One more for the file.
jb
From: paul
rollmann [mailto:paulrollmann@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:04
AM
To: Bohl, James
Subject: E-10 gas - Good VS Harm - let's
put this to an END!
Mr.
Bohl,
Thank you for announcing and
pushing for the reduction of ethanol fuels.
Most of the public does NOT
know the additional costs both to buyer and incentives paid by government (again
most buyers) this fuel costs them. Not to mention, the wasteful use of
clean potable water used to produce this lesser efficient fuel
source.
I know lots of people that would get behind the removal
of RFG in WI.
First of all.. why is it, that only 7 counties are
required to have it.. and I can't find non reformulated fuel anywhere in the
state? Standard Gas cost less to make, it is more efficient. Is it that
every gas station owner believes it is his duty to save the environment?
No. Something is motivating this.
Let the store owners decide what they want to carry for
gas.. and post the prices. Let the person buying the fuel
decide.
The approximate 5% loss in efficiency using RFG fuels.
If the public knew that they could get 5% better fuel mileage by using
regular gas (that costs less) most would use it. Keep in mind.. 5%
is the difference between $4.00 / gallon and $3.80 / gallon. This is 20 cents
savings on TOP of the difference in cost to buy it.
** I have read many
website saying 2-3% loss in efficiency, but I have personally seen over 10%
losses using E-10 fuel over non Oxygenated
I am not against shutting down
the corn farmers of wi, nor reduction CO levels.. but if it is not mandated for
the whole state, then I should be able to buy it at most stations outside of the
7 counties mandated.. and in the many travels I have made, I only know of 1
place, where I can buy non ethanol fuel (87 octane) Steven's Point Fleet
farm.
A couple things I have found to
back this...
However, substantial evidence
exists showing that the unique chemical and physical properties of MtBE pose an
unacceptable risk to our region’s potable water supply. In response to this
threat, the Northeast states are seeking ways to dramatically reduce or
eliminate MtBE from the region’s gasoline supply. The challenge facing
policymakers is to maintain the air quality benefits of the RFG program while
reducing the threat that MtBE poses to the region’s critical water
resources.
Source: http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/ethvol1.pdf
-------------------
|
Fresh
Water Demands |
Corn
Ethanol: Dry Grind |
Cellulosic
Ethanol: Biochemical |
Cellulosic
Ethanol: Thermochemical
|
|
Cooling
tower makeup (percent) |
68
|
71
|
71
|
|
Boiler
and process makeup (percent)
|
32
|
29
|
29
|
|
Overall
water demand (Gal H2O / Gal EtOH)
|
3–4
|
6
|
1.9 |
Estimates
of water usage during ethanol production range from 3 to 4 gallons of water per
gallon of ethanol produced. IATP
(2006) states that
Sincerely,
Paul
Rollmann