The ethanol nightmare has arrived!

On Apr 9, 11:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote innews
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.

Bertie

So does this conversion have any limitations? Can you run E85? How
about E20?

Brian

On Apr 9, 11:35*am, wrote:
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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Okay, that is true. However since the days of yore Indy 500 cars have
run on ethanol (or is it methanol!!). Their plumbing does not leak the
alcohol all over the engine all the time. Maybe it would if the race
wasn't over so quickly though ... hmmm.

I have a hard time believing there isn't a technical solution to this
leak problem.

It's a problem that could be fixed for new designs. Older planes are
screwed of course.

Having said all this I think the entire corn ethanol business is an
extraordinary boondoggle that's screwing the average American.

The Brazilian's do it with sugar cane / beet sugar. Now, I thought
they were more corrupt than us? Guess not.

wrote:
On Apr 9, 11:35?am, wrote:
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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Okay, that is true. However since the days of yore Indy 500 cars have
run on ethanol (or is it methanol!!). Their plumbing does not leak the
alcohol all over the engine all the time. Maybe it would if the race
wasn't over so quickly though ... hmmm.

I have a hard time believing there isn't a technical solution to this
leak problem.

Of course there is, but when most existing stuff was designed to
hold gasoline, no one thought that there would ever be a significant
amount of alcohol in the gas.

It's a problem that could be fixed for new designs. Older planes are
screwed of course.

It depends on what materials were used in the old system and how much
it would cost to replace the parts that need replacing.

In any case, AFAIK, the FAA hasn't signed off on the use of gas with
significant fractions of alcohol in it, so the whole point is moot.

Having said all this I think the entire corn ethanol business is an
extraordinary boondoggle that's screwing the average American.

And the average Mexican with the increased price of tortillas.

The Brazilian's do it with sugar cane / beet sugar. Now, I thought
they were more corrupt than us? Guess not.

Contrary to the popular hype, the Brazilians primarily did a lot of
domestic exploration and greatly increased their domestic oil
production.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:27:30 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


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

Because it absorbs water?


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

"Cubdriver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message ...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:27:30 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


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

Because it absorbs water?


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com


Probably also seals, gaskets and sealants are not compatible, same problems we have in planes...

On Apr 7, 7:41 pm, Al wrote:
A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon
federal fuel tax break to the oil companies to get this "alternative"
fuel into the market.

BTW, this credit (5.1 cent on E10) has been on the book since 2004.
It's not a new thing:

http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=...20Tax%20Credit

"Al" wrote in message . ..
I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling
my car this morning. Upon further investigation with my fuel retailer, the local fuel jobber, and the fuel distributor
here in Spokane, Washington that there is a federal mandate to add 9 billion gallons of ethanol per year to the
nationwide gasoline fuel stream. A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon federal fuel tax break to the oil companies to
get this "alternative" fuel into the market. Tomorrow (April 8) is the first day of the program and the dealers get
their price tonight. According to my sources, there is a possibility that some retailers may opt out, however if that
5.1 cent break is passed on to them, it won't be likely.


Worse than that, htere is NO requirement from the feds to mark the gas pumps with the 'may contain 10%' warning. There
may be a local or state requirement to do so though. I wonder if the gas companies will pass on the 5.1 cent savings to
us (Not!) to compensate for the degraded performance (read mileage) the contaminated gasoline provides.



I was lucky and just happened to ask the right question at the right time. I haven't seen an outcry on this issue by
EAA, AOPA or any other aviation group.

This is a nationwide situation. Not just in a few states. You may not find non-ethanol autogas at your usual outlet.
Our jobber started mixing in ethanol last week, however I had not purchased any since mid-March so was unaware.

In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal government has just killed the Aviation autogas
concept.

I'm trying to locate a new source, but may not be successful. The ethanol is added at the distribution rack. Chevron
and a couple others are requiring their retailers to go to E-10.


Al
Spokane, Wa
1964 Skyhawk with an AutoGas STC


Like you said above, the ethanol is added at the the distribution rack. There is a chance that uncontaminated gasoline
can be purchased there. I did see a pump at the marina labeled 'no ethanol added' here in Michigan last summer...

Dan
Kalamazoo, MI
1960 172A (not a Skyhawk yet) autogas STC

"Blueskies" wrote in message
...

"Al" wrote in message
. ..
I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may
contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling my car this morning. Upon
further investigation with my fuel retailer, the local fuel jobber, and
the fuel distributor here in Spokane, Washington that there is a federal
mandate to add 9 billion gallons of ethanol per year to the nationwide
gasoline fuel stream. A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon federal fuel
tax break to the oil companies to get this "alternative" fuel into the
market. Tomorrow (April 8) is the first day of the program and the
dealers get their price tonight. According to my sources, there is a
possibility that some retailers may opt out, however if that 5.1 cent
break is passed on to them, it won't be likely.


Worse than that, htere is NO requirement from the feds to mark the gas
pumps with the 'may contain 10%' warning. There may be a local or state
requirement to do so though. I wonder if the gas companies will pass on
the 5.1 cent savings to us (Not!) to compensate for the degraded
performance (read mileage) the contaminated gasoline provides.



There is no savings and the 5.1 cents is only to help offset the petroleum
distributors' increased cost to provide an inferior product. But enev if
there had been any savings: on a purely mathematical basis, presuming the
"closed loop" system is working correct for your computer controlled
automobile engine, based on a pump price of $3.40 USD, 10% ethanol at 60% of
the thermal content of gasolene reduces the value by 13.6 cents for a net
loss to the customer of 8.5 cents--even if they reduced the price by 5.1
cents.

Ignoring all of the compatibility issues; the 60% efficiency figure would
mean that, if "pure" gasolene is worth $3.40, then pute ethanol would be
worth $2.04 per gallon.

There are indeed a lot of people who claim that, in actual use as a motor
fuel, ethanol is actually 80% as efficient as gasolene. However, even if
that was true, a 5.1 cent rebate for the use of E10 would still result in a
net loss of 1.7 cents. So, we are clearly not receiving a good value!

Peter

"Al" wrote

This is a nationwide situation. Not just in a few states. You may not
find non-ethanol autogas at your usual outlet. Our jobber started mixing
in ethanol last week, however I had not purchased any since mid-March so
was unaware.

In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal
government has just killed the Aviation autogas concept.

I'm trying to locate a new source, but may not be successful. The ethanol
is added at the distribution rack. Chevron and a couple others are
requiring their retailers to go to E-10.

I know this suggestion may be a bit far out, and you may not have the time
or ability to make it happen, but perhaps one of your friends would.

How about getting a slightly clapped out fuel truck, and setting up yourself
as a distributor, and going and getting a load at a time of untainted fuel,
and bringing it back and either using it yourself, or selling it to yourself
and a few others?
--
Jim in NC

I know this suggestion may be a bit far out, and you may not have the time
or ability to make it happen, but perhaps one of your friends would.

How about getting a slightly clapped out fuel truck, and setting up yourself
as a distributor, and going and getting a load at a time of untainted fuel,
and bringing it back and either using it yourself, or selling it to yourself
and a few others?

Thinking about it. Now looking for a fuel source. Of course, then I
would have to go through a huge bureaucratic process to get that truck
onto the field. But...I'm thinking about it.

Al