New fuel

On 19 Aug 2004 02:42:42 GMT, (StellaStar) wrote:

Without
subsidies a fuel that takes more energy to produce than it produces is
going to be expensive.

True, but the data's old, 20 years or so on the cost of production. A study
from this year says you're about 30% ahead producing ethanol. And it's on
dryland (non-irrigated) corn so that leaves out at least one rather costly
input.

http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0403220.shtml

I think he's more than a bit optimistic.
he makes one statement that their data mainly comes from their own
fields but others around the country get similar yields, but that is
an open ended statement. Certainly *some* do, but I seriously doubt
that most do.

In general, yields here in Michigan are much higher than in most other
non irrigated areas. Wheat yields are considerably higher than in the
major wheat growing states. Corn is also a high yield crop and great
strides have been made in both the quality (amount of starch) and
yield versus the amount of fertilizer required.

Still... The chemicals for the crop must come from somewhere. Higher
yield means more of something is taken out of the soil (and air). That
means more has to be put back in the form of fertilizer or crop
rotation and plowing down. Greater utilization of Nitrogen certainly
makes a difference as does rotating corn with legumes (Nitrogen
fixing) plants such as clover.

I note his last statement "I'm confident we're still in positive
energy balance," looks positive, but to me when it is taken in context
sounds more of a hopeful statement.

They may have finally reached the positive side, but as I said in a
previous post, they can only do it when taking byproducts into
account. Whether the fuel is a byproduct, or the byproducts of making
the fuel are enough to tip the scales is still unproven. His
confidence doesn't really prove anything until you see the figures
he's using to determine his conclusions.

I certainly hope they have reached the positive side of the energy
balance, but to be practical they need to be well past neutral and
have a lot of useful byproducts.

Much like our recycling industry. Most of it is hype, but a little of
it actually works. If it works they pay you for the materials to
recycle. If you have to pay them you can be fairly certain it's more
of a "make work", or PC type of project.

An example, recycled Aluminum saves money. Recycled paper costs
money and takes more resources than are saved.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


I'm no fan of miracle energy schemes but it seems sensible to cheer on folks
hoping to make energy out of renewable sources and eliminate total dependence
on petroleum, especially when so many dicey third-world governments control its
production...

In article , Roger Halstead wrote:
Long term the subsidies help to reduce the end product price to the
consumer.

Well obviously you can't have your cake and eat it too. Those low
prices are paid by the consumers via taxes. Factor in stuff like
deadweight loss (from taxation), bureocracy etc. and you end up with a
net loss.

OTOH had we never had any to begin with, we *might* be
better off and then again we might not.

My personal opinion is that some level of agricultural subsidies are
warranted for some nations to guarantee a domestic food supply, so
that people won't starve to death in case of some international
crisis.

OTOH, the current US and EU practice of dumping overproduction on the
world market with government subsidies, and thus forcing poor third
world farmers out of business, is IMHO very reprehensible to say the
least.

I can't see why ethanol would be a particularly good fuel for planes;
it's hydrophilic (as opposed to gasoline or most petroleum products

Which to me is a good thing up to a point. IE, if you get a bit of
rain in the mix it might reduce the power slightly, but at least it
wouldn't cause a failure. OTOH you could get a lot in and never know
it, which would not be considered a good thing.

Certainly the problem can be solved, evidenced by millions of cars
running fine on gasohol fuel. As I see it, the problem regarding
aircraft is the high cost of new parts and recertification.


--
Janne Blomqvist

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

Janne Blomqvist wrote:

I guess you mean biodiesel, which is produced from vegetable oils such
as soy, rapeseed or from animal fats. Ethanol is produced from corn,
but I've never heard about "corn oil".

Corn oil falls into the vegetable oils category and could be used in
biodiesel
production. It's common in American supermarkets and apparently can also
be found in
Britain (since Paul is there).

Yup, along with others such as the rapeseed oil and sunflower oil,
we use it to cook our chips (Fries for the Americans on here).

When "diluted" with some methanol it can be run quite successfully
in diesel cars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2310095.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/3104763.stm
http://www.vegoilmotoring.com/

A story on bioethanol from plant waste he
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1975663.stm

Paul

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
The kicker is when you can produce it as a byproduct. Then it will
become a viable, renewable energy source.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1975663.stm

Paul

In article , Roger Halstead wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:09:53 +0300 (EEST), Janne Blomqvist
wrote:

In article , Bob Fry wrote:
"The purpose of the project was to develop a fuel based on ethanol..."

I gotta wonder...given that this is being done in the Mid-West...what
was more important: to base the new fuel heavily on ethanol, or to
find a replacement for 100LL? In other words, in a research project
to simply find the best replacement for 100LL, would it necessarily
end up as ethanol? Probably not. Is this a solution looking for a
problem?

I think it depends on how you look at it. It may be a viable
replacement for 100LL. It most likely will cost more as it takes more
energy to produce.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I read somewhere (some Ben Visser column
perhaps?) that one of the major costs in 100LL manufacturing is the
fact that after it has been produced, all parts of the refinery must
be scrubbed clean to get rid of any TEL.

I was under the impression that by itself Alcohol is supposed to have
a very low octane, on the order of 80 to 85 when compared to car gas.

I don't have any first-hand information on this, but googling seems to
suggest that ethanol octane is quite high.

There are a number of problems growing biomass specifically to produce
fuel..
It currently takes a lot of energy to produce and it takes a lot of
fertilizer. The ground does not magically produce that biomass from
nothing. Hence you see farmers rotating crops. The idea is to raise
corn which takes the most out of the soil, then beans which help put
nitrogen back into the soil, and finally wheat. So the usual rotation
is Wheat, corn, beans, wheat, corn, beans with a year of alfalfa and
clover thrown in if possible. It's been a longgg time so I may not
have the right chemicals with the right crops, but I do have the
rotation in order.

Yes, biofuel production by distilling annual crops is not especially
efficient. Much more efficient methods do exist or are under
development, though. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of biomass produces a
diesel-like fuel, and can use essentially any carbon containing
biomass as feedstock. IIRC, there are some promising development going
on to produce ethanol from cellulosic biomass too. Both of these
methods can use perennial crops such as willow, which strain the
environment much less than "traditional" food crop farming and they
also achieve very high yields per hectare.

I do know there is at least one land fill in California that has
tapped the methane and is heating at least several hundred homes. (It
may be several thousand) I've seen pictures of it recently and it's
one of the major cities, but I've forgotten which one.

It's quite common over here. In some cases they even have small gas
turbines to produce some electricity in addition to heat.

To bring the topic back towards the use of ethanol for aviation, here
are some positive articles about it:

http://www3.baylor.edu/bias/publicat...thanolETBE.pdf

http://www3.baylor.edu/bias/publicat...ntobiomass.pdf

Some more info about AGE85:

http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Archive/...E85/age85.html

Report about testing with AGE85 (long):

http://www.westbioenergy.org/reports...55029final.htm

OTOH, Cessna and EAA don't seem to like it, despite a STC:

http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...11_cessna.html



--
Janne Blomqvist

Having been on both sides of the fence, farm subsidies are one of
those "damned if you do and dammed if you don't" sort of things.

I'm reading Joe Foss' autobiography (Foss was a Medal of Honor-winning
Wildcat ace pilot at Guadalcanal, and later the Republican governor of South
Dakota), and it's interesting to read his take on the origin of farm
subsidies.

Conservative Republicans like Foss were ideologically opposed to subsidizing
farmers at the start, but eventually came around to the view that subsidies
were necessary to "offset the government meddling in farm affairs" that had
already occurred.

Things like imposing a federal minimum wage on farmers who were already
struggling to make ends meet themselves were mentioned as justification for
supporting the farm subsidies. It was simply seen as a method of balancing
the scales.

While I may not agree with his methods, Foss at least provides some
historical perspective on how these things came to pass.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The reason jets use kerosene instead of diesel is that diesel freezes
at higher temperatures than kerosene.

New Hampshire trailers and backwoods houses often have a 55-gallon oil
drum on stilts out back. It's filled with kerosene. If you try the
same thing with heating oil, it turns to sludge on some brisk morning,
and the stove goes out. Not every winter, but maybe one in five. That
would suggest 15 below to me. My father-in-law learned the truth of
this when he moved the oil tank outside to make room for a cellar
workshop.

During the great Arab Oil Embargo (1975? whenever) a friend bought a
VW with a diesel engine. He lived farther down the road than we did.
One morning here he comes, pushing the VW, which he rolled into our
drive and hitched the rest of the way to school. It happened several
times that winter, which was a cold one. So I reckon diesel gets
sludgy at an even higher temp than my father-in-law's outside fuel-oil
tank.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

On 19 Aug 2004 02:42:42 GMT, (StellaStar) wrote:

True, but the data's old, 20 years or so on the cost of production. A study
from this year says you're about 30% ahead producing ethanol. And it's on
dryland (non-irrigated) corn so that leaves out at least one rather costly
input.

Fortune, in a rather starry-eyed article, says the future is not corn
but other biomass. Forgot what it is called, but it was junk trees and
the like, a fairly broad spectrum of growth.

Wood alcohol?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

On 18 Aug 2004 13:49:52 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:

So, making ethanol only really makes sense if you use something like wind,

Wind is actually a very good source for powering these indirect
sources of energy, making ethanol or fuel cells, since the plant could
be rigged to operate when the wind blew. That eliminated the great
flaw in wind-generated electricity, that it isn't available when the
demand is high, but when the wind is. It can never therefore become a
significant source of electricity on the grid.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:48:32 +0300 (EEST), Janne Blomqvist
wrote:

Well obviously you can't have your cake and eat it too. Those low
prices are paid by the consumers via taxes. Factor in stuff like
deadweight loss (from taxation), bureocracy etc. and you end up with a
net loss.

Fortune, in the article cited earlier, estimated that the present
taxpayer cost for a gallon of gasoline is $5. That includes the
military establishment required to keep Saudi etc oil flowing to us.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com