On 3/22/2014 6:53 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
No. The one does not follow the other. Some fertilizers have always
had certain micronutrients included, others have not. It has nothing
to do with air scrubbers, it's a marketing decision, and that is based
on what the product will be used for and where it will be used - and
that is based on regional soil micronutrient and pH issues.
On Monday, March 24, 2014 10:23:35 AM UTC-5, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Yes it does. Micronutrients added to fertilizer are almost always less tha
n .5%. Adding 8% sulfur to a bag of 8-8-8 fertilizer does not make sulfur a
A direct quote from the manager of the fertilizer plant:
"Sulfur is a secondary plant nutrient that is required by all plants in fai
rly large quantities. Plants get some sulfur from the air but with industri
al plant emissions being reduced by EPA regulations not as much is availabl
e through the air for plant uptake. To prevent a sulfur deficiency it is ad
visable to add sulfur in fertilizer."
That quote from the horses mouth overrides your opinion.
At Waterloo Regional Landfill, we have several large Cat generators
running on Methane "landfill gas" - enough power to light a small
town. The old Kitchener dump provided gas for a large concrete pipe
On 3/21/2014 8:42 AM, email@example.com wrote:
Not something I really keep track of, but I thought ethanol replaced
MTBE as an octane booster (because of water contamination by MTBE). (And
MTBE replaced tetraethyllead.) Wouldn't there need to be some percentage
of ethanol in gasoline unless another octane booster was used?
(Percentage would be a lot less than the ag producers want.)
On 3/21/2014 10:42 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Interesting ... just another way for the government to screw us. In
addition, after reading this thread one morning, that afternoon I heard
an ad on the radio for TruFuel. Leave it to some entrepreneur to come
up with a money maker. It has no alcohol and comes in pure gas, plus
40:1 and 50:1 mixtures for 2 cycle engines. NOT CHEAP, though. Six
quarts runs over $30. Ouch!
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
March 23, 2014
A couple minutes ago, I was listening to the radio
in the kitchen. The news voice said that the cost
of gasoline in california was up, again. Because
the cost of ethanol (which is used in making
gasoline) is up. Well, did it occur to anyone to
use LESS ethanol, and keep the price down? We did
fine without ethanol gasoline for a lot of years.
Yep, if all the effort that went into ethanol production simply went
into making cars more fuel efficient the problem would be solved.
I was at a new car dealership recently and amazed to see most of their
vehicles got about the same MPG that cars got 30 years ago.
How many times do you have to be told that the issue isn't supply? For
the past fews years we have been producing more fuel than we use.
Since domestic demand is down and has been down for several years, the
refineries are doing two things to maintain pricing: 1. shipping the
surplus overseas; 2. periodically reducing production to reduce supply.
Again: the US is producing more fuel than it can use. As a matter of
fact, the low level of consumption in the US is the factor behind the
refineries' decision to add ethanol to even the (formerly)
ethanol-free gasoline. It has to do with the Renewable Fuel Standard.
That's a federal law that requires a set amount of ethanol be added to
gasoline produced in a given year. At the time the law was written, it
was (realistically) assumed that fuel consumption would increase year
over year, so the law mandated an increase in ethanol to be added as well.
Except that fuel consumption in the US in the past several years has
_decreased_, which the law did not anticipate. Thus, refiners are
mandated to incorporate a set amount of ethanol into a diminishing
supply of gasoline. They can't add more ethanol to the ethanol blended
gas without running into labeling problems. So they decided to reduce
the octane level of the ethanol-free gas and push the octane back up
by adding ethanol to it, thus solving the problem of what to do with
all that mandatory ethanol.
Believe it or not, the EPA sees this as a bad and stupid thing for
everybody involved - the gov't, the refineries, and the customers. So
the EPA has proposed a rule that would lower the mandated level of
ethanol to be added to the nation's fuel supply to keep it in balance
with current consumption. This would permit ethanol-free gasoline to
remain ethanol free. So far, the only opposition to this proposed rule
has come from the ethanol industry aka Big Agriculture. They're
working on Congress to forbid the EPA from using common sense, because
that would cost them money. Here they built all those ethanol
production plants and demand isn't keeping up with supply. Boo-effin'-hoo.
Octane can be raised by the cracking and reformulaing of the feed
stock without using lead, MTBE or ethanol - it's just more expensive.
MMT is the current octane boosting additive of choice. There are also
some non-metallic orgonochemical compounds.
My company work pickup is getting less mpg than the previous ones.
At least, that's according to the mpg calculator on the dash. I
haven't actually computed the mileage so can't say for sure.
I've been using 10% ethanol for years so that isn't affecting the
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.