The ethanol nightmare has arrived!

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
news

Mxsmanic wrote:
M writes:

Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in
pipelines.

Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?

The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of
the plumbing start leaking.



It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is replace
fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden mogas.

Then it isn't the existing plumbing, is it?

Nope, but it cost about 8 bucks to convert the airplane.

Depending on what the existing plumbing is made of, you may have to
replace all, some, or none of gaskets, fittings, lines, tanks, and
the carburetor, i.e. everything the fuel touches.



Yep, did that. All that was really required was the flexible line from
the firewall to the carb and to ensure the float was a metal one. For
the flexible line we just got a length of automotive line and put
aircraft fittings on the end of it. The system is pretty simple and
fairly devoid of stuff that could be affected.

If the entire GA fleet were built like Luscombes we'd be home free.

What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-28's?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:kogvc5-ruf.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in
news
Mxsmanic wrote:
M writes:

Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in
pipelines.

Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in
pipelines?

The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces
of
the plumbing start leaking.



It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is
replace
fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden
mogas.

Then it isn't the existing plumbing, is it?

Nope, but it cost about 8 bucks to convert the airplane.

Depending on what the existing plumbing is made of, you may have to
replace all, some, or none of gaskets, fittings, lines, tanks, and
the carburetor, i.e. everything the fuel touches.



Yep, did that. All that was really required was the flexible line
from
the firewall to the carb and to ensure the float was a metal one. For
the flexible line we just got a length of automotive line and put
aircraft fittings on the end of it. The system is pretty simple and
fairly devoid of stuff that could be affected.

If the entire GA fleet were built like Luscombes we'd be home free.

If the enbtire GA fleet was built like luscombes, they'd still be flying
70 years after they were built.

What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-
28's?


Plumbing problems are really very small in the greater scheme of
things. If all that was available was straight ethanol or methanol,
plumbing would become available.


Bertie


Bertie

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:59:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:




What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-
28's?


Plumbing problems are really very small in the greater scheme of
things. If all that was available was straight ethanol or methanol,
plumbing would become available.

Right.

All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
but hand-wringing.

We will *have* to change to alternative fuels, or perish.

Dan Luke wrote in
news
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:59:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:




What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-
28's?


Plumbing problems are really very small in the greater scheme of
things. If all that was available was straight ethanol or methanol,
plumbing would become available.

Right.

All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
but hand-wringing.

We will *have* to change to alternative fuels, or perish.


Well you might perish!
I'll just walk.

Bertie

Dan Luke wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:59:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:




What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-
28's?


Plumbing problems are really very small in the greater scheme of
things. If all that was available was straight ethanol or methanol,
plumbing would become available.

Right.

All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
but hand-wringing.

Right.

Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
out of our ass and implement it.

If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or engineering
or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass until we luck out
and get something that works.

Great plan.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:55:03 GMT, wrote:


All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
but hand-wringing.

Right.

Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
out of our ass and implement it.

Who said it would be easy, Jim?

There will be problems, f-ups and failures.

But what's the alternative? SNAFU?


If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or engineering
or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass until we luck out
and get something that works.

Great plan.

What's your plan?

Dan Luke wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:55:03 GMT, wrote:


All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
but hand-wringing.

Right.

Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
out of our ass and implement it.

Who said it would be easy, Jim?

There will be problems, f-ups and failures.

Only if sound, established engineering and economic practices are ignored,
in which case you get boondogles like the current ethanol fiasco.

But what's the alternative? SNAFU?

We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular perception
did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor source), rather
they greatly increased domestic petroleum production. Ever heard of
Alaska?

There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.

None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.

While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
becomes economically viable.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:

We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular perception
did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor source), rather
they greatly increased domestic petroleum production. Ever heard of
Alaska?

Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?

Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.


There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.

None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.

And more environmental destruction and more cost to recover and no
reduction in GHG emissions.


While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
becomes economically viable.

Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

http://www.doe.gov/pricestrends/5091.htm

http://www.news.com/Solar-cell-busin...3-6126962.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...ort/solar.html

====================
....demand is rising and [] the prices of solar cells, measured in cost
per watt, continue to drop. In 1980, a solar panel cost about $21 per
watt. (That is, each watt produced from the panel would cost about $21
each over the life of the panel.) Now it's about $2.70 per watt.

By 2010, crystalline silicon solar cells will sell for about $1.25 to
$1.50 per watt, while thin-film solar cells will sell for 90 cents to
$1.30 per watt. The thin-film cells, however, will be less efficient.

He likened the cost decline to what has occurred in transistors. In
1974, a transistor cost about 10 cents to produce. Now, an individual
transistor costs 5 nanodollars, or 5 billionths of a dollar.
=====================

No unobtanium needed.

On 2008-04-10, wrote:
Right.

Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
out of our ass and implement it.

If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or engineering
or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass until we luck out
and get something that works.

Like Minnesota's plan to mandate 20% ethanol in all gasoline sold for road
use by 2010. Nobody has yet told me who'll pay the bills when my car's fuel
system melts into a puddle of goo that Toyota won't cover because the ethanol
percentage is too high...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-04-10,
wrote:
Right.

Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull
something out of our ass and implement it.

If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or
engineering or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass
until we luck out and get something that works.

Like Minnesota's plan to mandate 20% ethanol in all gasoline sold for
road use by 2010. Nobody has yet told me who'll pay the bills when my
car's fuel system melts into a puddle of goo that Toyota won't cover
because the ethanol percentage is too high...




Don't you have one of those electron powerd motorcycles anyway?


Bertie