I have been working with a number of airports to get unleaded fuel service on the airports in eastern Oregon under SB-1079. I talked to the airport manager at John Day and asked him to see if his AirBP distributor would also install an SB-1079 fuel operation. AirBP said no, which was no surprise, but what else he told the airport manager was a huge surprise:

"As part of the transition to Ethanol all the fuel refiners in the WA, OR, MT and ID areas have agreed to switch exclusively to ethanol when the usage levels hit a certain plateau, most likely with the next year."

For the pilots in Montana and Idaho, you better be prepared. As of now Idaho has no mandatory E10 law and the one in Montana hasn't triggered and probably never will, but the gasoline companies are going to start distributing E10 everywhere because they have learned how profitable it is. Once the terminals get the ethanol injection equipment installed they have an incentive to blend as much ethanol as possible for the tax credit and currently ethanol is about $1 / gallon cheaper than gasoline. Once a large geographic area goes E10, the refinery can start shipping suboctane to the terminal and pocket the savings. When this happens there will be no premium unleaded clear gasoline available as we have found out in Oregon. The oil companies have also learned that a lot of cars don't handle E10 efficiently and are seeing mileage declines of more than 10%, which means the cars are now using more gasoline than they were before.

I have no idea how the exemptions for premium unleaded in the Montana law are going to work if the law never triggers and all of the gasoline goes E10. Pilots in Montana need to start asking questions. Idaho has no laws to protect the aircraft fuel supply and just like in Arizona premium unleaded will disappear in Idaho too.

Citizens need to work on their legislatures to ensure that all pumps that deliver ethanol are labeled and demand that the clear stock for premium unleaded is always 91 AKI clear even if they are going to put ethanol in it. Once it goes suboctane, there will be no 91 AKI clear available. Finally, you need to enact a law that ensures that if ethanol doesn't make gasoline cheaper, it can't be blended. Our mandatory E10 law in Oregon has no such protection, we have to blend ethanol because you can't sell the gasoline without it, so the terminal has to pay any price for it and right now Oregon has the highest gasoline price in the four northwestern states.

N1593Y, I admire the way you are trying to do what you can for GA. I'm trying to do the same but in a different way. You should read the results of some testing where a 2007 Toyota Camry actually got the best fuel mileage using a 30% blend. Could it be that the sub-octane fuel being blended with the eth is the problem? That poor quality stuff can't be used without some blending help from ethanol. A friend of mine just bought a R90/6 BMW to relive his younger days. The first one he owned had the floats in the carb's sink years ago when he put 10% in. Fast forward---he put 10% in this new to him bike and it still runs good. Could it be the acetone they used to denature with was the problem years ago? Today all ethanol has an anti-oxidant added to stop corrosion and is denatured with natural gasoline---could it be ethanol has improved? I'm using ethanol in all my sparkplug equipped engines,10 to 50% ethanol blends with good results. Even the 2 cycle Lawnboy has been running about 10 years on 10%. I've heard a number of people say you can't mix 2 cycle oil with it. Here is the link to the study. http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=91&parentid=8
P.S. We should be putting our energy into getting the FAA to approve 10%.

Actually we should put our effort into ending the inordinate subsidies for ethanol - then let the market decide. I wonder how zealous you'd be if your margins dried up?

>... You should read the results of some testing where a 2007 Toyota Camry actually got the best fuel mileage using a 30% blend.

I have read these studies. While they may be right, you must realize that to achieve efficiency at high ethanol blends, you must raise the compression ratio. In order to go to an ethanol based fuel system countrywide is going to require retooling in the auto industry and massive changes in the fuel delivery system. And remember you are going to have to support all of the old cars for a number of years. Is anyone planning for this?

Could it be that the sub-octane fuel being blended with the eth is the problem?

No, it is just lower AKI fuel that hasn't been refined as much, saving the refineries money, there is no difference in the quality of the gasoline product.

That poor quality stuff can't be used without some blending help from ethanol.

It isn't "poor quality". It has to meet the ASTM standards for auto fuel. The quality of the fuel is the same whether it is suboctane for ethanol blending or the gasoline we receive today. It is just that the highest AKI product that will be made in an all E10 environment is 88 or 89 AKI, so it will not satisfy the Petersen high compression STCs nor the Rotax 100 HP engines.

...---could it be ethanol has improved?

I don't believe I have ever made any comments about the "quality" of ethanol. To be used in a fuel environment it has to be made to an ASTM standard. I assume that it is when mixed with gasoline in public commerce.

P.S. We should be putting our energy into getting the FAA to approve 10%.

Here is where you and I completely disagree. We already have an approved fuel for airplanes, unleaded gasoline without ethanol. It can be made and delivered everywhere today. We need to convince the FAA and the alphabets to support a program to have it on all airports that supply fuel for aircraft. Years ago that was the case, we had three grades of gasoline on almost every airport and four grades on the big air carrier airports. EAA, Cessna and Petersen have already studied ethanol and they all agree it isn't worth doing all the work that would be required to modify airplanes for it, especially considering the lower energy content. Even if you did it, it would require the additional tank and pump at the airport that we don't have today. That is what I want, the fuel infrastructure for low compression engines that don't run on 100 LL and LSA.

While they may be right, you must realize that to achieve efficiency at high ethanol blends, you must raise the compression ratio.

Saab has something called the bio car. It is flex fuel and used in Sweden now but hasn't made it to this country yet. The way they do it and still get efficiency that U.S. automakers haven't is to put a turbo on the engine and boost big time when running ethanol fuel and open the wastegate when running gasoline. Going down the highway produces similar mpg's. Without using ethanol, how would the refineries get rid of the sub-octane fuel molecules? Also, I keep thinking if Brazil can make it work, why can't we? Legally, that is.

It can be done, that is not the issue. At least it's not my issue. My issue is does it make sense economically to do it?

Thank you for the input. Do not plan to crap shoot with even small amounts of Ethonol Will fly less.

This from a recent Supercub.org thread---- the way this guy handles the situation is the way most others will too.

We can make it work in the US. That isn't the issue. Folks could work on the STC or auto engine upgrades and such but the question one really has to ask is do we want to? Brazil went down that road during the 70's OPEC oil embargo and cane sugar derived ethanol seemed a natural given the nature of their agricultural business. Some issues I have with Ethanol outside of the technical issues which are readily resolved: 1) we increase the use of petroleum products in the form of fertilizers and such, 2) It increases the use of water for irrigation which in the US is already being stretched pretty thin in places, 3) We're setting a precedent that I think is a bit tweeked when we divert a food product to a fuel. 4) After all is said and done it doesn't really do much, 5) It requires significant changes to our infrastructure and systems but the bang for the buck just isn't there when you consider how much petroleum product it replaces for the money invested to divert that petroleum.

I think it's pretty clear that Ethanol adoption, while it's being touted as an environmental improvement is really an economic improvement for those in the agri-business, with little if any positive impact to the environment overall when the entire ethanol life-cycle from planting to tail-pipe is considered.

I'd like to see the US develop an energy policy that had more than a single aspect to it, which is where I feel Ethanol is. We have the agri-business lobby that is pushing Ethanol as it benefits their members significantly. But we need a policy that encourages the development of competing technology with less overall impact or that in the agreggate have less overall impact. Regardless of how much it's being pushed at the moment as the latest "thing" Ethanol isn't the answer. I thinks it's diverting us right now from looking for the "real" answers.

Some real answers I'd like to see pursued: 1) Development of nuclear fission waste disposal technology (bacteria etc.), 2) Development of hydrogen or other fuel cells (they need alternate cheap non-polluting power sources such as fission or fusion), 3) Development of ultra-capacitors, 4) Development of nuclear Fusion technology (it's been on the back-burner for way too long). 5) Development of wave and tidal power systems. 6) Development of solar technology (solar cells and solar furnaces) They're all being looked at but we need an energy policy similar to the "take us to the moon" policy. Enough of this twiddling around. Clear the blockades, lower the barriers and lets get things done.

Why we're not using some of the Billions in taxes coming from the oil companies to encourage this sort of development is an indication of the short-sightedness of our law making bodies and the lobbies that steer them.

When gasoline is 10 bucks at the pump, the environmental types will no longer have any say in this country. When one of them complains about nuclear power, or drilling in Alaska or off the coast of California, they will probably be stoned to death.

No elected official that is sucking up to the green folks will get re elected.

I can hardly wait.

Tim

PS How is that big Z?

Hell, I'd pay ten bucks for a sack of stones and a place in line!

We are so stupid. I am sure China will give us a good deal. I wonder if Green Peace is going to try to block them. I hope so cus China shoots first.


http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/c ... lling.html

Tim

qmdv wrote:When gasoline is 10 bucks at the pump, the environmental types will no longer have any say in this country. When one of them complains about nuclear power, or drilling in Alaska or off the coast of California, they will probably be stoned to death.

No elected official that is sucking up to the green folks will get re elected.

I can hardly wait.

Tim

PS How is that big Z?

Tim, I hope you are right. But I think so much of the country has bought off on global warming, and gas powered anything is the problem.

This enviro cult is like some si fi plague. These people will stop at nothing to save the endangered mother earth and destroy the evil internal combustion engine.

For over 30 years this clash of beliefs has been going on. Gas and diesel have been reformulated by government mandate brought on by the enviro cult.

Vehicles fuel standards have been forced to higher and higher levels by federal mandate brought on by pressure from...you guessed it, the green cult.

It looks to me that the higher the bar is raised, is never high enough for the green cults.

The politicians go along with this insanity because there poles show this is what the MAJORITY of voters want.

HELL, we can't even get a Presidential candidate who will say, " I support oil exploration EVERYWHERE! nothing is off limits"

We need a Presidential order that there will be no law suites allowed against oil drilling and building new refineries.

If we want $1.00 gas this needs to be addressed the way we addressed projects during WWII.

Will this happen? Sadly I don't think so. The brain washing plague by the green cult is almost complete.

Where I live the one and only nuclear power plant was sued out of existence, and it never leaked a drop. It cost the rate payers millions to dismantle it and throw it in the garbage. The pot smoking tree huggers are still celebrating that one.

A company building a wind farm in the Columbia River gorge has spent so much time and money fighting the green cult they were quoted in the Oregonian paper saying " If we knew it would take this much of a fight we never would have built here" That is the green cult way of winning. Sue forever, never stop suing. I thought wind power was green power.

I doubt we will ever beat the green cult at the ballot box or in court.

I HAVE A DREAM THAT ONE DAY it will get bad enough that the internal combustion engine people and the nuclear power, coal power, natural gas power loving people will band together, take up arms and start shooting the green cult people to take back the way of life we dream of.

Rant over for now...Rob

Now I know who to refer the police to when they find next dead hippy with a gunshot wound.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should - by that I mean a little conservation goes a long way. I'm perpetually amazed by the droves of jacked up SUVs that people are still flogging down the highways. Petroleum is a finite resource, though who knows exactly how much we've got left. Certainly more than the greenies would like you to believe, especially if we ever get to explore our own stores, but nonetheless it will run out eventually. In the meantime I'm commuting on a motorcycle and saving my serious petrochemical consumption for flying.

Nothing drives innovation like necessity though and I think we're at the point where some novel solutions will be developed. Ethanol is not the answer though - it is flawed on a variety of levels, as folks like N1593Y and flynfish have so articulately conveyed. When Marty shills for his product he exhibits a frighteningly short-sighted solution to our potential energy shortfall, not to mention that few, if any, folks here seem much interested in using that product in their engines. I for one have no interest in investing any time or money in trying to adapt my engines to it.

Funny too that he would quote a discussion from supercub.org - from what I've read there his sales pitches haven't gotten the most enthusiastic reception there either.

I agree with Vick that oil is finite. I usually see one person in a 4 door 4 wheel drive pickup around here. If we drilled all "our" oil it looks like everybody would just like to use it up as fast as possible--to heck with the future. All it would take to make 10% ethanol work is the swipe of a pen to make it legal by the FAA--it doesn't take any modification to most planes that can use car gas. I feel pretty confident about that statement. As far as irrigation water for corn production---there's none around here---we just had another 1.3 inches of rain this morning so it's too wet. Most of the corn belt is NOT irrigated unlike you Westcoast folks. I'm looking at buying a very expensive setup to apply anhydrous ammonia Nitrogen fertilizer. I just booked some for this Fall for $800 a ton(49 cents a pound) which is terrible because it's supposed to go even higher because of natural gas prices. With this setup you can apply 30 to 40% less NH3 since it is more accurate. The benefit is I use less so my corn production is more efficient and the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico might get better. One of the ethanol plants I'm in is coal fired and another is using methane from an adjoining landfill for part of it's gas needs. I think some of you guys are getting some of your information from the wrong place---DOCTORED UP BY SOME BIG FOOD AND OIL CORPORATIONS. One other thought--- I have the most energy efficient kids on earth---because they don't exist. If more people would take my lead there would be a lot fewer problems.

Have any of you seen a government official,rep,congressman or the President hold a press conference to explain the fuel situation?

If fuel is the crisis we are told it is then why aren't we being told to conserve?I remember waiting in lines to get 5 gallons of gas.

I remember the seventies when we were told daily how to conserve.We had carpool lanes dedicated to cars with several people sharing a ride.We had lectures about driving habits and combining trips out to do several tasks in one trip.We had experts extolling proper tire inflation and tuning of our cars.

Tell you what.If we cut consumption by 25% the price of fuel will go up the same.The oil companies and traders are not going to lose money.

This whole thing is only about making money.There is no shortage.It is all manufactured in the name of profit.Any alternate fuel will cost us as much as the manufacturers and Wall Street can get out of us.It is simply greed and wasting time and effort beating it up will get you nowhere.

As I recall the EPA has already said that the 10% Ethanol program is not only NOT helping reduce pollution it is actually detrimental because of the reduced fuel economy and the petroleum energy used to produce it.

It's time to call your reps and put an end to this nonsense.

Bill

willyb, Why didn't you invest in an oil company years ago? My Aunts boyfriend invested in a Chinese oil company about 15 months ago for $85/share and it went to $225 and he sold half. It retreated to $150 and then went back to $220---don't know if he sold or not. People that use fuel should invest in fuel production---problem solved. I figure my share of the ethanol and biodiesel plants I'm in is about 250,000 gallons-----more than I'll ever use.

Well Marty at this point I'm proud to say that I'm not participating in the fleecing of the hard working American people.

I was not raised with the hooray for me and screw everybody else mentality.

Bill

I've enjoyed this discussion, and have to add a few of my thoughts. First, I fully agree with the previous posts that ethanol is not the solution to our energy problems. If it reduced our net energy use I could overlook its shortcomings, but as far as I know, it doesn't.
As a farmer, I feel the effects of the ethanol boom firsthand. Ethanol production has taken acres out of food production. This is one of many factors contributing to the recent inflation of food prices. But why should I bitch? I'm getting more money for the food crops that I grow! Well, our system is governed by supply and demand (except when the government steps in and f@&#s things up). The people controlling our energy supply are smart people and they know how to make money. If they can charge more for their product, they will. If farmers are getting twice the money for their grain, they can afford to pay twice as much for fertilizer, right? It seems that the only people benefiting from this system are the energy companies and the banks. My net income hasn't increased.
On another note,
I feel deeply blessed to live in a place and time where abundant energy is so easy to come by. It is remarkable to me that I can afford to pay someone to find oil, set up equipment to extract it, extract it, refine it, ship it (I couldn't ship a gallon of anything halfway across the world for $5), distribute it, etc. etc. for the amount of money I could make spending less than an hour working (at minimum wage). It is painful to pay so much for fuel when we are so used to getting it cheap, but it really is a bargain. Nature has been investing her energy for thousands (millions?) of years in the vegetable matter that is now oil. This thought makes it a little easier for me to pay out the big $ for fuel. It also puts a shitty grin on my face every time I hop in the plane to burn a little fuel just joyriding. I'm a lucky guy.

If we cut consumption by 25% the price of fuel will go up the same.

Not exactly, though it really depends on what factors exactly you believe are driving the price of oil. If US demand alone were the driver, then a reduction in demand would drive the price lower. Investors are simply speculating that the supply will become more and more limited - if it does they'll make money hand over fist as the last drops are squeezed out. And the US obsession with driving an Escalade to the mall with two people in it only fuels their belief that they are making a good investment. Reduce our demand - show them that we do have some semblance of conservation mindedness and they won't see the same potential to make a killing.

If, however, global demand from rapidly expanding economies (standard players there) is the deciding factor, then a reduction in US consumption might register as a momentary check in pricing - and then it would continue the march higher. I believe though that deficit spending and the resulting devaluation of the US dollar has done as much, if not more, to get us where we are now.

I'm no scientist, but I have spoken to plenty of them and read everything I can. There are lots of theories and smart people trying to figure out how much is left, but there's no way to be sure. What we can be sure of though is that the supply is finite - which only means that it will run out someday...maybe next year, maybe two generations from now, maybe thousands of years from now. Maybe it will become renewable if we drive ourselves into extinction and become the next petrostore...