Removing Ethanol from Gas?

The best way to remove ethanol from gas is for us to affect legislation
that would otherwise mandate ethanol in all gasoline, even that used
for off-road use. Most congress people are completely unaware that auto
fuel is used successfully by a large number of aircraft owners and that
ethanol poses a significant safety risk. There are some very powerful
lobbying forces behind the new mandates. It's important that we be
heard, i.e., we participate. Boaters are also affected by ethanol
mandates so it may be helpful to join forces with that community.

Ethanol is usually blended at the time of being loaded on a tanker
truck, so if the local or state law allows, it is very easy to order a
tanker full of auto fuel without ethanol. It's not added at the
refinery.



Jay Honeck wrote:
The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
gasoline, so it seems...

On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his
fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
but that's just me...)

His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
sound particularly safe or easy.

Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 9 Aug 2006 11:27:58 -0700, "M" wrote in
.com:

That's a huge amount of ethanol to be made from corn or other
plants, plus the cost and the energy in distillation.

You forgot to mention the cost of growing the corn.

Ethanol production requires:

Land
Farm equipment for planting, irrigating and harvesting
Fuel for the farm equipment
Irrigation water
Fertilizers
Insecticides
Distillation equipment
Fuel for the still
Water for fermentation (CO2 byproduct)
Labor, labor, labor

So, if all the costs are factored in, Ethanol is probably more
expensive than gasoline.

But the farm lobby is happy.

The next generation of photovoltaic equipment may be the ultimate
answer to energy the shortage. With solar there are no moving parts,
nor nuclear radiation emissions, nor decommissioning costs, nor waste
storage costs.


http://world.honda.com/news/2005/c051219.html

Corporate December 19, 2005
Honda to Mass Produce Next-Generation Thin Film Solar Cell

TOKYO, Japan, December 19, 2005 – Honda Motor Co., Ltd. announced its
plan to begin mass production in 2007, of an independently developed
thin film solar cell composed of non-silicon compound materials, which
requires 50% less energy, and thus generate 50% less CO2, during
production compared to a conventional solar cell. A mass production
plant with annual capacity of 27.5 megawatts will be established at
Honda’s Kumamoto factory.

Honda will produce and sell solar panels in a limited area, starting
from 2006 fall, using assembly line within Honda Engineering Co.,
Ltd., the production engineering subsidiary of Honda.

By using thin film made from a compound of copper, indium, gallium and
selenium (CIGS), Honda’s next-generation solar cell achieved a major
reduction in energy consumed during the manufacturing process to
approximately 50% of the amount required by conventional crystal
silicon solar cells. Thus, this new solar cell is more
environmentally-friendly by reducing the amount of CO2 even from the
production stage. Further, this next-generation solar cell has
achieved the highest level of photoelectric transfer efficiency for a
thin film solar cell (almost equivalent to the conventional crystal
silicon solar cell).

Since spring 2002, Honda has been using and monitoring the performance
of this solar cell, first at the Outboard Engine Plant in Hosoe, and
then also at 12 other Honda facilities including Honda Engineering
headquarters and the Honda Wako Building in Japan and 3 overseas sites
such as the U.S. and Thailand.

Achieving lower costs and higher photoelectric transfer efficiency is
required in order to expand use of solar cells which will help protect
the global environment. This non-silicon thin film solar cell has been
attracting significant attention as a potential solution to these
challenges. The only remaining challenges were the stabilization of
performance and development of mass production technologies. The mass
production of Honda’s next-generation solar cell became possible with
a new mass production process for thin film solar cells developed
independently by Honda Engineering – a production engineering company
that has long developed production equipment and technologies for
Honda’s motorcycle, automobile, engine, electric motor for hybrid
vehicles and other items.

In addition to its effort to lower environmental load through
achieving reduced emissions and higher fuel efficiency, as the first
automaker to enter into solar cell business, Honda will contribute to
the effort to prevent global warming through production and sales of a
clean energy source which does not use fossil fuels. In its vision for
2010, Honda has committed itself to take on new challenges in new
areas and to develop environmentally-friendly and sustainable energy
technologies. Honda’s entrance into the solar cell business with
independently developed technologies is an example of the realization
of Honda’s 2010 vision.


About New Mass Production Line

Location: Within the current site of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Kumamoto
Plant

Establishment: The line will become operational in latter half of 2007

Facility size: 12,000 square meters

Production capacity: 27.5 megawatts annually, (Equivalent amount of
electricity to power approximately 8,000 houses when calculated at
3.5kw per house)

Product/Use: Solar cell panel for individual residential use and
public industrial use

-----------------------

Here's a picture and article of Nanosolar's product:
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/merc081504p.htm
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/

The problem is not getting gasoline without ethanol. I can get as many tank
cars as you wish and have it delivered to you by Friday morning. The
problem is exactly that, you get a tank car (or an 8000 gallon tanker) full,
no less. Using 8000 gallons of a fuel that isn't quite as stable over time
as avgas is the corker.

When we used to be able to go down to the local gas station with a 55 gallon
drum or tank, it was really quite easy. Getting a small airport to burn
8000 gallons of auto fuel is not. Not to mention the airport having to make
a new storage tank (can we say permits and lots of time?) and pay for the
project out of "profits".

Jim



Ethanol is usually blended at the time of being loaded on a tanker
truck, so if the local or state law allows, it is very easy to order a
tanker full of auto fuel without ethanol. It's not added at the
refinery.

And the fuel used to till, plant and harvest. Sure, Brazil
can use E85, they have fewer cars and trucks than Los
Angeles (guess, but you can look it up).



"M" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jay Honeck wrote:
| We, as a nation, are
| inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol
into ALL
| gasoline, so it seems...
|
| I don't think there's nearly enough ethanol manufacturing
capacity to
| do a nation wide mix of E10. That's a huge amount of
ethanol to be
| made from corn or other plants, plus the cost and the
energy in
| distillation.
|

MoGas could be used in gasoline powered vehicles and
equipment on the airport, to use the 8,000 gallons in a
reasonable time. Since many airports are city operated,
police cars and such could also use the fuel farm at the
airport.



"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
| The problem is not getting gasoline without ethanol. I
can get as many tank
| cars as you wish and have it delivered to you by Friday
morning. The
| problem is exactly that, you get a tank car (or an 8000
gallon tanker) full,
| no less. Using 8000 gallons of a fuel that isn't quite as
stable over time
| as avgas is the corker.
|
| When we used to be able to go down to the local gas
station with a 55 gallon
| drum or tank, it was really quite easy. Getting a small
airport to burn
| 8000 gallons of auto fuel is not. Not to mention the
airport having to make
| a new storage tank (can we say permits and lots of time?)
and pay for the
| project out of "profits".
|
| Jim
|
|
|
| Ethanol is usually blended at the time of being loaded
on a tanker
| truck, so if the local or state law allows, it is very
easy to order a
| tanker full of auto fuel without ethanol. It's not added
at the
| refinery.
|
|

wrote in message
ps.com...
The best way to remove ethanol from gas is for us to affect legislation
that would otherwise mandate ethanol in all gasoline, even that used
for off-road use. Most congress people are completely unaware that auto
fuel is used successfully by a large number of aircraft owners and that
ethanol poses a significant safety risk. There are some very powerful
lobbying forces behind the new mandates. It's important that we be
heard, i.e., we participate. Boaters are also affected by ethanol
mandates so it may be helpful to join forces with that community.

-----snipped------

You've summed it up rather well.
The problem appears to be entirely one of mandates, and the solution is to
remove the mandates.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ps.com...
The best way to remove ethanol from gas is for us to affect legislation
that would otherwise mandate ethanol in all gasoline, even that used
for off-road use. Most congress people are completely unaware that auto
fuel is used successfully by a large number of aircraft owners and that
ethanol poses a significant safety risk. There are some very powerful
lobbying forces behind the new mandates. It's important that we be
heard, i.e., we participate. Boaters are also affected by ethanol
mandates so it may be helpful to join forces with that community.

-----snipped------

You've summed it up rather well.
The problem appears to be entirely one of mandates, and the solution is to
remove the mandates.

I'd bet that 99.9% of Congress even knows it is an issue. The AOPA and EAA
better get a letter writing campaign going. It is a lot easier to stop
mandates before they are in place than it is to get one removed.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:7MqCg.34$SZ3.3@dukeread04...
MoGas could be used in gasoline powered vehicles and
equipment on the airport, to use the 8,000 gallons in a
reasonable time. Since many airports are city operated,
police cars and such could also use the fuel farm at the
airport.


That's actually a very promising solution; at least until the mandate
problem can be successfully addressed.

Peter


"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
| The problem is not getting gasoline without ethanol. I
can get as many tank
| cars as you wish and have it delivered to you by Friday
morning. The
| problem is exactly that, you get a tank car (or an 8000
gallon tanker) full,
| no less. Using 8000 gallons of a fuel that isn't quite as
stable over time
| as avgas is the corker.
|
| When we used to be able to go down to the local gas
station with a 55 gallon
| drum or tank, it was really quite easy. Getting a small
airport to burn
| 8000 gallons of auto fuel is not. Not to mention the
airport having to make
| a new storage tank (can we say permits and lots of time?)
and pay for the
| project out of "profits".
|
| Jim
|
|
|
| Ethanol is usually blended at the time of being loaded
on a tanker
| truck, so if the local or state law allows, it is very
easy to order a
| tanker full of auto fuel without ethanol. It's not added
at the
| refinery.
|
|

I'm afraid you don't quite get the picture, Jim.

Actually, most "small" country airports are county owned and operated, but
your premise of municipal vehicles fueling up is still legitimate. Whether
you call them police cars or sheriff cruisers isn't the point.

What IS the point is that the airport (for it's own self-preservation) is
usually located a few miles from town. To tell every cop car, road grader,
utility vehicle that they are going to have to go out to the airport to fuel
isn't feasible.

Nor is it feasible to have civilians (airplane owners) go to a municipal
fuel farm in town and fill up tanks or jugs. First of all, municipalities
like counties aren't set up to sell anything to the general public, fuel
included. You'd have to generate such a hodge-podge of checks and balances
(yes, the treasurer is a real witch when it comes to accountability of
funds) that any savings on fuel just went down the dumper.

COuld we do it by patch and mend? Possibly. Would it pay for itself? Not
unless the mogas sold for approximately what avgas is selling for.

Jim


"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:7MqCg.34$SZ3.3@dukeread04...
MoGas could be used in gasoline powered vehicles and
equipment on the airport, to use the 8,000 gallons in a
reasonable time. Since many airports are city operated,
police cars and such could also use the fuel farm at the
airport.

The point is that GOVERNMENT control of supply always screws
up the system. So, when it gets bad, the herd in the big
cities demand more government control. That will fix
everything, right, NOT.



"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
| I'm afraid you don't quite get the picture, Jim.
|
| Actually, most "small" country airports are county owned
and operated, but
| your premise of municipal vehicles fueling up is still
legitimate. Whether
| you call them police cars or sheriff cruisers isn't the
point.
|
| What IS the point is that the airport (for it's own
self-preservation) is
| usually located a few miles from town. To tell every cop
car, road grader,
| utility vehicle that they are going to have to go out to
the airport to fuel
| isn't feasible.
|
| Nor is it feasible to have civilians (airplane owners) go
to a municipal
| fuel farm in town and fill up tanks or jugs. First of
all, municipalities
| like counties aren't set up to sell anything to the
general public, fuel
| included. You'd have to generate such a hodge-podge of
checks and balances
| (yes, the treasurer is a real witch when it comes to
accountability of
| funds) that any savings on fuel just went down the dumper.
|
| COuld we do it by patch and mend? Possibly. Would it pay
for itself? Not
| unless the mogas sold for approximately what avgas is
selling for.
|
| Jim
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:7MqCg.34$SZ3.3@dukeread04...
| MoGas could be used in gasoline powered vehicles and
| equipment on the airport, to use the 8,000 gallons in a
| reasonable time. Since many airports are city operated,
| police cars and such could also use the fuel farm at the
| airport.
|
|