Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

"JJS" jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net writes:

I read a recent article about this (I believe it was in a trade journal). It may be that the key is in using sugar
cane instead of corn.

Yeah, it always catches my attention how corn stacks up so poorly against
other crops when we talk about energy production.

On a good note, I might be able to legally grow something better here
someday!
http://www.votehemp.com/PR/6-27-05_federal_bill.html
Ah...to be free of Monsanto and...hmmm...that's not gonna happen, is it?

--kyler

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet writes:

But you don't have to use petroleum to provide those BTUs; consequently,
it does reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it does pollute less than
petrol.

The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
to have to add .01 petro just to break even.

Indeed. And if you're extremely short-sighted this is likely to be
an overwhelming argument against ethanol. There are, however, people
who believe that it's worthwhile to invest in technologies which can
replace petroleum as an energy source/transport. There are several
places where ethyl alcohol production can become much more efficient.
(low temperature fermentation, ethyl-specific corn hybrids, non-corn
crops, ...)

One of the big reasons for situating our local ethanol plant where it
is was that it had ready access to a large natural gas line. To me
that means that we're converting natural gas into something I can
readily burn in a more-or-less "normal" ICE airplane. Do you have a
better way of converting almost any heat source into airplane fuel
without _requiring_ petroleum?


When you can get a better than 1:1 TOTAL energy in to TOTAL energy out
because then it is self sustaining, I'll say, "Thank God we don't need
fossil fuel anymore" and that ought to be the goal.

But your local plant still needs to be attached to that natural gas line.
Why, becasue while the ethanol while is almost effecient enough, with
government subsidies, to be used as a storage system for energy it isn't
effecient enough to be used for source of energy.

Basicly, the only effecient source of energy we have now is fossil fuel. We
could have nuclear but past US governements have decided for social not
economic reasons that it isn't
a viable alternative and has regulated it out of use.

Sugar ethanol is another political boondoggle. The sugar growers are
planning ahead to when they will be jumping from the sugar price
protection wagon to the ethanol subsidy wagon. One of these days the US
Government will stop protecting US sugar growers and the price of sugar
will drop dramatically.

"JJS" jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net wrote in message

I read a recent article about this (I believe it was in a trade
journal). It may be that the key is in using sugar cane instead of
corn. The article stated that Brazil can produce a barrel of ethanol
for $25.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::


First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
built!


Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years,


So every nuke plant will be decommissioned and torn down after 25 years?
Bull****.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:z5x_e.87748$7f5.78738@okepread01...
Nuclear is feared because the first thing it was used for was blowing up
two cities in Japan. If the first use of electricity had been for the
electric chair we'd have people out there chanting "No more watts."

It was, to prove that AC was dangerous...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
built!

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
years).


You're nuts.

I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong. Arkansas
Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until 2034. That's 60
years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was activated in 1980, 25
years ago and it's license is good until 2018 that's 18 years.

This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry two
almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated under
1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only has a 38 year
license. You can't tell me that they learned something that would cause the
reduction that was a real problem and not reduce the length of the older
license.

Unit 1
Unit
2

Owner:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Reactor Type:
Pressurized Water Reactor
Pressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Manufacturer:
Babcock and Wilcox
Combustion Engineering

Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
Westinghouse
General Electric

Architect/Engineer:
Bechtel Power
Bechtel Power

Commercial Operation Date:
December 1974
March 1980

Maximum Dependable Capacity:
836 MW
858 MW

License Expiration Date:
5/20/34
7/17/18

Even with the $20,000 and below purchase prices, they still have to maintain
them. What happens when they have to get a muffler rebuilt or need a $200
gascolator? You're saying that an extra $10 an hour will ground them
financially. If they fly 40 hours a year, then a $400 repair (let's say a
$300 part + labor) will ground them for the ENTIRE YEAR.

Is that really true or am I missing something here?

Marco Leon

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Really? I meet (and know) plenty of owners who fly on a shoe-string
budget. That's what "grass-roots" aviation is all about.

These are the guys who own C-140s, C-150s, Ercoupes and any of a wide
assortment of GA planes that cost less than $20,000. To them, fuel is
THE single most important factor, and their highest cost of ownership.


If the State increases their cost $10 - $15 per hour by mandating
ethanol it will certainly tip the odds against them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

The original license for Unit 1 expired in 2014 and was extended to 2034
in 2001. The extension for Unit 2 is under review.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear.../statesar.html

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
newsey_e.88762$7f5.28081@okepread01...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power
plant
built!

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
years).


You're nuts.

I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong.
Arkansas Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until
2034. That's 60 years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was
activated in 1980, 25 years ago and it's license is good until 2018
that's 18 years.

This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry
two almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated
under 1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only
has a 38 year license. You can't tell me that they learned something
that would cause the reduction that was a real problem and not reduce
the length of the older license.

Unit
1

Unit 2

Owner:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Reactor Type:
Pressurized Water Reactor
Pressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Manufacturer:
Babcock and Wilcox
Combustion Engineering

Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
Westinghouse
General Electric

Architect/Engineer:
Bechtel Power
Bechtel Power

Commercial Operation Date:
December 1974
March 1980

Maximum Dependable Capacity:
836 MW
858 MW

License Expiration Date:
5/20/34
7/17/18

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:58:53 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
xkx_e.372108$x96.4355@attbi_s72::

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

I find it difficult to believe what you contend. Have you a source
for your assertion?

Here are mine:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...sanonofre.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...l/external.pdf
Regulators view the requirements that utilities consider
externalities in their comparisons of all supply-side and
demand-side options as analogous to providing a level
playing field to both sources. Accordingly, the approach
to incorporating externalities within the IRP
process is grounded in the belief that power generation
imposes substantial environmental and societal burdens
that are not taken into account either in the traditional
least-cost planning and resource selection process or by
the prevailing regulatory controls. Another compelling
argument is the real possibility that environmental
controls will tend to become more stringent in the
future. Prudence, therefore, dictates that externality
considerations be taken into account at the time of
resource selection to avert the possibility of incurring
significant financial costs at a future date, given the 30-
or 40-year life span of power plants.


Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

Well that makes me feel better. So let's ignore my statement about
regulation. It still proves the plants last longer than 25 years.



"sfb" wrote in message news:woy_e.6103$il4.2486@trnddc04...
The original license for Unit 1 expired in 2014 and was extended to 2034
in 2001. The extension for Unit 2 is under review.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear.../statesar.html

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
newsey_e.88762$7f5.28081@okepread01...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power
plant
built!

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
years).


You're nuts.

I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong.
Arkansas Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until
2034. That's 60 years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was
activated in 1980, 25 years ago and it's license is good until 2018
that's 18 years.

This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry two
almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated under
1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only has a 38
year license. You can't tell me that they learned something that would
cause the reduction that was a real problem and not reduce the length of
the older license.

Unit 1

Unit 2

Owner:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Reactor Type:
Pressurized Water Reactor
Pressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Manufacturer:
Babcock and Wilcox
Combustion Engineering

Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
Westinghouse
General Electric

Architect/Engineer:
Bechtel Power
Bechtel Power

Commercial Operation Date:
December 1974
March 1980

Maximum Dependable Capacity:
836 MW
858 MW

License Expiration Date:
5/20/34
7/17/18