The pumped-up ethanol gasoline debate

By JOHN STANCAVAGE World Business Editor
Published: 6/27/2010
Last Modified: 6/28/2010

My wife has what could admirably be called a discerning personality. Once she decides to go in a certain direction, there are no exceptions or gray areas.

That, for example, means all vegetables, no meat or fish. Ever.

And no refined sugar, almost ever.

These two personal standards have been in place for more than a decade. Lately, though, there's been an addition.

Gasoline, no ethanol. Not quite ever, but almost.

She has become fond of a small independent gas station near the house and another on the south end of downtown. Both are run by hard-working immigrants. They call her by name and generally fawn over her.

Similar to the meat decision, I have not adopted her "pure gas" habit yet. With gasoline prices so high, I'll ask, do you really need to pay 10 cents to 15 cents more for undiluted gasoline than the stuff down the street?

"I get better gas mileage and my car picks up better," is her frequent answer.

It must be said that she drives a newer European car that has a six-cylinder fuel-injected engine. In contrast, I have an older model with four modest cylinders.

Since I sometimes feel like sticking my feet through the floor like Fred Flintstone when I'm merging into expressway traffic, I've given this "pure" gas thing a try a few times.

For me, though, the results are subtle. I don't suddenly find myself bumping into the rear spoiler of the Porsche in front of me.

Yet, she's hooked, as are many
Click here to find out more!
others.

The relatively rare gas stations that offer ethanol-free fuel do so proudly, displaying banners touting their "100 percent gasoline."

Indeed, the issue of ethanol in gasoline has become a hot-button issue — one that's likely to buzz even louder soon.

The Environmental Protection Agency was supposed to decide this month whether to increase the maximum blend allowed at the pump from 10 percent to 15 percent. But it recently delayed the decision until fall.

Proponents say raising the percentage will help reduce dependence on foreign oil while supporting the agriculture industry.

Critics, however, contend the blend may hurt older cars and might not work well in smaller engines such as those in lawn mowers. They also complain that increased harvesting of corn, where a lot of ethanol comes from, could mean more fossil fuels being burned by farmers. And, higher corn prices would boost grocery bills.

Motor club AAA recently addressed the issue in the May/June edition of the group's Home & Away magazine. It noted that many of the charges by both sides remain in dispute, and outlined tests that AAA itself is conducting.

AAA spokesman Chuck Mai told me last week that the response from readers has been almost unprecedented. "We hit a nerve," he said.

Chuck sent me some of the comments. Here's a few:

* "I have a 2002 Ford and my mileage will drop from 23 mpg to 19 when I use E10. I also own a 1996 Honda and with real gas I get 26 mpg and with E10 I get 21. That's not a maybe, that's fact."


* "Just wanted to say that ethanol is not good for car engines. To raise it to 15 would make it worse. My information comes from an auto mechanic who indicates E15 would cause more engine damage."


* "There are volumes of data on ethanol and there is no consensus at this time."


* "If EPA would subsidize me millions of dollars, maybe I'd peddle that E-stuff. Let a product stand on its own merit in the marketplace."

AAA says it will send the results of its ethanol field tests to the EPA soon. In particular, it is looking at mileage, emissions and any effects on engines from E15 blends.

In the meantime, I'm going to sit on the fence and watch this debate as I wait for more data. Unless, of course, I'm asked to fill up the tank of my wife's car.

Sorry, ethanol industry, I'm sure you understand.

source: tulsaworld