| Bill,
I've looked into that too. The closest one I've located is about 50 miles north of where I live, which puts it 100 miles from the airport. So, that won't work for me. I'll keep looking though.
Mark On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:
You can find non-ethanol gas at boat docks
that you can get to with your car if you are willing to pay more for it. I
get about 3 MPG improvement without ethanol so 12-13 % more would be breakeven.
Bill B
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Michael McMahon
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 6:25
PM
To: Rotary
motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL
in California
Wouldn’t it be
cool if you had a choice of ethanol-enhanced and non-ethanol at gas
stations? They could charge more for non-ethanol if you like, but reserve
at least one pump per station for non-ethanol gas. Would that be
difficult? Perhaps it could even be done on a station by station basis,
just through personal contact, at least starting with the independent station
owners.
mike
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011
12:35 PM
To: Rotary
motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: 100LL
in California
You could be right on that. It surely won't hurt to put a little
pressure on the FAA to find/approve an alternative aviation fuel. Personally,
I would be happy if they would make premium auto fuel ethanol free.
On another note, with the time it takes for things to work their way
through the court system, it will be years before this gets resolved. The
oil companies can afford to hire the best attorneys.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Bill
Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
This may not be all bad. It could cause Swift fuel and that
stuff GAMI is making to be approved. Swift fuel costs about $2/gal and
will not go up and down in price like Avgas. You could pay more for it
since it is about 8% more fuel efficient.
Bill B
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:30
PM
To: Rotary
motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] FW: 100LL in California
In case any of you
missed this... who's next?
|
California Suit Targets
100LL
 A California
environmental group has served notice it will sue more than 40 suppliers of
avgas in the state to force them to stop selling it. TheCenter for Environmental Healthhas
given a legally-required 60 days of notice to all the major oil companies
that sell 100LL and the FBOs that pump it at 25 airports to stop. "The
oil and aviation industries need to know Californians will not tolerate lead
pollution that threatens our health and healthy environments," Michael
Green, executive director of CEH, said in a statement. "We expect the
industries to take immediate action to eliminate pollution that endangers
children and families who live, work and play near airports across the state."
CEH cites a 2008 EPA reports that show avgas is
polluting the air and in some cases groundwater around airports with piston
traffic.
CEH notes that Van Nuys Airport, one of
the busiest GA airports in the U.S., shows the highest level of
lead pollution of more than 3,000 airports covered in the report. As we've
reported and commented on extensively, the EPA is now considering its options
in dealing with 100LL in response to a petition from Friends of the Earth.
The CEH route is a little more direct. It alleges violations of the
California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Protesters recently
staged a small rally outside Santa
Monica Airport
complaining about lead pollution.
|
image002.gif
|