Ethanol Powered Aircraft

Jay Honeck wrote:
...
Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
than it actually produces, this is a fuel that we're apparently going
to be stuck with -- forever? -- for political reasons. We're gonna
have to live with it, somehow.
...
Does the production efficiency matter if the supply is unlimited or the
prices is really low? I don't know that it is, but but you may have
introduced a red herring with your rhetoric.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:53:12 -0400, Stubby
wrote in
:



Jay Honeck wrote:
...
Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
than it actually produces, this is a fuel that we're apparently going
to be stuck with -- forever? -- for political reasons. We're gonna
have to live with it, somehow.
...
Does the production efficiency matter if the supply is unlimited or the
prices is really low? I don't know that it is, but but you may have
introduced a red herring with your rhetoric.

The point is, that the fuel and resources necessary to produce ethanol
might be better used directly if efficiency is a concern.

Does the production efficiency matter if the supply is unlimited or the prices is really low? I don't know that it is, but but you may have introduced a red herring with your rhetoric.

I lose a dime on every sale, but I make up for it in volume.

I wonder how much non-ethanol fuel is used to make the ethanol that lets
us save non-ethanol fuel in the first place. We could alternatively
simply put the non-ethanol fuel in our cars and have fuel left over.

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

You've got a great point. Not to mention the costs of production that are
involved in growing corn.

From an insiders view (forgive me while I whine) there is currently no
incentive for the farmers of this country to produce corn for ethanol if
they have any other alternatives. Ethanol companies are true bottom
feeders. They purchase the poorest and cheapest corn they can, often paying
more in freight than they do for the corn, then they sell the by products
back to the feed companies and dairies, competing directly with the farmers
that supply them the higher quality corn.

Currently, the cash corn market is around $2 per bushel, the alcohol plants
are buying it for less. Assume an average yield of 150 bu / A at the $2
price and you end up with $300 per acre gross income. Throw in about $1 per
bu from uncle Sam because the market is so low, but wait, don't forget about
the max subsidy limit of $60,000 so, make that $0.50 from Sammy. Now we're
getting a whopping $375 per acre gross income to grow the corn. That's
about $100 per acre under the cost of production, drying, and storage.
Forget about return on investment.

I'm looking at returns for growing peas, green beans, and sweet corn...
$450-$600 per acre and I don't have to harvest it, dry it, store it, haul
it, or market it. Plus they are all shorter season crops which means less
herbicide, insecticide, aerial application, and irrigation.

Current US corn production is roughly 10 billion bushels. The carry over
from the previous year has been getting smaller. Next year there won't be a
carry over. This is due to increased usage including ethanol production.
Unless corn prices rise significantly, the US will not produce enough corn
to meet current market demands PLUS enough to produce enough ethanol to
treat 100% of the gasoline. Other methods for producing ethanol will no
doubt be tried, but when 1 bu of $2.00 corn will produce 2.5 gallons of
ethanol, other US available sources may not be as efficient. Watch for
ethanol imports. It will happen.

The monkey is definitely turning the ethanol crank.

Jim

Jim Burns wrote:
Unless corn prices rise significantly, the US will not produce enough corn
to meet current market demands PLUS enough to produce enough ethanol to
treat 100% of the gasoline.

Oh but wait... enviro-fascists will demand that we have MORE
ethanol production and use. That little green thingy looks so
cute on vehicles too doncha know.

Do something... do *anything*.. throw more MONEY at the problem
(money is green!!) to make us feel like we are doing something
good! Just do NOT even mention exploration or production for
more of own petroleum resources.

ktbr wrote:

snip

Do something... do *anything*.. throw more MONEY at the problem
(money is green!!) to make us feel like we are doing something
good! Just do NOT even mention exploration or production for
more of own petroleum resources.


If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

There are areas oil companies can and should explore and they are
doing that. The fundamental problem is that as long as Saudi oil costs
a dollar a barrel to lift there is no way serious capital expenditure
is going into alternate sources because as they do the Saudis will drop
the price. They are a low grade bunch of whores. They are literally
pigs, living off their cash flow as if there is no tomorrow. The idea
of seriously restricting supply to keep their nation solvent for more
than a few decades more is unimaginable to them-they are all old men
making the decisions and they will be dead before then.

As far as aviation goes, the first and foremost totally unnecessary
and wasteful expenditure of money to fly is the delta between aviation
fuel and the fuel every other engine runs on. If you are flying on
$5/gallon avgas, 2/5ths of your fuel budget is wasted. Light aircraft
must run on generally available, non-aviation-specific fuels as a
matter of principle more than the actual cost. There is no solid
technical reason why aircraft flying at the speeds and altitudes light
aircraft most all spend their time at need an exotic and specially
toxic fuel, which is why banishment of avgas will please me. If we were
flying P-51s or Connies at FL 400 the argument for low-RVP fuels with
octane ratings based on different procedures than R+M/2 would make
engineering sense.

Bret Ludwig wrote:

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

As far as aviation goes, the first and foremost totally unnecessary
and wasteful expenditure of money to fly is the delta between aviation
fuel and the fuel every other engine runs on. If you are flying on
$5/gallon avgas, 2/5ths of your fuel budget is wasted. Light aircraft
must run on generally available, non-aviation-specific fuels as a
matter of principle more than the actual cost. There is no solid
technical reason why aircraft flying at the speeds and altitudes light
aircraft most all spend their time at need an exotic and specially
toxic fuel, which is why banishment of avgas will please me. If we were
flying P-51s or Connies at FL 400 the argument for low-RVP fuels with
octane ratings based on different procedures than R+M/2 would make
engineering sense.


oh...So... since YOU don't fly any of these aircraft, the fuel they
use should banned. And you could care less whether they fly or not...
Who cares if most flight schools use airplanes that burn this fuel.
You are knee-jerkingly ignorant of the facts and that is a sad
comentary.

Sheesh... GA doesn't need anymore enemies... hopefully you are not
a pilot.

ktbr wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

Tell you what fellow, *you* are the one who needs an education!

The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
anything you can even imagine.

Oh, and *you* have almost certainly never been to ANWR if you
think all it is is "frozen tundra"! Some people (those with a
bit more knowledge than you) are aware that frozen tundra is
some pretty awesome landscape.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

ktbr wrote:



oh...So... since YOU don't fly any of these aircraft, the fuel they
use should banned. And you could care less whether they fly or not...
Who cares if most flight schools use airplanes that burn this fuel.
You are knee-jerkingly ignorant of the facts and that is a sad
comentary.


Even given a unlimited fuel supply they will be out of the air well
within my lifetime unless highly modified or someone starts making
R-3350 Turbocompound and RR Merlin parts again including cases, banks
and cranks. The Connies could now be converted to turboprop in the
stock nacelle and with the stock blades (the hub, or at least the pitch
mechanism, would need changing depending on whether a single or double
shaft engine were used) but a turbine Mustang just isn't a Mustang and
Allisons are in the same boat.

Running them on straight ethanol would be the easy mod.

Besides, I thought we were done "aggrandizing WWII"......((ROTFLMAO)).

[The Saudis] are a low grade bunch of whores. They are literally
pigs, living off their cash flow as if there is no tomorrow.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

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