Mike,
The real problem is that using ethanol to begin with is junk science. All a oxygenate in your fuel does is make you get poorer mileage. All modern fi cars richen the mixture automatically until the O2 sensor says nada. If can cost a full 1-2 mpg.
Bill Jepson
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message-----
From: Michael McMahon <afm528@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wed, May 11, 2011 22:25:09 GMT+00:00
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 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. 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  A 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. |
|