Non-Ethanol fuel in Washington

fishee2":3qonnf1b said:
Well....since is too far for me to drive all the way up north every time to get Non-ethanol gas.

I use the blue/green stabil stuff every time I fill up my tanks.
Click to expand...

I get it at the local farm co-op in Snohomish, so it can be found. They truck it all the way up from Tacoma, as the Anacortes refineries no longer offer it. It's more expensive as a result. :roll:
 
In 2012, the corn ethanol industry spent $22.3 million – or over $61,000 per day - lobbying before the U.S. Congress and federal agencies

that is deep pockets

and...

The federal government has in one form or another provided lucrative subsidies to the corn ethanol industry for more than 30 years, wasting tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in the process
 
BrentB":8d0jdj29 said:
In 2012, the corn ethanol industry spent $22.3 million – or over $61,000 per day - lobbying before the U.S. Congress and federal agencies

that is deep pockets

and...

The federal government has in one form or another provided lucrative subsidies to the corn ethanol industry for more than 30 years, wasting tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in the process
Click to expand...

It's gov't policy. It has no bearing and does not rely on facts, reality, common sense or results.
 
The ethanol story is complicated. (Some chemist may clarify this better than I) Gas used to have lead added, as an anti knock and wear agent. Because of the health and environmental impact of the lead, MBTE (Tertiary butyl methyl ether), was used in place of the lead. MBTE also has some bad qualities for humans and the environment--so corn (cheap ?) ethanol was added, instead, and we know how that is working out--at least for our outboards. It is also part of the "green" movement to have bio-renewable resource. But growing the corn is not cheap (chemicals for soil, pesticides, fuel for the tractors--and many other expensive costs from farming, which we don't all consider).

I personally don't feel that farm subsidies are a good thing, and donate any I get to charity. I don't refuse them--because that causes all sorts of governmental issues (Just as my treating Medicaid patients for no fee caused issues). Also, the sharecroppers who work the farm need the subsidy. (Although they have a full time job).

Unfortunately just Stabil does not always prevent the issues in carburetors--I run the fuel out, and drain what is left.
 
Bob, I'm a chemist, and alcohol in fuel gripes me more than it does you, I suspect. Here is the full story:

The energy budget for generating the alcohol used in fuel, if sourced from corn, consumes as much petroleum as the alcohol replaces. This was predicted ahead of time, amd reported in reputable scientific publications. Despite this, a combination of green politics agricultural lobbying, and actions by congress lead to the alcohol in fuel mandate ... as a replacemenf for MTBE ... to maintain the octane needed for modern engines. So blame Congress, green groups, the africulture lobby, or those who voted in the folks who approved alcohol, but it ain't "the government" which made it happen.

Forgot: the alcohol has a lesser number of BTUs than the petroleum it replaces, so that also engines now consume more fuel per mile. Surely others must have noticed this. My 2005 Dodge pickup lost about 2 or 3 mpg in around town driving. My boat lost a couple hundred rpms at WOT.

There is an old Navy term for this sort of debacle, but we can't use it here.
 
AstoriaDave":3o0dh6mr said:
Bob, I'm a chemist, and alcohol in fuel gripes me more than it does you, I suspect. Here is the full story:

The energy budget for generating the alcohol used in fuel, if sourced from corn, consumes as much petroleum as the alcohol replaces. This was predicted ahead of time, amd reported in reputable scientific publications. Despite this, a combination of green politics agricultural lobbying, and actions by congress lead to the alcohol in fuel mandate ... as a replacemenf for MTBE ... to maintain the octane needed for modern engines. So blame Congress, green groups, the africulture lobby, or those who voted in the folks who approved alcohol, but it ain't "the government" which made it happen.

Forgot: the alcohol has a lesser number of BTUs than the petroleum it replaces, so that also engines now consume more fuel per mile. Surely others must have noticed this. My 2005 Dodge pickup lost about 2 or 3 mpg in around town driving. My boat lost a couple hundred rpms at WOT.

There is an old Navy term for this sort of debacle, but we can't use it here.
Click to expand...
Ditto. However, many of the environmental groups of which I am aware oppose ethanol fuel for the reasons you outline above. In addition, many other "left leaners" are opposed to using any food stock (or intermediate in the food supply) for energy production since increased prices for corn drive of the cost of the animals that are fed on corn. So in addition to being energy negative to produce, AND worse for many engines AND containing less BTU's, using corn for fuel is bad social policy due to it's impact on food prices. So like many policies in Washington DC that make no sense, this can all be explained by following the lobbying money.
 
This distributor sells non-ethanol gas here in Seattle. I believe that they supply the station on Lake Union and also Shilshole Marina.

I buy my gas at their plant on the canal just east of the Ballard Locks I see them fueling lots of fishing vessels routinely.


Hmmm,, I copied and pasted ,but below address looks suspect. Anyway the name is --Covich-Williams at 4020 Shilshole Ave here in Ballard.

http://dev.virtualearth.net/REST/v1/Ima ... en-US&od=1
 
Cap Sante Marina fuel dock has non ethanol gas.
 
Agree with all of what Dave notes--it makes no sense…but that is what it is--and still does not explain why there seems to be a decrease in ethanol free fuel in Washington….I suspect that "They" will win.

Who is the government?
 
Back
Top