Pushing ethanol is either ignorance or intentional damage to the health and well being of the people of the world. It will reduce food supplies and raise the price of transportation and those food supplies.
I have heard you should not attribute to malice what simple stupidity or incompetence can explain.
I no longer accept that.
When the brown stuff in the field oozes up between my toes I know I am barefoot and not paying attention to where I am walking.
There is too much brown stuff to attribute to stupidity or incompetence.
Here is an ethanol story.
Part one: the farmer.
It is a nice day, it is spring, the chance of frost is past, and it is time to plant crops.
The farmer fills the fuel tank on his tractor with gas or diesel.
He then prepares his field for planting.
A day or two passes.
The farmer fills the fuel tank on his tractor with gas or diesel. He then plants his field with corn.
Some more days go by.
The farmer fills the fuel tank on his tractor with gas or diesel. He then fertilizes his corn field.
Time goes by and the corn he planted sprouts.
The farmer fills the fuel tank on his tractor with gas or diesel. He then cultivates his corn field.
Time goes by and the corn grows high and it is time to harvest.
The farmer fills the fuel tank on his tractor with gas or diesel. Unless he has a harvester; if he has a harvester the farmer fills the fuel tank on his harvester with gas or diesel and he harvests his corn.
The farmer sells his corn on the open market.
Counting on government subsidies, an ethanol producer bids up the price and buys the corn.
The corn bought for ethanol is not available for food.
The supply of corn for food goes down; the price of corn for food goes up.
Part two: the plot sickens.
The ethanol producer transports the corn to his plant.
He goes through the fermentation process; which requires a lot of heat and a lot of water.
The heat comes from natural gas or the electric power grid.
The water would have been better used elsewhere.
He has a lot of waste plant fiber that has very little food value which he sells to feed lots.
He sells the ethanol to oil companies who are forced by the government to use it to dilute their gasoline.
The consumer buys this diluted gasoline.
If the consumer was getting 20 miles per gallon from pure gasoline; he will now be getting 20% less mileage than he did on that pure gasoline.
He will have to buy more of this diluted gasoline to get home.
He has now bought about 1.5 gallons of fuel to go as far as 1 gallon of gas would have taken him.
If you do the math; pure gasoline would have been cheaper.
Ethanol will destroy the fiberglass fuel tanks in boats.
Your lawn mower will not run for long on ethanol polluted gasoline.
Ethanol has a “shelf live” of 90 days.
It takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to equal the power of 1 gallon of gasoline.
Using a source of food to power a vehicle is at the very least depraved indifference.
If you add up the points above you will see that it takes more than a gallon of gas (or diesel) to make a gallon of ethanol.
You will not get as much out of ethanol as you put into it.
The government gets taxes on each gallon of fuel you buy; if they can force you to buy more gallons they get more taxes.
This is the third time in my lifetime that ethanol has been pushed by the government.
It is still as criminally stupid now as it was the first time.
To end this story, consider this.
Our vehicle would have gone 20 miles on a gallon of gasoline.
We used 1.5 gallons of ethanol to go 20 miles.
It took 1.5 gallons of gasoline to make that gallon of ethanol.
That means it took 1.5 gallons of gasoline AND 1.5 gallons of ethanol to go 20 miles.
That is three gallons.
The government got taxes on 3 gallons of fuel.
The bottom line is that someone is going hungry because of some uniCORN dream that has no basis in reality and is total economic nonsense.
@johngalt #50:
I see limited use for subsidies, much like affirmative action, as an incentive to get capital invested in new, expensive technology. Of course, in the same manner, subsidies assume a life of their own and never seem to go away, long after they have any reasonable use, except they are gimmies for people wealthy enough to afford political protection for their investment.
@johngalt:
There are a couple of E85 forums and there are people converting non flex fuel cars over to E85. So it can’t be that hard. Not to mention that there are EPA approved conversions for some of the more popular fleet vehicles.
I have always heard it said to be about $100 dollars per vehicle. That is from the factory. It is fairly expensive for you or me to convert one because we have to buy parts (such as fuel injectors) to replace existing parts. For the manufacturers, it costs little to specify different injectors at the time the engine is built. Most of the cost to manufacturers probably comes from having to certify for emissions compliance.
@mus302: Every quarter, I fill up the tank on my 2004 Saturn Vue 2/3 gasoline with 10% ethanol and 1/3 E85. It cleans out my injectors and improves my mileage. No noticeable adverse effects yet
@Ditto:
You must not keep up much with this issue. I do and there aren’t many enviro groups that still like ethanol. Look up indirect land use change. Basically they think that using an acre of corn to produce ethanol causes a farmer somewhere else in the world to cut down an acre of rainforest to make up for the lost corn.
You must not keep up much with autos either. Ricardo is parts supplier to the auto manufacturers.
At one time the link at the bottom took you to a copy of the study but doesn’t appear to working now. Our government in action. And I hope you aren’t calling me a liberal.
Ballooned and burst. From the amount of pressure that can be supplied by a gravity feed system?
That is what happens when you use an unapproved and PROHIBITED fuel. I would have thought that it would be understood that unapproved means prohibited. But anyway, if those same pilots had put diesel into their tanks and had a failure would that mean that we should outlaw diesel?
From the FAA Aviation News May/June 2009
What Stops Me From Using Autogas With
Ethanol?
There are two primary reasons an airplane owner
cannot use autogas with ethanol. For one, the autogas
STCs for general aviation aircraft prohibit the
use of autogas containing ethanol. And, two, it can
be dangerous.
What Do I Do?
Each airplane owner using autogas is respon-
sible for determining that there is no ethanol in the
autogas.
And from an FAA Bulletin…..
SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS
INFORMATION BULLETIN
October 27, 2006
There are two primary sources of automobile
gasoline STCs for general aviation aircraft: the
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and
Petersen Aviation. Neither the EAA STCs, nor
Petersen Aviation STCs, allow the use of
automobile gasoline containing alcohol
(ethanol or methanol). Automobile gasolines
containing MTBE or ETBE are acceptable.
I have little sympathy for this argument considering that in 2006 when I wanted to use E10 I had to search it out. There was one station in my normal route that sold it. It was an independent. I still by all my diesel from them and all my E10 from the second station to start carrying it because I appreciate these two stations for being willing to bring E10 into this area when no one else would.
And the addition of up to 10% ethanol has been part of the ASTM standard for gasoline since the 1980’s. If you have something built since then that won’t run on E10 then you have something that wasn’t designed to run on the fuel specified in the ASTM standard for gasoline. That isn’t a problem of ethanol that is a problem of the manufacturer.
I’ll certainly admit that there are pro-agrobusiness Republicans who support Ethanol.
However you are not stating the whole truth on why some environmentalists have changed their minds on ethanol. The truth is that it was these same people (along with agrobusiness subsidy supporting Republicans,) who made sure that ethanol ended up in our gas. Ethanol was touted for years by Al Gore as an alternative fuel that reduces greenhouse gasses. “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee,” Gore said, “and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.” When he signed-off in support of ethanol, there were many loyal environmentalists who jumped on the pro-ethanol bandwagon. Most of those former supporters who turned against ethanol (after the subsidies were doubled in 2006) do not support the subsidies or the using of a food crop to make it, but many of them indeed still support ethanol-adulterated gasoline as an alternative fuel.
From: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/objects/documents/1819/rfa___public_survey_analysis__gqrr.pdf
“The pro-ethanol majority is big…and broad.
Asked if they favor or oppose continuing to increase use of ethanol, an impressive 59 percent come out in favor, while just 30 percent oppose. Support is even higher (63 percent) among environmentalists*. Men and women, older voters and younger voters, high school educated and college graduates, and voters from all regions in the country support this alternative fuel. Most impressive, though, at a time when Democrats and Republicans cannot seem to agree on anything, they agree on the increased use of ethanol.
* “Environmentalists are defined for the purpose of this survey as voters who either belong or contribute to an
environmental organization; opinion formers are voters who are college educated or better, interested in national
issues and consumers of national news.”
Politician and eco-groups Who are Pro-ethanol:
The Sierra club **
Renewable Fuels Association **
democrats.org **
Environmental and Energy Study Institute **
** (All of these groups still support ethanol-added fuels, but want simply it to be made from cellulose ethanol.
Barack Obama (D)
Rodham Clinton (D)
Mitt Romney (R)
Rudy Giuliani (R)
John McCain (Rino)
Gen. (Retired) Wesley Clark (D) Co chair of the pro-ethanol group Growth Energy
Rep. Jim Nussle, (R-Iowa)
EPA Administrator Lisa Perez Jackson (appointed by Obama)
The EPA in general (Mostly manned as NPR is by pro-Democratic administrators.)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) ***
Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) ***
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) ***
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) ***
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) ***
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) ***
*** Have received notable campaign contributions during the past six years from pro-ethanol companies and interest groups.
Motor-coach RVs are not gravity feed vehicles. They have one fuel pump near the tank, and another near the engine. What I described was exactly what happened to my RV. The rototiller tiller is yes, a gravity feed engine, and as such it’s fuel line was not pressurized. That doesn’t change the fact that ethanol-added fuel severely damaged both engines in very similar manner requiring expensive repairs. The rubber on the tiller hose was dissolved in the same way as the fuel lines on my RV. The gaskets and plastic parts were damaged within the carbs of both, and when the dissolved rubber entered the hot carburetors it coated & clogged them. The alcohol content of 10% ethanol-gas caused enough damage to the RV to require replacement of the carb, both fuel pumps, an all the rubber fuel lines.
Renewable Fuels Association is a pro-ethanol group. I guess from your reply that you didn’t know that they were. I suppose that you are also unaware that when an organization with a predetermined agenda (bias) hires someone to perform a study for them, that said studies usually tend to support the position of the people who paid for the study.
Ricardo, performed a study for this pro-ethanol group, which clearly displays an obvious pro-ethanol-gasoline bias to the study. They studied only the “highest volume sales” to determine the “top selling platforms” (aka “chassis”) of 6 manufacturers, to be the focus of the study. (Does this include all vehicles manufactured between 1994-2000? Clearly not. For all we know, they may have only examined the engineering of a total of six vehicles chassis.)
“…the conclusion of the Ricardo study is that the adoption of E15 as the blend limit for standard US pump grades of gasoline should not adversely affect vehicles manufactured between 1994 and 2000 in terms of their performance and durability based on normal specifications and usage profile.”
Again, inconclusive.“…should not” is not the same as will not. What testing did they do? We don’t know. Did it involve scientific testing of components with long term exposure to 10% & 15% ethanol-fuel? Again we don’t know. did they test aged components or new components.? Well, there is no indication they did any scientific forensic style testing. Did they look at actual maintenance records, or only the engineering specs? We don’t know.
How very selfish of you. You have verified to us that you don’t care if anyone else suffers or what ethanol related engine damage costs them, so long as you have your precious E10 for your yuppie-mobile.
To paraphrase mus302: “I bought a brand new E10 ready vehicle but neglected to check beforehand if there were any E10 gas stations locally. So, now I say; screw all you without E10 ready cars!!!”
@Ditto:
Not sure what you mean by subsidies doubled in 2006. The per gallons subsidy in 2006 was 51 cents. It had been at a high of 54 cents prior and is now 45 cents.
Name some of those enviro groups that support ethanol. That survey is almost 3 years old and a lot can change in that length of time and besides that is polling individual opinions and not the official positions of the various environmental groups.
So you are complaining about ethanol damaging your rototiller while describing what it did to your RV, which you never mentioned until now. Did the fuel you use adhere to the ASTM standard for gasoline. If so I must conclude that your rototiller and RV weren’t designed to run on ASTM spec gasoline.
RFA? Yep I know they are pro-ethanol. Actually I thought that you probably didn’t know since in your post you claimed them to be an eco group. Remember this….
But let’s look at how this has all progressed. First you claim that I posted no proof. When I pointed out that I had indeed posted a link to the Ricardo press release you replied…
“One press release of one study made by a pro-renewable energy group with a predetermined bias is not conclusive proof.”
In my book Ricardo was the one that made the study. So I think I can safely say I stand by my assertion that this study was not made by a pro-renewable energy group. But a pro-renewable energy group did pay at least part of the bill to have it made.
Of course it is easy to assume bias to discredit any opposing viewpoint. And so far all you have offered up in rebuttal is anecdotal evidence in the form of an ever expanding list of your own damaged vehicles.
Do you need me to look up a link to the study or would rather just keep guessing as to how the study was conducted. Personally if I had that many questions about something I would have googled it.
Yuppie-mobile? Good one. You haven’t been paying much attention to what I have posted. My only vehicle is a diesel and the gasoline I use goes into the mowers and equipment. Remember the picture I posted?
All cars produced since the mid 1980s have been E10 compatible. How many are there that aren’t E10 compatible anymore really? And even for those cars produced before that E10 isn’t as big of a deal of what you would probably make it out to be. Kettering University did a study on the effects of E10 on classic cars. I would post a link but I am pretty sure that you won’t read it and will most likely just respond that Kettering University is named after Charles Kettering and he used to refer to ethanol as the fuel of the future. So obviously it must be biased.
Do you feel any particular sympathy for people that have cars that were designed to run on leaded gasoline and now have to use unleaded? Let me guess, no, not as long as you have your precious unleaded gasoline.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/bootleggers-baptists-a-welcome-correction/ “[Cannon] is no doubt right that environmentalists and agribusiness worked together to promote government subsidies to ethanol through about 2006. But by 2007 (when the ethanol mandate was doubled) the environmentalists had dropped out of the pro-ethanol coalition, to be replaced by national-security hawks!”
I already named a few enviro-extremists/groups who support ethanol: The Sierra Club, Renewable Fuels Association, Al Gore & President Barak Obama.
I did mention my RV previously. You just missed it.
The study was made by a “parts supplier” (Ricardo, which is more specifically an engineering and consulting group) as specifically requisitioned to by a pro-renewable energy group (Renewable Fuels Association). In the world of political issues, it is well accepted that statistical “studies” ordered for one side of a political argument by one of it’s support groups, generally support the biased positions held by them. (For examples of this same kind of biased research: see FA on “global warming”.)
Samuel Clemens – “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'”
“An old jest runs to the effect that there are three degrees of comparison among liars. There are liars, there are outrageous liars, and there are scientific experts. This has lately been adapted to throw dirt upon statistics. There are three degrees of comparison, it is said, in lying. There are lies, there are outrageous lies, and there are statistics.” Robert Giffen speaking at a meeting of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science at Hobart in January 1892).
From the Ricardo study: “The EPA emissions certification database was interrogated to calculate the long term deterioration factors in order to determine the expected tailpipe emissions levels that the vehicles in the study period would currently produce (in 2010). Since all of the vehicles have exceeded their useful life (100k miles or 10 years), they are no longer under legislative emissions control.”
Considering that the EPA emissions certification database is made up of a vehicles that pass emissions testing, the database wouldn’t include vehicles that did not pass EPA testing (because the vehicles are required to pass before getting certified for registration). Nor would the database supply data on specifically what components had to be replaced or repaired for said vehicles to pass, as automotive repair shops do not pass such information on to the EPA. Only equipment available in vehicles specifically chosen for the study were acquired and tested.
More from the study “..It was found that none of the physical hardware in the fuel systems was fully compliant with enhanced evaporative emissions legislation. This was evidenced by the absence of engineered quick connects on many of the connections around the fuel tank and vapor lines. Therefore, this sample of vehicle hardware represents the vehicles that are less likely to be tolerant to ethanol blends.”
So, their own study found that some of the hardware would not be able to tolerate ethanol. The study shows no evidence that any long-term examination of hardware exposure to ethanol was made.
Disclaimer in the study: “However, it should be noted that this analysis was focused on vehicles that fall within the normal specifications and usage profile for 1994 to 2000 MY vehicles. Vehicles falling outside these normal ranges do not have predictable reaction effects to the introduction of E15 and are therefore not represented in this study.”
I hold firm in my opinion that the report is inconclusive because it relies only on statistics from a very limited sampling of vehicular chassis, and not on real-world physical scientific laboratory testing of the effects of long-term (beyond “500-hours”) ethanol exposure on vehicle.
Yes, I did you said the following:
You are clearly indicate you were buying E10 for a vehicle that you use. Make up your mind, did you buy E10 for a vehicle or not?
Actually as a classic vehicle enthusiast and owner, I do sympathize.
Hagerty Insurance (the people who funded the Kettering University study): “…However, many of the rubber seals, gaskets, diaphragms and fuel lines used in cars built before the 1980s are known to be incompatible with pure ethanol. What wasn’t known was whether lower concentrations of ethanol would degrade these components and corrode the zinc, brass, lead and aluminum of hard fuel lines, tanks and carburetors.”
Note that the Hagerty funded Kettering study only looked at the effects of E10 on classic vehicles, and not the higher blends. It also ignores the fact that theoretical replacement aftermarket parts for many classic vehicle do not exist. Original spare parts (especially rubber diaphragms,) are often rare or non-existant, and should ethanol create long-term damage to restored vehicles, the costs of repairs could be considerable (if even possible). The public was never informed of the fact that ethanol-laced gasoline might damage their vehicles.
More information on ethanol use from Hagerty Insurance:
@Ditto:
I assume what you are saying is that since the mandate doubled, the production doubled, therefore the subsidies paid out doubled as well. You might want to do a little research on that as it is incorrect. The original RFS was laid out in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT2005) and called for 4 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2006, increasing to an eventual 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. That is normally referred to as RFS1. The RFS was further amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, calling for 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2008 and increasing to 36 billion gallons in 2022. That is normally referred to as RFS2.
Now even though the RFS2 called for much higher levels of ethanol, production was already much higher that required by RFS1. In 2006, 4 billion gallons were required and 4.9 billion gallons were actually produced. That is due to high oil prices and the phaseout of MTBE, So the mandate doubled beginning in 2008 but production didn’t double from any one year to the next because production was already much above the original mandate.
Well, first off of course the RFA supports ethanol since they do represent the ethanol industry. From their website…
“As the national trade association for the U.S. ethanol industry, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) promotes policies, regulations and research and development initiatives that will lead to the increased production and use of fuel ethanol.”
The Sierra Club is not all that high on ethanol these days. From their website….
“In addition, shifting away from existing biofuels derived from food – corn primarily – is necessary.”
From their PDF file titled ‘Smart Choices for Biofuels’
“Sidebar 2.Why Corn Ethanol Isn’t Necessarily Climate-Friendly”
Al Gore is no longer for ethanol and not an enviro group. Obama is probably still for ethanol but I wouldn’t pin too many hopes on him carrying through.
But if you notice when it comes to environmental groups they are always for technologies that aren’t here yet. They were for ethanol before it was here in any real quantity. Now that ethanol is here in quantity they are against it and for something else that is just over the horizon. Bet ya when that technology that is just over the horizon gets here in quantity they will be against it then too.
You did. My mistake.
So studies ordered by a group “generally” support the biased position held by them. Generally isn’t a very definitive term. I guess the only unbiased studies are performed by groups that could care less about the outcome. Of course if they could care less about the outcome then they probably wouldn’t care enough to produce the study in the first place.
I have no idea what is in the EPA certification database. But I assume that they were looking to see how the emissions profile changed as the vehicle aged. In other words in year 1 it put out 10 parts per million of a certain pollutant, In year 2 it put 12 parts per million of the same pollutant. Year 3, 14 parts per million and so on. That is just a guess.
Actually the study said “less likely to be tolerant to ethanol” and you read that to be “would not be able to tolerate ethanol”. Bit of a leap there.
This is one of many studies that have been or will be done on this subject. Maybe you will like one of them better. The state of Minnesota has an E20 mandate. Of course they can’t move to it until the EPA approves the use of E20 but because of that mandate they have done quite a bit of testing of E20.
Unless mowers, string trimmers, blowers and chainsaws qualify as vehicles, no. I have no vehicle running on E10. But I do use more E10 than most people.
I have been all over Hagerty’s website in the past and that looks like the same information that has been there since before they funded the study.The study was actually published in a Hagerty monthly publication that I don’t get but they did post a press release when the study was completed. Here is part of that press release.
“To summarize, after 1,500 hours of testing (nearly twice the industry standard for such a test) fuel lines didn’t leak, carburetors didn’t disintegrate and fuel pumps did not fail. Although the study showed minor build up and corrosion in the carburetors and fuel pumps while using E10 as opposed to E0, the general consensus is that with minor updates and proper maintenance E10 will not prevent the ability to enjoy your collector car.”
You act like this is news to you. Welcome to the world of politics.
Yeah, well good luck with that. You use more ethanol than “most people?” clearly an impossible to prove claim.
NPR: Corn ethanol is presently the only commercially viable means of ethanol fuel production. It’s made by distilling fermented simple sugars derived from corn. The problem is, it’s still an environmentally taxing process. Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming and Energy Program, and Elizabeth Marshall, senior economist at the World Resources Institute:
“With ethanol, the devil is in the details,” says Dan Becker. “There are ways of making it that are quite clean, but that’s not the way we’re doing it.”
NPR: Becker backs cellulosic ethanol. If researchers can streamline what’s still an experimental process, then ethanol could be made from a variety of plant materials.
Hagerty has not rescinded it, so I will accept that they still hold to that faq. especially as I have already seen the damage caused by E10 for myself, and paid for it. Maybe you can afford the hundreds or thousands of dollors in disposable income away to modify a vehicle just so that it can run ethanol-laced fuel, or to pay to repair the damage caused, but millions of lower income owners of older vehicle certainly do not in the midst of a reccession.
Not a leap at all. Although you continue to stay in denial. Many people have indeed experienced damaged equipment, (as I did in exactly the same manner as described by the Hagerty faq). I’m thankful that I never made the mistake of putting E10 in any of my classic vehicles.
The fact that Ethanol can and does damage some fuel system equipment has been recognized by other experts:
“”We are dedicated to helping the public understand how the ever increasing use of ethanol in fuel can negatively impact their power equipment and engines,” said Brian O’Neil, Chief Business Development Officer for B3C Fuel Solutions. “Often, when an engine is running rough, or will not start, the problems can be traced back to issues caused by ethanol-blended fuels. We want to ensure that the public is aware of these issues, and that they know there are solutions for these problems.”
“Ethanol attracts water and separates (phase separation) in fuel to create a corrosive mixture that settles on the bottom of fuel tanks. Over time, ethanol-blended gasoline can corrode metal fuel components and deteriorate plastic & rubber fuel system components. This especially occurs in older power equipment and engines not designed to tolerate ethanol-blended fuels. In addition, oxygen in ethanol-blended fuels causes gasoline to decay faster leaving varnish and sludge deposits over time. These, and other ethanol-blended fuel related issues, may result in engines that will not start or that run poorly and may even ruin engines and other fuel system components. In extreme circumstances an engine running on phase separated fuel may run out of control posing serious danger to the operator. ”
Popular Mechanics: “Can ethanol really do damage to an engine? Yes. Here’s how.”
Effects of Ethanol:
“Pure ethanol can damage cars that aren’t designed to handle it. On its own, the grain alcohol can cause galvanic corrosion, swelling of rubber components and rust or corrosion on certain metals, because of its ability to hold water. Flexible-fuel vehicles incorporate materials that can handle the 85 percent ethanol—E85—mixture sold at some gas stations. The E10 mixture is now standard at over 90 percent of gas stations in the U.S., and some states even mandate its use by law.”
“Ethanol at lower concentrations can still affect the air-fuel ratio of your car. Most modern engine-management systems (EMS) can compensate for small changes in the fuel mixture, but the EMS on older cars can get confused and trigger the Check Engine light.”
David Summers, a biofuels researcher at Missouri University of Science and Technology in Rolla, said that while ethanol was cheaper to produce than pure gasoline because it is subsidized, vehicles may also get fewer miles to the gallon.
“It was the wonder fuel to get us out of trouble — and it won’t,” he said.
When you add in its tendency to damage some engines, many mechanics and green fuel advocates are asking whether ethanol is worth it.
“There is no massive PR machine working to point out the downsides of ethanol, like there is on the other side,” said Christa Westerberg, a lawyer in Stoughton, Wis., who has represented opponents of ethanol plants in Wisconsin.
It is possible to “technically” claim this only if the collector does as Hagerty suggests and modify the vehicle by installing modern fuel system equipment that is designed to survive ethanol exposure. You clearly don’t understand the meaning of “restored” as it is understood by classic car collectors. Ethanol is not compatible with restored vehicles. And as Hagerty has said, it will still add to the associated costs for collectors and to the need for additional maintenance. I don’t think that the problems caused by ethanol, nor the wanton wastefulness of production, make it worth the minuscule effect it has on the environment. Many on the left have been trying various schemes to get older, less fuel efficient vehicles off the road for decades, (to the detriment of Americans who depend on these vehicles and classic car collectors,) and clearly ethanol is a sneaky way to accomplish this and screw over the public, while the political left classic-car-scrappers and receivers of ethanol subsidies laugh.
Here’s a well written read on the subject of ethanolhttp://autofuelstc.com/autofuelstc/pa/ethanol2.html