X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm7.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.208] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 4981812 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 12 May 2011 14:48:32 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.237.208; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net Received: from [66.94.237.201] by nm7.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 May 2011 18:47:55 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.106] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 May 2011 18:47:55 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1011.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 May 2011 18:47:55 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 653171.29586.bm@omp1011.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 45719 invoked from network); 12 May 2011 18:47:55 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bellsouth.net; s=s1024; t=1305226075; bh=EkWCnsvwH+xLnpx+8EsZdrG4h8WPWQJHtDQ+80TZoQA=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=KrFqiRZZXMf/2QeXyp8EU5IAgPxvJhNOW1T0RzObEMIW9Z/KygjZLErZG7SYjiKRPpEGhWqv6BuaHp/e6eJsW8JwxtBKyLigp5Ra4A7P5KGDEb7mBbJFupGNVFJRIxmC5X8E/z/gwgufP1YFSkgrm63oFrxEEZ+R/GM/76aWHvs= Received: from [192.168.10.8] (ceengland@74.240.6.78 with plain) by smtp110.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 May 2011 11:47:54 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: uXJ_6LOswBCr8InijhYErvjWlJuRkoKPGNeiuu7PA.5wcGoy X-YMail-OSG: RQIbj_8VM1kk0cWfrIkOhKDWuVik4mVJ693vjqP9PhakawR PMKORW.lk03lZSWqpc7uaPChgUe_WDjGrXQFVIUSYT0HVHl9txtixN0XrsEO Us9_NNfXy7RCoMG3FeRf4ma_SpAExkhQjDd.tVV1a4b1uLoF8aYcQL29BbkV iETHcG0UZJx2Fyn4PJW7PR5re.ILBjdAMR1W6tMRBfsEtoJ4yxm9K1d_PQz2 DGkY48KoowUyT30Dovo4sGBBfyGED9gcgBaqC8jqZA_osstdIhOtc9Xt5jTz XtihBDs5DgtEJStGyfF0CY4JKEXdjCCET4kxT7kh8uOM5NH7n1s9QMrBrLT3 1q3NTwimJcpxmbEFO6sie_PhiBbVcQ9V0IoVB8R4ETx022icDPA0swhvvWJi MrJLI8XFkqC8kVGmMq.X0Pm5kr_Bdk8.srdgzJipw_ayQXftBX_UQZ2B98p9 uFnB.ZRWuHPo7yiIcPH0pWUzz7cWrRIHo9Gfbjirc.M6R0MSGAugq.ArSyAO Bk3OqJo953OyRVLQjmgksAPkyyosGGxC2X3dyXQKpion2NSBvanCRxGLBsq9 JlZTliQ8Lp3HNSjVoVqf6 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DCC2B59.9010708@bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:47:53 -0500 From: Charlie England User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070103040008000404080207" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070103040008000404080207 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To solve a problem, 1st correctly define the problem. :-) The reason alcohol is in gas is the corn lobby. If corn didn't work to make alcohol, alcohol wouldn't be in gas. Evidence: virtually every other source stock for alcohol production is more efficient than corn, yet corn is where the subsidies are allocated. Apologies for the political overtones, but the inclusion of corn squeezings *all* about politics, not clean air. Our politicians are the best that money can buy. Charlie On 5/12/2011 10:29 AM, Al Gietzen wrote: > > The pure-gas.org lists only 3 sources in all of California. I've > checked the local marinas around San Diego, and the response I get is > "all fuel in CA contains 10 % ethanol". > > I've tested the fuel I've been buying at the local Chevron stations, > and it has 10% ethanol. I've been using that fuel almost exclusively > for 5 years in my Velocity(EZpoxy tanks), and am not aware of any > problems sp far. It does cause me some anxiety, however; so I'm > considering more extensive use of 100LL. > > Seems ironic -- one good reason for using mogas is eliminating the > lead pollution; which the regulators are trying to achieve; and then > they regulate the requirement for ethanol in the fuel which makes that > a bad choice as well. Typical bureaucratic lose-lose situation. > > Al > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Bill Bradburry > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:17 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California > > You can find non-ethanol gas at boat docks that you can get to with > your car if you are willing to pay more for it. I get about 3 MPG > improvement without ethanol so 12-13 % more would be breakeven. > > Bill B > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Michael McMahon > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:25 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California > > Wouldn't it be cool if you had a choice of ethanol-enhanced and > non-ethanol at gas stations? They could charge more for non-ethanol > if you like, but reserve at least one pump per station for non-ethanol > gas. Would that be difficult? Perhaps it could even be done on a > station by station basis, just through personal contact, at least > starting with the independent station owners. > > mike > > *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] > *On Behalf Of *Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:35 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California > > Bill, > > You could be right on that. It surely won't hurt to put a little > pressure on the FAA to find/approve an alternative aviation fuel. > Personally, I would be happy if they would make premium auto fuel > ethanol free. > > On another note, with the time it takes for things to work their way > through the court system, it will be years before this gets resolved. > The oil companies can afford to hire the best attorneys. > > Mark S. > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Bill Bradburry > > wrote: > > This may not be all bad. It could cause Swift fuel and that stuff > GAMI is making to be approved. Swift fuel costs about $2/gal and will > not go up and down in price like Avgas. You could pay more for it > since it is about 8% more fuel efficient. > > Bill B > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net > ] *On Behalf Of *Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:30 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] FW: 100LL in California > > In case any of you missed this... who's next? > > *California Suit Targets 100LL* > > Description: http://www.avweb.com/newspics/100ll.jpgA California > environmental group has served notice it will sue more than 40 > suppliers of avgas in the state to force them to stop selling it. > The*Center for Environmental Health* has > given a legally-required 60 days of notice to all the major oil > companies that sell 100LL and the FBOs that pump it at 25 airports > to stop. "The oil and aviation industries need to know > Californians will not tolerate lead pollution that threatens our > health and healthy environments," Michael Green, executive > director of CEH, said in a statement. "We expect the industries to > take immediate action to eliminate pollution that endangers > children and families who live, work and play near airports across > the state." CEH cites *a 2008 EPA report* > s > that show avgas is polluting the air and in some cases groundwater > around airports with piston traffic. > > CEH notes that Van Nuys Airport, one of the busiest GA airports in > the U.S., shows the highest level of lead pollution of more than > 3,000 airports covered in the report. As we've reported and > commented on extensively, the EPA is now considering its options > in dealing with 100LL in response to a petition from Friends of > the Earth. The CEH route is a little more direct. It alleges > violations of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic > Enforcement Act. Protesters recently staged a small rally outside > Santa Monica Airport complaining about lead pollution. > --------------070103040008000404080207 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------070408060206000309080902" --------------070408060206000309080902 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To solve a problem, 1st correctly define the problem. :-)

The reason alcohol is in gas is the corn lobby. If corn didn't work to make alcohol, alcohol wouldn't be in gas. Evidence: virtually every other source stock for alcohol production is more efficient than corn, yet corn is where the subsidies are allocated.

Apologies  for the political overtones, but the inclusion of corn squeezings *all* about politics, not clean air. Our politicians are the best that money can buy.

Charlie

On 5/12/2011 10:29 AM, Al Gietzen wrote:

The pure-gas.org lists only 3 sources in all of California.  I’ve checked the local marinas around San Diego, and the response I get is “all fuel in CA contains 10 % ethanol”.

 

I’ve tested the fuel I’ve been buying at the local Chevron stations, and it has 10% ethanol. I’ve been using that fuel almost exclusively for 5 years in my Velocity (EZpoxy tanks), and am not aware of any problems sp far.  It does cause me some anxiety, however; so I’m considering more extensive use of 100LL.

 

Seems ironic – one good reason for using mogas is eliminating the lead pollution; which the regulators are trying to achieve; and then they regulate the requirement for ethanol in the fuel which makes that a bad choice as well.  Typical bureaucratic lose-lose situation.

 

Al

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 9:17 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California

 

You can find non-ethanol gas at boat docks that you can get to with your car if you are willing to pay more for it.  I get about 3 MPG improvement without ethanol so 12-13 % more would be breakeven.

 

Bill B

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Michael McMahon
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:25 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California

 

Wouldn’t it be cool if you had a choice of ethanol-enhanced and non-ethanol at gas stations?  They could charge more for non-ethanol if you like, but reserve at least one pump per station for non-ethanol gas.  Would that be difficult?  Perhaps it could even be done on a station by station basis, just through personal contact, at least starting with the independent station owners.

 

mike

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:35 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL in California

 

Bill,

 

You could be right on that.  It surely won't hurt to put a little pressure on the FAA to find/approve an alternative aviation fuel.  Personally, I would be happy if they would make premium auto fuel ethanol free. 

 

On another note, with the time it takes for things to work their way through the court system, it will be years before this gets resolved.  The oil companies can afford to hire the best attorneys.

 

Mark S.

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

This may not be all bad.  It could cause Swift fuel and that stuff GAMI is making to be approved.  Swift fuel costs about $2/gal and will not go up and down in price like Avgas.  You could pay more for it since it is about 8% more fuel efficient.

 

Bill B

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:30 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] FW: 100LL in California

 

In case any of you missed this...  who's next?

 

California Suit Targets 100LL

Description: http://www.avweb.com/newspics/100ll.jpgA California environmental group has served notice it will sue more than 40 suppliers of avgas in the state to force them to stop selling it. TheCenter for Environmental Healthhas given a legally-required 60 days of notice to all the major oil companies that sell 100LL and the FBOs that pump it at 25 airports to stop. "The oil and aviation industries need to know Californians will not tolerate lead pollution that threatens our health and healthy environments," Michael Green, executive director of CEH, said in a statement. "We expect the industries to take immediate action to eliminate pollution that endangers children and families who live, work and play near airports across the state." CEH cites a 2008 EPA reports that show avgas is polluting the air and in some cases groundwater around airports with piston traffic.

CEH notes that Van Nuys Airport, one of the busiest GA airports in the U.S., shows the highest level of lead pollution of more than 3,000 airports covered in the report. As we've reported and commented on extensively, the EPA is now considering its options in dealing with 100LL in response to a petition from Friends of the Earth. The CEH route is a little more direct. It alleges violations of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Protesters recently staged a small rally outside Santa Monica Airport complaining about lead pollution.

 

 

 

 

 


--------------070408060206000309080902 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhIAAgAHcAMSH+GlNvZnR3YXJlOiBNaWNyb3NvZnQgT2ZmaWNlACH5BAEAAAAALAAA AAABAAEAgAAAAAECAwICRAEAOw== --------------070408060206000309080902-- --------------070103040008000404080207--