Sugar-powered plane unveiled

[Mal]

It would make a good glider tug !

BRAZILIAN aircraft manufacturer Embraer today unveiled the world's first
mass-produced commercial aircraft that runs on sugar cane ethanol fuel.

The Ipanema aircraft is designed to take advantage of Brazil's supplies of
the fuel, which is cheaper, burns more cleanly and is more efficient than
fuels refined from crude oil, company officials said.

Brazil is also a major producer of ethanol fuel, extracted from sugar cane.

Satoshi Yokota, a top Embraer official, said operating the plane on ethanol
was three to four times cheaper than using airplane fuel.

The Ipanema is designed mainly as a crop duster.

www.embraer.com



www.mals.net

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:00:15 GMT, "Mal" > wrote:

>It would make a good glider tug !
>
>BRAZILIAN aircraft manufacturer Embraer today unveiled the world's first
>mass-produced commercial aircraft that runs on sugar cane ethanol fuel.
>
>The Ipanema aircraft is designed to take advantage of Brazil's supplies of
>the fuel, which is cheaper, burns more cleanly and is more efficient than
>fuels refined from crude oil, company officials said.
>
>Brazil is also a major producer of ethanol fuel, extracted from sugar cane.
>
>Satoshi Yokota, a top Embraer official, said operating the plane on ethanol
>was three to four times cheaper than using airplane fuel.
>
>The Ipanema is designed mainly as a crop duster.

well those claims are deluded nonsense arent they.
ethanol is less efficient as a fuel energy source than avgas.
200 litres of ethanol does not have the anywhere near the range of
avgas and being a fermented biological material we'd denude the entire
world of arable land if we switched to it globally as a fuel.

....but then the greens were never good at maths.
Stealth Pilot

[Mal]

Most the gliders I fly have better range than most small aircraft on about
5-10 litres of another aircrafts avgas or a litre of petrol on a winch
launch.

I attached a picture of the aircraft.

The gliding movement is always looking for tug options as the pawnee brave
is no longer produced !


"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:00:15 GMT, "Mal" > wrote:
>
>>It would make a good glider tug !
>>
>>BRAZILIAN aircraft manufacturer Embraer today unveiled the world's first
>>mass-produced commercial aircraft that runs on sugar cane ethanol fuel.
>>
>>The Ipanema aircraft is designed to take advantage of Brazil's supplies of
>>the fuel, which is cheaper, burns more cleanly and is more efficient than
>>fuels refined from crude oil, company officials said.
>>
>>Brazil is also a major producer of ethanol fuel, extracted from sugar
>>cane.
>>
>>Satoshi Yokota, a top Embraer official, said operating the plane on
>>ethanol
>>was three to four times cheaper than using airplane fuel.
>>
>>The Ipanema is designed mainly as a crop duster.
>
> well those claims are deluded nonsense arent they.
> ethanol is less efficient as a fuel energy source than avgas.
> 200 litres of ethanol does not have the anywhere near the range of
> avgas and being a fermented biological material we'd denude the entire
> world of arable land if we switched to it globally as a fuel.
>
> ...but then the greens were never good at maths.
> Stealth Pilot

[Stefan]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> well those claims are deluded nonsense arent they.
> ethanol is less efficient as a fuel energy source than avgas.
> 200 litres of ethanol does not have the anywhere near the range of

Energy per volume isn't interesting, energy per mass ist. (No, I don't
have the numbers hany right now.)

> avgas and being a fermented biological material we'd denude the entire
> world of arable land if we switched to it globally as a fuel.

The actual global food production is enough to feed twice the global
population. It's only a question of distribution.

> ...but then the greens were never good at maths.

Neither are you, when the result doesn't fit your opinion.

Stefan

[RHWOODY]

If the "greenies" really wanted to do
something meaningful they would
put all of their energy and money
into stopping the population growth -
most problems have their basis in more
and more people on this earth. The
"greenie's" present efforts only result
in bitching about almost everything.

[Eric Greenwell]

RHWOODY wrote:

> If the "greenies" really wanted to do
> something meaningful they would
> put all of their energy and money
> into stopping the population growth -
> most problems have their basis in more
> and more people on this earth. The
> "greenie's" present efforts only result
> in bitching about almost everything.

I believe the "greenies" do not favor ethanol, becuase it is so energy
intensive to produce (watering, fertilizing, cultivating, and harvesting
the crop, and finally manufacturing the enthanol) that it is not really
"green"; however, it is favored by corporate farms because it provides
another market for the subsidized corn they grow, a potentially bigger
market than even corn syrup.

And many (most?) greenies do believe in and pursue population
stabilization through a variety of means, especially in the less
developed countries, generally including poverty reduction, decreased
childhood mortality, empowering women, and increasing family planning
options.

Interestingly, a stable population brings it's own problems, but
generally not the enviormental type.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[matt weber]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:50:24 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:00:15 GMT, "Mal" > wrote:
>
>>It would make a good glider tug !
>>
>>BRAZILIAN aircraft manufacturer Embraer today unveiled the world's first
>>mass-produced commercial aircraft that runs on sugar cane ethanol fuel.
>>
>>The Ipanema aircraft is designed to take advantage of Brazil's supplies of
>>the fuel, which is cheaper, burns more cleanly and is more efficient than
>>fuels refined from crude oil, company officials said.
>>
>>Brazil is also a major producer of ethanol fuel, extracted from sugar cane.
>>
>>Satoshi Yokota, a top Embraer official, said operating the plane on ethanol
>>was three to four times cheaper than using airplane fuel.
>>
>>The Ipanema is designed mainly as a crop duster.
>
>well those claims are deluded nonsense arent they.
>ethanol is less efficient as a fuel energy source than avgas.
>200 litres of ethanol does not have the anywhere near the range of
>avgas and being a fermented biological material we'd denude the entire
>world of arable land if we switched to it globally as a fuel.
>
>...but then the greens were never good at maths.
>Stealth Pilot
It is actually far worse than that. Without distillation, the best you
can do is 97% ethanol, with 3% water, which makes it unacceptable as
fuel. So you have to distill it to get rid of the 3% water.

The problem is that it takes more energy to distill the alcohol than
it produces as energy. That is why 100% ethanol is so expensive. The
only thing that makes it cheaper as fuel is the favorable tax
treatment it usually gets.

[Bill Daniels]

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:50:24 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:00:15 GMT, "Mal" > wrote:
> >
> >>It would make a good glider tug !
> >>
> >>BRAZILIAN aircraft manufacturer Embraer today unveiled the world's first
> >>mass-produced commercial aircraft that runs on sugar cane ethanol fuel.
> >>
> >>The Ipanema aircraft is designed to take advantage of Brazil's supplies
of
> >>the fuel, which is cheaper, burns more cleanly and is more efficient
than
> >>fuels refined from crude oil, company officials said.
> >>
> >>Brazil is also a major producer of ethanol fuel, extracted from sugar
cane.
> >>
> >>Satoshi Yokota, a top Embraer official, said operating the plane on
ethanol
> >>was three to four times cheaper than using airplane fuel.
> >>
> >>The Ipanema is designed mainly as a crop duster.
> >
> >well those claims are deluded nonsense arent they.
> >ethanol is less efficient as a fuel energy source than avgas.
> >200 litres of ethanol does not have the anywhere near the range of
> >avgas and being a fermented biological material we'd denude the entire
> >world of arable land if we switched to it globally as a fuel.
> >
> >...but then the greens were never good at maths.
> >Stealth Pilot
> It is actually far worse than that. Without distillation, the best you
> can do is 97% ethanol, with 3% water, which makes it unacceptable as
> fuel. So you have to distill it to get rid of the 3% water.
>
> The problem is that it takes more energy to distill the alcohol than
> it produces as energy. That is why 100% ethanol is so expensive. The
> only thing that makes it cheaper as fuel is the favorable tax
> treatment it usually gets.

I've always wondered why those clever bioengineers couldn't teach some bugs
to produce iso-octane instead of ethanol. Iso-octane is the lab reference
for 100 octane motor fuel.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:00:56 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:


>> >
>> >well those claims are deluded nonsense arent they.
>> >ethanol is less efficient as a fuel energy source than avgas.
>> >200 litres of ethanol does not have the anywhere near the range of
>> >avgas and being a fermented biological material we'd denude the entire
>> >world of arable land if we switched to it globally as a fuel.
>> >
>> >...but then the greens were never good at maths.
>> >Stealth Pilot
>> It is actually far worse than that. Without distillation, the best you
>> can do is 97% ethanol, with 3% water, which makes it unacceptable as
>> fuel. So you have to distill it to get rid of the 3% water.
>>
>> The problem is that it takes more energy to distill the alcohol than
>> it produces as energy. That is why 100% ethanol is so expensive. The
>> only thing that makes it cheaper as fuel is the favorable tax
>> treatment it usually gets.
>
>I've always wondered why those clever bioengineers couldn't teach some bugs
>to produce iso-octane instead of ethanol. Iso-octane is the lab reference
>for 100 octane motor fuel.

now that really is the answer isnt it. we have the studies (they were
published in scientific american a few months ago) that point to
petrol being the most efficient fuel on the planet.

pressure with chromium and iron as catalysts will synthesise
hydrocarbons from constituent elements. there must be some
bioengineering available that makes use of that fact or some other
method for synthesising hydrocarbons. after all how were they produced
in the first place?
Stealth Pilot

[Steve / Sperry]

I have seen 2 perspectives on the issue... one says its more efficent
to produce the other says it is less efficent?


Opinion 1/ From a production standpoint... "Ethanol production is
extremely energy efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125%,
compared to 85% for gasoline. Ethanol production is by far the most
efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels. According
to USDA, each BTU (British Thermal Unit, an energy measure) used to
produce a BTU of gasoline could be used to produce 8 BTUs of ethanol."

Or 2/ David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural
expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for
one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would
require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's
supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn
production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to
make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value
of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to
produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you
make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.

Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow
corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade
automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".



If the fuel is efficent to produce then I would like to believe the
following quote from the industry... Ethanol is a much cleaner fuel
than gasoline, reducing air-pollution. It is a renewable fuel made
from plants -- unlike fossil-fuels, manufacturing it and burning it
does not increase the greenhouse effect.



>
>well those claims are deluded nonsense arent they.
>ethanol is less efficient as a fuel energy source than avgas.
>200 litres of ethanol does not have the anywhere near the range of
>avgas and being a fermented biological material we'd denude the entire
>world of arable land if we switched to it globally as a fuel.
>
>...but then the greens were never good at maths.
>Stealth Pilot

[[email protected]]

matt weber > writes:

> It is actually far worse than that. Without distillation, the best
> you can do is 97% ethanol, with 3% water, which makes it
> unacceptable as fuel. So you have to distill it to get rid of the 3%
> water.

97% is the best you can do with distilation! EtOH and water for an
azeotrope. To get better you must use a dehydrating agent, and H2SO4
is not a good one for this :)

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Gldcomp]

Here's a little history, before armchair (or cyber) analysts embarass
themselves too much.

Ethanol has been utilized as a car fuel since the mid 70s in Brazil.
It is made of SUGAR-CANE, which is easy to produce in abundance in Brazil,
not corn.
Any reasonable farm can distill it's own Ethanol to power their cars and
their crop dusters.

As far as the auto industry, Brazilian car manufacturers (including the
Brazilian arms of Ford, GM, Fiat and Volkswagen, to name a few) have been
producing ethanol-powered cars since the 70s and there is an incredible
amount of accumulated knowledge from experience.
They were required by law at some point to offer as much as 50% of their
productions in alcohol-powered cars, as opposed to gasoline-powered cars.

Here are some facts :
"Alcohol powered cars" (as they are locally known) obtain about 15 to 20%
less mileage per gallon, but the cost still outperforms Gasoline.
They usually have slighly higher HP output because Alcohol engines require
slighly higher compression ratios, thus generating better torque and HP.
The fuel lines, fuel pumps and everything else that touches the fuel needs a
slighly different treatment so as not to get corroded, and the experience
accumulated from decades of doing this, has already been applied by the big
car manufacturers in several other countries, improving the lives of these
components even in gasoline-powered cars.
Alcohol does not require pollutant add-ons such as MTB or Lead.
The emissions are significantly less pollutant than from Gasoline-powered
engines.

More important than any of this, the use of Ethanol it has significantly
reduced brazilian dependence on foreign oil and its impact on the economy.

This is not a crazy experiment, it is just the continuation of 30+ years of
evolution of a program that has had a significant impact both technically
and economically in the way brazilians think about transportation.


"Steve / Sperry" > wrote in message
...
> I have seen 2 perspectives on the issue... one says its more efficent
> to produce the other says it is less efficent?
>
>
> Opinion 1/ From a production standpoint... "Ethanol production is
> extremely energy efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125%,
> compared to 85% for gasoline. Ethanol production is by far the most
> efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels. According
> to USDA, each BTU (British Thermal Unit, an energy measure) used to
> produce a BTU of gasoline could be used to produce 8 BTUs of ethanol."
>
> Or 2/ David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural
> expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for
> one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would
> require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's
> supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn
> production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to
> make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value
> of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to
> produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you
> make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.
>
> Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow
> corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade
> automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".
>
>
>
> If the fuel is efficent to produce then I would like to believe the
> following quote from the industry... Ethanol is a much cleaner fuel
> than gasoline, reducing air-pollution. It is a renewable fuel made
> from plants -- unlike fossil-fuels, manufacturing it and burning it
> does not increase the greenhouse effect.
>
>
>
> >
> >well those claims are deluded nonsense arent they.
> >ethanol is less efficient as a fuel energy source than avgas.
> >200 litres of ethanol does not have the anywhere near the range of
> >avgas and being a fermented biological material we'd denude the entire
> >world of arable land if we switched to it globally as a fuel.
> >
> >...but then the greens were never good at maths.
> >Stealth Pilot
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

This is all well and good. Can they heat the ethanol to 115F and climb to
12K without cavitation and vapor lock? If so, it could conceivably get US
approval. BTW, those were the autogas STC test parameters given me by
someone who holds a bunch of them.

Frank Whiteley

"Gldcomp" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a little history, before armchair (or cyber) analysts embarass
> themselves too much.
>
> Ethanol has been utilized as a car fuel since the mid 70s in Brazil.
> It is made of SUGAR-CANE, which is easy to produce in abundance in Brazil,
> not corn.
> Any reasonable farm can distill it's own Ethanol to power their cars and
> their crop dusters.
>
> As far as the auto industry, Brazilian car manufacturers (including the
> Brazilian arms of Ford, GM, Fiat and Volkswagen, to name a few) have been
> producing ethanol-powered cars since the 70s and there is an incredible
> amount of accumulated knowledge from experience.
> They were required by law at some point to offer as much as 50% of their
> productions in alcohol-powered cars, as opposed to gasoline-powered cars.
>
> Here are some facts :
> "Alcohol powered cars" (as they are locally known) obtain about 15 to 20%
> less mileage per gallon, but the cost still outperforms Gasoline.
> They usually have slighly higher HP output because Alcohol engines require
> slighly higher compression ratios, thus generating better torque and HP.
> The fuel lines, fuel pumps and everything else that touches the fuel needs
a
> slighly different treatment so as not to get corroded, and the experience
> accumulated from decades of doing this, has already been applied by the
big
> car manufacturers in several other countries, improving the lives of these
> components even in gasoline-powered cars.
> Alcohol does not require pollutant add-ons such as MTB or Lead.
> The emissions are significantly less pollutant than from Gasoline-powered
> engines.
>
> More important than any of this, the use of Ethanol it has significantly
> reduced brazilian dependence on foreign oil and its impact on the economy.
>
> This is not a crazy experiment, it is just the continuation of 30+ years
of
> evolution of a program that has had a significant impact both technically
> and economically in the way brazilians think about transportation.
>
>
> "Steve / Sperry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have seen 2 perspectives on the issue... one says its more efficent
> > to produce the other says it is less efficent?
> >
> >
> > Opinion 1/ From a production standpoint... "Ethanol production is
> > extremely energy efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125%,
> > compared to 85% for gasoline. Ethanol production is by far the most
> > efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels. According
> > to USDA, each BTU (British Thermal Unit, an energy measure) used to
> > produce a BTU of gasoline could be used to produce 8 BTUs of ethanol."
> >
> > Or 2/ David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural
> > expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for
> > one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would
> > require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's
> > supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn
> > production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to
> > make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value
> > of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to
> > produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you
> > make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.
> >
> > Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow
> > corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade
> > automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".
> >
> >
> >
> > If the fuel is efficent to produce then I would like to believe the
> > following quote from the industry... Ethanol is a much cleaner fuel
> > than gasoline, reducing air-pollution. It is a renewable fuel made
> > from plants -- unlike fossil-fuels, manufacturing it and burning it
> > does not increase the greenhouse effect.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >well those claims are deluded nonsense arent they.
> > >ethanol is less efficient as a fuel energy source than avgas.
> > >200 litres of ethanol does not have the anywhere near the range of
> > >avgas and being a fermented biological material we'd denude the entire
> > >world of arable land if we switched to it globally as a fuel.
> > >
> > >...but then the greens were never good at maths.
> > >Stealth Pilot
> >
>
>