Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

sfb wrote:
political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to manufacture than it
provides.

Oh. I didn't know that.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

Why is the Federal government subsiding ethanol manufacturing? If it was
such a good flipping deal, why haven't the energy companies gone into
the ethanol business. Ethanol is good for the corn crowers which last I
looked was not the county in general.

There are serious studies that demonstrate ethanol is an energy loser as
it requires more BTUs to manufacture that it provides. Ethanol is the
prime example of the agriculture lobby taking advantage of the energy
panic to have the taxpayers subsidize their over capacity. Factory
automation has eliminated many more jobs than have been shipped
overseas. If the country chooses not to use public money to keep
unprofitable factories open, why must it subside unprofitable
agriculture?


"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...

Despite the fact that mandating ethanol blends would be bad for you,
it's
really better for the country in general. Using ethanol, along with
biodiesel, can go along way towards making our country less dependant
on
foreign oil. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be
developed for my airplane, but it would also be great to tell the
middle
east to kiss our ass. Presently, the autogas STC for my 160hp
Cherokee is
fairly expensive (~$1500 last time I checked), and it requires you to
use
premium unleaded, so the cost savings isn't quite as much. I haven't
been able to verify whether Maryland requires an ethanol blend, but I
think it does, so even if I went back to 150hp pistons, I'd still be
screwed. Anyway, using ethanol and biodiesel is a great idea. I've
even
considered trading my commuter car for some model of VW diesel so that
I
can burn biodiesel. I think that increasing the percentage of ethanol
to
as high as a normal car can stand, is also a good idea. Sounds like
Rep. Nussie isn't that crazy.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

Go to the airport and count the airplanes. Now go flying and count the corn
fields. Its politics, sad but true.

If it really made sense to use ethanol in gasoline (because it was
cheaper/better) there wouldn't need to be any mandates or subsidies.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:b3c_e.369489$x96.190155@attbi_s72...
Today Rep. Jim Nussle -- potentially the future governor of Iowa -- was
reported as proposing that all gasoline sold in Iowa be required to
contain 20% ethanol additive. Presumably, this legislation, if passed,
would make the sale of regular unleaded gasoline illegal in Iowa.

See the story he
http://press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.d...509270309/1079

As those involved in grass-roots aviation know, this would be another nail
in the coffin of General Aviation in Iowa. Without the availability of
regular unleaded gasoline -- a fuel that many have seen as the savior of
General Aviation, since the discontinuation of 80 octane aviation fuel
production -- many would be forced to run 100 octane aviation fuel,
because ethanol-based fuels are not approved for use in aircraft engines.

This would be a disaster for many of us. Small carbureted aircraft
engines were quite simply never designed to run on 100 octane aviation
fuel, which contains far more lead than our engines need, costs 30% to 50%
more than regular unleaded fuel, and causes engine problems for many of
us.

Personally, I have run over 6,000 gallons of regular unleaded gasoline
through our airplane, at an average savings of over $1.00 per gallon. I
know dozens of aircraft owners who have done the same -- and I also know
that, for many, losing that savings would be the difference between flying
and not flying. This legislation, if passed, would ground those pilots,
and would effectively put general aviation beyond the means of many
current pilots in Iowa.

Below is a letter I have sent to Rep. Nussle. I urge everyone to send
similar letters to Mr. Nussle, as I don't believe he is aware of the
potentially GA-crippling side-effect of his proposed legislation.

Contact him he http://nussle.house.gov/contact.htm

Thanks for your help -- and blue skies!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dear Rep. Nussle,

Your recent call for mandating that all gasoline sold in Iowa contain
ethanol.

I understand your position, but there is a negative aspect about your
proposal that you may not be aware of: It could kill grass-roots General
Aviation in the state.

How? Most small airplanes (Pipers, Cessnas, etc.) have carburetors, and
were designed to run on 80 octane aviation fuel. Since 1999 (or so), this
fuel has been unavailable. The oil companies simply stopped making it.

After that, we were forced to start using 100 aviation gas.
Unfortunately, this fuel has 14 times more lead in it than our engines
were designed to run on. As a result, our engines ran rough and spark
plugs were badly fouled. This was a dangerous situation, to say the least.

Luckily, the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association, based in Oshkosh, WI)
stepped up to the plate, and was able (after extensive testing) to get
regular unleaded auto gas approved for use in our planes. No more rough
running engines, no more fouled spark plugs -- and it was MUCH less
expensive to run. In fact, usually the savings ran to over $1 per gallon!
(When you're burning 15 gallons per hour, this is significant.)

Unfortunately, the EAA was NOT able to get the use of ethanol approved in
our aircraft engines. This means that we can ONLY run "pure" unleaded
gas. Use of any ethanol additives is specifically prohibited by the FAA.

Thus, as you can see, if you make regular unleaded gasoline unavailable in
Iowa, you will make it impossible for many of us to fly our small
airplanes -- surely an unintended side effect of your otherwise worthy
idea!

Please continue to sponsor legislation that makes ethanol- gasoline
cheaper than regular unleaded gasoline. This, in my opinion, is the very
best way to get EVERYONE to use ethanol. Mandating that regular unleaded
be illegal is simply not the way to do business in Iowa, and I hope I've
given you one good reason why this is true.

Sincerely,

Jay Honeck
Owner/Innkeeper
The Alexis Park Inn & Suites
Iowa City, IA

What are car gas pilots in MN,
MT, HI doing?

In Minnesota there is a small distribution system at present for
non-alcohol fuels to make them available at airports and marinas, as
well as a few gas stations. In a few years we are mandated to go to
20% ethanol but I don't know if that system will be continued or not.

In article ,
(Jay Masino) wrote:
Despite the fact that mandating ethanol blends would be bad for you, it's
really better for the country in general. Using ethanol, along with
biodiesel, can go along way towards making our country less dependant on
foreign oil. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be


Our "dependence" on foreign oil is a problem of our own creation--not
because of our consumption, but rather because of legislation and
regulation that restricts supply. The United States is presently the
third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, ahead of every OPEC
member except for Saudi Arabia. We could easily be the largest oil
producer if the oil reserves under federal land were permitted to be
explored.

Crude oil is one problem, refining capacity is another. We do not have
adequate refining capacity to meet domestic demand. Again, the lack of
refining capacity is the result of legislation and regulation which
makes it prohibitively expensive to build and operate refineries.
Requirements for certain "blends" for certain domestic markets makes it
more expensive and difficult to meet unexpected demand.



JKG

"And I don't see anyone
flying less."

I don't see anyone flying period. Living in the Twin Cities, 9-11
seems to have taken such a big bite out of General Aviation that I
rarely hear single engine aircraft on nice Saturdays anymore. I'm
really scared of the future of GA as my airport (SSQ) is only populated
with old timers.

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.

sfb wrote:

Ethanol is the ultimate
political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to manufacture than it
provides.

But you don't have to use petroleum to provide those BTUs; consequently, it does
reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it does pollute less than petrol.

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.

sfb wrote:

There are serious studies that demonstrate ethanol is an energy loser as
it requires more BTUs to manufacture that it provides.

But that energy doesn't have to be produced by burning oil.

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.

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jay Masino) wrote:
Despite the fact that mandating ethanol blends would be bad for you, it's
really better for the country in general. Using ethanol, along with
biodiesel, can go along way towards making our country less dependant on
foreign oil. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be


Our "dependence" on foreign oil is a problem of our own creation--not
because of our consumption, but rather because of legislation and
regulation that restricts supply. The United States is presently the
third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, ahead of every OPEC
member except for Saudi Arabia. We could easily be the largest oil
producer if the oil reserves under federal land were permitted to be
explored.


JKG

The above isn't really true. There are not that many places off limits to
petroleum exploration in the US and none of them have enough reserves to
offset imported oil. Every availible drilling rig is drilling and has been
for years. The new higher prices are also allowing production of petroleum
that was previously uneconomic (like tar sands). The reality is that, until
recently, only a small (~20%) percentage of the worlds population used any
meaningful amount of energy and now perhaps 60% is using a meaningful amount
of energy. That is a tripling in the number of consumers and the effects
are obvious.

Personally, I like the strategy of using Middle East oil until it is gone.
The percentage of water produced by Saudi oil fields goes up every year...in
a decade or two, three at the most, we won't care much about the Middle
East.

Mike
MU-2

You're correct, but that doesn't negate the fact that there's only a
certain amount of oil in the ground, and it's not gonna last forever.
It's hard to argue with the concept of growing some corn or soybeans and
making fuel from it. Even if it's not the complete answer, it still
starts the ball rolling towards weening ourselves from fossile fuels.


Jonathan Goodish wrote:
Our "dependence" on foreign oil is a problem of our own creation--not
because of our consumption, but rather because of legislation and
regulation that restricts supply. The United States is presently the
third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, ahead of every OPEC
member except for Saudi Arabia. We could easily be the largest oil
producer if the oil reserves under federal land were permitted to be
explored.

Crude oil is one problem, refining capacity is another. We do not have
adequate refining capacity to meet domestic demand. Again, the lack of
refining capacity is the result of legislation and regulation which
makes it prohibitively expensive to build and operate refineries.
Requirements for certain "blends" for certain domestic markets makes it
more expensive and difficult to meet unexpected demand.

--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com