More Research to Back the Bills: University of Nebraska Researchers Have Proven E30 Is Safe

by Lisa Gibson (Ethanol Producer Magazine) University of Nebraska Researchers have proven E30 is safe for long-term use in non-flex fuel vehicles. The findings could bolster the push for state- and federal-level low-carbon fuel legislation. -- Two researchers from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln are eager to continue sharing their results from a study that evaluated the impact of E30 in 50 non-flex fuel state fleet vehicles. The results: Nothing.

Over the course of the one-year study, fueling with E30 instead of E15 showed no change in vehicle adaptability, performance, emissions or fuel efficiency. The research was a partnership between the Nebraska Department of Administrative Services and the university to determine long-term usability of E30 in non-flex fuel vehicles.

It was not a conventional research project, says lead researcher Rajib Saha, assistant professor in UNL’s Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering. The volume of data never before collected is the most exciting part, he says, adding that the results weren’t surprising. “We expected this to happen. We expected that, at least with E30, we don’t expect to see a lot of differences in a non-flex fuel vehicles.”

The research is likely to aid and encourage other state- and even federal-level moves toward low-carbon fuel legislation, says Roger Berry, administrator of the Nebraska Ethanol Board. “It specifically points out the decrease in carbon emission from just 10% of the 1.7 million registered non-FFVs in Nebraska. Just think what that number would be if it was every ICE vehicle in the U.S.!”

Several states worked through bills this year and their supporters are hopeful to reach finish lines in 2022. And this time, they’ll be armed with this U.S. EPA-approved proof that long-term E30 use is not harmful to vehicles.

For the study, 26 vehicles were fueled with E15 and 24 were fueled with E30. Through cold and warm weather, on-board data collection, as well as logs from the state employees regarding maintenance and efficiency, showed clearly that the four parameters studied—adaptability, performance, emissions and fuel efficiency—remained constant between both fuels. All four are tied together, Alsiyabi explains.
The engine should detect extra oxygen in ethanol and optimize its air-to-fuel ratio. “Due to the higher oxygen content, we saw the fuel shrink, which is the car’s way of detecting the air-to-fuel ratio,” Alsiyabi says. “It’s what we expected.”

This adaptability is the main parameter the vehicle will try to control, he says. And it does. That adaptability of course lends to high performance, which is linked to fuel efficiency, Alsiyabi says. “You maintain that optimal performance and make use of that higher octane in ethanol.”

As far as emissions, ethanol shows a 7-pound reduction in carbon emissions per gallon over pure gasoline, Saha and Alsiyabi report. Additionally, with a 2.5% cost difference between E30 and E15, economics come into play, as well, Alsiyabi says. While Alsiyabi and Saha focused only on emissions from the vehicles, they will discuss in their final report the implications of a life cycle analysis.

Meanwhile, Saha is hopeful for a second phase of this work, using vehicles owned by citizens. A wider selection of automobiles with varied owners would present even more confidence, he says.

Minnesota’s Future Fuels Act was introduced this year, with key changes from California’s legislation designed to help model a federal policy that’s more ideal for Midwestern states. “We know this conversation is happening at the federal level as well,” says Brian Jennings, CEO of the American Coalition for Ethanol. “We don’t want Congress and President Biden to simply look to California as the way to go.

“Part of the strategy for pushing for a Midwest clean fuel policy is also to influence decisions that are made down the road at the federal level.”

The Future Fuels Act is the first of its kind to be introduced in a Midwest state, is bipartisan and bicameral, Jennings says. Further, he adds, it improves on California’s LCFS in four key ways. First, it allows E15 and higher blends, whereas California’s Air Resources Board prohibits them. “The analysis we’ve done shows that the quickest, lowest-cost way to get to a 20% or a 15% reduction in carbon intensity in a state like Minnesota over 10 or 15 years is to rapidly increase the use of ethanol: E15, E30, E85,” Jennings says.

Second, the Future Fuels Act is genuinely technology neutral. “The government doesn’t pick the winners and losers,” Jennings says. “The market does.

“The California program tips the scales dramatically to favor electric vehicles over other low-carbon technology. We’re not going to embrace that in the Midwest.”

Third, the life cycle analysis in the Future Fuels Act is more accurate and scientific.

And fourth, farmers would be able to benefit from the Minnesota program. “Currently, California prohibits any carbon credits to reward farmers for practices that eventually lower the CI of ethanol. The Minnesota legislation contains language that would allow carbon credits to be used by farmers for no-till and more efficient use of nitrogen fertilizer. Those are the two big ones that bring down the carbon footprint of ethanol.” READ MORE