Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

"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?

--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.

Despite the fact that mandating ethanol blends would be bad for you, it's
really better for the country in general. Using ethanol, along with
biodiesel, can go along way towards making our country less dependant on
foreign oil. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be
developed for my airplane, but it would also be great to tell the middle
east to kiss our ass. Presently, the autogas STC for my 160hp Cherokee is
fairly expensive (~$1500 last time I checked), and it requires you to use
premium unleaded, so the cost savings isn't quite as much. I haven't
been able to verify whether Maryland requires an ethanol blend, but I
think it does, so even if I went back to 150hp pistons, I'd still be
screwed. Anyway, using ethanol and biodiesel is a great idea. I've even
considered trading my commuter car for some model of VW diesel so that I
can burn biodiesel. I think that increasing the percentage of ethanol to
as high as a normal car can stand, is also a good idea. Sounds like
Rep. Nussie isn't that crazy.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

Why is the Federal government subsiding ethanol manufacturing? If it was
such a good flipping deal, why haven't the energy companies gone into
the ethanol business. Ethanol is good for the corn crowers which last I
looked was not the county in general.

There are serious studies that demonstrate ethanol is an energy loser as
it requires more BTUs to manufacture that it provides. Ethanol is the
prime example of the agriculture lobby taking advantage of the energy
panic to have the taxpayers subsidize their over capacity. Factory
automation has eliminated many more jobs than have been shipped
overseas. If the country chooses not to use public money to keep
unprofitable factories open, why must it subside unprofitable
agriculture?


"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...

Despite the fact that mandating ethanol blends would be bad for you,
it's
really better for the country in general. Using ethanol, along with
biodiesel, can go along way towards making our country less dependant
on
foreign oil. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be
developed for my airplane, but it would also be great to tell the
middle
east to kiss our ass. Presently, the autogas STC for my 160hp
Cherokee is
fairly expensive (~$1500 last time I checked), and it requires you to
use
premium unleaded, so the cost savings isn't quite as much. I haven't
been able to verify whether Maryland requires an ethanol blend, but I
think it does, so even if I went back to 150hp pistons, I'd still be
screwed. Anyway, using ethanol and biodiesel is a great idea. I've
even
considered trading my commuter car for some model of VW diesel so that
I
can burn biodiesel. I think that increasing the percentage of ethanol
to
as high as a normal car can stand, is also a good idea. Sounds like
Rep. Nussie isn't that crazy.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

sfb wrote:

There are serious studies that demonstrate ethanol is an energy loser as
it requires more BTUs to manufacture that it provides.

But that energy doesn't have to be produced by burning oil.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

It ain't pixie dust powering the farm machinery that tills the fields
and plants, fertilizes, and harvests the corn.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:Rre_e.18545$lW3.12256@trndny09...
sfb wrote:

There are serious studies that demonstrate ethanol is an energy loser
as it requires more BTUs to manufacture that it provides.

But that energy doesn't have to be produced by burning oil.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person
to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"sfb" wrote in message news:02f_e.9523$kH3.8149@trnddc01...
It ain't pixie dust powering the farm machinery that tills the fields and
plants, fertilizes, and harvests the corn.


Or makes the steel and plastic tractor, or runs and feeds the fertilizer
plant.

In article ,
(Jay Masino) wrote:
Despite the fact that mandating ethanol blends would be bad for you, it's
really better for the country in general. Using ethanol, along with
biodiesel, can go along way towards making our country less dependant on
foreign oil. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be


Our "dependence" on foreign oil is a problem of our own creation--not
because of our consumption, but rather because of legislation and
regulation that restricts supply. The United States is presently the
third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, ahead of every OPEC
member except for Saudi Arabia. We could easily be the largest oil
producer if the oil reserves under federal land were permitted to be
explored.

Crude oil is one problem, refining capacity is another. We do not have
adequate refining capacity to meet domestic demand. Again, the lack of
refining capacity is the result of legislation and regulation which
makes it prohibitively expensive to build and operate refineries.
Requirements for certain "blends" for certain domestic markets makes it
more expensive and difficult to meet unexpected demand.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jay Masino) wrote:
Despite the fact that mandating ethanol blends would be bad for you, it's
really better for the country in general. Using ethanol, along with
biodiesel, can go along way towards making our country less dependant on
foreign oil. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be


Our "dependence" on foreign oil is a problem of our own creation--not
because of our consumption, but rather because of legislation and
regulation that restricts supply. The United States is presently the
third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, ahead of every OPEC
member except for Saudi Arabia. We could easily be the largest oil
producer if the oil reserves under federal land were permitted to be
explored.


JKG

The above isn't really true. There are not that many places off limits to
petroleum exploration in the US and none of them have enough reserves to
offset imported oil. Every availible drilling rig is drilling and has been
for years. The new higher prices are also allowing production of petroleum
that was previously uneconomic (like tar sands). The reality is that, until
recently, only a small (~20%) percentage of the worlds population used any
meaningful amount of energy and now perhaps 60% is using a meaningful amount
of energy. That is a tripling in the number of consumers and the effects
are obvious.

Personally, I like the strategy of using Middle East oil until it is gone.
The percentage of water produced by Saudi oil fields goes up every year...in
a decade or two, three at the most, we won't care much about the Middle
East.

Mike
MU-2

You're correct, but that doesn't negate the fact that there's only a
certain amount of oil in the ground, and it's not gonna last forever.
It's hard to argue with the concept of growing some corn or soybeans and
making fuel from it. Even if it's not the complete answer, it still
starts the ball rolling towards weening ourselves from fossile fuels.


Jonathan Goodish wrote:
Our "dependence" on foreign oil is a problem of our own creation--not
because of our consumption, but rather because of legislation and
regulation that restricts supply. The United States is presently the
third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, ahead of every OPEC
member except for Saudi Arabia. We could easily be the largest oil
producer if the oil reserves under federal land were permitted to be
explored.

Crude oil is one problem, refining capacity is another. We do not have
adequate refining capacity to meet domestic demand. Again, the lack of
refining capacity is the result of legislation and regulation which
makes it prohibitively expensive to build and operate refineries.
Requirements for certain "blends" for certain domestic markets makes it
more expensive and difficult to meet unexpected demand.

--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com