New fuel

[Robert M. Gary]

http://www.age85.org/ProjectDescription.htm
They're testing it on a 201 right now.

[Jim Weir]

Interesting...the STC for 85% ethanol, or any mix of ethanol and 100LL has been
around since 1999 for the Cessna 180/182 series but nobody knows about it?

Taking it one step further, if the STC holds for any mix of ethanol and 100LL,
why wouldn't it hold for the gasahol from the local fillemup autogas store?

Jim



(Robert M. Gary)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->http://www.age85.org/ProjectDescription.htm
->They're testing it on a 201 right now.


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Bob Fry]

(Robert M. Gary) writes:

> http://www.age85.org/ProjectDescription.htm
> They're testing it on a 201 right now.

Allow me to strip a few leaves off the cob....


"This project began in July, 1996."

Hmmm...8 years and counting. Not zipping along, but not too lengthy
either as these things go.

"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?

"The South Dakota Corn utlization Council..."
Seeing misspellings in the main website for a project is like
misspellings on a resume--I immediately mistrust everything else.

"June, 1997 - Install Ethanol Engine"

Oh-oh. This requires new engines?? Or what?

"Mooney 201 Project
This project began Fall, 1999 and is our first attempt to work with
Lycoming engines. Equipped with a 200 HP IO-360, the fuel system for
this aircraft will be modified for operation on both AGE-85 and
avgas."

Or at least modification to fuel systems. How much modification...how
much will this cost?

Other questions: Doesn't ethanol have less energy / volume than
gasoline? So what about performance or range?

What sort of processing is needed to produce this...can it be done
cheaply on a national scale?

Somehow it doesn't look like something that will replace 100LL.

I got a can of TCP and will have to start using that.

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> (Robert M. Gary) writes:
>
> > http://www.age85.org/ProjectDescription.htm
> > They're testing it on a 201 right now.
>
> Allow me to strip a few leaves off the cob....
>

Yet another ethanol scam. Hey, if you can't sell your corn, raise something
else. Don't use fraudulent studies to persuade politicians to force me to
buy it.

[Janne Blomqvist]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> http://www.age85.org/ProjectDescription.htm
> They're testing it on a 201 right now.

Looking at the "project milestones" part of that webpage:

Project Milestones

* July, 1996 - Project Begins
* August, 1996 - Acquire Cessna 180
* January, 1997 - Team w/ TX Skyways
* June, 1997 - Install Ethanol Engine
* December, 1997 - Begin 500 Hour Fight Test
* November, 1998 - Finish 500 Hour Flight Test
* December, 1998 - Engine Teardown
* April, 1999 - FAA STC's Obtained
* July, 1999 - Project Expansion
* September, 1999 - Mooney 201 Acquired
* December, 1999 - Grumman Ag Cat Acquired


....it seems like they dropped off the face of the earth about 4 years
ago. The website itself has a 2003 copyright, but that of course
doesn't take much effort to update once in a while.

Well I'm not from the US, but it seems to me that you have quite the
farm lobby over there. I wouldn't be surprised if this is (or was,
depending on if the project actually is still alive) yet another
attempt by the farmers to peddle their wares with the help of
government subsidies.

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 are hydrophobic), it eats rubber and has a low energy
content. Certainly not a straight replacement for avgas.


--
Janne Blomqvist

[Janne Blomqvist]

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?

Perhaps a solution to the question about how the farmers can sell more
of their stuff...

> Other questions: Doesn't ethanol have less energy / volume than
> gasoline?

Yes, it's heating value is about 2/3 that of gasoline.

> So what about performance or range?

Compared to autogas, ethanol has higher octane (ron=118, mon=100
IIRC), so compared to an autogas tuned engine you can increase the
compression and thus improve efficiency. That way one can compensate
somewhat for the lower heating value. OTOH, for an engine tuned for
high octane gas such as, oh, 100LL, you won't get this benefit.

> What sort of processing is needed to produce this...can it be done
> cheaply on a national scale?

If it could be done competetively the agricultural industry wouldn't
need massive government subsidies, would it? OTOH, if you would factor
in the price of a middle east presence to keep the oil flowing,
gasoline would be more expensive as well.

That does of course not mean that biofuels will be forever
uncompetetive. When oil supplies dwindle, the price will increase. At
the same time, more efficient ways of biofuel production are
developed.


--
Janne Blomqvist

[Paul Sengupta]

"Janne Blomqvist" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Bob Fry wrote:
> > Other questions: Doesn't ethanol have less energy / volume than
> > gasoline?
>
> Yes, it's heating value is about 2/3 that of gasoline.
:
> When oil supplies dwindle, the price will increase. At
> the same time, more efficient ways of biofuel production are
> developed.

Question...how does the specific energy of corn oil compare with
Jet-A1 run in a diesel engine?

Tesco Supermarkets here in the UK now sell an "Ecodiesel"...it
has all of 5% biodiesel and costs 1p a litre more than their city
(reduced sulphur) diesel.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Janne Blomqvist" > wrote in message
...
> Looking at the "project milestones" part of that webpage:
>
> Project Milestones
>
> * July, 1996 - Project Begins
> * August, 1996 - Acquire Cessna 180
> * January, 1997 - Team w/ TX Skyways
> * June, 1997 - Install Ethanol Engine
> * December, 1997 - Begin 500 Hour Fight Test

Hey, I wonder if I could get associated with some educational
institute then get a grant for running bio-diesel.

* September 2004, acquire Diamond DA40 tdi
* September 2004, acquire many gallons of corn oil from supermarket
* September 2004, begin 500 hour flight test

:-)

> 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 are hydrophobic),

Does it matter if it has some water in it? It might reduce the power/
efficiency, but it's not going to come in bubbles/streams to cut the
engine completely as it does now with avgas?

> it eats rubber and has a low energy
> content. Certainly not a straight replacement for avgas.

How do cars in Brazil do on the stuff?

Paul

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:09:53 +0300 (EEST), Janne Blomqvist
> wrote:

>If it could be done competetively the agricultural industry wouldn't
>need massive government subsidies, would it?

For "industry," read Archer Daniels Midland. One company, one hand in
the taxpayer's pocket.

(Well, I suppose the farmers that ADM buys the corn from are also part
of the "industry.")

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

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

[BllFs6]

Another tidbit for your information....

It takes a good fraction (and some experts even say it takes MORE) energy to
fertilize, grow, harvest, and process corn (or other plants?) to make
ethanol.....

And we are not counting the free solar energy from sunlight that grows the
crops either.....

Or in otherwords it takes something like 2/3 a gallon of gasoline/diesel to
perhaps as high as 1.5 gallons to make just one gallon of ethanol....I am going
on memory here.....

So, making ethanol only really makes sense if you use something like wind,
solar, or nuclear power to provide the vast majority of power and energy used
in the whole production cycle of ethanol....

If you dont do THAT, then your at best making a little more ethanol than the
gas you started with (and wasted alot of valuable food and land in the process)
and at worst you've actually ended up with LESS fuel than you started with (and
have totally wasted a non-renewable fuel source)....

take care

Blll

[Trent Moorehead]

"BllFs6" > wrote in message
news:20040818094952.12124.00003620@mb-> If you dont do THAT, then your at
best making a little more ethanol than the
> gas you started with (and wasted alot of valuable food and land in the
process)
> and at worst you've actually ended up with LESS fuel than you started with
(and
> have totally wasted a non-renewable fuel source)....

This reminds me of something I saw on Scientific American Frontiers last
night. It was a show on new car technology and was touting the glorious
revolution that will be Fuel Cells run on hydrogen.

While it was very interesting, there was this theme that the American market
was slowing the development of fuel efficient cars because we (Egads!!) keep
demanding more power and utility from our vehicles. Kind of irritating
actually. The American market, in a big way, helps fund their development
programs through car sales.

Anyway, the one thing that they glossed right over was that it takes more
energy to extract hydrogen from water than you get from the extracted
hygogen. They said that to solve this catch-22, we can extract hydrogen from
hyrdrocarbons (ie coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) or use nuclear to extract
hydrogen from water. Doesn't seem to be all that glorious of a solution now,
does it?

As I see it, what's slowing down the development of hydrogen fuel cells is
the fact that getting hydrogen isn't easy or cheap (cost or energy-wise).
It's great technology, but it still has a long way to go before it will be
accepted by the buying public.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[G.R. Patterson III]

BllFs6 wrote:
>
> Or in otherwords it takes something like 2/3 a gallon of gasoline/diesel to
> perhaps as high as 1.5 gallons to make just one gallon of ethanol....I am going
> on memory here.....
>
> So, making ethanol only really makes sense if you use something like wind,
> solar, or nuclear power to provide the vast majority of power and energy used
> in the whole production cycle of ethanol....
>
> If you dont do THAT, then your at best making a little more ethanol than the
> gas you started with (and wasted alot of valuable food and land in the process)
> and at worst you've actually ended up with LESS fuel than you started with (and
> have totally wasted a non-renewable fuel source)....

But if they're actually making this ethanol for fuel, then it would make sense to run
the agricultural equipment on it. Then *if your memory is correct*, at best they use
2/3 of their product just growing it.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Janne Blomqvist]

In article >, Paul Sengupta wrote:
> * September 2004, acquire Diamond DA40 tdi

Hmm, the Thielert looks nice, doesn't it. Perhaps I'll be able to
afford one in, uh, about 300 years. :(

>> 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 are hydrophobic),
>
> Does it matter if it has some water in it? It might reduce the power/
> efficiency, but it's not going to come in bubbles/streams to cut the
> engine completely as it does now with avgas?

I read somewhere that current fuel systems and distribution
infrastructure is geared for hydrophobic fuels, so that might require
some change. Another thing might be that if you get too much water in
a gasoline-ethanol mix, the ethanol-water will separate from the rest?

>> it eats rubber and has a low energy
>> content. Certainly not a straight replacement for avgas.
>
> How do cars in Brazil do on the stuff?

Fine I understand. The lower heating value doesn't matter that as much
for cars as for planes, I'd say. Also, cars typically have shorter
lives than planes and I think all newer cars have such rubber that
isn't eaten by ethanol. And for older cars, it's a simple matter of
replacing some hoses, as opposed to aircraft where you might need some
recertification etc.


--
Janne Blomqvist

[G.R. Patterson III]

Trent Moorehead wrote:
>
> Anyway, the one thing that they glossed right over was that it takes more
> energy to extract hydrogen from water than you get from the extracted
> hygogen. They said that to solve this catch-22, we can extract hydrogen from
> hyrdrocarbons (ie coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) or use nuclear to extract
> hydrogen from water. Doesn't seem to be all that glorious of a solution now,
> does it?

It certainly doesn't seem that way to me, but I live downwind of most of the plants
that would be producing the power for those hydrogen generators. It probably looks
just great to most of the residents of Los Angeles, since most of their polution
comes from cars. I expect this would be reflected in the politics behind the
development.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Janne Blomqvist]

In article >, Paul Sengupta wrote:
> "Janne Blomqvist" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, Bob Fry wrote:
>> > Other questions: Doesn't ethanol have less energy / volume than
>> > gasoline?
>>
>> Yes, it's heating value is about 2/3 that of gasoline.
>:
>> When oil supplies dwindle, the price will increase. At
>> the same time, more efficient ways of biofuel production are
>> developed.
>
> Question...how does the specific energy of corn oil compare with
> Jet-A1 run in a diesel engine?

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".

The (higher) heating value of fuels is approximately (quick googling,
correct if I'm wrong)

kerosene (Jet A-1) 46 MJ/kg
diesel 46.1 MJ/kg
gasoline 48 MJ/kg
ethanol 29.7 MJ/kg
biodiesel 40 MJ/kg


> Tesco Supermarkets here in the UK now sell an "Ecodiesel"...it
> has all of 5% biodiesel and costs 1p a litre more than their city
> (reduced sulphur) diesel.

The reason jets use kerosene instead of diesel is that diesel freezes
at higher temperatures than kerosene. Biodiesel is even worse in this
regard. Not nice if your tanks freeze solid on a high altitude
flight.. :)

See

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/Cold%20Flow.PDF

and

http://www.biodiesel.org/markets/pre/WilliamsColdFlowTestingReport.pdf


--
Janne Blomqvist

[G.R. Patterson III]

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).

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Roger Halstead]

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.

So, yes I think it can probably produce a viable alternative to 100LL.
It will do nothing to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel.
I think the goal is simply to produce a replacement for 100LL. Any
statements about renewable energy sources are simply misleading.
True, but still misleading.

>
>Perhaps a solution to the question about how the farmers can sell more
>of their stuff...
>
>> Other questions: Doesn't ethanol have less energy / volume than
>> gasoline?
>
>Yes, it's heating value is about 2/3 that of gasoline.
>
>> So what about performance or range?
>
>Compared to autogas, ethanol has higher octane (ron=118, mon=100
>IIRC), so compared to an autogas tuned engine you can increase the
>compression and thus improve efficiency. That way one can compensate

I lived on a farm about 8 miles from the Gasohol plant at Alma MI.
The word I've seen is the Gas Alcohol mix give maximum octane at 10%
alcohol and 90% gas.

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.
Regular, unmodified cars make a lot of noise when burning straight
alcohol.

In either case the heavily subsidized plant went under as they could
neither produce enough fuel, or do it economically.

>somewhat for the lower heating value. OTOH, for an engine tuned for
>high octane gas such as, oh, 100LL, you won't get this benefit.
>
>> What sort of processing is needed to produce this...can it be done
>> cheaply on a national scale?

NO!
The over simplified explanation: They grow corn. The corn is allowed
to ferment. The alcohol is distilled off.

>
>If it could be done competetively the agricultural industry wouldn't
>need massive government subsidies, would it? OTOH, if you would factor
>in the price of a middle east presence to keep the oil flowing,
>gasoline would be more expensive as well.

Most of the world pays at least twice what we in the US pay for gas.
Even with all the gas taxes we pay half or less.

From experience, it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce
a gallon of Alcohol, IF you are growing grain for that specific
purpose.

>
>That does of course not mean that biofuels will be forever
>uncompetetive. When oil supplies dwindle, the price will increase. At
>the same time, more efficient ways of biofuel production are
>developed.

The kicker is when you can produce it as a byproduct. Then it will
become a viable, renewable energy source.

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.

If you take all the biomass from a field every year, that field will
just barely raise a good crop of weeds after a few years. No, they
wouldn't break down to produce much fuel. <:-))

OTOH there are actually some farms using waste to produce methane on a
scale large enough to heat all the buildings. It's relatively simple
and inexpensive process.. I don't know if they've made it much beyond
that point or not.

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.

Hydrogen, like alcohol takes more energy from fossil fuels than it
produces, at least when producing more than small quantities.

I believe it was MIT that produced a fuel cell (this year) that will
use straight kerosene or diesel fuel.

So far, from what I've seen there is no current method of producing
renewable fuels (alternative fuels) that produces as much energy as
can be obtained from those fuels.

The "alternative" fuel touted by the EAA project is not efficient, but
it does produce a fuel that can be used in aircraft.

So as I see it, these programs are producing useable fuels, but doing
nothing to ease the dependence on fossil fuels as of yet.

OTOH if they produce a viable replacement for 100LL we should be
thankful. Who knows what the eventual price will be. Without
subsidies a fuel that takes more energy to produce than it produces is
going to be expensive.

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

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:54:01 +0300 (EEST), Janne Blomqvist
> wrote:

>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> http://www.age85.org/ProjectDescription.htm
>> They're testing it on a 201 right now.
>
>Looking at the "project milestones" part of that webpage:
>
>Project Milestones
>
> * July, 1996 - Project Begins
> * August, 1996 - Acquire Cessna 180
> * January, 1997 - Team w/ TX Skyways
> * June, 1997 - Install Ethanol Engine

"I believe" this not only has o-rings and seals replaced to tolerate
the alcohol (probably viton), but *probably* has lower compression.


> * December, 1997 - Begin 500 Hour Fight Test
> * November, 1998 - Finish 500 Hour Flight Test
> * December, 1998 - Engine Teardown
> * April, 1999 - FAA STC's Obtained
> * July, 1999 - Project Expansion
> * September, 1999 - Mooney 201 Acquired
> * December, 1999 - Grumman Ag Cat Acquired
>
>
>...it seems like they dropped off the face of the earth about 4 years
>ago. The website itself has a 2003 copyright, but that of course
>doesn't take much effort to update once in a while.
>
>Well I'm not from the US, but it seems to me that you have quite the
>farm lobby over there. I wouldn't be surprised if this is (or was,
>depending on if the project actually is still alive) yet another
>attempt by the farmers to peddle their wares with the help of
>government subsidies.

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.

Unlike many industries where if the individual can't make a positive
return they go out of business, in farming it affects everyone long
term. Crop prices have not changed a great deal, with some
exceptions, over many years while the end products have.

More and more farming is moving from the small (relatively speaking)
family farms to the large corporate farms.

Long term the subsidies help to reduce the end product price to the
consumer. OTOH had we never had any to begin with, we *might* be
better off and then again we might not.
>
>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.

>which are hydrophobic), it eats rubber and has a low energy
>content. Certainly not a straight replacement for avgas.

I don't think it'd have the octane to directly replace 100 LL either
and it'd have a great time with the bladder tanks in the Deb.

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

[StellaStar]

> 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'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...

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> I believe it was MIT that produced a fuel cell (this year) that will
> use straight kerosene or diesel fuel.

The University of Alabama.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Roger Halstead]

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...

[Janne Blomqvist]

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

[Paul Sengupta]

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

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"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

[Janne Blomqvist]

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/publications/avgasethanolETBE.pdf

http://www3.baylor.edu/bias/publications/transitiontobiomass.pdf

Some more info about AGE85:

http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Archive/Fuel/Research/AGE85/age85.html

Report about testing with AGE85 (long):

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

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

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/021011_cessna.html



--
Janne Blomqvist

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[Cub Driver]

>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

[Cub Driver]

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

[Cub Driver]

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

[Cub Driver]

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> So I reckon diesel gets
> sludgy at an even higher temp than my father-in-law's outside fuel-oil
> tank.

Dunno if this is universally the case, but the heating oil sold in the Atlanta area
is #2 diesel. I expect that's the case pretty much everywhere, since there was some
talk a few years ago about dying one of them red to try to catch people who avoid
road taxes by filling up their cars from the heating oil tank.

I expect the VW quit at higher temperatures simply because the fuel lines for the
heaters are larger than those in the car.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >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.

Don't know about there, but here in the UK they add a certain amount
of kerosene to diesel in the winter to lower the freezing point.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> > So I reckon diesel gets
> > sludgy at an even higher temp than my father-in-law's outside fuel-oil
> > tank.
>
> Dunno if this is universally the case, but the heating oil sold in the
Atlanta area
> is #2 diesel. I expect that's the case pretty much everywhere, since there
was some
> talk a few years ago about dying one of them red to try to catch people
who avoid
> road taxes by filling up their cars from the heating oil tank.

Met a guy from up north sort of way when I was in Florida who
had a Fouga Magister. When he was at home, he ran it on heating
oil. I think he said he bought tankers full at a time at something like
$0.40 a gallon...this was a few years ago now.

You can run a diesel car on kerosene as long as the fuel pump can
handle lack of lubrication. Some airport vehicles here are run on
avtur (Jet-A) if they don't have to go on the public roads (fuel tax).

Paul

[Big John]

Trent

You forget the non polluting nature of fuel cells and their effect on
the green house effect.

I know that making the hydrogen can be dirty unless Atomic energy is
used.

And again, the storage of Nuc waste until we can launch into the sun
has to be sold to the great unwashed masses <G>

Lots of hills to climb.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````````
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:41:45 -0400, "Trent Moorehead"
> wrote:

>
>"BllFs6" > wrote in message
>news:20040818094952.12124.00003620@mb-> If you dont do THAT, then your at
>best making a little more ethanol than the
>> gas you started with (and wasted alot of valuable food and land in the
>process)
>> and at worst you've actually ended up with LESS fuel than you started with
>(and
>> have totally wasted a non-renewable fuel source)....
>
>This reminds me of something I saw on Scientific American Frontiers last
>night. It was a show on new car technology and was touting the glorious
>revolution that will be Fuel Cells run on hydrogen.
>
>While it was very interesting, there was this theme that the American market
>was slowing the development of fuel efficient cars because we (Egads!!) keep
>demanding more power and utility from our vehicles. Kind of irritating
>actually. The American market, in a big way, helps fund their development
>programs through car sales.
>
>Anyway, the one thing that they glossed right over was that it takes more
>energy to extract hydrogen from water than you get from the extracted
>hygogen. They said that to solve this catch-22, we can extract hydrogen from
>hyrdrocarbons (ie coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) or use nuclear to extract
>hydrogen from water. Doesn't seem to be all that glorious of a solution now,
>does it?
>
>As I see it, what's slowing down the development of hydrogen fuel cells is
>the fact that getting hydrogen isn't easy or cheap (cost or energy-wise).
>It's great technology, but it still has a long way to go before it will be
>accepted by the buying public.
>
>-Trent
>PP-ASEL
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:41:45 -0400, "Trent Moorehead"
> wrote in
>::

>Anyway, the one thing that they glossed right over was that it takes more
>energy to extract hydrogen from water than you get from the extracted
>hygogen.

If solar power is used to disassociate the H & O2 water atoms, there
is no pollution generated, and only sunlight, that would otherwise be
wasted, is consumed. Of course, it might be more efficient to
directly store the solar power in a battery for use in an electric
vehicle. In any event, the question becomes, does the production of
solar cells consume more energy than can be expected to be generated
by them over their useful life span?

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [all non-aviation content snipped]

And then, right after your net cop post, you manage to post an
even-more-off-topic post. At least Jay's post had *some* aviation content
in it.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...