> > Anyway, my theory is that the petrol companies want to sell the ref. gas
> > because it's cheaper (it actually contains less gasoline
> > percentage-wise),( Yes about 15% which means you are getting worse
>milage,having to buy more gas at an inflated price because the oil co claim it
>costs more to make and they were forced to do it by the EPA)
I depends on the oil company (don't group them together) EPA has required the
use of Reformulated fuels for several reasons (faulty or not).
1. To decrease CO. Nice in theory but doesn't really work in real world.
Vehicles with O2 sensors are clean (if they are operating properly) and
automatically adjust to the leaner operation. Our cars (no O2 sensors) will
run worse so the owners richen the carbs and we are not only back at square
(not clean but not gross polluters is properly adjusted). But since we usually
don't lean them back out when gas is switched back to non-oxygenated fuel (they
run fine but may foul cool plugs in stop and go traffic) they can become gross
polluters.
2. To remove some of the worst carcinogenic compounds (benzene, toluene,
xylene) this is probably a good thing health wise but it hurts octane. In
order to keep the same octane the cost goes up. Also the oil companies have to
do something with the removed compounds (usually cracking and reforming, again
raising costs).
3. Increase the amount of domestic energy in a typical gallon of fuel. Use of
ethanol to help ADM (not the farmer) or ETBE (ADM lobbying again). These are
formed from biowaste. MTBE is similar to ETBE using methanol (from natural
gas, decreasing imported oil) as a feedstock rather than ethanol. MTBE is
cheaper to make (than ETBE) so most oil companies went this route. Some oil
companies have invested in methanol and/or MTBE plants (they like MTBE
requirements) others have to buy it (they pay and dislike them or use ETBE, or
ethanol).
> Another reason is MTBE is harmful to older cars fuel systems causing fuel
>lines and O ring to rot that can cause fires
True
> The next insult we will have to bear is that the BIG four oil companies
> stole some technology from Unocal and now have to pay back 6 cts a
> gallon on every gallon they sold for the last,i think 4 years.Guess who
> will have to pay?The TV news was interviewing customers at gas stations
> and they all shrugged their shoulders and said "I guess we will have to
> pay at the pump...Oh,well NOBODY was pissed!
This is true but fair. If I develop a process through investment in research
others should not be able to use my findings with out reimbursement. If UNOCAL
charges too much then the other oil companies will develop their own
methods.The reason the oil companies are now solidly for reformulated fuel is
simple they've placed their money in play. EPA required the changes (I won't
call them improvements), big oil ponyed up billions of dollars to make the
stuff. Once the money is spent the oil companies want the requirements to stay
otherwise foreign oil refiners (or other domestics that
didn't upgrade their refineries) will under sell them and cost them money to
say nothing of the billion dollar plants becoming homes for spiders. Industry
likes well defined rules with little uncertainty (don't we all).
The way to prevent these types of problems (and I know Pat won't like all of
this) is to ensure that EPA and Carb are really interested in Clean air and are
not trying to enforce other social goals and that they are funded well enough
to fully investigated planned actions so that errors can minimized. These are
not easy problems and good solutions can't be found if the engineers are
grinding other political axes or if sufficient money is not available.
|