Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:07:09 -0700, cjcampbell wrote:

expensive than gasoline. Although it is based on a renewable resource,
the fact is that the resource is not nearly large enough to meet demand
should it become mandated, meaning that costs will soar. Automobile
drivers might be able to live with these problems, but aircraft owners
would find them unacceptable.


Since almost all ethanol comes from corn, actually costs more to produce
(or roughly equal using the most modern and advance technology we have)
than what it can be sold for. As long as ethanol is produced from corn
crops, ethonol will remain a government hand out to farmers. There is no
way, based on current corn-ethanol conversion technology, corn makes any
economical sense at all.

This is no surprise this is happening in the middle of corn country.
These moves show just how corrupt the representatives in Iowa really are.
They've been trying to do stuff like this for over a decade...probably a
lot longer even...


Greg

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:45:48 -0500, Dan Engleman wrote:

So......my not so valuable opinion is that we should encourage all our
legislators to pass legislation requiring us to be energy independent
within a few years. Ethanol is a large part of that.

Only if you want to pay more for fuel. Ethanol makes absolutely no
economical sense at all. Ethanol always has been about politics, plain
and simple. Our great goverment pays farmers to grow corn to make
ethanol. It then takes more energy to produce ethanol than what we get
out of it. Then, they turn around and sell it, at a premium price no
less. Proponents of corn-ethanol expansion fall into three categories.
One, the uninformed. Two, farmers. Three, politicians that cater to
farms.

Building an energy economy on corn-ethanol makes as much sense as building
an energy economy on fusion. At least fusion *may* pay off one day. On
the other hand, if they want to shift America's corn growers to
hemp...then I'll shutup and let them do something that might actually make
sense.

A typical hemp crop (which is not the same thing as pot; you can't get
high from it) yields roughly 3x more per year of ethanol than what corn
does. That makes it roughly 1-2 times more profitable and requires no
government handouts. Hemp does not require nearly as much water as corn,
making it drought resistant. Can you imagine a drought hitting the US and
our fuel prices going up 10x? That's the future of a corn-based fuel
economy. Hemp is insect resistant and requires no insecticides; unlike
corn, which requires a lot. Hemp can make industrial oils and lubricants,
clothes, and of course rope. Hemp can be eaten, and can be used as a food
filler. Hemp-ethanol does not contribute to carbon emissions anywhere near
the same degree corn-ethanol does. This is because you actually get more
energy out of a hemp-ethanol based economy than you do out of a
corn-ethanol economy. Surprising, hemp can replace corn in almost every
way, with on possible exception, flavor. I have no idea how hemp oils
compare to corn oils in flavor.

Greg

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:45 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear
plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for the
continuous supply you always need.

Traditional nuclear plants are "throttled" by controlling the reaction.
As demand goes down, the reaction is slowed, which produces less heat,
creates less steam, and lowers the net energy production. In most nuclear
reactors, this is done via the "control rods". By throttling the nuclear
reaction, they also save fuel and reduce wear-n-tear on the associated
turbines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_control_rod
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power3.htm


Greg

Where does all this hemp info come from?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:45:48 -0500, Dan Engleman wrote:

So......my not so valuable opinion is that we should encourage all our
legislators to pass legislation requiring us to be energy independent
within a few years. Ethanol is a large part of that.

Only if you want to pay more for fuel. Ethanol makes absolutely no
economical sense at all. Ethanol always has been about politics, plain
and simple. Our great goverment pays farmers to grow corn to make
ethanol. It then takes more energy to produce ethanol than what we get
out of it. Then, they turn around and sell it, at a premium price no
less. Proponents of corn-ethanol expansion fall into three categories.
One, the uninformed. Two, farmers. Three, politicians that cater to
farms.

Building an energy economy on corn-ethanol makes as much sense as building
an energy economy on fusion. At least fusion *may* pay off one day. On
the other hand, if they want to shift America's corn growers to
hemp...then I'll shutup and let them do something that might actually make
sense.

A typical hemp crop (which is not the same thing as pot; you can't get
high from it) yields roughly 3x more per year of ethanol than what corn
does. That makes it roughly 1-2 times more profitable and requires no
government handouts. Hemp does not require nearly as much water as corn,
making it drought resistant. Can you imagine a drought hitting the US and
our fuel prices going up 10x? That's the future of a corn-based fuel
economy. Hemp is insect resistant and requires no insecticides; unlike
corn, which requires a lot. Hemp can make industrial oils and lubricants,
clothes, and of course rope. Hemp can be eaten, and can be used as a food
filler. Hemp-ethanol does not contribute to carbon emissions anywhere near
the same degree corn-ethanol does. This is because you actually get more
energy out of a hemp-ethanol based economy than you do out of a
corn-ethanol economy. Surprising, hemp can replace corn in almost every
way, with on possible exception, flavor. I have no idea how hemp oils
compare to corn oils in flavor.

Greg

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:33:20 -0400, Icebound wrote:

Since my post, I looked up those references to Brazil.

THEY think it is cost effective.

They are not doing it on corn. Cane sugar delivers much better results.

Comparing Brazil's cane-ethanol efforts to the US' corn-ethanol effort is
like comparing apples to rotten oranges...and paying extra for the oranges.

Greg

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:42:58 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

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.

then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
plant could not easily be throttled up or down...

any recommendation about some good reading on the subject of
alternative fuel technologies?

--Sylvain

That is still not an efficient way to store energy. But how about this? We
get rid of the of some of the unneeded regulations around Nuclear plants and
move to a point where all electrical production is created with nuclear
power and only use petro based fuel where they are the most effecient form
of energy storage. i.e. cars, trucks, and airplanes.

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."

Thankfully Edison failed at his attempts!

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/pet/topsy.html

Edison was out to provide bad PR for Tesla (Westinghouse) new A/C form of
electricity generation of power delivery. Edison thought if the showed
the "horrors of A/C power compared to D/C" (paraphrasing), no one would
use it.

On a side note, many speculate that a fair number of Edison's inventions
actually originated on Tesla's drawing board. When they parted ways,
Edison did pretty much everything he could do to cause financial and
personal woe on Telsa. Sadly, Edison was greatly successful in his
attempts. Mysteriously, Tesla's lab burned down from unknown causes at
the height on Edison's ire for Tesla. Seems Edison wasn't such a nice guy
after all.

Greg

Icebound wrote:

There was a time where science was independent, and above all that. If we
don't get back to that state soon, every chance of progress will be scuttled
by one more OWT masquerading as scientific fact.

We are never going to get back to that state. Research has gotten so expensive
that nearly every project lives off Federal funding.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Jim,
You are right that we can attack the problem with scientific and
enginering studies. My quick search showed quite a few articles
relating to the subject

1. http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/t...ram/P18201.HTM

"Effects of Ethanol as a Fuel Additive on General Aviation Aircraft
Fuel System Electrochemical Corrosion"

If you have the time, you can read the whole dissertation here

http://library.msstate.edu/etd/show....1072004-122317

then with your ingenuity and entrepreneural spirit, you can team up
with Dr. Xie to market a X-ray/Whiskey mystery oil for gasohol use in
GA aircraft ;-)

2. http://www.westbioenergy.org/dec2003/08.htm
"Can 85 Percent Ethanol Gasoline Replace Aviation Fuel?"

3. http://www.westbioenergy.org/reports...55029final.htm
"Airframe & Engine Modification and Testing Leading to FAA
Certification of AGE-85"

4. http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm

"Ethanol-Based Aviation Fuel: Extensive research has shown that an
aviation fuel blend containing 85 percent ethanol offers superior
performance in prop-driven aircraft. The Federal Aviation
Administration and several universities are conducting research on
ethanol-based aviation fuel to determine the feasibility of the fuel as
an alternative to the leaded aviation fuel currently being used."

5. http://bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdf...ts/26/z313.pdf
"Engine endurance tests showed considerably less wear on ethanol than
on avgas. Consequently, it is estimated that the Time Between Overhaul
(TBO) in an engine on ethanol could easily be extended by 100% over
avgas."

Hai Longworth

RST Engineering wrote:

RST Engineering wrote:
Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic

The hell you say. Your source? And to WHAT is it caustic? To fuming
red
nitric acid, WATER is caustic.


and eats
hoses

Hasn't eaten a single hose on my Miata and it has been running on the
stuff
for ten years.


Rubber hoses in recent models of cars have been made more resistant to
ethanol. The vast majority of airplanes, however, were built before
1987.

Then we'd better wake up and smell the coffee. I don't mind tilting at
windmills, but when I've got legislators the country-wide embracing alcohol
as a Good Thing(tm) I'd damned well better learn to live with it. Politics,
my young friend. Get used to it. Replace the damned hoses if that's what
it takes.


Yeah, right. The scientific studies are wrong and the politicians are
right. What sort of engineer are you, anyway?

If you want to just bend over and let the politicians do whatever they
want, fine. But don't call it science.


and corrodes carburetors

How? The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum appears to
be
benign. Again, your source other than OWT?


The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum is not benign.
I was able to turn up several papers documenting that ethanol was
corrosive to aluminum, at the very lest. It also corrodes fuel
injectors.

OWT.

Really? Here is a study that shows ethanol corrodes engines.

http://age-web.age.uiuc.edu/faculty/qzhang/Publications/2005BT96(2)Hansen.pdf

And this study shows that ethanol corrodes aircraft engines:

http://library.msstate.edu/etd/show....1072004-122317

The automobile industry dealt with the problem by developing new
automobiles. The aviation industry can, too, but there will always be a
lot of legacy aircraft around that will not be able to handle ethanol.
All the bombast and belligerence in the world will not make that
problem go away.

I might mention that Cecil Adams of the Straight Dope has a board of
accredited scientists who check his columns. If it came down to his
word vs. yours, I would have to go with his. You can belittle him all
you want, but I suspect that the team that checked his column probably
knows quite a bit more than you do.

On 2005-09-30, Greg Copeland wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:45 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear
plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for the
continuous supply you always need.

Traditional nuclear plants are "throttled" by controlling the reaction.
As demand goes down, the reaction is slowed, which produces less heat,
snip

Yeah, sure they can - but they can't be throttled like a gas station,
and that's why they are baseload power rather than brought up and down
as demand fluctuates. You wouldn't run your entire electrical system off
baseload generators, you'd still need powerplants that can be brought up
and down quickly.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"