Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Myth: 15% Ethanol Fuel Will Destroy My Engine [View all]Bill USA
(6,436 posts)23. NREL review of E15 effects on MY2001 and later cars finds no meaningful differences with E10
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/10/20131013-nrel.html
A review of 43 studies of the effects of E15 (15% ethanol blends) on Model Year 2001 and newer cars by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that the studies reviewed showed no meaningful differences between E15 and E10 in any performance category.
~~
~~
The main conclusions of NRELs analysis were:
Several of the studies tested relatively large numbers of engines or vehicles, including the Coordinating Research Councils (CRC) engine durability study (28 engines); the University of Minnesotas in-use fleet study (80 vehicles); and the US DOEs catalyst durability study (82 vehicles). The data presented in these studies did not show any evidence of deterioration in engine durability or maintenance issues for E15 (or E20) in comparison to E0 and E10 (when tested).
~~
~~
Fuel system and engine durability. The NREL team reviewed 5 studies in this area. Engine and vehicle testing studies included:
CRC engine durability study. This study had concluded that two popular engines used in 2001-2009 model year vehicles experienced mechanical failure when operated on E15. However, the NREL researchers determined, the design and methodology of the study left the results open to a different interpretation than that provided by the study authors because of several factors, including: the leakdown failure criterion is not supported in the scientific or applicable OEM literature; statistical analysis included assumed data for vehicles that had not been tested, and omitted data for a vehicle that was tested; E10 was not used as a control fuel.
The NREL team concluded that when those factors are taken into account, the conclusion that engines will experience mechanical engine failure when operating on E15 is not supported by the data.
(MORE)
LINK TO complete NREL report: http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/b378858ac325c6e165_sgm6bknd4.pdf
A review of 43 studies of the effects of E15 (15% ethanol blends) on Model Year 2001 and newer cars by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that the studies reviewed showed no meaningful differences between E15 and E10 in any performance category.
~~
~~
The main conclusions of NRELs analysis were:
Several of the studies tested relatively large numbers of engines or vehicles, including the Coordinating Research Councils (CRC) engine durability study (28 engines); the University of Minnesotas in-use fleet study (80 vehicles); and the US DOEs catalyst durability study (82 vehicles). The data presented in these studies did not show any evidence of deterioration in engine durability or maintenance issues for E15 (or E20) in comparison to E0 and E10 (when tested).
~~
~~
Fuel system and engine durability. The NREL team reviewed 5 studies in this area. Engine and vehicle testing studies included:
CRC engine durability study. This study had concluded that two popular engines used in 2001-2009 model year vehicles experienced mechanical failure when operated on E15. However, the NREL researchers determined, the design and methodology of the study left the results open to a different interpretation than that provided by the study authors because of several factors, including: the leakdown failure criterion is not supported in the scientific or applicable OEM literature; statistical analysis included assumed data for vehicles that had not been tested, and omitted data for a vehicle that was tested; E10 was not used as a control fuel.
The NREL team concluded that when those factors are taken into account, the conclusion that engines will experience mechanical engine failure when operating on E15 is not supported by the data.
(MORE)
LINK TO complete NREL report: http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/b378858ac325c6e165_sgm6bknd4.pdf
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
all the detroit car manufacterers make them, but... they make no effort to take advantage of
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#2
No effort at all. In the 1998 Ethanol Vehicle Challenge, 13 college engineering student teams
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#8
we can use methanol & produce it cheaper than ethanol & in enough volume to totally replace gasoline
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#13
alas if we wait for the perfect fuel, or for electrics to save us, the Earth will burn. all we can
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#22
3 MIT scientists went further, Dirctly Injectng ethanol, turbo-charging & downsizing boosted mpg 30%
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#9
NREL review of E15 effects on MY2001 and later cars finds no meaningful differences with E10
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#23
Really....will they pay to overhaul my early 70's and later 40's vehicles...
Historic NY
Oct 2013
#26
do I need to repeat the title of the study for you or 'splain the meaning of '2001' to you?
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#29
all the legitimate research on this shows ethanol is a net energy gainer, unlike gasoline (.81)
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#11
one of the founders i know is an internet software designer billionaire. OF course, at least one of
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#12
Farrell et al found Ethn ENergy balance positive, found Pimentel & Patzek's findings highly dubious
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#20
Here is NREL's 2012 test of vehicles using E0, E10, E15, E20 for 60k, 90k and 120k miles. IF there
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#24
GW is on course to start feeding on itself. I believe the best we can do is mitigate the disaster
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#18
Elsie seems to be showing an unusual reaction to that new corn Monsanto requires me to grow for feed
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#28
nothing legitimate in CRCs 'study' adding sulfuric acid to E20 saying it was E15, it's FRAUD
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#19
in wet milling Sulfuric acid is used but this is b4 centrifuging & distillation after fermentation
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#32
it's way out.....pHe not less than 6.5 per astm D-6423 (ASTM D 4806 refers to D6423)
Bill USA
Oct 2013
#36