The ethanol nightmare has arrived!

Big John wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:45:03 GMT, wrote:

Peter Dohm wrote:
wrote in message
...

What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV, airconditioning,
lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?

--
Jim Pennino

No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I am
just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric power
plants as well.

The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
******************************************8

Jim
Have you been tracking the Nano technology? Was in headlines here in
Houston for a while with a several year time frame to demonstrate
capability to go to market. Activity at Rice U

Yes. Everything I've seen is still at least an order of magnitude
short of being able to replace liquid fuels.

In addition, there has been nothing to suggest nano technology can
practically produce power at the 100,000 watt level.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Big John wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:45:03 GMT, wrote:

Peter Dohm wrote:
wrote in message
...

What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV,
airconditioning,
lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?

--
Jim Pennino

No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I
am
just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric
power
plants as well.

The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
******************************************8

Jim
Have you been tracking the Nano technology? Was in headlines here in
Houston for a while with a several year time frame to demonstrate
capability to go to market. Activity at Rice U

Yes. Everything I've seen is still at least an order of magnitude
short of being able to replace liquid fuels.

In addition, there has been nothing to suggest nano technology can
practically produce power at the 100,000 watt level.


--
Jim Pennino

That's exactly the point. We need to drill more holes, build more
refineries, and start building more power plants. Once we have the added
capacity and a comfortable safety margin, we can start looking for utopian
solutions. (We should have reached that point before now; but at our best
plausible rate of progress, I'll be pushing up at least my tenth crop of
daisies...)

Ultra capacitors and all the rest are technically fascinating; but, for the
next twenty or so years, chemical fuels will be the reality for mobile power
on demand. And, BTW, 100KW is really not much power.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:

wrote in message
...
Big John wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:45:03 GMT, wrote:

Peter Dohm wrote:
wrote in message
...

What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV,
airconditioning,
lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?

--
Jim Pennino

No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I
am
just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric
power
plants as well.

The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
******************************************8

Jim
Have you been tracking the Nano technology? Was in headlines here in
Houston for a while with a several year time frame to demonstrate
capability to go to market. Activity at Rice U

Yes. Everything I've seen is still at least an order of magnitude
short of being able to replace liquid fuels.

In addition, there has been nothing to suggest nano technology can
practically produce power at the 100,000 watt level.


--
Jim Pennino

That's exactly the point. We need to drill more holes, build more
refineries, and start building more power plants. Once we have the added
capacity and a comfortable safety margin, we can start looking for utopian
solutions. (We should have reached that point before now; but at our best
plausible rate of progress, I'll be pushing up at least my tenth crop of
daisies...)

Ultra capacitors and all the rest are technically fascinating; but, for the
next twenty or so years, chemical fuels will be the reality for mobile power
on demand. And, BTW, 100KW is really not much power.

Relative to engines, 100 kW isn't much power; it is roughly a round number
minimum for a practical C-152 class airplane or an econo-box commuting car.

I quite frankly don't believe pure electric vehicles will ever become
practical, and for the nitpickers, that doesn't mean golf carts, fork
lifts or electrified rail trains.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Some Other Guy" wrote

It's just a hell of a clever plumbing arrangement. Add heat at one part
(by burning gas, whatever), and another part gets cold:

http://www.gasrefrigerators.com/howitworks.htm

Ever wonder why they never became popular?

On the contrary, it became popular as hell after it was invented
in Sweden in 1922 because reliable electricity was not available
in the world at that time.

They're still widely used in cottages. The really cool thing about
them (apart from the temperature) is that they're deathly quiet.

Damn thing just sits there hissing quietly.

....so you can get your cold beer after landing on the lake at your cottage
in Northern Ontario, Canada [official rec.aviation.piloting content]

wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm wrote:

wrote in message
...
Big John wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:45:03 GMT, wrote:

Peter Dohm wrote:
wrote in message
...

What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV,
airconditioning,
lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?

--
Jim Pennino

No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way.
I
am
just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric
power
plants as well.

The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
******************************************8

Jim
Have you been tracking the Nano technology? Was in headlines here in
Houston for a while with a several year time frame to demonstrate
capability to go to market. Activity at Rice U

Yes. Everything I've seen is still at least an order of magnitude
short of being able to replace liquid fuels.

In addition, there has been nothing to suggest nano technology can
practically produce power at the 100,000 watt level.


--
Jim Pennino

That's exactly the point. We need to drill more holes, build more
refineries, and start building more power plants. Once we have the added
capacity and a comfortable safety margin, we can start looking for
utopian
solutions. (We should have reached that point before now; but at our
best
plausible rate of progress, I'll be pushing up at least my tenth crop of
daisies...)

Ultra capacitors and all the rest are technically fascinating; but, for
the
next twenty or so years, chemical fuels will be the reality for mobile
power
on demand. And, BTW, 100KW is really not much power.

Relative to engines, 100 kW isn't much power; it is roughly a round number
minimum for a practical C-152 class airplane or an econo-box commuting
car.

I quite frankly don't believe pure electric vehicles will ever become
practical, and for the nitpickers, that doesn't mean golf carts, fork
lifts or electrified rail trains.


--
Jim Pennino

For the remainder of my own lifetime, I agree.

Peter

Some Other Guy opined

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Some Other Guy" wrote

It's just a hell of a clever plumbing arrangement. Add heat at one part
(by burning gas, whatever), and another part gets cold:

http://www.gasrefrigerators.com/howitworks.htm

Ever wonder why they never became popular?

On the contrary, it became popular as hell after it was invented
in Sweden in 1922 because reliable electricity was not available
in the world at that time.

They're still widely used in cottages. The really cool thing about
them (apart from the temperature) is that they're deathly quiet.

And RVs.

Damn thing just sits there hissing quietly.

I've never heard mine hiss.

...so you can get your cold beer after landing on the lake at your cottage
in Northern Ontario, Canada [official rec.aviation.piloting content]

I like a cold drink while driving at 65mph.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al
wrote:

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.

Man, what state is that far behind the times?
Here in Michigan they started doing that IIRC in the late 70's. Now
they no longer tell you whether the fuel has alcohol in it or not. The
sticker only says meets standard such and such.

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.

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.

AOPA has been working on this for some years. They have successfully
fought battles in a number of states that were going to mandate
Alcohol in all gas at the pumps.


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
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

wrote in :

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al
wrote:

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.

Man, what state is that far behind the times?
Here in Michigan they started doing that IIRC in the late 70's. Now
they no longer tell you whether the fuel has alcohol in it or not. The
sticker only says meets standard such and such.

In the 70s it was being called "Gasahol" and was from a seperate, labeled
pump.


Bertie

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:33:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

wrote in :

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al
wrote:

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.

Man, what state is that far behind the times?
Here in Michigan they started doing that IIRC in the late 70's. Now
they no longer tell you whether the fuel has alcohol in it or not. The
sticker only says meets standard such and such.

In the 70s it was being called "Gasahol" and was from a seperate, labeled
pump.

Although they called E10 Gasohol, here in Michigan there were no
separate pumps. Typically there was a sticker that said the gas
contained 10% Alcohol. Some stations IIRC did still offer
"uncontaminated gas" in a separate pump or pumps. I don't remember
ever seeing a serrate pump for the Gasohol locally. However I don't
claim to have an infallible memory. Seems like I was wrong one
time...don't remember why though.


Bertie
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

wrote in :

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:33:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

wrote in
m:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al
wrote:

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.

Man, what state is that far behind the times?
Here in Michigan they started doing that IIRC in the late 70's. Now
they no longer tell you whether the fuel has alcohol in it or not.
The sticker only says meets standard such and such.

In the 70s it was being called "Gasahol" and was from a seperate,
labeled pump.

Although they called E10 Gasohol, here in Michigan there were no
separate pumps. Typically there was a sticker that said the gas
contained 10% Alcohol. Some stations IIRC did still offer
"uncontaminated gas" in a separate pump or pumps. I don't remember
ever seeing a serrate pump for the Gasohol locally. However I don't
claim to have an infallible memory. Seems like I was wrong one
time...don't remember why though.


Hmm, mebbe. I was in living in Michigan at the time but i can't remember
if they had it seperate there or not, now you mention it, they
definitely did in other states. I remember clearly seeing the pic of a
corn cob on the pump. IIRC it was also a bit more expensive. I also
remembver it filled your fuel filter with crap almost instantly. Had to
change three or four of them in my car before it cleared up.


Bertie