Automotive

Ontario hiking ethanol content in gasoline to help fight climate change

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 3rd, 2020 4:30 pm
93 replies
Deal Addict
Feb 24, 2007
4179 posts
1154 upvotes
No wonder my cars keep getting the P420 engine check code. That's why my next car is an EV.
FS : Promise NS4300N NAS,Linksys RE400W,E5151,HBB1,VIVOTab RT,MemoPad 8
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 4, 2008
7200 posts
8908 upvotes
Scarbs
standby for new mandatory stickers at every gas pump

edit: fixed error in original sticker

Image
Last edited by aeba7 on Nov 27th, 2020 9:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
When given enough time, all threads on RFD can and will go off on a tangent.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
19432 posts
22539 upvotes
GTA
aeba7 wrote: standby for new mandatory stickers at every gas pump

Image
LMFAO. I'd much rather pay more carbon tax than have more ethanol in my gas. Farming ethanol for fuel is dubiously green as well.
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 12, 2012
2854 posts
2543 upvotes
Toronto
aeba7 wrote: standby for new mandatory stickers at every gas pump

edit: fixed error in original sticker

Image
lol did you make that?
morecorninmycar?
No thanks.

Don't most car manufactures say to keep ethanol at 10% max?
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
29074 posts
4766 upvotes
Montreal
No. We need ethanol to make hand sanitizer!
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
20505 posts
13879 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
engineered wrote: LMFAO. I'd much rather pay more carbon tax than have more ethanol in my gas. Farming ethanol for fuel is dubiously green as well.
Even if you disregard the farming angle, it's debatable how much of an impact using ethanol as a fuel additive is as ethanol contains less energy on a per-volume basis than gasoline so you end up with a less fuel-efficient car so you end up burning more to get from point a to b.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
19432 posts
22539 upvotes
GTA
craftsman wrote: Even if you disregard the farming angle, it's debatable how much of an impact using ethanol as a fuel additive is as ethanol contains less energy on a per-volume basis than gasoline so you end up with a less fuel-efficient car so you end up burning more to get from point a to b.
Well, technically, as a bio-fuel, it's carbon neutral (if you ignore the farming angle).
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
Member
Feb 22, 2017
403 posts
269 upvotes
eco propaganda is really annoying
people forget or ignore thanks largely to our large forested unihabited north and relatively low population densities Canada is one of the lucky less than a handful of countries that are carbon sinks in the world.
the others being russia, brazil (then techincally a handful of small inhabited islands and such because they are so small and sparsley populated but they dont really absorb much so they are more carbon neutral than carbon sinks that benefit others.)

point being if carbon taxes were about the environment other countries would be paying us a portion of thier carbon taxes and we'd be paying none.
thats not even mentioning the studies that have been done showing that carbon taxes dont actually help emissions, its just one more excuse to squeeze blood from the stone and for governments to get a new revenue stream.

but those rants/reasons aside if more ethonol is worse for engines (which i am assuming, im not a car guy but that seems to be what is implied by some here) this is a bad idea,
even if it wasnt being proposed based on biased/manipulated "science" but the fact it is just adds insult to the injury.
Last edited by HiddenEmailer on Nov 28th, 2020 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
19432 posts
22539 upvotes
GTA
HiddenEmailer wrote: eco propaganda is really annoying
people forget or ignore thanks largely to our large forested unihabited north and relatively low population densities Canada is one of the lucky less than a handful of countries that are carbon sinks in the world.
the others being russia, brazil (then techincally a handful of small inhabited islands and such because they are so small and sparsley populated but they dont really absorb much so they are more carbon neutral than carbon sinks that benefit others.)

point being if carbon taxes were about the environment other countries would be paying us a portion of thier carbon taxes and we'd be paying none.
thats not even mentioning the studies that have been done showing that carbon taxes dont actually help emissions, its just one more excuse to squeeze blood from the stone and for governments to get a new revenue stream.

but those rants/reasons aside if more ethonol is worse for engines (which i am assuming, im not a car buy but that seems to be what is implied by some here) this is a bad idea,
even if it wasnt being proposed based on biased/manipulated "science" but the fact it is just adds insult to the injury.
What would they be paying us for? To not cut down our forests? Why does it matter what our density is? Shouldn't per capita output matter?
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
Member
Feb 22, 2017
403 posts
269 upvotes
engineered wrote: What would they be paying us for? To not cut down our forests? Why does it matter what our density is? Shouldn't per capita output matter?
The fact that it’s our forest that not only keeps us negative but offsets other countries emissions
Technically you could say it would be a bribe to not get rid of our forests/carbon sink capacity
Our Population density matters because if we for example had the population of China we would presumably have that many more people living first world living standards producing More emissions, and the more emissions we produce the Smaller our excess capacity for offsetting emissions is.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2011
37746 posts
23829 upvotes
Center of Universe
Hopefully this is not across all grades.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 29, 2011
8397 posts
5255 upvotes
Mississauga
vkizzle wrote: Hopefully this is not across all grades.
Agreed. Wait for Shell to widen the spread even futher between premium and the other grades...
Sr. Member
Aug 8, 2004
600 posts
363 upvotes
Ottawa
vkizzle wrote: Hopefully this is not across all grades.
So I was curious too and did some research.

How suppliers used to get away with offering ethanol free premium:

"In 2007, the Ontario government mandated that fuel suppliers in Ontario maintain an average of 5%
ethanol in their gasoline pool. Some suppliers achieve that average by adding up to 10% ethanol in
their lower grade fuels and no ethanol in their premium grade fuels."

Now the rules are:

"Starting in 2020, fuel suppliers must maintain at least an annual average of 10% renewable content (such as ethanol) in the gasoline they sell in Ontario."

but it also says "Starting in 2020, volumes of mid- and premium-grade gasoline (i.e., gasolines with octane levels of 89 or higher) can also be deducted."

As long as the regulation sticks with this language, all will be well.

----------------------------------------------------------

For the purposes of the formulas in section 4, the following categories of gasoline or blended gasoline may be deducted from the total amount of gasoline or blended gasoline placed in the Ontario market in a compliance year, if the fuel supplier so elects and can establish, by written evidence, that the gasoline or blended gasoline was distributed for those purposes:

1. Gasoline or blended gasoline placed in the Ontario market in the same compliance year for the purposes of generating power in aircraft, marine vessels or equipment, off-road vehicles or equipment, or vehicles manufactured prior to 1980.

2. Gasoline or blended gasoline that has an antiknock index of 89 or greater placed in the Ontario market in the same compliance year, if the gasoline or blended gasoline is not included in the category described in paragraph 1. O. Reg. 227/18, s. 4.
Deal Addict
May 16, 2017
2345 posts
3057 upvotes
engineered wrote: What would they be paying us for? To not cut down our forests? Why does it matter what our density is? Shouldn't per capita output matter?
Exactly. And if we want to consider natural sinks and sources in the equation should Canada then be penalized when our permafrost melts and releases piles of methane?
Deal Addict
May 16, 2017
2345 posts
3057 upvotes
HiddenEmailer wrote: The fact that it’s our forest that not only keeps us negative but offsets other countries emissions
Technically you could say it would be a bribe to not get rid of our forests/carbon sink capacity
Our Population density matters because if we for example had the population of China we would presumably have that many more people living first world living standards producing More emissions, and the more emissions we produce the Smaller our excess capacity for offsetting emissions is.
Tribalism at its best.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 2, 2018
2065 posts
2256 upvotes
Toronto
More ethanol and same price, but less milliage I will get from the same tank of gas.

Isn't really carbon savings if I need to use more fuel to go same distance as less energy in ethanol. Is a hike in my cost to drive, and drives a food resource which can be used for livestock feed and people to be diverted driving up costs for everyone.

Electric cars are the solution let's get working on the infrastructure in expanded public charging stations to make transition quicker, ethanol expansion isn't really an answer imho.
Youth is the gift of nature, age is a work of art.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
19432 posts
22539 upvotes
GTA
HiddenEmailer wrote: The fact that it’s our forest that not only keeps us negative but offsets other countries emissions
Technically you could say it would be a bribe to not get rid of our forests/carbon sink capacity
Our Population density matters because if we for example had the population of China we would presumably have that many more people living first world living standards producing More emissions, and the more emissions we produce the Smaller our excess capacity for offsetting emissions is.
Not really. We aren't growing more forests to store more carbon. It was all there before we got here. In fact we've cleared much of the forested land in Canada. We're also digging up the old carbon sinks and burning it with the oil sands.
Should Saudi Arabia count it's oil reserves as a carbon sink, so therefor they can burn whatever they want? Or China or Australia with their coal?
If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.
Member
Feb 22, 2017
403 posts
269 upvotes
engineered wrote: Not really. We aren't growing more forests to store more carbon.
exactly a good point why we should be doing stuff that matters.
we aren't growing more forests to store more carbon, which means we shouldn't over populate the country with less productive workers, we shouldn't waste money on pseudo-environmental carbon taxes what we should be doing is trying to maximize performance per carbon, and investing things to actually solve the problems in the future.


engineered wrote: It was all there before we got here. In fact we've cleared much of the forested land in Canada.
it was all here before we got here, by luck of the draw we won the lottery as I say are one of three countries that are carbon sinks naturally that actually have an impact on reducing others omissions while leaving us net negative, I don't encourage deforestation because that kills the carbon sink but I also realize it's impractical to think that were going to substantially grow the forest, so at this point our best option is to slow the bleeding and do what we can to invest in things to help us in the future because eventually we might not be a carbon sink
it's better to plan ahead now before it's too late, but carbon taxes and virtue signaling with hight % ethanol fuel isn't actually solving a problems.
engineered wrote: We're also digging up the old carbon sinks and burning it with the oil sands.
we are, I don't necessarily agree with that it's trading in long-term gains for short-term smaller gains.
it's even worse that we ship that oil to be refined in another country to be then sold back to us at inflated prices, honestly I would prefer to leave it in the ground
the US has the largest man-made oil reserves in the world, but leaving it in the ground is an even better oil reserve.'

the compromise I would see because I realize single-handedly decimating our oil industry wouldn't fly, if it were up to me we would build a refinery up north do everything in house so we are energy self-sufficient and use what we need, potentially sell off excess if we need to raise capital to invest in other green energies in the meantime but focus on not frivolously draining the resource.

it's kind of a bad sign that our natural oil reserve is leftovers left on the dirt ( the tar sands)
when you consider, the" "it costs" one barrel's worth of oil to get two barrels out of the ground, while it's still worth doing in my opinion we would be better off saving it and having it in our back pocket for when $#^& really hits the fan.
engineered wrote: Should Saudi Arabia count it's oil reserves as a carbon sink, so therefor they can burn whatever they want? Or China or Australia with their coal?
those aren't sinks, those are energy stores.
the fact Saudi Arabia has oil, doesn't actually remove carbon from the atmosphere saving other countries money same with Australian China with their coal.
our forests/wetlands on the other hand do, you're comparing apples to oranges.

I think you could make a strong argument all those countries should become energy self-sustaining if they chose, because that's what is best for us to do presumably it would be best for them, that said them burning those resources further harms the carbon footprint of the world, which means all the carbon sinks will have a heavier load if they do so.
honestly China's trying to be energy self-sufficient and the doing a effective job of it, but they also don't care about the environment and it shows but that's how they're able to become as wealthy as they have, but it's a lot easier to do these big energy/infrastructure projects when you're a communist dictatorship and have everything from a five-year plans to 100 year plans.

not saying I want to go down China's road, but I am saying, we should at least invest in practical things, personally were I dictator of Canada, I would set up a refinery & such up north near the tar sands themselves, that would create a ton of jobs, it would also get rid of the pipeline controversy, if were trying to conserve our oil other than what we as a country use there is no real need for the pipeline, in fact not having the pipeline means whatever we do selloff would need to be trucked around and while yes that adds to carbon emissions were already a carbon sink, so we can absorb that because in that instance the greater good Would be keep the trucking industry aliveWhich once again creates more jobs or at least stops them from being eliminated before their time.

in tandem with this I would make our primary green energy source in the short term modern nuclear ( not 70+-year-old designs with plants that are 50+ year old themsleves ( being lazy like that only encourages issues like Fukushima's, Chernobyl, and 3 mile Island)

Heck modern nuclear can even utilize otherwise useless and hard to dispose of nuclear waste from older plants, so its literally the greenest energy we as humans have so far, yet if you talk to anyone that's super Pro-green and the majority of them are against nuclear power because they're scared of three incidents, and haven't looked into it far enough to realize that they're just being propagandized by Pro wind Pro solar lobbying.
but devils advocate let's say nuclear was as dangerous as those old reactors, realistically the benefits still outweigh the risks worst-case scenario once again we could throw that up north were not a lot of things are growing/living it can be a fly in fly out job with danger pay if needed.

that doesn't mean I'm against other more propagandized green energy solutions, we should use Hydro when it's practical and I don't just mean big installations, I'm annoyed that I live on a creek and while I can pay for water rights for my drinking well good luck setting up micro Hydro legally.
utilizing wind and solar when it's practical but it's only practical as a supplemental source even in ideal conditions.

you also have to remember that when it comes to intermittent green energies like wind or solar you need to have batteries to store them and most of those materials we would still need to get from places like China, by the time you factor in the environmental costs around them wind and solar are some of the least green of the green energies we have in the short term, but even those lease green aspects could be mitigated with a slower rollout so if we built up slowly over the years while utilizing nuclear and Hydro and slowly weaning ourselves off of our own oil reserves I think Canada would be better off and then in the hypothetical future where we didn't need our oil we still have plenty in the ground because circumstances could change and then we could decide as a people if it was worth selling or not.

that said I don't think any of this will happen, there too many vested interests in global trade etc. that don't want major countries to become too self-reliant.


anyway sorry for the long rant, I just started talking ( gotta love TTS)

TLDR: your right we're not growing more forests so we should not waste the gift we've been given, and there's a difference between a store of natural resources and a carbon emissions sink that is a natural resource.
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
20505 posts
13879 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
Ballroomblitz1 wrote: Electric cars are the solution let's get working on the infrastructure in expanded public charging stations to make transition quicker, ethanol expansion isn't really an answer imho.
Electric cars are what we want to be the solution but like many things, what we want isn't necessarily what is right. The Globe And Mail had a great opinion piece on electric cars in Norway and how they spent billions to get people into electric cars - Norway’s electric car subsidies: A lot of money for not a lot of gain.

NOTE> This piece ignores all of the extra pollution that was generated by making the cars and the infrastructure as well as the disposal of old infrastructure and cars BEFORE the end of their useful life.
Like many countries in the West, Norway, an oil exporter, wanted to clean up its act. The centrepiece of that effort was the mass rollout of electric vehicles and the results have been spectacular – some 60 per cent of new car sales are EVs.

...

Those billions of dollars of subsidies might have been put to far more effective use elsewhere in Norway’s carbon-reduction effort.

...

But no, the government went for the sexy, high-profile option, one that could prove financially unsustainable while producing only a small reduction in the output of greenhouse gases. Norway’s lavish EV freebies have actually intensified the car culture, not diluted it.

...

Norway was rich – still is – and a cynic (not me, of course) would say that EVs became a luxury form of greenwashing for Europe’s premier petro-state.

...

But EVs were, and remain, highly expensive, well out of the reach of the average family. To make them affordable, the national and local governments in Norway rolled out incentive after incentive. Here are a few of them: exemption from the 25-per-cent value-added (VAT) tax on new car purchases; exemption from import duties; exemption from emission fees; no fuel taxes; cut-rate insurance; and ultra cheap or free parking, road tolls and car ferry tickets.

Many cities also gave EVs unfettered access to bus lanes.

The upshot was that buying an EV was often cheaper than a regular car, the reverse of the norm. Take the Volkswagen Golf. In Norway, the regular Golf costs about €36,600 ($57,000). The e-Golf costs €25,300. Plus the running costs for the e-Golf are a bargain. How could anyone refuse?

Obviously, the incentives come at a price, which is lost tax revenue to the government and the municipalities. Two years ago, a well-known Norwegian fact-checking site, faktisk.no, put the annual subsidy at about 5.8 billion kroner, or about $852-million at current exchange rates. That’s a lot less than other estimates, but still huge when you consider that Norway’s population is only 5.4 million and that Canada’s economy is 4.5 times bigger than Norway’s.

...

As a climate change effort, Norway’s embrace of EVs has worked, but only a bit. Road traffic emissions fell by about 10 per cent between 2014 and 2018, though the continued improvement in the efficiency of regular cars no doubt helped. But what if those billions in EV subsidies over the years had been devoted to other climate efforts, such as home insulation, the expansion of public transport or tighter emission controls on office buildings and factories? The drop in emissions might have been significant.
Remember that the 10% reduction in emission was road emissions and NOT total overall emissions. Statistics show that transport emissions (which include road emissions as well as rail, air. and marine transport) account for 24% of total overall emissions around the world. In other words, a lot less than 2.4% of Norway's total overall emissions.

Now, if you put the above into the context of ethanol, how much of a reduction in emissions will we see by using ethanol considering replacing large numbers of gas-base cars reduced emissions in Norway by less than 2.4%.

Top