California's Ethanol substitute?

In Memory Walter K · Post by **In Memory Walter K** » Sep 6th, '06, 14:08

Does anyone know what California has substituted for Ethanol in their gasoline? Given the strictest air quality laws in the country, I would have to assume their replacement is a valid one. I'm chasing down Governor Pataki of New York and want to have my facts right. Any help would be appreciated. Walter

CaptPatrick · Post by **CaptPatrick** » Sep 6th, '06, 14:26

Walt,

I think I read or heard where California just backed down their percentage to less than 10% and stoped mandating that any switch over had to be made. I think that maybe Peter has a handle on that topic...

Br,

Patrick

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sep 6th, '06, 15:07

Walter,
I have a contact at the Kalifornia air quality board doing some research. As soon as he calls back I'll post.

In Memory Walter K · Post by **In Memory Walter K** » Sep 6th, '06, 15:24

Build a man a fire, you'll warm him for a night. Set a man on fire and you'll warm him for the rest of his life

Bruce, thanks! Love that quote!

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sep 6th, '06, 17:07

Kalifornia is using 5.7% ethanol.
While they can go as high as 10%, the refineries with that reconstituted gas out there find 5.7% the best balance for now.

They have no plans in the future to change their use of ethanol.
His quote was, "like it or not, ethanol is here to stay".

I made him aware of the problems with those who have fuel tanks open to the atmosphere and he was not concerned at the least.
Their humidity is much lower out there he says.
I don't know, when in LA in 90' and 91' I sweated my ass off as I remember. In February none the less.

Look at it this way. We're at the bottom of the hill. Can't go any lower than we already are. Can only go up.

In Memory Walter K · Post by **In Memory Walter K** » Sep 6th, '06, 17:56

Disappointing-Guess I was missinformed.

R Cahoon · Post by **R Cahoon** » Sep 7th, '06, 11:49

There are multible states that have backed off on Ethanol requirments, but there is no replacement and the refineries by law can't go back to MBTE.

Keep Smilin

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sep 8th, '06, 11:44

The EPA no longer requiers using ethanol to meet clean air standards in CA. That happened around February or March for CA and will happen for all the rest of the USA around November.
However the oil comapnies still must meet the clean air standard for gasoline somehow, and at the moment Ethanol is the easiest way to do so.....but CA is getting down on the ethanol because it causes other forms of pollution. I don't have a handle on exactly what it is that is bugging the Left Coasters pollution-wise at the moment, but it was because of this other pollution that they got the EPA to back of the requierment to use the ethanol in the first place.
MTBE is outlawed in CA and I believe in about 37 other states as well.....what isn't outlawed is ETBE, which ironicly is made from ethanol, but as I understand it, does not have the problems associated with straight ethanol.
Sorry, but my hard drive crappped out and I lost a lot of my links to the ethanol stuff, but if you are realy curious you can either Google for them, or go back to the old bulletin board and look up my posts there.
Peter

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sep 8th, '06, 13:46

Its a catch 22.
EPA mandates clean air.
Oil companies produce the oxygenate MTBE(methanol) to produce cleaner burning gas.

They then realize MTBE dissolves easily in water and from leaking tanks is polluting water tables.
They actually knew this before MTBE was implemented.

They outlaw MTBE then go to ETBE(ethanol) as an oxygenate but soon realize factories that convert corn into ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels many times greater than they promised.

That's what has Kali concerned.

So what do you want, clean air or clean water it seems.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sep 9th, '06, 07:51

Bruce,

Is Cali using ETBE instead of straight ethanol?

For most of us we are getting straight ethanol as an additive, not ETBE because among other things, at this time the EPA's requierment to use straight ethanol still stands. It has already been decided, however that the requierment for ethanol use (by the EPA) is going to expire this fall.

Peter

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sep 9th, '06, 12:19

Here is a reallly basic explanation of EBTE vs. ethanol:

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/clean/cf04.htm

Peter

Rawleigh · Post by **Rawleigh** » Sep 9th, '06, 14:48

Does ETBE react with fiberglass resins or not?

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sep 9th, '06, 16:14

Yes ETBE is ethanol based thus the "E".

In Memory Walter K · Post by **In Memory Walter K** » Sep 9th, '06, 21:51

If I read all this correctly ETBE would correct the phase separation and last minute addition aspects of our present Ethanol fuel, but the "E" in ETBE still would degrade our fiberglass tanks. Correct me if I'm wrong. Walter

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sep 10th, '06, 16:44

The ETBE is a much bigger molecule and would not have the permeability issues of straight Ethanol, so the blistering failures would be less of a problem unless there were real big defects in the gelcoat.

I do not know what the isues would be re: reacting with the resins. Since the article states that ETBE would be compatible with the refiners' equipment, and we know they use fiberglass tanks and pipes, I assume that the ETBE would be OK at least with some resins used in GRP construction. That is no worse than where we are now, and if you get rid of the phase separation stuff and the on-site blending issues it would be a big step forward.

bertram31.com

California's Ethanol substitute?

California's Ethanol substitute?

Who is online