OK, so I have no idea what the assorted abbreviations mean in each of those so-called botique fuels, but I do know that RVP is rapid vapor pressure, and that a low number evaporates less easily (resulting in less smog) but a higher number is easier to start in cold weather.

So, here's the thing: any of these RVPs could be used in places where conventional fuel is used -- so, just produce more RVP fuel than you need, and sell the rest off elsewhere. Supply chain problem fixed. It seems to me like it would also make sense to try to expand the places which use RVP 7.0 (or better yet, RVP 7.0 S 30 ppm) in the South so that it's more common, which would make the fuel standard seem less "botiquey" and more normal in places like LA, TX, OK, FL, TN, and NC.

The same goes for the CBGs. Combine the two California CBGs to whichever is cleaner (I'd bet it's RFG/CA CBG). Then, get Arizona and Nevada to use the same fuel. There -- you've just reduced the number of specialized fuels by three.

Furthermore, with the MTBE ban nationwide, hasn't the yellow Texas 7.8 RVP MTBE-No Increase beccome 7.8 RVP, thereby eliminating that specialized fuel and "painting" the Eastern half of Texas brown?

So, I've set up proposals to reduce the number of botiques from 16 to 11, and encouraged the reformulated RVPs in the South to all move toward 7.0 RVP which should waste less fuel and still have the vapor pressure necessary to start on cold days. I'd also suggest that more areas adopt a specialty fuel, and work with neighboring counties/states to choose the single specialized fuel that makes sense for the entire region. In the case of VT, upstate NH, ME, and upstate NY, switch from conventional or 7.8 RVP to RFG North or N RFG w/Ethanol. In the South, expand the use of RFG-South and 7.0 RVP 30 ppm S while reducing the use of other specialized and conventional fuel. California, NV, and AZ can move to RFG/CA CBG, and expand its use throughout the rest of NV, AZ, NM, and into TX.

And voila! The refinery companies get fewer specialized fuels and larger markets to make their supply chain easier to manage, and the citizens get cleaner air.

This was easy!

One problem with selling these fuels where not required, they reduce power and MPG slightly but multiplied over thousands of vehicles it ads up. It would be simpler if they could reduce the number of fuel blends.

RVP = Reed vapor pressure BTW

More info http://www.barneymc.com/toy_root/gen_info/gas_info.htm

if only it were as simple as stomv made it sound: gov't bad, cleaner fuels good.

but it isn't. boutique fuels are more expensive and people are very touchy about fuel prices right now. if the gov't increases the areas that have to use special fuels, they had better make sure the public believes that these fuels are absolutely necessary.

in some of these areas, they may not be. they improve local emissions, which is great for cities with airflow problems, but most american still live out in the country where the car density is low enough that people could run with catalytic converters and nobody would notice except maybe when they walked past an idling car. i'm not recommending that cat's shouldn't be required, just saying that any additional costs should be carefully considered before being added

shaun:

"...but most american still live out in the country..."

What??

sorry, i had my facts reversed. in 1990 75% of the US pop was in urban areas, 25% rural, according to the census. for some reason i thought it was the other way around.

my apologies.

if anyone is interested, as of 2000, roughly 47% of the world pop was urban.

myself included, sadly. before 2000, i'd always lived in small towns.

Refiners pass the cost of boutique fuels on to us so I dont think they are that concerned about its profitibility.They are responding to the "crisis" of high gas prices.
What if the hydrogen used to produce these fuels was diverted to fuel honda hes units in homes thereby displacing the need for coal fired plants?
It may be that boutique fuels are no longer the most efficient way to realize clean air gains.Im not an engineer or a phd so this may be a dumb idea.Asking questions and rethinking conventional wisdom is still probably a wise thing to do from time to time.Just ask GM. They had the answers,the market and oodles of money.They saw no reason to question their busin
es model.
With the advent of accelerating technological advancements it may be self defeating to remain married to one idea to the exclusion of other possibly superior ones.
P.S. Would E85 availlability in these areas be cleaner than boutiques?{I know we dont have enough now}

Actuallty I suspect the refineries will appreciate the simplification process. A number of years ago, around five or so I think, I read an article about how these blends impact prices. One important thing to remember is that the standards require loads of these blends to be pure, so all equipment used during the process and the trucks have to be cleaned out before you can start a batch. Throw in the fact that these blends can require truck routing to be less efficient as a truck can only be used to carry that specific fuel, plus its only allowed to be sold in approved areas, and it creates an expensive logistics issue for the refiners and trucking companies. Simplifying the number of fuels would likely help prices assuming the refineries pass the reduced costs down to consumers (don't count on it).