 |
E85Forum.com
Fueling the E85 community
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would you buy a FFV? |
| Yes! |
|
55% |
[ 5 ] |
| Someday, but not now. |
|
44% |
[ 4 ] |
| No. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Activist
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 22
Location: Mid West & South
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: How about E-30 (?) Now?!! |
 |
|
 Far as I know, there is not 1 E-85 pump in St Louis, MO. There are apparently a few in the greater metro area, in IL. The production of FFV's is very modest, & these are new vehicles with new vehicle stickers. Even if some1 say in St Louis, MO wanted to have a FFV, it's highly unlikely they'd drive over to IL everytime they needed to fuel-up with E-85! It may be years before there are even a few E-85 pumps in this single metro area, & whose to say they'll be in a location convient to owners of FFV's?
 A more realistic, & practical solution to this problem would be to have an Ethanol + Gas fuel with a mixture of the highest % of E that would still be capable of being burned in convential vehicles; those already on the road. Some of the Posts in this forum have been by guys who are experimenting with their own blends in convential vehicles. I've seen the figure of: E-30 mentioned. I'd like to encourage the Producers, & promoters of E based fuels to do some scientific testing to determine a safe max concentration of E in gasoline that could be burned in convential vehicles. If it turns out to be 30%, that would off set almost 1/3 of petro & have some of the environmental benefits of E based fuel.
 (A few years ago, I could still find stations selling 100% gas. I burned that in my fuel injected vehicle; the ethanol blend ran better in a carbed Honda Civic. I've heard grumblings from some Drivers since they can no longer find 100% gas. They say the E-10 cruds-up their injectors? But now that it's all E-10, why not E-30?)
 Once determined, this mixture %E/Gas could be developed by the Refiners in a matter of months, tanked to Filling Stations, & distributed to the millions of vehicles already on the road via the millions of Pumps already in Place!
This would be a practial compromize to the present impasse. It's the right thing to do, & now is the time to do it. Best of all: It's do-able!
_________________
STAY ALIVE = 75 m.p.h.
Offical WebSite:
http://ReformAutos.org
Activist@ReformAutos.org
Yahoo Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reform-autos/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robotbeat
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, I doubt that it will really be that long before there are e85 pumps in St. Louis. I mean, the number of total e85 pumps nationwide doubles every three years or so. I'm not being optimistic, I'm being realistic. You'll see an e85 pump in St. Louis in the next two years, I'm sure of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdorff
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 25
Location: RTP NC USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robotbeat
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a place not too far away from St. Louis:
Mobil On the Run
1401 5th Street
St. Charles, MO 63301
636-947-6388 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Revision
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 194
Location: Carol Stream, IL
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand the gist of your post. You want E30, but its already available by splash blending the fuel in your gas tank with E85 and regular gas or E10, the rest is math.
There are some stations that offer blending pumps that let you choose your concentration of ethanol, but I haven't seen them in Illinois either.
Yes, some normal cars can run E30 or higher without issues, but many Hondas for example cannot. (And most Subaru WRXs shouldn't run higher than E30 in stock trim.) (We'll add more cars to the list as they break.)
Car manufacturers have to warrenty a car for emissions, those tests often take up to a year or more. So if they don't believe they can make up for the lost money by testing for E30, they won't. There are one or a few states pushing for E30 compliance from manufacturers, but they haven't budged. E10 emissions was mandated long ago when 10% ethanol was mandated in pumps, so that testing has already been done.
Mandating E30 at this time is probably not a good idea as there isn't enough ethanol being produced in the United States to supply a nationwide E10 standard as it is.
The refiners don't really give two hoots about ethanol, their business is selling refined oil products.
You really can't just throw E85 into existing tanks. The tanks using straight gasoline have to be cleaned and any extrenuous moisture removed. The reason the tanks have to be cleaned is that straight gas leaves behind varnish and residue that E85 tends to clean up and that mess tends to get stuck in the gas filter. Same reason why older cars tend to clog their gas filter when running higher concentrations of ethanol. Plus the hoses and all rubber bits in a gas pump need to be replaced with high ethanol compatible parts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Activist
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 22
Location: Mid West & South
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:32 am Post subject: Mandating E-30! |
|
|
If most vehicles could run on E-30, & it could be distributed via present pumps in place, that seems like the logical way to proceed with E Fuels. Having pumps that create a blend, just like + is created now, or like the old Sunoco, Citco pumps might work?
Problem is most Drivers are mechanically ignorant. They might not understand, or even bother to learn which Blend they'd need.
I'm beginning to come to the realization that despite this .org's best efforts, it's best intentions will probably not be realized. Unless some sort of EPA enforcement (Like with Freon.) were made law forcing filling stations to provide at least 1 E-85 pump, it doesn't appear that it's going to happen... You'd really have to have the pumps in place, than FFV manufactures would have to rachet up production, or just make all new vehicles FFV's. Even than, how many new vehicles are sold each year, & where are they supposed to fuel-up with E-85?
There's also the milage issue. Unless E-85 was priced so as Drivers would get the same miles per $ as they would when burning gas.
I'm discovering there's many other extranous neurotic issues surrounding the present promotional tactics... Their becomming political. In MO, Talent hopped on the E-85 bandwagon, so now the Democrats are avoiding it. I've got 900 current E Mail addresses (Claire McCaskills address book.) I've sent out E's to all these People promoting ReformAutos.org, as well as this website. Encourging People to start asking their Filling Station Managers for E-85. Not 1 + responce! Several requests to be removed from my mailing list.
Also, many Urbanites dislike Farmers! (I love Farmers, the Country, Corn & Willie Nelson!) They don't care about aiding the Farmers, think their Red Necks, & know nothing about agriculture. So, the Corn power commercials are actually having a - effect amongst some segments of U.S society.
Then there's the People who complain about the subsidies the corn growers recieve. (Which actually means cheaper E-10 for lower income Folks.) Think their getting ripped off...
All in all, I suggest we start getting REAL! If States are in the process of mandating: E-30, & if Ethanol Producers are just now gearing up to meet the demand for: E-10, hopefully they'll have increased volume by the time Refiners start switching over to: E-30. Sooner the better! 
_________________
STAY ALIVE = 75 m.p.h.
Offical WebSite:
http://ReformAutos.org
Activist@ReformAutos.org
Yahoo Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reform-autos/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdorff
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 25
Location: RTP NC USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Activist
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 22
Location: Mid West & South
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent! This should be required viewing: E-101!
It's difficult to expand on the topic of E fuels at this point w/o becomming political, or pointing out that many of the most high ranking political leaders of this Country are in the Oil Biz. It's my frank assesment, that everything these politicians have done in the past 6 years has been caculated to drive-up the price of oil to what it is today! That, & line their own pockets. I'm sure privately they just love the President of Iran, 'cause for the past year, everytime he opens his mouth, the price of a barrel of crude jumps = $2!
Otherwise, the example set by Brazil should be easy for America to follow.
Far as I'm concerned, this is priority: Alpha-Uno (A-1)! Right up thar with finding a cure for cancer! We need something like a domestic Marshall Plan to implement this conversion away from Petro Products, & over to Bio-Fuels!
Thx for the URL, I'll Post in on my Yahoo Group!!!
_________________
STAY ALIVE = 75 m.p.h.
Offical WebSite:
http://ReformAutos.org
Activist@ReformAutos.org
Yahoo Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reform-autos/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Revision
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 194
Location: Carol Stream, IL
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd rather they took it easy until the ethanol supply catches up with demand. 
As it is, when I mix 30% ethanol, I'm still just breaking even in terms of cost per mile.
But it is a lot more fun.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robotbeat
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here in Minnesota, we have about 270 e85 stations. I actually have very little trouble finding an e85 station when I want it. There are almost 900 e85 pumps nationwide, and that has grown from only 600 a year ago. It's really happening pretty quickly. The production, distribution, availability, and consumption of ethanol is growing very quickly, and I have a hard time seeing how it could grow any faster without a lot of pain to everyone. 25-50% of year-on-year growth is pretty darn fast growth, if you ask me. And it'll be about ten years before cellulose ethanol will catch up with starch ethanol in as far as production goes, but maybe it won't take that long. But it'll for sure be at least five years before cellulosic ethanol equals starch ethanol.
E30 is probably a little too much to be mandated for now. Minnesota has passed legislation requiring E20 in gasoline by 2012 or sooner, and they are currently in the process of proving to the EPA (through laboratory research) that E20 is "close enough" to gasoline to not require retesting of vehicles (and small engines) for emissions and corrosiveness.
I think that it'd be cool if some sort of automatic blending technology could enable someone to use the blend of ethanol that their vehicle can handle. That way, there could be some sort of national database of vehicle compatibility with ethanol blends, and consumers could just use the blend that works for their vehicle, without having to do some fancy conversion of the fuel system. I don't see something like that happening for a long time, though. Good idea, nonetheless. (For now I like being able to blend the ethanol myself.)
As far as the politics of ethanol, here in Minnesota pro-ethanol legislation is very much bipartisan. I think the same thing is true nationally. Democrats shouldn't be afraid of joining Republicans in supporting biofuels legislation.
I guess I consider myself a Republican, and I am certainly pro-ethanol. I think that the most progress happens when both parties understand the importance of something, whether it be national security, civil liberties, or energy security. (But you can't take the politics out of politics, they say.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdorff
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 25
Location: RTP NC USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Revision wrote: | I'd rather they took it easy until the ethanol supply catches up with demand.
|
Actually, with so many new ethanol plants being produced, there is a real fear of overproduction. Standard & Poor's is predicting an ethanol glut in two years! Read more here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/15/bloomberg/bxinvest.php
If an ethanol (or biodiesel) "glut" were to occur investors would likely get burned and loose confidence in biofuels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Revision
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 194
Location: Carol Stream, IL
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was an old thread where a bunch of the really smart guys did the math for how much ethanol was needed to supply/replace 10% of the gasoline we use. It was large enough that there were doubts that there would be enough land to plant the corn to support it.
So personally, I don't see a glut happening in something as short as 2 years. Cellulose ethanol is still a few years away as even the test plants haven't even been built yet.
And yes, oil companies have to use 10% ethanol in some places to "extend" the oil supplies or else they will run out. This was quoted sometime last year, but that quote has since disappeared. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Activist
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 22
Location: Mid West & South
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: This is what I mean: |
|
|
| Robotbeat wrote: | As far as the politics of ethanol, here in Minnesota pro-ethanol legislation is very much bipartisan. I think the same thing is true nationally. Democrats shouldn't be afraid of joining Republicans in supporting biofuels legislation.
I guess I consider myself a Republican, and I am certainly pro-ethanol. I think that the most progress happens when both parties understand the importance of something, whether it be national security, civil liberties, or energy security. (But you can't take the politics out of politics, they say.) |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This afternoon I Posted the Link to the Video's URL on the R-A Yahoo Group, than, as you'll see, sort of did a backdoor spam of the StLFilmWire. Jay Kelley, staunch Bush supporter, is the Administrator of that List. Here's his Reply:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I surprised Kenn, being the liberal you are that
you of all people would
support Ethanol.. It the worst and most costly
mistake ever made, taking
twice as much coal energy to producer than it
saves. The only reason it's
still there is the large farm lobby continues to
line the pockets of
Republicans to keep it alive since their votes
all come from the Midwest.
Low income farmers, get NOTHING from the tax
break, only those farms making
over $4,000,000 per year.
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: stlfilmwire-bounces@dhtv.org
[mailto:stlfilmwire-bounces@dhtv.org] On
Behalf Of Kenn Drescher
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:46 PM
To: stlfilmwire@dhtv.org
Subject: [stlfilmwire] Fwd: [reform-autos] VIDEO:
BioFuels- Think OutsideThe
Barrel!
To change your list settings visit:
http://dhtv.org/mailman/listinfo/stlfilmwire
SENT VIA THE STLFILMWIRE:
Here's a 1:08:42 Educational Video, lotza Mb's.
Good example of the
potential of Google Video. Looks like they are
gettin' the bugs worked
out... Best of all- It's a FREE On-Line Video
Presentation Service.
Share knowledge thru Video!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
This is an excellent reference material
for any1 wanting to learn
the
state of Elthanol based fuels in the world 2day.
Should be required viewing; E-101.
I highly suggest viewing this Video (On-Line FREE
at:Google Videos).
Runs little over an hour. Before You enter in to
the Ethanol
Discussion, I urge You to watch this Video 1st!
URL:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-570288889128950913&hl=en
Enjoy!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any1 wishing to address his allegations? 
_________________
STAY ALIVE = 75 m.p.h.
Offical WebSite:
http://ReformAutos.org
Activist@ReformAutos.org
Yahoo Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reform-autos/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Revision
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 194
Location: Carol Stream, IL
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought liberals considered the War in Iraq the worst and most costly mistake ever made...
Anywho.
As for taking twice as much coal energy to produce as it makes, that sounds like a page from Pimentel's book. And there are already several more paper that suggest that Pimentel's numbers are not entirely accurate and that producing ethanol gives more energy than is invested. Read some of the threads on the site, this has already been discussed to death.
The ethanol subsidy really only goes to the ethanol producers and the oil refineries. But there are still farmers out there who enjoy the profits of ethanol. Those farmers who initially invested in an ethanol plant and are now getting bonuses back from having a place to sell corn as well as return on investments. Money is going back into the farming community instead of overseas as a function of market economy.
Another article listed somewhere on this site is the way that silos are contributing to the income wealth for farmers. Ethanol plants work on a just in time delivery system. There is just not enough space at most ethanol plants to store all that corn to be processed. So Ethanol plants will buy corn as they need it, farmers that already have modern silos which are designed to hold and store corn over longer durations without spoiling are able to sell that corn after harvest to the plants at premium prices.
And yes, there is a large farm lobby. I'm surprised the democrats haven't tried to get in there and increase their influcence among farmers, but farmers tend to be a pretty savy lot and can spot a shyster a mile away so to speak.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Activist
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 22
Location: Mid West & South
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
