Regular vers Ethanol blend.

[MNgopher]

Two comments:

1. The lower fuel efficiency of 2-5% on a 10% ethanol blend is offset by the 25%+ reduction in Carbon Monoxide, as previously pointed out. In that respect, the emmissions idea is not a wash, but a positive on the ethanol side. It did actually work as intended in many areas to reduce Carbon Monoxide pollution. So well in fact, some areas eliminated emmissions programs as pollution reduction goals were met (the Twin Cities is an example of that).

What would be more interesting is the review what comes out of the stacks at the refinery level of gasoline vs. ethanol. Several plants here were tested and some pretty nasty things were found, which was a surprise.

2. As far as the energy balance goes, does anyone think no energy is used to produce gasoline? I've seen studies that show gasoline has an energy balance of around 0.75 (ie: more energy is consumed to produce gasoline than the actual final product contains). Ethanol is somewhere between .8 and 1.4 depending on which study you believe. In any case, its better than gasoline.

Don't believe me? Go look at all the powerlines around a refinery and guess who's using the electricity and where it came from!

 

[MolaKule]

"It's more costly and less efficient than real gas and from studies I've seen it takes more fossil fuel to manufacture than it saves by it's use."

It's cheaper here in the midwest than any other mid-grade (89 octane) fuel.

What Shannow said.

 

[theguru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sprintman:
Theguru - Evo 98 from Trafigura Fuels is better then Optimax or Ultimate 98.

---

However, as they don't sell the stuff in Victoria, and probably never will, I'm stuck with Shell/ Bp. BTW: My son has gone back to Shell Optimax as he says it has better performance at high revs under high boost (1.3bar).

 

[JonC]

What is RFG II gasoline? Does it make your engine run differently - better or worse? I'm curious because I live in Illinois.

Jon

 

[MNgopher]

RFG II gasoline stands for the EPA's Refomulated Gasoline Phase II product. In short, the EPA required certain markets to use RFG I in 1995. RFG II gasolines came on line in 2000. The goal of these programs is reduce vehicle emmissions that contribute to smog formation. Generally, these components are Nitric Oxides and Ozone.

Phase II regulations tighten up many parameters of gasoline and force refiners to make a very specific product. In general, they attempt to reduce the vapor pressure of gasoline (essentially the tendency to evaporate). By doing so, ozone emissions are dimished substantially.

The Chicago/Milwaukee market, as well as St. Louis to a certain extent, are in an even tougher boat than much of the rest of the nation. Nationwide, MTBE is the oxygenate of choice in RFG II for a variety of reasons. A big one is the fact that while ethanol raises octane, it also increases vapor pressure big time, making it tougher to meet the new regulations. Thus, the production of RFG II is tougher for the Chicago/Milwaukee markets since they use Ethanol to produce RFG II.

The EPA says there is no difference between Phase I and Phase II RFG in terms of fuel economy. Anecdotal reports suggest differently, and in particular, power reductions have been noted by many. Some of this is the oxygenate (ethanol or MTBE), but not all of the decrease is attributable to this.

Its pretty simple: To get the best fuel economy and power, use a non-oxygenated, non-RFG II gasoline. The attached map shows RFG II locations as of last spring.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfgmap.jpg

 

[dickwells]

I am one county out of the ****cago zone but I don't know where to get any gas without ethanol off hand. I may try to find some. I burn a lot of Shell, which is close to where I work and since I get a 5% rebate on it, it is probably a wash. Sure ticks me off when I see trucks like mine down in Texas get 21.5 on the road and 18.5 is about the best I can get unless I slow down. By the way, they are putting up a new ethanol plant right next to route 88 in Rochelle so if you drive by that area you can see one going up. It is just on the North side of the road and west of Rte 39. Rochelle is booming because they are putting in a big railport.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MolaKule:
"It's more costly and less efficient than real gas and from studies I've seen it takes more fossil fuel to manufacture than it saves by it's use."

It's cheaper here in the midwest than any other mid-grade (89 octane) fuel.

What Shannow said.

---

It's the only thing available around here except at a few stations, but the costs are the equivilant everywhere I've looked in central Illinois.

Keep in mind the reason the cost is even close is because of subsidies. No way is methanol cost competitive without them. Pay for it at the pump or pay it to the tax man...

[ July 24, 2003, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: jsharp ]

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:


There are more jobs created in providing the fuel. That's good for the "moneygoround".

---

Jobs are created when the government hires people to dig unneeded holes and then hires more people to fill them back in. Is that good for the moneygoround? The result seems similar...

I'll give you emmisions reductions though. The alcohol blends do seem to do a good job of that.

[ July 24, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: jsharp ]

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:
[qb]

---

Jobs are created when the government hires people to dig unneeded holes and then hires more people to fill them back in.

---

No government project ever created a single job. They just steal they from somewhere else. If the boondoggles actually reduce oil imports, the jobs may be stolen from overseas.

 

[GSV]

quote:

---

Jobs are created when the government hires people to dig unneeded holes and then hires more people to fill them back in.

---

That is an oversimplification.

First the govt. puts together a commision of out of work hacks and flunkys (usually defeated politicians) to "study" the project. This usually involves flying all over the world and drinking enormous quantities of alcohol at taxpayer expense.

Then they open a bid process where they can accept bribes and kickbacks from contractors.

Then they hire consultants to oversee the job to make sure there are enough left-handed, red-haired Mohicans and transexual Manchurians working on the project.

After all these conditions have been properly FUBARed the hole digging might begin barring EPA intervention or problems with the Hole Diggers union.

Filling the holes in usually requires the same process.

 

[Shannow]

Guys, the hole digging and filling reminds me of a joke told obout our local council workers.

Said joke is that Mick is walking along the side of the road, digging holes. John walks behind him, filling them in.

A concerned rate payer interrupts them and asks what they are doing, as it seems a wate of his taxes.

Mick replies "We're planting trees"

Ratepayer is exasperated, and points out that he doesn't see any trees going in.

John replies "Oh, that's 'cause Dave is off sick today, and he's the one who puts the trees in the ground"

[ July 24, 2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Shannow ]

 

[Shannow]

AS to the "subsidies" attributed to ethanol, that may be the case in the U.S.

In Oz, the privately owned ethanol refineries can compete on the market when the parity pricing excises (applicable to fossil fuels only) are removed.

The government recently increased the taxes on biofuels to half that of the fossil versions, and they are still on the market.

The production of biofuels definately creates more employment than the refining of fossil fuels, plus it gets some of the money into the pockets of smaller companies rather than the oil giants.

I'm all for it.

 

[JonC]

Does anybody know if McHenry county in Illinois has RFG II gasoline?

 

[MNgopher]

Per the map on the EPA link, yes, McHenry county is in the RFG II area.

Just to be sure, 2nd county in on the northern border, right?

 

[Shannow]

I feel obliged to post a correction on a previous post. It also applies WRT tarriffs on the off topic board.

It appears that our Prime Minister (John Howard) has been less than honest (what......politicians lie

) with respect to the ethanol industry downunder.

I still believe that the industry can be competetive, and is of benefit to our country, but this sort of cr%p certainly won't encourage it.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/11/1060588324298.html

quote:

---

The record showed that at the meeting, Howard and Honan, the principal of Australia's main ethanol producer, the Manildra Group, discussed means to protect the ethanol industry.

Nothing exceptional in that: captains of industry are always lobbying the Government for special treatment.

The problem is that later in Parliament, Howard denied ever having met Honan about any such thing. Some background here about the special treatment Honan's company has received from the Government - mostly from Howard himself - in trying to protect its product from market forces and regulation.

Somehow, ethanol was exempted from national fuel standards introduced 18 months ago. Somehow, it managed to avoid having to declare the ethanol content of its fuel, so consumers would know what they were buying. Somehow, it managed to sell it at twice the concentration the car makers deemed safe for engines.

But most outrageously, it managed to get a rushed decision last year to impose tariff and subsidy arrangements to prevent it facing competition from imported ethanol.

The changes to the tax regime applying to ethanol were rammed through even as a shipment of Brazilian ethanol was en route to Australia, having been purchased by a small petrol company, Trafigura Fuels, sick of paying high prices for domestic ethanol.

In the wake of that decision, amid a cacophony of Opposition and industry claims that special favours had been done, Howard was asked, repeatedly, last September whether he had any talks with Honan or his people on the subject.

Howard denied it, flat.

Yet the PM&C record of last August's meeting refers to "the payment of a producer credit to ethanol producers to enable Australian ethanol producers to compete with the cheaper Brazilian product".

The record further says: "Mr Honan provided a copy of a preliminary report into the Australian fuel ethanol industry to the Prime Minister."

Howard's explanation when confronted with this information yesterday was that he had not lied to Parliament because, at the time he was asked the question, he was unaware of the Trafigura import plans - a ridiculous, semantic, defence.

The new Labor Treasury spokesman, Mark Latham, said Howard was "a Prime Minister who could not lie straight in bed".

He was forced to withdraw, but it seemed a far lesser offence than lying to Parliament.

---

 

[sprintman]

'Honest John' what a joke. I worked at Parliament House for 3yrs a decade ago and he was no different then. Had the public conned for a long time. Still with a non existent opposition that's what you get!