CB, just reread your post and saw the 86 octane E10. That means the refinery can make some really sub sub-octane----83.5. Pretty interesting. Thanks again for the info.
CB, just reread your post and saw the 86 octane E10. That means the refinery can make some really sub sub-octane----83.5. Pretty interesting. Thanks again for the info.
My understanding is that the E10 fuel is refined as a lower octane feed stock, then the Alcohol is added to raise the octane to the finish AKI rating. As you say, 84.5 octane feed stock would finish out at 87 octane E10. That's why the fad of a couple of years ago of "washing out the alcohol" doesn't work. It does remove much of the alcohol, but also lowers the octane to a level that makes the fuel unusable.
However, I don't quite buy the argument that Alcohol is keeping the fuel prices down. The Non-alcohol 90 octane premium costs the same as the E10 premium. While overall, 10% alcohol may appear to reduce the volume of gasoline sold by 10%, the 10% hit in gas mileage in my older cars makes it kind of a waste to put in the tank. Besides, other than the subsidy to produce alcohol, doesn't alcohol cost as much or more to produce per gallon than gasoline?
Now, one caveat to the fuel mileage is that my older cars are all ODB1 computer systems, meaning they don't have a way to detect or correct the mixture to burn alcohol fuels. However, my newer car with the ODB2 system that is designed for up to 10% alcohol also takes about a 5% hit in gas mileage when burning E10 fuel. Considering that less than half of a barrel of oil gets refined into gasoline (19.4 gallons out of 42 gallons in a barrel of oil), the impact of contaminating our fuels with alcohol saves maybe 2% of the consumption of a barrel of oil, while costing us in subsidies for the alcohol and damage to older vehicles and gasoline powered tools and toys.
Hey, I'm a born and bred transplant from Iowa and really do want to support the farmers and corn prices. If the government wants to force feed us alcohol, I'm still OK with that. But there also needs to be alcohol free fuel available for older vehicles, aviation, boats, lawn tools, chain saws, etc where the alcohol sitting in the fuel systems causes considerable damage. It's the lack of choice being force on us by the politicians that I find to be highly irritating.
CubBuilder
Just looked at the NYMEX and CBOT for April gasoline and ethanol wholesale prices. Gas---$3.15 and ethanol $2.47 a gallon. The only thing that can be construed as a subsidy anymore is the fact that oil companies have to use a certain amount of ethanol or buy RIN's if they don't want to actually do the blending. There are no more tax credits for blending and no plant gets any cash to produce ethanol. Also, since corn is actually worth something, the gov't spends just about nothing on us corn farmers. I used to get a pretty good check every year for being a poor farmer. On the topic of RIN's, one RIN is created when one gallon of ethanol or biodiesel is produced. Take your pick buy a RIN or buy an actual gallon. RIN's go up and down in price just like like other commodities, sometimes next to worthless and sometimes pricey. Looks to me like it'd be good business to buy the actual gallon of ethanol at it's reduced price than to buy a RIN that is on top of the high priced gasoline in the E0 gallon.
Last edited by 180Marty; 03-08-2013 at 10:36 AM.
It's not the RINs, its the mandate for a minimum amount of ethanol to be used that's the problem. The public doesn't particularly want to buy it. If ethanol were a price and function equivalent to gasoline, the public wouldn't care, and there wouldn't be a justification for the mandate.
Marty, based on your price quotes above, are you willing to forego the mandate (and thus the RINs)?
Just so nobody misses this info. I just went and cut another scrub tree down with the little Stihl 017 my Dad bought new in ~2001. I poured the last of the jug of E10/oil that I mixed up two years ago into the tank of the saw. It still had about a 1/4 tank from quite awhile ago. I think my success is that I kept the jug sealed up.
No, the oil companies have run a very good, kill the competition campaign. I'm pretty sure you'd support oil companies to the fullest and most others probably would too, at this time. I feel the same frustration the pro-gun folks do when AAA comes out against E15( the most tested fuel ever in history). When they came out with that statement, they showed how rotten their politics are and most people aren't smart enough to know the facts.Marty, based on your price quotes above, are you willing to forego the mandate (and thus the RINs)?
So, it's the evil oil companies and the AAA to blame. Not Congress selectively handing out supports and breaks to its favored constituents (including ADM and the aforementioned oil companies). Why don't we just let the market operate?
s agreed. Get after it, write your congressman.
Quote:
[table]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"] U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan) has introduced a bill dubbed the “Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act.” The bill eliminates tax credits for new industries attempting to compete with petroleum while maintaining billions in taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil. Furthermore, the bill would immediately eliminate every tax credit for alternatives to petroleum, including cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel and wind. Yet the bill only eliminates two petroleum tax credits (marginal well incentives and enhanced oil recovery credits) that only go into effect when crude oil prices are well below current levels. Ironically, despite the immediate elimination of all things alternative, the oil tax subsidies would not be eliminated until the end of 2014.
“Rep. Pompeo’s bill ought to be named the ‘Petroleum Monopoly and Big Oil Prosperity Act,’” said Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA). It’s hard to take seriously the Congressman’s comment that we can’t afford ‘taxpayer-backed subsidies to companies that don’t need them’ when his bill does not eliminate a single oil subsidy currently in use. Rather the bill leaves intact oil subsidies that date back literally 100 years for the most profitable industry in the history of the world. If the question is, ‘When can Big Oil stand on its own two feet without a taxpayer crutch?’ then Rep. Pompeo’s answer is apparently ‘not yet.’”
If the bill were to be passed as is, the petroleum tax subsidies that currently cost taxpayers billions each year including:
Percentage depletion allowance
Intangible drilling costs expensing
Deduction for tertiary injectants
Exception from passive loss limitations for oil and gas
Oil and gas excess percentage over cost depletion
“This bill simply tilts government policy even further in favor of petroleum,” continued Shaw. [/TD]
[/TR]
[/table]
Two special interests fighting over scraps from Big Gov't. Rather than resist this particular bill, I suggest working on reducing tax rates and tax breaks across the board, regardless of industry. That's what I write my Congressman about.Originally Posted by 180Marty
http://domesticfuel.com/2013/03/11/a...nols-benefits/“So we’re going to capitalize on that mood in Washington which is concern about debt, concern about the budget deficit. Subsidies for ethanol ended in 2011. We are not subsidized by the government oil companies still are. We have this thing called the RFS that levels the playing field. Oh by the way we’re cheaper than gas. Oh, and did we mention we’re not subsidized? I don’t think we can say that enough.”
Stihl chainsaws so E15 would be no problem. Times are changing and going forward with ideas Henry Ford envisioned.
Engines equipped with M-Tronic can be
run on gasoline with an ethanol content
of up to 25% (E25)
http://www.stihlusa.com/products/tec...tihl-m-tronic/
http://www.manualslib.com/manual/165...page=28#manual
The quote from this article is misleading in several respects, which I suppose is not surprising, since the original speaker is an ethanol lobbyist.
Subsidies are subsidies, whether direct or indirect. Mandates are an indirect subsidy, since they are specifically designed to increase consumption and thus raise the price above competitive market prices. The presence of RINs, and their ever increasing price, show that mandates are real and are affecting the ethanol market.
The claim that ethanol is cheaper than gas, while perhaps true, a) works against the argument to continue ethanol mandates, and b) is irrelevant in regards to whether petroleum should or should not be subsidized.
To recap:
- Subsidizing corn ethanol, whether direct or indirect (in the form of mandates), is Bad Idea, for the reasons given in the article I posted above.
- Whether benefits are given to the petroleum industry is completely irrelevant as to whether benefits should be given to the corn ethanol industry. "I should get it because he gets it" is no more valid in the energy business than it was in kindergarten.
- "We need to level the playing field" is also irrelevant as to subsidies for corn ethanol. The whole point to subsidies is to make the playing field un-level; that is, to supersede the operation of the market. The only choice available to level the playing field is to eliminate subsidies altogether and let the market operate.
- Whatever energy policy we choose, we need to remember that petroleum and ethanol are not the only alternatives out there. Subsidies for petroleum, followed by subsidies for corn ethanol, would then encourage all the others to ask for subsidies too, using arguments similar to the ones put forth by the corn ethanol industry (actually, they already have, e.g. Solyndra). Where does it stop?
-One thing the subsidy mindset does is to allow Congress to pick winners, which doesn't work because, depending on your level of cynicism: a) Congress chooses interests that "pay to play" (usually indirectly) rather than what works, or b) Congress is really tries hard lacks the requisite wisdom. Either way, Congress's track record is terrible.
Last edited by sjohnson; 03-11-2013 at 12:51 PM.
You could give Ethanol away for free and it still wouldn't make any difference to me. Both of my planes have glass tanks and will not tolerate Ethanol. So the argument that it's cheaper so we should use it doesn't make sense. Water is cheaper than gasoline, but I don't put that in my tanks either. Ethanol is tolerable if your fuel system is configured for it, but this is an aviation forum, and nowhere have I seen an STC or any other piece of paper either from or signed by a government agency recommending or even allowing ethanol in a piston engine aircraft.
Give me a choice rather than mandates and let the market address whether we burn the stuff or not. I'm OK with the government helping get the ethanol production off the ground, but I'm not OK with mandating it and taking away all market choices.
-CubBuilder
Couple of more thoughts----if E15 was allowed, since it has been tested and proved beyond belief, that would free up a big percentage of gasoline that has to be E10 to meet the mandate---it could be E0 and make you happy. Until oil company perks go away, including CIA intervention or other agencies, to manipulate foreign gov'ts, why should ethanol be the only one to give? Also, I do believe a gov't agency issues STC's and AGE-85 is STC'd for 180/182's.
I burned alot of corn gas the last 2 years but I have e-free 91 gas 3.5 miles down the road now, yea.
Glenn
This makes no sense. Why mandate E15 if people already don't want E10? (I assume you mean mandate since E15 has been allowed since mid last year). How about ending the mandates altogether and eliminate the unintended consequences?
This means no more than it did in kindergarten. Subsidizing ethanol in order to achieve "fairness" or a "level playing field" with petroleum makes no sense, for the reasons explained above. And it's odd that you point out the negative effects of government intervention in petroleum (manipulating foreign gov'ts), then ask for intervention in corn ethanol, which has already demonstrated negative effects in world commodity prices. I'm all for ending petroleum subsidies (over time, sudden change are generally bad), but their existence is not a justification for subsidies for ethanol or any other "green" energy.Until oil company perks go away, including CIA intervention or other agencies, to manipulate foreign gov'ts, why should ethanol be the only one to give?
Perhaps true, but somewhat misleading. Texas Skyways did develop such an STC, although it is not clear it is still available (not on their website). However, EAA and Peterson explicitly exclude ethanol precisely because of its negative effects on many fuel systems. Anyone know what mods are required to make this STC work?Also, I do believe a gov't agency issues STC's and AGE-85 is STC'd for 180/182's.
Update from Texas Skyways:
"Yes, we do have the ethanol fuel STC. It is only approved for the O-470-U/TS engine when installed in a Cessna 180 or 182, up thru the 182 R. The only modification required is a larger jet in the carburetor."
I know that Marty is a big ethanol fan. Perhaps there is some hope for those of us who either are not or prefer not to use it for any reason. At least there may be an option.
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2...efd36f85c-1888
N1PA
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-cost-sa...-gasoline.html
What this doesn't say is whether butanol has water-gathering issues....??
here:
quote:
[h=Best Answer - Chosen by Voters]2[/h] It is soluble in water (77 g/L). However, this is not much compared to lower alcohols (methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol) which are totally miscible with water. At some point in the homologous series, the interactions of the hydrophobic chain become greater than the hydrophilic interactions of the alcohol group and that is what is happening with 1-butanol. And so int continues with 1-pentanol (22 g/L), 1-hexanol (5.9 g/L), 1- heptanol (I could not find a value here) and 1-octanol (insoluble).
You guys can all say, thank you, North Dakota. For now.
A guy from Finland that has a Chrysler Town and Country and uses E85 gave me a link to this process. Sounds like the Finn's are using that thing between their ears while we'll pump ND dry.Commercialising Finnish technologyA new production process to convert a range of organic waste and biomass into ethanol was developed by Dr Antti Pasanen while he was working as a research scientist at VVT - the Technical Research Centre of Finland. The technology utilises advanced fermentation technology to breakdown a range of waste materials to produce ethanol, carbon dioxide and a solid residue.The key [sustainable] feature of the Etanolix technology is that it allows dispersed bioethanol production. Small ethanol production facilities [with an annual production capacity of 1m+ litres of ethanol] allow waste materials to be converted in-situ – rather than the waste being transported to a large central facility [or to a landfill site].
http://theenergycollective.com/andre...eel-technology
Also, I used up the last of the E10/oil that I mixed two years ago last February in the Stihl chainsaw yesterday. It started on about the 5th pull after sitting for at least six weeks. Can't figure out how that 12 year old saw still runs.
I had a Stihl commercial I ran for years. It was a great saw. I gave in three years ago when the coop dropped E-0 and had all E-10 and ran the saw for one season on that and then put it away for the winter. I know better than this but I pulled it out in the spring after sitting for 5 months and fired it up like I always had. Went to work and after about 5 minutes of normal but hard running it slowed and seized. Took it apart and everything ruined. I knew better than to run that stuff when more than a month old but just got lazy.Also, I used up the last of the E10/oil that I mixed two years ago last February in the Stihl chainsaw yesterday. It started on about the 5th pull after sitting for at least six weeks. Can't figure out how that 12 year old saw still runs.
I will NEVER run that in anything I risk my life in and also never in my new Stihl Farm Boss. The only place it goes is in my cars since it gets flushed through every month.
Edit: Oh after two years of that stuff the coop has the E-0 again since the farmers had so many complaints.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks