Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Next from the EPA (4 gallon minimum gas purchase)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Next from the EPA [message #186315 is a reply to message #186312] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 15:48   |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think this applies only to the E15 grade gas...
Not to the gas most of us use....
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA [message #186316 is a reply to message #186314] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 15:53 |
kelvin
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2004
Location: Eugene, OR
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
How quickly some Kalifornians forget about their "brown" skies.
There's no way any regulatory agency is going to please everyone but I'm
betting that you would be complaining that someone should do something
- if they weren't.
I think we can all agree that ethanol in our fuel sure seems foolish but
20 years from now we might look back and say, "Well, they had to start
somewhere."
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...
On 10/3/2012 1:22 PM, Howard and Sue wrote:
> This is just fine from the folks who think our more government is good!
> Get the EPA out of our lives.
> This on top of the Kalifornia regulation where we can only use a non-vented
> gas can.
> That spills gas all over the place.
> "The Fix"
> Drill a vent hole in the top of the gas Can
> Howard
> From: "Tom Henderson" <willietrucker@gmail.com>
> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 13:01
> Subject: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA
>
>
>>
>> I know that some GMC owners are also motorcycle owners and I'm sure that a
>> great many, if not everyone has a need for a gallon of gas from time to
>> time say for snow blowers, mowers or ATV's.
>>
>> Here the lastest to come down the pike from your "friends" at the EPA:
>> http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/09/next-from-the-epa-four-gallon-minimum-gas-purchases/
>> --
>> Tom Henderson
>> Elgin, TX
>> '76 Birchaven 23'
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA [message #186319 is a reply to message #186316] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 16:14 |
Dolph Santorine
Messages: 1236
Registered: April 2011
Location: Wheeling, WV
Karma: -41
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kevin
The issue is not letting the industry come up with the best solution.
First, government mandated MTBF fouled groundwater.
Then government mandated and subsidized Ethanol. Not a technical solution. A political solution. Some question it efficiency. I know I do.
No one wants brown skies or nasty water. I boat a couple of miles downriver from a coal fired plant. I like how it is today compared to 20 years ago.
I don't like the govt forcing a compromise down our throats.
Dolph Santorine
Dolph@DolphSantorine.com
Phone: 304-219-3100
Cell: 740-312-5342
Http://www.DolphSantorine.com
Excuse me for not being my usual wordy and sporadically verbose self. This message is sent from my iPad, which is, in many ways, an iPhone on steroids.
No trees were killed in the sending of this message. Few long dead dinosaurs were involved. A large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Kelvin Dietz <kelvin@datsuns.com> wrote:
> How quickly some Kalifornians forget about their "brown" skies.
>
> There's no way any regulatory agency is going to please everyone but I'm
> betting that you would be complaining that someone should do something
> - if they weren't.
>
> I think we can all agree that ethanol in our fuel sure seems foolish but
> 20 years from now we might look back and say, "Well, they had to start
> somewhere."
>
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...
>
> On 10/3/2012 1:22 PM, Howard and Sue wrote:
>> This is just fine from the folks who think our more government is good!
>> Get the EPA out of our lives.
>> This on top of the Kalifornia regulation where we can only use a non-vented
>> gas can.
>> That spills gas all over the place.
>> "The Fix"
>> Drill a vent hole in the top of the gas Can
>> Howard
>> From: "Tom Henderson" <willietrucker@gmail.com>
>> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 13:01
>> Subject: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I know that some GMC owners are also motorcycle owners and I'm sure that a
>>> great many, if not everyone has a need for a gallon of gas from time to
>>> time say for snow blowers, mowers or ATV's.
>>>
>>> Here the lastest to come down the pike from your "friends" at the EPA:
>>> http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/09/next-from-the-epa-four-gallon-minimum-gas-purchases/
>>> --
>>> Tom Henderson
>>> Elgin, TX
>>> '76 Birchaven 23'
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GMCnet mailing list
>>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA [message #186320 is a reply to message #186319] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 16:42 |
 |
hnielsen2
Messages: 1434
Registered: February 2004
Location: Alpine CA
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dolph;
Well said
Thank You
Howard
Alpine CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dolph Santorine" <dolph@dolphsantorine.com>
To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 14:14
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA
> Kevin
>
> The issue is not letting the industry come up with the best solution.
>
> First, government mandated MTBF fouled groundwater.
>
> Then government mandated and subsidized Ethanol. Not a technical solution.
> A political solution. Some question it efficiency. I know I do.
>
> No one wants brown skies or nasty water. I boat a couple of miles
> downriver from a coal fired plant. I like how it is today compared to 20
> years ago.
>
> I don't like the govt forcing a compromise down our throats.
>
> Dolph Santorine
>
> Dolph@DolphSantorine.com
>
> Phone: 304-219-3100
> Cell: 740-312-5342
>
> Http://www.DolphSantorine.com
>
> Excuse me for not being my usual wordy and sporadically verbose self. This
> message is sent from my iPad, which is, in many ways, an iPhone on
> steroids.
>
> No trees were killed in the sending of this message. Few long dead
> dinosaurs were involved. A large number of electrons were terribly
> inconvenienced.
>
> On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Kelvin Dietz <kelvin@datsuns.com> wrote:
>
>> How quickly some Kalifornians forget about their "brown" skies.
>>
>> There's no way any regulatory agency is going to please everyone but I'm
>> betting that you would be complaining that someone should do something
>> - if they weren't.
>>
>> I think we can all agree that ethanol in our fuel sure seems foolish but
>> 20 years from now we might look back and say, "Well, they had to start
>> somewhere."
>>
>> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...
>>
>> On 10/3/2012 1:22 PM, Howard and Sue wrote:
>>> This is just fine from the folks who think our more government is good!
>>> Get the EPA out of our lives.
>>> This on top of the Kalifornia regulation where we can only use a
>>> non-vented
>>> gas can.
>>> That spills gas all over the place.
>>> "The Fix"
>>> Drill a vent hole in the top of the gas Can
>>> Howard
>>> From: "Tom Henderson" <willietrucker@gmail.com>
>>> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 13:01
>>> Subject: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know that some GMC owners are also motorcycle owners and I'm sure
>>>> that a
>>>> great many, if not everyone has a need for a gallon of gas from time to
>>>> time say for snow blowers, mowers or ATV's.
>>>>
>>>> Here the lastest to come down the pike from your "friends" at the EPA:
>>>> http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/09/next-from-the-epa-four-gallon-minimum-gas-purchases/
>>>> --
>>>> Tom Henderson
>>>> Elgin, TX
>>>> '76 Birchaven 23'
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GMCnet mailing list
>>>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>>>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GMCnet mailing list
>>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
All is well with my Lord
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Next from the EPA [message #186339 is a reply to message #186328] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 19:09 |
pickle4k
Messages: 129
Registered: January 2011
Location: San Leandro
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The whole issue with the EPA is the fact that they are BUREAUCRATS and that is who is running this issue. YES, the politicians will pad their pockets and pass the law, but those in the offices who need to justify their existence will add regulation after regulation to LOOK useful.
To regulate that you have to buy four gallon minimum to clear the hose is crazy. Yes, it costs money to add a second hose for the 15 ethanol, but it would not make the bureaucrats look as if they are doing something. And where is the outcry that we saw when we were told we had to buy health insurance? FOLLOW THE MONEY,who benefits from E15?
-Rant off-
Nick R. NorCal
76-23'Transmode-Norris
Rear Bath and
75-26' Avion
|
|
|
|
| Re: Next from the EPA [message #186348 is a reply to message #186312] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 19:48 |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Matt,
I did read the link, here it is:
"EPA...is going to require all consumers to buy at least four gallons of gasoline from CERTAIN (not all) gas pumps after the new E15 ethanol-gasoline blend is introduced....it requires that retail stations with blender pumps either dispense E15 from a DEDICATED hose and nozzle if....OR....if in the case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose...YOU would then have to buy 4 gallons."
Notice the "OR" statement. It means that only pumps that have both E10 and E15 from the same hose will require a 4 gallon purchase.
And since we do not have E10 or E15 in Kalifornia, we won't
have to worry about it.
Regards,
Bill
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
| Re: Next from the EPA [message #186350 is a reply to message #186348] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 19:59 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| bwevers wrote on Wed, 03 October 2012 19:48 |
Matt,
I did read the link, here it is:
"EPA...is going to require all consumers to buy at least four gallons of gasoline from CERTAIN (not all) gas pumps after the new E15 ethanol-gasoline blend is introduced....it requires that retail stations with blender pumps either dispense E15 from a DEDICATED hose and nozzle if....OR....if in the case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose...YOU would then have to buy 4 gallons."
Notice the "OR" statement. It means that only pumps that have both E10 and E15 from the same hose will require a 4 gallon purchase.
And since we do not have E10 or E15 in Kalifornia, we won't
have to worry about it.
Regards,
Bill
|
Think again. E-10 is required today EVERYWHERE in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
| Re: Next from the EPA [message #186352 is a reply to message #186312] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 20:09 |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/faq.htm
1. How much ethanol is required in California gasoline?
None. California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG3) regulations do not require the use of ethanol. However, ethanol is an oxygenate, and there is an oxygen content requirement.
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
| Re: Next from the EPA [message #186356 is a reply to message #186352] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 21:56 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| bwevers wrote on Wed, 03 October 2012 20:09 |
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/faq.htm
1. How much ethanol is required in California gasoline?
None. California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG3) regulations do not require the use of ethanol. However, ethanol is an oxygenate, and there is an oxygen content requirement.
|
Read the answer to question #5 on that same page.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
| Re: Next from the EPA [message #186361 is a reply to message #186348] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 22:21 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| bwevers wrote on Wed, 03 October 2012 20:48 |
Matt,
I did read the link, here it is:
"EPA...is going to require all consumers to buy at least four gallons of gasoline from CERTAIN (not all) gas pumps after the new E15 ethanol-gasoline blend is introduced....it requires that retail stations with blender pumps either dispense E15 from a DEDICATED hose and nozzle if....OR....if in the case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose...YOU would then have to buy 4 gallons."
Notice the "OR" statement. It means that only pumps that have both E10 and E15 from the same hose will require a 4 gallon purchase.
And since we do not have E10 or E15 in Kalifornia, we won't
have to worry about it.
Regards,
Bill
|
Bill,
Your reading is correct. Only the blender pumps will have the 4 gallon issue.
But, you do have E10 in California, but because it is state wide law, the pumps have no requirement to be marked. And, don't count on not being forced into E15. It is coming sooner or later and even sooner if.....
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
| Re: Next from the EPA [message #186370 is a reply to message #186361] |
Wed, 03 October 2012 23:34 |
Mitch
Messages: 272
Registered: May 2009
Location: Tacoma, Wa
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
While everyone is arguing the politics of this, remember this was a law passed in 2007, requiring the increases.
Much as some want to (indirectly) make this about certain current politicians, it ain't necessarily so.
And with my GMC AND my Triumph Spitfire, I too care about this issue.
Mitch
Tacoma, Wa.
'80 Spitfire
'03 Windstar
'77 Jaguar XJ6-C
X(very)'76 PB 26 "The Beast"
Where it rains, always.
It's wet, No sun, Gray.
Go to Oregon.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Next from the EPA [message #186382 is a reply to message #186370] |
Thu, 04 October 2012 08:10 |
hertfordnc
Messages: 1164
Registered: September 2009
Location: East NC
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
But where is the actual language of the regulation?
Did i miss it? most of these things make more sense in context than what first appears on the Internet.
Dave & Ellen Silva
Hertford, NC
76 Birchaven, 1-ton and other stuff
Currently planning the Great american Road Trip Summer 2021
It's gonna take a lot of Adderall to get this thing right.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA [message #186384 is a reply to message #186319] |
Thu, 04 October 2012 08:34 |
Steven Ferguson
Messages: 3447
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Exellent response Dolph. The government manages to screw up everthing it
touches and never learns from it's mistakes.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Dolph Santorine <dolph@dolphsantorine.com>wrote:
> Kevin
>
> The issue is not letting the industry come up with the best solution.
>
> First, government mandated MTBF fouled groundwater.
>
> Then government mandated and subsidized Ethanol. Not a technical solution.
> A political solution. Some question it efficiency. I know I do.
>
> No one wants brown skies or nasty water. I boat a couple of miles
> downriver from a coal fired plant. I like how it is today compared to 20
> years ago.
>
> I don't like the govt forcing a compromise down our throats.
>
> Dolph Santorine
>
> Dolph@DolphSantorine.com
>
> Phone: 304-219-3100
> Cell: 740-312-5342
>
> Http://www.DolphSantorine.com <http://www.dolphsantorine.com/>
>
> Excuse me for not being my usual wordy and sporadically verbose self. This
> message is sent from my iPad, which is, in many ways, an iPhone on steroids.
>
> No trees were killed in the sending of this message. Few long dead
> dinosaurs were involved. A large number of electrons were terribly
> inconvenienced.
>
> On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Kelvin Dietz <kelvin@datsuns.com> wrote:
>
> > How quickly some Kalifornians forget about their "brown" skies.
> >
> > There's no way any regulatory agency is going to please everyone but I'm
> > betting that you would be complaining that someone should do something
> > - if they weren't.
> >
> > I think we can all agree that ethanol in our fuel sure seems foolish but
> > 20 years from now we might look back and say, "Well, they had to start
> > somewhere."
> >
> > There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...
> >
> > On 10/3/2012 1:22 PM, Howard and Sue wrote:
> >> This is just fine from the folks who think our more government is good!
> >> Get the EPA out of our lives.
> >> This on top of the Kalifornia regulation where we can only use a
> non-vented
> >> gas can.
> >> That spills gas all over the place.
> >> "The Fix"
> >> Drill a vent hole in the top of the gas Can
> >> Howard
> >> From: "Tom Henderson" <willietrucker@gmail.com>
> >> To: <gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 13:01
> >> Subject: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I know that some GMC owners are also motorcycle owners and I'm sure
> that a
> >>> great many, if not everyone has a need for a gallon of gas from time to
> >>> time say for snow blowers, mowers or ATV's.
> >>>
> >>> Here the lastest to come down the pike from your "friends" at the EPA:
> >>>
> http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/09/next-from-the-epa-four-gallon-minimum-gas-purchases/
> >>> --
> >>> Tom Henderson
> >>> Elgin, TX
> >>> '76 Birchaven 23'
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> GMCnet mailing list
> >>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> >>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> GMCnet mailing list
> >> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> >> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Fathom the hypocrisy of a nation where every citizen must prove they have
health insurance......but not everyone has to prove they're a citizen.
Steve Ferguson
Sierra Vista, AZ
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Next from the EPA [message #186398 is a reply to message #186384] |
Thu, 04 October 2012 11:59 |
hertfordnc
Messages: 1164
Registered: September 2009
Location: East NC
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Steven Ferguson wrote on Thu, 04 October 2012 08:34 |
Exellent response Dolph. The government manages to screw up everthing it
touches and never learns from it's mistakes.
|
Not that I'm offended, but I strongly disagree. The public only hears about things that don't work while half a million civil servants do amazing things every day.
Organizations of this size always have collosal failures people can point to- Windows Vista, GM Diesel 350, etc.
But the EPA didn't ask Grain Belt congressmen to make fuel out of corn, they are just tasked with managing the result.
I'm not defending everything the EPA does but we sure don't want to live in a country without them.
Dave & Ellen Silva
Hertford, NC
76 Birchaven, 1-ton and other stuff
Currently planning the Great american Road Trip Summer 2021
It's gonna take a lot of Adderall to get this thing right.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 24 18:46:34 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 1.64727 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
