emission rates, the opposite of what was intended...

The Postal Service illustrates the problem. It estimates that its 37,000 newer alternative-fuel delivery vans, which can run on high-grade ethanol, consumed 1.5 million additional gallons of gasoline last fiscal year because of the larger engines.

[freespirited]

The Postal Service illustrates the problem. It estimates that its 37,000 newer alternative-fuel delivery vans, which can run on high-grade ethanol, consumed 1.5 million additional gallons of gasoline last fiscal year because of the larger engines.

Maybe this explains the last increase in the price of a stamp. ;-)

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Just goes to show the efficiency of central planning and how it trumps competitive markets every time. ;>)

[xcamel]

Hate to say it...

“No Shirt, Shilock”

[Nathan Zachary]

The problem of these “flex fuel” vehicles is that they ARE flex fuel vehicles. They could be so much more efficient if the engines were made to burn E85 only.

It’s such a waste to burn ethanol in a low compression engine designed to burn crappy gas that starts pinging as soon as you step on the gas.

There is no need for ‘flex fuel’ vehicles, just keep ethanol blends below 25% in gasoline vehicles. At those ratio’s there is an actual benefit in increased performance, it boosts the octane rating of gasoline and burns cleaner.

E85 is basically pure ethanol, denatured as required by law. You need high compression engines to take advantage of ethanols properties. Otherwise you are just wasting fuel.

[twoputt]

Why does this not surprise me?

[Mark was here]

E85 is basically pure ethanol, denatured as required by law. You need high compression engines to take advantage of ethanols properties. Otherwise you are just wasting fuel.

The fact is that when they poison the alcohol they turn it from a high value commodity to a lower value one. It is nuts. Who purposely lowers the value of their product? It is like a chief in a restaurant burning the food. They should sell the stuff un-poisoned. They will sell more of it.

[Secret Agent Man]

Paging Captain Obvious, .....

This is no surprise to me. Ethanol has less energy than gas. You put ethanol in with gas, you go less far on a tankful. Generally mileage decrease is whatever percentage of ethanol they put in with the gas. We have a 10% mix where I am, and I have noticed (when I could get the good gas) it was about a 10% decrease in driving distance with ethanol gas.

And then, if you put it in a vehicle with a bigger engine that is less efficient to begin with, it has to work harder and run hotter and be even less efficient than before.

[HardStarboard]

>>>You need high compression engines to take advantage of ethanols properties.<<<

I suspect this is BS. My old 1985 BMW M-6 with a worked over engine at 11/1 compression and about 325 hp hated even the little bit of ethanol mandated (10%?) for use in gasoline during the winter months in Seattle.

It would be down on both power and mileage. Sold it...mistake!!!

[element92]

ethanol ...

the net effect is to use less oil.

[calex59]

Let us look at the problem. Ethanol reduces mileage for any given car. So if you are using E10 you are actually burning more gas to go the same distance. E85 now is another story but the power is lower so the reason for the bigger engines.

The whole problem is that alternative fuels actually suck. We have plenty of oil, all we have to do is drill for it and drop most of the useless enviro laws that hamper production and make blended fuels mandatory.

Anytime the government meddles in something they f*** it up, it is a given. Only communist and liberal retards think differently.

[calex59]

The fact is that when they poison the alcohol they turn it from a high value commodity to a lower value one. It is nuts. Who purposely lowers the value of their product? It is like a chief in a restaurant burning the food. They should sell the stuff un-poisoned. They will sell more of it.

True, then we could drink it and get some use out of it.

[calex59]

There is no need for ‘flex fuel’ vehicles, just keep ethanol blends below 25% in gasoline vehicles. At those ratio’s there is an actual benefit in increased performance, it boosts the octane rating of gasoline and burns cleaner. E85 is basically pure ethanol, denatured as required by law. You need high compression engines to take advantage of ethanols properties. Otherwise you are just wasting fuel.

Boy are you off. There is no octane boost with E10, there is no performance increase, in fact quite the opposite. Mileage suffers, performance is down and we use more real gas as a results. The point is this. Ethanol is a failure, it uses food to produce fuel. Now if we had no other source of fuel that would be ok, but we have plenty of oil, but it is in the ground and we need to drill for it and get it out. Also the government needs to keep their a** out of private enterprise and let the market do the talking. If they didn't subsidize alcohol for fuel we wouldn't use it, it is too expensive to produce and uses gas and oil to make it. It is a losing proposition.

Get the government out of my life and out of business. Let the market run, someone will produce an alternative fuel when we actually run out of oil and we haven't done that yet.

[Bryanw92]

My company car (I work for the municipal government of a large city) is a flex-fuel Dodge Caravan. The city leans on me heavily to “go green” and drive across town to the city’s only E85 pump when I need to refuel.

I did my part and used the E85 for almost a year. During that time, I had to have the fuel system cleaned twice. Not just the Jiffy Lube-style injector cleaning—but the entire system drained, purged, filters replaced, injectors removed and cleaned, etc.

My van continued to run poorly. On one fill-up I recorded my mileage and on the next trip to the pump, found that I get 10 mpg!!

I switched to gasoline and within two tanks, my van was running great and was getting 18 mpg. The fuel system never was the problem.

I did some checking and discovered what others have already posted here: that it takes 1.5 gallons of E85 to produce the same BTU’s as one gallon of gasoline and a “flex-fuel” vehicle will get poor mileage with E85 due to the low compression.

I reported this information, along with the results of my tests back to the fleet manager and she told me to just put the E85 in once a quarter, so I don’t appear on the list of people that refuse to comply. She admitted that she’s had complaints from every flex-fuel operator in the fleet, but we have to “do our part to be green.”

I haven’t put a drop of E85 in the van in 6 months and I am on the non-compliance list, but no one has said anything to me. I doubt they ever will, because she knows that I know the dirty secret of E85.

[Polybius]

E85 is basically pure ethanol, denatured as required by law. You need high compression engines to take advantage of ethanols properties. Otherwise you are just wasting fuel.

The fact is that when they poison the alcohol they turn it from a high value commodity to a lower value one. It is nuts. Who purposely lowers the value of their product?

E85, as it's name points out, is "only" 85% ethanol or 170 proof.

The only reason that booze (drinkable ethanol) is a "high value commodity" is because the drinkable ethanol supply is purposely limited so that you can't buy Everclear (90% ethanol = 190 proof) for $1.90 per gallon.

If no ethanol were denatured, it would be biologically impossible for the population of the entire United States of America to guzzle enough ethanol to economically keep ethanol prices at a "high value commodity" level by simply drinking it before the entire American population died of acute alcohol inoxication.

[Mark was here]

Think of the export markets, they could help take up the slack. :)

[The Great RJ]

It is a simple matter of chemistry. Ethanol gallon for gallon delivers considerably less energy than the same amount of gasoline. A 10% mix of ethanol and gasoline generates less energy than gasoline alone...resulting in about 10-12% less miles per gallon. Ditto for the 85% ethanol/gasoline mix as it gives even less miles per gallon.

[TexasRepublic]

The government nowadays screws up everything it touches. If you like this, just wait until they interfere with our food supply. For instance, the upcoming EPA tax on cow flatulence. It will put ranchers out of business. Who would have believed such a thing?