EAAAirVenture OshkoshShopJoin

15% ethanol in auto gas

Posted By:
Dana Nickerson
5
Posts
1
#1 Posted: 1/30/2011 22:00:30

Read this article on 15% ethanol in auto gas.  Will this ground people flying with Rotax engines? 




Jerry Rosie
Young Eagles Pilot or Volunteer
482
Posts
101
#2 Posted: 1/31/2011 09:57:12

Your link appears to be broken. 

 



Cheers, Jerry NC22375 out of 07N
Jerry Rosie
Young Eagles Pilot or Volunteer
482
Posts
101
#4 Posted: 2/1/2011 13:27:46

In answer to your question - probably for those engines not engineered to use the more highly contaminated fuel.  It will also affect outboard motors, lawnmowers, snow blowers, chain saws, leaf blowers, small generators, etc, etc, etc.  I've already spent almost as much as the machine is worth, repairing problems caused to my riding lawn mower by ethanol in the fuel.  Thankfully, I switched to AVGAS for my airplane before it became impossible to by uncontaminated gas in Pennsylvania. 

 When I questioned the AOPA congressional liaision about the possibility of somehow getting non-contaminated fuel available for those of us who would like to use it, her reply was, "That trian has already left the station.  The ethenol loby is much too strong".  Shame.....one would think that the folly of burning up our food would strike the powers that be before too long...

 

 

 



Cheers, Jerry NC22375 out of 07N
Ralph Burlingame
Homebuilder or Craftsman
21
Posts
4
#5 Posted: 2/3/2011 09:06:57

Listen up folks. I use ethanol gasoline in all my equipment including my 2-stroke Firestar, 4-stroke 912 Kolbra, and of course my cars. I've never experienced a problem with it so far. I attended a Rotax seminar given by Phil Lockwood at AirVenture a couple of years ago. He stated that Brazilian Rotax 912's use 25% ethanol in their gasoline without any known problems. Rotax has approved 10% ethanol in their engines. Before an increased mixture of ethanol is added to gasoline, I'm sure it will be tested in Rotax engines as well as all makes of vehicles. If ethanol were a problem, we would be seeing stranded vehicles all over the country. It was below zero this morning and my cars started just fine on ethanol gasoline. So did many others in this frigid state. It doesn't appear to be a problem or we would be seeing it. The one problem that ethanol presents is water in the tank. If too much water is present, it gets soaked up by the ethanol and is ingested into the engine. This is particularly bad for a 2-stroke engine as the water doesn't contain any oil. The problem isn't the ethanol, it's the water. The solution is to keep all gasoline tanks sealed up so moisture cannot get in. Another preventative is to keep tanks full so moisture is minimal in solution. Ethanol burns clean and does help the environment. No doubt about it, but it takes more energy to make ethanol than we are conserving in our vehicles, which is a politically stupid thing to do. Good for the corn farmers and the environment, but not good for overall economy as it prices will rise for corn as it is in demand. This, in turn, raises beef prices and everything that uses corn. I digress ...



Jerry Rosie
Young Eagles Pilot or Volunteer
482
Posts
101
#6 Posted: 2/3/2011 09:49:31

Ralph, I don't want to disagree with you but my experience is totally different than yours, probably because of the equipment and not the fuel.  I have had three friends, flying ultralights, have major problems with ethanol.  One friend lost an entire tank of fuel when his plastic fuel tank was eaten through and all the fuel leaked to his hangar floor.  One friend had an off airport landing when the ethanol caused deterioration of his fuel tank to the point that the contaminants clogged his fuel filter shutting of all fuel flow to the engine. (Same thing happened to my lawn mower) The third friend lost an engine on take off as the ethanol caused the fuel lines in his aircraft to become brittle and break.  Not a good recommendation for the use of ethanol contaminated gasoline.  To be totally fair, however, I have another friend who is using 10% ethanol in his Aeronca Champ and claims - no problem.  I don't want to take the risk.  Not that I am fearful (as everyone knows I'm indestructible) but moving an airplane after an off field landing is expensive....

And then there are those folks who claim that using ethanol in a 2-stroke is harmful to the engine because the alcohol will clean all lubricant from metal surfaces leading to increased wear and premature failure of bearings, cylinder walls, rings, etc....

You are correct about the retention of water which is not a good thing...

 

 

 



Cheers, Jerry NC22375 out of 07N
Dana Nickerson
5
Posts
1
#7 Posted: 2/3/2011 19:27:19

Rotax designs and builds highly engineering engines.  If they say 10% ethanol is all they recommend, that's all I'm going to use. The problem is the EPA has mandated E15.  We will not be able to obtain E10 once the current supply of E10 is exhausted.  Rotax does not recommend 100LL.  So what are our options if we want to follow Rotax's recommendations and E15 is the only fuel available?

By the way, the EPA wants you to stop flying.  As far they are concerned airplanes are big polluters and have to be eliminated.  This is why the EPA has attacked 100LL.  I saw the writting on the wall.  I sold my airplane and bought an ultralight so I could keep on flying.  Now I find that EPA is eliminating the fuel I can use for my ultralight.

The EPA says they don't expect E15 to work well in older cars.  Their recommendation?  Buy a new car. Seriously!

I have a Rotax 618.  20 hours after using fuel with ethanol one of the RAVE valves failed.  Cost me $1800 to repair.  Ehtanol may be good for farmers (I can think of many reasons it's not but that is outside the scope of this thread) but it sucks for me.



Joe Scheibinger
Homebuilder or Craftsman
16
Posts
6
#8 Posted: 2/3/2011 22:11:13

Ralph, you are one very lucky guy using ethanol in your airplane for such a long time. Only thing I can tell you is you wouldn't catch me ever taking a flight with you!

The Internet is littered with stories on how ethanol had destroyed engines all over the country. Mercury Marine has condemned the use of ethanol. US Boaters Magazine has written many articles about fiberglass gas tanks dissolving while the boats sit at the dock. The Milwaukee Journal a while back reported on ethanol damage to cars in Wisconsin. The Wall Street Journal has written articles about the shocking costs of ethanol damage. Everyone seems to know ethanol is nothing but a sham, yet the corn lobby is very strong and well funded. The corn lobby even gave a grant to a very famous aircraft kit manufacturer to show his planes were "green" at the Oshkosh EAA. That was a slap in the face to EAA.

 I save about $120 per year getting my fuel from a local gas station that sells only pure fuel. I loose about 6% fuel mileage with 10% ethanol. .

Here in Wisconsin, there are still a few stations that sell pure gasoline. Most stations here now sell premium with no ethanol in fear that their customers may sue them for engine damage using 10% ethanol. Many boats, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and classic cars can not use 10% ethanol because of damage. I have a Corvette that has never tasted ethanol and never will.

Ethanol is also a cruel tax on the poor. If you read the article, corn prices are over $6 per bushel. But the government loves it because they can give less subsidy money (welfare) to the farmers before they start complaining, although their welfare payments, woops, I meant subsidy seems to go up every year anyway. 

In Oshkosh, the local ethanol plant has been fined twice for pollution! Corn based ethanol has to go and we must keep contacting our legislators. Ralph, from one pilot to another, please reconsider the use of ethanol in your airplane.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/biofuels/e15-gasoline-damage-engine 

 



Joe S.
Brian Rodgers
Homebuilder or Craftsman
6
Posts
2
#9 Posted: 2/4/2011 07:41:29

Just up the road in Waco, Texas at Baylor University, Dr. Max Schauk has been flying on E100 (100% ethanol) for years.  He flew his Pitts biplane over for a EAA chapter 187 presentation a few years back and that was a very stout-sounding engine!  I believe that he crossed the Atlantic ocean using E100, too.

Alcohol is a perfectly fine fuel and has been used as such for about as long as internal combustion engines have been around.  I don't know that I'd call it any more corrosive than quite a few other substances, but if it was so darned corrosive, then you'd think that my liquor cabinet would have exploded by now.  The point is, you can contain and store ethanol just fine, but it might require a different container material than that fiberglass tank in a previous post.

Ethanol as a fuel / fuel additive is one of the most passionate discussion topics I have seen in aviation.  The problem is that there is usually way too much passion and not near enough scientific fact.



Joe Scheibinger
Homebuilder or Craftsman
16
Posts
6
#10 Posted: 2/4/2011 11:12:30 Modified: 2/4/2011 13:19:51

Hi Brian,

Your liquor at home is perfectly safe while in glass bottles. Unfortunately the aircraft industry hasn't invented the glass fuel line yet. Scientific fact is all over the Internet. All you have to do is a little research. Ethanol has a much lower energy density than gasoline. Gas is now $3.10 here in Oshkosh. If I fill up my tank with $3,10 E10, I get 315 miles per tank. If I fill up with regular gas, I get 350 miles per tank. So why should I buy E10? Science has proven ethanol pollutes as much or more than gas, small energy savings is offset in the production of the stuff. It takes nutrients from the ground, and threatens the food production for the human race. This is a no-brainer!

So here is what AOPA has to say:

 'AOPA is warning aircraft owners who normally use automotive fuel purchased off the airport to test the gas for ethanol even if the pump doesn't say there's alcohol in the fuel. The federal government mandate to increase the use of renewable fuels in gasoline blends has prompted some companies to add ethanol without notification and that can be dangerous for aircraft engines. "While AOPA has successfully prevented ethanol from being blended with avgas, there are limits to what the general aviation industry can do to prevent auto gasoline from being blended," AOPA said on its Web site In Idaho, pure gasoline is apparently so rare that it's no longer available at some airports. "What I'm hearing from my members is that they cannot find ethanol-free auto gas on airports anywhere," Idaho Aviation Association Director Ken Jackson said in an email to AVweb. "Their choices now are to switch to 100LL, run contaminated fuel, or hang it up."

The FAA forbids the use of ethanol-blended fuel in regular aircraft. Ethanol-blended fuel can harm rubber fuel bladders, damage hoses, and attract water into the engine encouraging rust. FAA studies have also shown ethanol to cause inaccurate readings on fuel gauges and problems with electric fuel pumps. Premium auto gas in some states has been saved from an ethanol mix too, but that may change due to mandates put on the petroleum companies. Avgas is not suited to many older engines because of its high octane. The salvation for pilots who want or need to use mogas could come from the recreational motorsports sector, which may have the numerical clout to make regulators listen. Many engines used in boats, personal watercraft, ATVs and motorcycles are also harmed by ethanol.

This is a copy of a letter I received from an engine builder:

"Ethanol, aka Grain Alcohol, is the same alcohol we drink to get drunk (if you want to take it that far).  It is "denatured" to make it undrinkable so it can be sold without worry of abuse.  For cars it is sold as E10, E85, E100... etc.  This means "E-Ethanol" and 10%, 85%, 100%.... with the other proportion being gasoline.  Alcohol will carry an electrical current and gasoline will not so the higher the percentage of alchol the more "galvanic corrosion" you get in your fuel system due to electrical current between unlike metals and also erosion of incompatible materials.  Incompatible material are rubber and aluminum which alcohol is exceptional hard on over time.  Basically the materials that are good to use in gasoline systems are bad to use in alcohol systems and vice versa. Most fuel systems not rated as "flexifuel" have incompatible materials in them.  Running even 10% Ethanol (common these days) will have an impact on your car and reduce its useful life.  There are also other problems... alchohol runs at about 19:1 parts (alcohol to air--by weight) gasoline at 14.7:1... so by running alcohol you are running lean...and the float that tells your system when the carburator float bown is full is no longer correct because of density differences.  Electronic fuel injection systems can make on-the-fly adjustments to air fuel ratio because of a closed loop in the computer that constantly takes a measure of the oxygen levels in the exhaust gas and if there is oxygen then knows the system is running lean and increases the fuel amount injected.  Running alchohol also decreases your fuel economy somewhat... pure E100 fuel econonmy is terrible (about half that of gasoline).  The performance you can get out of alchohol is better with an Octane equivalency of about 108 octane for E100... about 103 for E10 (pump gas available nationally with Ehtanol). " 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Files Attachment(s):
time.doc (58368 bytes)
Joe S.
Dean Billing
104
Posts
26
#11 Posted: 2/4/2011 13:08:08 Modified: 2/4/2011 13:22:56
Dana Nickerson wrote:

 

>... The problem is the EPA has mandated E15.  ...

 

This is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!

The EPA granted a waiver to allow the use of E15 in non flex-fuel cars made from 2001 on.  The waiver IS NOT MANDATORY, it is voluntary.  No gasoline distributer has to make E15 and no service station has to sell E15 and they won't, they made that very clear in their E15 waiver comments to the EPA.  There are currently no car warranties that cover E15, so unless congress passes liability waivers for the gasoline industry it isn't going to happen.  In fact every major gasoline industry representative, along with marine industry representatives and small engine lobby groups have sued the EPA over the E15 waiver, mainly because the EPA does not have legal authority to grant a partial waiver, either the waiver has to be for all engines or nothing.  These lawsuits will take years to sort out.

On top of that, in order for E15 to be sold for non flex-fuel vehicles, the EPA must change a myriad of their own regulations, which will also take years because they must have comment periods for each regulation changed.  Then there is the not so small problem that ASTM has no specification for E15.  E15 is NOT a renewable fuel.  The only "Renewable Fuel" is E85, which can only be used in a flex fuel vehicle.  E15 is gasoline adulterated with ethanol, therefor it has to have an ASTM specification to be sold in most states, so the refineries know what to make.  (E15 can be put into flex-fuel vehicles today and there are "blender" pumps in a few states that dispense it for that purpose.)  Finally, there are dozens of states that have statutes that only allow ethanol blended gasoline up to E10 to be sold in the state.  One of those states is California, the largest gasoline market in the U.S.  It will take years to change all of those state laws, and states may choose not to change their laws, it can be a tricky business.

The ethanol industry asked for the E15 waiver more than two years ago for only one purpose, to avoid the "blending wall", that point when the ethanol mandated by the federal RFS mandate in EISA 2007 swamps the gasoline pool with ethanol quotas that will be large enough to take every drop of gasoline made in the U.S. E10.  That will happen next year, at the latest.  After that the ethanol quotas continue to rise with nowhere to put it, unless E85 takes off big time.  That was the whole point of EISA 2007, to spur E85 production, distribution and the sale of flex-fuel vehicles.  It didn't work and now we are stuck with the unintended consequences of the law, where all gasoline will be E10, even though E10 was never mentioned in the act, and EISA 2007 IS NOT A MANDATORY E10 LAW.

In reality the ethanol lobby has failed to avoid the blending wall and E15 is DOA.  Even if E15 showed up at a few pumps, who in their right mind would put a fuel in their car that isn't covered by their warranty, decreases their mileage further, and costs more than E10, because today ethanol costs more than gasoline in many areas of the country.

References:

Summary of everything that has to be changed to sell E15:  http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/otherfuels/upload/Sierra_Final_Alt_Trans_Fuel_Report_080410.pdf

http://stopethanol.wordpress.com/

http://e0pc.com/

http://www.flyunleaded.com/

NPRA Lawsuit:  http://www.npra.org/newsRoom/?fa=viewCmsItem&title=Latest%20News&articleID=6339

API Lawsuit:  http://americanfuels.blogspot.com/2010/11/api-files-lawsuit-against-epas-e15.html

Automaker's Lawsuit:  http://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/21/report-detroit-carmakers-join-lawsuit-against-epa-looking-to-ov/

 

 

 

 



Dean Billing
104
Posts
26
#12 Posted: 2/4/2011 13:36:00
Joe Scheibinger wrote:

 

Hi Brian,

> ... "While AOPA has successfully prevented ethanol from being blended with avgas, ...

Did AOPA say that?  Really?  ROFLMAO?

ASTM D910 determines what is in 100LL avgas, period!  Ethanol (ethyl alcohol) is NOWHERE part of ASTM D910, therefor NOBODY can add ethanol to 100LL avgas.  There is no question about this.  AOPA does not have to "protect" 100LL avgas.  There is nothing to protect.  Just more pompous, arrogant self congratulatory propaganda from AOPA.

If AOPA and EAA really wanted to do something about the other approved "avgas", which is auto gas made to ASTM D4814, they would be leaning on the FAA to make sure the EPA provides for a supply of ethanol free premium unleaded auto gas nationally for aircraft use, just like they have leaned on the FAA to work with the EPA on the 100LL conundrum.  But alas they do absolutely nothing while ethanol spreads into all of the auto gas.



Joe Scheibinger
Homebuilder or Craftsman
16
Posts
6
#13 Posted: 2/4/2011 14:03:31

Dean,

Yes, AOPA said that. Go back up to the post and hit the hyperlink to the AOPA website and you will see the statement AOPA made. I have no control over what AOPA states in their website.

Please either do better research or delete your post.

Corn lobbys have used their pile of money to try and persuade people in aviation that ethanol is good in airplanes. There was a group of RV's that were given subsidy money and set up camp at EAA. A very famous aircraft kit manufacturer was given a large subsidy to research ethanol and also had a stand set up in Oshkosh. AOPA has been in the forefront to keep ethanol out of aircraft fuel. 



Joe S.
Dean Billing
104
Posts
26
#14 Posted: 2/4/2011 14:21:39 Modified: 2/4/2011 14:26:30

Joe -

Sorry you misunderstood my facetious statement.  I fully understood that AOPA said it.  It does not surprise me at all.  Thought the "ROFL" would have tipped you off.wink

The corn / ethanol lobby has not tried to get ethanol in avgas, because they know it can't be done.  Besides, since avgas represents less than .15% of all the fuel sold in the country, why bother?  I don't even know why refineries bother making the stuff.

There have been a number of demo aircraft that use ethanol fuels.  There are even STCs for running E85 level fuels in aircraft.  So what?  They are great demos, but there is no future for it for any number of reasons, the best one is that aviation fuel represents maybe 200 mgy so who is going to produce it and who is going to install a dispenser on an airport when we cant even get mogas on our airports which is an approved aviation fuel and made by every refinery in the U.S.?

I will say it again AOPA has NOT been in the forefront to keep ethanol out of aircraft fuel, because there is NO WAY to put it in aircraft fuel.  We could just as easily say that API and NPRA are really at the forefront to keep ethanol out of aircraft fuel because their constituents have to actually make 100L to ASTM D910.

BTW, this statement is also a joke:  "In Idaho, pure gasoline is apparently so rare that it's no longer available at some airports."  Mogas hasn't been available on airports in ID for years.  There are exactly three airports in the NW with mogas on the airport, two in Washington and one in Oregon.  There is however lots of ethanol free auto fuel sold in ID, so airports could have it if they wanted it ... for about another year.  http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=ID



Joe Scheibinger
Homebuilder or Craftsman
16
Posts
6
#15 Posted: 2/4/2011 14:49:35

Dean,

I hate to correct you because we seem to be on the same side of the issue, but the corn lobby has tried for a long time to get ethanol in aircraft engines. Have you ever heard of AGE85, a specially blended fuel just for aircraft? this fuel was suppose to replace 100LL until AOPA and Cessna stepped in. Cessna even sent out a service warning in mid 2010 to all Cessna owners telling them not to use AGE85 in aircraft. Please Google search AGE85.

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2010/07/06/cessna-issues-strong-warning-against-use-of-ethanol-in-fuels/

http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Archive/Fuel/Research/AGE85/age85.html



Joe S.
Dean Billing
104
Posts
26
#16 Posted: 2/4/2011 15:04:11

Joe -

I believe that is exactly what I said:  "There are even STCs for running E85 level fuels in aircraft.", so I don't see how you are correcting me.  And it makes no difference what Cessna says, the STC says you can use AGE85 in the airplane that has the STC.  Don't know why anyone would want to though, because you can't buy AGE85 on any airport.  Besides I doubt they ever intended AGE85 replace 100LL since the range of your aircraft drops precipitously.

My mogas STC says I can run auto fuel in my airplane and the FAA approved it, yet Continental & Lycoming say I shouldn't.



Joe Scheibinger
Homebuilder or Craftsman
16
Posts
6
#17 Posted: 2/4/2011 15:34:32
Dean Billing wrote:

 

 Besides I doubt they ever intended AGE85 replace 100LL since the range of your aircraft drops precipitously.

 

 

Commercialization of Aviation-Grade E85 (AGE85)

University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center

Grand Forks, North Dakota – March 21, 2000

An ethanol-based alternative to aviation gasoline known as 100LL (100-octane low-lead) avgas,

AGE85 is:

88 volume% (vol%) ethanol

11 vol% pentane isomerate, a high-octane (88 [R+M]/2), 100% aliphatic gasoline blendstock

1 vol% biodiesel (must meet ASTM PS 121 specifications).

Developed and demonstrated by:

Great Planes Fuel Development, Brookings, South Dakota

South Dakota State University, Brookings

Lake Area Technical Institute, Watertown, South Dakota

Texas Skyways, Boerne, Texas

University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center, Grand Forks

Funding provided by:

South Dakota Corn Utilization Council

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Alternative Fuels Laboratory Program

Certified in May 1999 by U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for use in Cessna 180 and 182 engine–airframe combinations.

 

Yes Dean. It was designed to replace 100LL. Thank you AOPA & Cessna. The only reason I am posting this is because I want to remind ALL EAA MEMBERS AND PRIVATE PILOTS that the corn lobby is working very hard in the background to get their hands on aviation fuel. They give subsidies out like candy to anyone in aviation that will further their cause.

 

 



Joe S.
Dean Billing
104
Posts
26
#18 Posted: 2/4/2011 20:05:50 Modified: 2/4/2011 20:07:18

While that is all fine and dandy chemically, they could make an ethanol equivalent of 100 octane gasoline, it was never an economic possibility.  It would take a completely new production infrastructure for it, new distribution infrastructure and a new airport delivery infrastructure because you cannot pump E85 from a pump designed for gasoline and I doubt any of the old storage tanks at airports can hold E85, the plumbing is not designed for it.  That is why you don't see much E85 at gas stations today.  You cannot simply drop in E85 replacing gasoline at a gas station.  There would need to be an STC program for every airframe / engine combination, a very expensive process, especially if certain aircraft or engines failed as happened in the mogas STC process.  So what was / is there for AOPA to fight against?  AGE85 may have been an interesting engineering demonstration, but it was economically a dead end.  Why would AOPA spend money or resources on fighting it?  There was nothing to fight.

This is the most absurd statement yet:  "... that the corn lobby is working very hard in the background to get their hands on aviation fuel."  I pointed out above that avgas represents 0.15% of all of the gasoline sold in the U.S.  We use more than 136 billion gallons of auto fuel / year.  We use maybe 200 million gallons of 100LL / yr.  And you actually believe the ethanol industry covets that market?  With all of the liability involved?  This year they must produce about 13 billion gallons of ethanol.  If we used E100 in all of our aircraft, it would represent maybe 1.5% of their production.  Next year they have to make about 14 billion gallons of ethanol and then more each year after that until 2022, but avgas usage will not grow.  If the past decade is any indication it will continue to decline about 7+% / year.  We are not a future for them, they don't care a whit about aviation.

 



Dana Nickerson
5
Posts
1
#19 Posted: 2/4/2011 21:46:55

 By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON | Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:28pm EST

"Widespread use of 15 percent ethanol in gasoline could cause engine failures that could leave consumers stranded, injured or worse, and hit consumers with costly engine repairs," said Charles Drevna, President of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association.

The group has sued EPA to keep E15 off the market.

(Reporting by Tom Doggett; additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe in Washington and Julie Ingwersen in Chicago, Editing by Marguerita Choy)



Joe Scheibinger
Homebuilder or Craftsman
16
Posts
6
#20 Posted: 2/4/2011 23:06:58

Dean, you can call it an absurd statement if you want, but facts are facts. I don't mind debating you in a public forum but you could at least have the courtesy to read the posts before you comment on them. I gave you 3 of the many cases where the corn lobby dearly wants to have the aviation market. Look at the post above where I printed the cover of the AGE85 study. Look closely at the companies and schools involved in the study. Can you imagine how many professional grant writers there are in that bunch? It's like pigs running to the troth! There is so much government corporate welfare money out there they are crawling over themselves to get into the pile!

There are hundreds of companies out there hoping to get into the aircraft fuel market with all kinds of strange products made from corn, switch grass, sugar cane, bacteria, algae, you name it. If I could find a way to get a drop of fuel from a carton of Dannon yogurt, I'm sure I could find a grant writer with magic hands that would make me a millionaire using other people’s money before I even get a product to market. Fortunately, I like to sleep at night.

Yes, the corn lobby is working hard in the background to get their hands on aviation fuel. They care a great deal about the aviation market. 20 years ago, we got 2.9 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn. Now after spending billions of dollars on research, we now get 2.9 gallons of ethanol from a bushel of corn, and we are forced by the federal government to buy it in many places! Money talks!

 



Joe S.