Ethanol in Motorcycles – The Challenge Continues
This week, the American Motorcyclist Association told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that it should stop increasing the amount of required ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply. The AMA continued and proposed that the EPA lower the Renewable Volume Obligations for 2017.
Many in the powersports world find ethanol to be a hot-button issue and that claim is supported by the 18,162 signatures collected from motorcyclists, ATV and other motor sports enthusiasts. The concern is that with increased ethanol levels, it will void warranties, and damage various components.
There is validity to the claims – ethanol based fuels, for example, can react poorly with composite type gas tanks and cause irreparable damage. The same damaging reactions can occur to other components throughout a machine, thus causing quite a bit of alarm throughout the community. There is also evidence that higher-ethanol fuel mixtures sap performance and could increase the risk of misfueling.
Read More Motorcycle Legislation News
The source of all the despair surrounding fuel is due to the EPA’s proposed Renewable Volume Obligations, which are part of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard. This standard calls for 18.8 billion gallons of biofuel for 2017, up from the 18.11 billion gallons this year. In 2015, the obligations were at 16.93 billion gallons.
“The current proposed volumes would greatly increase the risk of inadvertent misfueling for motorcyclists and ATV owners by forcing the widespread availability of higher-ethanol fuel blends that are unsafe for these vehicles, such as E15,” said Wayne Allard, AMA vice president of government relations. “And the EPA has proposed the increases, despite its acknowledgement that the market can’t absorb the higher ethanol production rates.”
The proposed percentage standards call for renewable fuel to compose 10.44 percent of the transportation fuel pool in 2017. What is most commonly found at the pump in the US is E10, an ethanol based fuel that has 10% ethanol by volume.
In order to meet the standards that it has set forth, the EPA is pushing for E15, which has an ethanol concentration of 15% by volume, to be used in model year 2001 and newer vehicles, as well as expanded use of the E85 in flex-fuel vehicles. When designed, manufacturers did not intend the nearly 22 million motorcycles and ATV’s in the US to make use of E15 or higher ethanol blends. Those of you who are familiar with performance tuning know that this could create many adverse conditions – none bode well for an engine.
“The AMA is fighting to ensure a safe fuel supply for motorcyclists, ATV riders and users of other small engines,” Allard said. “As the volume obligations continue to rise, even as fuel consumption declines or remains the same, the risk of inadvertent misfueling increases dramatically. The EPA has made it illegal for motorcyclists and ATV riders to use E15 fuel, yet shows little interest in the misfueling issue.”
The AMA states that, “The least the EPA could do is initiate a public information campaign on the dangers of misfueling, what fuel blend to select at the pump and what to do if a higher-ethanol blend gets into the vehicle tank.” If the E15 proposal succeeds, this could cause damage to millions of vehicles out on the consumer market, and cost owners when trying to repair or update their machines to use these fuel mixtures effectively.
Congress is being encouraged to address the situation with a long-term fix to the situation. All individuals, regardless of their political leanings, are being urged to visit the AMA Action Center and find out how to contact their state representatives about this issue.
API propaganda is working well in the good ol’ USA.
In Brazil, the motorcycles use not a measly 10 or 15% ethanol in their common gasoline, but a whopping 27%. They do have limited models of flex fuel motorcycles that can use E100 or 100% ethanol, but I am speaking of their non flex fuel motorcycles which burn the common gasoline, motorcycles which come from the very same manufacturers we have in the US.
Argentina and Paraguay are headed to those high level blends in 2017 themselves. The API does not put out any negative ethanol propaganda there evidentially.
E15 has been in the marketplace for over four years and is available in more than 20 states. There has not been on case of misfueling in a motorcycle, older car, or jerry can for smaller engines at home. In turn, there has also not been one case of reported engine damage or warranty claim issues. Not one. AMA continues to ignore reality. As E15 and E85 availability is increasing, so is the availability of E0 (ethanol-free). The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which they are fighting at the will of the oil companies, allows great flexibility. E0 and E10 are going to remain, but for those that wish to use more of a lower cost, renewable, cleaner-burning, domestically-produced fuel, they shouldn’t have that choice eliminated just because AMA is trying to garner memberships. The ethanol industry has offered to work with AMA repeatedly, but they have not been interested in the very thing they claim they are all about here. As a fellow rider, there are two simple things you can do to lower your exposure. Read your owner’s manuals, and know what your manufacturer allows. Next, read the fuel dispenser labels that are required on all fuels above 10% ethanol. Those two things will eliminate any issue with misfueling, and should ultimately eliminate the concern of any motorcycle rider. Ride safe, fuel right!
Robert White, who — according to his LinkedIn page — “Leads the effort to increase the availability and consumption of higher blends of ethanol” for the Renewable Fuels Association, has made three rather astounding claims in his post. At the nonprofit American Motorcyclist Association, whose mission is to promote the motorcycle lifestyle and protect the future or motorcycling, we ask: Where is Mr. White getting his information?
First, Mr. White says that “there has also not been one case of reported engine damage or warranty claim issues.” We beg to differ. AMA staff has received numerous complaints from members about problems caused by ethanol in their fuel. Some of them have even experienced significant problems with E10 fuel. Mr. White refuses to acknowledge the tremendous potential for misfueling that exists with modern motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles because none of them are certified by their manufacturers to use E15 fuel. Furthermore, millions of older motorcycles on the road were never designed to hold up to the damage that ethanol can wreak on fuel and engine system components.
Second, Mr. White states: “As E15 and E85 availability is increasing, so is the availability of E0 (ethanol-free).” According to the Renewable Fuel Standard volume requirements released by the Environmental Protection Agency in November 2015, the amount of E0 will go from 9.2 billion gallons in 2015 to just 130 million gallons in 2016. In effect, this means that millions of motorcyclists seeking fuel with no ethanol will be forced to buy expensive fuel treatments to prevent ethanol-related damage.
Third, Mr. White claims that “the ethanol industry has offered to work with AMA repeatedly…” We are not aware of any outreach by the RFA or Mr. White to the AMA.
Mr. White naively claims that “two things will eliminate any issue with misfueling… read your owner’s manuals… read the fuel dispenser labels…” Of course these are important. But labeling alone is insufficient. The Association for Consumer Research reports that while “warning labels are effective in attracting consumers’ attention… warning labels were not effective in influencing consumers’ perceptions of hazards and risks (see http://www.acrwebsite.org/web/acr-content/705/do-warning-labels-really-work.aspx).
We also know from a 2016 survey by Harris Poll on behalf of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute that “66 percent of Americans will use the least expensive grade of gasoline whenever possible…” and that “60 percent of Americans assume that any gas that is sold at a gas station must be safe for all of their vehicles or power equipment…” (see http://opei.org/new-opei-survey-shows-education-sorely-lacking-on-higher-ethanol-fuel-blends/).
Clearly misfueling is a realistic concern if the EPA continues to force more ethanol into the nation’s fuel supply, and this is why the AMA has urged the EPA to initiate an extensive consumer awareness campaign to ensure that consumers have adequate information on the dangers of unsafe E15 fuel for the 22 million motorcycles and ATVs currently in operation across the nation.
Pete terHorst
AMA spokesperson
The Ethanol Lobby. And the Renewable fuels Association has fought vary hard not to warranty Ethanol.
one guys experience with ethanol in his motorcycle. Interesting that his experience is similar to what mercury marine has been saying. Aromatics are worse than the ethanol
http://www.phaedrus.me/id38.html
Our current process of making ethanol out of corn has worse environmental impact than burning fossil fuels when you take into account the land, water, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizer, CO2 released from soil during tillage, and farm run-off involved in growing corn, transporting it, and fermenting it for ethanol production. So, while I agree with you that there should be regulations in place preventing oil companies from adding aromatics to gasoline, I do not think that it is an excuse to pollute our waterways with corn farm runoff .
According to the Water USGS dot gov site, it takes 110 gallons of water to grow 1 pound of corn. And, it takes about 20 pounds of corn to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. So, that means it takes 2.200 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. Yes, much of the corn grown in the US is not irrigated, but a large percentage is still irrigated, and corn production uses more irrigation water in the US than any other crop. Do search for USDA Corn Remains King for source.
We grow the very same amount of corn with or without ethanol. We grew 84.6 million acres of corn in 1976 before ethanol and high fructose corn syrup existed and 88 million acres last year with record amounts of ethanol produced and HFCS hidden in a majority of processed food.
Believe it or not, we grew more corn acres in the 1920s, 1930s, and the 1940s than we do now with 1932 the greatest at >113 million acres.
Getting rid of ethanol will not cure any of industrial agriculture’s problems one iota since it has nothing to do with it. Corn if anything stops runoff because it is living longer in the season and leaves a lot more organic matter in the soil. We used more fertilizer in 1980 than today before ethanol existed. We tilled more acres before ethanol as well.
Corn ethanol is a value added product of feed. Cattle do not digest carbohydrates well and waste them out their rear ends in the manure. Corn ethanol only uses carbohydrates and leaves the feed(i.e. the proteins, fats, and minerals) in tact, even enhanced to be a healthier, more concentrated, and more productive feed.
We used more irrigation water in 1980 before ethanol than what we use today(fertilizer too).
>85% of corn is rain fed and only 15% is irrigated. Since only 40% of corn feed is value added into ethanol that means only 6% of corn value added into ethanol is irrigated at most.
I say at most since some could be of human varieties of corn since they are a higher value crop than the majority feed kind and much more likely to be irrigated(an expensive practice).
Of the irrigated crops on US cropland corn is only >>>>25%<<<<(links below). 75% is other crops and hay land. Side note: (Not included is the very largest irrigated crop that is not on cropland, it is American lawns and golf courses which are the very largest "crop").
If we take that 25% times 6% we get 1.5%. If we assume that these acres would go unirrigated (which I wouldn't assume but will for this example), then if your wish were granted and a magic wand was waived and ethanol disappeared, you would drop irrigation usage by just 1.5% at best.
Without ethanol, the cheapest, cleanest, most nontoxic, and concentrated octane boosters around, oil companies would need to refine gasoline further and add more expensive, toxic and carcinogenic BTX(benzene, toluene, and xylene) along with other toxic aromatics to get it to usable grade for cars and motorcycles.
We would pay more for gasoline and more for health care as more exposure to these toxins takes its natural toll on humanity. But we could possibly(not probably) stop 1.5% of our current irrigation use.
Corn acres link:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/521667/corndatatable.htm
Irrigation link:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/irrigation-water-use/background.aspx
Roughly 90 million acres of corn was planted in 2016, and at current average of 168 bushels per acre, works out to approximately 15 billion bushels of corn that will be produced in 2016. In 1976 farmers were only getting about 88 bushels per acre average, which is less than half of current average yield of about 168 bushels per acre. You mentioned that in 1976 farmers planted 84.6 millions acres of corn in 1976, but I am showing that they planted 71.5 million acres from my research. Nevertheless, even if using your 84.6 million acres number at 88 bushels per acre, which was the average yield in 1976, that would mean farmers grew about 7.4 billion bushels in 1976, which is less than half of the corn currently being grown. So, we are growing quite a bit more corn now than we did in 1976, and the majority of that additional corn being grown is being used for ethanol feed-stock. You are conflating acreage grown with total amount of corn grown.
Getting rid of ethanol will reduce corn farm runoff by over 30%. I realize that the land currently being used to grow corn for ethanol would still be farmed, but it would most likely be planted with another crop because of the reduced demand for corn from elimination of ethanol mandates/subsides in our hypothetical scenario. So, if the ethanol mandates/subsides were ended I would like to see new mandates that require 30% or more of the acres of cropland that were being used to grow corn for ethanol be turned into managed pasture land that is not overgrazed, and/or be farmed with cover crops in a no-till no herbicide fashion, like using cattle to stomp down the cover crop, or using a roller crimper to roll down cover crop, as that would greatly reduce run-off.
I agree with you that cows do not digest corn well, but I disagree that the solution is to grow even more corn and turn it into ethanol and then feed the cows the ethanol byprodct. I think the best way to feed cows is how TED talk speaker Gabe Brown does at his operation. He plants nitrogen fixing cover crops before his cash crop, which he allows the cattle to graze in high numbers in small area, and then moves the cattle around so they don’t eat all of the cover crop. It’s important to always have grown cover on the grown at all time to reduce soil erosion and runoff. He has an automated rope fencing system that moves the cattle around to different areas before they over-graze any one spot. This method of farming and livestock production requires a lot less inputs than convention factory farming. I agree that much of the corn grown the US is not irrigated, but corn production accounted for roughly 25 percent of total U.S. irrigated acreage harvested in 2012. So, there would be a reduction of roughly 10% of our current irrigated acreage if ethanol subsides were eliminate considering that roughly 40% of corn currently grown is being used to make ethanol. And, just because rain water is free doesn’t mean it is not a valuable resource that should be wasted on ethanol production, a process that has worse environmental impact than burning fossil fuels.
I am not suggesting that we entirely quite making ethanol. I am only suggesting that the government only allow ethanol to be added to gasoline when that ethanol is produced in a manner that has less environmental impact than burning gasoline, and unfortunately making ethanol from corn is not an example of that. Nevertheless, I would like to see some of the taxpayer dollars that are currently ending up in the hand of corn farmers and pesticide companies to instead be put towards research in making ethanol in a manner that does not waste so much water, fertilizer, herbicide, or result in farm runoff.
I have a paradox for you to solve since you think corn is grown for ethanol rather than a value added product of feed corn.
In 2007 we had planted 93.6 million acres of corn and 88 million acres last year with 2.3 times the ethanol production. (mandate increased 3 times as much, but was exceeded in 2007)
Did we have 2.3 times more vegetarians from 2007 to 2015?
How can we make that much more ethanol with less corn planted?
What Gabe Brown is for cover crops, David Blume is for ethanol. He is a permaculturalist and you might enjoy him as much as Gabe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-iWgbWiP48
There you go again conflating acres of corn planted with pounds of corn grown. I have a suggestion for you. Every time you get the urge to quote acres of corn planted in a particular year please include the pounds of corn harvested in that year as well, and you will find that these supposed paradoxes you keep encountering disappear, and that growing corn for ethanol is contributing significantly to our herbicide, water, pesticide, fungicide usage, as well as farm runoff..
Also, you never did address your thoughts on my proposed changes to the ethanol mandate, adding the following requirements for ethanol feed-stock crops.
no till
no herbicides
no pesticides,
no fungicides
no irrigation
no fertilizer
no runoff
Do you think these are good requirements. If not why?
We used more fertilizer and more irrigation in 1980 before ethanol than today even if corn yields are up now.
In 2007 we had 13037.87 million bushels of corn produced and 13601.198 million bushels produced last year with an ethanol mandate that was 3.2 times as much.
Since you think corn is exclusively used for ethanol production rather than a value add product of feed corn, and even believe that for every percent of ethanol not produced will mean that much corn will not be planted.
How then do you explain the paradox of a 319% increase in ethanol mandates from 2007 with only a 4.3% increase in corn produced from 2007?
I hope that helps you see how ending ethanol will not end corn acres.
I also do hope you get a chance to see David Blume speak in that video, he speaks of the productivity of distillers grain vs straight corn you will be amazed with. He thinks cows are not meant to eat corn(nor distillers grain necessarily). He was also into eco agriculture before it was cool.
Wow, you really have problem conflating issues. The fact that farming practices improve over time , and that farmers have figured out how to use less fertilizer while growing more corn since 1980, has nothing to do with the fact that growing corn to produce ethanol has worse environmental impact than burning fossil fuels when accounting for water, pesticide, herbicide, farm run-off, etc.
I do not think that corn is exclusively used for ethanol. Only 40% is grown for ethanol production, and most of what’s left is used as animal feed. Did you know that growing corn/soy to feed to animals is one of the most water/resource intensive methods of food prostitution known to man. For instance, did you know that it takes over 1,500 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of beef. when you account for the water used to grow the corn/soy fed to the cow Not to mention all of the herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc. The only government subsidesI I oppose more than biofuel subside are livestock and agricultural subsides which are usually given in the form of subsidized crop insurance. I have no problem with livestock production, but considering that it is the most water/resource intensive method of food production known to man, I do not think that it is wise for the government to subsides the practice.
So, what do you think about changing the ethanol mandate to include adding the following requirements for ethanol feed-stock crops?
no till
no herbicides
no pesticides,
no fungicides
no irrigation
no fertilizer
no runoff
My 1995 Ultra Glide was damaged by E10. It damaged the carburetor and caused the fuel petcock to fail. you could see where the seals were corroded by the E10. They had to replaced with ethanol resistant parts. For about a year I was unable to find any non-ethanol gas; now there are several options which is fortunate for me. My truck is E85 flex fuel compatible. With non-ethanol gas I get 24 mpg on the highway and 18 around town, on E-10 I get 19 highway making the same exact trips over a 30 day period and 14 around town, again over a 30 day period making the same trips. On a road trip from Idaho to Maryland I ran E85 on 4 tanks of gas, I averaged 15 to 16 mpg highway, as soon as I filled up with non-ethanol my mileage jumped back over 20 mpg. I kept the speed right around 65 mph for both types of gas. Even assuming there were possible altitude and weather differences the huge drop is incontrovertible. Ethanol is not a good substitute for internal combustion, LPG/NG is better for the engines and just as clean burning as E85.