"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...inimum-mandate

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:28:31 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...inimum-mandate

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

See United States Congress and thank them for the entire corn/ethanol
fiasco.
I plan to implement term limits this fall by voting against all
incumbent Congresspersons!
--
Mr.E

On Sep 19, 8:56*am, Mr.E wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:28:31 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...ment/249857-ep...

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

See United States Congress and thank them for the entire corn/ethanol
fiasco.
I plan to implement term limits this fall by voting against all
incumbent Congresspersons!
--
Mr.E

It would seem a much better idea would be to spend
the time to understand which ones are representing your
views and doing a good job. How about if your current
representatives are against the ethanol subsidies and
the candidates running against them are green kooks?
Is that how you would run a business? Just fire everyone?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:08:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 19, 8:56*am, Mr.E wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:28:31 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...ment/249857-ep...

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

See United States Congress and thank them for the entire corn/ethanol
fiasco.
I plan to implement term limits this fall by voting against all
incumbent Congresspersons!
--
Mr.E

It would seem a much better idea would be to spend
the time to understand which ones are representing your
views and doing a good job. How about if your current
representatives are against the ethanol subsidies and
the candidates running against them are green kooks?
Is that how you would run a business? Just fire everyone?
If government were a business, it would have been Bankrupted,
Dissolved and/or Restructured years ago.
I believe in Term Limits on all elective offices.
--
Mr.E

Mr.E wrote:
Is that how you would run a business? Just fire everyone?
If government were a business, it would have been Bankrupted,
Dissolved and/or Restructured years ago.
I believe in Term Limits on all elective offices.

Too bad the supreme court disagreed?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:45:45 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

Mr.E wrote:
Is that how you would run a business? Just fire everyone?
If government were a business, it would have been Bankrupted,
Dissolved and/or Restructured years ago.
I believe in Term Limits on all elective offices.

Too bad the supreme court disagreed?

We'd have term limits if we had a smarter electorate.

On Sep 19, 10:00*am, Mr.E wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:08:17 -0700 (PDT), "









wrote:
On Sep 19, 8:56*am, Mr.E wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:28:31 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...ment/249857-ep....

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

See United States Congress and thank them for the entire corn/ethanol
fiasco.
I plan to implement term limits this fall by voting against all
incumbent Congresspersons!
--
Mr.E

It would seem a much better idea would be to spend
the time to understand which ones are representing your
views and doing a good job. * *How about if your current
representatives are against the ethanol subsidies and
the candidates running against them are green kooks?
Is that how you would run a business? *Just fire everyone?

*If government were a business, it would have been Bankrupted,
Dissolved and/or Restructured years ago.
I believe in Term Limits on all elective offices.
--
Mr.E

@Mr. E:

That would still leave control of everything to the
shadowy behind-the-scenes appointed committee
assistants and would not truly solve the stated problem...

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:00:10 -0400, Mr.E wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:08:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 19, 8:56*am, Mr.E wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:28:31 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...ment/249857-ep...

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

See United States Congress and thank them for the entire corn/ethanol
fiasco.
I plan to implement term limits this fall by voting against all
incumbent Congresspersons!
--
Mr.E

It would seem a much better idea would be to spend
the time to understand which ones are representing your
views and doing a good job. How about if your current
representatives are against the ethanol subsidies and
the candidates running against them are green kooks?
Is that how you would run a business? Just fire everyone?
If government were a business, it would have been Bankrupted,
Dissolved and/or Restructured years ago.

So, if you ran a business you'd fire everyone occasionally?

I believe in Term Limits on all elective offices.

So vote for people who have similar values. It really isn't that hard.

On 9/19/2012 9:00 AM, Mr.E wrote:
If government were a business, it would have been Bankrupted,
Dissolved and/or Restructured years ago.
I believe in Term Limits on all elective offices.


Amen!!!
Get them all out until we get a set of law makers who will take on
issues with an open mind and make intelligent decisions that work for
the people rather than their party, supporters, or PACs.

--


___________________________________

Keep the whole world singing . . .
Dan G
remove the seven

That should be gawdawful expensive, to retrofit all the pumps. With meter
telling when four gallons hits, and then dispense the alcohol into the gas.
Fuel is expensive enough already, without having to pay for more tanks and
more mixing.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Mr.E" wrote in message
...

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of
E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."


http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...inimum-mandate

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

See United States Congress and thank them for the entire corn/ethanol
fiasco.
I plan to implement term limits this fall by voting against all
incumbent Congresspersons!
--
Mr.E

On Sep 19, 10:21*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
That should be gawdawful expensive, to retrofit all the pumps. With meter
telling when four gallons hits, and then dispense the alcohol into the gas.
Fuel is expensive enough already, without having to pay for more tanks and
more mixing.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Mr.E" wrote in message

...

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of
E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...ment/249857-ep...

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

See United States Congress and thank them for the entire corn/ethanol
fiasco.
I plan to implement term limits this fall by voting against all
incumbent Congresspersons!
--
Mr.E

Godawful expensive ?

Do you live that far into the boonies that gas pumps
as still old fashioned old timey things ?

Around the civilized world, gas pumps have computers
in them and can self-serve cash or credit and have annoying
flat screen TVs blaring ads at you to make even more money
off of you while you pump the gas...

It would be a software change, little more...

On 9/19/2012 9:20 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
That should be gawdawful expensive, to retrofit all the pumps. With meter
telling when four gallons hits, and then dispense the alcohol into the gas.
Fuel is expensive enough already, without having to pay for more tanks and
more mixing.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

that's not what they mean.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

In article ,
Mr.E wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:28:31 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...857-epas-four-
gallon-minimum-mandate

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

See United States Congress and thank them for the entire corn/ethanol
fiasco.
I plan to implement term limits this fall by voting against all
incumbent Congresspersons!

so you won't be voting for Ryan?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:56:12 -0400, Mr.E wrote
in Re EPA to protect
small engines:

I plan to implement term limits this fall by voting against all
incumbent Congresspersons!

I've been doing that for many years. It's a righteous strategy.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps
either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the
case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at
least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines
with smaller

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

There are seveal stations in around me that sell gas with out the E in it.
It is sold as their highest price gas, so when the gas was about $ 3.50 a
gallon, the E-free was $ 4.00 per gallon.
I have started using that and it seems the small engines start beter.

"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
m...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps
either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the
case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at
least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines
with smaller

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

There are seveal stations in around me that sell gas with out the E in it.
It is sold as their highest price gas, so when the gas was about $ 3.50 a
gallon, the E-free was $ 4.00 per gallon.
I have started using that and it seems the small engines start beter.


I have started doing that as well, and I find small engines start and run
better. Our local Shell stations offer the lowest octane fuel at 10%
ethanol, the next higher fuel uses 5% ethanol and their premium octane fuel
with the highest price contains NO ethanol.

One engine, a very small 4 stroke Honda (the size of most 2 stroke engines)
on a little rototiller, would be very difficult to start and would run rough
on 10% ethanol, changing to 0% ethanol made it start right a way and run
very smooth with full power.

Thanks for the field report.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"EXT" wrote in message
anews.com...

One engine, a very small 4 stroke Honda (the size of most 2 stroke engines)
on a little rototiller, would be very difficult to start and would run rough
on 10% ethanol, changing to 0% ethanol made it start right a way and run
very smooth with full power.

In article s.com,
EXT wrote:
... other quotes snipped...

I have started doing that as well, and I find small engines start and run
better. Our local Shell stations offer the lowest octane fuel at 10%
ethanol, the next higher fuel uses 5% ethanol and their premium octane fuel
with the highest price contains NO ethanol.


Shell must be using other additives or formulations to control the octane
rating, rather than the ethanol content, apparently. All other things
being equal, a higher ethanol percentage increases the octane rating
of gasoline. In fact, straight ethanol has an octane equivalent rating
of about 105 to 115 or so, depending on what method is used to measure or
calculate it.



--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:55:53 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article s.com,
EXT wrote:
... other quotes snipped...

I have started doing that as well, and I find small engines start and run
better. Our local Shell stations offer the lowest octane fuel at 10%
ethanol, the next higher fuel uses 5% ethanol and their premium octane fuel
with the highest price contains NO ethanol.


Shell must be using other additives or formulations to control the octane
rating, rather than the ethanol content, apparently. All other things
being equal, a higher ethanol percentage increases the octane rating
of gasoline. In fact, straight ethanol has an octane equivalent rating
of about 105 to 115 or so, depending on what method is used to measure or
calculate it.
Although Ethanol DOES raise the octane marginally, it lowers the
heat value by significantly more - which makes it a bit of a
boondoggle as far as a performance fuel is concerned. Shell makes
their 93 octane fuel as 93 octane GASOLINE. The ethanol in the 87
makes it closer to 88 octane - WOW!!!!

In article ,
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:55:53 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article s.com,
EXT wrote:
... other quotes snipped...

I have started doing that as well, and I find small engines start and run
better. Our local Shell stations offer the lowest octane fuel at 10%
ethanol, the next higher fuel uses 5% ethanol and their premium octane fuel
with the highest price contains NO ethanol.


Shell must be using other additives or formulations to control the octane
rating, rather than the ethanol content, apparently. All other things
being equal, a higher ethanol percentage increases the octane rating
of gasoline. In fact, straight ethanol has an octane equivalent rating
of about 105 to 115 or so, depending on what method is used to measure or
calculate it.
Although Ethanol DOES raise the octane marginally, it lowers the
heat value by significantly more - which makes it a bit of a
boondoggle as far as a performance fuel is concerned. Shell makes
their 93 octane fuel as 93 octane GASOLINE. The ethanol in the 87
makes it closer to 88 octane - WOW!!!!

If by performance you mean miles per gallon, I agree. OTOH, if you are
talking about power developed by the engine, then with a modern fuel
injection system and electronic controls, it really doesn't make
any difference, in fact, an engine running on ethanol can make more
power than one running on gasoline, but it will take about twice as much
ethanol to do so. It's worth noting that small engines with their simple
carburetors and lack of appropriate engine sensors have no way to adjust
fuel metering to compensate for different fuel blends.




--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

On Sep 19, 9:17 am, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:


They should do away with that E stuff all together.


Au contraire !!

I think they should put the gasoline in one pump, and the ethanol
in another, and the customer could buy them separately...

.... a lot more mason jars would be sold....you betcha !!

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:55 -0700 (PDT), Robert
wrote:

On Sep 19, 9:17 am, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:


They should do away with that E stuff all together.


Au contraire !!

I think they should put the gasoline in one pump, and the ethanol
in another, and the customer could buy them separately...

*Great* idea! Somehow I bet the amount of E going into automobiles would be
nil. Don't drink and drive.


.... a lot more mason jars would be sold....you betcha !!

....but you'd have to buy it four gallons at a time! ;-)

On 9/19/2012 11:05 AM, Robert wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:17 am, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:


They should do away with that E stuff all together.


Au contraire !!

I think they should put the gasoline in one pump, and the ethanol
in another, and the customer could buy them separately...

.... a lot more mason jars would be sold....you betcha !!


the ethanol cannot leave the plant without gasoline in it.


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Sep 21, 8:40*am, Steve Barker wrote:
On 9/19/2012 11:05 AM, Robert wrote:

On Sep 19, 9:17 am, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

Au contraire !!

I think they should put *the gasoline in one pump, and the ethanol
in another, and the customer could buy them separately...

* .... a lot more mason jars would be sold....you betcha !!

the ethanol cannot leave the plant without gasoline in it.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

That sounds kind of nuts. You mean if I'm a company
processing corn into ethanol I have to buy gasoline to
put in it? How much do I have to put in? I would have
thought the ethanol went from a company that distills
it from corn to a gasoline company that then blends it
into their products.

"Steve Barker" wrote in message

stuff snipped

the ethanol cannot leave the plant without gasoline in it.


--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Is that an ATF thing?

--
Bobby G.

On Sep 21, 6:11*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Steve Barker" wrote in message

stuff snipped

the ethanol cannot leave the plant without gasoline in it.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Is that an ATF thing?

--
Bobby G.

Until some reference shows that it's true, I'm not buying it.
Certainly ethanol has been leaving distilleries for industrial
use forever. What does he claim they do with ethanol
going into a company using it in a chemical manufacturing
process? Put gasoline in that too?

In article ,
"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps
either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the
case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at
least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines
with smaller

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

There are seveal stations in around me that sell gas with out the E in it.
It is sold as their highest price gas, so when the gas was about $ 3.50 a
gallon, the E-free was $ 4.00 per gallon.
I have started using that and it seems the small engines start beter.

which puts the lie to the statement that taking ethanol out would lower the
price of gas

On 9/20/2012 12:50 AM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps
either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the
case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at
least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines
with smaller

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

There are seveal stations in around me that sell gas with out the E in it.
It is sold as their highest price gas, so when the gas was about $ 3.50 a
gallon, the E-free was $ 4.00 per gallon.
I have started using that and it seems the small engines start beter.

which puts the lie to the statement that taking ethanol out would lower the
price of gas


Depends, There are tax exemptions and subsidies for the ethanol blend.
So while it is true that "standard" gasoline costs more at wholesale it
is because we aren't directly paying the full cost of the ethanol blend.

If gasohol was successful, it would succeed on its own. Not having to be
pushed on us by government mandate.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"George" wrote in message
...

Depends, There are tax exemptions and subsidies for the ethanol blend.
So while it is true that "standard" gasoline costs more at wholesale it
is because we aren't directly paying the full cost of the ethanol blend.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

If gasohol was successful, it would succeed on its own. Not having to be
pushed on us by government mandate.

If Nuclear Energy was safe, it wouldn't need gov't exemptions from liability
issues resulting in the odd nuclear accident




Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"George" wrote in message
...

Depends, There are tax exemptions and subsidies for the ethanol blend.
So while it is true that "standard" gasoline costs more at wholesale it
is because we aren't directly paying the full cost of the ethanol blend.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps
either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in
the case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require
that at least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles
and engines with smaller

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

There are seveal stations in around me that sell gas with out the E
in it. It is sold as their highest price gas, so when the gas was
about $ 3.50 a gallon, the E-free was $ 4.00 per gallon.
I have started using that and it seems the small engines start beter.

which puts the lie to the statement that taking ethanol out would
lower the price of gas

You're assuming the retail price is totally governed by cost + markup.

In this case, the retail price may be governed more by market demand, that
is, what the buyer is willing to pay. Some people will pay a premium for the
undiluted stuff.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps
either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in
the case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require
that at least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles
and engines with smaller

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

There are seveal stations in around me that sell gas with out the E
in it. It is sold as their highest price gas, so when the gas was
about $ 3.50 a gallon, the E-free was $ 4.00 per gallon.
I have started using that and it seems the small engines start beter.

which puts the lie to the statement that taking ethanol out would
lower the price of gas

You're assuming the retail price is totally governed by cost + markup.

In this case, the retail price may be governed more by market demand, that
is, what the buyer is willing to pay. Some people will pay a premium for the
undiluted stuff.

which would mean that more and more stations would sell E-free to take advantage
of this, but strangely they aren't

On Sep 20, 12:50*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
*"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps
either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the
case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at
least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines
with smaller

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

There are seveal stations in around me that sell gas with out the E in it.
It is sold as their highest price gas, so when the gas was about $ 3.50 a
gallon, the E-free was $ 4.00 per gallon.
I have started using that and it seems the small engines start beter.

which puts the lie to the statement that taking ethanol out would lower the
price of gas

Geez. There is an obvious difference in having a unique
product right now, ie gas without E in it and taking the
E out of most of all of the gas. Right now they are
charging a PREMIUM for the gas without E because
they know there is a select market that is willing to
pay more, eg someone with a small engine.

E still costs more per gallon equivalent than gasoline.
And that is even with all the subsidies added in, which
just make the comparison worse. Take it out and
the price of gas will go down.

Some oil execs out there have to be smiling all
the way to the bank. Gas without E costs less
to produce, and they are now charging more.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

Geez. There is an obvious difference in having a unique
product right now, ie gas without E in it and taking the
E out of most of all of the gas. Right now they are
charging a PREMIUM for the gas without E because
they know there is a select market that is willing to
pay more, eg someone with a small engine.

E still costs more per gallon equivalent than gasoline.
And that is even with all the subsidies added in, which
just make the comparison worse. Take it out and
the price of gas will go down.

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 12:46:06 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Some oil execs out there have to be smiling all the way to the bank. Gas without E costs less to produce, and they are now charging more. Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .

Absolutely right. I have a retired friend who was a superindendent at our local refinery tell me this. It was the same when I was in the fibers business. Product yields were in the 99+% for continuous process of spinning something like polyester where a spinneret could last for over a month before changing. What cost was switching from one product to another on the production line. In the case of polyester, it might cost half a shifts production and loss of yield to switch over. That's what happens when all these botique gasolines are mandated by technically ignorant politicians.

On 9/20/2012 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:50 am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
"Ralph Mowery" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps
either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the
case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at
least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines
with smaller

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

There are seveal stations in around me that sell gas with out the E in it.
It is sold as their highest price gas, so when the gas was about $ 3.50 a
gallon, the E-free was $ 4.00 per gallon.
I have started using that and it seems the small engines start beter.

which puts the lie to the statement that taking ethanol out would lower the
price of gas

Geez. There is an obvious difference in having a unique
product right now, ie gas without E in it and taking the
E out of most of all of the gas. Right now they are
charging a PREMIUM for the gas without E because
they know there is a select market that is willing to
pay more, eg someone with a small engine.


No premium involved. I have multiple friends who know something about
gasoline prices and have seen wholesale price schedules and non blended
fuel costs less.

One of my friends family owns a bunch of large Cstores. They were one of
the last of the bigger operators around here to convert to blended
ethanol fuels. One of the reasons it happened so quickly was the
"walmart syndrome". People were shopping only on price not value and a
gas station operator could buy blended fuel for $0.09~0.11 less/gallon.
So if you owned a station everyone just knew you were ripping them off
by selling them non-blended for more money. Eventually all had to
convert.


E still costs more per gallon equivalent than gasoline.
And that is even with all the subsidies added in, which
just make the comparison worse. Take it out and
the price of gas will go down.

It would actually go up.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:26:39 -0400, George
wrote:

On 9/20/2012 12:27 PM, wrote:


E still costs more per gallon equivalent than gasoline.
And that is even with all the subsidies added in, which
just make the comparison worse. Take it out and
the price of gas will go down.

It would actually go up.


Probably. The oil companies will say the supply was reduced by 10%
and refinery capacity isn't there. And they'll have a point.

On Sep 20, 3:26*pm, George wrote:
On 9/20/2012 12:27 PM, wrote:





On Sep 20, 12:50 am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
* "Ralph Mowery" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps
either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the
case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at
least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines
with smaller

They should do away with that E stuff all together.

There are seveal stations in around me that sell gas with out the E in it.
It is sold as their highest price gas, so when the gas was about $ 3.50 a
gallon, the E-free was $ 4.00 per gallon.
I have started using that and it seems the small engines start beter.

which puts the lie to the statement that taking ethanol out would lower the
price of gas

Geez. *There is an obvious difference in having a unique
product right now, ie gas without E in it and taking the
E out of most of all of the gas. * Right now they are
charging a PREMIUM for the gas without E because
they know there is a select market that is willing to
pay more, eg someone with a small engine.

No premium involved. I have multiple friends who know something about
gasoline prices and have seen wholesale price schedules and non blended
fuel costs less.


Well duh! That was precisely the point, that gas
WITHOUT ETHANOL is selling for a higher price,
ie at a premium to blended.



One of my friends family owns a bunch of large Cstores. They were one of
the last of the bigger operators around here to convert to blended
ethanol fuels. One of the reasons it happened so quickly was the
"walmart syndrome". People were shopping only on price not value and a
gas station operator could buy blended fuel for $0.09~0.11 less/gallon.

So if you owned a station everyone just knew you were ripping them off
by selling them non-blended for more money. Eventually all had to
convert.

Apparently some are still offering both and selling the
ethanol free gas at a premium.





E still costs more per gallon equivalent than gasoline.
And that is even with all the subsidies added in, which
just make the comparison worse. * Take it out and
the price of gas will go down.

It would actually go up.

You must be one of the guys that thinks a $40,000
volt really only costs $25,000 because the govt is subsidizing
it to the tune of $15,000. We are all paying the true cost
of the Volt, just as we are all paying the true cost of
ethanol, including all the subsidies. And then factor in
what it's done to the price of bread and cornflakes and
it's a total disaster.

On 9/19/2012 8:28 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...inimum-mandate

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.



Even Al Gore has said the ethanol requirement was a mistake.

Also one big environmental group, can't remember who, has said it.

Get rid of ethanol and all the other boutique grades of gas and there
would be a huge price drop.

On Sep 19, 1:22*pm, Frank wrote:
On 9/19/2012 8:28 AM, HeyBub wrote:

"EPA requires that retail stations that own or operate blender pumps either
dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15
and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four
gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller
fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing
greater than 10 volume percent ethanol."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...ment/249857-ep...

Seems to me, if the EPA wanted to protect small engines, they'd do away
entirely with the ethanol requirement.

Even Al Gore has said the ethanol requirement was a mistake.

Also one big environmental group, can't remember who, has said it.

Get rid of ethanol and all the other boutique grades of gas and there
would be a huge price drop.

That and the prices of food would go down as well
as too much of the corn crop is being diverted to this
eco-fuel boondongle...