Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...

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.

Your last atatement is not true, it actually increases slightly our
dependence on fossil fuels. It is very easy to argue that growing corn for
fuel makes no sense, in fact if all the facts are looked at it isn't even an
argument.

Dave Stadt opined

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...

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.

Your last atatement is not true, it actually increases slightly our
dependence on fossil fuels. It is very easy to argue that growing corn for
fuel makes no sense, in fact if all the facts are looked at it isn't even an
argument.

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.

Of course coal has global warming problems, new nukes are out at the moment
and windmills have a problem with the ESA.

Gasahol is a baroque wqy to liquify coal.





-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

"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.

If and when an ethanol producer can run his entire operation on ethanol and
still have enough left over to sell to someone else, then we'll be
*approaching* proof that ethanol is a net win. (See Mike's post about all
the other infrastructure not supported by ethanol for where the remaining
ambiguity will lie).

Likewise for biodiesel.

I'm all for alternative energy sources, especially when they are easily
renewed. But they need to NET energy. If they can't be fully
self-supporting, using only their own energy for production (*), then they
obviously are net energy consumers, and simply shifting the distribution
network (and adding a middleman...maybe good for the economy, but not so
good for energy conservation).

IMHO, biodiesel shows a lot of promise, but I've yet to hear of a biodiesel
production facility that generates 100% of their own energy with biodiesel.

Pete

(*) it would certainly be great if the initial investment could be
self-supporting too, but as long as the production itself is a net positive
(after all factors are considered, including on-going maintenance of
production equipment), in the long run we still come out ahead.

On 2005-09-27, Peter Duniho wrote:
IMHO, biodiesel shows a lot of promise, but I've yet to hear of a biodiesel
production facility that generates 100% of their own energy with biodiesel.

I've heard somewhere that the thermal depolymerization plant in
Carthage, MO. runs off its own output and generates 500bbl of light oil
per day off 200 tons of turkey offal from the nearby Butterball turkey
packaging factory.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
I've heard somewhere that the thermal depolymerization plant in
Carthage, MO. runs off its own output and generates 500bbl of light oil
per day off 200 tons of turkey offal from the nearby Butterball turkey
packaging factory.

Recycling is a good thing, no doubt.

But that's not anywhere close to answer the question of being
self-sufficient. Even ignoring the question of the energy required to
produce the turkeys, that project's own web site
(http://www.res-energy.com/faq/index.asp) does not suggest that they are
self-sufficient. They say nothing about using their own output as their
energy source (nor are the figures you quote actual numbers...they are
*anticipated*, which is another word for "hoped for").

Pete

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

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:b3c_e.369489$x96.190155@attbi_s72...
[...]
"Please continue to sponsor legislation that makes ethanol- gasoline
cheaper than regular unleaded gasoline."

So...rainforests, bad. Taking away your cheap aviation fuel, bad. But
subsidizing corn production in Iowa, good?

If ethanol were actually an economically viable improvement to gasoline, we
wouldn't need laws to encourage it.

Pete

"Please continue to sponsor legislation that makes ethanol- gasoline
cheaper than regular unleaded gasoline."

So...rainforests, bad. Taking away your cheap aviation fuel, bad. But
subsidizing corn production in Iowa, good?

No. I personally find the practice of subsidizing ethanol-based fuel
to be appalling (although they do it by taxing it *less* rather than
actually giving any money to the producers) -- but if they (as in
American politicians) are trying to find an effective way to make
people use more ethanol, I think that this method is less distasteful
than *mandating* its use.

If ethanol were actually an economically viable improvement to gasoline, we
wouldn't need laws to encourage it.

Agree 100% -- but I'm stuck in the reality of Iowa politics.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

If ethanol were actually an economically viable improvement to gasoline,
we wouldn't need laws to encourage it.



Absolutely correct, and that day may come. You have had your first
flirtation with 5 dollar gas; next time it might be 10 or 15.

The issue is: do you encourage alternates *now*, in anticipation of that
day, and begin a phase-in of the necessary infrastructure (both physical and
mental).

Or do you simply wait for the day, and attempt to create it all overnight?

There's a catch-22 if you do not phase alternates in soon. Unless you
create some alternate-energy capacity now, alternates will *never* be
economically viable.... because when you *do* finally admit that petroleum
is too expensive, the too-expensive petroleum will still be the only
available energy to produce your methanol, or whatever.

So, rather than bitching about the world turning to a gasahol blend of some
sort (which it seems to be doing) let's light a fire under those who hold
the STCs to determine WHY gasahol is bad for the aircraft environment and do
something about it.

I do not quite understand why gasahol burns well in old Ford tractors that
use Marvel carburetors and is prohibited in aircraft with Marvel
carburetors, other than some bureaucrat with a bad comb-over deciding it is
so. And, if there IS some sort of special part in the fuel system that is
attacked by ethanol, it isn't rocket science to specify a material for that
part that is NOT eaten by alcohol.

We can attack the problem politically and get buried under sheer numbers of
farmers vs. pilots or we can attack the problem with engineering and solve
it. Simply kvetching that we won't be able to play with our toy airplanes
like we used to be able to do isn't going to cut it.

Just like "pilots without medicals" (LSA) was denied for years, we CAN get
something done if we want it bad enough.

Jim