From: Bohl, James
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:48 AM
To: Polanco, Joanna
Subject: FW: E-10 gas - Good VS Harm - let's put this to an END!

One more for the file. jb


From: paul rollmann []
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.




Fresh Water Demands

Corn Ethanol: Dry Grind

Cellulosic Ethanol: Biochemical

Cellulosic Ethanol: Thermochemical

Cooling tower makeup (percent)




Boiler and process makeup (percent)




Overall water demand (Gal H2O / Gal EtOH)





Estimates of water usage during ethanol production range from 3 to 4 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced.  IATP (2006) states that Minnesota ethanol plants in 2005 averaged 4.2 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol produced. Other industry experts calculate ratios closer to 3:1. Thus, a 50-million-gallon per year ethanol facility can expect to use 150 to 200 million gallons of water per year, or over 400,000 gallons per day (1.2 acre-feet). In the corn belt, the source of this is often groundwater.



Thanks for reading! 


 Paul Rollmann