Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

I believe that fertilizer plants start with natural gas as the primary
feedstock.

Mike
MU-2
"JJS" jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net wrote in message
...


That's not qite true. We could use coal, nuclear or other non-oil sources
of
energy to make the fertilizer and distill the ethanol. Then we would save
oil.

Would you care to expand on how we can economically make "fertilizer" from
fuel? Are you refering to ammonia?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message k.net...
I believe that fertilizer plants start with natural gas as the primary feedstock.

Mike
MU-2

You are correct (in most cases) if we limit the discussion to nitrogen fertilizers. There are exceptions. Some
non-nitrogen fertilizers such as phosphorus are mined. There is an ammonia plant in Kansas using coke from a
refinery. I'm not certain if it is used as the fuel for the reformer or as feedstock for the synthesis gas stream.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:Uag_e.87517$7f5.46917@okepread01...

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.


Although there are scientists who claim their research shows a negative
production efficiency, there appear to be an equally impressive number
who claim otherwise.


Does it really matter if it is so close that informed people can't agree
it the energy balance is slightly greater or less than 1? Clearly it
isn't much of an alternative fuel if that is the case.



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

THEY think it is cost effective.

To the tune of 1.8Billion savings.
To the point of converting several hundred small aircraft engines to run on
ethanol,
and to the point of developing a designed-for-ethanol *new* aircraft.

http://www.renewables2004.de/ppt/Presentation4-SessionIVB(11-12.30h)-LaRovere.pdf

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/37677.html

"Icebound" wrote in message ...

snip

Although there are scientists who claim their research shows a negative production efficiency, there appear to be
an equally impressive number who claim otherwise.
There are other things to consider as well, such as the value of energy independence. Why pump that money into a
sheikdom when we can pour it back into our own economy?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Icebound" wrote in message ...
snip
Bottom line:

At that time, oil over 30 dollars made the ethanol program profitable for them.
And in spite of the historic "low" oil prices, estimated savings of 1.8Billion USD over the 22 year period of the
program.

Think of it now, in terms of today's price of oil. And their infrastructure is up and running.... We are apt to be
replacing foreign oil with foreign ethanol. is to laugh.

I read a recent article about this (I believe it was in a trade journal). It may be that the key is in using sugar
cane instead of corn. The article stated that Brazil can produce a barrel of ethanol for $25.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

JJS wrote:

I read a recent article about this (I believe it was in a trade journal). It may be that the key is in using sugar
cane instead of corn.

The key may also be lower labor costs, reduced fertilization, and minimal
mechanization on the farms.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

LWG wrote:
Good God, you're complaining about THAT! It's positively cheap.

Try buying a gascolator from Raytheon for a Beech Musketeer. The list price
is around $19,000.00. Yes, that's NINETEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. (Yeah, but
they only have to sell one.) If I could part my plane out for RAPID's list
prices, I'd be a multi-millionaire, and I could afford flying.

Paying $170 for a damn gascolator bail of a Cherokee (this was on
another thread) makes it awfully hard to be enthusiastic and attract
new people to aviation.


Can't help you much on the Beech gascolator, but for Cessnas and
Pipers, check these out:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalo...gascolator.php

Maybe you could install one on your Musketeer under a 337 field
approval.

("Sylvain" wrote)
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...


100% my idea also.

About NP being throttled up or down:
First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
built! (Had to say that)

Each ethanol plant would have two small (tiny tiny tiny) McNuke Plants.
Tiny! If one is down, the other one chugs along.

Second: Chugging along - Store the surplus energy like an old lighthouse -
wind up the weight, release the weight. If each McNuke plant had a number of
large, in ground, weight tubes to 'work on' when the ethanol plant was down,
that would solve that problem. It would smooth out the spikes and allow the
McNuke plant to be CS -- constant speed. Sell to the grid if you have too
much stored capacity at the end of the month, quarter, whatever.

Third: Have an ethanol generator (for back up) to the Atomic Lighthouse
design - in case you get in a bind some afternoon. "Accounting sold too much
power at 'peak' prices again today, so we're short on 2nd shift ...again!"

Is there a way to make a buck from these fantastic ideas? A MacArthur
Fellows Program "genius grant?" Anything? g

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4051423

http://www.macfound.org/programs/fel/fel_overview.htm


Montblack

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:35:25 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

I've never used Mo-gas, and have
been flying aircraft who's engines were designed for 80/87 decades.

Do you use a lead scavenger?


No. I just lean for taxi, and do a full throttle run up if lead
fouling occurs.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote in
::

First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
built!

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
years). When you factor in the cost of storing spent fuel and
decommissioning nuke plants (sawing them up and burying the pieces),
the cost of energy is marginally competitive, and the hazardous legacy
is significant.