View Full Version : EPA: new minimum 4 gallon gas purchase
The EPA wants everyone to have to buy a minimum of 4 gallons of gas at a time.
With prices at the pump worrying Americans, Republicans have railed against the Environmental Protection Agency’s new gas mandate that requires consumers to buy at least four gallons when purchasing from stations with hoses containing 10 percent and 15 percent ethanol-blended fuel.
On Monday, Republicans on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Chief Administrator Lisa Jackson criticizing the agency’s approval of the sale of gasoline containing 15 volume percent ethanol.
Specifically, the EPA will require that consumers purchase a minimum of four gallons when buying from a gas station that sells gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol and 15 percent ethanol — also known as “E15″ — out of the same gas pump.
Gas stations may also have a dedicated hose for selling E15.
“The EPA has no business telling Americans how much fuel they must purchase,” the letter from Republican committee members Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Chip Cravaack of Minnesota.
“Furthermore, EPA’s first-ever fuel purchase requirement appears to have been made outside the normal rulemaking process, seems antithetical to free markets, and highlights the flaws in the agency’s hasty decision to grant partial waivers for E15 prior to comprehensive scientific evaluation and assessment,” the congressmen continue.
The concern comes over a letter between the EPA and the American Motorcyclist Association regarding E15 waiver implementation.
In the letter, the EPA said that “in the case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose” the agency would require people to purchase “at least four gallons of fuel” in order to prevent vehicles with smaller fuel tanks from being exposed to fuel blends greater than 10 volume percent ethanol.
“What if a rider doesn’t have a motorcycle with a four gallon tank?” Sensenbrenner asked in a statement. “Or if someone wants to fill a canister for their lawnmower or outboard boat engine, but it only holds 2 or 3 gallons? Or what if an American, struggling in this economy, just can’t afford 4 gallons of gas?”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/14/republicans-criticize-four-gallon-epa-gas-purchase-mandate/#ixzz26gCH1AmV
Just pour that extra gas on the asphalt.
How about we do away with E15 and E10. It's just a damn farm subsidy anyway. Put corn back where it belongs, the food system.
mallowpufft
09-16-12, 19:41
Not that I don't usually buy 7+ gallons at a time but for mowers and such I only have one and two gallon cans.
Thankfully I usually spend the extra money to buy from ethanol free gas stations.
Also, the EPA needs to STFU.
Tapatalk ate my spelling and grammar.
How about we do away with E15 and E10. It's just a damn farm subsidy anyway. Put corn back where it belongs, the food system.
I have a much better idea, how about we do away with the EPA and the commies that staff it!
I have a much better idea, how about we do away with the EPA and the commies that staff it!
Best solution
I buy 50+ gallons at a time but this is bullshit. Can't the EPA & the other useless agencies wait until this country gets back on their feet before making more laws to make life harder for us?
Here in sunny CA, we have been getting hit with the new diesel smog laws. I now have to smog my diesel pickup truck. I would have had to smog my generator in my truck also to but I squeaked by due to being 2HP under the limit. They're going after off highway equipment such as tractors, generators, industrial equipment, etc... 2014 is going to be the big one for semi trucks. My friends who are owner/operator truck drivers are going to have to buy $30K smog retrofit kits for their trucks or sell them out of state & replace them with "Green" (I ****ing hate that term) newer trucks.
I asked a freind recently what he would do with his older Kenworth truck when the smog laws go into effect for him. He said he can't afford the $30K for a smog retrofit, can't afford a new truck, so he will drive it until they pull him out of it physically & then go on welfare. Right now he's a productive taxpayer. After this bullshit, our broke ass state will be paying him. Makes sense right?
(Before you post the usual "You choose to stay there" crap, I'm planning on leaving this state in a few years.)
Straight Shooter
09-17-12, 07:34
Before I quit OTR driving about 6 years ago..I got into SEVERAL blowout arguments about going to Kalifornia. It got to where toward the end I would flat tell my dispatcher "Im NOT going to Kalifornia, and Ive got enough fuel to get home in this truck, so if you try to make me go, Ill quit right now and deadhead home". I never did go back for the last several years I drove. I flat dont ****in care who likes it or not, Kalifornia SUCKS, and if it fell into the ocean tonight, why Id go have me a beer or 10 to celebrate.
Ill NEVER set foot in that commie state again for any reason.
davidjinks
09-17-12, 10:42
So what happens if I don't buy a minimum of 4 gallons of gas?
You get charged for it anyway.
So what happens if I don't buy a minimum of 4 gallons of gas?
I don't know, but my bike only took 4gal total and the light came on at 3.5. I tried not to run it all the way out, for obvious reasons. But always remember "government is force not reason".
ChicagoTex
09-17-12, 22:26
The main article touches on, but really doesn't emphasize the fact that that 10/15 same hose pumps use a mixer in the pump to join the ethanol and gas, so if your engine runs on E10 and the last person using the pump pumped E15, there will still be E15 in the line, making your first couple gallons around E12-13 even if you dial up E10. This can be absolutely ruinous to small engines (hell, the E10 is pretty damn ruinous too).
I'm not going to go in to the 6 bizillion reasons using ethanol at all is full retard because I suspect most here know them already, but the fact of the matter is IF gas stations are going to be selling E15/E10 out of single mixer pumps, 4 gallons really is the minimum calculated amount for which any E15 in the line can be acceptably diluted to approximately E10.
In short: this is a reasonable and necessary (though frankly very unpragmatic) rule to enforce an insanely idiotic policy.
Solution:
Take the extra gas, use it to make a few Molotov's', and . . . . use your imagination
montanadave
09-17-12, 23:50
The main article touches on, but really doesn't emphasize the fact that that 10/15 same hose pumps use a mixer in the pump to join the ethanol and gas, so if your engine runs on E10 and the last person using the pump pumped E15, there will still be E15 in the line, making your first couple gallons around E12-13 even if you dial up E10. This can be absolutely ruinous to small engines (hell, the E10 is pretty damn ruinous too).
I'm not going to go in to the 6 bizillion reasons using ethanol at all is full retard because I suspect most here know them already, but the fact of the matter is IF gas stations are going to be selling E15/E10 out of single mixer pumps, 4 gallons really is the minimum calculated amount for which any E15 in the line can be acceptably diluted to approximately E10.
In short: this is a reasonable and necessary (though frankly very unpragmatic) rule to enforce an insanely idiotic policy.
Given the rather rabid prevailing sentiment amongst most participants here in the GD forum, you don't actually expect such a rational explanation for this policy to cut any mustard, do you?
ChicagoTex
09-18-12, 00:29
Given the rather rabid prevailing sentiment amongst most participants here in the GD forum, you don't actually expect such a rational explanation for this policy to cut any mustard, do you?
Eh, all I can do is try.
...you don't actually expect such a rational explanation for this policy to cut any mustard, do you?
If there was any rational thought put into the policy we would be talking about E0 gas...
If there was any rational thought put into the policy we would be talking about E0 gas...
If we used rational thought we would realize the government doesn't have any damn business regulating how much ethanol is or isn't in our gasoline in the first place. But again, IF we used rational thought. But you're a racist seal-clubbing Nazi if you do that :blink:
I have a much better idea, how about we do away with the EPA and the commies that staff it!
i often wonder what people think the world would look like without the epa... what is this mysterious dream world that everyone so fantasizes about?
perhaps no one should ever mandate the cleanups of oil spills, mining waste, regulate potable water standards... perhaps there shouldn't be rules for anything that everyone has no choice but to share...
The main article touches on, but really doesn't emphasize the fact that that 10/15 same hose pumps use a mixer in the pump to join the ethanol and gas, so if your engine runs on E10 and the last person using the pump pumped E15, there will still be E15 in the line, making your first couple gallons around E12-13 even if you dial up E10. This can be absolutely ruinous to small engines (hell, the E10 is pretty damn ruinous too).
I'm not going to go in to the 6 bizillion reasons using ethanol at all is full retard because I suspect most here know them already, but the fact of the matter is IF gas stations are going to be selling E15/E10 out of single mixer pumps, 4 gallons really is the minimum calculated amount for which any E15 in the line can be acceptably diluted to approximately E10.
In short: this is a reasonable and necessary (though frankly very unpragmatic) rule to enforce an insanely idiotic policy.
it could be that it is a multipronged attack on the future of transportation fuel in america.
is the end goal to use corn based ethanol forever? i don't think so.
such a ridiculous mandate will eventually have an exception. flex fuel vehicles need not heed, agreed?
i would speculate that the end goal is more manufactures make more flex fuel vehicles and the united states moves towards nearly pure ethanol as the main transportation fuel mainly because no one on this forum or anywhere else can come up with something better given legacy infrastructure and current technologies.
Running E15 in small engines is probably a really bad idea from the get-go. Most small 4-cycles, lawn mowers, pumps, generators, etc., cannot handle the high alcohol content in lines, gaskets, floats, etc.; they were never designed for it. Putting such a high concentration of alcohol in a 2-cycle is probably just as bad an idea. Once small engines, in equipment and cycles is removed from the equation for the lack of suitability this pretty much becomes a non-issue. Preventing, or limiting dispensing to cans, like the small container provision for E15 proposes may actually go a long way in preventing damage to small engines.
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjShBBKl82S_3FJJaz9_Opt43H82WCl2_jYQV2PqsX9oz7cc8iVQ
Moose-Knuckle
09-19-12, 01:53
i often wonder what people think the world would look like without the epa... what is this mysterious dream world that everyone so fantasizes about?
perhaps no one should ever mandate the cleanups of oil spills, mining waste, regulate potable water standards... perhaps there shouldn't be rules for anything that everyone has no choice but to share...
As a substitute for gold, Nixon promised U.S. lands as collateral. That was when the Environment Protection Agency was born . . . to keep U.S. citizens away from stolen lands "legally" in the name of environmentalism. The globalists spin climate change and all that jazz for their own gain.
ChicagoTex
09-19-12, 02:46
It bears mentioning that this EPA created rule is a byproduct of ethanol mandates that were and continue to be created and voted in by Congress. If you actually did shut down the EPA entirely tomorrow, the ethanol production/distribution/consumption mandate would still be very much in place.
it could be that it is a multipronged attack on the future of transportation fuel in america.
is the end goal to use corn based ethanol forever? i don't think so.
such a ridiculous mandate will eventually have an exception.
I strongly doubt it's an "attack" of any sort. It's pretty transparent that the goal of ethanol mandates from the get go has basically been for the corn farmers (and the lobbyists who represent them through copious campaign funding of anyone with a modicum of legislative power) to get what they can while the getting's good. Yes, it won't last forever, but that doesn't mean everybody involved isn't content to accept the money they're making hand over fist currently.
flex fuel vehicles need not heed, agreed?
I don't understand what you're saying. Flex Fuel vehicles need not heed what?
i would speculate that the end goal is more manufactures make more flex fuel vehicles and the united states moves towards nearly pure ethanol as the main transportation fuel mainly because no one on this forum or anywhere else can come up with something better given legacy infrastructure and current technologies.
If you exercise a little Google-fu you'll discover that there are several major research departments departments around the world who are currently testing synthetic gasoline and/or diesel made from renewable resources like algae and wheat chaff with extremely promising results. Moreover, as E85 has demonstrated, ethanol is a very inefficient substitute for gasoline, particularly if you're attempting to run on pure ethanol.
The fact of the matter is that any way you cut it, ethanol sucks even if you solve the durability problem and enough people know it that it's unlikely to be viewed as a truly satisfactory replacement for gasoline or diesel. At least plug-in electric cars are fairly cheap to fill up.
Running E15 in small engines is probably a really bad idea from the get-go. Most small 4-cycles, lawn mowers, pumps, generators, etc., cannot handle the high alcohol content in lines, gaskets, floats, etc.; they were never designed for it. Putting such a high concentration of alcohol in a 2-cycle is probably just as bad an idea. Once small engines, in equipment and cycles is removed from the equation for the lack of suitability this pretty much becomes a non-issue.
You are of course correct that E15 just absolutely DESTROYS small motors as shown in repeated test conducted by the American Petroleum institute and several small engine manufacturers like Briggs & Stratton and Kohler, regardless of number of engine strokes.
More alarming, however, is that some of these tests have also shown pretty clear evidence that most automobiles manufactured before about 2002 (and a few as late as '05-'07) are susceptible to many of the same problems. While time will eventually phase those vehicles out from service on the road, E15 represents a frankly inexcusable risk of catastrophic engine failure today for those of us who can't or won't own newer vehicles.
So if all this bothers anyone, write your congressman and tell him to quit voting for stupid shit. The EPA couldn't help you out on this one even if they wanted to.
ffhounddog
09-19-12, 03:56
I got gas from a non ethenol gas station and my big Nissan Titan got over 21 miles per gallon on that tank. With the E10 I get 15.9 miles per gallon in the city. I do not see that I am being more environmentlly friendly.
Being this close to DC I do not find non ethenol gas closest places or 40 miles away.
mallowpufft
09-19-12, 07:16
I got gas from a non ethenol gas station and my big Nissan Titan got over 21 miles per gallon on that tank. With the E10 I get 15.9 miles per gallon in the city. I do not see that I am being more environmentlly friendly.
Being this close to DC I do not find non ethenol gas closest places or 40 miles away.
Check out Southern States Cooperative.
All the ones in my area have more ethanol free pumps than e-10 pumps. I doubt there are any in DC proper but there should be a few in the NoVA outliers of DC.
http://www.southernstates.com/storelocations/results.aspx?long=-77.4480814&lat=38.9516235&zip=&address=&city=dulles&state=VA&searchType=storelocator&Num=10&SearchAddress=dulles%2c+VA+
Tapatalk ate my spelling and grammar.
mallowpufft
09-19-12, 07:34
Double post
ChicagoTex
09-19-12, 13:28
I would strongly encourage anybody buying gas from "Ethanol Free" stations to purchase a testing kit (they're like $6) and actually test the fuel. At least here in the Dallas area, many "ethanol free" stations were caught selling E10 at least some of the time.
I strongly doubt it's an "attack" of any sort. It's pretty transparent that the goal of ethanol mandates from the get go has basically been for the corn farmers (and the lobbyists who represent them through copious campaign funding of anyone with a modicum of legislative power) to get what they can while the getting's good. Yes, it won't last forever, but that doesn't mean everybody involved isn't content to accept the money they're making hand over fist currently.
you don't believe that all this pushing of the ethanol market is a long term plan to replace gasoline?
if a few people make a lot of money because of how they have strategically placed themselves in these times of transition... am i supposed to get mad at that? shall we just continue to use gasoline and other imported sources of energy so that the people who currently hold the power/lobbyists/etc from legacy positioning continue to make money hand over fist... currently...???
I don't understand what you're saying. Flex Fuel vehicles need not heed what?
as already stated in this thread, the fuel fill up mandate is targeting a specific problem. that problem is not present in flex fuel vehicles. hence the flex fuel vehicles will most likely be exempt from such a rule. and face it, the rule is fairly unenforceable, but it let's them put on a cute little sticker to try and prevent people from messing up their stuff.
If you exercise a little Google-fu you'll discover that there are several major research departments departments around the world who are currently testing synthetic gasoline and/or diesel made from renewable resources like algae and wheat chaff with extremely promising results. Moreover, as E85 has demonstrated, ethanol is a very inefficient substitute for gasoline, particularly if you're attempting to run on pure ethanol.
The fact of the matter is that any way you cut it, ethanol sucks even if you solve the durability problem and enough people know it that it's unlikely to be viewed as a truly satisfactory replacement for gasoline or diesel. At least plug-in electric cars are fairly cheap to fill up.
how prolific are diesel engines today? is there a reason that they are not as prolific as gasoline engines? most gasoline motors can be converted to run ethanol. the same cannot be said about diesel.
biodiesel is a part of the equation, but it is not the entire equation. if we could drum up enough bio diesel JUST to furnish the big rig industry... that would be an amazing miracle. going beyond that to make enough for the entire american transportation sector... can you show me that math?
similarly ethanol is not the glimmering hope for the big rig industry, that's why biodiesel is a part of the solution.
just because gasoline is an amazing fuel source doesn't mean that you forgo the alternatives at the cost of shipping freightliner loads of money to foreign countries, some of which are antagonistic to us.
ethanol is less energy dense but for anyone familiar with motorsports it is an amazing fuel. higher octane rating means more compression, more boost, more power. yes, one will have to fill up more often. it may even be the case that the fuel costs more... how much does 100 octane cost at the pump today? even if you normalized energy density and similarly scaled price, i'd still be willing to use alcohol over gasoline. why? simply because it's not gasoline. we have the ability to control it in the future. don't get me wrong, we should control as much foreign oil as we can in the future, that goes without saying and that is all strategy. but i want strategy, not dependence.
there are plenty of examples in the motorsports world of vehicles running alcohol. there are plenty of flex fuel vehicles on the road today. i don't understand your durability argument. this is not an engineering problem. there is no impossible engineering feat that must be accomplished in the internal combustion engine to make alcohol work. there are leaps to be made in the synthesis of alcohol from stuff that is not food sugar. this is a matter of time.
More alarming, however, is that some of these tests have also shown pretty clear evidence that most automobiles manufactured before about 2002 (and a few as late as '05-'07) are susceptible to many of the same problems. While time will eventually phase those vehicles out from service on the road, E15 represents a frankly inexcusable risk of catastrophic engine failure today for those of us who can't or won't own newer vehicles.
you are correct. there may be casualties along the way of transition. there always are. but realistically, gasoline is still available and those casualties will hardly be alienated or marginalized by the use of alcohol.
entities as large as the transportation fuel sector move slowly... shouldn't we get a move on and let things slowly evolve? even if we had started on a plan 10 years ago to phase in alcohol into transport fuel, it would still be _at least_ another 20 years until any semblence of a complete transfer was realized.
how long are you willing to wait? how long are you willing to fill up freightliners full of 100 dollar bills and ship them to wherever the oil comes from?
...let's see if I have this right?
I will HAVE TO buy at least 4 gallons of a certain type of gas, but I CANNOT buy a drink in NY if it's above a certain size:) ??????
GMAFB
john
arizonaranchman
09-20-12, 18:52
%$&k the EPA... Arguably one of the most out-of-control agencies in this grotesquely unconstitutional Federal Government we now have.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.