180Marty wrote:>...I was quizzing him about different things and he said that what gets pumped up to Sioux City that is sold as 87 and 91 octane straight unleaded is the same except different additives to make 91. Not sure if he's right but that's what he said.

He is not right according to my source at the Portland terminal which is at the end of the Olympic pipeline to 5 refineries in the Seattle area. They receive 84 AKI CBOB for making 87 AKI regular E10 gasoline and 88 AKI CBOB for making 91 AKI premium E10 gasoline. They have always received two products, one for regular, one for premium. If a gas station does not have a blender pump for 89 AKI mid-grade, the terminal will blend regular and premium to create mid-grade and ship it to them for their third tank, but less than 10% of the gas stations in Oregon have three tanks anymore and old dispensers that can't blend mid-grade.

You guys out west that don't want to run ethanol should get a rail car loaded with straight 87 unleaded. ...

You have completely missed my point. As all of the gasoline is taken E10, in the case of Oregon by our mandatory E10 law, or in the rest of the country by the unintended consequences of EISA 2007, the refineries stop making finished ethanol free regular and premium gasoline. All they are making in Seattle is sub-octane CBOB for ethanol blending. The only finished ethanol free unleaded gasoline comes in by sea to the Portland terminal, from either California or Asia is my guess. Once California goes all E10 as it is poised to do, it is going to become extremely difficult to get any ethanol free finished gasoline from anywhere in the Northwest because every refinery, foreign or domestic, is going to ship CBOB here. There are no laws, state or federal that require the availability of ethanol free gasoline, even for constituencies that have exemptions in states with mandatory E10 laws, such as marine and aviation users here in Oregon. There are only laws that require ethanol blended gasoline, and that is what the refineries are reacting to by switching over to making just CBOB. There is no legal requirement anymore to make ethanol free gasoline, except in Hawaii, where premium unleaded must be ethanol free to protect their marine industry and public safety uses.

I don't think straight unleaded 87 is going away any time soon here in Iowa even though I think it should. Do you know much about RIN's(renewable fuel identification number)? They can be traded(bought and sold) as I understand it so somebody that doesn't actually blend any renewable can still be in compliance---I think????

Well, N1593Y, the facts continue to fall on deaf ears.

180Marty, let me quote as loudly as I can:

"THEY RECEIVE 84 AKI CBOB FOR MAKING AKI REGULAR E10 GASOLINE…"

What that means is, the refineries will have NO MARKET for "straight 87". It IS going away. Very soon.

Dean Billing / N1593Y,,, No agenda sir, I was curious if you saw the glaring error the poster submitted when he detailed his testing using 100LL in one tank and auto fuel/ethanol in the other tank scenerio..

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/s ... hp?t=29994

Tailwinds.
Ben.

Stol wrote:Dean Billing / N1593Y,,, No agenda sir, I was curious if you saw the glaring error the poster submitted when he detailed his testing using 100LL in one tank and auto fuel/ethanol in the other tank scenerio..

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/s ... hp?t=29994

Tailwinds.
Ben.

It really is a obvious error too.

180Marty wrote:1593Y, I have a gasoline/diesel pipeline running through one of my fields.

I've got a better idea. Put a "hot tap" on the pipe line and sell stuff right off the pipe. I bet they wouldn't even notice a little "leakage".

tom

I've got a better idea. Put a "hot tap" on the pipe line and sell stuff right off the pipe. I bet they wouldn't even notice a little "leakage".

I've thought about it but when I heard 2500 psi changed my mind. Also Kenny, no deaf ears, I think Iowa will have 87 oct. straight unleaded for quite sometime.

180Marty wrote:

I've got a better idea. Put a "hot tap" on the pipe line and sell stuff right off the pipe. I bet they wouldn't even notice a little "leakage".

I've thought about it but when I heard 2500 psi changed my mind. Also Kenny, no deaf ears, I think Iowa will have 87 oct. straight unleaded for quite sometime.

180Marty: Where are they going to get it? Nobody will be cracking it.

Stol wrote:Dean Billing / N1593Y,,, No agenda sir, I was curious if you saw the glaring error the poster submitted when he detailed his testing using 100LL in one tank and auto fuel/ethanol in the other tank scenerio.. ...

Don't remember if I did or not. It is an old post. Why don't you want to ask him about it? [email protected]

180Marty: Where are they going to get it? Nobody will be cracking it.

I assume from down south where it's coming from now. I haven't heard one word about Iowa not having straight 87 and E10 that is 89 oct.

180Marty wrote:I don't think straight unleaded 87 is going away any time soon here in Iowa even though I think it should. Do you know much about RIN's(renewable fuel identification number)? They can be traded(bought and sold) as I understand it so somebody that doesn't actually blend any renewable can still be in compliance---I think????

Yes, I know all about RINS, which is why giving the local dealers the ability to take the blenders credit is such a collosal mess that API is suing states for passing laws allowing them to do it. And yes they can be traded, but it is a difficult record keeping task because the RIN is a very long complicated number and setting up a central clearing agency for it is going slow, although the futures traders love the idea and they are trying to figure out how to create a market for them. Just what we need another energy futures market for speculators.

I will bet you that unblended 87 is going away sooner than you believe for a couple of reasons. I imagine you understand the "blending wall" and the reason the ethanol industry is asking for the E15 waiver or do you just think they are doing it because it makes them feel good? Gasoline production in the US will be about 136 billion gallons this year and it is declining. EISA 2007 requires the ethanol industry to make 11.1 billion gallons of ethanol this year and the gasoline distributors must use it, which means that about 75-80% of the nations gasoline will be E10 by the end of the year, unless a significant portion of that ethanol is made into E85 which is doubtful. Next year you ethanol producers must make about 13 billion gallons of ethanol, and if gasoline demand continues to decline then we will be pushing the blending wall. Of course there are a couple of minor problems. Cellulosic ethanol is supposed to be ramping up and it makes up some of that mandate, but it isn't going to happen. But by 2012 the ethanol industry will be up against the blending wall and all of the gasoline will have to be at least E10, which is why the E15 waiver is being requested now, to avoid that wall for a couple of years in the hopes that E85 takes off as was intended by EISA 2007 since that is the only ethanol blend stated in the bill. E10 appears exactly nowhere in the law. Of course what's hilarious is that not much E15 will be sold if it happens soon, because there is no U/L approval for E15 pumps and nobody knows who is going to be liable for the damage to older cars if the auto makers don't agree, and so far it appears that not all of them are in agreement.

The other reason that all unblended gasoline is going away is because it is cheaper for the refineries to make CBOB and they get more production out of the process, a win-win situation for them because nobody knows about it, except folks in the energy industry, and they don't pass along any savings to the consumer. Now that the oil companies understand this they are loving ethanol. Why else would they be buying up bankrupt ethanol plants? That and they have figured out a lot of cars are taking mileage hits greater than 10%, so they may actually be selling more gas than before the ethanol program.

180Marty wrote:

180Marty: Where are they going to get it? Nobody will be cracking it.

I assume from down south where it's coming from now. I haven't heard one word about Iowa not having straight 87.

Since ethanol is put in at the distribution terminal, all it will take is for the terminals in Iowa to convert by putting in ethanol storage tanks and injectors, which is why they get the blenders credit. Then they just order CBOB from the refineries wherever they may be and those refineries are already making a lot of CBOB so they just crank up the CBOB amount and decrease the finished 87, which is more profitable for them. The timing of change is up to the local terminals in Iowa, since it is their infrastructure, and once they figure out what they make on the blenders credit and the fact that they may just sell more gasoline, it will happen. Besides they will be pressured by the refineries just like happened in Washington which has a wimpy 2% volumetric mandatory ethanol law, but the whole state will be E10 by the end of the year because the refineries said so. They only want to make one product CBOB.

If I hadn't been using E30 to E50 for up to 8 years, depending on the vehicle, I might worry about E15. I've had no problems, so far, so feel pretty confident that E15 will work fine also. I correspond with many others having the same good luck. The RIN thing caused me to not be able to buy undyed biodiesel anymore for my VW diesel at a plant I invested in. That was a bummer. And yes, I was paying road tax.

You posted the link to boost your case.. I took 5 minutes of my time to read it. Now you say " I don't remember if I did or didn't". Old post or not, it is still available to read. Your spinning this is a sure sign of BS. !!!!!!

good day.
Ben.

N1593Y wrote:

Stol wrote:Dean Billing / N1593Y,,, No agenda sir, I was curious if you saw the glaring error the poster submitted when he detailed his testing using 100LL in one tank and auto fuel/ethanol in the other tank scenerio.. ...

Don't remember if I did or not. It is an old post. Why don't you want to ask him about it? [email protected]

Stol wrote:You posted the link to boost your case.. I took 5 minutes of my time to read it. Now you say " I don't remember if I did or didn't". Old post or not, it is still available to read. Your spinning this is a sure sign of BS. !!!!!!

So what is the real problem / agenda with you Ben? You asked me about one statement I made about an airplane that I knew about that had a problem with ethanol gasoline. You questioned me about it implying that I didn't know of any problems with ethanol and airplanes. I gave you the reference to the person with the problem. You claim there is a problem with the guys explanation. He claims he had a problem. I don't know if he did or not. You claim there is something in the thread that is obviously wrong. I don't care if there is or not, and I don't remember if I read it or not back then. I have not read the thread recently because I only found the thread link to answer your question. Now you are accusing me of spinning "this" and I am trying to BS you.

What is "this"??? Is "this" ethanol problems with airplanes? If it is, read my lips, there are problems with ethanol in airplanes, and boats and cars and tools and snowmobiles and my lawn tractor. There I said it, no spin. If there isn't, then a lot of newspaper and media reports have wasted a lot of paper and time reporting it. Are we supposed to always call you and ask if they are "spinning" their reports? Are you the single true source of knowledge in the universe about ethanol blended gasoline?

I am sorry I wasted 5 minutes of your precious time. Please accept my apologies and don't read anything else I have to say. Save yourself some grief.

I will say this again.. Alcohol in auto fuel is a waste of time and money and helps no one except ADM, corn farmers and the oil companies that get blending credits. My beef is the RV guy who claims to have built motors for 30 years , starts using E-10 and states the motor now runs very fat = that means rich for the non racers here, And fuel flows of 95 gallons an hour compared to 8 GPH using 100LL because the fuel in now in a vapor form... Pleaseeee. If gas is the base line at 100%, ethanol produces 66% less power using the same amount of fuel. Methanol is 54 %. Dean, buddy, I am on your side, I just like to have people use correct facts when trashing a inferior product like gasohol.

Ben.
Peace fellow pilot.

N1593Y wrote:

Stol wrote:You posted the link to boost your case.. I took 5 minutes of my time to read it. Now you say " I don't remember if I did or didn't". Old post or not, it is still available to read. Your spinning this is a sure sign of BS. !!!!!!

So what is the real problem / agenda with you Ben? You asked me about one statement I made about an airplane that I knew about that had a problem with ethanol gasoline. You questioned me about it implying that I didn't know of any problems with ethanol and airplanes. I gave you the reference to the person with the problem. You claim there is a problem with the guys explanation. He claims he had a problem. I don't know if he did or not. You claim there is something in the thread that is obviously wrong. I don't care if there is or not, and I don't remember if I read it or not back then. I have not read the thread recently because I only found the thread link to answer your question. Now you are accusing me of spinning "this" and I am trying to BS you.

What is "this"??? Is "this" ethanol problems with airplanes? If it is, read my lips, there are problems with ethanol in airplanes, and boats and cars and tools and snowmobiles and my lawn tractor. There I said it, no spin. If there isn't, then a lot of newspaper and media reports have wasted a lot of paper and time reporting it. Are we supposed to always call you and ask if they are "spinning" their reports? Are you the single true source of knowledge in the universe about ethanol blended gasoline?

I am sorry I wasted 5 minutes of your precious time. Please accept my apologies and don't read anything else I have to say. Save yourself some grief.

Btu's for gasoline=115,000,ethanol 76,000, methanol 67,500. Blend 50% 84 octane gas plus 50% 114 octane ethanol, you get 99 octane fuel with 95,500 btu's. Board of trade prices for RBOB ,which according to Dean, is more costly than CBOB is $1.63/gal. Board price for ethanol is $1.49 currently. Also, when you blend more than 20% ethanol , the vapor pressure of the fuel goes down compared to gasoline. Stol proved that 10 to 12% wasn't a problem up to 17,000 feet. Should work good.

Also, been wondering about something else. In reading the Continental engine website, they said up to 3% iospropyl alcohol can be added to rid the fuel system of water. That could be 1 and 1/2 gallons in a 50 gallon tank. Say the alcohol is saturated with water and has phase separation, isn't that quite a bit to run through the engine?

180Marty wrote:Btu's for gasoline=115,000,ethanol 76,000, methanol 67,500. Blend 50% 84 octane gas plus 50% 114 octane ethanol, you get 99 octane fuel with 95,500 btu's. Board of trade prices for RBOB ,which according to Dean, is more costly than CBOB is $1.63/gal. Board price for ethanol is $1.49 currently. Also, when you blend more than 20% ethanol , the vapor pressure of the fuel goes down compared to gasoline. Stol proved that 10 to 12% wasn't a problem up to 17,000 feet. Should work good.

It this is so good, why aren't you, or somebody, pursuing an STC. EAA in conjunction with Cessna, and Petersen looked at it and decided not to, so that leaves the market wide open to anyone that sees an advantage of ethanol blended fuel for aviation.

Also, been wondering about something else. In reading the Continental engine website, they said up to 3% iospropyl alcohol can be added to rid the fuel system of water. That could be 1 and 1/2 gallons in a 50 gallon tank. Say the alcohol is saturated with water and has phase separation, isn't that quite a bit to run through the engine?

The EAA STC that I had said 1% max for anti-icing. I am assuming that isopropyl alcohol is hydrous alcohol, already has the water in it, so it won't absorb any more or cause phase separation. Anybody know?

I missed your last post Dean. Go to this Continental link and under additives it says up to 3% isopropyl alcohol can be added to the fuel. As far as water in the bottle of isopropyl, the drugstore is watered but do you really think Heet has water added---I don't think so-- kinda defeats the purpose.
http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/SIL99-2B.pdf

It this is so good, why aren't you, or somebody, pursuing an STC. EAA in conjunction with Cessna, and Petersen looked at it and decided not to, so that leaves the market wide open to anyone that sees an advantage of ethanol blended fuel for aviation.

I don't have enough money. Just think of the 337's that used to be alright but just don't work anymore.