EPA's New 4 Gallon Gas Minimum Purchase
#1
This is crazy chit. A civilized nation needs an EPA, but the U.S. version of an Environmental Protection Agency is sorely lacking.

==================


The latest mandate handed down from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is so ridiculous, even I was shocked. The EPA has now mandated how much gasoline you must buy at certain gas stations. Say hello to the Obama Administration’s four gallon minimum.

So what's this all about? Well, the ethanol industry has been lobbying for a quite a while to sell E15 — a blend of 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol. Why? Because they want to sell more ethanol, and E15 contains more ethanol than the current E10 blend. But they're not the only ones in favor of E15. The Renewable Fuel Standard, passed in 2007, requires ever greater use of ethanol, and refineries are afraid that before long they won't be able to meet the RFS standards unless they can sell the E15 blend.

But if the ethanol industry is in favor of E15, you can probably guess that the petroleum industry is against it. And you'd be right. After all, 5% more ethanol means 5% less petroleum. Gasoline sales have been declining for the past few years anyway, and the petroleum industry is none too happy about losing even more market share if E15 blends come onto the market.

Both the ethanol and petroleum industries are so odious that it's hard to pick sides here. As it turns out, though, the anti-E15 crowd has some intriguing arguments.

The primary one is that E15 only works in cars manufactured after 2001. It doesn't work in older cars, it doesn't work in boats,
and, as the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute will tell you, it doesn't work in devices like chain saws, utility vehicles, and lawn mowers. In fact, it can destroy those things if you use it accidentally.

But it gets worse. Most gas stations don't want to install new tanks just for E15. Instead, they're installing blender pumps, which mix the ethanol and gasoline together in the right proportion depending on which one you want. But there's a problem: if you pump E15 into your car, about a third of a gallon remains in the fueling hose when you're done. If someone comes along, switches to E10, and buys a single gallon for their lawnmower, they'll get a third of a gallon of E15 and two-thirds of a gallon of E10. That comes to about 11.7% ethanol, and that might be enough to set your lawnmower on fire.

So the EPA produced a new rule: if you sell E15, you have to require your customers to buy at least four gallons of gas regardless of what blend they're buying. That's a big enough purchase that the residual fuel in the hose is too small to matter. So let's count up the problems here:

Generally speaking, corn ethanol isn't any better for the environment than petroleum. So forcing more use of ethanol doesn't make much sense in the first place.

E15 can destroy small engines. The EPA requires gas stations to post a warning sign, but we all know how much attention people pay to warning signs in gas stations. We're probably going to end up with a fair number of fried snowblowers and ATVs before this is all over.

People who buy gasoline for outdoor equipment usually only need a gallon or two. Ditto for motorcycles, many of which have gas tanks smaller than four gallons. So at gas stations that sell only E15/E10, these folks won't be able to fill up at all because they won't be able to meet the four-gallon minimum.

These aren't actually gigantic problems, and if ethanol truly had a lower carbon footprint than gasoline I might figure that it was worth going through some minor growing pains to encourage greater use of it. But it's really not. So to my surprise, I find myself agreeing with Sensenbrenner. If we ever get to the point where we can mass-produce ethanol that's truly better for the environment than petroleum (cellulosic ethanol, cane ethanol, etc.), then it might be worth going through all this. Until then, it's probably not.

And the Renewable Fuel Standard that started all this? It wasn't such a great idea in the first place, and as long as it mandates increased use of corn ethanol it never will be. It deserves a thorough revision.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...se-mandate
Reply
#2
I know when I was in OR there was only one station in our area that sold gas that didn't have ethanol in it, and he was selling it for almost a dollar more a gal than them premium stuff and that was 2 years ago. I do not know if there are any more stations that sell gas with out it there. So I need someone there to tell me.
Here we have stations that sell that both, and the 100% gas is generally about 30 cents higher than the enriched gas.

I am waiting for more CNG pumps to be made available for my trip to the West coast. And then I am buying a CNG car.
Reply
#3
So if I can only put two gallons in my tank , do I pour the other two gallons on the ground?
Reply
#4
(09-20-2012, 07:38 AM)chuck white Wrote: So if I can only put two gallons in my tank , do I pour the other two gallons on the ground?

Well Chuck, this will separate the good citizens from the pretenders, because we will be expected to drink what won't fit in the tank.

My motorcycle tank holds only 3.2 gallons so I best develop a taste for petrol.
Reply
#5
(09-20-2012, 07:38 AM)chuck white Wrote: So if I can only put two gallons in my tank , do I pour the other two gallons on the ground?

If they just turned the corn into corn oil and used that in diesel engines and not turn it into expensive to produce ethanol it would less costly and cleaner for the environment.

Diesel engines with turbo chargers are big in the rest of the world, but they are not promoted or sold here for reasons that only industry and the government can answer.
Reply
#6
(09-20-2012, 08:35 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(09-20-2012, 07:38 AM)chuck white Wrote: So if I can only put two gallons in my tank , do I pour the other two gallons on the ground?

If they just turned the corn into corn oil and used that in diesel engines and not turn it into expensive to produce ethanol it would less costly and cleaner for the environment.

Diesel engines with turbo chargers are big in the rest of the world, but they are not promoted or sold here for reasons that only industry and the government can answer.

In a rare moment, I agree with you. Does that mean you will have to re-think it?
Reply
#7
No, it means in rare moments, there's still hope for you. Smiling
Reply
#8
(09-20-2012, 08:41 AM)Larry Wrote:
(09-20-2012, 08:35 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(09-20-2012, 07:38 AM)chuck white Wrote: So if I can only put two gallons in my tank , do I pour the other two gallons on the ground?

If they just turned the corn into corn oil and used that in diesel engines and not turn it into expensive to produce ethanol it would less costly and cleaner for the environment.

Diesel engines with turbo chargers are big in the rest of the world, but they are not promoted or sold here for reasons that only industry and the government can answer.

In a rare moment, I agree with you. Does that mean you will have to re-think it?

Not that it's true, it's just some guy on a forum saying something you agree with.
Biodiesel from Corn

It appears there is a good reason they use corn for ethanol and soy beans for biodiesel



Corn is a starch crop but does have a small amount of oil in it. Corn oil does make good biodiesel but it is not a good crop to grow specifically to make biodiesel from. If the crop is fermented and turned into Ethanol then the oil can also be separated and used for making Biodiesel in which case it may be viable
Reply
#9
This doesn't really account for the fact vegetable oil burns fine in many diesel engines though, unconverted into bio diesel. I know this because I've run several diesel engines on vegetable oil alone. Although, I was mostly burning raw Canola Oil, which may have a little more energy (btu's) per gallon than corn oil. However, in emergencies, I've thrown any kind of vegetable oil I had in diesel tanks, and it still pretty much runs fine.
Reply
#10
I'm not sure about corn, but I've been turning beans into gas for a long time.
Reply
#11
[Image: 406545_260825640686990_1575098399_n.jpg]
Reply
#12
The real problem here is the absolute power of the EPA. They are like the IRS... arbitrary rulings with almost no accountability. Many of you will agree with most of their mandates therefore you don't question their authority. But you should.
Reply
#13
(09-20-2012, 07:50 PM)GoCometsGo Wrote: The real problem here is the absolute power of the EPA. They are like the IRS... arbitrary rulings with almost no accountability. Many of you will agree with most of their mandates therefore you don't question their authority. But you should.

I agree.
I'm sure the EPA is just as much for sale as any other government agency.
The whole Renewable Fuel Standard needs to be re-thought and re-done.
Reply
#14
Without the EPA greed and the almighty dollar would win out EVERY time when ever the question is to profit or take care of a plant or an animal.

The focus is always on something the EPA allegedly did wrong and never the opposite.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say... "what's more important JOBS or"....( fill in the insignificant plant or animal).

It seems the answer if you are a republican is "jobs" and if you are a democrat it's the insignificant plant or animal.

In my mind there isn't an insignificant plant or animal.
Reply
#15
Well, yeah, that's true.
I can remember the days when driving around the San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale part of the Bay Area you couldn't see any of the surrounding hills because of the smog.

Now they are clearly visible.
The EPA HAS done some good stuff, I don't doubt that.
Reply
#16
(09-20-2012, 09:06 PM)tvguy Wrote: Without the EPA greed and the almighty dollar would win out EVERY time when ever the question is to profit or take care of a plant or an animal.

The focus is always on something the EPA allegedly did wrong and never the opposite.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say... "what's more important JOBS or"....( fill in the insignificant plant or animal).

It seems the answer if you are a republican is "jobs" and if you are a democrat it's the insignificant plant or animal.

In my mind there isn't an insignificant plant or animal.
teevee if we could only get the elected to think it thru too.
You are quite correct.
Reply
#17
(09-20-2012, 09:06 PM)tvguy Wrote: In my mind there isn't an insignificant plant or animal.

Except, of course, squirrels... Ninja
Reply
#18
[Image: 216962_340521002707000_222661357_n.jpg]
Reply
#19
May take a few months, but we'll be blowing our excess firewood through a 454 crew cab. And, you guys are footin' half of the bill.
Reply
#20
(09-20-2012, 06:49 AM)blondemom Wrote: I know when I was in OR there was only one station in our area that sold gas that didn't have ethanol in it, and he was selling it for almost a dollar more a gal than them premium stuff and that was 2 years ago. I do not know if there are any more stations that sell gas with out it there. So I need someone there to tell me.
Here we have stations that sell that both, and the 100% gas is generally about 30 cents higher than the enriched gas.

I am waiting for more CNG pumps to be made available for my trip to the West coast. And then I am buying a CNG car.

You can buy non alcohol gas but you are not permitted to use it in your car. We buy it for our lawn mowers because the Ethanol gas really messes small engines up. It's considerably higher.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)