Talk:E85/Archive 1 2006-2014

NPOV

This article is seriously skewed towards the pro-ethanol position in selectivity and diction (promoters 'contend' and the critics 'allege'). If pro-ethanol references cannot be made to scientifically supported documentation, and if the concerns and reservations can not be handled responsibly I recommend deleting this article. Mathematician0 (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's beyond biased, and I can't believe it didn't already have a POV tag. I just added one. There are definitely non-neutral parties watching and and editing this article, some form of protection may be necessary. Starting over from scratch is probably a good idea. 67.186.139.40 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Just had to re-add the POV tag, someone removed it while the article is still clearly written with a heavy pro-E85 bias. 67.186.139.40 (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed it again. If you have problems with any part, discuss here. The article gives both sides. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Read this section of the talk page again. The article is still written with a very pro-E85 slant and language. Far from neutral. 67.186.139.40 (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The entire article has been gone through, mainly by me recently. So much of the past issues are defunct. Now, currently, if you think it is slanted, you can talk to admin. I have put "citation needed" at multiple spots and pointed out other current issues with the page. In my opinion it is not slanted when the article points out the severe downfalls of E85 like having 1/3 less energy content than regular gas.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Older talk

Anonymous contributors: Your contributions are welcome, but you should consider obtaining user accounts so that you may recieve credit for the edits you are making on this article. -AlexWCovington (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This article contains a LOT of POV/political statements, especially in the "After-market..." paragraph. It would be nice if someone competent on the matter did some cleaning up. BsL 03:05Z, 2006-01-04

There are MANY duplicate points in this article. With contents at middle of article and not at beginning it is also confusing. One should consider an entire re-write Hackajar 13:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cost

the cost issue is confusing. first of all, the posted price can vary for many reasons. There is a certain amount of mandated use of ethanol, in certain US states. Ethanol can be thought of as being somewhat of a by-product, and of being the final use of sugar or corn that has no other use.

I was wondering why no one is investigating seaweed as a potiential source of raw material to make ethanol ? This would avoid the land use problem, and the competition with food problem. I saw estimates that enough seaweed grows in the ocean each year to supply all of the liquid fuel for the entire planet. ----bluesky Ethanol sometimes receives favorable tax treatment E85 has 72 percent of the energy, by volume, of gasoline. For that reason, the usefulness of E85 is somewhat less than gasoline. The hi octane rating of E85, allows the use of higher compression and/or different ignition timing, improving mileage somewhat. --CorvetteZ51 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This section it too wordy, which makes it hard to follow. It should be noted that E85 is a commodity just like gasoline/oil, and therefore the price is subject to supply/demand. However, I think the article could do without the economics lesson on calculating fuel economy. --bojette 8:21pm EDT 24 April 2006

Risks

In Sweden, where the E85 usage is in a growing phase right now, there are alarms of higher fire hazards than traditional gasoline. The E85 has wider flamability limits, and can burn even in enclosed spaces, such as a vehichle's gas tank. Something heard about this outside Sweden? --62.119.107.72 11:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the risk of E85 fire (in normal temperatures) is about as big as the risk of fire in gasoline when it's below -9 degree Celsius. --Boivie 12:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like FUD. The boiling point of ethanol is higher than gasoline. Also if ethanol would burn in an enclosed space, the fire would die when they oxygen is depleted, as with gasoline fire. Ethanol on it self cannot burn without oxygen. Another thing; it is harder to start a car on E85 than on gasoline in cold weather. That is, the E85 does not burn when exposed to the electric discharge from the sparkplug as easy as gasoline.

I would like to add that Ethanol burns in a much different fashion that gasoline. Yes the ignition temperatures are different, but Ethanol still burns while in the presence of water (as a polar solvent it absorbs water where as gasoline floats on top of it) and can create issues with certain fire fighting techniques that gasoline fires do not express. For further research view Indy Car type fires (they use E85 or higher). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.96.65 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

10% E85?

I believe "E85" implies fuel that is 85% ethanol, so using the term "10% E85" seems kind of strange. The term "E85" seems to be used here to mean "ethanol blend fuel". The www.ethanol.org website referes to E10, E85, E100 to differentiate between different level of ethanol content. If "E85" is more commonly understood to mean "gas with alcohol in it" so be it I guess. DAF

There are two things goin on. First of all the article has many mentions of E10 "gasahol" (10% ethanol in gasoline) which was a common formula used in gasoline stations in many states for the last 2-3 decades, especially during various gasoline shortages and skyrocketing prices. E10's usage is expected to increase again, as ethanol replaces MTBE as an additive in gasoline. Most modern vehicles that are not designed as flexible fuel vehicles can tolerate up to about E15 (15% ethanol in gasoline) without significant performance and durability problems. Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFV's) can tolerate up to about E85 (85% ethanol in gasoline), and any "mix" below that. Some vehicles are specifically designed to run on E100 (pure ethanol).

The article also discusses "blending down" or "diluting" E85 fuel, for vehicles not designed to operate on that high a level of ethanol. So for example, a 10% blend of E85 in gasoline (1 gallon in 10) would yield the equivalent of something like "E9" - safe for most non-FFV vehicles. A 20% blend of E85 in gasoline (2 gallons in 10) would yield something like "E17" - which would be a bit too rich for a non-FFV, but fine for FFV's. That is what is meant by, for example, 10% E85 or 20% E85. As E85 becomes more widely available, it is anticipated that some drivers might attempt to make their own "blend", especially if E85 is cheaper than gasoline.

Some locations now have "blender pumps" that allow the buyer to specify a blend of E85 and gasoline directly from the nozzle. These are in limited usage now but are expected to become very popular as the general public discovers most cars can run on partial blends of E85 in gasoline with no modifications.

Exx always describes the blend: E85 is a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gas. E10 is a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gas. E37 is a blend of 37% ethanol and 63% gas. And so on ... -- Alexey Topol (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Life cycle impact of E85 on greenhouse gas emissions

Why are there no citations in this section? There is no mention of energy used in corn production (eg. fertilizer). Has this been studied? Tarheelcoxn 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be more numbers now, with percentages for savings in use of petroleum, greenhouse gases, etc. But without citations it's not clear just what's behind these numbers. The one citation, about acreage for food vs. ethanol, is to a site which contradicts the main article ("returns 139% of the energy invested in its production" vs. -48% on the healthandenergy.com site).

Although I disagree with the postion of the healthandenergy.com site it is a valid point of view and needs to be represented in a balanced article. There are better less political web sources for that point of view however. It draws its information from the widely discredited but also widely distributed Pimental study, which is specifically debunked by some of the included resources in this article. There are references that show that there will be little food supply impact because brewing ethanol from corn does not destroy the protein and nutrients of the corn only changes their form to a high nutrition cattle feed that in turn is returned the the food chain as beef, a high quality protein source.

The citation [1]was apparently removed when someone "improved the article" from its orginal

08:05, 1 May 2006 32.97.110.142 (Talk) (→Life cycle impact of E85 on greenhouse gas emissions - added discussion of alternate sources)

Well, now there are numbers with references, but there seem to be far too many jumbled together. It may be nice to have a summary of past, current and future energy advantages, somewhat like this LA Times exerpt: "For many years, the product was pushed by politically powerful agriculture interests in the Midwest and supported by government subsidies. But in the past, more energy in the form of coal and oil was used to make ethanol than the ethanol contained...

Alexander Farrell, a UC Berkeley professor of energy and resources, said that on average, [today's] U.S.-made ethanol contains 25% more energy than is used to make it. Coal and natural gas are used to help distill corn into ethanol, meaning that E85 puts the sun's energy, coal and natural gas into vehicle fuel tanks.

The newest plants are putting 67% more energy into the product than used in the manufacturing, said Michelle Kautz, a spokeswoman the ethanol coalition, based in Missouri." [2] --Mbauman 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This section mentions a 23.8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per gallon while a section above states that the miles per gallon is reduced by 25%. These numbers are close enough to consider it a wash on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced per mile if not more favorable to gasoline. The government [3] states that .74 million BTUs of energy are put into producing ethanol containing 1 million BTUs and 1.23 million BTUs into producing a gallon of gasoline containing the same amount of energy but fails to mention that the byproducts produced by that energy also contain energy whereas the byproduct of ethanol production only produces feed. Also, if ethanol takes less energy to produce than petroleum based fuels, wouldn't it make sense to use ethanol to produce ethanol?Jimberg98 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Environmental impact section has a spot that says:

When made from corn, E85 changes lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, which include the energy required to grow and process corn into ethanol, by 15-20% as compared to gasoline; however, this is negated because it burns 25% to 30% less efficiently than traditional gasoline in most vehicles.

The section that says the GHG reduction is negated is original research. I added a "citation needed" there, but I might remove it, since it is not mentioned in the epa.gov website. (/sarcasm gee, I guess those scientists at the epa aren't intelligent enough to notice that ethanol has less mpg than gasoline.../endsarcasm) If no one fixes this soon, I will remove the part after "however," since it is not in the original source.Robotbeat (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

After waiting for a source for almost 2 weeks, I removed "GHG reductions are negated by decreased efficiency". Epa.gov doesn't say that & likely the EPA already included that fact in their calculations. Besides, in some vehicles with high-compression, ethanol gives fuel efficiency comparable to gasoline.Robotbeat (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Additives

In this article there is no mention of the actual chemical composition of E85 besides ethanol and gasoline. However, just mixing the two doesn't do the trick because after a short time ethanol would absorb water from the air and separate from the gasoline. Therefore in such mixtures spme mixing additives are mandatory to prevent that separation and those are usually other alcohols like isopropanol, aromatic hydrocarbons like toluene and other chemicals. E85 must contain some of those, so someone should specify here which exactly additives are used in E85 to stabilize it. --Arny 11:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

E85 is a simple mix of fuel ethanol which meets the standard specified in one of the references (Handbook for Handling, Storing, and Dispensing E85) and regular gasoline. ethanol separation from gasoline due to absorption of atmospheric moisture is not a problem in modern cars with their closed fuel systems to control evaporative emissions, when fuel specification ethanol (ie dry) is mixed.

Needs more sources

A few sections have no sources other than other wiki entries as definations. Joncnunn 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The source for the quote "A recent GM study found that roughly 70 percent of its flex-fuel vehicle owners did not know they could use E85, and fewer than 10 percent did so." points to an article. Unless it points to the study it references, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.33.62 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List of cars with E-85

It needs to be pointed out that for each make on the list, that only some of the models are rated as E-85; not all. In some cases there is an E-85 sticker on the car that's rated for E-85, but not always. Joncnunn 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree - why don't you do it in the article? MikesPlant 16:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

E10 - mandated in Minnesota, not US-wide

This edit [4] made some wording changes and seems to have misinterpreted a reference to E10 being mandated in Minnesota to applying to the US in general. The new wording made this interpretation explicit. I'm pretty sure that E10 is not widely available outside the Midwest, let alone mandated. I haven't seen it anywhere in California. (See E10.) If a source can be found, please update E10 (and this article, if considered relevant) and cite the source. Speight 00:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As a Texas resident, I can say that E10 is the norm at gas stations here (I have yet to see an E85 pump, however). If I am not mistaken, all "fuel" (gasoline) sold in Texas is now required to contain 10% ethanol. While I am sure E10 is not everywhere in the country, I seem to remember seeing a statistic (I will try to locate a source) that there are more than 30 states which require the presence of some percentage of ethanol their auto fuels. Consumer Reports recently published an interesting article containing, among other things, results of their own independent tests comparing flex-fuel vehicles running E85 with the same running regular fuel (E10).

To confirm the above: E10 mixes are very common in many states these days. It is used as an oxygenate, to make the gasoline burn more completely and reduce smog. Ethanol as an oxygenate is a replacement for MTBE, because MTBE was found to be toxic and a groundwater contaminant. I live in WA state and E10 is mandatory in most locations.24.19.238.74 (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm

-Grammaticus Repairo 23:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Winter blend

"Winter blend" is briefly mentioned. It appears to be 70% ethanol (E70). Any more details? When/where/why it is used? —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is used in Sweden (at least) during winters, because of difficulties of starting flexifuel vehicles with E85 when it's cold. --Boivie 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add this to the article already? —Pengo 09:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead, what's stopping you? europrobe 11:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

lack of knowledge (15%) an laziness (85%). —Pengo 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added some content in the opening paragraph addressing this observation. --Daburtowpid (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethanol Pipelines?

According to these: [5], [6]

there are a lot of issues associated with putting ethanol in pipelines and it's sometimes even considered not worth the upgrade or replacement, with transport via truck or train preferable. Still, Brazil and Peru are building dedicated ethanol piplines. Should the article include some information on ethanol pipelines? Something else I'm wondering about, and suggested in the second article is if the corrosion issues can be avoided through only temporary use of ethanol in pipelines. Since a non-E85 compatible vehicle can briefly use E85 with little or no ill effects as long as the fuel is used up quickly, can E85 or 100% ethanol run through a gasoline pipeline & pumps as long as it's only temporary? Before and after the ethanol runs through, the pipe would go back to transporting gasoline and the corrosion effects could be largely avoided. Or maybe I don't understand how it works.

Length

Comments moved to Talk:E85 in standard engines. -- Beland 03:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

GHG in Life Cycle section

It's unclear what is meant by reducing "greenhouse gas emissions" by X percent. If there is a mixture of gases (CO2, methane, water vapor, etc.) then one could measure the reduction by weight, by volume, by opacity at various wavelengths, or by opacity combined with a factor for longevity. It would be preferable to name the actual gases involved, rather than coming up with yet another acronym - especially if we are only talking about CO2.

It's also unclear whether or not the calculation in this section take into account the amount of CO2 absorbed by the crop in the first place, and the potential use of renewable energy and fuels in the harvesting and processing steps. -- Beland 15:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The original version of this section in March 26,2006 incuded this segment:

---

The following estimates of the emissions impacts from the use of fuel ethanol are from the Argonne National Labs study, titled: Effects of Fuel Ethanol on Fuel-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, January 1999. Argonne National Laboratory. by M. Wang, C. Saricks, and D. Santini. [7]

This is a 39 page paper and cannot be adequately reduced to a single set of numbers, but the following extract, gives a quick look at some of its conclusions regarding fossil energy displacement and total GHG emissions reductions that derive from the use of fuel ethanol to replace gasoline.

---

This was lost in editing so that it is not clear where these numbers are coming from. The document is still cited as a reference in the text but the explaination was eliminated when the section was "cleaned up"

See http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/349.pdf also for this.

The wang studies have been cited in this article several times and they keep getting pulled out then folks complain about a lack of citations. The Wang studies are mentioned in a multitude of official government documents published by Department of Energy etc. I will put this reference back in the article "again".

The figures provided by the 2005 slideshow at http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/349.pdf do not agree with the figures in the article, and the presentation does not define "GHG". I'll have to read the paper later. -- Beland 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Energy balance

I removed the following unreferenced claim:

Current values for the energy balance of production show that gasoline returns only 80% of the energy invested in its production and delivery to the consumer. It has a negative energy balance of -20%. Current technology fuel ethanol, returns 139% of the energy invested in its production and delivery for a net +39% energy return, due to the free solar energy captured by the plants used for its production. Near future cellulose based ethanol is expected to reach an energy return of 169% of the energy invested in its production and distribution.

Considering the economics and physics involved, it's a little hard to believe that we actually lose more energy making gasoline from the oil we find for free in the ground than we get by burning it. Can anyone provide a reliable source for this claim? It is not mentioned in gasoline. -- Beland 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the already referenced reports by Argon National Labratory, (Wang et al) http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/349.pdf see page 12

Not sure why it is hard to understand it takes gasoline/diesel fuel to get gasoline/diesel fuel to the pump. For every million BTU's of energy put in a consumers fuel tank, the oil producers and distributors had to burn 250,000 BTU of fuel energy to get it there. Please replace the material you removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.156.125 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Looking at the referenced report (which is actually just a slideshow), I think you are confusing the amount of energy contained in the source material for gasoline, with the amount of energy it takes to extract and convert that source material. If it actually took more energy to produce fossil fuels than one gets from burning them, then by conservation of energy the world's energy supply would actually be non-fossil sources like hydro, solar, and nuclear. It's clear from the magnitude of these non-fossil sources and the magnitude of consumption that fossil fuels are actually a net source of stored energy, not merely a convenient transportation mechanism. Certainly one does not get access to 100% of the stored energy in oil when burning gasoline, due to extraction and refinement losses, but these losses do not exceed the amount of stored energy per unit of extracted oil. -- Beland 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Biggest Producer

According to http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#E the US Surpassed Brazil as the biggest ethanol producer in 2005. Unless someone has a different source that disputes that, I'll change the article in a few days.

E85 detrimental towards health?

I recently recieved a link to a site that claims ethanol might actually cause more pollution than gasoline. I checked wikipedia to see if there was more merit to this, but the page seems to lack anything on this. Does it hold any merit?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1901263.htm?health

69.213.74.62 13:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Link to study http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85PaperEST0207.pdf

_______________________________

True. Note the study previously linked in the article, here: http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/taurus.pdf results show that harmful NOx emissions are higher in the E85 vehicle as opposed to the Gasoline only version. All emissions are higher, save CO2, the least harmful of the bunch. (The line has since been removed as it was not reflective of the content of the study.)

I would not, however, say that it's detrimental to health. 136.1.1.101 19:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Divinity

There are serious questions being raised about the impact of Ethanol (E85) on health and the environment (Ozone layer). The following is from Stanford Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on Ethanol vs. Gasoline vehicles on Cancer and mortality in the US.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es062085v?cookieSet=1&journalCode=esthag

If you go to the other related articles on Ethanol fuel, renewable fuel etc you will see more sources and points on this issue. I certainly wish to make clear that I find some of this article quite bias. Personally I want the best fuel and the safest fuel to power our vehicles well in to the future but any article in an encyclopedia must be balanced and present all aspects of the issue, naturally they must be fully referenced. If one is to discuss E85 then one must discuss both the possible benifits and possible dangers the fuel may offer/pose and so on. ConsulHibernia —Preceding undated comment was added on 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Switchgrass

Since switchgrass is often mentioned with ethanol, should this be included in the alternative crops section? 72.87.188.180 18:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Effects on other corn based products

One thing that seems to be lacking is the effects that E85 has had on all other corn based products. Anything that uses corn syrup to using corn as feed for animals. Since there have been marked increases in the prices of Eggs, Chicken, Beef, high-fructose corn syrup and a decrease of profits for those industries since the introduction of E85. Just seems like it should be a apart of the article as an anti point. Any thoughts on adding a section for this? Sidelko 18:10 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the effect it has on other food products made from wheat and soy because farmers are switching their land to corn [8]. The criticism section of this article is laughably short as of right now. Man It's So Loud In Here 06:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Horsepower

Let's convert horsepower to kilowatts (we can show kW and then hp in parentheses), since kW are international and scientific units, while hp is pretty antiquated.

WriterHound 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea, pointdexter, except for the fact that no one knows what the hell a KW is and everyone understands simple HORSEPOWER. And then there are those of us who don't give a shit about what's international.- TLAGT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.22.70 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Most of the world isn't from the inward looking USA. 80.176.88.36 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has numerous points that seem to be users from both sides trying to push their agendas through this article. I would love to go through it and make some changes, especially regarding the fuel efficiency and cost mentions, but I really know very little about the subject. It would be outstanding if someone who knows a bit about E85 and respects NPOV could clean up a few of these discrepancies. Mikenucklesii (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to help with the article. I've been running E85 in my Taurus the last two years and subscribe to the NEVC (National Ethanol Vehicle Association) newsletter. Please point out areas for review. Regards, --Alansc9 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Q4 2008 Economic Effects

With the collapse of gasoline prices from ~US$110 to ~$US44, I believe that a section on the economic viability of E85 production would be both relevant and interesting. I recall hearing somewhere that the only reason why biofuels were competitive in early 2008 (US$3.50/gal gasoline) was due to US Gov't subsidies, for example. 130.20.71.48 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Sta7icMatt

e85 Station finder

There is an official government website I regularly use to find local sources of E85 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/locator/stations/ I feel that it should be included in the article somewhere but I am not sure where. It would help to verify the number of stations with e85 available. Personally I am upset that there is only ONE station in the 80 mile radius of LAX!! You'd think Southern California would embrace the supposedly environmentally friend fuel. Ciper (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

e85 vs gasoline cost matrix

Looking to add a simple/printable matrix so one can compare e85 vs gasoline performance and costs. So far, have not found anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuberty (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is real easy: As a rule of thumb, every engine will need around 30% more fuel while running on E85 (exact % varies from engine to engine). That means that the price of E85 must be at least 30% less than the price of regular gas - otherwise running on E85 will cost more than using gas. While running on E85 is actually cheaper than gas in some European countries, E85 is completely overpriced in the US. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrosive or not?

The currnet article talks about "rumors about being corrosive", while the Common ethanol fuel mixtures article [9] states that "ethanol is corrosive and can degrade some of the materials in the engine and fuel system". 188.26.243.225 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rumors about E85 being corrosive

The source used to reference this point (#22 http://www.1888pressrelease.com/e85-ethanol-is-so-corrosive-it-will-eat-your-gas-tank-and-y-pr-i2c00y01y.html) is actually http://www.change2e85.com, a company which sells E85 conversion kits on the internet. Not really a reliable source. OhRatts (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I'm proposing that E85 in the United States be merged into this article. E85 seems like pretty much a US phenomena right now, and much of the information is duplicated on the two articles. Moreover, it looks like information is out-of-date in both places, which suggests to me that we should focus our energy on making one good E85 article, rather than two duplicative, and mediocre articles.Erudy (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be mainly a US phenomenon but this article should be serving as an overview on E85 - what it is, advantages and disadvantages, and so on. There's no need to clutter it with a breakdown of its usage and availability in individual states. Wouldn't a merge with Flexible-fuel vehicles in the United States be more appropriate? DoctorKubla (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)