Nothing I said worked but MTBE did eventually get removed from gasoline, but only to be replaced by another polluting mileage loss causing groundwater polluting additive, anhydrous ethanol. While riding the bus up to Capitol Hill, I was reading the Washington Times where I came across an article about a scientist right here in Washington DC named Paul Waters who discovered how to add polyisobutylene, a polymer added to just about everything we use, to gasoline so that it gives 20% more mileage with 70 percent less pollution. I thought surely that the article was heaven sent because by having it, I could make a very hard to disagree with argument that it should replace MTBE when I got to the senators office, the now ex Senator George Allen.
But all I was told was that a lot of very important people invested their money in the future of MTBE and it wasn’t going to go away just because it made me sick. She also told me that stories about magic additives to gasoline that gave more mileage with less pollution are a dime a dozen, that if it were true, it would already be in gasoline and diesel fuel. She explained it to me as if that fact would be plainly obvious to anyone with any common sense as if to suggest I was way out of my league trying to discuss such issues in Washington DC
But I had it there in front of me. It was on the front page of the Washington Times, a reputable right wing newspaper, and senator Allen was a Republican. She had dismissed my believing it could be true as if I were naive. I have been reading newspapers here in Washington DC since I was a child. I am aware of the standards they have to follow to report a story. It wasn’t an ad for a gasoline additive. It was front-page news in a highly regarded newspaper. What more can I say? Eventually MTBE use was stopped. I like to even think I had something to do with getting rid of it in spite of how “important” the peoples money was who bet it on a loser.
So a few weeks ago, after being frustrated by the lack of intelligent debate about MTBE’s replacement ethanol, which also causes a lot of unnecessary pollution and mileage loss, I went looking to see if anything ever came of professor Waters invention to find out if there were any stories I could use to help inform Americans about how anhydrous ethanol is not an additive to gasoline designed for its fuel use properties but as an oxygenate added for air quality. Since oxygenates were required to be added to gasoline, it’s been discovered they actually increase polluting emissions, a fact being ignored in favor of using ethanol to offset our dependence on foreign oil.
But if that is what we want from ethanol, for it to replace fossil fuel, then we need to be looking at using hydrous ethanol like Brazil and the Chinese are doing. Used that way, there’s no mileage loss and it pollutes much less. Since no one wants to hear about how bad we’re doing with anhydrous ethanol, I was thinking perhaps Americans would want listen to how good polyisobutylene is. I mean no news is good news but good news is even better.
Sure enough, polyisobutylene is being used in Texas under the product name Viscon being added to diesel fuel in regions that weren’t able to meet national air quality standards which is enabling them to comply with EPA pollution control requirements. There was no mention of it helping with mileage but it’s been thoroughly tested by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality having been certified as having the ability to reduce emissions from diesel engines. Since pollution is nothing but unburned fuel, then it would have to be assumed that if there’s less pollution, there must be more power being produced from the engine which means more mileage. And I found legislation authorizing payment for Viscon to consult with Texas diesel refiners on how to refine Viscon into their fuel to lessen pollution and increase mileage. But news articles on using it to reduce pollution never mention the mileage increase.
This brings to mind a strange memory. See Viscon used to be GTATech here in Virginia not far from where I live. Soon after I read the article in The Washington Times about their additive, I contacted them in an effort to help them force their additive on our leaders in Washington hoping that it would replace MTBE. I was however awestruck by the lack of inspiration generated by the article for them to push for legislation requiring their additive be added to gasoline all over the country where they stood to make billions of dollars if they could get their message out.
It bothered me so much that it kept me up nights. Then it came to me, why they wanted to keep their product to themselves selling it only to a niche consumer base. See polyisobutylene is refined from crude oil. If the oil companies were forced to pay them to add it to gasoline, they would simply come up with a way to refine gasoline and diesel fuel with the same properties their additive gives them, which since it has to be added to fossil fuels in such precise amounts for it to work properly, their additive would be banned because it could no longer be added to diesel fuel or gasoline without ruining it.
But now it seems that the patent holders for polyisobutylene being added to gasoline and diesel have found a way to promote their product without losing control of future profits by consulting on how to refine fuels with the same properties adding polyisobutylene to it would provide, but only for a niche market in Texas. It just never ceases to amaze me how the politics behind the fuel we consume always comes before the logical directions it so obviously should be heading. I mean as hard as I tried to raise awareness about polyisobutylene, the people who were standing in the way were the company that held the patent and the oil companies that had no interest in an additive that help us need less of their product. I fact I was given to think that this was a no brainer, that no company would want to better their product in such a way that consumers would need less of it.
I was promoting the idea around them raising prices 20% to offset their sales loss because it gives 20% more mileage. I figured Americans would be willing to break even on the expense for the mileage if they got better air quality out of it. Fuel prices have risen hundreds of percents since then and still we’re getting gasoline that gives less mileage with more pollution because we’re adding anhydrous ethanol to it.
The thing is that when most people think of Texas, they think of big oil. So it seems that Texas is willing to refine diesel with polyisobutylene properties for itself so they can pollute less to bring them into compliance with EPA air quality standards as long as the mileage increase benefit is kept quiet, which makes sense because they have worse pollution there than anywhere in the world because of all the refineries. But when it comes to the fuel they sell the rest of us, I guess it doesn’t matter how much money we pay for a gallon of fossil fuel, they have no intention of selling us a product that works the way that it should.
Of course if they did let their secret out of Texas, it would mean a 20 percent increase to the world’s fuel supplies because the same fuels we use now would give us 20% more mileage which would reduce demand for fossil fuel and bring down the price of gasoline and diesel fuel.
I guess I’m wondering if there is some way we can negotiate with all the people in the ethanol and oil refining industry to find out just how much money it is they need us to give them to allow us to have that 20% percent mileage increase because I still think Americans are willing to pay more simply for the air quality benefits that fuel produced this way would provide. I mean we give the government free money to solve problems. Couldn’t we just give it to the people causing problems to stop causing them?
Other recent article by Bobby Fontaine
July 11, 2008 - What does Dick Cheney have to do with the murder of Chandra Levy?
July 11, 2008 - China gets ethanol right while US still floundering
July 11, 2008- I got arrested for stalking Phil Gramm
July 6, 2008 - How to have Perfect Health in a polluted world
July 6, 2008 - American approach to health care is all wrong
July 4, 2008 - Bush's double blind strategy to wake up the world
June 29, 2008 - Reality TV show to choose next President
June 28, 2008 - The whole story about why the world is falling apart
June 27, 2008 - California going wrong way with new pollution control measures
June 26, 2008 - Louisiana only state to get ethanol correct
June 18, 2008 - Get rid of Wall Street and IRS so we can all be rich
June 16, 2008 - Letter to Iowa - What caused your deadly flood and tornadoes?
June 16, 2008 - Chicken Little tells a story of ethanol and the sky falling
June 15, 2008 - More Saudi oil will only mean more speculating
June 14,2008 - The great gasoline hoax deciphered for the uninitiated
June 10. 2008 - You won't believe how crude oil is priced
June 09. 2008 - Veteran of ethanol industry Larry Johnson speaks out against anti-ethanol activism
June 06. 2008 - Yesterday's UN food summit sidetracked the issue of high food costs
June 05, 2008 - California drought being caused by ethanol in gasoline
June 04, 2008 - Ethanol & MTBE - Put A Hurricane In Your Tank
June 03, 2008 - Ethanol: Can you handle the truth?
June 01, 2008 - The Bad News about Ethanol you haven't heard, yet
Send questions, comments, criticism, or suggestions to Bobby Fontaine at -
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
