90 octane no-ethanol gas in Brandon!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, FL
90 octane no-ethanol gas in Brandon!
So the Sunoco on hwy 60 and Lithia Pinecrest sells 90 octane 100% gas at a relatively reasonable rate. (3.99) I added some octane booster for 4 bucks just in case. Support stations that somehow buck this terrible ethanol law!
Trending Topics
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,519
Likes: 1
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, FL
To everyone's disappointment - I will ignore the obvious troll and go about my day.....
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? The main problem I have with ethanol in our automotive fuel is that it is mandated by the government of the State of Florida, I have nothing against ethanol the chemical, as a chemical. 
To me the main three points are these (this is so I don't ramble on):
1. The government of this state, and several others - as well as some local city governments mandate that all fuel sold within their borders for general automotive use contain ethanol. This removes the ability for the market (producers or consumers) to decide if this is truly a better fuel. This brings me to point #2
2. The governments that espouse that this "up to 10% ethanol" gasoline is truly a better fuel overall, do so with completely false "science" that they claim is irrefutable. In fact, it doesn't take much scientific knowledge at all to see that a 90/10 mixture of Benzine-based automotive petroleum fuel / corn derived ethanol fuel in regular internal combustion engines is a far worse performing fuel than even if you just increased the price of benzine-based fuel 10%, effectively only buying 9/10ths the same amount of fuel. This deception is the root of my disdain. The government has forced a type of fuel on the market based on lies espoused as facts without somuch as even a vote on the matter.
3. Put 1 and 2 together and you have the inevitable question: Why would the government do this? Surely there would be a good reason! The reasons are money and control. Allow me to explain: Corn is a massive industry in the United States, and this is why this 90/10 mixture is only common here. If you sold both side by side, people would naturally buy the better performing fuel and 90/10 would go away. This is why the government steps in - to FORCE you to buy 10% corn-based moonshine. This is because we produce a massive surplus of corn, and the entire industry is propped up by the Federal government of this country. Before it was propped up, it was completely and utterly controlling the entire farming industry. Truly this once agrarian nation has lived under government farming since the Great Depression. The short answer here is that without 90/10 "fuel" - we would not be buying enough corn to keep the current economy of entire swaths of this nation afloat. We got ourselves into this mess with government intervention and they think that forcing our gasonline cars to run on this newfangled moonshine will solve the problem. They're wrong.
Preemptive Strike: "But Ryan - you're a fool! E85 is awesome - is a great fuel and is used by racecars! How can you possibly say gasoline is better than what racecars use!? I am going to run it in my new souped up turbo S2000! It burns cooler and is more efficient!"
E85 is a catchall term for modern day moonshine fuel for car engines. It is literally 85% denatured ethanol (usually derived from excess corn harvests) and 15% benzine-based hydrocarbon fuels. This does not necessarily have to be regular gasoline as we know it. E85 can be made with kerosene as the HC component (aka Jet Fuel) or even forms of diesel! Most commonly though it's effectively 85% ethanol 15% "gas"
E85 contains less energy per unit volume than 100% Hydrocarbon fuels of any type. Period. Also, E85 does not transfer as much of its energy to useful work as hydrocarbon fuels. (Admittedly both are pretty terrible at less than 42% efficiency for even the best internal combustion engines). What E85 DOES do well is catalyze into less harmful gases when burnt per unit volume compared to any fuel except for Jet A and "European" Diesel.
You see, "racecars" use E85 (actually a race fuel that is only similar to the E85 you can buy) because they were lobbied heavily by the corn industry and given subsidies from the government to switch to ethanol fuels. One of the biggest selling points? No, not eco-awesomeness, but safety. It builds up a lot less static than HC fuels and can be fueled faster with less risk of static buildup causing a fire. This is not an issue with aircraft as they are almost always grounded when fueling. So, you're getting some free handouts courtesy of the taxpayer and inflation and the corn industry (Monsanto et al) and it's safer. You begrudgingly switch. If they had their 'druthers I'd guarantee you race fuels for Indy and NASCAR would switch to a HC fuel that made the most practical sense (like say, "race fuel" aka AVGAS or even higher octane content HC fuel)
So if the argument is that E85 may be less efficient by by God - it saves the planet! Why aren't we using it for that reason alone? Well because other, cheaper, older fuels are actually better for the planet even when only considering the end user. A jet turbine burning Jet A emits less CO than an E85 per kW of energy generated (horsepower). Also, the new diesel cars get excellent efficiency but aren't selling well over here in the US. This greater efficiency means more miles on less diesel which of course means fewer total pollutants emitted and/or more work done for the same pollution.
But Ryan why don't we have these cars in the US?!? Surely E85 is better than EuroDiesel? Well, that's because your Federal government puts a HUGE import tariff on these engines because they would easily eliminate the need for ethanol based passenger car fuels.
Did you know that the diesel we use in our large trucks is the same formula as "EuroDiesel" already? The nasty no-one-wants-to-admit truth is that a well designed low-sulphur diesel engine is the single most energy efficient means of generating power of any kind that human beings have come up with outside of only two things: nuclear power heating water which turns superconducting turbines, and coal slurry burning, heating water, which turns superconducting turbines. When weight (power density) is a concern, you have to switch to other fuels like Jet fuel, AVGAS, 'Race gas', or even liquid O2/H2 like in the space shuttle. If it were efficient to create and store it - we would all use liquid O2/H2 like the shuttle because its unit energy is amazing and the only output is steam.
(figures below are from the DoE and DoT)
The nasty truth is that passenger car consumption is not even all of our consumption of "oil." In 2006 we burned 174,930,000,000 gallons of gasoline and/or diesel in our cars, trucks, semi's and anything else that drives on a road in the US. Every DAY in 2006 we consumed 20,030,000 US barrels of petroleum. A US barrel is 42 gallons. 20,030,000 x 365 x 42 = 307,059,900,000. Where does the rest of that juice go? Agriculture mostly. Then plastics and road-surface creation, after that, petrochemicals like paint thinner, etc. The cold hard truth is that we burn more oil making corn than we do driving passenger cars in the United States; meanwhile the government has convinced well-meaning people that they are doing the planet a favor by burning corn-based fuels when in fact they are only furthering our oil consumption by proxy.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? The main problem I have with ethanol in our automotive fuel is that it is mandated by the government of the State of Florida, I have nothing against ethanol the chemical, as a chemical. To me the main three points are these (this is so I don't ramble on):1. The government of this state, and several others - as well as some local city governments mandate that all fuel sold within their borders for general automotive use contain ethanol. This removes the ability for the market (producers or consumers) to decide if this is truly a better fuel. This brings me to point #2
2. The governments that espouse that this "up to 10% ethanol" gasoline is truly a better fuel overall, do so with completely false "science" that they claim is irrefutable. In fact, it doesn't take much scientific knowledge at all to see that a 90/10 mixture of Benzine-based automotive petroleum fuel / corn derived ethanol fuel in regular internal combustion engines is a far worse performing fuel than even if you just increased the price of benzine-based fuel 10%, effectively only buying 9/10ths the same amount of fuel. This deception is the root of my disdain. The government has forced a type of fuel on the market based on lies espoused as facts without somuch as even a vote on the matter.
3. Put 1 and 2 together and you have the inevitable question: Why would the government do this? Surely there would be a good reason! The reasons are money and control. Allow me to explain: Corn is a massive industry in the United States, and this is why this 90/10 mixture is only common here. If you sold both side by side, people would naturally buy the better performing fuel and 90/10 would go away. This is why the government steps in - to FORCE you to buy 10% corn-based moonshine. This is because we produce a massive surplus of corn, and the entire industry is propped up by the Federal government of this country. Before it was propped up, it was completely and utterly controlling the entire farming industry. Truly this once agrarian nation has lived under government farming since the Great Depression. The short answer here is that without 90/10 "fuel" - we would not be buying enough corn to keep the current economy of entire swaths of this nation afloat. We got ourselves into this mess with government intervention and they think that forcing our gasonline cars to run on this newfangled moonshine will solve the problem. They're wrong.
Preemptive Strike: "But Ryan - you're a fool! E85 is awesome - is a great fuel and is used by racecars! How can you possibly say gasoline is better than what racecars use!? I am going to run it in my new souped up turbo S2000! It burns cooler and is more efficient!"
E85 is a catchall term for modern day moonshine fuel for car engines. It is literally 85% denatured ethanol (usually derived from excess corn harvests) and 15% benzine-based hydrocarbon fuels. This does not necessarily have to be regular gasoline as we know it. E85 can be made with kerosene as the HC component (aka Jet Fuel) or even forms of diesel! Most commonly though it's effectively 85% ethanol 15% "gas"
E85 contains less energy per unit volume than 100% Hydrocarbon fuels of any type. Period. Also, E85 does not transfer as much of its energy to useful work as hydrocarbon fuels. (Admittedly both are pretty terrible at less than 42% efficiency for even the best internal combustion engines). What E85 DOES do well is catalyze into less harmful gases when burnt per unit volume compared to any fuel except for Jet A and "European" Diesel.
You see, "racecars" use E85 (actually a race fuel that is only similar to the E85 you can buy) because they were lobbied heavily by the corn industry and given subsidies from the government to switch to ethanol fuels. One of the biggest selling points? No, not eco-awesomeness, but safety. It builds up a lot less static than HC fuels and can be fueled faster with less risk of static buildup causing a fire. This is not an issue with aircraft as they are almost always grounded when fueling. So, you're getting some free handouts courtesy of the taxpayer and inflation and the corn industry (Monsanto et al) and it's safer. You begrudgingly switch. If they had their 'druthers I'd guarantee you race fuels for Indy and NASCAR would switch to a HC fuel that made the most practical sense (like say, "race fuel" aka AVGAS or even higher octane content HC fuel)
So if the argument is that E85 may be less efficient by by God - it saves the planet! Why aren't we using it for that reason alone? Well because other, cheaper, older fuels are actually better for the planet even when only considering the end user. A jet turbine burning Jet A emits less CO than an E85 per kW of energy generated (horsepower). Also, the new diesel cars get excellent efficiency but aren't selling well over here in the US. This greater efficiency means more miles on less diesel which of course means fewer total pollutants emitted and/or more work done for the same pollution.
But Ryan why don't we have these cars in the US?!? Surely E85 is better than EuroDiesel? Well, that's because your Federal government puts a HUGE import tariff on these engines because they would easily eliminate the need for ethanol based passenger car fuels.
Did you know that the diesel we use in our large trucks is the same formula as "EuroDiesel" already? The nasty no-one-wants-to-admit truth is that a well designed low-sulphur diesel engine is the single most energy efficient means of generating power of any kind that human beings have come up with outside of only two things: nuclear power heating water which turns superconducting turbines, and coal slurry burning, heating water, which turns superconducting turbines. When weight (power density) is a concern, you have to switch to other fuels like Jet fuel, AVGAS, 'Race gas', or even liquid O2/H2 like in the space shuttle. If it were efficient to create and store it - we would all use liquid O2/H2 like the shuttle because its unit energy is amazing and the only output is steam.
(figures below are from the DoE and DoT)
The nasty truth is that passenger car consumption is not even all of our consumption of "oil." In 2006 we burned 174,930,000,000 gallons of gasoline and/or diesel in our cars, trucks, semi's and anything else that drives on a road in the US. Every DAY in 2006 we consumed 20,030,000 US barrels of petroleum. A US barrel is 42 gallons. 20,030,000 x 365 x 42 = 307,059,900,000. Where does the rest of that juice go? Agriculture mostly. Then plastics and road-surface creation, after that, petrochemicals like paint thinner, etc. The cold hard truth is that we burn more oil making corn than we do driving passenger cars in the United States; meanwhile the government has convinced well-meaning people that they are doing the planet a favor by burning corn-based fuels when in fact they are only furthering our oil consumption by proxy.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,956
Likes: 7
From: Tampa
If you stop by the Sunoco in Pinellas, the station owner , Tom , will tell you alot of the same tings Ryan has described and then some. Look into avaiation too , this 10% mixed fuel also damages Fuel Injectors and other components of your motor. Fortunatly the airport my family keeps both of our airplanes at has their own pump without the corn additive in it. Several of the pilots I have spoken to have had major issues after using multiple tanks of the 10% mix some of which have cause emergency "landings"