Texaco still has 92
08-10-2001, 07:41 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: South Bay
Posts: 3,362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No 92 anywhere I've looked. 
But for those of you who really want 92+, you can always put some racing gas from the few 76 stations that carry it and dilute it down with 91 
.
And yes, I know of only one station in San Jose that carries the 100 octane stuff, at Almaden WExpwy and Foxworthy.
If anyone else knows of any...post away!
But for those of you who really want 92+, you can always put some racing gas from the few 76 stations that carry it and dilute it down with 91 .And yes, I know of only one station in San Jose that carries the 100 octane stuff, at Almaden WExpwy and Foxworthy.
If anyone else knows of any...post away!
08-13-2001, 09:18 AM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I talked to the owner of the 76 station in Berkeley (at Claremont and College) and he told me the reason for the decrease in octane is due to (drumroll please) Ethanol! Apparently when the wonderful california government decided to put a fuel additive into gas to make it cleaner burning, they first added MTBE without thoroughly testing it (messing up the water supply-oops). Now they're using ethanol- I believe this is country wide now- its corn based and more importantly, one company owns 76% of the industry producing it- and that one company was one of the largest donors to the bush campaign. SO now we're stuck with ethanol in our gas- the Environmentalists and Bush working together to screw our octane- bizarre, but sick at the same time.
08-14-2001, 04:56 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: SF
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by SlickS2k
I talked to the owner of the 76 station in Berkeley (at Claremont and College) and he told me the reason for the decrease in octane is due to (drumroll please) Ethanol! Apparently when the wonderful california government decided to put a fuel additive into gas to make it cleaner burning, they first added MTBE without thoroughly testing it (messing up the water supply-oops). Now they're using ethanol- I believe this is country wide now- its corn based and more importantly, one company owns 76% of the industry producing it- and that one company was one of the largest donors to the bush campaign. SO now we're stuck with ethanol in our gas- the Environmentalists and Bush working together to screw our octane- bizarre, but sick at the same time.
I talked to the owner of the 76 station in Berkeley (at Claremont and College) and he told me the reason for the decrease in octane is due to (drumroll please) Ethanol! Apparently when the wonderful california government decided to put a fuel additive into gas to make it cleaner burning, they first added MTBE without thoroughly testing it (messing up the water supply-oops). Now they're using ethanol- I believe this is country wide now- its corn based and more importantly, one company owns 76% of the industry producing it- and that one company was one of the largest donors to the bush campaign. SO now we're stuck with ethanol in our gas- the Environmentalists and Bush working together to screw our octane- bizarre, but sick at the same time.
08-15-2001, 01:44 AM
#27
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 2,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well I heard from the news it's because of the Ethanol, they also said that there are many complaints about it, it's only in California rightnow, but it's going Country wide, I forgot if they mentioned a suit against them or not, but many people are unhappy about it, and trying to change it back. Damn bastards, I hate Bush!! heheh hey hey don't erase my post
08-20-2001, 08:29 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pleasanton
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Y'know. I think you guys may be goin' off the deep end here. First of all, I can find no evidence that only one company provides all the ethanol. Ethanol (like alcohol) is a very inexpensive chemical produced from biomass (primarily corn and grain in the US, rice in much of Asia, tapioca (cassava) in Inda, etc.) It actually has a very high octane rating and is sometimes added to fuel to increase the octane rating.
Now, I am not 100% sure about this, but I believe a 91 octane fuel with ethanol added to it is the equivalent to a 92 octane rating without it. That is why the octane rating of the fuel is lower.
Also, according to the EPA, the addition of ethanol in fuel is "eliminating ozone-forming hydrocarbon emissions by 41,000 tons and toxic pollutants such as benzene by 24,000 tons annually. That's equivalent to taking 16 million vehicles off the road each year." Additionally, independent studies have shown that it recudes the risk of cancer from gasoline by 20 percent.
So... I don't get it.... Is SlickS2k caling Mr. "destroy Alaskan wilderness" Bush a tree-hugger for pushing for cleaner fuels nationwide!!?!?!?!
Don't confuse ethanol with MTBE!! MTBE is about to be restricted altogether nationwide and has already been eliminated from gas in many states, although I do not believe it is nation-wide. These states have replaced it with the much cleaner and safer Ethanol.
MTBE was originally added to gasoline as an oxygenate. It did make the gas burn cleaner by adding oxygen to the mixture, but had the problem of contaminating our water supplies. Just to be clear, it only contaminates water supplies when spilled, not when burned, but there are enough spills and car accidents, etc. to make that a noticeable problem.
Ethanol is also an oxygenate, but it is actually cheaper than MTBE, it is biodegradable, it is renewable (it comes from plants), and it burns cleaner. In fact, we produce more grain and corn than we eat, and much of it goes to waste because of insufficient demand. Converting this grain and corn to Ethanol is a good use of that resource with virtually no negative effects.
What awWhHDayUm is complaining about is beyond me. I can find no evidence of anyone getting sued over Ethanol. I can find no evidence that there is a limited supply of it Ethanol. I can find no evidence that anyone but SlickS2k is unhappy about it, and I am not sure his complaints are valid. It is unclear to me, but it is likely that the ethanol blended 91 octane has the same effective detonation as 92 octane without it.
If Bush is responsible for this, more power to him. It may the the only thing he does right in his entire term!! If I'd known that Mr. Oil would be responsible for improving our air quality this much, I would've voted for the bastard!!
There is one drawback to Ethanol, however. It is more volatile than gasoline. i.e. It evaporates faster and is, therefore, more likely to explode. Minor detail, but that is effectively why we are not switching to 100% Ethanol fuel.
I will ask around about the octane rating and see what I can dig up.
Now, I am not 100% sure about this, but I believe a 91 octane fuel with ethanol added to it is the equivalent to a 92 octane rating without it. That is why the octane rating of the fuel is lower.
Also, according to the EPA, the addition of ethanol in fuel is "eliminating ozone-forming hydrocarbon emissions by 41,000 tons and toxic pollutants such as benzene by 24,000 tons annually. That's equivalent to taking 16 million vehicles off the road each year." Additionally, independent studies have shown that it recudes the risk of cancer from gasoline by 20 percent.
So... I don't get it.... Is SlickS2k caling Mr. "destroy Alaskan wilderness" Bush a tree-hugger for pushing for cleaner fuels nationwide!!?!?!?!
Don't confuse ethanol with MTBE!! MTBE is about to be restricted altogether nationwide and has already been eliminated from gas in many states, although I do not believe it is nation-wide. These states have replaced it with the much cleaner and safer Ethanol.
MTBE was originally added to gasoline as an oxygenate. It did make the gas burn cleaner by adding oxygen to the mixture, but had the problem of contaminating our water supplies. Just to be clear, it only contaminates water supplies when spilled, not when burned, but there are enough spills and car accidents, etc. to make that a noticeable problem.
Ethanol is also an oxygenate, but it is actually cheaper than MTBE, it is biodegradable, it is renewable (it comes from plants), and it burns cleaner. In fact, we produce more grain and corn than we eat, and much of it goes to waste because of insufficient demand. Converting this grain and corn to Ethanol is a good use of that resource with virtually no negative effects.
What awWhHDayUm is complaining about is beyond me. I can find no evidence of anyone getting sued over Ethanol. I can find no evidence that there is a limited supply of it Ethanol. I can find no evidence that anyone but SlickS2k is unhappy about it, and I am not sure his complaints are valid. It is unclear to me, but it is likely that the ethanol blended 91 octane has the same effective detonation as 92 octane without it.
If Bush is responsible for this, more power to him. It may the the only thing he does right in his entire term!! If I'd known that Mr. Oil would be responsible for improving our air quality this much, I would've voted for the bastard!!
There is one drawback to Ethanol, however. It is more volatile than gasoline. i.e. It evaporates faster and is, therefore, more likely to explode. Minor detail, but that is effectively why we are not switching to 100% Ethanol fuel.
I will ask around about the octane rating and see what I can dig up.
08-21-2001, 09:10 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that everything Sparky is saying is true, which I actually know to be true- explain to me why gas in the Bay area is $0.20 more than in the Central Valley and $0.40 cents more than in the mid-west. I really can't tell the difference between 91 and 92... to be honest I really don't give a sh** about that- it just bothers me that my prices are so much frickin higher than everyone elses. I looked at the average fuel prices in the US and compared them with 10-12 of the major markets. My guess is that SF is bringing up that average at least $0.03 to 0.05 cents just by itself. It's a friggin travesty- Oh-- and don't give me the BS about more demand here. Gas is cheaper in LA and they have much more people- ie. more demand. All I can truly beleive out of this is that I made a good choice in buying petroleum stocks last winter.
Just my $0.02.
Just my $0.02.
