Fuel pumping again at turnpike service area / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, July 2, 2009

July 2, 2009

Turnpike gas station up and pumping

New fuel pumps were turned on at the station north of Lawrence on the Kansas Turnpike. Enlarge video

New gasoline and diesel pumps are cranking out fuel at the Lawrence Service Area along the Kansas Turnpike, ending a six-month drought brought on by a multimillion-dollar upgrade.

The new EZ Go pumps went into service Thursday morning, said Lisa Callahan, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Turnpike Authority.

EZ Go had closed its convenience store and pumps at the service area Jan. 12, embarking on a $3.6 million project to replace underground tanks, realign and add more pumps, and replace the convenience store itself.

While fuel is available starting Thursday on a pay-at-the-pump basis, the new store — nearly triple the size of the old one, and including more features, bathrooms and fixtures — opens at 8 a.m. Friday.

“This is very good for our customers and for holiday travelers as they head out to celebrate the Independence Day holiday,” Callahan said.

The service area is five miles east of the turnpike’s East Lawrence interchange, and is located between lanes that carry a daily average of 14,500 vehicles in each direction. The area includes a McDonald’s restaurant, which has remained open throughout EZ Go’s construction and worked to retain awareness by having a bright spotlight blasting into the night sky northeast of town.

Carey Johnson Oil Co. Inc., owner of the EZ Go group, financed the bulk of the project. The turnpike’s share was $1.2 million, to cover costs for paving, electrical and tank-replacement work.

Heading into the project, company President Carey Johnson said that the number of fueling stations for drivers would go from eight to 24, and that the station also would be expanding its variety by providing three grades of fuel — up from two — as well as offering E85, an ethanol blend.

Truckers now have access to a separate, six-lane area equipped with “ultra high-flow” diesel. New pumps also are equipped with credit card readers, something that hadn’t been offered before.

Carey Johnson Oil also financed most of the work for a similar project at the turnpike’s Belle Plaine Service Area, which is south of Wichita. That new store, a $3.8 million project, opened Aug. 22.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

2 July 2009
at 3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

shleppy (Anonymous) says…

holy crap get rid of the “blasting” spotlight. please.
2 July 2009
at 5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

It's a tollway, not a “turnpike,” no matter what the tax-lovers want to call it.
2 July 2009
at 6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

one2no (Anonymous) says…

Well they may have been pumping gas out but they were broke down by 2:30 and not pumping gas anymore.I guess that is what you get for 3.6 million.
2 July 2009
at 6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

Main Entry:
turn·pike Listen to the pronunciation of turnpike
Pronunciation:
\ˈtərn-ˌpīk\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English turnepike revolving frame bearing spikes and serving as a barrier, from turnen to turn + pike
Date:
1678

1: tollgate
2 a (1): a road (as an expressway) for the use of which tolls are collected (2): a road formerly maintained as a turnpike b: a main road ; especially : a paved highway with a rounded surface

Seems fairly clear to a normal person. And there are no taxpayer funds involved.
2 July 2009
at 6:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

“the station also would be expanding its variety by providing three grades of fuel — up from two — as well as offering E85, an ethanol blend.”

So, does this mean that octane 87, 90, and 92 are now available?
OK, octane has different measurements, but still is this three grades of gasoline, and also E85?

Note to writer: E85 is fuel. Does this mean that four grades of gasoline are available?

And is the diesel available to the general public at the car pumps?

Spell it out.

Is this a 3.6 million buck upgrade for the support of ethanol?
Ethanol is a bad engineering idea.
I don't wanna pay for anything related to ethanol fuel.
Are the recent price increases on the turnpike related to the 1.2 million subsidy?

Hey Mark……….did you swallow the whole thing?
I bet you thought this was a pud assignment, eh?

Investigative journalism is the reason you went into the field, no?
Or maybe you just washed outta math?

Dunno. Hit the streets Mark. Might be a story here. Oh, wait, no story. Sorry, this is alternative energy. It is good.

It is clean.

Holy……………………
3 July 2009
at 8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nut_case (Anonymous) says…

devobrun

Typical octane would be 87, 89, and 91 for gasoline (on rare occasions 92) , then 105+ octane for E85.

Curious why you would say “Ethanol is a bad engineering idea”? Is it better sending billions of dollars a month to foreign countries for oil as opposed to keeping it here in the United States with ethanol? Better to support foreign dictators and terrorists over American farmers? As far as actual 'engineering' ethanol is a cleaner burning fuel, higher octane, not prone to leaving deposits in the fuel system (actually cleans junk left by gasoline), burns more efficiently than gas and usually costs about 20% less than gas? I don't really see where the “bad” part comes in?
3 July 2009
at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

nut:
An engineering idea is not based upon foreign dictators. That would be a political decision. The engineering factors you site are cherry picked data.

The most important part of ethanol engineering is the amount of energy used to produce the ethanol versus the energy produced by ethanol.

Can a farmer and the support industries run their operations on ethanol?
1) Can the nitrogen be gathered from methane using ethanol produced from the field?
2) Can the tractor till, fertilize, plant and harvest the crop using the ethanol produced from the field?
3) Can the crop be hauled to the fermentation, distilling factory using ethanol?
4) Can the ethanol be separated from the fermentation product using ethanol?
5) If you add up all the energy above, you will find that energy subsidies are required to produce the ethanol. You get fewer joules from the ethanol than it took to produce the ethanol.

This is bad engineering, nut. Don't bother.
I'm not even counting the increased nitrogen runoff or reduced supply of farmland which causes increased food prices. These are environmental and economic problems.

If my assertion is wrong, give me a citation where an energy budget is performed on agricultural ethanol production. Not a monetary budget. Money is easy to fudge with subsidies. Joules in and joules out and joules invested are the measure of the effective energy system. These are closely held secrets by ethanol producers because they don't add up. The producers of ethanol make money through monetary subsidies and other economic gadgets like $9/bushel corn.
Ag-based ethanol is a scam. It is designed to make money from the tax payer.

3 July 2009
at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nut_case (Anonymous) says…

devo - it seems you have done quite a bit of cherry picking on your own.

1) Of course nitrogen can't be gathered from methane…methane being only carbon and hydrogen (CH4), there is no nitrogen to gather.

2) Tractors burn diesel, not ethanol. Thought there are some studies burning E100 (100% ethanol) as a substitute for diesel…even more promising is using hydrous ethanol (93% ethanol, 7% water) which saves a bunch of distillation energy by not removing the azeotropic water. This can also be used in diesel engines.

3) Again, most heavy haul rigs burn diesel, but ethanol could be substituted as mentioned above

4) Yes, but it is much easier / cheaper to use other sources of energy. Co generation is a good example of using low grade “waste” heat from other processes to power the distillation. (all you really need is enough heat to boil the mash) which means the cooling circuit of most power plants would suffice…heat that is already boiled off as steam anyway.

5) Spoken like true oil company propaganda. Maybe 30 years ago that was true, but technology has advanced quite a bit in that time. Still using a 30 year old computer, TV or VCR ? Even the most conservative estimates now show about 1.3 to 1.8x energy out of ethanol as put in. And a lot of the energy going in is also from domestic or renewable sources (coal, natural gas, etc) so the benefit of moving away from foreign energy sources is even greater.

There are some out there who like to quote the “total energy” input (which includes the solar input to the plants) of course this tips the energy balance and will show ethanol is a loosing battle. But when solar is free, and non polluting, is it really fair to include that?

Of course you don't mention the residual products left over after ethanol is extracted such as dried distillers grains (DDG) which is an excellent high protein animal feed and corn oil which can be used for human or fuel consumption.

As for an energy budget source, they are all over, but like I said above, you will have to look at modern data as technology has really advanced even in the past few years and one which discriminates solar and fossil inputs. For example in 2007: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdf…

” 0.78 million btu fossil energy consumed for each 1 million btu of ethanol delivered compared to 1.23 million btu fossil energy consumed for each 1 million btu of gasoline delivered ”

Ethanol is bad engineering only if you are a Saudi oil sheik.
3 July 2009
at 3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

nut:
1) From wiki…..
“Today, the typical modern ammonia-producing plant first converts natural gas (i.e., methane) or liquified petroleum gas (such gases are propane and butane) or petroleum naphtha into gaseous hydrogen. The process used in producing the hydrogen begins with removal of sulfur compounds from the natural gas (because sulfur deactivates the catalysts used in subsequent steps). Catalytic hydrogenation converts organosulfur compounds into gaseous hydrogen sulfide:

h2 + rsh → rh + h2s(g)

* The hydrogen sulfide is then removed by passing the gas through beds of zinc oxide where it is absorbed and converted to solid zinc sulfide:

H2S + ZnO → ZnS + H2O

* Catalytic steam reforming of the sulfur-free feedstock is then used to form hydrogen plus carbon monoxide:

ch4 + h2o → co + 3 h2

* In the next step, the water gas shift reaction is used to convert the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide and more hydrogen:

co + h2o → co2 + h2

* The carbon dioxide is then removed either by absorption in aqueous ethanolamine solutions or by adsorption in pressure swing adsorbers (PSA) using proprietary solid adsorption media.

* The final step in producing the hydrogen is to use catalytic methanation to remove any small residual amounts of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide from the hydrogen:

co + 3 h2 → ch4 + h2o
co2 + 4 h2 → ch4 + 2 h2o

* To produce the desired end-product ammonia, the hydrogen is then catalytically reacted with nitrogen (derived from process air) to form anhydrous liquid ammonia. This step is known as the ammonia synthesis loop (also referred to as the Haber-Bosch process):

3 H2 + N2 → 2 NH3”

Anhydrous ammonia is nitrogen fertilizer, derived from natural gas. Indeed, the process to gather the nitrogen from the atmosphere is methane intensive too. And what about all that CO2 that is emitted during the hydrogen process?
3 July 2009
at 4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

The GREET study to which you refer is a computer model by Wang.
First, the net 20 BTU/gal represents a net 30% ROI on energy investment. Positive, but marginal. The net ROI on gasoline is 200%. That is, the energy expended on recovery of oil is 1/3 the energy gathered from the recovery. This is illustrated in figure 2 where expense is shown along with total energy.

I know of no one who includes solar energy on an energy expense report. This is a red herring. Solar is free, but by the same definition of free, oil is free too.

Both energies are collected and converted to a usable form of energy. This form of usable energy is called exergy in the parlance of the energy world.

The reason that Exxon, Conoco/Phillips and all the rest aren't diving full speed into these alternatives is that they don't make sense compared to oil. A 30% margin is slim and can be eaten up with factory explosions, spills, crop failures, fertilizer and irrigation requirements that aren't controlled.

I sure wouldn't put my money into a scheme that only promises a 30% ROI on energy. Smart money from wall street, china, the oil patch doesn't think so either.

Again, do 1.2 million dollar subsidies to a fuel station on the turnpike represent an investment that I'm paying for. And if so, how much is going to put in a fifth storage tank for E85?
3 July 2009
at 6:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nut_case (Anonymous) says…

Ok, if you mean hydrogen from methane, say hydrogen from methane. I'm fully aware of the hydrogen generation and ammonia synthesis processes which are clearly included in the energy budget for ethanol production. Plus, continuing advances in corn genetics and farming practices are increasing the amount of corn grown per unit fertilizer applied, too.

In your second post, I think you mean 20,000 btu/gal, not 20 btu/gal. But at least we now agree ethanol is energy positive. You say oil is 200% ROI on the recovery. While that may be, there is still transportation to the refinery…which can be half way around the world in some cases, the actual refining process, and distribution of the finished product. All pretty energy intensive processes in their own right.

At any rate, it comes down to simple economics for me. E85 is 20% cheaper than regular gas and usually 30+% cheaper than the premium gas my car would normally use. Mileage does drop by ~12%, but that is still money in the bank every time I fill up. Plus I like knowing my money is getting pumped back into the American economy as opposed to sent out to foreigners…many of which have dubious human rights records and/or are openly hostile toward the US.

As for the station rebuild, multiple millions of dollars does seem like a lot to sink into a simple gas station. The few times I bought overpriced gas out there, the pumps were far from full and I didn't feel like paying the sky high prices in the convenience store either. Though I seriously doubt all that money was spent simply to add a few E85 pumps.
3 July 2009
at 6:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Ok, fair enough, nut.

Your mileage is reduced because ethanol is about 12% less energy containing (on a volumetric basis) than gasoline. The difference of 8% is due to government subsidies.

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/…

Look at chapter 3. At least in the first half of this decade, the subsidy is 50 cents. I could look around and find current data, but my guess is that it is the same or more, not less.

So, some of my $45,000 income tax bill this past year went to your friggin' gas tank. You are welcome.

But you are welcome only if you start questioning authority, like Dr. Wang in the post you recommended. He is wrong. He is working the same scam as Jim Hansen, whom I have met.

You, Mr. Nut_Case are being scammed. You bought it.

Since I have 9 years of graduate school/post grad experience in engineering, and a 25 year career in electrical engineering, including president of 2 companies, I know better.

This is a joke, Nut.

I am distraught at the demise of engineering. Replaced by politics and media hype.
4 July 2009
at 10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nut_case (Anonymous) says…

“So, some of my $45,000 income tax bill this past year went to your friggin' gas tank. You are welcome.”

Well, thanks. Though you can be assured, a large portion of that fuel went to propel me to work where I made money and paid my own taxes. I spent the money I made in the economy and invested some as well. Maybe I bought something from one of your companies or maybe a farmer who made a few cents more per bushel of corn bought something from you. Either way, that money is still circulating in the American economy.

I'm quite sure a large portion of my tax bill went to defend your oil fields in Iraq and other locations around the world, or otherwise subsidize foreign oil. That money is essentially gone from the economy unless this is a rare case where you have Iraqis, Saudis and Venezuelans lined up at your company door.

The link and subsidies you mention - The current subsidy is 45 cents/gallon, down from 51 cents in 2005 and following the same decreasing trend since 1984. The table seems to state the actual amount, but according to an inflation calculator 60 cents in 1984 is about $1.23 today. That actually reflects about a 60% drop in subsidy.

At any rate, I'm off to fill up with E85 and do a little celebrating. Maybe spend a few more dollars in the economy…possibly even with your companies.