Topic: Tinker AFB to build E85 station

[James48843]

Tinker AFB to build a new E85 station:

http://www.tinkertakeoff.com/article.htm?intRecID=16700


    
An estimated $1 million project to construct a new alternative fuels station is in the works here, according to the 72nd Logistics Readiness Squadron.

If approved by the Defense Energy Support Center, the proposed service station would house four, 12,000 gallon above-ground tanks containing ethanol-based E85, unleaded, diesel and bio-diesel fuels for the base’s estimated 1,500 general and special-purpose vehicles.

“We want (the old station) dismantled and a new service station installed,” said John Rucci, function director of the Fuels Quality Branch at the 72nd Logistics Readiness Squadron. “This would allow E85 vehicles to refuel here on base rather than leave base to fill up.”

At the moment, up to 75 percent of new vehicles entering government service must use some form of alternative fuel. The requirement is part of federal requirements to reduce petroleum consumption and emissions through the use of alternative “green” fuels.

“The primary concern is trying to get away from dependence on foreign oil and going green,” said Eddie Allen, chief of the Vehicle Quality Branch at the 72nd LRS. “Of any new vehicle that comes into our system, we need to make sure that 75 percent of them are alternative fuel vehicles.”

[Thumpin455]

. Amazing that some General or Colonel actually is thinking that far ahead.

Thinking ahead? How about way way way behind the times McChord AFB here in WA had the 2nd pump in our state and it was installed in around 2002.

And if they are going to do above ground tanks it should be a quick, cheap thing not cost a million and take months.

Sounds like another case of a bureaucrat trying to grab more funding for his budget, to squander and waste.

I doubt that they represent a large portion of an off site retailers sales since the "alternative fuel" fuel vehicle plan doesn't require them to use the alternative fuel just to purchase alt fuel vehicles. So if they have to go off base to use E85 I doubt that they do. It is much easier for the driver of the vehicle to stop at the base pump, and most likely they get reprimanded for purchasing fuel off base since it messes with his budgeting and fuel purchases.

No not that they are early on it, but that they would build the fuel station with the E85 capability.  Its amazing they are doing it before 2015. Someone pushed them, they are very unlikely to change on their own within any reasonable amount of time, unless it is mandated they use it then they hurry.

I got out in 05, there were no FFV vehicles in my entire unit in Charleston, and the vehicles people were in no hurry to get any, so the mandate would be the part I did not know about, since I separated in August the same year it went into effect. AF Officers and most NCO's are still the same though... If you have been in the military you might get the jab.

[James48843]

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) requires federal fleets to use alternative fuel in dual-fueled AFVs 100% of the time.  Waivers for this requirement are available from the Department of Energy if alternative fuel is not available within a 5 minute or 15 mile radius or if the fuel is unreasonably more expensive. 


Source: http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/FAQ%20May07_R2V82D_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.doc

[James48843]

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)
• Requirements: Section 701 of EPAct 2005 requires dual-fuel AFVs to use
alternative fuel 100% of the time unless the agency receives a waiver from DOE
due to unavailability or unreasonable expense of the alternative fuel.
• Actions: DOE developed procedures and published guidance for implementing
Section 701. DOE evaluates agency waiver submissions annually. DOE initiates
activity to help fleets match vehicle locations with fuel availability, and to expand
outreach to fuel providers about the opportunity presented by the new
requirement.
4
•
Results: Federal agencies submit annual waiver requests to DOE that are evaluated, and then approved or disapproved. The number of approved waivers dropped by about 7,000 AFVs from 2008 to 2009 – a decrease of about 10%.

Source: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fs_federal_fleets.pdf

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 10, Volume 3]
[Revised as of January 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 10CFR490.306]

[Page 651]
 
                            TITLE 10--ENERGY
 
                    CHAPTER II--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 
PART 490_ALTERNATIVE FUEL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM--Table of Contents
 
     Subpart D_Alternative Fuel Provider Vehicle Acquisition Mandate
 
Sec. 490.306  Vehicle operation requirements.

    The alternative fueled vehicles acquired pursuant to section 490.302
of this part shall be operated solely on alternative fuels, except when
these vehicles are operating in an area where the appropriate
alternative fuel is unavailable.



Sec. 490.310  Violations.

    Violations of this subpart are subject to investigation and
enforcement under subpart G of this part.

Sec. 490.604  Penalties and Fines.

    (a) Civil Penalties. Whoever violates Sec. 490.603 of this part
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,500 for each
violation.
    (b) Willful violations. Whoever willfully violates section 490.603
of this part shall pay a criminal fine of not more than $10,000 for each
violation.
    (c) Repeated violations. Any person who knowingly and willfully
violates section 490.603 of this part, after having been subjected to a
civil penalty for a prior violation of section 490.603 shall pay a
criminal fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation.

[James48843]

...I doubt that they represent a large portion of an off site retailers sales since the "alternative fuel" fuel vehicle plan doesn't require them to use the alternative fuel just to purchase alt fuel vehicles. ...

Federal law changed a couple years back. Now it is REQUIRED to use E85 IF it is available within 5 miles of the GOV's base location.   You get into trouble if you meet that criteria, and you DON'T use E85, no matter what the price is.

[EMAS]

. Amazing that some General or Colonel actually is thinking that far ahead.

Thinking ahead? How about way way way behind the times McChord AFB here in WA had the 2nd pump in our state and it was installed in around 2002.

And if they are going to do above ground tanks it should be a quick, cheap thing not cost a million and take months.

Sounds like another case of a bureaucrat trying to grab more funding for his budget, to squander and waste.

I doubt that they represent a large portion of an off site retailers sales since the "alternative fuel" fuel vehicle plan doesn't require them to use the alternative fuel just to purchase alt fuel vehicles. So if they have to go off base to use E85 I doubt that they do. It is much easier for the driver of the vehicle to stop at the base pump, and most likely they get reprimanded for purchasing fuel off base since it messes with his budgeting and fuel purchases.

[Thumpin455]

Because the USAF has different regulations and requirements than does a civilian airline or fuel station. I wasnt a fuels guy, but I know almost everything about how we moved cargo and aircraft was very different from how it is done at civilian airports. Getting on a base to blow something up is one of those things that isnt exactly easy to do, it sure seems like it, but in reality everyone on the base in uniform is the same as a cop or security guard, everyone watches almost everything. So it might be safety, or ease of maintenance so a 19 year old E1 can work on it too, or just the plain old stupid ideas that havent changed in the last hundred years of powered flight.

If you think you can take out a row of aircraft that have hundreds of people with radios around them, all watching for anything out of place, and who will make you leave, you better bring enough ammo and people with you to get the job done. It would be easier to nuke a base from orbit.

Just sayin.

Really I am impressed that some O6+ decided that they needed E85 on base. Usually it is decades before anything like that changes. Someone somewhere in the chain between the Wing Commander and Obama is pushing it along.

[cessna]

I am wondering why they would want to go aboveground

I was thinking that also. My friend the airport manager thinks we lose about a gallon of Avgas per day on a hot summer day from our 2000 above ground tank.

[1outlaw]

I am wondering why they would want to go aboveground with these tanks and have to deal with rainwater disposal, the fuel degradation and evaporation issues that always occur aboveground, plus the potential for fire or intentional damage. 1 million $ seems about $400-500,000 to the high side unless they have soil contamination to deal with tearing out the old station. Good to see them do this - maybe not so good for the offsite commercial station to stay in business.

[Thumpin455]

Driving off base to fill up a GOV is a PITA. Its about time they made the switch, if the military goes to ethanol, we wouldnt need nearly as much oil to defend the country. There is a nice precedent for that too.. Sounds like Tinker is wanting to build a new one and they are making the upgrade while they can. Amazing that some General or Colonel actually is thinking that far ahead.