Ethanol Powered Aircraft

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:54:05 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
I really don't want a fire powered laptop in my lap. That's
why I got rid if the Sony battery in my Dell.

I've had a couple of laptops over the years that definitely acted as
lap warmers... I remember an older IBM ThinkPad that would leave a red
mark on your leg if you left it there too long...


But did yours do this?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32550

Steve Foley wrote:
If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.

Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
it will probably be easier to understand.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
it will probably be easier to understand.

-Robert


That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

Clear as mud, huh?

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Steve Foley wrote:
If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.


There is no reason to burn oil to make electrical power (for utility
use.) Even burning natural gas is wasteful. Coal and garbage are what
we should be burning for power, if anything at all.

Beech did a lot of work with LNG. It was, like all Beech designs,
expensive, complex and a pain in the ass to maintain.

Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from
peak to off-peak, and nuke plants do best at steady power output.
Nuclear is actually the way to go and is in my opinion inevitable. In
the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge
subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?

On 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:

Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from
peak to off-peak, and nuke plants do best at steady power output.
Nuclear is actually the way to go and is in my opinion inevitable. In
the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge
subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?

What's your take on a distributed network of pebble-bed plants? I
like the advantages of easier containment, no single-point-of-failure
myself, but I don't understand all the disposal issues.

Don

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:
the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge
subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?

I have a hard time imagining anything less likely. This sounds like a
"World of Tomorrow" movie clip made during the 50's. We all know how much
we love our flying cars and cities in the skies!

Greg

On 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Robert M. Gary wrote:
Steve Foley wrote:
If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.


There is no reason to burn oil to make electrical power (for utility
use.) Even burning natural gas is wasteful. Coal and garbage are what
we should be burning for power, if anything at all.

Beech did a lot of work with LNG. It was, like all Beech designs,
expensive, complex and a pain in the ass to maintain.

Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from

That is one of the main fallacies of the electric car. They also need
to be charged during the day due to limited range.

peak to off-peak, and nuke plants do best at steady power output.
Nuclear is actually the way to go and is in my opinion inevitable. In

The technology already exists to build much better plants than we have
now.

the very long run, nukeplants may be built under the sea, in huge

land is probably a better place to keep pollutants down in case of a
leak. Salt water is good at becoming radioactive.

subterranean underwater canyons with a closed power cycle, and the
wastes glassified and buried. In the shorter run...who knows?
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:
On 15 Aug 2006 10:50:17 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote:


Robert M. Gary wrote:
Steve Foley wrote:
If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.


There is no reason to burn oil to make electrical power (for utility
use.) Even burning natural gas is wasteful. Coal and garbage are what
we should be burning for power, if anything at all.

Beech did a lot of work with LNG. It was, like all Beech designs,
expensive, complex and a pain in the ass to maintain.

Electric cars are actually going to be nuclear cars because the
electric cars will be charged at night, stabilizing the grid load from

That is one of the main fallacies of the electric car. They also need
to be charged during the day due to limited range.


Electric cars will supplant rather than replace IC cars. The people
who are good candidates for electric cars are those that customarily
drive a 5 to 25 mile radius to work, as 10 to 50 miles is the optimum
range of electric cars. Those with substantially longer commutes or who
mostly use their cars for long trips are simply not good candidates for
electric cars and no effort should be made to sell those people an
electric car.

Vacation trips and occasional longer drives are best handled in one of
two ways. Electric cars can be built with low power gensets making them
"electric-primary" hybrids (as opposed to today's hybrids which are all
"gasoline primary" hybrids.) Or, a second vehicle can be used.

The only need to charge during the day for people who fit the EV
mileage profile would be third shift workers, who therefore are poor EV
candidates as well.

The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines....

Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
it will probably be easier to understand.

Fine, except that the argument is that the ethanol production (analogy
to large central engine) is -less- efficient.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.

The only problem with that point of view, is that every energy
transformation and use carries a penalty of a percentage of the energy being
lost.
--
Jim in NC