<x-charset ISO-8859-1>Thanks for the info! I did _not_ know how the regulations were put in place before you gave me the interest to go look to see where I got the wrong idea.
I looked into the topic a little more today. Yep, there was no regulation forcing MTBE. Many other chemicals could have been used. MTBE was already in gasoline in smaller percentages as an octane booster, and had the least impact on air quality (best results for the original application). MTBE gave better initial performance, but now we are discovering that it can be detected by taste in extremely small ppm quantities in water, even below what is apparently the damger level for healh issues. Ethanol, the runner-up it seems, gets the reputation of requiring changes in gasoline blending systems, changes in transport, has a high evaporation rate that supposedly causes more smog problems, and has the ability to increase the spread of chemicals like benzine when gasoling enters the water system. We've got better systems now, but back when this was being kicked around for the RFG process it apparently caused some corrosion issues in car fuel systems. Sources do not agree about the financial impact of the changes needed. I also saw differing ideas on the energy efficiency of the production process. I read the discussion here not long ago. OTOH, I found this, "Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California-Berkeley, reviews all of the existing studies and provides some new data. Patzek's analysis indicates that "as much fossil energy is used to produce corn ethanol as can be gained from it." (p. 9) His analysis more fully takes into account the entire energy chain than the earlier reports from Argonne National Laboratory and the Department of Agriculture did, and suggest that ethanol production and use is not a positive-energy choice." What seems to be near the bottom of the whole issue is the laws in the CAA that were written to require certain oxygen percentages in the fuel. This forces use of a chemical that meets that requirement, not any other possible system that meets the overall emissions goal in the best overall manner. I always worry when laws start to set the exact process, because laws change a lot slower than technology. I'm used to dealing with enviro. laws that require Best Available Technology (BAT). That seems to be a better way to deal with the issue. I thought the best article I found was the simple idea that if you've got an MTBE problem in water, then you have a gasoline problem. It is mmisleading to deal with it just as MTBE by itself. Does that clear up the legal issues around the MTBE fiasco for you? Not for me, either. Seems to me that it could be dealt with using the existing pollution laws. Well, hopefull a more sane set of them than what I see being used many times! If anyone wants some www links to the info I found let me know. Ed --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ed, > > > I thought the stuff was used in the first place because it was pretty > > much required by the federal gov't to meet emissions regulations. > > No. The requisite was to reduce emissions, not to use a specific product to > do so. And the MTBE issue is not a matter of consequences simply as a result > of "normal use" of gasoline. > > The industry chose MTBE because it met the need for emissions reductions. It > also happened to be a product that they were already producing and could > easily ramp up on, meaning that they would lose no market share were they to > push it rather than other alternatives. > > And now society gets to once again reap the "rewards" of an industry lead > charge to use a specific product that would be to its own benefit.. > > You do have the clean-up cost scenario down to rights though. > Consumers/taxpayers foot the bill for virtually everything. > > Todd Swearingen ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ </x-charset>
