Jump to content

1outlaw

Full Member
  • Content Count

    3,393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by 1outlaw


  1. I will say that the GM S10 2.2L in 2001 programming was absolutely rock solid for cold start, hot start, fuel recognition, and operating efficiency on E85 and anything in between---NEVER an issue with any of this EVER. And customers that had them- particularly the manual trans ones loved them on E85 and found them underpowered on gas. Only 10-14% diff in fuel consumption and HAD A REAL ALCOHOL SENSOR !


  2. Allch Chcar - I think the boys are right on this one. When there is one map, no true decision by ECU the cause of needed adjustments for trim (was it a gas problem or E85 is present?) then the ECU simply ramps up the fuel supply happily believing it is running E85 and no light appears because the wide band (or narrow band) is showing enviromentally correct results (near stoich). As such, under certain conditions, a gas problem will never set a CEL until fuel delivery is so poor that even the fuel called for exceeds the map/trim allowances for E85 or the O2 says LEAN.


  3. I am not hanging out much hope for this one- way too much in contributions and power at stake for this to sail through Congress- I strongly suggest you go direct to the link rather than just review the info below. Be sure to clink on and view the PDF for far more detail:

    http://www.350.org/en/subsidies-faq#CampaignEnding Fossil Fuel Subsidies  On May 10, 350.org joined Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Keith Ellison to announce a new piece of legislation in the US Congress to end all fossil fuel subsidies. This page has some more information about what's in the bill, some information on why we're so excited about this campaign, some great graphics that you can use to spread the news online, and some more resources on subsidies.


    The End Polluter Welfare Act Here's some more information about the bill from Sen. Sanders' office (see the paragraphs below in PDF form here). The End Polluter Welfare Act is a new piece of legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders  in the Senate and by Rep. Keith Ellison in the House. At a time when we have record debt, Congress should not continue to give away taxpayer money to the established, highly profitable fossil fuel industry.

    • Fossil fuels are subsidized at nearly 6 times the rate of renewable energy. From 2002 to 2008, the US Government gave the mature fossil fuel industry over $72 billion in subsidies, while investments in the emerging renewable industry totaled $12.2 billion.
    • The fossil fuel energy industry does not need taxpayer subsidies. In 2011, the Big Five oil companies alone made $137 billion in profits. During the first quarter of 2012, the Big Five oil companies earned a combined $33.5 billion, or $368 million per day.
    • Unlike renewable energy incentives which periodically expire and require Congress to approve extensions, the fossil fuel industry has dozens of subsidies permanently engrained in the tax code from decades of successful lobbying. In 2011, the oil, gas, and coal industries spent a combined $167 million on lobbying the federal government.

    This bill would comprehensively abolish fossil fuel subsidies, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. It ends tax breaks, eliminates special financing, does away with taxpayer- funded fossil fuel R&D, and sets fair royalties policies to ensure the fossil fuel corporations pay their fair share. Examples of these giveaways include:

    OIL, GAS, and COAL TAX BREAKS

    • $14 Billion Saved by eliminating the intangible drilling deduction.
    • $12 Billion Saved by repealing a 2004 law that allows fossil fuel corporations to take deductions aimed at helping American manufacturers by claiming they are manufacturers.
    • $6.8 Billion Saved by closing the loophole that allows corporations like BP to deduct money they spend cleaning up their own oil spills and paying damages.

    SPECIAL FINANCING

    • $2.4 Billion Saved by stopping fossil fuel companies from investing through Master Limited Partnerships, an option not available to clean energy businesses.

    TAXPAYER FUNDED R&D

    • $3.7 Billion Saved by shutting the federal Office of Fossil Energy.

    ROYALTIES

    • $10.6 Billion Saved by recouping lost royalties for offshore drilling in public waters.

    Want to see all the different subsidies that this bill would eliminate? Here's a PDF of the full list.

    What Else Could We Use This Money For?

    The money saved by this bill will help reduce the federal deficit, saving the United States money during a difficult economic period. Here are just a few other examples of what we could do with $113 billion:

    • Give $807 to every American taxpayer (there are about 140 million taxpayers)
    • Buy 2.8 million Chevy Volts (at $40k per car)
    • Weatherize about 45 million US homes (at $2500 per home)

    That just gives you a few ideas of all the different ways we could put this money to use.  Campaigning to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies Almost everyone in the country opposes handing cash over to big oil, big coal, and big gas—the numbers are in the 80% range among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. That means that we'll be working to get all sorts of people on board with this fight, maybe even that cranky Unkle of yours who doesn't believe in global warming but wants to cut government spending.  This won’t be any normal legislative push. First, that’s just not how we do things here at 350.org. But more importantly, we know that if we confine this effort to Capitol Hill, the fossil fuel industry will just drown us in dollars -- they could spend $100 billion fighting this thing and still come out on top. So, we’re going to have to find other currencies to work in: our creativity, energy, and grassroots organizing power. This needs to be a people’s bill through and through.  In the coming days, we’ll be getting out more info about how everyone can get involved in this fight, from getting your member of Congress on the record, to helping beat back industry propaganda, even a way to give recalcitrant politicians special blazers, outfitted with the logos of the companies that give them cash. We’re going to have fun with this. Graphics Here are some great graphics courtesy of our friends at Oil Change International who have been leading the fight against fossil fuel subsidies for a long time. Please share them! 

     


  4. If you study the content of this article and the comments of Thomas O'Malley  you could pretty much guess where Con Carrol got his comments from in Dan's original post. Note that while Mr O'Malley is complaining of refineries not being profitable he just bought two of the three PBF refineries recently.

    http://www.governorsbiofuelscoalition.org/?p=2524

    Part of the article from the link above:

    "

    At the hearing Thursday, O’Malley told lawmakers the renewable fuel standard (RFS) was stealing the market away from refineries by requiring ethanol to replace up to 10 percent of gasoline. He also blamed U.S. EPA for what he described as “aberrant administration†of the 2007 law that created the standard.

    PBF has three refineries, two of them in the Northeast and one in Ohio. O’Malley said the standard has put in doubt the future of those refineries and others along the East Coast.

    “The reason for the closure of the refineries in Pennsylvania is that they didn’t make money,†O’Malley said. “And the reason that they didn’t make money is that you took away their market. You delivered the market to the farm industry.â€

    O’Malley had a sympathetic ear from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who showed a chart at the hearing that compared spiking gas prices and the increase of ethanol blended with gasoline over the past few years." 

    Mr O'Malley's refinery business;

    http://www.pbfenergy.com/board-of-directors

    http://www.pbfenergy.com/management-team

    http://www.pbfenergy.com/company

    Pretty soon Mr O'Malley will also want the Oil Sands pipeline extended to his refineries (if he is not already getting it at Toledo).

     


  5. What a crock!

     

    First- there has not been a new refinery built in over 30 years- so is ethanol to blame for that? Refining margins have not justified the massive permitting and capital costs and that is partly why no construction has occurred. Furthermore like everything else- consolidation has been occurring- it is more economical to operate a 400 million barrel/day refinery than a 75. So, refineries have been closing for years and upgrades have been enlarging the existing refineries. Next- there has been fear for the last 15 years about the new refineries popping up in low enviromental controls areas with cheap labor like India, Indonesia, China, etc-- Oil companies were saying "we cant build because these guys are going to flood the US market with refined products" In addition- since every type of crude requires a refinery design a little different- so just what will you design the refinery to process? Bonnie Light (no- Nigeria too unstable), What about many of the Arab crudes (do i really need to comment?). What about Venezuelan sour? Or tar sand oil? West Texas- the line is too far from the East Coast. Oh- and while we are talking about the East Coast- those refineries have really been stuggling for years because they have to compete with gasoline dumped in the NY Harbor from Europe that now runs on diesel and has little use for gasoline.

     

    So is ethanol to blame? Well- ethanol did displace maybe 8% of gas demand BUT remember gas is a mix of stuff that also are chemical feedstocks. It is the effectiveness of the reduction of demand by the economy, the cash for clunkers, the requirement for more efficient vehicles, the drastic drop in chemical feedstock demand, added costs of regulatory requirements of sulfur reductions in fuels, and many more things I could bring up that have impacted refinery margins/demand. The author is either uniformed, told what to write by his editor, or he is simply the mouthpiece of oil.


  6. Yes- and it allows the oil companies to further lower gasoline feedstock quality just like they did that made ethanol look bad. They can put in more ethanes and butanes which are lower btu content and cheaper- again making gasoline a poorer product (while blaming theRFS/ alcohol families for this) and keeping gas cheaper. read this link;

    http://energy.aol.com/2012/05/01/biofuels-producer-launching-ethanol-replacement/?goback=%2Egde_68087_member_111990349

    And especially this comment in the article;

    "The industrial alcohol provides increased efficiency to refiners when blending gasoline by allowing lighter components like pentane, ethane and butane to remain in the blend. When using biobutanol as a blend stock, refiners can produce a greater volume of gasoline from a barrel of crude oil"

     

    The above is true due to the lower vapor pressures of butanol vs ethanol. Those products are a big part of why winter gas mileage is generally poorer than summer gas. Winter gas can have higher vapor pressures and more butane family in it.


  7. Last I knew- Butanol was not approved as a motor fuel at any inclusion rate since it will require the approvals at all levels (states, federal) and perhaps even UL dispenser testing. Butamax is one of the companies pushing agencies for this but money will not be spent on this chicken before the egg is laid. Because it does not have a fuel path- it will be chemical in the beginnning. Frankly I suspect with the effective lid on ethanol use in the states (many ethanol companies likely do not see the ability to finance, build, or financially support E85 networks) and the chemical route is likely to be far more profitable and sellable to bankers and investors. Just saying----- :-[  You will see more of this, succinic acid, and other chemical production rather than lower margin ethanol production.


  8. Is this just too communal/cooperative like to be accepted here in the USA? We want our new factories bio facilities built somewhere we do not have to see them- would nimbys prevent the hauling in of cellulosic material into cities if located in brownfields near housing? Would folks accept ethanol as fuel if they see it as not competing for food, providing their heat, and natural (bio) gas for cooking and industry?

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/novozymes-biofuel-idINL6E8FPEVE20120426?goback=%2Egde_68087_member_111169982 

    Novozymes joins Danish biofuel plant project Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:30pm IST  * Says takes minority stake to lend support

    * Project aims to bring plant on stream in 2016

    By John Acher

     

    COPENHAGEN, April 26 (Reuters) - Danish enzymes producer Novozymes has joined a group that plans to build a bioethanol and biogas plant in Denmark by 2016 as part of efforts to ramp up industrial production of advanced fuels from plant waste, the company said.

     

    The other partners in the Maabjerg Energy Concept consortium are Danish state-owned DONG Energy [DOENRY.UL} and local utilities Vestforsyning A/S, Struer Forsyning A/S and Nomi I/S.

     

    Poul Ruben Andersen, Novozymes vice-president for bioenergy, told Reuters the company was making a "symbolic investment" but had agreed with the partners not to disclose the amount.

     

    Novozymes, the world's biggest producer of industrial enzymes, has pinned its hopes on a take-off for production of advanced biofuel -- also known as cellulosic ethanol -- from plant waste, such as straw, but which is still in its infancy.

     

    It is now one of the two biggest suppliers of enzymes for production of so-called first-generation bioethanol which is made from food crops, mainly corn, in the United States.

     

    The Maabjerg plant will produce some 94 million cubic metres of biogas, 73 million litres of bioethanol, district heating for 20,000 households and power for several thousand homes, Novozymes said.

     

    Straw from Danish farms would be the main raw material.

     

    The project had earlier estimated the plant would cost more than 2 billion crowns ($354 million) to build.

     

    Novozymes, whose enzymes are used to break down cellulosic biomass into sugars that can be fermented into ethanol, has repeatedly said it would not become a producer of biofuels in competition with its customers.

     

    But in a conference call on the company's first-quarter results, chief executive Steen Riisgaard said on Wednesday he would not rule out taking minority stakes, though the policy not to invest in fuel production assets still holds.

     

    "Of course, if a minority stake is what gives credibility to our case, then we have always been willing to consider small investments to show that we have skin in the game, to get them (partners) started," Riisgaard said.

     

    Andersen said Novozymes' role in the Maabjerg project was to supply enzymes and participate in the development to ensure that its enzymes technology works well with the production process.

     

    "There are a number of similar concepts being worked on around the world, and we are working with other partners elsewhere," Andersen said.

     

    He said the sugars broken down by enzymes could be fermented into bioethanol or biogas. "Some of the biomass is better suited for ethanol and other parts for biogas or heat and electricity," he added.

     

    The Maabjerg project, which now has a pilot plant near the towns of Struer and Holstebro on the Jutland peninsula, would be Denmark's second major plant for second-generation biofuels after DONG Energy unit Inbicon's plant at Kalundborg.

     

    A facility being built in Italy by Italian chemicals group Mossi & Ghisolfi Group (M&G) is expected to be the world's first industrial-scale cellulosic bioethanol plant when it comes on stream this year ahead of rival U.S. projects.

     

    ($1 = 5.6430 Danish crowns) (


  9. I see your point dan, but can't seem to bring myself to support further tax credits, even if defined as short term.  Governments don't have a good record of sticking to short term agreements.  Wasn't the income tax only suppose to be short term during WW1?  Wasn't the DoE suppose to be a short term solution to end our reliance on imported energy?

     

    Past tax credits for ethanol very rarely went to the consumer or even the producer... mostly went to the blender/distributor/big-oil.  These folks don't need subsidizing.

     

    After decades of supports, subsidies, credits and mandates, the once fledgling ethanol industry (which I'd say is entering adolescence now) is trying to find it's place in the market.  Intervention at this point would only delay/prevent market forces from taking effect.

     

    I'm an avid e85 user, and don't get me wrong, who wouldn't like to see the price they pay subsidized to lower... but I don't think it would help/be worth it IMHO.

     

    I understand where you are coming from Husker and realize this will feed the "anti-subsidy folks" BUT E85 users in most states pay more road tax per mile than ANY other fuel user. In fact if driving the typical FFV-roughly about 24% more than gas and 30% more than diesel users since taxes are volumetric rather than energy based. Until that is fixed (with govt always loves hidden taxes that bring more revenue so forget it being fixed) then an outright alternative tax credit is needed to at least balance it with other new alternative fuels (and gasoline) that it competes with. In my state CNG not only gets a lower state tax (it and LPG are taxed with btu adjustment) but also qualifies for the alternative fuels credit I believe.


  10. Just  a little fyi.  Speedway is a subsidiary of Marathon Oil.  Kudos to Marathon.

    Yes- and Marathon is partnered with "The Andersons" in the ethanol business. :)

     

    I want some of that 2.84 E85 - -KWIK TRIP IS STILL CHARGING $3.299 HERE! >:(

     

    The decision of what gets said on the signs and E0 vs E10 is usually a decision by the retailer if the brand offers both at the terminal. Also- what a brand offers and promotes is often a regional thing. For example- before RFS the brand most likely to offer E10 was one who was farthest from it's refinery and closest to ethanol.


  11. Jim- both Ford and GM had their share of problems with "Virtual", though it sure got better to the point I stopped hearing of problems (other than MPG). I am guessing that the direct injection coupled with higher compression is less tolerant to miscalculations when gas is introduced and timing is still advanced for E85 the prior tank?  OR- emissions ratings on cold start?

     

    In the beginning of virtual I found myself repeatedly having to educate dealers and customers about the service bulletins (and quiet warranties)- there were errors in algorithms and errors in the start maps and as a fuel retailer I got blamed first. Dealers learned to not do this to me because I would involve the state fuel inspector and the customer if they passed the buck on a known ECU problem. Most dealers were great though.


  12. No help here on the Continental sensor. Still have a 2001 S10 with the original sensor and in my mind it was superior to the algorithim method (virtual) that followed- at least the early ones. The real sensor allowed the mix to be determined and dial in immediately- not wait for about 5 miles to figure it out while hoping the vehicle remained in closed loop. It also eliminated the chance that a consumer who lived a few blocks from the station and just switched fuels from empty on gas to full tank E85 would get a great start due to the right cold start map being readied before shutdown. It could see immediately if the consumer left the car run while filling and did not require programming that needed key off filling so that key on saw the change in fuel volume to force the algorithm recalculation. Furthermore- It would see M85 (methanol) as even higher level of alcohol and by default set the initial A/F higher. The S10's owners (like myself) generally saw an 88-86% of range on E85 vs gas which was far better than the V6's and V8's that were algorithm. Part of that was likely fast warmup and departure from cold start enrichment but I feel GM had the thing dialed in much tighter with the assurance of knowing the exact alcohol (and required A/F). It NEVER had a hard start hot or cold and I documented 1/3 the shifts on cruise over small hills (same course/same weather)--better power/torque.

     

    The real issue for deletion of these i believe was to keep vehicle purchase price lower.


  13. That surprises me a little on the trucking side-

     

    Doesn't surprise me in the least.  90% plus of the local trucks that have the needed permits are already committed to hauling fuel for other contracts.  These companies don't add capacity to their fleet without having work lined up ahead of time.  There is ALOT of expense to add even one tractor/trailer combo if you don't have work for it.

     

    Here the tanker trucking business is still in excess supply- the 2009 slowdown in the economy and the cash for clunkers program cut fuel sales by approx 15-20%. I was approached by several firms wanting my business.


  14. Thank you for the suggestion, I already sent a request for information out to him.  I would think that this would be right up their alley.  Simply connecting interested people to increase the market in the industry.

     

    Don't know why I didn't think of this.  Would Growth Energy also be a potential resource for leads?

    Yes - but since Ron is in your own state and possibly has his own supply for his two- I would sure be persistent with contacting him. Perhaps you can work together.


  15. Dont waste a position on E10 or E0 if other pumps exist in the facility--- E20, E50, E70, E85, and for the race crowd or chemical folks- E98 (race guys will dilute to their own requirments). Problem with E98 (or E95) is that many states will not allow it lest a customer fill with it and experience cold start issue.

    While an infinite blender may be ideal and the two blend components could be the prices posted- I doubt any state weights and measures dept, consumer protection agency, etc would allow such vagueness in price. They always assume the customer to be of very low ability/awareness and as such have always had requirements for posting each final product.


  16. Outlaw...I'm in!  ;D 

     

    How are things with you?

     

    We were dodging tornados last night...late night!  On our way to church now.  I'm needing it after the last week on GB...haha  :o

    I propose a legal and moral route this time- unlike my ancestors who had issues with town burnings, rail diversions, and bank "loans". Now that I have specified the elevation of the path- anyone have a road suggestion?  ;D


  17. >:( I say it  is high time we round up the outlaw gang.  May we ride again!  Even if we fail, we can make our mark in history and go down in a blaze of glory.

     

     

    haha...I like the way you think mtbottle!  ;)

     

    You know GC it would not be all that hard to put together. Jim, Bob, and myself are hanging out around Lawrence KS and I think Jesse and Frank are not far away with Quantrell. ;D


  18. Dan- i stopped by this location today and the blender needs to be registered on the "prices" website;

    http://e85prices.com/e85map.php?Search=Wisconsin, Columbus, 1250 Park Avenue

    This pump is a full blender with the following blends and prices- he is a good guy and trys to stay competitive;

    E10 3.68,

    E15 3.65

    E25 3.59

    E50 3.55

    E85 3.19

    BTW- I got 34 mpg traveling home 65 miles@ 60 mph, mostly rural hwy, with 7.5 gal E85 and 6.5 gal E10 in the tank (E50 tank mix). This is an '08 Impala 3.5L FFV with 215,500 miles on the odometer. If I do pure city driving that mpg will drop to 23-27 mpg 8)

     

×
×
  • Create New...