Jump to content

Talk:Common ethanol fuel mixtures

Important Disadvantages kept from consumers

I just added several important disadvantages of using ethanol as an automotive fuel. I included a scholarly citation to back up the information. I am a mechanical engineer by profession and have noticed that the science and economics of gasohol have been kept from the public because of the moneyed special interest groups of farmers, environmentalists, and big oil. I would have put my own equations and analysis, but original research is not allowed. Therefore I have included one well-written and understandable scholarly research paper. I have no doubt that advocates of corn farmers, big oil, and environmentalists will attempt to take down the important disadvantages I have listed. Please DO NOT REMOVE MY PROPERLY SOURCED AND RELEVANT EDIT. This is an encyclopedia and properly sourced and presented facts must be allowed to be published even when greed would prefer they be quashed. Here is an excerpt from the white paper:

IV. BRIEF SUMMARY AND A CONCLUSION

The major empirical conclusions of this essay can be quickly summarized. (1) Even given the most optimistic estimate of the energy balance of corn ethanol, such production does not result in any net energy saving since it requires somewhat more nonrenewable energy to produce than it yields as a fuel. (2) In past years, gasohol would not have been price competitive with gasoline without massive governmental subsidies. Low-grade blends of gasohol currently appear to have roughly the same direct costs as gasoline, although it is unclear if this situation will last because both the price of corn and the petroleum have been has rising swiftly. High ethanol blends of gasohol are not cost competitive with gasoline and, in the future, are unlikely to be cost competitive unless oil prices increase considerably faster than corn prices. (3) Unless productivity in growing corn increases dramatically, more corn ethanol production will lead to higher food prices and these, in turn, will have a highly adverse impact on the living standard of low-income people. (4) It is by no means clear that the use of corn ethanol in fuel will have significant and positive environmental impacts. N0w8st8s (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)n0w8st8s[reply]



Untitled

E5, E7 or E10 has not been introduced nationwide in Denmark as the article says. Actually Denmark hasn't made any efforts in this area which has caused critisicm. Isfisk 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have more comparison of usage between gasoline and gasohol, such as the calorific value, efficiency, octane rating, gas pollutant and effect on conventional engine using gasohol in long time period.

Engine Compatibility??

Could someone add what sorts of engines work with various ethanol mixtures? I've heard that engines that run on E85 can also run on E100, is this true? Tymothy 22:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My link was previously left on the page by other administrators when they were deleting some others that I had done (out of ignorance of the guidelines). "OhnoItsJamie" said to post my requests on the talk pages, so this is what I'm now doing. The only reason I'm asking now is because for a somewhat long time after my other links were deleted by an administrator, these two were left:

  1. http://www.brokerblogger.com/brokerblogger/2006/09/does_e10_ethano.html linked from Common ethanol fuel mixtures
  2. http://www.brokerblogger.com/brokerblogger/2006/09/does_e10_ethano.html linked from Ethanol fuel

I just assumed that these two links were acceptable under Wik.ipedia.Pro's guidelines. Can you let me know if a non-administrator deleted them? I'll then look into the appropriate approach to deal with it. If it was an administrator, I will accept their decision. Thank you. Brokerblogger 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can delete links. You don't have to be an admin to do so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jamie. I'll go ahead and put them back in as long as no Administrator objects. Brokerblogger 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to delete what appeared to be an obvious self-link, but after reviewing Wik.ipedia.Pro:Conflict of interest and Wik.ipedia.Pro:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest, I've decided to let it stand, with minor formatting changes. This is primarily due to the addition of relevant text to the article, and the use of the link as a reference only. I am impressed with both the level of discourse in talk pages shown by Brokerblogger, and his willingness to abide by Wik.ipedia.Pro guidelines — both far above the norm for self-linkers, who typically spray a barely-relevant link in the "External Links" section. To avoid trouble in the future, I suggest that you consider your primary goal when performing an edit to be improving Wik.ipedia.Pro. You and I both know that your real goal is to add a link to your site, and it should be obvious how that can upset other Wik.ipedia.Prons. However, if you add actual content to articles, especially with the same high level of detail you apply to talk pages and following Wik.ipedia.Pro policy, it is clear you are also acting in a good faith effort to improve Wik.ipedia.Pro. After you add content, it is only natural to cite it, and indeed, this is correct procedure. However, because it is a self-link (again, see WP:COI), I would suggest that the most proper course of action would be to open an entry on the article's talk page, discuss the content edit you just made, and post the citation link on the talk page only. If another editor believes the cite and text you added are relevant, they will cite your page in the main article. The idea here is to put the onus on other people to add your link to the article, as opposed to putting the onus on other people to remove your link. So, you see, with appropriate checks and balances, we can benefit each other. Also, I want to point out that Wik.ipedia.Pro:Administrators are not "final arbiters" of editing decisions, or even all that powerful. Administrators primarily keep order in specific circumstances, and editing decisions essentially come down to the views of individual editors and the community-driven Wik.ipedia.Pro:Policies and guidelines which most editors follow. Thanks for your time, and I hope you have a rich and fulfilling experience with Wik.ipedia.Pro! —Trevyn 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


12/1/06 Brokerblogger response - First, Trevyn, thank you for taking the time to evaluate a unique situation in Wik.ipedia.Pro. I have come to the conclusion that Wik.ipedia.Pro, right now, is being overloaded with real spam that hurts vs. helps Wik.ipedia.Pro. That situation is very time consuming to deal with, so I've realized that the 1% to 5% (guess estimate) of substantive, "added value" content that understandably appears to be "self-promotion" (solely on the basis of the editor contributing his owned material; "self-link") may have to be a matter of a few "babies being thrown out with the bath water". Second, thank you for providing a link to the "Conflict of intrest" page which cuts right to the heart of this matter. I can't believe I had never researched, or been pointed to, that page before! I'm sure that is my fault, as I "skimmed and scanned" the "External Links" section, but omitted close scrutiny of "Advertising and conflicts of interest", because I have no advertising on my blog, so that kind of "COI" is not relevant to me. However, if I may make a humble, constructive suggestion, someone with authority to do so should add a link (in the #1 position, IMO) to that "WP:COI" page in the "Links normally to be avoided" section. That, and the four topic headings above that, are where I focused my attention. In fact, the more you make "WP:COI" conspicuous on any page that can relate to spam the better, IMO.

Here's what I like about "WP:COI". Besides being well done in 3 sections, it says right at the top "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.", and "conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." ("notability" is subject to POV IMO, though). The best part, for me, is "There is no list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest. In most cases, the intention of the writer can be deduced from the tone and content of the article." True "intent" is very difficult to determine. Just ask any search engine that wants to improve their search "one box" function by knowing the "intent" of every user for every keyword string, so as to provide the most relevant results, first.

This brings me to my "third" thank you for saying in a civil/diplomatic way "To avoid trouble in the future, I suggest that you consider your primary goal when performing an edit to be improving Wik.ipedia.Pro. You and I both know that your real goal is to add a link to your site, and it should be obvious how that can upset other Wik.ipedia.Prons." You are right about my primary goal (up until now with Wik.ipedia.Pro) not being to improve Wik.ipedia.Pro, as it really was to help ignorant consumers (believe it or not). You are right again in an indirect sort of way that my real goal was to add a link to my site/blog. In order to accomplish my "reason behind the reason" real goal of helping ignorant consumers, I had to add a link to my site/blog. But, I certainly can see how that could upset other Wik.ipedia.Prons, as it definitely provides the appearance of "self-promotion" vs. "help of others".

Fourth, thanks again, for having/using good common sense (and the implied compliment) of saying "..if you add actual content to articles, especially with the same high level of detail you apply to talk pages and following Wik.ipedia.Pro policy, it is clear you are also acting in a good faith effort to improve Wik.ipedia.Pro." I was always acting in good faith to help ignorant consumers, and I will now put Wik.ipedia.Pro first (and justifiably so) when contributing to it in the future by taking your good suggestion about how to add content. I wish I had the time, right now, to do that with my Verizon FiOS content, but other things have to take precedent for now.

So, for now, I just want to say that communication of any kind is an art, as is diplomacy, and you, Trevyn, have mastered both (at least in my situation - big smiley face). Your pointing out that "..Wik.ipedia.Pro:Administrators are not "final arbiters" of editing decisions, or even all that powerful. Administrators primarily keep order in specific circumstances, and editing decisions essentially come down to the views of individual editors and the community-driven Wik.ipedia.Pro:Policies and guidelines which most editors follow." really helps me and other new contributors avoid the possible mispercetion of Abuse of power, as the reality of that "negative side" of human nature can create "a potential for alienation of contributors". Cheers. Brokerblogger 14:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E95

"E95 contains just 5% gasoline and is used in some diesel engines..." 95% ethanol is being used in a diesel engine? Surely not...? The Nebraska Ethanol Board sounds like it suggests a max of 15% ethanol for use in a diesel engine (which already sounds like a lot to me)... How does a fuel with an octane rating over 105 work nearly "neat" in a diesel engine? Xenophon777 23:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E10 contradiction?

The claim that E10 and E85 are the only gasoline-based motor fuels that can be sold in CT and MN is contradicted by the referenced claim in Ethanol fuel in the United States. Is there a reference for this claim, so we can determine which is correct? -- Beland (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Iowa and have been follwing the ethanol issue closely. You can purchase pure gasoline at almost every station in Iowa. The claim that E10 is mandated in this state is false. It is widely available, but use is not mandated. Could someone please check their sources? -- (Kb0ula (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I will check it out for you. The provided source says it is, but journalists not always get it right. Give me some time though, I will search for other sources with Google. --Mariordo (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also live in Iowa. It is not mandated. Neither is it mandated in Minnesota (except for the Twin Cities Metro area.) The source (ethanol.org) is obviously wrong. I don't think Montana mandates it either. The only mandate is probably that it be sold at a service station, not that it excludes the normal gasoline from being sold. Go to the Energy Information Administration web site to find out really which states are still allowed to use regular gasoline and where oxygenated fuels are mandated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.223.133 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I am busy, but I will look into this question in a couple of weeks. Anyway, there is a US federal mandate to use ethanol fuel, and the mandated quota will not be fulfilled in a couple of years, so ethanol producers are pushing the federal gov to increase the max ethanol content to 15%. Test are currently under way as car manufacturers only guarantee up to E10. This is the reason for several states without a specific mandate to have E10 being sold, but I will check which states/cities have specific mandates to correct the table.-Mariordo (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E10.....this article tells me what, but WHY?

After reading this article, I understand very well what each Exx ethanol/gasoline mixture is and where it used. But what I don't know after reading is the answer to my question that brought me to this page: Why is E10 being used "all of a sudden" now (instead of pure gasoline)?

What I mean by this is - what is the general history and reasoning behind the introduction of ethanol mixtures? Is it a cheaper way to crank up the octane? Is it because the US Government is subsidizing it? How does E10 compare to pure gasoline? What are the benefits/drawbacks of ethanol? These types of questions are not answered in the article.

I obviously am not knowledgeable on this subject; if you consider yourself capable of adding the above information to the article, please do! --smileyborg (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a provision that said the EPA would no longer require oxygenates in Reformulated Gasoline or RFG (RFG is mandated by EPA in most large urban areas). Refiners had relied on this requirement as a defense against claims that MTBE (the most common oxygenate in RFG) had contaminated groundwater. The irony is that ethanol is also an oxygenate, but less preferable to refiners due to increased handling issues (among other things). So in May 2006 when the new rules took effect, MTBE went away (for the most part) and ethanol took its place in RFG.

Step 2 was the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which mandated ever increasing amounts of ethnaol. In 2013 (source API and DOE) we reach a point where the amount of biofuels mandated exceeds 10% of gasoline, what is termed the "blendwall" because the gasoline market cannot soak up any more ethanol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.33.62 (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source and edit pages contradictory

My browser and the HTML source read "According the Philippine Department of Energy E10 is harmful to cars' fuel systems." When I try to edit that section, the sentence reads "According the Philippine Department of Energy E10 is not harmful to cars' fuel systems." (Emphasis mine.) The latter is correct. --72.188.48.112 (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:E85 logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wik.ipedia.Pro:Media copyright questions. --07:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Finland

Finnish energy company St1 started selling E85 on 31.3.09. More: http://www.st1.eu/index.php?id=2826

Ethanol vs Methanol

I removed the claim about less methanol use because of toxicity and edited it to read more corrosive instead. Everything I've read on the subject from the owners manual in my first car on has said the methanol is harder on engines, and frankly I don't think the toxicity of methanol counts for much especially give that the discussion is about blending alcohols with gasoline which is far more toxic. 132.170.51.65 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "ignition improver"?

The section about E95 as a diesel engine fuel mentions "ignition improver" but does not say what it is. There is also no separate article for Ignition improver. Curious minds want to know... Roger (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I did the original edit I did some Google research but I couldn't find out. It seems this a patented additive and they are not saying much about it.--Mariordo (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etamax D has following composition (percentage by volume), 93,5 % bioethanol (hydrous 95 %), 3,6 % ignition improver, 3,0 % denaturants, Corrosion inhibitor. I think this additional more detailed information about this exceptual fuel and application is better moved to the ED95 paragraph. Note that the other common ethanol fuel mixtures also contain additives so to mention this specifically for ED95 I would consider unnecessary. I can probably try to modify this a little. HansKeuken (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ED95 picture

Hello Mariordo, I planned to work on the Common ethanol fuel mixtures page and one of the first things I did was removing the ED95 application picture to the ED95 paragraph. I agree with you that it would be nice to have a picture there, but this picture should represent the common use of ethanol in fuel. We both know that ethanol is most commonly used in unleaded petrol blends or pure as hydrous (hydrated ethanol)in Brazil and all in Otto Engines. The ED95 is a very special diesel aplication and is not representative as Common ethanol fuel mixtures. So please move it to the ED95 paragraph or delete it. We can both think of an alternative picture, which is not that easy, because we have quite a different variaty of of ethanol sources and fuel applications. To be generic we could maybe use a nice picture of a fuel ethanol tank. Maybe we have to look for one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansKeuken (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you, a more representative pic is required for the lead, probable from Brazil or the US. I will move this discussion to the talk page, and propose some alternatives. But in the mean time, let's keep the lead with the current pic (the ED95 section already has too many pics.)--Mariordo (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the US and Brazil are the two main markets for ethanol fuel, I believe an image from any of these two countries should be in the lead, proposed the following options (two from each country):
  • Brazilian flex fuel vehicles
    Brazilian flex fuel vehicles
  • Ethanol pump in Brazil
    Ethanol pump in Brazil
  • E10 label in a US pump
    E10 label in a US pump
  • E85 fuel pump in the US
    E85 fuel pump in the US

There are plenty more here. Please set your opinion below. Also, when a more representative pic is selected for the lead, I will substitute the English bus for the Swedish bus now in the lead, as the latter country is more respresentative (Sweden has the largest fleet of ED95 buses in the world).--Mariordo (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait to see your figure, just uploaded here so we can look at it. We are not in a hurry, and also is good to wait for other opinions.--Mariordo (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to select a picture I would be a favor of a Brazilian gas station with their "Gasoline C" containing up to 26 vol% ethanol and pure hydrous E100 because ethanol blending percentages in the world tend to go up and Brazil (being ahead) serves as the best possible (generic) example. This page is more about fuels and less about vehicles. So please use a picture where both fuels at the pump are feasible. HansKeuken (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made a good point, I would also favor the Brazilian gas station (either as first or second choice). By the way, it is E25 not 26%.--Mariordo (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the maximum has been 26% ethanol. I checked some recent UNICA papers and they are currently referring to a max. of 25% and 25% is also easier because we seem to do these things preferably in steps of 5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansKeuken (talk • contribs) 09:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC) What about something like this?[reply]

HansKeuken (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HansKeuken, I agree this image is more representative for the lead in the article. However, you limited the explanations to Europe, the US and Brazil. As you can see in the table, there are several countries using blends from E5 to E10. Can you change the caption to reflect this fact. Second, when you uploaded the image forgot to select the copyright. You need to specify it is your own work. Please do so or the image risks deletion at any time (if you need help with this fix let me know, I can help you). Once this is fixed, I will uploaded in the Commons, so other projects can use it. Keep the good work.--Mariordo (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cold starting: caption error?

The caption accompanying the photograph of a Chevy FlexPower engine in the E100 section is almost certainly in error: "Typical Brazilian flexible-fuel engine with secondary gasoline reservoir for cold starting the engine at temperatures below −15 °C (5 °F)" As explained in the text of the section, cold starting is an issue at temperatures below (plus) 15 °C (59 °F), and temperatures in Brazil never go under −5 °C (23 °F). It looks like whoever put in the caption got the sign wrong, so I have corrected the caption text accordingly. Piperh (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

US E10 laws

EISA 2007 causes Oil co to blend more more E10 very year. However there is a legal issue over E15. we apparently hit the Blending wall see [stopethanol.wordpress.com] http://stopethanol.wordpress.com/

"The federal RFS mandate in EISA 2007 is NOT A MANDATORY E10 LAW. E10 is never mentioned in the Act because E10 is NOT Renewable Fuel. E10 is gasoline with 10% ethanol in it, but it is still gasoline made to ASTM D4814. Is there anyone in the federal government or the EPA that understands this? If so then they should understand that there is a huge problem that will manifest itself this year.

"There is a hard coded table in the RFS section of EISA 2007. It is right there in Section 202.(a).(2) on page 31. That table sets out the amount of ethanol that is supposed to be blended to make Renewable Fuel in each year through 2022. Renewable Fuel as implied in EISA 2007 is E85. It is actually defined as Renewable Fuel in a couple of places in the Act" Renewable Fuel is defined as E11-E85 Msg4real (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FL Has repealed E10

Charles Bronson mandated sale of E10 gasoline in 2008. More information HB 4013 by Rep. Matt Gaetz, to repeal the 2008 Florida law that requires gasoline to include ethanol. A Senate committee approved the measure 10-1 on Dec. 6th, 2011. The following day, Dec. 7th, 2011 the bill was postponed. Finally, House Bill 4013 and Senate Bill 238 APPROVED and in 2012 FL mandatory E10 law repealed. [1] Msg4real (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note: please post in Article in the correct fashion Msg4real (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E10 is not mandatory in Louisiana, USA

I believe there is a limit of 10% ethanol in Louisiana, but there is no mandate that all gasoline sold must be E10. There are numerous stations that sell non-ethanol gasoline all over the state. -- Talk 16:25, 2 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Strike300: Correct "..Louisiana has a dormant mandatory ethanol law. Like Montana, it hasn't triggered because it requires 50 mgy of instate ethanol production which doesn't look too likely in the foreseeable future. It isn't a mandatory E10 law per se. It is a 2% volumetric law like the one passed in Washington. There is also a strange House Resolution filed with the Louisiana Secretary of State to provide an escape clause if the ethanol mandate will raise the price of gasoline more than 2 cents per gallon.

Of course all of this means nothing because EISA 2007 is forcing ethanol into all of Louisana's gasoline anyway." -- [2] Msg4real (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Msg4real: As of April, 2017, No Ethanol fuel is still available at a lot of independent gas stations, and I visited a Chevron station in Thibodaux, Louisiana yesterday that only offered 87 octane E10 and 87 octane No Ethanol, which is unusual for any name brand gas station. strike300 (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.fuel-testers.com/florida_ethanol_news_e10.html
  2. ^ http://e0pc.com/LA.php

Strange adjective in the article

″E100 is pure ethanol fuel. Straight hydrous ethanol as an automotive fuel has been widely used in Brazil since the late 1970s for neat ethanol vehicles and more recently for flexible-fuel vehicles.″ Why does that say NEAT ethanol vehicles? Shouldn't neat be deleted? 174.101.99.191 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Common ethanol fuel mixtures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Common ethanol fuel mixtures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified 10 external links on Common ethanol fuel mixtures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified 19 external links on Common ethanol fuel mixtures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hE15 discontinued in Netherlands since 2015

Current article suggests that hE15 is still sold, but it is not. During wider introduction of E10 resellers decided to alter the blend composition of products (eg Blue One sold by Argos which basically made it an E10 blend). Cannot find anything on current sales under hE15 specs. 2A02:A44F:4BDF:1:B121:7407:D78E:FDA5 (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Common_ethanol_fuel_mixtures&oldid=1206760809"

See what we do next...

OR

By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.

Success: You're subscribed now !