Jump to content

Petition for MoGas


CT4ME

Recommended Posts

I signed because it is the right thing to do. However, use caution that you do not get sucked into other petitions or continuous e-mailings you don't want. The site itself seems to be in the business of generating petitions for many different causes. Watch which boxes you check - or leave unchecked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a bit more explanation.... the petition was started by the fellow who does pure-gas.org - a site that tracks stations selling ethanol-free gas. The information about his site and the petition came from AVweb. The petition is directed at EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and cites the "unintended consequences" of provisions intended to increase production of fuel containing ethanol. The result has been that ethanol-free fuel is becoming rare in some areas and causing problems for those who have boats, snowmobiles, motorcycles and aircraft that can't use fuel with alcohol in it.

John is right... the petition gathering site is a third-party organization that administers the collection of petition info. I read their privacy stuff and while they admit they display ads on the website, they also let you know that information on any public petition may become public information.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I' m a little confused about the need for "pure gas" in LSA aircraft. I have read in several posts by Roger Lee that E10 was OK and approved by Rotex. Is that not the case? As a student pilot watching CFI's filling Rotex equipped engines with avgas 100LL because 91 is not available, it seems like your fighting the wrong fuel. $4.70 vs $2.90. Are there too many airports selling E10 91? I don't see hardly any here on the East Coast. Full Disclosure: I am a farmer that growers corn and soybeans and support E10. I looked at the petition and several posts had misinformation about ethanol. I won't get into it here but Please don't believe it takes more energy to grow corn than you get in energy out of it for ethanol. Thanks Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E10 is acceptable, but not ideal. And 10% is the "maximum", they'd prefer something less. While Rotax has deemed it acceptable, there are many parts that come into contact with the fuel that are outside of Rotax's control - tanks, fuel lines, filters, coatings, etc. If you've seen any of the plastic filters removed from CTs, you'll know what I'm talking about. And then you have the water issue and potential increased vapor locks. In a perfect World, we should be using non-E10 in our aircraft.

The petition just wants the EPA to realize an unintended result of e10 promotion has been much less availability of normal unleaded gas. Nothing against E10.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Farmer Steve,

 

IYP should the following message fall into the misinformation bin?:

 

IBD Editorials

 

Ear (Of Corn) Marks

Posted 11/11/2010

Energy Policy: If we're serious about cutting wasteful spending and reining in government, the abolition of subsidies for ethanol production and the ending of mandates for its use would be a good place to start.

The Bush tax cuts aren't the only thing that expires at the end of the year. Also set to expire is the mother of all corporate welfare: ethanol subsidies to Big Agriculture coupled with tariffs protecting domestic ethanol production that benefit farm-state senators and congressmen but few others.

Ethanol is the perfect tax-spend-and-elect mechanism. Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland, the nation's second-largest ethanol producer, has operations in 119 congressional districts. The first presidential contest is in the corn state of Iowa. We have said that if the road to the White House ran through Idaho, we might be making biofuels from potatoes.

Ethanol currently receives a 45-cents-a-gallon tax credit when blended with gasoline and is protected by a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on ethanol imported from countries like Brazil. If, as politicians and environmentalists claim, ethanol is needed to protect the environment and not just political careers, we should eliminate the foreign tariff. Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar, not corn. Corn is grown in Iowa, and Brazilians can't vote in our elections.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle benefit from the ethanol goodie bag. Republicans have raised more money than Democrats from POET, the nation's largest ethanol producer. Former Iowa Republican Rep. Jim Nussle is now the president of Growth Energy, a leading pro-ethanol lobby.

The lame-duck session will undoubtedly see an attempt at a short-term extension of the ethanol subsidies with political demagoguery about saving jobs, protecting the environment, promoting green energy and all that.

Fact is, ethanol does not save either the environment or gasoline. The expanded planting of corn for its manufacture has crowded out other crops and contributed to a continuing spike in food prices worldwide. This has helped lead to food shortages and is even linked to tortilla riots in Mexico.

"Producing ethanol for use in motor fuels increases the demand for corn, which ultimately raises the prices that consumers pay for a wide variety of foods at the grocery store, ranging from corn-syrup sweeteners in soft drinks to meat, dairy and poultry products," says the Congressional Budget Office.

Does ethanol use fight climate change? A report by the Paris-based International Council for Science says clearing land for the production of biofuels has aggravated rather than ameliorated global warming. It releases nitrous oxide as well as CO2. Nitrous oxide is said to trap heat at a rate 300 times greater than an equal amount of CO2.

According to the Hoover Institution's Henry Miller and professor Colin Carter of the University of California at Davis, "Ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon of gasoline, so miles per gallon in internal combustion engines drop significantly." Automakers have warned that increasing the percentage of ethanol in gasoline would damage current engines.

It takes about 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Each acre of corn requires about 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous. Increased acreage means increased agricultural runoff, which is creating aquatic "dead zones" in our rivers, bays and coastal areas.

Even some environmentalists have gotten wise to the ethanol scam. The Environmental Working Group and five other groups not long ago came out against a further bailout. Subsidies "for corn-based ethanol," they said, "have produced unintended, yet potentially catastrophic environmental consequences, with little or no return to taxpayers in energy security (or) protection from global warming."

Ethanol has never made much sense economically or environmentally. It never would have made it to market without politically motivated congressional mandates and huge subsidies. Believers in free markets and less government need to join the effort to shuck corn as an energy source. It belongs in our breakfast cereal and not in our gas tanks.

******************************************

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: In compliance with U.S. Treasury Regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise expressly stated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by anyone for the purpose of (i) avoiding federal tax penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter addressed herein.

 

This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee.

If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender. Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege.

All personal messages express views only of the individual sender, and may not be copied or distributed without this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure everyone will have an opinion on the viablity and economical and political drivers behind ethanol production and fuel blending and its influence on global warming and personally I don't think we should have this discussion on this board.

 

A petition for non ethanol is driven by our community as a necessity rather than political and has a place on this board.

Let's stick with lobbying for non ethanol mogas for our "little engines that could" purely from a technical point of view.

 

Just my Canadian 2 cents (which btw is about 2 USA cents).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right you are josjonkers, the article is laddened with political views, let me rephrase, Does the article contain any technical misinformation in Farmer Steve's expert opinion? Specifically, "According to the Hoover Institution's Henry Miller and professor Colin Carter of the University of California at Davis, "Ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon of gasoline, so miles per gallon in internal combustion engines drop significantly." Automakers have warned that increasing the percentage of ethanol in gasoline would damage current engines."

 

So what you say, not knowing what "increasing the percentage of ethanol in gasoline equates to," we only have one choice E10....I'm interested in any info other than ROTAX kinda-sorta supports up to E10, and I'm guessing because otherwise the 912 becomes an expenive paper weight if we don't use the alternative 100LL.

 

We have the other choice and that is 100LL which our forum SMEs and ROTAX indicate potential harmfull issues resulting from prolonged use. Yet, I am aware of a local flight school where 100LL is the fuel and the maintenance types indicate no issues, in fact, they have reached TBO twice on their older Evektor without lead related issues.

 

So, is E10 the lessor of two evils really? Or do flight school operations favor 100LL over weekend warrior use.

 

Thank you for pointing out the perponderance of the article is politically charged. I should have just cut the technical stuff out for commment. My bad.

 

Regards,

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For aviation, I'm rooting for Swift Fuel which so far is proving to have 15% more energy than 100LL (at 15% more weight/volume), lower emissions, doesn't hold water and can be made from a variety of biomass sources. I'm guessing if this venture succeeds, though, it will be the natural gas base that will be used. This method would enlist the oil companies and buy the political force necessary for change. IMHO.

 

Of course, this is years away, so I'll happily cart 93 octane 10% ethanol fuel until Swift, GAMI or some other lead-free source is declared the winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When flying from my home base, I am able to get 91-octane unleaded, ethanol-free fuel at a place that sells a lot of it for boaters, and I use two of the previously posted Tuff Jugs to get it to the airport. I don't carry fuel cans with me when traveling, so when away from KGGE I generally buy 100LL unless 91+ mogas is available on the field, which is rare.

 

Any time I have had to use E-10, I've found a curious problem and wanted to see if others have experienced it. The lever on the fuel filler cap is very difficult to turn when I use a fuel with ethanol. Not an issue when using ethanol-free nor with 100LL. But when I've had the E-10 I've have to use a tool to give me some leverage to rotate the lever to open or close (lifting the tab is fine, it is rotating it that is the issue). My theory is that the ethanol has an effect on that seal. After filling up with ethanol-free or 100LL the next time I open the cap the problem is gone and it becomes easy to turn by hand again. Has happened several times so I'm fairly confident ethanol fuel is linked to the issue.

 

Anyone else experience this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory is that the ethanol has an effect on that seal. Anyone else experience this?

 

Yes, The ethanol swells the internal plastic boss. I saw about .005. That's all it takes to bind it up.

I took mine apart and polished .007 smaller. Problem fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no chemist either. For me the issue occurs every time I use auto fuel with ethanol, and does not occur when I use auto fuel without it. You might test your fuel with either the water test, or the Quick Check drops, to make sure you are getting what is advertised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no chemist either. For me the issue occurs every time I use auto fuel with ethanol, and does not occur when I use auto fuel without it. You might test your fuel with either the water test, or the Quick Check drops, to make sure you are getting what is advertised.

 

 

I check every drop of auto gas that goes into my ac for ethanol using the EAA promoted protocol. In the nearly 300 hours of operation of my CT I've used a total of 15 gallons of gas containing ethanol(5%). There has been no ethanol in it this year. I suspect aromatic compounds in the gas also cause swelling.

 

 

PRW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run E10 almost exclusively. Can't say I've seen any problems except the gas cap o-rings. It's also worth changing the fuel filter every 100hrs instead of 200hrs I think. Could have just been age, but anyway I replaced them with VITON style rings:

Product ID: ov-75-222

Product Name: Fluorocarbon 222 Size O-ring

Quantity: 2

Unit Price: $0.64

 

from http://www.superiorseals.com/

Pretty solid now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kurt,

 

I find a little fuzz no matter what the fuel. The amount of this debris is very very small and not an issue. It is just the fibers of the tank material that sticks up through the Kreem Weiss tank coating that breaks off with all the fuel sloshing. You see more on planes with 200 hr. or less time than planes with 400 plus hrs. I have never seen what you would consider a lot of debris in a CT filter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...