What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Fix for Oregon's Ethanol Requirement?

RScott

Well Known Member
As you may know, the legislature is meeting for only one month this year. They are in a hurry to fix the ethanol problems they created last summer, which mandated that all gas sold in Oregon contain 10% ethanol. But in their haste, their "fix" won't fix anything for aircraft that use mogas. Senate bill 1079 a cardlock bill, was amended last week to specifically exempt fuel sold for aircraft, off road vehicles and small engines from the ethanol requirement, without recognizing that nobody will carry the stuff. They were misinformed during a hearing that ethanol is added at the gas pump, leading them to believe that you could pull in to the gas station, pull out your jugs and ask for ethanol free gas. Wrong! The gas has ethanol in it when it is delivered to the gas station.

Their intentions are right, their solution is wrong.

Oregon gets it's gas via pipelines from Washington and Utah. Pipelines terminate in Portland, Eugene and Boise. All petroleum brands use the same base stock from the pipeline, then add their own stuff to make it Shell, Texaco, etc. and to up the octane to make premium. When it is pumped into the truck to be hauled to the distributor, ethanol is added. Gas stations have only 2 tanks for gasoline, regular and premium. Mid grade is obtained by mixing regular and premium at the pump.

Write your legislators and demand that SB 1079 be amended to exempt all premium sold in the state from the ethanol requirement and that mid grade be allowed to be sold at 5% ethanol. Approximately 1/3 of the piston powered aircraft in the state can use mogas. Nationwide premium and midgrade represent only 17% of the market.

Write to your legislators. Do it today, as votes are schedule for this week. Find who to write to at: http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/

And also check here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/agenda/ to find out who is on the transportation and the environment and energy committee. Write them, especially if your legislator is on one of these committees.
 
I will but

I doubt it will make one iota of difference.

What is the AOPA/EAA doing about this?

Frank
 
Not Optimistic

Michigan still hasn't passed the law, but the major brands are already about 5% ethanol. Buy and use a tester.
 
The legislature's attempt to fix the ethanol mess came about because many of us did write, emailed and called to protest the original bill. You may doubt it will do any good to bug them, but we got this far because we raised a stink.

BTW, when they held hearings last spring before they passed the E10 requirement, the only people who showed up to testify were from ethanol producers and advocates. Aviation didn't know anything about the bill until after it passed.
 
Well, you could do what we do here in communist Massachusetts. We have MOGAS trucked in and delivered to 2 airports and it complies with the Petersen STC.

It is in Plymouth, MA (KPYM my home port) and Stow, MA.

If your airport manager has questions, I am sure that Tom, my airport manager could answer them for him.

;) CJ

P.S. In case you didn't know it, we have had alcohol in our fuel for quite a while too.
 
Study: Ethanol may add to global warming

Maybe this might help us...


Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
Fri Feb 8, 4:59 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn ? and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass ? become a prized commodity.

"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.

The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.

The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."

"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.

There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.

The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted ? both in Congress and by the White House ? as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.

During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20 percent less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70 percent less emissions.

The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.

"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.

The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Not all ethanol would be affected by the land-use changes, the study said.

"We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products" such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said in an interview. "And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don't require too much too fast. Right now we're making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels."

The study included co-authors affiliated with Iowa State University, the Woods Hole Research Center and the Agricultural Conservation Economics. It was supported in part indirectly by a grants from NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program, and by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Searchinger, in addition to his affiliation with Princeton, is a fellow at the Washington-based German Marshall Fund of the United States.

The study prompted a letter Thursday to President Bush and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress from nearly a dozen scientists who urged them to pursue a policy "that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forests, grassland or cropland."

"Some opportunities remain to produce environmentally beneficial biofuels" while "unsound biofuel policies could sacrifice tens of hundreds of million of acres" of grasslands and forests while increasing global warming, said the scientists, including four members of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
Email sent

Hard to say if it will help, but I fired off an email to my Senator and Rep. Thankfully with Vans & Lancair being based here, not to mention Columb... er Cessna plus several other smaller companies, the aviation lobby is relatively strong.
 
Quick response from Rep. Mitch Greenlick

Already got a response to my email from my state representative, email exchange below:

That seems reasonable to me. If it comes to the floor of the house it is likely I would support that modification.

Mitch

From: Bill & Karen Inman
Sent: Mon 2/11/2008 11:54 PM
To: SEN Avakian; REP Greenlick
Subject: Ethanol danger for aviators

Senator Avakian & Representative Greenlick,

As an avid pilot and builder of a Vans RV7A, I highly recommend that
you support revisions related to the mandatory 10% ethanol
legislation in Oregon (SB1079). While I support the concept behind
pushing ethanol for use in automobiles, especially in regular
unleaded, it is critical that premium fuel be exempted from the
requirement so that a reliable source is available for pilots. Auto
fuel without ethanol is a great alternative to aviation fuel
specifically because it does not have the lead that is found in av-
gas, but it must be pure. Ethanol is not compatible with aviation
fuel systems and its presence in the system could lead to accidents.

I realize that the population of pilots flying with auto fuel is
relatively low, but the impact of exempting premium from the
mandatory ethanol requirement is also low. Regular unleaded
represents almost 90% of the fuel consumed, so limiting the
requirement for 10% ethanol to regular gas would still have the
impact the legislature intended while still ensuring that an adequate
supply of ethanol-free fuel exists for the appropriate applications.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bill Inman
 
They need to understand that when exempting premium they need to allow mid grade to go to 5% since mid grade is made by mixing regular and premium at the pump.

Even then, the ethanol advocates will get more ethanol than the stats suggest. Producers are using ethanol as an octane booster, depending on the prices of ethanol and other octane boosters. So if you cross the river to Washington where E10 is not yet required and check stations on Evergreen Blvd. in Vancouver, east of I-205, the first station you come to with no ethanol is the across from the old and closed Evergreen Airport.
 
Cool

Mine is going off this afternoond and i will add that if we can't get an exemption they House has basically dictated that we will burn leaded fuel and pump a whole bunch of lead out all over creation...Good for the environment i think NOT!

Frank
 
Back
Top