Gasoline polution

   / Gasoline polution
  • Thread Starter
#31  
The frightening part

I just saw the DEC numbers from one of the test wells on the property they want to build the station on, 9986.9 parts per billion of MTBE contamination. This well is 60 feet from where a tank was that was only 20 years old.
Frankly, that kind of contamination is dam frightening, MTBE hasn't been in gasoline that long, and finding that level of contamination is scarey shut. At least alcohol would be absorbed into the soil, and perk off.
If this MTBE gets into my wells I'm done, screwed, wiped out.
The [censored] Clinton pals group wanted MTBE in the gasoline, so it has to be bad for me.
 
   / Gasoline polution #32  
Re: Forgot to mention

A fellow member from another board worked in these ground corn feed lots and all of them are not an excess of corn as that is how they pile it to be processed. Here is how he explains it.
"I too have seen piles of corn, or should I clarify that and call them by their correct term, ground corn in feedlots. These piles at each feedlot consisted of at least 1 million bushels and above piled up close to 30 ft. and possible higher, which could be seen for miles. All these feedlots where I have seen these piles and helped to create them by either hauling the corn in or piling it and loading it into a corn grinder were in southwest Kansas. I wish I could get pics of this process in action as it is a site to see.
I do know of and have worked for a corn grinding operation once that had 11 grinders on one unit, powered by a 16V71T Detroit Diesel engine that can shoot corn out beyond the conveyor 60 ft. If a pushing tractor got stalled out under the stream, it would be covered up before the tractor could be re-started. The two large electrically powered conveyors used to unload trucks can unload a semi grain wagon in under 30 seconds and a bobtail in approx. 15 seconds if he can open up the rear doors of the bed. The loaders used to keep the grinders full were 945B or D Fiat-Allis's with custom made buckets on them that would hold enough corn to fill a bobtail grain truck in one pass. This is the largest operation I have ever worked for or ever heard of in my life."

I know your mind is set that ethanol is the way to go and it may be a temporary solution but the amount of energy spent to make it doesn't make sense. Even with an overproduction of corn like you said they still have to use fuel to produce their excess. Electric hybrids that get 70-80mpg is a more plausible alternative for now and they run off of a fuel that anybody can get still. I have not seen any figures showing ethanol will provide high mpg numbers and in a few years the Big three will have hybrid cars that can get over 100 mpg. We wouldn't have as big a problem though if people would stop buying huge SUV and Pickups that don't need them. I know it is their money and they can do what they want but by them doing so it hurts the people that need trucks. When I drive down the road I see around 80% of these trucks and SUV's with one person driving them and nothing in the back or behind them. If we would get smarter about what we drive instead of the image we portray while we drive we wouldn't be in as big a problem as we are now. This discussion can go on forever and I doubt we will solve any major global issues in it so I guess I have spoken enough on it and talk to you about tractors later. Have fun.
 
   / Gasoline polution #33  
Re: Forgot to mention

<font color=blue>"I too have seen piles of corn, or should I clarify that and call them by their correct term, ground corn in feedlots."</font color=blue>

I'm not talking about feedlots, I'm talking about ground stored corn. Elevators and individual farms storing grain on the ground waiting for a market or for a better price to sell to the elevator. Living on the Mississippi River I see grain barges pass by every single day, 4 wide 5 long. Yet nearly every elevator in the area is still near capacity from last harvest with grain rotting on the ground under tarps.

You're right Robert, we've talked enough about ethanol. Let's talk about tractors, have you ever considered burning soy diesel? /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif/w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
 
   / Gasoline polution #34  
Re: Forgot to mention

Oh boy, I can attest to that....

I worked as a contractor for the EPA a few years back. Yep, I was one of those scumbag contractors who helped the Gobmint keep things straight... /w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif Our company managed all IT functionality for them. Anywho.. a guy I worked with and who subsequently joined the EPA worked with the data that the EPA collects from all of the sites it monitors. And just as Charlie stated, the EPA acts on faulty data.

As a point of reference, the EPA contracts out most work to government contractors. Yes, they have a few IT people and a few scientists, but for the most part, the data is collected and organized by contractors. Contractors who get the work based upon the lowest bid. Now, this does not imply that all contract work is bad. But, the data collection and reporting is abysmal. It has been nearly 4 years since I left the EPA, so maybe the data is getting better. But to be honest, I still wouldn't trust their voodoo science.

Terry
 
   / Gasoline polution #35  
Re: Forgot to mention

Heck, I don't know what diesel I am running now, never worried much about it as I just fill up at a local trucking companies station. I figure if they use it in their trucks I can use it in my tractor and so far have no problems. When I move up to my new farm I will have a tank set and then I would know what fuel I use. As far as soy goes, is there anything they don't make with it.
 
   / Gasoline polution #37  
Re: Forgot to mention

Maybe too long a story to post here, but thought some might be interested in this news article.

Preliminary Deal on Ethanol Plan

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A proposal calling for major changes in the nation's gasoline is being worked out in the Senate, a compromise plan that resolves long-standing differences between oil companies, farmers and environmentalists.

The tentative agreement would require a tripling of the amount of ethanol to be used in gasoline, a boon to the farming industry, while it also would ban the additive, MTBE, which has been blamed for fouling lakes and streams in a number of states.

And it would end the requirement that gasoline in areas of serious air pollution contain a certain amount of oxygen, a rule the oil companies say is outdated because they can blend fuel to meet air quality requirements.

While some details remained to be worked out, Senate negotiators -- and the unusual alliance of frequently feuding interest groups -- have reached general agreement on the plan, several participants in the discussions said Thursday.

The role of ethanol in gasoline and the future of MTBE, the fossil-fuel based additive that is under attack from New England to California for polluting waterways, has been the subject of intense political jockeying in Congress for years.

But now, barring any unforeseen glitches, a proposal to address both issues is likely to attract broad bipartisan support when it is considered as part of a far-reaching Senate energy bill probably next week, congressional sources said.

When the government in 1995 required a minimum level of oxygen in gasoline to help the fuel burn more cleanly, most refiners turned to MTBE, although some -- largely in the Midwest -- used ethanol as an oxygenate.

Farm-state lawmakers' attempts to increase the requirements for ethanol, mostly made from corn, repeatedly failed because of opposition from oil interests and the methanol industry.

Attempts to ban MTBE also has stalled, although the Environmental Protection Agency urged phasing out the additive nearly three years ago. Oil companies, fearing the growth of ethanol use, said they would not accept a ban unless the overall oxygenate requirement also was scrapped.

But many environmentalists feared that an across-the-board lifting of the oxygen requirement would increase pollution.

The stalemate continued right up to last summer when attempts to include an MTBE ban and a provision for more ethanol use as part of a House energy bill never gained traction.

Not so in the Senate, where Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, a state with ethanol plants, demanded a provision boosting ethanol use from the current 1.7 billion gallons to 5 billion gallons over the next decade.

But that wouldn't fly unless the oil companies and environmentalists also got something.

So the compromise also would ban MTBE in four years and scrap the requirement that gasoline contain at least 2 percent oxygenate in areas with heavy air pollution -- about a third of all gasoline sold.

"Nobody's 100 percent happy," said one of the participants in the negotiations, but all at once the feuding sides appear to be coming together.

While Daschle's strong interest is ethanol, it is the MTBE ban that harnessed the support of two other influential senators, James Jeffords, I-Vt., and Bob Smith, R-N.H., the chairman and ranking Republican, respectively, on the Senate Environment Committee, whose states are clamoring for an end to the additive because it is polluting their water.

The Bush administration also has been eager to work out an agreement that would please two powerful constituencies, oil and agriculture.

Still, some problems remain to be worked out, said several of the participants in the negotiations, speaking on condition of anonymity.

For one, the oil industry wants to make sure the ethanol requirement does not cause supply problems. One proposal is to give refiners, who don't want to use ethanol, the ability to buy credits from other refiners who use more ethanol than they would be required to use.

And MTBE makers are trying to get the government to help them shift into another field -- perhaps making another clean-air gasoline additive. After all, they argue, it is the government's oxygen requirement seven years ago that triggered their investments in MTBE.

Bill Becker, who represents state air quality control officials, said he is worried that wider use of ethanol will increase air pollution in some states where governors will find it hard to participate in a federal clean-fuel program.

He said he's raised those concerns in the negotiations, but doesn't believe the issue will thwart an agreement. "There will definitely be increased pollution," he said.

But in a congressional game of horse trading, Becker has not been able to convince other environmentalists that this concern outweighs getting rid of MTBE and its pollution problems.
 
   / Gasoline polution #38  
Re: Forgot to mention

Thanks for the article Bird. I heard this on the radio but hadn't seen it in print yet (I don't subscribe to the local fish wrap).
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

MCELROY 500 SERIES 3 TRACSTAR FUSION MACHINE (A53843)
MCELROY 500 SERIES...
U56 ELECTRIC FIRE PUMP (A51406)
U56 ELECTRIC FIRE...
20X30 ALL STEEL CARPORT (A53843)
20X30 ALL STEEL...
Hay Van FL-95 Bale Squeezer - Hydraulic Bale Grab for Round and Square Hay Bales (A53473)
Hay Van FL-95 Bale...
2011 John Deere 5075M 75HP 4WD Loader Utility Tractor (A52377)
2011 John Deere...
1065 (A53342)
1065 (A53342)
 
Top