" on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:40:34 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 1:51:50 AM UTC-4, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Delaware is, however, small enough that one could go "out of
state". But there comes a point of how much will it cost to drive
the extra miles in order to save how much?

"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

And I do go out of state frequently. But there are not any gas stations that sell gasoline with no ethonal any where close to Delaware.

Or close enough to be practical. B-)

Reminds me of my yout' when I had a motorcycle. Figured it really
wasn't worth the time or mileage to try and save a few cents per
gallon of gas. I mean, as I can only buy two gallons - max - what
difference does it make?


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Larry Jaques on Tue, 29 Apr 2014
16:26:05 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

No wonder Ive not seen one in 2 decades. Doing a quick search..most
of the 9 appear to be at or near boat landings/marinas.

The closest one listed is 109 miles away.

I'm fortunate, in that the nearest one is on my way from the
community college to the Safeway store on my way to the interstate
home.

I tried just one tankful in my Tundra and it didn't make any
performance difference, nor did the mileage come back up during that
trip.

It may also be, that newer engines / fuel systems are less
dependent on the exact composition of the fuel.

It's too pricy for me.

That is the main drawback.

100% gasoline is hard to find because motorists
won't pay the extra price. It has nothing to do
with federal renewable fuel mandates. If the
EPA allowed more ethanol to be blended with
gasoline, motorists would buy more than the
mandates require.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:47:57 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Tue, 29 Apr 2014
16:26:05 -0700 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

No wonder Ive not seen one in 2 decades. Doing a quick search..most
of the 9 appear to be at or near boat landings/marinas.

The closest one listed is 109 miles away.

I'm fortunate, in that the nearest one is on my way from the
community college to the Safeway store on my way to the interstate
home.

I tried just one tankful in my Tundra and it didn't make any
performance difference, nor did the mileage come back up during that
trip.

It may also be, that newer engines / fuel systems are less
dependent on the exact composition of the fuel.

I'm sure that's correct. Computers play with the timing to set it as
advanced as the octane will permit, for best mileage. I remember my
first experience with the oxygenated fuel and my IHC Scout. It really
liked the fuel Arco was experimenting with, so I only fueled it there.
That was a standard 2bbl carb with vacuum-advanced distributor. The
EFI on my Tundra says "Give me anything short of turtle soup and I'll
run for you."


It's too pricy for me.

That is the main drawback.

Precisely! The small engine repair places around here tout the stuff
for chainsaws and lawn tractors. Again, my old Murray rider says
"Whatever." and hasn't given me a lick of trouble with year-old oxy
fuel. Everything I own, new or old, runs fine on it. Some folks here
have trouble with week-old stuff, it seems. g Nor do I seem to need
the fuel additives for freshness. Old stuff, 2- or 4-stroke, still
works after a winter, and a gallon of fuel/oil mix lasts over a year.
I use Roundup at the perimeter so I don't need to weedeat as much.
shrug

--
If government were a product,
selling it would be illegal.
--P.J. O'Rourke

On 4/30/2014 6:29 AM, jim wrote:
....

100% gasoline is hard to find because motorists
won't pay the extra price. It has nothing to do
with federal renewable fuel mandates. If the
EPA allowed more ethanol to be blended with
gasoline, motorists would buy more than the
mandates require.


If it were price alone, there would be such a clamor E85 would be far
more advanced than it is. As is, even where it is available there's
lagging demand despite the price differential and the increase in
flex-fuel vehicles that can use it.

And, that minor difficulty on the supply side that the blenders have no
choice but to put the vast majority of product out to meet the RFS as
there's no other gasoline-compatible product out there at the moment
that qualifies as the "R" part in RFS.

--

On 4/29/2014 8:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:34:30 -0500, wrote:
....

I don't know where US producers of carbonated drinks get their CO2...I
presume it's byproduct of some other processes as well.

A quick check shows that U.S.ians consume, or at least purchase, some
10,220,000,000 cases of carbonated drinks annually.

That's a lot of gas...

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/30/2014 6:29 AM, jim wrote:
...

100% gasoline is hard to find because motorists
won't pay the extra price. It has nothing to do
with federal renewable fuel mandates. If the
EPA allowed more ethanol to be blended with
gasoline, motorists would buy more than the
mandates require.


If it were price alone, there would be such a clamor E85 would be far
more advanced than it is.

It is not price alone. It is the combination of price and performance.
Ford engineers predict that



As is, even where it is available there's
lagging demand despite the price differential and the increase in
flex-fuel vehicles that can use it.

Flex fuel vehicles are a lot less efficient than they
could be because the govt requires that they run on
gasoline. The govt is doing everything it can to
sabotage ethanol and bolster oil company profits.
You are just to dumb to see it.



And, that minor difficulty on the supply side that the blenders have no
choice but to put the vast majority of product out to meet the RFS

That is bull**** propaganda. When the gas stations try to
sell the more expensive 100% gasoline it just sits in their
tanks and gets old. Gas stations would sell even more ethanol
than they do now if the EPA lifted the limits on on the amount
allowed. The govt is doing everything it can to
sabotage ethanol and bolster oil company profits.
You are just to dumb to see it.


as
there's no other gasoline-compatible product out there at the moment
that qualifies as the "R" part in RFS.

Sure there is . There is the mandated ethanol from cellulose.
But no one pays attention to thjat mandatebecause it is not
profitable. The mandates are irrelevant. More ethanol
would be sold if the govt did not have regulations that
prevent it. The govt is doing everything it can to
sabotage ethanol and bolster oil company profits.
You are just to dumb to see it.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 4/30/2014 12:04 PM, jim wrote:
....

And, that minor difficulty on the supply side that the blenders have no
choice but to put the vast majority of product out to meet the RFS

That is bull**** propaganda. When the gas stations try to
sell the more expensive 100% gasoline it just sits in their
tanks and gets old. Gas stations would sell even more ethanol
than they do now if the EPA lifted the limits on on the amount
allowed. The govt is doing everything it can to
sabotage ethanol and bolster oil company profits.
You are just to dumb to see it.

The station here in town that markets "100% gas" and "no ethanol" does a
land-rush business--the driveway is always occupied; they certainly have
no trouble in selling the product. It's generally about 10 cents or so
higher than the stations down the block.

as
there's no other gasoline-compatible product out there at the moment
that qualifies as the "R" part in RFS.

Sure there is . There is the mandated ethanol from cellulose.

There is no "mandated ethanol from cellulose" just as there is no
mandate for ethanol from grain (corn isn't the only grain used). The
mandate is for "renewable fuels" that doesn't require anything specific.

The deal is, of course, that at the moment the only gasoline-compatible
qualifying renewable is alcohol and the technology to produce alcohol
from in large volumes with US products being as we don't (and can't)
grow huge quantities of sugar cane economically is grain.

Cellulosic ethanol technology is still in its infancy and to be proven
to be scalable to large production. There are present incentives in
effect to promote these efforts; the largest of these is about 30 mi
from the house here but it won't be on line until later on this year;
they've just begun some pre-startup testing. The other two demo
projects in the US of roughly the same overall production level are in
Iowa and on roughly the same schedule. The total output of the above
when and if they make full projected output will be only about 60-70
MMgal/yr; while present production is on the order of 13-14 billion
(that's "billion with a B") gal/yr or just over 1/2 of 1% of current
production/use.

The limitations on ethanol use in the US are basically one of production
and demand--we just don't use that much more than we're producing at the
moment.

But no one pays attention to thjat mandatebecause it is not
profitable. The mandates are irrelevant. More ethanol
would be sold if the govt did not have regulations that
prevent it. The govt is doing everything it can to
sabotage ethanol and bolster oil company profits.
You are just to dumb to see it.

It's surprising and likely news to the builders of these facilities that
the US is sabotaging their efforts while meanwhile subsidizing them to
build them and creating, in essence, a mandatory market for their
product...

--

On 4/30/2014 6:29 AM, jim wrote:

100% gasoline is hard to find because motorists
won't pay the extra price. It has nothing to do
with federal renewable fuel mandates. If the
EPA allowed more ethanol to be blended with
gasoline, motorists would buy more than the
mandates require.

?!?

When unblended regular gas used to be available around here at the same
time as scam gas(10% alcohol), the scam gas cost more than unblended
regular. No one used scam gas until it became the only option.

David

dpb wrote:
On 4/30/2014 12:04 PM, jim wrote:
...

And, that minor difficulty on the supply side that the blenders have no
choice but to put the vast majority of product out to meet the RFS

That is bull**** propaganda. When the gas stations try to
sell the more expensive 100% gasoline it just sits in their
tanks and gets old. Gas stations would sell even more ethanol
than they do now if the EPA lifted the limits on on the amount
allowed. The govt is doing everything it can to
sabotage ethanol and bolster oil company profits.
You are just to dumb to see it.

The station here in town that markets "100% gas" and "no ethanol" does a
land-rush business--the driveway is always occupied; they certainly have
no trouble in selling the product. It's generally about 10 cents or so
higher than the stations down the block.


What you are observing is not the effects of govt policy.
What you are seeing are the effects of market forces. If
2 stations decided to sell 100% gasoline there wouldn't
be enough business to keep them both alive. That is how your
town got down to having only one station selling straight gas.



as
there's no other gasoline-compatible product out there at the moment
that qualifies as the "R" part in RFS.

Sure there is . There is the mandated ethanol from cellulose.

There is no "mandated ethanol from cellulose" just as there is no
mandate for ethanol from grain (corn isn't the only grain used). The
mandate is for "renewable fuels" that doesn't require anything specific.


Now you are getting desperate and making up stories.
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007,
set separate volume mandates for each category of
renewable fuel.
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.co...ls-Graphic.png



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/30/2014 6:29 AM, jim wrote:

100% gasoline is hard to find because motorists
won't pay the extra price. It has nothing to do
with federal renewable fuel mandates. If the
EPA allowed more ethanol to be blended with
gasoline, motorists would buy more than the
mandates require.

?!?

When unblended regular gas used to be available around here at the same
time as scam gas(10% alcohol), the scam gas cost more than unblended
regular. No one used scam gas until it became the only option.

Funny how you remember things the way you want them to be.

It became the most common option because most people put
the cheapest fuel in their car . As a result it became
unprofitable for gas stations to carry a fuel that few
people were buying.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 4/30/2014 3:11 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/30/2014 12:04 PM, jim wrote:
...

....

What you are observing is not the effects of govt policy.
What you are seeing are the effects of market forces. If
2 stations decided to sell 100% gasoline there wouldn't
be enough business to keep them both alive. That is how your
town got down to having only one station selling straight gas.

It's market forces as directed by government policy -- the one follows
the other owing to (yet again) that there are reqm'ts on renewables
overall and hence, to meet that requirement it's essentially mandatory
that the blenders use it.

Don't see how it can be made any clearer but the law/rule is the rule.

It's a small town but I suspect it would be possible for a second
station to also survive altho the one is one of the larger in town in
terms of number of pumps plus they're an ag distributor in bulk to
producers. I believe they also have contracts w/ various industrial
users as well altho I've not asked Don directly.

The difficulty on a larger scale is being able to get the product in
much higher volumes because then the RFS couldn't be met unless the
blenders just bought the renewable product and stockpiled it instead of
using it.

....

Now you are getting desperate and making up stories.
....

No, just misstated -- I had simply forgotten that indeed the law does
mandate the relative percentages/levels be set as well as an overall.
But, it doesn't really at this point change anything as the limits for
cellulosic for 2014 are 17 million (with a 'm') out of 15 billion (with
a 'b'). Total online production at the moment can't even meet that level.

--

On 4/30/2014 3:17 PM, jim wrote:
David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/30/2014 6:29 AM, jim wrote:

100% gasoline is hard to find because motorists
won't pay the extra price. It has nothing to do
with federal renewable fuel mandates. If the
EPA allowed more ethanol to be blended with
gasoline, motorists would buy more than the
mandates require.

?!?

When unblended regular gas used to be available around here at the same
time as scam gas(10% alcohol), the scam gas cost more than unblended
regular. No one used scam gas until it became the only option.

Funny how you remember things the way you want them to be.

No. I'm not like you.

I didn't buy scam gas until unblended regular was no longer available in
SE Wisconsin. Once it was unavailable in the Milwaukee area, I noticed
that I was now paying more for gas that gave poorer mpg. There were
several gas stations outside the Milwaukee are that still offered
unblended so I would make a point of refilling at those when I would be
going out of town. A comparison between scam gas and unblended showed
scam gas about a nickel more a gallon @24 mpg and unblended giving 28+ mpg.

It became the most common option because most people put
the cheapest fuel in their car . As a result it became
unprofitable for gas stations to carry a fuel that few
people were buying.

It became the most common option here only when it became the only
option. No one here bought it until it was all that was available.

David

David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/30/2014 3:17 PM, jim wrote:
David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/30/2014 6:29 AM, jim wrote:

100% gasoline is hard to find because motorists
won't pay the extra price. It has nothing to do
with federal renewable fuel mandates. If the
EPA allowed more ethanol to be blended with
gasoline, motorists would buy more than the
mandates require.

?!?

When unblended regular gas used to be available around here at the same
time as scam gas(10% alcohol), the scam gas cost more than unblended
regular. No one used scam gas until it became the only option.

Funny how you remember things the way you want them to be.

No. I'm not like you.

I didn't buy scam gas until unblended regular was no longer available

You are not most people. You are trying to pretend most
people did the same as you when the evidence clearly
shows that they did the opposite.

Ethanol sales stayed way ahead of mandates from 2005 to
2012. In 2007, Congress changed the mandates because sales
had already grown to 2012 mandated levels.
By 2012 ethanol sales had grown to 10% of market.
The EPA regulations do not allow it to grow any larger.
If the EPA allowed more ethanol to be sold the sales would again
grow larger than the mandated level. All of that is because people
buy the cheapest gas. Ethanol blends are cheaper and higher
percentage of ethanol blends would cost even less.

In most of the country you can find pure gas available, but
since the demand is very low only a few stations carry it.
The small number of outlets is because very few drivers will
pay extra for pure gasoline.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 4/30/2014 5:50 PM, jim wrote:
David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/30/2014 3:17 PM, jim wrote:
David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/30/2014 6:29 AM, jim wrote:

100% gasoline is hard to find because motorists
won't pay the extra price. It has nothing to do
with federal renewable fuel mandates. If the
EPA allowed more ethanol to be blended with
gasoline, motorists would buy more than the
mandates require.

?!?

When unblended regular gas used to be available around here at the same
time as scam gas(10% alcohol), the scam gas cost more than unblended
regular. No one used scam gas until it became the only option.

Funny how you remember things the way you want them to be.

No. I'm not like you.

I didn't buy scam gas until unblended regular was no longer available

You are not most people.

No, I'm only me, who, like most people around here, wasn't willing to
pay for the more expensive scam gas. I'm not talking about national
trends, I'm talking about right here, SE Wisconsin, where so few were
willing to pay extra that the more expensive scam gas became mandatory.

You are trying to pretend most
people did the same as you when the evidence clearly
shows that they did the opposite.

I haven't seen any of your alleged evidence that applies to SE Wisconsin.

Ethanol sales stayed way ahead of mandates from 2005 to
2012. In 2007, Congress changed the mandates because sales
had already grown to 2012 mandated levels.
By 2012 ethanol sales had grown to 10% of market.
The EPA regulations do not allow it to grow any larger.
If the EPA allowed more ethanol to be sold the sales would again
grow larger than the mandated level. All of that is because people
buy the cheapest gas. Ethanol blends are cheaper and higher
percentage of ethanol blends would cost even less.

Now explain the specific reason why SE Wisconsin was under different
rules that the rest of the state.

In most of the country you can find pure gas available, but
since the demand is very low only a few stations carry it.

Not in SE Wisconsin. Explain why.

The small number of outlets is because very few drivers will
pay extra for pure gasoline.

We never had to, scam gas was always more expensive than unblended, up
to a nickle a gallon more.

David

On 4/28/2014 4:43 PM, dpb wrote:
On 4/28/2014 4:39 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
...

9 in a state of 38 million people and a land mass of 158,648 square
miles.

No wonder Ive not seen one in 2 decades. Doing a quick search..most
of the 9 appear to be at or near boat landings/marinas.
...

I suspect (altho I've not looked it up) because those are the only
approved uses by CA; I'd think it highly likely isn't allowed for
highway use.

Got curious...the following says is as suspected but also says that CA
CARB-compliant reformulated gasoline is "usually" 5.7% ethanol. Doesn't
say that's a minimum up to the EPA 10% and couldn't find quickly
anything that says different other than the two are separate categories
by definition.

I knew CA had some really quirky stuff goin' on, as per usual when start
looking it gets even more so than one would ever imagine...

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/types_of_gasoline.html

--

David R. Birch wrote:

Now explain the specific reason why SE Wisconsin was under different
rules that the rest of the state.

SE Wisconsin is about the worst place in the nation for smog.
It has about 10 times as many days that exceed smog limits than
New York.


In most of the country you can find pure gas available, but
since the demand is very low only a few stations carry it.

Not in SE Wisconsin. Explain why.

It is because if the bad air problem in SE Wis.
The EPA is not protecting the environment. The EPA is
protecting the oil companies, the auto makers and the
politicians.

The reason automobiles create so much pollution is that gasoline
is a very inefficient fuel. If the fuel were changed, engines
would be designed yo use a lot less fuel and produce a lot less pollution.

Adding ethanol has been demonstrated to increase engine efficiency.
The only thing standing in the way of progress in that direction
is the EPA. The EPA is holding back ethanol fuel's development
because the auto makers, oil companies and politicians all view
more efficient fuel usage as a threat to their pocket books.




The small number of outlets is because very few drivers will
pay extra for pure gasoline.

We never had to, scam gas was always more expensive than unblended, up
to a nickle a gallon more.

Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. It is especially cheaper
than the low grade gasoline that it is mixed with to make
E10 fuel.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 4/30/2014 5:50 PM, jim wrote:
....

By 2012 ethanol sales had grown to 10% of market.
The EPA regulations do not allow it to grow any larger.
....

Now you're really making stuff up...

E15 is approved for light-duty vehicles from model year 2001 and up and
all Flex-fuel vehicles. That group constitutes roughly 75% of the
vehicles currently on the road and over 85% of the unleaded gasoline
sold in the US.

Hence, the theoretical upper limit is something over 0.85*15 -- ~13%
discounting FFVs. What fraction they are I didn't try to ascertain but
it's going up every model year and what fraction of the public that has
them uses E85 in them is also unknown.

I've got a couple that came that way 'cuz that's the way they were, not
that I had any desire for them, particularly and they've never visited
an E85 pump. I suppose on a trip sometime I ought to just try and see
how one of them does just for comparison.

But, the EPA is certainly _not_ mandated that E10 is the upper cap on
total ethanol usage altho the sizable fleet of vehicles on the road that
aren't FFV limits the potential market at the present.

Again, whether there will be a real uptick in consumer preference for
higher blends is still to be determined but it surely hasn't made itself
felt as yet. And, it can't be as there's simply not sufficient
production capacity at the moment to go too far beyond the present levels.

But clearly, it's been national energy policy in response to
environmental concern and higher oil prices that has driven the market,
not consumer-driven demand. It's been "the only game in town".

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/30/2014 5:50 PM, jim wrote:
...

By 2012 ethanol sales had grown to 10% of market.
The EPA regulations do not allow it to grow any larger.
...

Now you're really making stuff up...

No it is well documented fact.

http://www.granitefallsnews.com/arti...NEWS/312029964



E15 is approved for light-duty vehicles from model year 2001 and up and
all Flex-fuel vehicles. That group constitutes roughly 75% of the
vehicles currently on the road and over 85% of the unleaded gasoline
sold in the US.


The EPA requires gas stations to sell what older cars use. E15
is optional if the gas station wants to make a five figure investment
in new infrastructure. That is just as good as a ban.


The fact is you won't find any E15 gas sold or much E85 either, because
the EPA rules make it too costly and impractical. It is deliberate
sabotage.

Back in the 90's the EPA allowed oil companies to dump as much MTBE
as they wanted into gas because MTBE was a profitable product for
the oil cos. Never mind that MTBE was more destructive to engines
and decreased fuel mileage more than ethanol. And the EPA knew it
would contaminate aquifers and cause cancer. The only thing the EPA
cares about is what suits big business.

The EPA has no interest in protecting the environment. If
the EPA wanted to protect the environment they would have
long ago sided with technology that increased engine efficiency.
Instead they have at every turn blocked technology that
increased efficiency.

Ethanol is tolerated because a limited amount is profitable
for oil cos. It saves on refining costs. But the EPA won't allow
its use to the point where it increases efficiency or cuts into
oil cos. profits.


[Snipped the rest of EPA propaganda]


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 5/1/2014 1:00 PM, jim wrote:

We never had to, scam gas was always more expensive than unblended, up
to a nickle a gallon more.

Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. It is especially cheaper
than the low grade gasoline that it is mixed with to make
E10 fuel.

Irrelevant to the fact that we were charged more for scam gas than
unblended gas when both were available.

David

On 5/1/2014 4:06 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/30/2014 5:50 PM, jim wrote:
...

By 2012 ethanol sales had grown to 10% of market.
The EPA regulations do not allow it to grow any larger.
...

Now you're really making stuff up...

No it is well documented fact.

http://www.granitefallsnews.com/arti...NEWS/312029964

Not pertinent and out of date--hardly "documented fact". Of some
validity at the time, but that history, now.

That links to a three yr-old article on the then-current levels of
production. That was before the EPA E15 waiver rule just announced last
October referred to earlier that release E15 for use in all light-duty
vehicles manufactured after 2001.

E15 is approved for light-duty vehicles from model year 2001 and up and
all Flex-fuel vehicles. That group constitutes roughly 75% of the
vehicles currently on the road and over 85% of the unleaded gasoline
sold in the US.


The EPA requires gas stations to sell what older cars use. E15
is optional if the gas station wants to make a five figure investment
in new infrastructure. That is just as good as a ban.

Well, if the market place is the driving force as you claim, it'll be
here tomorrow as everybody is clamoring for it by your contention...

The fact is you won't find any E15 gas sold or much E85 either, because
the EPA rules make it too costly and impractical. It is deliberate
sabotage.

Nonsense, EPA is complying w/ the Clean Air Act mandates as written.
There's public comment and rulemaking on all of it--that nobody's
particularly happy pretty much means they've done their job of handling
all the many sides to the issue. It's the way things are done in the
US--you have a particular ox to gore or your ox is being gored; raise a
stink and see who wins.

....

Ethanol is tolerated because a limited amount is profitable
for oil cos. It saves on refining costs. But the EPA won't allow
its use to the point where it increases efficiency or cuts into
oil cos. profits.


[Snipped the rest of EPA propaganda]
....

No propaganda, just the reality.

There's no way, no how, just increasing the fractional ethanol increases
efficiency in existing vehicles and the practical fact of the matter is
that there's no major clamor by consumers for grossly different vehicles
that are incompatible with existing. FFVs can use E85, if folks were to
start to head to what E85 pumps there are to the point of pumping them
dry as soon as a tanker pulled up you can be certain there would be a
shift to having more pumps. But, afaik there's no such indication
anywhere in the country that it's all that popular.

BTW, what's got you so hot on ethanol as the miracle panacea other than
an obvious hate for the EPA and some misguided ideas on thermodynamics
and practicality.

--

On 5/1/2014 4:29 PM, dpb wrote:
....

[Snipped the rest of EPA propaganda]
...

....

Btw, just as a point of reference, the data which seems to contradict
your firmly held misconceptions and that you snipped in haste was
courtesy of an RFA (Renewable Fuels Association) member organization...

--

dpb wrote:
On 5/1/2014 4:06 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/30/2014 5:50 PM, jim wrote:
...

By 2012 ethanol sales had grown to 10% of market.
The EPA regulations do not allow it to grow any larger.
...

Now you're really making stuff up...

No it is well documented fact.

http://www.granitefallsnews.com/arti...NEWS/312029964

Not pertinent and out of date--hardly "documented fact". Of some
validity at the time, but that history, now.


You are lying. The ceiling exists. It is referred to as the blend
wall. The EPA just lowered the ethanol mandate because fuel
consumption dropped and mandates were above the blend.

"An attorney for EPA defended the delays, saying the agency had to weigh
how to handle the looming "blend wall," the point when the law would
require more ethanol to be blended into gasoline supplies than the 10
percent level that dominates U.S. fueling infrastructure, such as
equipment at gas stations."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0MZ0V120140407

The point is the EPA created the "blend wall" and then they adjust the
mandates so that the mandated amount equals the amount allowed by
the "blrnd wall". The mandates are a sham. They are intended to pull
the wool over your eyes. The amount of ethanol is limited to what the
EPA allows. If E20 was allowed the amount of ethanol would double to
twice the mandate very quickly.
[snipped EPA and oil co propaganda]

The EPA requires gas stations to sell what older cars use. E15
is optional if the gas station wants to make a five figure investment
in new infrastructure. That is just as good as a ban.

Well, if the market place is the driving force as you claim, it'll be
here tomorrow as everybody is clamoring for it by your contention...


No your lying. I never made that claim. People buy the cheapest
gas. That is wh\y you see all the big signs advertizing price.
If E20 was available it would it would be cheaper and it would
take over the market just as E10 did.

Products don't come to market because people clamor for them
That never happens. Products have to first be made available
then the market either buys it or doesn't. The EPA understands
this and that is why it has done everything in its power to
make sure higher blends are not readily available. The EPA
knows that if E20 was available it would soon take over the
market and amount sold would soon far exceed the mandates.

[Snipped EPA propaganda]




There's no way, no how, just increasing the fractional ethanol increases
efficiency in existing vehicles

Yes there is a way. The EPA could allow fuel efficiency testing
to be done with ethanol blends. The manufacturers would then supply
cars that run more efficiently on ethanol blends. But the
EPA won't do that because the EPA is working for the oil cos and
not for the public. The EPA has been working doggedly
for 25 years to make sure ethanol blended fuels do not
improve engine efficiency. But the day will come when they
lose the battle.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

David R. Birch wrote:
On 5/1/2014 1:00 PM, jim wrote:

We never had to, scam gas was always more expensive than unblended, up
to a nickle a gallon more.

Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline. It is especially cheaper
than the low grade gasoline that it is mixed with to make
E10 fuel.

Irrelevant to the fact that we were charged more for scam gas than
unblended gas when both were available.

Yes that is right. The price difference has to do with
evaporative emissions. Ironically higher ethanol blends
would lower the amount of vapor emissions. But the EPA
won't allow that.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 5/1/2014 6:58 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 5/1/2014 4:06 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/30/2014 5:50 PM, jim wrote:
...

By 2012 ethanol sales had grown to 10% of market.
The EPA regulations do not allow it to grow any larger.
...

Now you're really making stuff up...

No it is well documented fact.

http://www.granitefallsnews.com/arti...NEWS/312029964

Not pertinent and out of date--hardly "documented fact". Of some
validity at the time, but that history, now.


You are lying. The ceiling exists. It is referred to as the blend
wall. The EPA just lowered the ethanol mandate because fuel
consumption dropped and mandates were above the blend.

"An attorney for EPA defended the delays, saying the agency had to weigh
how to handle the looming "blend wall," the point when the law would
require more ethanol to be blended into gasoline supplies than the 10
percent level that dominates U.S. fueling infrastructure, such as
equipment at gas stations."

....

It also goes on to point out that...

"The Renewable Fuel Standard requires increasing amounts of biofuels to
be blended into U.S. gasoline and diesel supplies each year through 2022
and was designed at a time fuel demand was also expected to rise.

Instead, gas and diesel demand has been limited by rising fuel economy
and slow economic growth."

So that, in fact, the point at which the "wall" would actually be hit
has been pushed back plus the theoretical wall has risen as shown
earlier by the E15 rule. In fact, federal gas tax revenues have
flattened/dropped to the point they're now talking of instituting
widespread tolls on interstates to keep up the highway fund--heard it
just yesterday.

The limit isn't actually one of limitation on the amount allowed, it's
more the existing infrastructure and that there's not enough demand for
the product where the higher blends are available that the retailers see
sufficient reason to invest in the required upgrades in any real rush.

Unless, of course, you want a forced, mandatory outlay from the Fed's to
make that happen.

The oil companies are, as stated before, simply playing the game as they
see is their advantage, too. It's the messy way legislation and policy
gets set in the US.

But, it's still going to be final policy that drives the market, not the
other way 'round.

And, there will be no magic jump in mileage when the testing rules are
modified in a few years -- thermodynamics doesn't know anything about
those rules and the energy density is still what it is. Most of what
mileage advances there will be will, in my best guess, be related to
weight savings and cogeneration rather than some large change in mileage
in conventionally-driven vehicles. That is, I just don't believe
there's that much going to be gained by redesign as you do--with current
computer-controlled ignition and fuel, they're already tuning stuff
pretty finely.

--

dpb wrote:
On 5/1/2014 6:58 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 5/1/2014 4:06 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/30/2014 5:50 PM, jim wrote:
...

By 2012 ethanol sales had grown to 10% of market.
The EPA regulations do not allow it to grow any larger.
...

Now you're really making stuff up...

No it is well documented fact.

http://www.granitefallsnews.com/arti...NEWS/312029964

Not pertinent and out of date--hardly "documented fact". Of some
validity at the time, but that history, now.


You are lying. The ceiling exists. It is referred to as the blend
wall. The EPA just lowered the ethanol mandate because fuel
consumption dropped and mandates were above the blend.

"An attorney for EPA defended the delays, saying the agency had to weigh
how to handle the looming "blend wall," the point when the law would
require more ethanol to be blended into gasoline supplies than the 10
percent level that dominates U.S. fueling infrastructure, such as
equipment at gas stations."

...

It also goes on to point out that...


We all know what the EPA propaganda is - you have repeated
The EPA story fifty times. That doesn't make it the truth.

More Ethanol would be sold than is mandated if the EPA was
not actively sabotaging the expansion of ethanol.

From 2005 to 2012 the sales of ethanol far exceeded the renewable
fuel mandates. Then in 2012 growth stopped because EPA rules did
not permit more to be blended. Sales of ethanol would still be
far ahead of the mandates if the EPA had not created the "blend
wall".

"The Renewable Fuel Standard requires increasing amounts of biofuels to
be blended into U.S. gasoline and diesel supplies each year through 2022
and was designed at a time fuel demand was also expected to rise.

Instead, gas and diesel demand has been limited by rising fuel economy
and slow economic growth."

So that, in fact, the point at which the "wall" would actually be hit
has been pushed back plus the theoretical wall has risen as shown
earlier by the E15 rule.

You are lying and so is the EPA. E15 for all practical
purposes is not permitted to be sold.

Back in the 90's oil companies were adding as much as 20%
MTBE to gasoline. 20% MTBE is far more damaging to engines
and fuel systems than E20 gasoline. It also is damaging to
the environment and human health. And 20% MTBE cuts fuel e
economy far more than E20.

And no warnings about all these harmful effects
were ever given to motorists. In fact back in the 90's
and early 2000's many of the pumps that carried high
doses of MTBE was sold n markets where pumps carried
warning labels saying "this gasoline may contain up
to 10% ethanol". The gas often contained no ethanolo but
the harmful effects that some motorists noticed would be
blamed on ethanol. This was a purposeful and deliberate
sabotage of ethanol by the oil companies and the EPA.



In fact, federal gas tax revenues have
flattened/dropped to the point they're now talking of instituting
widespread tolls on interstates to keep up the highway fund--heard it
just yesterday.

Motor fuel consumption has been dropping for the last 5 years.



The limit isn't actually one of limitation on the amount allowed, it's
more the existing infrastructure and that there's not enough demand for
the product where the higher blends are available that the retailers see
sufficient reason to invest in the required upgrades in any real rush.

The infrastructure is owned mostly by the oil companies. The EPA and
oil companies have colluded to make blends greater than 10% for
all practical purposes not permitted.



Unless, of course, you want a forced, mandatory outlay from the Fed's to
make that happen.

All the Fed's need to do is get out of the way.
They should scrap all the mandates and permit blenders
to add as much ethanol as long as the fuel meets performance
standards such as octane and volatility. That is what they
did with MTBE. The reason the EPA did it for MTBE and
not ethanol is because the EPA is working for the oil
cos and not for the public.




And, there will be no magic jump in mileage when the testing rules are
modified in a few years -- thermodynamics doesn't know anything about
those rules and the energy density is still what it is.

Thermodynamics tells you that if you take a 25%
efficient engine and make it 40% efficient you can easily
afford to run on a fuel with 10% less energy content.
When the nation is throwing away 75% of the energy in every
gallon used it is laughable to be worried about whether
the energy content of the fuel will change a little.

The thing that has made the gasoline engine such an inefficient
engine is the gasoline. That can and will be changed with
higher ethanol blends. The energy savings will come from
higher compression which makes much higher thermal
efficiency possible and from much smaller lighter engines
producing the same amount of power as big engines that are
designed for current fuels.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com