Ford Endorses Boosting Ethanol Blend to E15
The healthiest U.S. automaker is getting out ahead on higher blends of biofuels.
By Peter Rohde, Editor, Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
March 5, 2009
Advertisement
A top Ford Motor Co. executive is giving the company's blessing to hiking the base level ethanol blend used by all vehicles in the near term to 15% or so. The ethanol industry sees the auto industry's acquiescence to slightly higher blends as critical to persuading the Obama administration's EPA to sign off on a waiver by declaring moderately higher blends substantially similar to the E10 blend of gasoline sold today.
The "sub-sim" ruling would sidestep the need for additional and costly testing of slightly higher blends in engines before they're approved for use. Moreover, it could push the blend wall -- the point at which the market for E10 is saturated -- ahead at least five years, a critical move for the economically beleaguered ethanol industry.
The letter from Susan Cischke, Ford's group vice president for sustainability, environment and safety engineering, to Jeff Broin, CEO of Poet -- the nation's largest ethanol producer -- supports the ethanol industry's endeavor. Broin is also founder of Growth Energy, a new trade group representing ethanol interests in Washington.
"Based on our biofuel discussions, it is clear that Ford and Poet share a common vision to accelerate renewable fuel use," Cischke writes in the letter obtained by Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert. "Ford endorses efforts to increase base level blends up to E15 and collaborate with key stakeholders to overcome challenges with introducing these higher levels of ethanol."
Another Ford executive says the letter is meant to "drive consensus around a solution" on higher blends. He says Ford isn't making an outright endorsement of E15 right now, but concedes the firm is not pushing the extended testing being sought by other automakers.
Sources say EPA is weighing issuing a split or partial waiver, which is likely to come later this year. The waiver would most likely be for legacy vehicles built after a certain year. Some sources say that year could be 1997; others say 1992 or 1993. Another possibility is a waiver for vehicles meeting a certain level of emissions standard, referred to as Tier 2. That would still open up a vast new market for ethanol.
EPA approval of E15 would increase the potential market for the alcohol fuel by at least half, to more than 18 billion gallons. Theoretically, it could pour about 21 billion gallons -- depending on gasoline demand -- of new ethanol into the market, though lack of infrastructure and refinery issues will likely continue to keep ethanol from being blended in some parts of the country. Nevertheless, the bump up to E15 would make it easier for the industry to meet its renewable fuels mandate almost through 2015.
Attached to Cischke's letter is a page of key discussion points proposed by Ford. One of them appears to signal the automaker's overall strategy -- beyond E15. The automaker's call for an "industrywide commitment" to making 50% of total new vehicle production flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) -- cars and trucks capable of burning blends of up to 85% alcohol -- "as soon as possible (e.g. 2014)." Such a move would give Ford, General Motors and Chrysler a sizable head start on their foreign brand rivals. Representatives of GM and Chrysler could not be reached for comment at press time.
Although foreign brands wouldn't have to make many engineering changes to produce FFVs for the U.S. market (some already sell them in Brazil), one source for a leading foreign brand automaker says it would impose additional costs that domestic manufacturers have already presumably factored into their product planning. The international manufacturers would essentially be starting from scratch -- with the exception of a few models from Nissan and a couple from Toyota. The Detroit Three, on the other hand, agreed years ago to devote 50% of their total production to FFVs by 2012. Of course, the commitments come with the stipulation that adequate refueling infrastructure is in place.
For Ford -- the only Detroit-based automaker not asking or receiving help from Uncle Sam -- the push for biofuels will position it as a clear industry leader in the green fuels movement -- a progressive company willing to get out ahead on the issue. And it may also send a signal to consumers that its engines are better able than those of competitors to withstand higher alcohol blends.
The discussion points accompanying Cischke's letter go beyond regulatory issues -- blend levels and emissions -- to paint a picture of how Ford would like to see biofuels evolve. For example, the automaker wants to "reinforce a vision of ethanol becoming an alternative to gasoline rather than limited to a gasoline additive." It also proposes "developing the fuel distribution network to support customer choice and value." And it seeks "a firm planning horizon to support a higher base level ethanol blend, beyond E15" in years to come. Ford notes that continued support for "flex pumps" -- also know as blender pumps -- is important, but recognizes that will take "support from all stakeholders, including Underwriters Laboratories."
In another encouraging development for ethanol, UL is backing off its claim that existing fuel pumps bearing its seal of approval are not certified for blends higher than 10%.
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.


Reader Comments (18)
Posted by: js at 03/05/2009 12:48:20 PM
YES! I greet Ford's announcement with enthusiasm. A positive step toward reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil. A strong ethanol industry is necessary to grow the cellulosic ethanol industry -- which is a primary cog in the renewable revolution.
Posted by: BB at 03/06/2009 02:17:40 PM
Bad idea. Ethanol uses more energy to create per unit than it provides. We would be better off switching to diesel. The only ones supporting ethanol are those who stand to profit from it or get votes from it.
Posted by: Joel Jarman at 03/06/2009 02:25:54 PM
It's "past" time we as Americans take control of our energy and environmental needs and add domestic jobs that can't be shipped overseas while leaving foreign oil in the sand where it belongs!
Posted by: AG at 03/06/2009 02:47:05 PM
The point is moot. From what I understand, all three domestic manufacturers have flex-fuel vehicles capable of up to E85. That said, ethanol as mass produced in the US isn't a good solution from the standpoint of overall pollution; and even cost effectiveness. The consumer pays more for a product that delivers fewer MPG as it has fewer BTUs.
Posted by: Mark at 03/06/2009 04:16:13 PM
I have been using some e85 in my '99 Buick (not made for e85) frequently. I will pump 3 gal of e85, then 6 gal or so of regular (e10). My car runs fine, no performance problems, and I save $2 on a fill-up.
Posted by: Speedemon03 at 03/06/2009 04:34:25 PM
I believe your comments are skewed BB. Saying that cellulosic ethanol takes more to produce is a major misconception. In reality, producting cellulosic ethanol has a energy to production ratio of 8 to 1. I really would like to know where you are getting your info from. Cellulosic ethanol is not only efficient produce but 'somewhat' solves our landfill and commercial waste problem.
Posted by: lp at 03/06/2009 05:31:32 PM
If Obama wants to spend money wisely, he should be supporting our ethanol industry. The true cost of foriegn oil is much higher.
Posted by: Cd at 03/06/2009 05:53:21 PM
Skip the nonsense. Hydrogen is the way forward. The vehicles are ready NOW been in use for years as busses around the world. The only problem is fueling stations there are only a handful. Make fueling stations a priority and not only could we have cleaner air but perhaps a renewed auto industry.
Posted by: john H at 03/06/2009 07:16:36 PM
I think the ethanol makers would benefit, but farmers who need feed grain not so much, and ever notice how winter blended gas with ethanol gets less mileage? So even if price is lower mileage would be less and there wont be any benefit to consumers, and I agree it probably takes a lot of energy to produce as well.
Posted by: Faulty Data at 03/06/2009 07:56:06 PM
Ethanol DOES NOT use more energy to create than it provides. That's a flat out lie. Ethanol provides net + energy.
Posted by: Harry at 03/07/2009 08:18:00 AM
Another stupid idea from enviormental idiots bent on destroying this country. They can "Save The Planet" and enrich their own wallets at the same time! When they added up to 10% ethanol to gasoline in my part of the country my mpg's went down by 25% to 30% but the price they charge for this crap went up! Who is looking out for the consumer! The right idea has always been to develop our own oil and gas in this country to become independent. Back in the 70's the doom sayers said we were headed for a new "ice age" and more recently "global warning" and now that they look like hypocrits it has become "climate change". Consequences are never pretty when stupidity leads the parade. At what point will politicians and citizens wake up to the lies being told by the Al Gore army of morons? Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people.
Posted by: KEnergy at 03/07/2009 10:59:02 AM
BB, You need to specify WHICH ethanol you are referring to when you state the energy input exceeds energy output. The energy input to energy output for CORN ethanol is reported to run 1:1.25 up to 1:1.60. Corn ethanol is usually considered a "first generation" ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol,, termed a "second generation" ethanol, is reported to run 1:8 up to 1:12 input to output ratio. Algae-to-biofuel are sometimes reported to be "third generation". I don't recall the input to output ratios for third generation. I have not seen if waste-to-ethanol is considered to be either 2nd or 3rd generation.
Posted by: Bob at 03/07/2009 01:34:48 PM
I noticed that nothing was said about reduced mileage with E15 or the fact that it really does nothing to cut our dependence on foreign oil and it doesn't help that much with CO2. We have a serious problem that won't be solved by everybody jumping on the scam wagon to make an extra buck from low energy ethanol. That $millions are being invested in grain ethanol, based on all this hype with unrealistic data and pseudoscientific studies using as little as four vehicles or one tank of fuel, absolutely amazes me. I have been telling people for years that it is fundamentally wrong to burn food for fuel and that the grain alcohol business would collapse within 5-10 years because there was NO net energy gain and costs would skyrocket for both food and energy. Ethanol from non food cellulose does hold some promise but current longer process times would limit production. Higher energy biodiesel appears to hold much more promise even from grain but once again it needs to ultimately be produced from nonfoods such as algae. What we really need in the short term are CO2 neutral turbo biodiesel electric hybrids and step up future work on the technology to produce non CO2 producing total electric vehicles recharged from wind, hydro, solar and nuclear generation. In the meanwhile, I don’t want to waste my money on a lower mileage flexfuel ethanol vehicle when what I really want is a 100mpg biodiesel hybrid. Where is it????
Posted by: Art at 03/08/2009 10:22:30 PM
Higher ethanol = lower mileage Higher ethanol = shorted "shelf life" of Gasoline.. Have you ever noticed the rotten smell of gas these days if left for a month in a gerry can?? Higher Ethanol= shorter engine life..especially smaller engines like lawn mowers snow blowers etc. etc.and by the way do not put gas stablizer in gas that contains Ethanol...it turns into water..I learned that the hard way. With ethanol..the companies will sell more...because I noticed a significant decrease in gas mileage since the introdution of ethanol.....We are getting RIPPED OFF.
Posted by: Jjoe Kack at 03/09/2009 10:21:43 AM
Encouraging increased use and production of Ethanol is going down the wrong path. Ford is being completely irresponsible as are most of the other auto makers. Our dependence on oil, whether foreign or domestic has got to stop. The oil companies need to take their huge profits and be forced to quickly develop alternative sources of energy. For God's sake we have been going through these interations of developing alternative energy sources for close to 40 years. Somebody in the administration needs to stop kissing the oil and auto companies' asses and get the damn job done and the damn farmers need to raise crops for FOOD not fuel.
Posted by: Dean at 03/09/2009 01:32:25 PM
It is ironic that this article recognizes that ethanol blended gasoline can't be used in some cars, "The waiver would most likely be for legacy vehicles built after a certain year. Some sources say that year could be 1997; others say 1992 or 1993." In fact ethanol blended gasoline should never be used in any engine with a fixed jet, carbureted fuel system, which include watercraft, aircraft, antique and classic cars and motorcycles and small engines. It should only be used in a modern computerized fuel injected engine. The implication is that there would have to be some way to make ethanol free gasoline available everywhere. One method is to exempt ethanol blending in premium gasoline. The other method is to use a blender pump that can deliver anything from E0 - E85. These pumps are very expensive and are going to represent a huge infrastructure upgrade expense which I am sure will be welcomed in this economy.
Posted by: Dean at 03/09/2009 01:36:30 PM
POSTED BY: Mark (March 06, 2009 04:16 PM) "I have been using some e85 in my '99 Buick (not made for e85) frequently. I will pump 3 gal of e85, then 6 gal or so of regular (e10). My car runs fine, no performance problems, and I save $2 on a fill-up." Be advised that you are in violation of the federal clean air act when putting anything above E10 in a non flex-fuel vehicle. You have no idea what the catalytic converter is doing or what the exhaust products are doing to your catalytic converter.
Posted by: MikeWH at 03/17/2009 04:15:03 PM
All this alcohol legislation is government masturbation. Why waste time alcohol/ethanol when a larger tax on fuel would accomplish so much more? The side-effects of a tax would be good. Think about, less wear and tear on infrastructure, less pollution, less dependency on foreign oil, less government intervention in the auto industry. A higher tax would provide monetary resources for government programs. If a tax were high enough it could have a significant impact on the obesity in the US.