On Saturday, April 26, 2014 8:35:25 AM UTC-4, jim wrote:
T. Keating wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:24:22 -0500, jim " wrote:


No you are lying again. The energy cost of producing

higher octane blends without ethanol more than offset

the energy content difference. That is why middle east oil

producing nations buy tankers full of ethanol from the US to

blend with their gasoline.



Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.
If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.






Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy

to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum

fractions to higher octane fractions.


Cite?


Dan

wrote:
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 8:35:25 AM UTC-4, jim wrote:
T. Keating wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:24:22 -0500, jim " wrote:


No you are lying again. The energy cost of producing

higher octane blends without ethanol more than offset

the energy content difference. That is why middle east oil

producing nations buy tankers full of ethanol from the US to

blend with their gasoline.



Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.

Congress doesn't have to mandate ethanol usage. If the EPA removed the
upper limits on Ethanol even more than the mandated amount would be sold.

But, that implies Congress people and the EPA have
deceived you, and we all know that is utterly impossible.


If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.

They would do what? Blend ethanol to the maximum extent the
law allows? That is what the oil companies are doing.

The mandated amount was just recently lowered because the
mandated amount was higher than the amount permitted by
EPA regulation. When the mandates were enacted it was expected
that gasoline usage would go up and by now ethanol usage
would be about 3 or 4 percent of the supply. But gasoline
usage went down and ethanol usage is at about 10% of the
supply and it can't go any higher until the EPA lifts the
limits.

If they had not lowered the mandate it would have
revealed how meaningless the mandates are.







Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy

to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum

fractions to higher octane fractions.


Cite?

Look at a gas pump and see the difference in
price 3 or 4 octane points make in the cost.
Then double the price differential (per gallon) to
reflect the extra burden on refineries to boost the
octane on 20 million gallons a day up 3 octane points.

I already gave a cite, and somebody else did too, but
you are too lazy to educate yourself.

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

On 4/26/2014 8:42 AM, wrote:
....

Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.
If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.


From the EIA site...

"U.S. corn ethanol production grew considerably from 2006 through 2012,
boosted by the phase-out of the use of Methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) as an oxygenate and octane enhancer, the availability of blender
tax credits, and rising oil prices. Ethanol production and use grew
beyond levels called for by the RFS as early as 2006. U.S. ethanol
production and use continued at rates beyond the RFS-mandated level
through mid-2012. ..."

Hence, in fact, they _are_ using more than the mandate calls for.

It's (like virtually everything in real world, particularly those that
are part of public policy) complicated. The mandate really isn't
ethanol per se, it's "renewable fuel" that's mandated. It just so
happens that current technology, the existence of a large fleet of
gasoline engine vehicles such that whatever fuel alternative used had to
be compatible and feed stocks available for renewable fuels in the US
favor corn ethanol at the moment.

Biodiesel and all are included as well; they just don't get the
attention ethanol does as soybeans aren't as cute, apparently.

Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy
to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum
fractions to higher octane fractions.

Cite?
....

That's easily found and well-known and has been in the earlier
subthreads in this thread as well. I wouldn't say it in precisely those
terms but increased refining to build octane from crude oil itself
definitely hurts yield. Refiners used additives for the purpose from
the very beginning; the widespread use of tetraethyl lead began in the
early 20s or thereabouts to allow for increased compression that was
needed for higher performance and thus needed higher octane-rated fuels
to inhibit knocking. MTBE was the primary substitute of choice when
unleaded was mandated owing to lead's deleterious health effects and
contamination until it was determined to be as bad or worse for it's
propensity to contaminate water supplies when spilled and carcinogenic
nature. Hence, it also went the way of the dodo bird and ethanol has
the facility to raise octane and meet RFIS as well as lower emissions of
nitrous oxides, etc., ... So, at the moment it's the deal.

When and if something better comes along, it'll surely take it's moment
in the sun as well...

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 8:42 AM, wrote:
...

Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal
useage.
If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would
make more money.


From the EIA site...

"U.S. corn ethanol production grew considerably from 2006 through 2012,
boosted by the phase-out of the use of Methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) as an oxygenate and octane enhancer, the availability of blender
tax credits, and rising oil prices. Ethanol production and use grew
beyond levels called for by the RFS as early as 2006. U.S. ethanol
production and use continued at rates beyond the RFS-mandated level
through mid-2012. ..."

Hence, in fact, they _are_ using more than the mandate calls for.

There was more ethanol used than the mandate called
for before mid 2012. At that point usage reached the 10%
ceiling that is the maximum allowed. Ethanol usage would be
higher today if the EPA allowed it to be.



It's (like virtually everything in real world, particularly those that
are part of public policy) complicated. The mandate really isn't
ethanol per se, it's "renewable fuel" that's mandated. It just so
happens that current technology, the existence of a large fleet of
gasoline engine vehicles such that whatever fuel alternative used had to
be compatible and feed stocks available for renewable fuels in the US
favor corn ethanol at the moment.


The market place determined that outcome.


Biodiesel and all are included as well; they just don't get the
attention ethanol does as soybeans aren't as cute, apparently.

Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy
to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum
fractions to higher octane fractions.

Cite?
...

That's easily found and well-known and has been in the earlier
subthreads in this thread as well. I wouldn't say it in precisely those
terms but increased refining to build octane from crude oil itself
definitely hurts yield. Refiners used additives for the purpose from
the very beginning; the widespread use of tetraethyl lead began in the
early 20s or thereabouts to allow for increased compression that was
needed for higher performance and thus needed higher octane-rated fuels
to inhibit knocking.

Higher compression is not just about performance. It
is also necessary for efficiency. And it is not just about
thermal efficiency. Higher compression means you can get
more power from a lighter engine. That means the chassis and
suspension can be lighter also.


MTBE was the primary substitute of choice when
unleaded was mandated owing to lead's deleterious health effects and
contamination until it was determined to be as bad or worse for it's
propensity to contaminate water supplies when spilled and carcinogenic
nature. Hence, it also went the way of the dodo bird and ethanol has
the facility to raise octane and meet RFIS as well as lower emissions of
nitrous oxides, etc., ... So, at the moment it's the deal.



When and if something better comes along, it'll surely take it's moment
in the sun as well...


Henry Fords first car ran on ethanol. It has been
used as fuel longer than gasoline.


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

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:05:12 AM UTC-4, jim wrote:

Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.



Congress doesn't have to mandate ethanol usage. If the EPA removed the

upper limits on Ethanol even more than the mandated amount would be sold.


If they do not have to mandate the use of ethanol , why do they mandate it?

Probably because they do not believe that if they did not mandate the use, it would not get used.


But, that implies Congress people and the EPA have

deceived you, and we all know that is utterly impossible.





If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.



They would do what? Blend ethanol to the maximum extent the

law allows? That is what the oil companies are doing.


Actualy they blend ethanol to the minimum extent the law allows.


The mandated amount was just recently lowered because the

mandated amount was higher than the amount permitted by

EPA regulation. When the mandates were enacted it was expected

that gasoline usage would go up and by now ethanol usage

would be about 3 or 4 percent of the supply. But gasoline

usage went down and ethanol usage is at about 10% of the

supply and it can't go any higher until the EPA lifts the

limits.


And the EPA does not raise the limits because higher levels of ethanal harm the engines unless the engines are changed to work with higher ethanol amounts.


If they had not lowered the mandate it would have

revealed how meaningless the mandates are.















Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy



to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum



fractions to higher octane fractions.





Cite?



Look at a gas pump and see the difference in

price 3 or 4 octane points make in the cost.

Then double the price differential (per gallon) to

reflect the extra burden on refineries to boost the

octane on 20 million gallons a day up 3 octane points.



I already gave a cite, and somebody else did too, but

you are too lazy to educate yourself.

I did not see any such cite.

Dan



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

On 4/26/2014 11:02 AM, jim wrote:
....

From the EIA site...

"U.S. corn ethanol production grew considerably from 2006 through 2012,
boosted by the phase-out of the use of Methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) as an oxygenate and octane enhancer, the availability of blender
tax credits, and rising oil prices. Ethanol production and use grew
beyond levels called for by the RFS as early as 2006. U.S. ethanol
production and use continued at rates beyond the RFS-mandated level
through mid-2012. ..."

Hence, in fact, they _are_ using more than the mandate calls for.

There was more ethanol used than the mandate called
for before mid 2012. At that point usage reached the 10%
ceiling that is the maximum allowed. Ethanol usage would be
higher today if the EPA allowed it to be.

As the above says, "... use grew beyond levels called for by the RFS as
early as 2006...". Perhaps conversations would go more smoothly if you
would actually read first, write second.

Actually, EPA sets no limits; E15 and E85 are approved for use so
there's no 10% limit at all.

It's (like virtually everything in real world, particularly those that
are part of public policy) complicated. The mandate really isn't
ethanol per se, it's "renewable fuel" that's mandated. It just so
happens that current technology, the existence of a large fleet of
gasoline engine vehicles such that whatever fuel alternative used had to
be compatible and feed stocks available for renewable fuels in the US
favor corn ethanol at the moment.


The market place determined that outcome.

Strongly influenced by national policy and technology limitations as well.

Biodiesel and all are included as well; they just don't get the
attention ethanol does as soybeans aren't as cute, apparently.

Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy
to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum
fractions to higher octane fractions.

Cite?
...

That's easily found and well-known and has been in the earlier
subthreads in this thread as well. I wouldn't say it in precisely those
terms but increased refining to build octane from crude oil itself
definitely hurts yield. Refiners used additives for the purpose from
the very beginning; the widespread use of tetraethyl lead began in the
early 20s or thereabouts to allow for increased compression that was
needed for higher performance and thus needed higher octane-rated fuels
to inhibit knocking.

Higher compression is not just about performance. It
is also necessary for efficiency. And it is not just about
thermal efficiency. Higher compression means you can get
more power from a lighter engine. That means the chassis and
suspension can be lighter also.

"Performance" is a generic term which includes all of the above and more...

MTBE was the primary substitute of choice when
unleaded was mandated owing to lead's deleterious health effects and
contamination until it was determined to be as bad or worse for it's
propensity to contaminate water supplies when spilled and carcinogenic
nature. Hence, it also went the way of the dodo bird and ethanol has
the facility to raise octane and meet RFIS as well as lower emissions of
nitrous oxides, etc., ... So, at the moment it's the deal.

When and if something better comes along, it'll surely take it's moment
in the sun as well...


Henry Fords first car ran on ethanol. It has been
used as fuel longer than gasoline.

While true, of little relevance to the present discussion. Sperm oil
was used before crude, too, but hasn't any bearing.

--

On 4/26/2014 11:42 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 11:02 AM, jim wrote:
...
....

It's (like virtually everything in real world, particularly those that
are part of public policy) complicated. The mandate really isn't
ethanol per se, it's "renewable fuel" that's mandated. It just so
happens that current technology, the existence of a large fleet of
gasoline engine vehicles such that whatever fuel alternative used had to
be compatible and feed stocks available for renewable fuels in the US
favor corn ethanol at the moment.


The market place determined that outcome.

Strongly influenced by national policy and technology limitations as well.

That is, w/o the widespread outright ban on MTBE and the EPA withdrawal
of the oxygenate rule and phaseout of MTBE that occurred in conjunction
with the 2005 passage of the RFS in the Energy Policy Act ensured that
ethanol would be the choice replacement by default, there being no
viable alternative.

So, you can say that having a single product is a marketplace decision,
but that puts the explanation in place of the reality that there was no
choice in the marketplace for any alternative to have won compared against.

It isn't possible to go back and recreate the experiment to see what
would have happened if RFS hadn't been passed but it's likely other
alternatives than essentially sole reliance upon ethanol would have evolved.

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 11:42 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 11:02 AM, jim wrote:
...
...

It's (like virtually everything in real world, particularly those that
are part of public policy) complicated. The mandate really isn't
ethanol per se, it's "renewable fuel" that's mandated. It just so
happens that current technology, the existence of a large fleet of
gasoline engine vehicles such that whatever fuel alternative used
had to
be compatible and feed stocks available for renewable fuels in the US
favor corn ethanol at the moment.


The market place determined that outcome.

Strongly influenced by national policy and technology limitations as
well.

That is, w/o the widespread outright ban on MTBE and the EPA withdrawal
of the oxygenate rule and phaseout of MTBE that occurred in conjunction
with the 2005 passage of the RFS in the Energy Policy Act ensured that
ethanol would be the choice replacement by default, there being no
viable alternative.

The ban on MTBE was after most of the states had outlawed its use.
And oxygenates doesn't explain why the 98% of the country
that isn't required to use oxygenates are selling nothing but
E10 fuel.


So, you can say that having a single product is a marketplace decision,
but that puts the explanation in place of the reality that there was no
choice in the marketplace for any alternative to have won compared against.



That is your propaganda story but it doesn't
hold up top scrutiny.


It isn't possible to go back and recreate the experiment to see what
would have happened if RFS hadn't been passed but it's likely other
alternatives than essentially sole reliance upon ethanol would have
evolved.

As Henry Ford pointed out in the 1920's ethanol is and
always has been the only alternative. All the political
posturing and lying for 90 years have been desperate attempts
to avoid that reality.



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

dpb wrote:

There was more ethanol used than the mandate called
for before mid 2012. At that point usage reached the 10%
ceiling that is the maximum allowed. Ethanol usage would be
higher today if the EPA allowed it to be.

As the above says, "... use grew beyond levels called for by the RFS as
early as 2006...". Perhaps conversations would go more smoothly if you
would actually read first, write second.

I wasn't disagreeing - I was add context to what you said.


Actually, EPA sets no limits; E15 and E85 are approved for use so
there's no 10% limit at all.

That I will disagree with. The EPA set up the rules so
that effectively the limit is still 10%. E15 is still
in effect outlawed. If you want proof look around, you
won't find any place to buy E15. It is only in a few states that
local laws level the playing field so that it is not prohibitively
expensive to sell E15.

The simple fact is that E15 would take over the market if
it were made legal just as E10 did. That's because people
would not tell any difference but would see the price is
10 to 20 cents cheaper.

The politicians, the oil companies and the auto makers have for
decades been doing all they can to block further expansion of ethanol, but
it is just a matter of time and market forces will prevail.



It's (like virtually everything in real world, particularly those that
are part of public policy) complicated. The mandate really isn't
ethanol per se, it's "renewable fuel" that's mandated. It just so
happens that current technology, the existence of a large fleet of
gasoline engine vehicles such that whatever fuel alternative used had to
be compatible and feed stocks available for renewable fuels in the US
favor corn ethanol at the moment.


The market place determined that outcome.

Strongly influenced by national policy and technology limitations as well.


There are no technology limitations
and
National policy has been to oppose ethanol usage. That
policy has not been able to overcome market forces
completely but it has reduced market share. There
would be a lot more ethanol sold without that opposition.


Biodiesel and all are included as well; they just don't get the
attention ethanol does as soybeans aren't as cute, apparently.

Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy
to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum
fractions to higher octane fractions.

Cite?
...

That's easily found and well-known and has been in the earlier
subthreads in this thread as well. I wouldn't say it in precisely those
terms but increased refining to build octane from crude oil itself
definitely hurts yield. Refiners used additives for the purpose from
the very beginning; the widespread use of tetraethyl lead began in the
early 20s or thereabouts to allow for increased compression that was
needed for higher performance and thus needed higher octane-rated fuels
to inhibit knocking.

Higher compression is not just about performance. It
is also necessary for efficiency. And it is not just about
thermal efficiency. Higher compression means you can get
more power from a lighter engine. That means the chassis and
suspension can be lighter also.

"Performance" is a generic term which includes all of the above and more...

Not in the automobile industry. "Performance" is a marketing term
that means the direct opposite of fuel efficiency.


MTBE was the primary substitute of choice when
unleaded was mandated owing to lead's deleterious health effects and
contamination until it was determined to be as bad or worse for it's
propensity to contaminate water supplies when spilled and carcinogenic
nature. Hence, it also went the way of the dodo bird and ethanol has
the facility to raise octane and meet RFIS as well as lower emissions of
nitrous oxides, etc., ... So, at the moment it's the deal.

When and if something better comes along, it'll surely take it's moment
in the sun as well...


Henry Fords first car ran on ethanol. It has been
used as fuel longer than gasoline.

While true, of little relevance to the present discussion.

Henry Ford recommended to Congress to outlaw lead
and use ethanol instead to boost octane.


--


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

On 4/26/2014 3:05 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 11:42 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 11:02 AM, jim wrote:
...
...

It's (like virtually everything in real world, particularly those that
are part of public policy) complicated. The mandate really isn't
ethanol per se, it's "renewable fuel" that's mandated. It just so
happens that current technology, the existence of a large fleet of
gasoline engine vehicles such that whatever fuel alternative used
had to
be compatible and feed stocks available for renewable fuels in the US
favor corn ethanol at the moment.


The market place determined that outcome.

Strongly influenced by national policy and technology limitations as
well.

That is, w/o the widespread outright ban on MTBE and the EPA withdrawal
of the oxygenate rule and phaseout of MTBE that occurred in conjunction
with the 2005 passage of the RFS in the Energy Policy Act ensured that
ethanol would be the choice replacement by default, there being no
viable alternative.

The ban on MTBE was after most of the states had outlawed its use.

How is "outlawed" different than "banned" in practice? And, the EPA
action was contemporaneous, actually...being a four-year phaseout period.

The point is that the combination of removing the only two widespread
octane-enhancing/emission reducing additives in common use in
combination with the implementation of RFS was _the_ driving force in
shifting that demand to ethanol. Plain and simple...

And oxygenates doesn't explain why the 98% of the country
that isn't required to use oxygenates are selling nothing but
E10 fuel.

No, that's explained by the fact that all refiners are using ethanol as
the replacement for MTBE so there's no other product on the market
wholesale for the retailers _to_ sell.

So, you can say that having a single product is a marketplace decision,
but that puts the explanation in place of the reality that there was no
choice in the marketplace for any alternative to have won compared
against.

That is your propaganda story but it doesn't
hold up top scrutiny.

Actually it holds up to fact quite nicely as that's the way it is...

As far as market choice, that ethanol use is really _NOT_
consumer-choice driven, note the very poor market penetration of E85
even with the advent of Flex-fuel vehicles. Even here in heavy ag
country with quite a lot of corn production there're only two pumps in
town. People, given the choice, wouldn't even buy the E10 if it were
available at or near the same price and some pay the premium it brings
relative to E10 even today.

It isn't possible to go back and recreate the experiment to see what
would have happened if RFS hadn't been passed but it's likely other
alternatives than essentially sole reliance upon ethanol would have
evolved.

As Henry Ford pointed out in the 1920's ethanol is and
always has been the only alternative. All the political
posturing and lying for 90 years have been desperate attempts
to avoid that reality.
....

I don't know that Henry ever actually said that--in fact, I'd rather
doubt that he did. He, in fact, as we just finished noting actually
went the tetra-ethyl lead route.

--

On 4/26/2014 3:08 PM, jim wrote:
....

I wasn't disagreeing - I was add context to what you said.

It wasn't what I said--it was a quote verbatim from the EIA.

Actually, EPA sets no limits; E15 and E85 are approved for use so
there's no 10% limit at all.

That I will disagree with. The EPA set up the rules so
that effectively the limit is still 10%. E15 is still
in effect outlawed. If you want proof look around, you
won't find any place to buy E15. It is only in a few states that
local laws level the playing field so that it is not prohibitively
expensive to sell E15.

The simple fact is that E15 would take over the market if
it were made legal just as E10 did. That's because people
would not tell any difference but would see the price is
10 to 20 cents cheaper.

The politicians, the oil companies and the auto makers have for
decades been doing all they can to block further expansion of ethanol, but
it is just a matter of time and market forces will prevail.

....

Well, for the first time I _think_ I finally begin to see where you're
coming from.

I think you're totally wrong in reading consumer sentiment. I mentioned
this in the other subthread before I saw this but there I didn't yet
have this take so I'll add a little more before I withdraw.

People currently by E10 because that's what is on the market. It is on
the market owing to the removal of the two former alternative additives
and there's nothing at least as yet that does the same job as cheaply.
If somebody came up with that magic elixir at a breakthrough price
relative to ethanol, ethanol demand would drop drastically overnight
excepting for the RFS that require renewables of a given overall level.
Being as how diesel doesn't have the volume to make it all up to meet
that mandate, refiners have to use whatever is the renewable alternative
for gasoline and that alternative is ethanol. It's as simple as there's
a forced market being as there's no alternative that meets the mandate.

As for E15, I'll agree that EPA has seemingly drug their feet
excessively on approval but it's approved for an ever-increasing fleet
year-by-year and Flex-fuel vehicles can accept up to E85. That
distributors haven't flocked to implement blender pumps is owing to
their being expensive and there is no overriding consumer demand beating
down their doors demanding it.

Even here in ag country where there's quite a lot of corn producers and
an ethanol plant 10 mi up the road from the house here, there're only
two E85 pumps in the county that I'm aware of and they're far from
popular--there's no line waiting at the pump for them.

It just is not popular demand-driven; given their choice folks would
revert to the olden days in a heartbeat I'd guess. That, of course,
isn't going to happen.

Of course, one of the prime problems is that there is no infrastructure
to deal with large quantities of ethanol for retail distribution with
E15 concentrations--it just can't go down a regular, existing pipeline
even if there were excess capacity in existence for it to take up.
That's where the other infrastructure support that somebody upthread was
railing about would have to come in to play if ever going to get there
in any near term.

Where we go on RFS is anybody's guess for the future...

While true, of little relevance to the present discussion.

Henry Ford recommended to Congress to outlaw lead
and use ethanol instead to boost octane.
....

When was that? I'd be interested to see those remarks in context...

I'm aware of his idea in terms of trying to build markets for depressed
farm products in the 30s in particular and in competing against GM as
competitive edge potential. I suppose, being who he was, he did testify
at some point before Congress...

Still, while an interesting historical sidelight it has no real bearing
on the current state of affairs.

--

wrote:
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:05:12 AM UTC-4, jim wrote:

Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.



Congress doesn't have to mandate ethanol usage. If the EPA removed the

upper limits on Ethanol even more than the mandated amount would be sold.


If they do not have to mandate the use of ethanol , why do they mandate it?

Probably because they do not believe that if they did not mandate the use, it would not get used.


But, that implies Congress people and the EPA have

deceived you, and we all know that is utterly impossible.





If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.



They would do what? Blend ethanol to the maximum extent the

law allows? That is what the oil companies are doing.


Actualy they blend ethanol to the minimum extent the law allows.

You invent lies at the drop of a hat. If
the EPA regulations allowed more ethanol to be sold it
would be.


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

dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 3:05 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 11:42 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 11:02 AM, jim wrote:
...
...

It's (like virtually everything in real world, particularly those
that
are part of public policy) complicated. The mandate really isn't
ethanol per se, it's "renewable fuel" that's mandated. It just so
happens that current technology, the existence of a large fleet of
gasoline engine vehicles such that whatever fuel alternative used
had to
be compatible and feed stocks available for renewable fuels in the US
favor corn ethanol at the moment.


The market place determined that outcome.

Strongly influenced by national policy and technology limitations as
well.

That is, w/o the widespread outright ban on MTBE and the EPA withdrawal
of the oxygenate rule and phaseout of MTBE that occurred in conjunction
with the 2005 passage of the RFS in the Energy Policy Act ensured that
ethanol would be the choice replacement by default, there being no
viable alternative.

The ban on MTBE was after most of the states had outlawed its use.

How is "outlawed" different than "banned" in practice? And, the EPA
action was contemporaneous, actually...being a four-year phaseout period.

The EPA banned it after most of the states already had
passed laws making it illegal.



The point is that the combination of removing the only two widespread
octane-enhancing/emission reducing additives in common use in
combination with the implementation of RFS was _the_ driving force in
shifting that demand to ethanol. Plain and simple...

And oxygenates doesn't explain why the 98% of the country
that isn't required to use oxygenates are selling nothing but
E10 fuel.

No, that's explained by the fact that all refiners are using ethanol as
the replacement for MTBE so there's no other product on the market
wholesale for the retailers _to_ sell.

There never has been anything else safe or effective as an
octane booster. MTBE was far more damaging to fuel limes and
engines and yet the EPA allowed the oil companies to add as much
as they wanted to without giving any warnings to buyers. That
was all done to block ethanol. None of the other products can
compete with ethanol on a level playing field. The only way
MTBE made it to market was by gross deception by the EPA and
oil companies.

MTBE was far more damaging to vehicles than ethanol, it reduced
gas mileage more than ethanol and it was extremely harmful to
human health and yet it was favored over ethanol. How did
that happen - by lying and deception and because
the oil companies wanted MTBE and not ethanol.



As Henry Ford pointed out in the 1920's ethanol is and
always has been the only alternative. All the political
posturing and lying for 90 years have been desperate attempts
to avoid that reality.
...

I don't know that Henry ever actually said that--in fact, I'd rather
doubt that he did. He, in fact, as we just finished noting actually
went the tetra-ethyl lead route.


Ford promoted the use of ethanol over lead all his
life. But Ford built cars - he didn't sell fuel. Lead
was more profitable for the oil companies and the oil
companies bought and paid Congress to allow them to
spew poison all over the country.
-


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

dpb wrote:


The politicians, the oil companies and the auto makers have for
decades been doing all they can to block further expansion of ethanol,
but
it is just a matter of time and market forces will prevail.

...

Well, for the first time I _think_ I finally begin to see where you're
coming from.

I think you're totally wrong in reading consumer sentiment. I mentioned
this in the other subthread before I saw this but there I didn't yet
have this take so I'll add a little more before I withdraw.

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.



People currently by E10 because that's what is on the market.

No they were initially given a choice.Consumers looked at the price
and bought the ethanol blend. That is how ethanol sales grew much faster
than the mandates for all those years.


It is on
the market owing to the removal of the two former alternative additives
and there's nothing at least as yet that does the same job as cheaply.

There never were any former alternatives. There were two deadly toxins
that never should have been allowed to be sold in the first place.
They were both removed when the deceptions that got them on
the market could no longer
e sustained.


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

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.


People currently by E10 because that's what is on the market.

No they were initially given a choice.Consumers looked at the price
and bought the ethanol blend. That is how ethanol sales grew much faster
than the mandates for all those years.

No they weren't except for the transition period between the time of
leaded and unleaded when vehicles weren't ethanol-ready. Once that
transition period was over, the option went away for all intents and
purposes.

Stations mostly dropped the non-ethanol simply to not have to keep the
two alternatives separate.

Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.


It is on
the market owing to the removal of the two former alternative additives
and there's nothing at least as yet that does the same job as cheaply.

There never were any former alternatives. There were two deadly toxins
that never should have been allowed to be sold in the first place.
....

Your opinion of them notwithstanding, they were there and on the market
for some 75-80 years. That pretty much means there were alternatives.

Anyway, you've an opinion; I've an opinion that differs. I'm marking
the thread to ignore so I won't be tempted to prolong it any longer...

--

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.




People currently by E10 because that's what is on the market.

No they were initially given a choice.Consumers looked at the price
and bought the ethanol blend. That is how ethanol sales grew much faster
than the mandates for all those years.

No they weren't except for the transition period between the time of
leaded and unleaded when vehicles weren't ethanol-ready. Once that
transition period was over, the option went away for all intents and
purposes.

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.



Stations mostly dropped the non-ethanol simply to not have to keep the
two alternatives separate.

Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

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.



It is on
the market owing to the removal of the two former alternative additives
and there's nothing at least as yet that does the same job as cheaply.

There never were any former alternatives. There were two deadly toxins
that never should have been allowed to be sold in the first place.
...

Your opinion of them notwithstanding, they were there and on the market
for some 75-80 years. That pretty much means there were alternatives.

They were illegitimate alternatives. Their fate was doomed
from the start because it took enormous amount of propaganda
and deception to make them available. Eventually the truth
won out.


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

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.




People currently by E10 because that's what is on the market.

No they were initially given a choice.Consumers looked at the price
and bought the ethanol blend. That is how ethanol sales grew much faster
than the mandates for all those years.

No they weren't except for the transition period between the time of
leaded and unleaded when vehicles weren't ethanol-ready. Once that
transition period was over, the option went away for all intents and
purposes.

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.



Stations mostly dropped the non-ethanol simply to not have to keep the
two alternatives separate.

Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

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.

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


It is on
the market owing to the removal of the two former alternative additives
and there's nothing at least as yet that does the same job as cheaply.

There never were any former alternatives. There were two deadly toxins
that never should have been allowed to be sold in the first place.
...

Your opinion of them notwithstanding, they were there and on the market
for some 75-80 years. That pretty much means there were
alternatives.

They were illegitimate alternatives. Their fate was doomed
from the start because it took enormous amount of propaganda
and deception to make them available. Eventually the truth
won out.

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.

You need to educate yourself on the basics.

David

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...

--

David R. Birch wrote:

Your opinion of them notwithstanding, they were there and on the market
for some 75-80 years. That pretty much means there were
alternatives.

They were illegitimate alternatives. Their fate was doomed
from the start because it took enormous amount of propaganda
and deception to make them available. Eventually the truth
won out.

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.

I don't disagree with that. The problem lies with
bad regulation that is intended to sabotage the benefits
of ethanol blends. The problem is not ethanol. The EPA
is not working for you. The EPA is working for the oil
companies and automakers who have been fighting against ethanol
for 90 years. But in the end the truth will prevail.

In the future, market forces will win out and motor
fuel will all be around 25% ethanol. And that fuel will
deliver better mileage than straight gasoline. The EPA
and oil companies are hoping for some miracle to arrive to
change that destiny. But there is no miracle.



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

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, dpb wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.


--

"
I was once told by a “gun safety” advocate back in the Nineties
that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.
Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?

I began to give him a reasoned answer and he
cut me off with an abrupt, “Give me the short answer.”

I thought for a moment and said, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”"

On 4/28/2014 3:18 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.
....

You're in CA, aren't you? I don't think they allow it (or have for
years). There are still a few around elsewhere that don't have as much
high population density problems that required more aggressive smog
abatement action (or are less intrusive in general ).

--

On 4/27/2014 9:19 AM, jim wrote:
....

In the future, market forces will win out and motor
fuel will all be around 25% ethanol. And that fuel will
deliver better mileage than straight gasoline. The EPA
and oil companies are hoping for some miracle to arrive to
change that destiny. But there is no miracle.
....

I make no such claims of prsecience other than that imo it'll mostly be
direction in national energy policy that is the driver over purely
market forces, or stated slightly different it will be policy that will
drive the market.

And, it won't be the fuel, per se, that delivers better mileage as the
fact of the matter remains that there's a lower energy density so it
will be improved efficiency in the the use thereof that will deliver any
increase seen, if any, not the fuel.

It's possible we'll see the acceptance of such advanced concepts as you
pointed to before but I've my doubts they'll prove to be feasible and
widely accepted, at least any time in the near future, just as Chrysler
had difficulties some 50 yr ago the added complexity generally comes at
a cost of reliability and increased costs which oftentimes fails in the
marketplace of competition. The CAFE rules will predominate, however,
in how they're manipulated.

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/28/2014 3:18 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's
only one station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.
...

You're in CA, aren't you? I don't think they allow it (or have for
years). There are still a few around elsewhere that don't have as
much high population density problems that required more aggressive
smog abatement action (or are less intrusive in general ).

Thanks to ethanol I once bought a nice new fuel pump for my 1992 Plymouth
which wasn't designed for ethanol. It stalled on the highway at high speed.
A lot of people had similar problems. How many people got killed? You
wouldn't know because they wouldn't have done autopsies on the cars.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing, add a zero and remove the last word.

Gunner Asch on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:18:40 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, dpb wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.

They exist. According to
http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=CA there are nine such
stations in your area. Okay, state.
Nearest one looks to be in Bradley.


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

On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:19:33 PM UTC-4, pyotr filipivich wrote:

They exist. According to

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=CA


--


Delaware is not on their list of states.

Dan

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:53:10 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/28/2014 3:18 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.
...

You're in CA, aren't you? I don't think they allow it (or have for
years). There are still a few around elsewhere that don't have as much
high population density problems that required more aggressive smog
abatement action (or are less intrusive in general ).

Ayup...California and less t han 30 miles from a refinery..and I live
smack dab in the middle of the oilfields near Bakersfield, Ca.

The last time I smelled "real" gasoline, was a trip out to a friends
place in Aridzona. Truck ran NICELY after that fillup and went back to
being a pig when I filled up again on the way home with "California
Normal Gas(p)

Gunner

--

"
I was once told by a “gun safety” advocate back in the Nineties
that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.
Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?

I began to give him a reasoned answer and he
cut me off with an abrupt, “Give me the short answer.”

I thought for a moment and said, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”"

On 4/28/2014 12:19 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:53:10 -0500, wrote:
On 4/28/2014 3:18 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
....
I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.
...

You're in CA, aren't you? I don't think they allow it (or have for
years). ...

Ayup...California and less t han 30 miles from a refinery..and I live
smack dab in the middle of the oilfields near Bakersfield, Ca.

The last time I smelled "real" gasoline, was a trip out to a friends
place in Aridzona. Truck ran NICELY after that fillup and went back to
being a pig when I filled up again on the way home with "California
Normal Gas(p)
....

At least a reasonable chance that ethanol came from within 10 mi of
here--the local ethanol plant gets a "green"(+) premium over other
outlets from CA and so ships a sizable fraction of production here from
KS there. Another prime market is south to N Orleans port where it goes
to Brazil (of all places).

(+) To get this amongst other things they capture off-gas CO2 byproduct
which is piped to OK/TX for use in enhanced oil recovery.

As a sidebar, I find it most interesting to note that w/ all the
ballyhoo over CO2, we were just offered a lease on ground in NM for
drilling and production of CO2 to be transported to Midland/Odessa, TX,
area for the same purpose. IOW, they're getting ready to drill for more
because there's an insufficient supply.

--

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:19:33 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:18:40 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, dpb wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.

They exist. According to
http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=CA there are nine such
stations in your area. Okay, state.
Nearest one looks to be in Bradley.


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

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.

The closest one listed is 109 miles away.

Gunner

--

"
I was once told by a “gun safety” advocate back in the Nineties
that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.
Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?

I began to give him a reasoned answer and he
cut me off with an abrupt, “Give me the short answer.”

I thought for a moment and said, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”"

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.

--

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:18:40 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, dpb wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.

We have Ethanol-Free Premium Unleaded here for only $4.89.9 a gallon.
FTN

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

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:19:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:53:10 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/28/2014 3:18 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.
...

You're in CA, aren't you? I don't think they allow it (or have for
years). There are still a few around elsewhere that don't have as much
high population density problems that required more aggressive smog
abatement action (or are less intrusive in general ).

Ayup...California and less t han 30 miles from a refinery..and I live
smack dab in the middle of the oilfields near Bakersfield, Ca.

The last time I smelled "real" gasoline, was a trip out to a friends
place in Aridzona. Truck ran NICELY after that fillup and went back to
being a pig when I filled up again on the way home with "California
Normal Gas(p)

Gunner

I think that airports that cater to small airplanes still sell Avgas
that does not contain alcohol.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:55:49 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/28/2014 12:19 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:53:10 -0500, wrote:
On 4/28/2014 3:18 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
...
I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.
...

You're in CA, aren't you? I don't think they allow it (or have for
years). ...

Ayup...California and less t han 30 miles from a refinery..and I live
smack dab in the middle of the oilfields near Bakersfield, Ca.

The last time I smelled "real" gasoline, was a trip out to a friends
place in Aridzona. Truck ran NICELY after that fillup and went back to
being a pig when I filled up again on the way home with "California
Normal Gas(p)
...

At least a reasonable chance that ethanol came from within 10 mi of
here--the local ethanol plant gets a "green"(+) premium over other
outlets from CA and so ships a sizable fraction of production here from
KS there. Another prime market is south to N Orleans port where it goes
to Brazil (of all places).

(+) To get this amongst other things they capture off-gas CO2 byproduct
which is piped to OK/TX for use in enhanced oil recovery.

As a sidebar, I find it most interesting to note that w/ all the
ballyhoo over CO2, we were just offered a lease on ground in NM for
drilling and production of CO2 to be transported to Midland/Odessa, TX,
area for the same purpose. IOW, they're getting ready to drill for more
because there's an insufficient supply.

Probably 20 years ago we undertook to install a "flare gas processing"
plant in central Java (Indonesia) at a field that contained a lot of
CO2 in conjunction with the oil. The separation process is not complex
but what were we going to do with the CO2. Then a German company heard
about the field and approached us with the idea of building a plant
adjacent to ours to process the CO2. The plant is still in operation
and the Germans are still buying CO2 :-)

During meeting the German Project Engineer mentioned that the market
was large enough that they were burning diesel fuel to make CO2 and
that they would buy all the CO2 that we could make. Their biggest
customer was the soft drink bottlers, Coke, Pepsi, etc., but they were
expanding into the "dry ice" market as that look profitable for truck
transport of perishables. The Engineer also said that CO2 was used
extensively in Germany to flood grain silos as by removing the oxygen
it killed the bugs.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Gunner Asch on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:39:05 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:19:33 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:18:40 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, dpb wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.

They exist. According to
http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=CA there are nine such
stations in your area. Okay, state.
Nearest one looks to be in Bradley.


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.

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

" on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:28:10 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:19:33 PM UTC-4, pyotr filipivich wrote:

They exist. According to

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=CA


Delaware is not on their list of states.

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

On 4/28/2014 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:55:49 -0500, wrote:
....

(+) To get this amongst other things they capture off-gas CO2 byproduct
which is piped to OK/TX for use in enhanced oil recovery.

As a sidebar, I find it most interesting to note that w/ all the
ballyhoo over CO2, we were just offered a lease on ground in NM for
drilling and production of CO2 to be transported to Midland/Odessa, TX,
area for the same purpose. IOW, they're getting ready to drill for more
because there's an insufficient supply.

Probably 20 years ago we undertook to install a "flare gas processing"
plant in central Java (Indonesia) at a field that contained a lot of
CO2 in conjunction with the oil. The separation process is not complex
but what were we going to do with the CO2. Then a German company heard
about the field and approached us with the idea of building a plant
adjacent to ours to process the CO2. The plant is still in operation
and the Germans are still buying CO2 :-)

During meeting the German Project Engineer mentioned that the market
was large enough that they were burning diesel fuel to make CO2 and
that they would buy all the CO2 that we could make. Their biggest
customer was the soft drink bottlers, Coke, Pepsi, etc., but they were
expanding into the "dry ice" market as that look profitable for truck
transport of perishables. The Engineer also said that CO2 was used
extensively in Germany to flood grain silos as by removing the oxygen
it killed the bugs.

There are large domes of CO2 in various locations in the mountain
states, particularly CO and NM that is almost devoid of contaminants and
with no petroleum products entrained. There was a dry ice plant in this
remote portion of NM (about 800 people in an entire county with two
villages of roughly 300 each) back in the 20s when it was a (relatively)
booming place. It's not been operational since the 30s when it and much
else went bust.

There's sufficient demand w/ the advent of enhanced oil recovery
techniques in the Permian basin to make it attractive to project
building new pipelines and begin new drilling...to the point of signing
royalty leases, anyway. We'll have to see if the rest comes to
fruition. The longer the current administration continues to dawdle
over Keystone, the better the odds are.

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

--

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?

--

pyotr filipivich

"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.

Dan

"John B."
I think that airports that cater to small
airplanes still sell Avgas
that does not contain alcohol.
--
Cheers,

John B.

And marinas.. boat motors don't like water in the
fuel.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:51:50 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:39:05 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:19:33 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:18:40 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:51:27 -0500, dpb wrote:


Just as there's only the one or two E85 pumps in town, there's only one
station w/ no ethanol.

I havent seen a "no ethanol" pump in over 15 -20 yrs.

They exist. According to
http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=CA there are nine such
stations in your area. Okay, state.
Nearest one looks to be in Bradley.


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.

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's too pricy for me.

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

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:34:30 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 4/28/2014 11:21 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:55:49 -0500, wrote:
...

(+) To get this amongst other things they capture off-gas CO2 byproduct
which is piped to OK/TX for use in enhanced oil recovery.

As a sidebar, I find it most interesting to note that w/ all the
ballyhoo over CO2, we were just offered a lease on ground in NM for
drilling and production of CO2 to be transported to Midland/Odessa, TX,
area for the same purpose. IOW, they're getting ready to drill for more
because there's an insufficient supply.

Probably 20 years ago we undertook to install a "flare gas processing"
plant in central Java (Indonesia) at a field that contained a lot of
CO2 in conjunction with the oil. The separation process is not complex
but what were we going to do with the CO2. Then a German company heard
about the field and approached us with the idea of building a plant
adjacent to ours to process the CO2. The plant is still in operation
and the Germans are still buying CO2 :-)

During meeting the German Project Engineer mentioned that the market
was large enough that they were burning diesel fuel to make CO2 and
that they would buy all the CO2 that we could make. Their biggest
customer was the soft drink bottlers, Coke, Pepsi, etc., but they were
expanding into the "dry ice" market as that look profitable for truck
transport of perishables. The Engineer also said that CO2 was used
extensively in Germany to flood grain silos as by removing the oxygen
it killed the bugs.

There are large domes of CO2 in various locations in the mountain
states, particularly CO and NM that is almost devoid of contaminants and
with no petroleum products entrained. There was a dry ice plant in this
remote portion of NM (about 800 people in an entire county with two
villages of roughly 300 each) back in the 20s when it was a (relatively)
booming place. It's not been operational since the 30s when it and much
else went bust.

There's sufficient demand w/ the advent of enhanced oil recovery
techniques in the Permian basin to make it attractive to project
building new pipelines and begin new drilling...to the point of signing
royalty leases, anyway. We'll have to see if the rest comes to
fruition. The longer the current administration continues to dawdle
over Keystone, the better the odds are.

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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