My mogas program proposal was submitted to Earl Lawrence at the EAA yesterday, 25 September 2008. (http://www.stopeio.com/mogas.pdf) I have also forwarded it to each of the state pilot organizations in the Northwest, WPA, OPA, MPA, IAA. If you are members of any of these organizations and mogas is an important issue to you, I hope you will contact your state pilot association and indicate your support.

Good luck with that. One error in your proposal. Montana does have a mandatory ethanol program. It just hasn't kicked in yet. Once an ethanol production plant gets built in the state and is able to produce xx gallons a year, and I forget now how many millions of gallons that number is, ethanol is required to be put into mogas. We(MPA) fought this a couple legislatures ago. All we ended up with was an exemption for gas intended for aircraft and some other trivially small users. Since evry state that grows at least three ears of corn a year has jumped on the band wagon the price of the alcohol has plummeted making it doubtful that many plants on the drawing board ever get built. The one here in Montana is a long way away and may be shelved. These plants just don't make any economic sense right now.

Bonanza Man wrote:Good luck with that. One error in your proposal. Montana does have a mandatory ethanol program. It just hasn't kicked in yet. Once an ethanol production plant gets built in the state and is able to produce xx gallons a year, and I forget now how many millions of gallons that number is, ethanol is required to be put into mogas. We(MPA) fought this a couple legislatures ago. All we ended up with was an exemption for gas intended for aircraft and some other trivially small users.

Your reply is certainly accurate, but the fact remains, Montana is not a mandatory E10 state today, and as you point out, may never be. Your trigger is the same as Oregon's was, 40 mgy production.

>... The one here in Montana is a long way away and may be shelved.

Montana actually has several plants that started the permitting process, but none of them ever followed through.

These plants just don't make any economic sense right now.

They may not make sense in Montana yet, because you would have to import the corn, however with the federal mandate that ethanol has to be blended into all of the gasoline in ever increasing quantities every year lots of ethanol plants will be built.

But this is the key question, and I have asked it before, if the Montana mandatory E10 law never triggers, and it won't anytime in the foreseeable future, are aircraft and the other constituents that were exempted from blending protected? You will be getting ethanol in your fuel soon. No state is exempt under EISA 2007. I was told by an Air-BP distributor that the refineries in the Northwest have agreed to take WA, OR, MT and ID all E10 by the end of 2009 to meet EISA 2007. That is why passing a law exempting ethanol from being blended into premium unleaded is important. Once the refineries have taken the states E10 they can drop to suboctane production and the highest AKI rating for gasoline may drop to 89 AKI and there won't be any clear premium unleaded produced. If your protection never triggers, ethanol will be put into all of your pump gasoline and self-fueling your aircraft will cease to be possible as it is in CA, and has become almost impossible in OR and WA, and we supposedly have exemptions for aircraft.

If the Montana law triggered it would have the following exemption:

" (2) Gasoline retailers and wholesale bulk distributors shall hold, store, import, transfer, and offer for sale or use nonethanol-blended unleaded premium grade gasoline with an antiknock index number of 91 or greater. "

which may or may not work for aircraft owners wanting to self-fuel. It is not clear that it requires all, or many, retailers to stock clear premium unleaded. It would work better if airports had mogas service.

Ethanol, Biodiesel Pipelines Moving Fuel in Southeast

Posted by John Davis

One of the problems ethanol and biodiesel have had is how to get their product from areas of production to areas of consumption. Pipelines help conventional, petroleum-based fuels, so it’s only natural that biofuels would need to adopt similar technology.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP has announced successful testing of ethanol through its 16-inch, 195-mile Central Florida Pipeline (CFP) system between Tampa and Orlando, Florida and the beginning of testing of a biodiesel pipeline in the Southeast U.S. This story in the Oil & Gas Journal has details:

It is finalizing mechanical modifications to the pipeline to offer ethanol transportation services to its customers by mid-November and is evaluating batched ethanol transport possibilities for other parts of its pipeline system.

The company says the short length of the pipeline will limit transmix.

CFP has segregated storage for the ethanol at the Orlando end of the pipeline. Total storage capacity is 546,000 bbl, contained in 28 tanks of 8,190 gal. - 80,000 bbl each. Land is available for expansion.

Kinder Morgan has completed more than $60 million in ethanol projects including modifications to tanks, truck racks, and related infrastructure for new or expanded ethanol service in the Southeast US and Pacific Northwest and has approved an additional $27 million for ethanol projects in the Southeast.

The company is also undertaking tests to assess commercial transportation of biodiesel through its pipelines, running blended B-5 biodiesel through a segment of its Plantation Pipe Line system between Collins, Miss. and Spartanburg, SC. The company expects test results by the end of October. It also is evaluating transporting biodiesel on its Portland-Eugene, Ore. line to support Oregon’s forthcoming biodiesel mandate.
More categories

Well I didn't mind the ethanol idea till I took a trip across the US recently.

After 4900 miles using different fuels and keeping very good records, I can say it sucks

87 29 to 30.2 MPG

87/w10% Ethanol 22-24.5

89/w10% Ethanol 23.7-26

I sure as heck hope we never have to put it in an airplane.

Mr scout, What were your driving. When I had my Ford Taurus it generally got 22 mpg on E85. My Mom's 2000 Buick Le Sabre usually gets 26/27 on 10% but did get 32 once when we had a heck of a tailwind going to Chicago. I got 37.66 the other day in my little Ford Aspire using a 30 to 40% blend. That was knocking around here with a few 30 mile round trips. BTW I've been doing that blend for 6 years now with no modifications. Back before ethanol came around here a friend had a brand new Chevy full size van that would consistently get 2 to 3 mpg better going from Denver to Grand Junction than from Iowa to Denver---never did figure that one out.

My 05 Cadillac CTS-V will return on average 18 to 19 on 10%, and 21 to 22 on straight gas. I run 93 octane blend and can only get 87 octane straight. If I could get high octane straight gas, I think there would be more of a split. The LS-6 engine's knock sensor pulls timing on low octane fuel.
Our old, 97 Miata will get 25 on 10% blend and 28 on straight gas., both 87.
The blend is just a guess as to percent actually. If it's available at the jobber, fuel is blended at 10%. Quite often ETH isn't available and the fuel ships without it, so pumps labled "may contain 10% ethanol", may contain any percent between 0 and 10% ethanol. No way to tell without actually testing it at every tanker fill up.
I haven't seen anything but 10% percent here, and would not run it if it were available unless it were so cheap that it made up for the poorer fuel mileage.
Pretty sure the IO-540 certified to run on straight ETH in Brazil on the Ipanema's fuel consumption is double what it is on 100LL.
If an engine is designed to run ETH, I think the results are different, but we are running engines designed to operate on gas.

I've got a one ton 2000 chev van with the 454 engine, and it has consistently gotten 12 mpg in cross country driving at 9500 pounds gross weight. Lately, with 10% ethanol, it still gets the same. I've only filled up with the ethanol blend about six times, but so far the results have been running very consistent with previous experience.

Based only on heating value, I believe there is about a 5% penalty with the ethanol blend. This would only amount to about half a mile per gallon for my van, so it is likely I would not notice.

tom

We have a "flex-fuel" van that can run straight fuel or E-85 blend which is up to 85% ethanol. The owners manual states that with the E-85 blend you will notice an average of 30% lower MPG and we have found that to be true when compared to 87 octane. The offset is that E-85 usually runs 30% lower in price per gallon than does 87 octane so it cost the same per mile and you have to fill up more often...there is really no savings to be had other than corn is a renewable resource.

Oh..and when running on E-85 it does not like to start when it is cold outside and runs rough till it gets warmed up.

We just heard that TN has a state mandate that all auto stations must convert to selling 10% blend by January 2009...guess we will not be running auto fuel in the Maule any longer...the TN government needs to refund our cost of the STC.

No offense to the corn farmers among us, but mandatory E-whatever sucks! There should be pure gas available for those who want or need it. I wouldn't mind if only premium grade pure gas was available, even though I only need 87 octane in my airplane(s).

Eric

Savannah-Tom wrote

I've got a one ton 2000 chev van with the 454 engine, and it has consistently gotten 12 mpg in cross country driving at 9500 pounds gross weight. Lately, with 10% ethanol, it still gets the same.

Thanks for posting---it's nice to know I'm not the only one that hasn't had such a negative experience as most. I know of at least one airplane that doesn't seem to mind 10% also. The person doing this thinks the carb ice issue isn't a problem anymore also. Anybody know of a lab test to confirm the theory.

180Marty wrote:Savannah-Tom wrote

I've got a one ton 2000 chev van with the 454 engine, and it has consistently gotten 12 mpg in cross country driving at 9500 pounds gross weight. Lately, with 10% ethanol, it still gets the same.

Thanks for posting---it's nice to know I'm not the only one that hasn't had such a negative experience as most. I know of at least one airplane that doesn't seem to mind 10% also. The person doing this thinks the carb ice issue isn't a problem anymore also. Anybody know of a lab test to confirm the theory.

I don't believe the fuel you use would make a significant difference on carb ice. While evaporating fuel will cool the air stream a little, I don't think it is enough to make much difference. The atmospheric conditions would probably swamp the fuel effect. Remember, the air / fuel ratio is only about 15:1. There are plenty of folks running Rotax engines that are in areas where the only fuel is 10% ethanol, and they seem to be getting along okay. In Brazil they run the Rotax on 85% with good results. At 85%, they must be seeing a reduction in "mileage", though.
tom

I hate to say it, but unless the fuel suppliers adopt mogas for GA use, you won't see it widespread at FBOs. At my FBO, I tried to get mogas, but was told by BP that we would be debranded if we started to carry it, no matter how we got it. By being a branded FBO, we are covered under a $50,000,000 insurance policy that covers our fueling operations, and cannot afford to give that up. FBOs will not try to play hardball with suppliers because the benefits of being branded are too valuable to risk.

I don't believe the fuel you use would make a significant difference on carb ice. While evaporating fuel will cool the air stream a little, I don't think it is enough to make much difference. The atmospheric conditions would probably swamp the fuel effect.

You don't think there'd be enough anti-freeze to keep ice from sticking to the butterfly and throat. Used to add a little alcohol to the air brake system on trucks to keep them working.

By being a branded FBO, we are covered under a $50,000,000 insurance policy

Now that's an insurance policy!!!!

A hopeful politician solicited me for my vote this morning so I took the opportunity to mention the problems of ethanol in gasoline for aviation engines and other small engines. Unfortunately I didn't have a lot of time to go into detail but, at least, he knows it's a concern to a potential supporter.

His brother-in-law is a GA pilot (or so he said) so maybe he'll query his bro for more info.

lowflybye wrote:>...
We just heard that TN has a state mandate that all auto stations must convert to selling 10% blend by January 2009...guess we will not be running auto fuel in the Maule any longer...the TN government needs to refund our cost of the STC.

I can find no record of a state mandatory E10 law in Tennessee. There was an ethanol law passed in 2007, HB1797 / SB2003, but it was vetoed by the Governor, and it does not appear the veto was overridden. However Tennessee along with every state in the country, is now affected by the federal mandate EISA 2007 and gasoline distributors are falling all over each other to convert to E10 and capture the tax federal blending tax credit which will pay for their conversion. If you want to understand what is happening in different states you can look here: http://www.e0pc.com and there is a link to understanding EISA 2007. I hope the aviators in Tennessee will work on passing legislation to ban ethanol blending in premium unleaded fuel and require the accurate labeling of pumps so that those people who need unblended fuel can continue to get it.

Just thought I'd update for you folks that have such bad luck with 10% ethanol. Been driving 16 miles to the nursing home in Mom's 2000 Buick Le Sabre with 3800 V-6 running an E30 blend. The drive is open road with 2 stop signs about 7 miles apart so you can't say it's steady cruising. It's taken awhile to rack up 280.8 miles and today it took 11.03 gallons----25.45 mpg. I don't think that is too bad considering the many start/stop cycles.

180 Marty

1. We cannot use ethanol in our planes.
2. There is less energy in ethanol.
3. You have a vested interest in ethanol.

flyer

180Marty wrote:>...2000 Buick Le Sabre with 3800 V-6 running an E30 blend. ...

Y'all be careful out there Marty. You are in violation of Federal law: http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/200 ... violation/ and this one is even uglier: http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/08 ... institute/

BTW, what kind of mileage did the Buick get on E0?

Also, what do you think about the second biggest ethanol producer VeraSun filing Chapter 11?

Our local ethanol producer out here in Oregon, Pacific Ethanol is also about in the tank, their stock price is down to $0.71, wonder if their demise will be this Friday or next Friday? No wonder Bill Gates bailed on them.

I'll bet it is kind of tough doing business when ethanol is now more expensive than gasoline. Two of the mandatory E10 states have escape clauses that say they can stop blending ethanol if it gets more expensive than gasoline, but not Oregon ... we will just keep eating it because we have to be greener than everybody else, no matter how much damage it does to our economy.

Hi N1593Y, From your first link
Users have reported no incidents associated with filling non flex-fuel cars with E20 or E30 blends. Consumers have reported better fuel economy for E30 than E10, confirming a quirky result in an American Coalition for Ethanol study.

As far as Verasun goes, I guess their grain merchandiser thought that if Wall Street could run corn to over $7 a bushel for no real reason then it could keep going up---big mistake when they bought instead of sold. I'm in a couple of smaller LLC ethanol plants that are still turning a profit. Even I was lucky enough to sell some for a little over $7---- it's about $3.50 now. Hope the congressional hearings will put a bite in the Grocery Manufacturers Association for ripping off the people and blaming ethanol.