On 4/26/2014 10:14 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/26/2014 6:44 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 5:33 PM, jim wrote:
...

Consumer sentiment is they will put whatever works and whatever is
cheapest in their. In spite mountains of propaganda against ethanol
almost everybody puts it in their tank. The look at the price
and that is all.

Basically there is no alternative.

That is nonsense. The refiners could crack low octane
petroleum fractions into higher octane fractions, but that uses
energy and costs money and when given a choice the market
will choose the ethanol blend over the straight gasoline.

Again, "could" isn't "do". There is no _presently-marketed_ alternative
to any extent owing to the elimination of the formerly used additives
and the RFS. Even if the refiners wanted to use additional refining as
the alternative they can't because then they wouldn't/couldn't meet the
mandate of renewables (the RFS).

....

The option still exists today. If you want to you can
find a station that sells straight gasoline. But very
few exist because very few people will pay the extra price.

Very few exist because the refiners have to meet RFS so they can't
produce much and still do so...and it will in all likelihood still have
as much as 5% ethanol if you'll carefully check.

....

There would be a lot more (there used to be a lot more)
but very few are buying it.That has nothing to do
with mandates - it is just supply and demand.

No, it's RFS...it's all supply (regulated).

You are not well informed on this issue. I drive a 2007 Subaru Outback
Sport. With unleaded regular, I got about 29 mpg. With the currently
available gas here(up to 10% alcohol), which is now the only option, I
get about 24 mpg. The reformulated gas burns slightly cleaner to pass
EPA requirements, but I have to use 7 gallons to drive the same distance
as I would using 6 gallons of unleaded regular. This negates the slight
difference in pollution that the 10% alcohol provides.

l
....

The truth is that the reformulated gas costs more and does not
effectively decrease pollution because it produces 10% less pollution
but I have to burn 14% more of it to drive the same distance. So it
effectively produces 4% more pollution.
....

That much reduction seems somewhat excessive, but different vehicles
react differently depending on their tuning and ability to automagically
adapt. I've no idea what Subaru did/does in that regard...

But, E10 does a much more effective job of abatement than just 10% --
it's more like 30-35% on greenhouse gasses and is also quite effective
in smog-contributing particulates (up to 50%) and CO as compared to
conventional gasoline so it does have an overall positive impact despite
the somewhat reduced mileage.

Unfortunately, "there is no free lunch" though...

--