Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

[Jay Honeck]

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 here:
http://press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050927/NEWS01/509270309/1079

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 here: 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,

Re: 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

[N93332]

"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 here:
> http://press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050927/NEWS01/509270309/1079

I agree with you Jay.

His website states:
"Due to the large volume of messages I receive daily from every state and
across the world, I am only able to accept email from Iowans at the current
time. If you live outside of Iowa or if you need to contact me using another
communication method."

Being only 10 miles from Iowa, he doesn't want to hear from me via E-mail.
I'll send off a snail-mail. I forwarded your message to my Iowa friends.

-Greg B.

[Peter R.]

N93332 > wrote:

> His website states:
> "Due to the large volume of messages I receive daily from every state and
> across the world, I am only able to accept email from Iowans at the current
> time.

I wonder how he accomplishes this?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[N93332]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> N93332 > wrote:
>
>> His website states:
>> "Due to the large volume of messages I receive daily from every state and
>> across the world, I am only able to accept email from Iowans at the
>> current
>> time.
>
> I wonder how he accomplishes this?

From his website http://nussle.house.gov/email.htm asks for a valid Iowa
zipcode. I suppose an Iowa zipcode could be entered...

-Greg B.

[Jim Burns]

Wisconsin has a 10% proposal on the agenda. What are car gas pilots in MN,
MT, HI doing? My understanding is that those states already have the
mandate.
Jim

[Marco Leon]

C'mon Jay, "disaster for many of us?" I doubt a dollar per gallon increase
would stop you from flying. Most folks are still flying even with the
dramatic increases in AvGas prices from just a few years ago. Any aircraft
owner with a financial buffer that thin won't be one for very long (or at
least have an airworthy aircraft).

Yes, it sucks wind and you should fight it but don't get all drama queen on
us ;)

Marco Leon

"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 here:
>
http://press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050927/NEWS01/509270309/1079
>
> 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. [snip]



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Blanche]

Great idea.

Wrong approach. By using the argument "GA will become economically
unfeasible -- we won't be able to fly" there's the impression of
whining. You need to make the economic argument of *why* GA is so
important to Iowa. Get the economic impact assessments from your
state Dept. of Transportation. Point out the money that is brought into
the communities of each of the smaller non-commercial access airports.
Get the figures from Angel Flight of the number of flights within,
into and out of the Iowa area.

You absolutely MUST make the economic argument and NOT the "it'll be
too expensive for me to play with my toys" complaint.

[JohnH]

Marco Leon wrote:
> C'mon Jay, "disaster for many of us?" I doubt a dollar per gallon
> increase would stop you from flying. Most folks are still flying even
> with the dramatic increases in AvGas prices from just a few years
> ago. Any aircraft owner with a financial buffer that thin won't be
> one for very long (or at least have an airworthy aircraft).
>
> Yes, it sucks wind and you should fight it but don't get all drama
> queen on us ;)



"Everywhere, every day on the radio, television, and in the newspapers, all
I
hear is how the "Record Price of Oil" is killing America.

Yet, strangely, Americans keep driving *more*. And I don't see anyone
flying less."

"Get out and fly, people! Life is good!"

- from the "Stop Whining, America" thread.

[sfb]

The governor is just going with the votes. There are more folks growing
corn for ethanol than flying GA in Iowa. Ethanol is the ultimate
political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to manufacture than it
provides.

One of those have your cake and eat it things. No ethanol, no Iowa as
the farmers claim they need ethanol to prosper and make Iowa a "good"
place to live and work.

"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.

[Jay Masino]

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. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be
developed for my airplane, but it would also be great to tell the middle
east to kiss our ass. Presently, the autogas STC for my 160hp Cherokee is
fairly expensive (~$1500 last time I checked), and it requires you to use
premium unleaded, so the cost savings isn't quite as much. I haven't
been able to verify whether Maryland requires an ethanol blend, but I
think it does, so even if I went back to 150hp pistons, I'd still be
screwed. Anyway, using ethanol and biodiesel is a great idea. I've even
considered trading my commuter car for some model of VW diesel so that I
can burn biodiesel. I think that increasing the percentage of ethanol to
as high as a normal car can stand, is also a good idea. Sounds like
Rep. Nussie isn't that crazy.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

sfb > wrote:
> political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to manufacture than it
> provides.

Oh. I didn't know that.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[sfb]

Why is the Federal government subsiding ethanol manufacturing? If it was
such a good flipping deal, why haven't the energy companies gone into
the ethanol business. Ethanol is good for the corn crowers which last I
looked was not the county in general.

There are serious studies that demonstrate ethanol is an energy loser as
it requires more BTUs to manufacture that it provides. Ethanol is the
prime example of the agriculture lobby taking advantage of the energy
panic to have the taxpayers subsidize their over capacity. Factory
automation has eliminated many more jobs than have been shipped
overseas. If the country chooses not to use public money to keep
unprofitable factories open, why must it subside unprofitable
agriculture?


"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. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be
> developed for my airplane, but it would also be great to tell the
> middle
> east to kiss our ass. Presently, the autogas STC for my 160hp
> Cherokee is
> fairly expensive (~$1500 last time I checked), and it requires you to
> use
> premium unleaded, so the cost savings isn't quite as much. I haven't
> been able to verify whether Maryland requires an ethanol blend, but I
> think it does, so even if I went back to 150hp pistons, I'd still be
> screwed. Anyway, using ethanol and biodiesel is a great idea. I've
> even
> considered trading my commuter car for some model of VW diesel so that
> I
> can burn biodiesel. I think that increasing the percentage of ethanol
> to
> as high as a normal car can stand, is also a good idea. Sounds like
> Rep. Nussie isn't that crazy.
>
> --- Jay
>
>
> --
> __!__
> Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
> http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
> http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
> http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Mike Rapoport]

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 here:
> http://press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050927/NEWS01/509270309/1079
>
> 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 here: 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,
>
> Re: 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
>
>

[nrp]

What are car gas pilots in MN,
MT, HI doing?

In Minnesota there is a small distribution system at present for
non-alcohol fuels to make them available at airports and marinas, as
well as a few gas stations. In a few years we are mandated to go to
20% ethanol but I don't know if that system will be continued or not.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
(Jay Masino) wrote:
> 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. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be


Our "dependence" on foreign oil is a problem of our own creation--not
because of our consumption, but rather because of legislation and
regulation that restricts supply. The United States is presently the
third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, ahead of every OPEC
member except for Saudi Arabia. We could easily be the largest oil
producer if the oil reserves under federal land were permitted to be
explored.

Crude oil is one problem, refining capacity is another. We do not have
adequate refining capacity to meet domestic demand. Again, the lack of
refining capacity is the result of legislation and regulation which
makes it prohibitively expensive to build and operate refineries.
Requirements for certain "blends" for certain domestic markets makes it
more expensive and difficult to meet unexpected demand.



JKG

[nrp]

"And I don't see anyone
flying less."

I don't see anyone flying period. Living in the Twin Cities, 9-11
seems to have taken such a big bite out of General Aviation that I
rarely hear single engine aircraft on nice Saturdays anymore. I'm
really scared of the future of GA as my airport (SSQ) is only populated
with old timers.

Paying $170 for a damn gascolator bail of a Cherokee (this was on
another thread) makes it awfully hard to be enthusiastic and attract
new people to aviation.

[George Patterson]

sfb wrote:

> Ethanol is the ultimate
> political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to manufacture than it
> provides.

But you don't have to use petroleum to provide those BTUs; consequently, it does
reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it does pollute less than petrol.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

sfb wrote:

> There are serious studies that demonstrate ethanol is an energy loser as
> it requires more BTUs to manufacture that it provides.

But that energy doesn't have to be produced by burning oil.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Jay Masino) wrote:
>> 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. I'm torn. I want some sort of alternate fuel to be
>
>
> Our "dependence" on foreign oil is a problem of our own creation--not
> because of our consumption, but rather because of legislation and
> regulation that restricts supply. The United States is presently the
> third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, ahead of every OPEC
> member except for Saudi Arabia. We could easily be the largest oil
> producer if the oil reserves under federal land were permitted to be
> explored.
>
>
> JKG

The above isn't really true. There are not that many places off limits to
petroleum exploration in the US and none of them have enough reserves to
offset imported oil. Every availible drilling rig is drilling and has been
for years. The new higher prices are also allowing production of petroleum
that was previously uneconomic (like tar sands). The reality is that, until
recently, only a small (~20%) percentage of the worlds population used any
meaningful amount of energy and now perhaps 60% is using a meaningful amount
of energy. That is a tripling in the number of consumers and the effects
are obvious.

Personally, I like the strategy of using Middle East oil until it is gone.
The percentage of water produced by Saudi oil fields goes up every year...in
a decade or two, three at the most, we won't care much about the Middle
East.

Mike
MU-2

[Jay Masino]

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.


Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
> Our "dependence" on foreign oil is a problem of our own creation--not
> because of our consumption, but rather because of legislation and
> regulation that restricts supply. The United States is presently the
> third-largest producer of crude oil in the world, ahead of every OPEC
> member except for Saudi Arabia. We could easily be the largest oil
> producer if the oil reserves under federal land were permitted to be
> explored.
>
> Crude oil is one problem, refining capacity is another. We do not have
> adequate refining capacity to meet domestic demand. Again, the lack of
> refining capacity is the result of legislation and regulation which
> makes it prohibitively expensive to build and operate refineries.
> Requirements for certain "blends" for certain domestic markets makes it
> more expensive and difficult to meet unexpected demand.

--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[sfb]

Do you have a patent on magic BTUs? Petroleum BTUs are used grow and
distill corn into ethanol.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:dpe_e.18544$lW3.18289@trndny09...
> sfb wrote:
>
>> Ethanol is the ultimate political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to
>> manufacture than it provides.
>
> But you don't have to use petroleum to provide those BTUs;
> consequently, it does reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it does
> pollute less than petrol.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person
> to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[sfb]

It ain't pixie dust powering the farm machinery that tills the fields
and plants, fertilizes, and harvests the corn.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:Rre_e.18545$lW3.12256@trndny09...
> sfb wrote:
>
>> There are serious studies that demonstrate ethanol is an energy loser
>> as it requires more BTUs to manufacture that it provides.
>
> But that energy doesn't have to be produced by burning oil.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person
> to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Mike Rapoport]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:02f_e.9523$kH3.8149@trnddc01...
> It ain't pixie dust powering the farm machinery that tills the fields and
> plants, fertilizes, and harvests the corn.
>

Or makes the steel and plastic tractor, or runs and feeds the fertilizer
plant.

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Peter Duniho]

"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.

[RST Engineering]

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:dpe_e.18544$lW3.18289@trndny09...
> sfb wrote:
>
>> Ethanol is the ultimate political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to
>> manufacture than it provides.
>
> But you don't have to use petroleum to provide those BTUs; consequently,
> it does reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it does pollute less than
> petrol.
>


The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
to have to add .01 petro just to break even.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:46:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<b3c_e.369489$x96.190155@attbi_s72>::

>if you make regular unleaded gasoline unavailable in
>Iowa, you will make it impossible for many of us to fly our small
>airplanes

Of course, this is an exaggeration. I've never used Mo-gas, and have
been flying aircraft who's engines were designed for 80/87 decades.

[Dave Stadt]

"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.

[Jay Honeck]

> "Everywhere, every day on the radio, television, and in the newspapers, all
> I
> hear is how the "Record Price of Oil" is killing America.
>
> Yet, strangely, Americans keep driving *more*. And I don't see anyone
> flying less."
>
> "Get out and fly, people! Life is good!"
>
> - from the "Stop Whining, America" thread.

Which, of course, was written before the unprecedented run-up in prices
since Hurricane Katrina.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Which, of course, was written before the unprecedented run-up in prices
> since Hurricane Katrina.

"Unprecedented"?

That word means something other than what you seem to think it means.

[Jay Honeck]

> C'mon Jay, "disaster for many of us?" I doubt a dollar per gallon increase
> would stop you from flying. Most folks are still flying even with the
> dramatic increases in AvGas prices from just a few years ago. Any aircraft
> owner with a financial buffer that thin won't be one for very long (or at
> least have an airworthy aircraft).

Really? I meet (and know) plenty of owners who fly on a shoe-string
budget. That's what "grass-roots" aviation is all about.

These are the guys who own C-140s, C-150s, Ercoupes and any of a wide
assortment of GA planes that cost less than $20,000. To them, fuel is
THE single most important factor, and their highest cost of ownership.


If the State increases their cost $10 - $15 per hour by mandating
ethanol it will certainly tip the odds against them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[sfb]

Unprecedented is a touch strong. Katrina sent crude up all of $5 per
barrel to $70. It has back to $65.82. From May, 2005 to September, 2005,
crude went from $50 to $65 per barrel.

http://www.wtrg.com/daily/clfclose.gif

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> Which, of course, was written before the unprecedented run-up in
> prices
> since Hurricane Katrina.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Skylune]

I agree 100%. The message comes off as whiny, and contains unnecessary
details.

You must hide the true nature of your concern, and point to false issues,
like supposed economic benefits of GA airports in non-remote parts of the
country.

[Jay Honeck]

> > "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"

[Jay Honeck]

> 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.

Bravo! I've been asking this for years, to no avail.

What the heck is in an aircraft engine/fuel system that can't be made
"ethanol safe" for more than a few bucks worth of rubber seals?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[JohnH]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Bravo! I've been asking this for years, to no avail.
>
> What the heck is in an aircraft engine/fuel system that can't be made
> "ethanol safe" for more than a few bucks worth of rubber seals?

Really. Solve the problem, not the symptom.

[Jay Honeck]

> Unprecedented is a touch strong. Katrina sent crude up all of $5 per
> barrel to $70. It has back to $65.82. From May, 2005 to September, 2005,
> crude went from $50 to $65 per barrel.

Really? Isn't it funny (sad?) that the gas stations around here used
Katrina as an excuse to increase prices by 90%?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[sfb]

Jay, maybe one of your friendly Iowa neighbors who wanted to screw you
for buzzing his house with your noisy airplane raised the prices by 90%,
but 22% was the average in the state of Iowa. On 9/1, the average price
of a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline in Iowa was $2.47. It peaked at
$3.03 and fell back to $2.61.

http://iowastategasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

The US DOE and EPA has a site that reports gasoline prices in the US. We
found it very useful putting together a trip earlier this year.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/gasprices/states/

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> Unprecedented is a touch strong. Katrina sent crude up all of $5 per
>> barrel to $70. It has back to $65.82. From May, 2005 to September,
>> 2005,
>> crude went from $50 to $65 per barrel.
>
> Really? Isn't it funny (sad?) that the gas stations around here used
> Katrina as an excuse to increase prices by 90%?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, maybe one of your friendly Iowa neighbors who wanted to screw you
> for buzzing his house with your noisy airplane raised the prices by 90%,
> but 22% was the average in the state of Iowa. On 9/1, the average price
> of a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline in Iowa was $2.47. It peaked at
> $3.03 and fell back to $2.61.
>
> http://iowastategasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

An interesting site, which (in this case, anyway) appears to be
remarkably wrong.

I buy a lot of gas, between five vehicles, an airplane, and half a
dozen gas-powered lawn implements. I've got a receipt that says I paid
$1.89 per gallon on 8/5/05 for regular unleaded gas, while the chart
shows a price of $2.05. At the height of the Katrina panic, I paid
$3.25 per gallon, while the chart shows a peak of just $3.00 per
gallon.

I know it's showing an "average" price, so variances are expected, but
that seems like a lot of variance. Also, Iowa City routinely has the
highest gas prices in the region, so the fact that we were far cheaper
than the "average" shown on 8/5 seems especially odd.

Regardless, the price (around here, anyway) went up 72% in a period of
a few weeks, yet oil prices only went up a smidge. (Of course, as we
already hashed over in previous posts, most of the price run up was due
to refining capacity and the market over-shooting a sustainable price.)


More to the point for this thread: The difference between car gas and
avgas has now grown to more than $1.00 difference. If we lose the
ability to burn car gas, a lot of pilots won't be able to fly nearly as
often -- and that hurts everyone in GA.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ross Richardson]

Isn't Brazil flying a Cessna with gasahol or something like that?


-------------
Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI


RST Engineering wrote:
> 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
>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >
> Regardless, the price (around here, anyway) went up 72% in a period of
> a few weeks, yet oil prices only went up a smidge. (Of course, as we
> already hashed over in previous posts, most of the price run up was due
> to refining capacity and the market over-shooting a sustainable price.)
>
>


Well this was covered quite well both in this group and the media. The
reason gas went up was because of lose and feared lose of refining ability
not the price of crude.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"JohnH" > wrote:
> > What the heck is in an aircraft engine/fuel system that can't be made
> > "ethanol safe" for more than a few bucks worth of rubber seals?
>
> Really. Solve the problem, not the symptom.

It seems like the problem is excessive regulation, leading to shortages
in supply. The sumptom is a fabricated need for products like
"gasohol." So I'm all for solving the problem.



JKG

[Ash Wyllie]

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?

[Icebound]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...


> sfb > wrote:
>> political boondoggle as it costs more BTUs to manufacture than it
>> provides.
>
> Oh. I didn't know that.
>
>

That would be because there are equally impressive studies that show a 35
percent energy GAIN after growing and distilling.

And still others that show that the same energy required to produce 1 BTU of
Gasoline Energy, will produce as much as 8 BTU of ethanol energy, and that
it is *gasoline* which is inefficient to produce, by comparison.

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

So take your pick as to which religion to believe.

[JJS]

> 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.
>
Would you care to expand on how we can economically make "fertilizer" from fuel? Are you refering to ammonia?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Sylvain]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
> Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
> to have to add .01 petro just to break even.

then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
plant could not easily be throttled up or down...

any recommendation about some good reading on the subject of
alternative fuel technologies?

--Sylvain

[JJS]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> Or makes the steel and plastic tractor, or runs and feeds the fertilizer plant.

Approximately 25% of the U.S. ammonia production was shutdown and plants have been permanently mothballed or
dismantled and sold to Asian countries. This was before this most recent go around with high gas prices. Around 80
to 85% of the cost of producing ammonia is directly related to the price of natural gas. Many producers are eyeing
off shore production in places like Trinidad. I am very concerned for the welfare of any high energy consuming
manufacturing facility in the U.S. It appears our day in the sun has passed.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jay Masino]

Icebound > wrote:
> That would be because there are equally impressive studies that show a 35
> percent energy GAIN after growing and distilling.
>
> And still others that show that the same energy required to produce 1 BTU of
> Gasoline Energy, will produce as much as 8 BTU of ethanol energy, and that
> it is *gasoline* which is inefficient to produce, by comparison.
>
> http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
>
> So take your pick as to which religion to believe.


Well... I'll atleast hope that you're facts are the correct ones! :)

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

sfb > wrote:
> Do you have a patent on magic BTUs? Petroleum BTUs are used grow and
> distill corn into ethanol.

Although, more and more, farm equipment is being run on biodiesel, because
the farm industry is backing it and encouraging farmers to use it.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Icebound]

"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.

[Dan Engleman]

"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.
>


I'm a big Jay Honeck fan.......but, Jay on this one you are wrong, wrong,
wrong!

Please research what Brazil has done since the 70's to become energy
independent.

I personally have a car, truck, motorhome, a motorcycle
for myself and one for my wife and a Cessna 172. I burn a LOT more fuel in
everything else than I do in the airplane (and I put over 100 hours on it in
the last year).

I am not wealthy by a long shot, but if we can have ethanol powered vehicles
for less than $1.00 per gallon, I'll gladly pay 3.00 or 4.00 per gallon for
av fuel. I have an autogas STC and mostly burn unleaded car gas, but for the
good of the country we need to develop alternate
fuels.

Ethanol would also be a boon to the farmers in middle America.

As Ross Richardson (a fellow Sherman Texonite) mentioned, they have, in
Brazil, adapted most everything to run on ethanol (they call it alcohol).

Most of my information was gleaned from a retired AA Capt. who flew the
South America route until '98. His son is flying it now for American, and
stated that as of about 2 weeks ago ethanol (alcohol) was about (converted)
95 cents per gallon in Sao Paulo.

So......my not so valuable opinion is that we should encourage all our
legislators to pass legislation requiring us to be energy independent within
a few years. Ethanol is a large part of that.

I really think that there is a retrofit solution to every gasoline
engine....including aircraft. But even if there was not wouldn't you rather
pay $1.00 per gal for all your other fuel needs??

Just my opinion.......yours is probably different, as evidenced by most of
the elections of the last 20 years <G>.

Dan

[George Patterson]

sfb wrote:
> Do you have a patent on magic BTUs? Petroleum BTUs are used grow and
> distill corn into ethanol.

Really? You never heard of coal? Propane? Natural gas?

Hell, even wood makes a fine fuel for a still.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Icebound]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:Uag_e.87517$7f5.46917@okepread01...
>
> The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
> Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
> to have to add .01 petro just to break even.
>

Although there are scientists who claim their research shows a negative
production efficiency, there appear to be an equally impressive number who
claim otherwise.

[George Patterson]

RST Engineering wrote:

> 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.

What I've read in a number of places is that there are problems with issues
similar to vapor lock in aircraft. Since gasahol doesn't seem to be causing
problems in cars that cross the Rockies, it seems to me that this wouldn't be a
proble for a pilot who rarely exceeds 10,000' ASL.

If vapor problems are actually the issue, perhaps an STC with altitude limits is
in order?

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[LWG]

Good God, you're complaining about THAT! It's positively cheap.

Try buying a gascolator from Raytheon for a Beech Musketeer. The list price
is around $19,000.00. Yes, that's NINETEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. (Yeah, but
they only have to sell one.) If I could part my plane out for RAPID's list
prices, I'd be a multi-millionaire, and I could afford flying.

> Paying $170 for a damn gascolator bail of a Cherokee (this was on
> another thread) makes it awfully hard to be enthusiastic and attract
> new people to aviation.
>

[Icebound]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> Isn't Brazil flying a Cessna with gasahol or something like that?
>
>


Actually, they have a new aircraft produced specifically to run on
*ethanol*, and they have "300 to 400" small aircraft which have been
*converted* from gasoline to ethanol:

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/37677.html

[Icebound]

"Dan Engleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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. ...snip...


> As Ross Richardson (a fellow Sherman Texonite) mentioned, they have, in
> Brazil, adapted most everything to run on ethanol (they call it alcohol).
>


Here is an interesting slide-show of Brazil's numbers, presented at a
conference in 2004. (in pdf format)


http://www.renewables2004.de/ppt/Presentation4-SessionIVB(11-12.30h)-LaRovere.pdf

Bottom line:

At that time, oil over 30 dollars made the ethanol program profitable for
them.
And in spite of the historic "low" oil prices, estimated savings of
1.8Billion USD over the 22 year period of the program.

Think of it now, in terms of today's price of oil. And their infrastructure
is up and running.... We are apt to be replacing foreign oil with foreign
ethanol. is to laugh.

[kontiki]

exactly.

Blanche wrote:
> Great idea.
>
> Wrong approach. By using the argument "GA will become economically
> unfeasible -- we won't be able to fly" there's the impression of
> whining. You need to make the economic argument of *why* GA is so
> important to Iowa. Get the economic impact assessments from your
> state Dept. of Transportation. Point out the money that is brought into
> the communities of each of the smaller non-commercial access airports.
> Get the figures from Angel Flight of the number of flights within,
> into and out of the Iowa area.
>
> You absolutely MUST make the economic argument and NOT the "it'll be
> too expensive for me to play with my toys" complaint.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:Uag_e.87517$7f5.46917@okepread01...
>>
>> The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
>> Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are
>> going to have to add .01 petro just to break even.
>>
>
> Although there are scientists who claim their research shows a negative
> production efficiency, there appear to be an equally impressive number who
> claim otherwise.
>

Does it really matter if it is so close that informed people can't agree it
the energy balance is slightly greater or less than 1? Clearly it isn't
much of an alternative fuel if that is the case.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

I believe that fertilizer plants start with natural gas as the primary
feedstock.

Mike
MU-2
"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote in message
...
>
>
>> 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.
>>
> Would you care to expand on how we can economically make "fertilizer" from
> fuel? Are you refering to ammonia?
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[JJS]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message k.net...
>I believe that fertilizer plants start with natural gas as the primary feedstock.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

You are correct (in most cases) if we limit the discussion to nitrogen fertilizers. There are exceptions. Some
non-nitrogen fertilizers such as phosphorus are mined. There is an ammonia plant in Kansas using coke from a
refinery. I'm not certain if it is used as the fuel for the reformer or as feedstock for the synthesis gas stream.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Icebound]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
>> news:Uag_e.87517$7f5.46917@okepread01...
>>>
>>> The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
>>> Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are
>>> going to have to add .01 petro just to break even.
>>>
>>
>> Although there are scientists who claim their research shows a negative
>> production efficiency, there appear to be an equally impressive number
>> who claim otherwise.
>>
>
> Does it really matter if it is so close that informed people can't agree
> it the energy balance is slightly greater or less than 1? Clearly it
> isn't much of an alternative fuel if that is the case.
>


Since my post, I looked up those references to Brazil.

THEY think it is cost effective.

To the tune of 1.8Billion savings.
To the point of converting several hundred small aircraft engines to run on
ethanol,
and to the point of developing a designed-for-ethanol *new* aircraft.

http://www.renewables2004.de/ppt/Presentation4-SessionIVB(11-12.30h)-LaRovere.pdf

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/37677.html

[JJS]

"Icebound" > wrote in message ...
>
snip
>
> Although there are scientists who claim their research shows a negative production efficiency, there appear to be
> an equally impressive number who claim otherwise.
There are other things to consider as well, such as the value of energy independence. Why pump that money into a
sheikdom when we can pour it back into our own economy?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[JJS]

"Icebound" > wrote in message ...
snip
> Bottom line:
>
> At that time, oil over 30 dollars made the ethanol program profitable for them.
> And in spite of the historic "low" oil prices, estimated savings of 1.8Billion USD over the 22 year period of the
> program.
>
> Think of it now, in terms of today's price of oil. And their infrastructure is up and running.... We are apt to be
> replacing foreign oil with foreign ethanol. is to laugh.

I read a recent article about this (I believe it was in a trade journal). It may be that the key is in using sugar
cane instead of corn. The article stated that Brazil can produce a barrel of ethanol for $25.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George Patterson]

JJS wrote:

> I read a recent article about this (I believe it was in a trade journal). It may be that the key is in using sugar
> cane instead of corn.

The key may also be lower labor costs, reduced fertilization, and minimal
mechanization on the farms.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

LWG wrote:
> Good God, you're complaining about THAT! It's positively cheap.
>
> Try buying a gascolator from Raytheon for a Beech Musketeer. The list price
> is around $19,000.00. Yes, that's NINETEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. (Yeah, but
> they only have to sell one.) If I could part my plane out for RAPID's list
> prices, I'd be a multi-millionaire, and I could afford flying.
>
> > Paying $170 for a damn gascolator bail of a Cherokee (this was on
> > another thread) makes it awfully hard to be enthusiastic and attract
> > new people to aviation.
> >

Can't help you much on the Beech gascolator, but for Cessnas and
Pipers, check these out:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/gascolator.php

Maybe you could install one on your Musketeer under a 337 field
approval.

[Montblack]

("Sylvain" wrote)
> then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
> energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
> say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
> takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
> my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
> plant could not easily be throttled up or down...


100% my idea also.

About NP being throttled up or down:
First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
built! (Had to say that)

Each ethanol plant would have two small (tiny tiny tiny) McNuke Plants.
Tiny! If one is down, the other one chugs along.

Second: Chugging along - Store the surplus energy like an old lighthouse -
wind up the weight, release the weight. If each McNuke plant had a number of
large, in ground, weight tubes to 'work on' when the ethanol plant was down,
that would solve that problem. It would smooth out the spikes and allow the
McNuke plant to be CS -- constant speed. Sell to the grid if you have too
much stored capacity at the end of the month, quarter, whatever.

Third: Have an ethanol generator (for back up) to the Atomic Lighthouse
design - in case you get in a bind some afternoon. "Accounting sold too much
power at 'peak' prices again today, so we're short on 2nd shift ...again!"

Is there a way to make a buck from these fantastic ideas? A MacArthur
Fellows Program "genius grant?" Anything? <g>

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4051423>

<http://www.macfound.org/programs/fel/fel_overview.htm>


Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:35:25 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>I've never used Mo-gas, and have
>>been flying aircraft who's engines were designed for 80/87 decades.
>
>Do you use a lead scavenger?
>

No. I just lean for taxi, and do a full throttle run up if lead
fouling occurs.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
>built!

Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
years). When you factor in the cost of storing spent fuel and
decommissioning nuke plants (sawing them up and burying the pieces),
the cost of energy is marginally competitive, and the hazardous legacy
is significant.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-28, Icebound > wrote:
> Since my post, I looked up those references to Brazil.
>
> THEY think it is cost effective.

And have for years. I remember learning about Brazil's 'Proalcool' (I
think it was called) ethanol program in school geography lessons.

--
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]

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"

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
N93332 > wrote:
>"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 here:
>> http://press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050927/NEWS01/509270309/1079
>
>I agree with you Jay.
>
>His website states:
>"Due to the large volume of messages I receive daily from every state and
>across the world, I am only able to accept email from Iowans at the current
>time. If you live outside of Iowa or if you need to contact me using another
>communication method."
>
>Being only 10 miles from Iowa, he doesn't want to hear from me via E-mail.
>I'll send off a snail-mail. I forwarded your message to my Iowa friends.
>
That seems to be standard. They ask for a zip code and then decide if you are
worth listening to, even if the blather they were spewing affects people
(or inflicts on people) far from their legislative district.

Put in your real address but pick a ZIP code in his district. That trick
worked for me, and when the congresscritter tried to mail me a letter (that
showed that he didn't actually read what I had written), it got delivered
to me despite having a gross mismatch between the city and the ZIP.

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Kyler Laird]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> writes:

>> But you don't have to use petroleum to provide those BTUs; consequently,
>> it does reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it does pollute less than
>> petrol.

>The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
>Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
>to have to add .01 petro just to break even.

Indeed. And if you're extremely short-sighted this is likely to be
an overwhelming argument against ethanol. There are, however, people
who believe that it's worthwhile to invest in technologies which can
replace petroleum as an energy source/transport. There are several
places where ethyl alcohol production can become much more efficient.
(low temperature fermentation, ethyl-specific corn hybrids, non-corn
crops, ...)

One of the big reasons for situating our local ethanol plant where it
is was that it had ready access to a large natural gas line. To me
that means that we're converting natural gas into something I can
readily burn in a more-or-less "normal" ICE airplane. Do you have a
better way of converting almost any heat source into airplane fuel
without _requiring_ petroleum?

--kyler

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
>> Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are
>> going to have to add .01 petro just to break even.
>
> then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
> energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
> say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
> takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
> my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
> plant could not easily be throttled up or down...
>
> any recommendation about some good reading on the subject of
> alternative fuel technologies?
>
> --Sylvain

That is still not an efficient way to store energy. But how about this? We
get rid of the of some of the unneeded regulations around Nuclear plants and
move to a point where all electrical production is created with nuclear
power and only use petro based fuel where they are the most effecient form
of energy storage. i.e. cars, trucks, and airplanes.

Nuclear is feared because the first thing it was used for was blowing up two
cities in Japan. If the first use of electricity had been for the electric
chair we'd have people out there chanting "No more watts."

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Sylvain" wrote)
>> then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
>> energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
>> say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
>> takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
>> my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
>> plant could not easily be throttled up or down...
>
>
> 100% my idea also.
>
> About NP being throttled up or down:
> First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
> built! (Had to say that)
>
> Each ethanol plant would have two small (tiny tiny tiny) McNuke Plants.
> Tiny! If one is down, the other one chugs along.
>

I agree completely, almost. Use the McNukes for electrical generation on a
city by city basis. We have the ability to build very small, very efficient
reactors. We do it all the time and if you live near a Naval base there is
one or more floating out there in the harbor.

Stop using fossil fuels for electric power and all that oil in the ground IN
THE US will last many many lifetimes.

[Jay Honeck]

> You absolutely MUST make the economic argument and NOT the "it'll be
> too expensive for me to play with my toys" complaint.

Thanks, Blanche -- good point.

Flying farmers are a fairly big deal in this state -- and Rep. Nussle is
well aware of the financial impact of the airport.

Well, he's been told anyway. As a politician, he may conveniently "forget"
these things, from time to time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years

Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I really think that there is a retrofit solution to every gasoline
> engine....including aircraft.

I think this is the direction we need to push. Does anyone known where EAA
and AOPA are on this critical issue?

> But even if there was not wouldn't you rather pay $1.00 per gal for all
> your other fuel needs??

No. I don't believe ethanol is the answer, for reasons that have been
well-outlined in this thread.

I would strongly support a program to make our country more energy
independent by replacing all the dumb new natural-gas-fired power plants
with nuclear plants.

THEN maybe ethanol production would make sense -- but not until then.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kyler Laird]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

>What the heck is in an aircraft engine/fuel system that can't be made
>"ethanol safe" for more than a few bucks worth of rubber seals?

A pilot. Aviation is full of old farts who will latch on to some
anecdote about something being unsafe. They'll stop right there
instead of investigating to get good information. Even the thoughtful
pilots will often get shot down in their quest for good information.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.owning/msg/6114f6e1df76730c

My guess is that you'll have to wait for a new generation of pilots to
fully embrace ethanol.

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> writes:

>I read a recent article about this (I believe it was in a trade journal). It may be that the key is in using sugar
>cane instead of corn.

Yeah, it always catches my attention how corn stacks up so poorly against
other crops when we talk about energy production.

On a good note, I might be able to legally grow something better here
someday!
http://www.votehemp.com/PR/6-27-05_federal_bill.html
Ah...to be free of Monsanto and...hmmm...that's not gonna happen, is it?

--kyler

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> writes:
>
>>> But you don't have to use petroleum to provide those BTUs; consequently,
>>> it does reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it does pollute less than
>>> petrol.
>
>>The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
>>Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are going
>>to have to add .01 petro just to break even.
>
> Indeed. And if you're extremely short-sighted this is likely to be
> an overwhelming argument against ethanol. There are, however, people
> who believe that it's worthwhile to invest in technologies which can
> replace petroleum as an energy source/transport. There are several
> places where ethyl alcohol production can become much more efficient.
> (low temperature fermentation, ethyl-specific corn hybrids, non-corn
> crops, ...)
>
> One of the big reasons for situating our local ethanol plant where it
> is was that it had ready access to a large natural gas line. To me
> that means that we're converting natural gas into something I can
> readily burn in a more-or-less "normal" ICE airplane. Do you have a
> better way of converting almost any heat source into airplane fuel
> without _requiring_ petroleum?
>

When you can get a better than 1:1 TOTAL energy in to TOTAL energy out
because then it is self sustaining, I'll say, "Thank God we don't need
fossil fuel anymore" and that ought to be the goal.

But your local plant still needs to be attached to that natural gas line.
Why, becasue while the ethanol while is almost effecient enough, with
government subsidies, to be used as a storage system for energy it isn't
effecient enough to be used for source of energy.

Basicly, the only effecient source of energy we have now is fossil fuel. We
could have nuclear but past US governements have decided for social not
economic reasons that it isn't
a viable alternative and has regulated it out of use.

[sfb]

Sugar ethanol is another political boondoggle. The sugar growers are
planning ahead to when they will be jumping from the sugar price
protection wagon to the ethanol subsidy wagon. One of these days the US
Government will stop protecting US sugar growers and the price of sugar
will drop dramatically.

"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote in message
>
> I read a recent article about this (I believe it was in a trade
> journal). It may be that the key is in using sugar cane instead of
> corn. The article stated that Brazil can produce a barrel of ethanol
> for $25.

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>
>>First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
>>built!
>
>
> Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years,


So every nuke plant will be decommissioned and torn down after 25 years?
Bull****.

[Brad Zeigler]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:z5x_e.87748$7f5.78738@okepread01...
> Nuclear is feared because the first thing it was used for was blowing up
> two cities in Japan. If the first use of electricity had been for the
> electric chair we'd have people out there chanting "No more watts."

It was, to prove that AC was dangerous...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power plant
>>built!
>
> Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
> Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
> years).


You're nuts.

I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong. Arkansas
Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until 2034. That's 60
years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was activated in 1980, 25
years ago and it's license is good until 2018 that's 18 years.

This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry two
almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated under
1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only has a 38 year
license. You can't tell me that they learned something that would cause the
reduction that was a real problem and not reduce the length of the older
license.

Unit 1
Unit
2

Owner:
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

Reactor Type:
Pressurized Water Reactor
Pressurized Water Reactor

Reactor Manufacturer:
Babcock and Wilcox
Combustion Engineering

Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
Westinghouse
General Electric

Architect/Engineer:
Bechtel Power
Bechtel Power

Commercial Operation Date:
December 1974
March 1980

Maximum Dependable Capacity:
836 MW
858 MW

License Expiration Date:
5/20/34
7/17/18

[Marco Leon]

Even with the $20,000 and below purchase prices, they still have to maintain
them. What happens when they have to get a muffler rebuilt or need a $200
gascolator? You're saying that an extra $10 an hour will ground them
financially. If they fly 40 hours a year, then a $400 repair (let's say a
$300 part + labor) will ground them for the ENTIRE YEAR.

Is that really true or am I missing something here?

Marco Leon

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Really? I meet (and know) plenty of owners who fly on a shoe-string
> budget. That's what "grass-roots" aviation is all about.
>
> These are the guys who own C-140s, C-150s, Ercoupes and any of a wide
> assortment of GA planes that cost less than $20,000. To them, fuel is
> THE single most important factor, and their highest cost of ownership.
>
>
> If the State increases their cost $10 - $15 per hour by mandating
> ethanol it will certainly tip the odds against them.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[sfb]

The original license for Unit 1 expired in 2014 and was extended to 2034
in 2001. The extension for Unit 2 is under review.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesar.html

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:oey_e.88762$7f5.28081@okepread01...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>>>First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power
>>>plant
>>>built!
>>
>> Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
>> Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
>> years).
>
>
> You're nuts.
>
> I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong.
> Arkansas Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until
> 2034. That's 60 years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was
> activated in 1980, 25 years ago and it's license is good until 2018
> that's 18 years.
>
> This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry
> two almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated
> under 1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only
> has a 38 year license. You can't tell me that they learned something
> that would cause the reduction that was a real problem and not reduce
> the length of the older license.
>
> Unit
> 1
>
> Unit 2
>
> Owner:
> Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
> Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
>
> Reactor Type:
> Pressurized Water Reactor
> Pressurized Water Reactor
>
> Reactor Manufacturer:
> Babcock and Wilcox
> Combustion Engineering
>
> Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
> Westinghouse
> General Electric
>
> Architect/Engineer:
> Bechtel Power
> Bechtel Power
>
> Commercial Operation Date:
> December 1974
> March 1980
>
> Maximum Dependable Capacity:
> 836 MW
> 858 MW
>
> License Expiration Date:
> 5/20/34
> 7/17/18
>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:58:53 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<xkx_e.372108$x96.4355@attbi_s72>::

>> Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years
>
>Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
>merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

I find it difficult to believe what you contend. Have you a source
for your assertion?

Here are mine:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/sanonofre.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/external/external.pdf
Regulators view the requirements that utilities consider
externalities in their comparisons of all supply-side and
demand-side options as analogous to providing a level
playing field to both sources. Accordingly, the approach
to incorporating externalities within the IRP
process is grounded in the belief that power generation
imposes substantial environmental and societal burdens
that are not taken into account either in the traditional
least-cost planning and resource selection process or by
the prevailing regulatory controls. Another compelling
argument is the real possibility that environmental
controls will tend to become more stringent in the
future. Prudence, therefore, dictates that externality
considerations be taken into account at the time of
resource selection to avert the possibility of incurring
significant financial costs at a future date, given the 30-
or 40-year life span of power plants.


Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Well that makes me feel better. So let's ignore my statement about
regulation. It still proves the plants last longer than 25 years.



"sfb" > wrote in message news:woy_e.6103$il4.2486@trnddc04...
> The original license for Unit 1 expired in 2014 and was extended to 2034
> in 2001. The extension for Unit 2 is under review.
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesar.html
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:oey_e.88762$7f5.28081@okepread01...
>>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:26:36 -0500, "Montblack"
>>> > wrote in
>>> >::
>>>
>>>>First: STOP trying to replace the Hoover Dam with each Nuclear Power
>>>>plant
>>>>built!
>>>
>>> Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years, unlike the Hoover
>>> Dam which was built in the early '30s. (still operating after 70
>>> years).
>>
>>
>> You're nuts.
>>
>> I only had to look at the nearest nuke plants to prove that wrong.
>> Arkansas Nuclear One was built in 1974 and its license is good until
>> 2034. That's 60 years of which they've already used 31. Unit Two was
>> activated in 1980, 25 years ago and it's license is good until 2018
>> that's 18 years.
>>
>> This is also a good example of how regulation has killed the industry two
>> almost identical plants were built side by side. the one activated under
>> 1976 law has a 60 year license. The one activated in 1980 only has a 38
>> year license. You can't tell me that they learned something that would
>> cause the reduction that was a real problem and not reduce the length of
>> the older license.
>>
>> Unit 1
>>
>> Unit 2
>>
>> Owner:
>> Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
>> Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
>>
>> Reactor Type:
>> Pressurized Water Reactor
>> Pressurized Water Reactor
>>
>> Reactor Manufacturer:
>> Babcock and Wilcox
>> Combustion Engineering
>>
>> Turbine Generator Manufacturer:
>> Westinghouse
>> General Electric
>>
>> Architect/Engineer:
>> Bechtel Power
>> Bechtel Power
>>
>> Commercial Operation Date:
>> December 1974
>> March 1980
>>
>> Maximum Dependable Capacity:
>> 836 MW
>> 858 MW
>>
>> License Expiration Date:
>> 5/20/34
>> 7/17/18
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Montblack]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
> I agree completely, almost. Use the McNukes for electrical generation on a
> city by city basis. We have the ability to build very small, very
> efficient reactors. We do it all the time and if you live near a Naval
> base there is one or more floating out there in the harbor.


I almost completely agree with you too.

Still SMALLER though! Not city by city, but smaller (think KFC or Taco Bell
size).

Single large users would each have one - Twin Cities Ford Assembly Plant
would have one - if they didn't already have a power-producing dam on the
Mississippi River. Bio-Diesel/Ethanol plants would have one. Steel plant
gets one. Mall of America would have a McNuke Plant. Etc, etc.

Twin Cities (50 miles x 50 miles) might have approx. 20 or 30 of these
things humming along. Also, no 'line loss' is not an insignificant gain to
factor in - with my McNuke Plant (MacArthur Fellows 'genius grant') plan.

Maybe I've only taken a bite out of 20% of the need for juice in the Twin
Cities, but it's a 20% that wasn't there yesterday.

IMHO, it's easier to keep a handle on construction costs when the
cookie-cutter plants are so small (tiny) ...and private industry is buying
the darn things.


Montblack

[Peter Duniho]

"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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
>> I agree completely, almost. Use the McNukes for electrical generation on
>> a city by city basis. We have the ability to build very small, very
>> efficient reactors. We do it all the time and if you live near a Naval
>> base there is one or more floating out there in the harbor.
>
>
> I almost completely agree with you too.
>
> Still SMALLER though! Not city by city, but smaller (think KFC or Taco
> Bell size).
>
> Single large users would each have one - Twin Cities Ford Assembly Plant
> would have one - if they didn't already have a power-producing dam on the
> Mississippi River. Bio-Diesel/Ethanol plants would have one. Steel plant
> gets one. Mall of America would have a McNuke Plant. Etc, etc.
>
> Twin Cities (50 miles x 50 miles) might have approx. 20 or 30 of these
> things humming along. Also, no 'line loss' is not an insignificant gain to
> factor in - with my McNuke Plant (MacArthur Fellows 'genius grant') plan.
>
> Maybe I've only taken a bite out of 20% of the need for juice in the Twin
> Cities, but it's a 20% that wasn't there yesterday.
>
> IMHO, it's easier to keep a handle on construction costs when the
> cookie-cutter plants are so small (tiny) ...and private industry is buying
> the darn things.
>

You could well be right. I have no idea how much electricity can be produced
by a reactor in say a Ohio class sub. But what ever is done it needs to be
the same few designs used everywhere.

Back when they were building new nuke plants they were pretty much starting
from scratch on each one. That is just plain silly.

[JohnH]

> Still SMALLER though! Not city by city, but smaller (think KFC or
> Taco Bell size).


You'd have this little nagging issue of it being a highly desireable
terrorist target.

[Sylvain]

JohnH wrote:
>>Still SMALLER though! Not city by city, but smaller (think KFC or
>>Taco Bell size).
> You'd have this little nagging issue of it being a highly desireable
> terrorist target.

wouldn't the decentralization of power generation make it all
the more difficult for said terrorists to make an impact?

--Sylvain

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:46:36 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in <tVy_e.89573$7f5.31631@okepread01>::

>It still proves the plants last longer than 25 years.

Here are two that have lasted only 20 years:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/sanonofre.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/external/external.pdf
Regulators view the requirements that utilities consider
externalities in their comparisons of all supply-side and
demand-side options as analogous to providing a level
playing field to both sources. Accordingly, the approach
to incorporating externalities within the IRP
process is grounded in the belief that power generation
imposes substantial environmental and societal burdens
that are not taken into account either in the traditional
least-cost planning and resource selection process or by
the prevailing regulatory controls. Another compelling
argument is the real possibility that environmental
controls will tend to become more stringent in the
future. Prudence, therefore, dictates that externality
considerations be taken into account at the time of
resource selection to avert the possibility of incurring
significant financial costs at a future date, given the 30-
or 40-year life span of power plants.


Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

[George Patterson]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> You could well be right. I have no idea how much electricity can be produced
> by a reactor in say a Ohio class sub. But what ever is done it needs to be
> the same few designs used everywhere.

Not a good idea. The Navy uses weapons grade fissionables in its reactors. This
lets it keep the reactors nice and compact and reduces the need for the military
to buy multiple types of material. Commercial power plants use material that is
approximately 4% as pure as weapons grade. It's a lot safer.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[.Blueskies.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:efx_e.372089$x96.299337@attbi_s72...
>> You absolutely MUST make the economic argument and NOT the "it'll be
>> too expensive for me to play with my toys" complaint.
>
> Thanks, Blanche -- good point.
>
> Flying farmers are a fairly big deal in this state -- and Rep. Nussle is well aware of the financial impact of the
> airport.
>
> Well, he's been told anyway. As a politician, he may conveniently "forget" these things, from time to time.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?

[.Blueskies.]

"sfb" > wrote in message news:36i_e.6709$WT3.2933@trnddc03...
> Jay, maybe one of your friendly Iowa neighbors who wanted to screw you for buzzing his house with your noisy airplane
> raised the prices by 90%, but 22% was the average in the state of Iowa. On 9/1, the average price of a gallon of
> unleaded regular gasoline in Iowa was $2.47. It peaked at $3.03 and fell back to $2.61.
>
> http://iowastategasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
>
> The US DOE and EPA has a site that reports gasoline prices in the US. We found it very useful putting together a trip
> earlier this year.
>
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/gasprices/states/
>
>

Which is exactly why ethanol is being phased in as a fuel source in this country. Has anyone been watching Brazil?
Apparently they have reduced their dependence on foreign oil to something less than 50% of their total consumption by
going over to alcohol, in some cases running 100%. The ethanol is pumped right alongside the gasoline. They make it from
sugar cane, very effective....

[Newps]

..Blueskies. wrote:


>
>
> Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?

Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer. The fact is
there are so many ethanol plants up and running and so many more being
built or planned that the price of ethanol will continue to plummet.

[sfb]

More plants cost more money to build and operate. Higher costs and lower
prices must mean bigger losses and even bigger government subsidies.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> .Blueskies. wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for)
>> ethanol?
>
> Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a
> profit from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer. The
> fact is there are so many ethanol plants up and running and so many
> more being built or planned that the price of ethanol will continue to
> plummet.

[Dave Stadt]

That's a pure political problem. The solution has been at hand for decades.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
> construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
> storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

[Jay Honeck]

>>> Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years

>>Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
>>merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?
>
> I find it difficult to believe what you contend. Have you a source
> for your assertion?

Um, well, these aren't quite the '50s and '60s vintage, but Zion Nuclear
Power Plant in Zion, IL, was built in 1970. It's still chugging along 35
years later.

And the Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant, which produces almost 10% of the
power needed in Iowa, has been running since 1974 -- 31 years ago.

These took about 8 seconds to find on Yahoo. Both seem to be running beyond
your purported 25 year life span.

> Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
> construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
> storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?

I believe we've got geologically stable salt mines set to store all the
nuclear by-products that our nuke plants have created. Unfortunately,
environmentalists (through the courts) have been foolishly forcing the power
companies to continue storing on-site at each nuclear power plant. Talk
about a disaster waiting to happen...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Even with the $20,000 and below purchase prices, they still have to
> maintain
> them. What happens when they have to get a muffler rebuilt or need a $200
> gascolator? You're saying that an extra $10 an hour will ground them
> financially. If they fly 40 hours a year, then a $400 repair (let's say a
> $300 part + labor) will ground them for the ENTIRE YEAR.

I don't know any viable (healthy) owners who fly just 40 hours per year.
And an awful lot of these folks maintain their own planes.

I know a fair number of pilots who probably don't spend $3000 per year on
flying, total. Yet they fly every weekend.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-28, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I would strongly support a program to make our country more energy
> independent by replacing all the dumb new natural-gas-fired power plants
> with nuclear plants.

You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear
plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for the
continuous supply you always need.

Natural gas plants can be stopped and started in very short order - the
one that's a few miles from where I work essentially is based on the
guts of a couple of Rolls-Royce Trent jet engines coupled to generators.
They can be brought online and shut down as quickly as a Boeing 777 can
be spooled up and shut down. So when demand suddenly starts ramping up,
you can crank up your gas station, and shut it down as soon as the
demand goes away. You can't do that with a nuclear station.

--
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"

[sfb]

Natural gas fires both steam turbine plants and jet engine turbines.

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-09-28, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> I would strongly support a program to make our country more energy
>> independent by replacing all the dumb new natural-gas-fired power
>> plants
>> with nuclear plants.
>
> You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants.
> Nuclear
> plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for
> the
> continuous supply you always need.
>
> Natural gas plants can be stopped and started in very short order -
> the
> one that's a few miles from where I work essentially is based on the
> guts of a couple of Rolls-Royce Trent jet engines coupled to
> generators.
> They can be brought online and shut down as quickly as a Boeing 777
> can
> be spooled up and shut down. So when demand suddenly starts ramping
> up,
> you can crank up your gas station, and shut it down as soon as the
> demand goes away. You can't do that with a nuclear station.
>
> --
> 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"

[Kyler Laird]

George Patterson > writes:

>> You could well be right. I have no idea how much electricity can be produced
>> by a reactor in say a Ohio class sub. But what ever is done it needs to be
>> the same few designs used everywhere.

>Not a good idea. The Navy uses weapons grade fissionables in its reactors. This
>lets it keep the reactors nice and compact and reduces the need for the military
>to buy multiple types of material. Commercial power plants use material that is
>approximately 4% as pure as weapons grade. It's a lot safer.

Sheesh...you guys want everything - small size, tamper resistance, safety...
http://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

Newps > writes:

>> Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?

>Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
>from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.

Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

--kyler

[sfb]

There are two sets of subsidies at play. From 1995 to 2003, corn was
subsidized to the tune of $37 billion dollars. Ethanol subsidies are tax
credits and loan guarantees to build plants. Unless or until the Federal
corn program can differentiate corn grown for feed or food vs. ethanol,
corn for ethanol is subsidizied.

http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/region.php?fips=00000

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> Newps > writes:
>
>>> Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for)
>>> ethanol?
>
>>Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a
>>profit
>>from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.
>
> Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about
> (but
> typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.
>
> --kyler

[Kyler Laird]

"sfb" > writes:

>There are two sets of subsidies at play. From 1995 to 2003, corn was
>subsidized to the tune of $37 billion dollars. Ethanol subsidies are tax
>credits and loan guarantees to build plants. Unless or until the Federal
>corn program can differentiate corn grown for feed or food vs. ethanol,
>corn for ethanol is subsidizied.

That's why the statement "A farmer cannot make a profit from selling the
corn outright to an ethanol producer" still confuses me. Perhaps I'm not
getting all of the implications behind "outright"? Or perhaps "to an
ethanol producer" was just misleading/superfluous?

So...do we get to talk about the billions of dollars subsidizing oil
production?

--kyler

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:30:06 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<i5K_e.410799$xm3.180028@attbi_s21>::

>>>> Nuke plants have a finite life of about 25 years
>
>>>Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
>>>merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?
>>
>> I find it difficult to believe what you contend. Have you a source
>> for your assertion?
>
>Um, well, these aren't quite the '50s and '60s vintage, but Zion Nuclear
>Power Plant in Zion, IL, was built in 1970. It's still chugging along 35
>years later.
>
>And the Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant, which produces almost 10% of the
>power needed in Iowa, has been running since 1974 -- 31 years ago.

So you were only off by 20 years or 57% of the nuclear plant's current
life span. I thought you were incorrect.

>These took about 8 seconds to find on Yahoo. Both seem to be running beyond
>your purported 25 year life span.

San Onofre 1 and 2 were shutdown after only 20 years of operation, so
25 years was a bit optimistic in that case.

>> Additionally, how can it be other than completely irresponsible to
>> construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
>> storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?
>
>I believe we've got geologically stable salt mines set to store all the
>nuclear by-products that our nuke plants have created. Unfortunately,
>environmentalists (through the courts) have been foolishly forcing the power
>companies to continue storing on-site at each nuclear power plant.

So you feel that protecting the environment is foolish?

Who will oversee those nuclear dump sites for thousands of years? Even
the Roman empire failed to last that long.

What would you estimate the cost of transporting radioactive waste
might be? The potential for a spill?

>Talk about a disaster waiting to happen...

Fortunately, prudent environmentalists have averted disaster so far...

So while allure of cheap nuclear power entices the uninformed, its
true costs, including the long and short term hazards it poses to the
environment, transportation of radioactive materials and byproducts,
the cost of decommissioning plants, and the cost of standing vigil
over the dump site for thousands of years, make nuclear power
expensive indeed.

[Larry Dighera]

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>>
>> Additionally, how can it other than completely irresponsible to
>> construct nuclear reactors without having a secure means of for
>> storing the spent fuel for the required millennia?
>
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:15:38 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::
>
>That's a pure political problem. The solution has been at hand for decades.
>

To which solution do you refer?

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Odd. How do we explain all the 1950s and '60s nuke plants that are still
> merrily producing gigawatts of energy today?

There aren't any left from the 50s, unless some of the old Soviet stuff is still
on line. There's aren't very many from the 60s, either, and only one of them is
in this country.

The oldest one in the UK was put on line in 1956. It closed in 2004. The first
plant in the U.S. went on line in 1954, but it's been closed for years.

The oldest one still operating in the U.S. just snuck in under the wire of the
60s - it went on line December 31, 1969. Its license expires in 2009.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
[snip]
> What would you estimate the cost of transporting radioactive waste
> might be? The potential for a spill?


Whatever the French are doing with those 'glass' blocks is fine with me.
Stackable, waterproof, inert.

I've always thought our (US) system of transporting and storing radioactive
waste containers (filled with liquid) was dumb.


Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:29:40 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>::

>("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>[snip]
>> What would you estimate the cost of transporting radioactive waste
>> might be? The potential for a spill?
>
>Whatever the French are doing with those 'glass' blocks is fine with me.
>Stackable, waterproof, inert.

I agree; vitrifying spent nuclear fuel seems like a good idea.

But what about all the other radioactive contaminated material? The
piping, concrete containment structure, coolant, the low-level
radioactive waste, and the like probably are not candidates for
vitrification.

>I've always thought our (US) system of transporting and storing radioactive
>waste containers (filled with liquid) was dumb.

It's less than stable. That's for sure. But there may be no other
reasonable alternative.

However, the point I was trying to get across is, that the true cost
of nuclear power, when ALL is considered, is not cheap, and the
hazards are many.

[Newps]

Kyler Laird wrote:
> Newps > writes:
>
>
>>>Don't the farmers have a lot to gain by using (making corn for) ethanol?
>
>
>>Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
>
>>from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.
>
> Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
> typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

Selling corn to make ethanol is not profitable without the federal
government stepping in to prop up the prices. If corn was sold on the
open market at market prices with no government interference there would
be no ethanol. You want to know what you're paying farmers and
ranchers? Take a look at this website and start crying.

http://www.ewg.org/farm/

[Kyler Laird]

Newps > writes:

>>>Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
>>>from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.
>>
>> Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
>> typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

>Selling corn to make ethanol is not profitable without the federal
>government stepping in to prop up the prices. If corn was sold on the
>open market at market prices with no government interference there would
>be no ethanol.

O.k., so you really weren't saying anything ethanol-specific from the
farmer's perspective, right? Selling for ethanol vs. selling for feed (or
whatever) really makes no difference. (Granted, the ethanol plants would
not be able to afford to *buy* grain at market prices without subsidies
but that's not seen by the farmer...usually. I often joke that ethanol
plants are just a way of extracting money from taxpayers. That doesn't go
over well at the ethanol plant meetings.)

>You want to know what you're paying farmers and
>ranchers?

Uh...I *are* one. I'm all for getting rid of the subsidies though. I
thought we were going to do that a few years ago but that changed.

Let's get rid of all of the subsidies - starting with petroleum.

--kyler

[cjcampbell]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> 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 here:
> http://press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050927/NEWS01/509270309/1079
>

Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic and eats
hoses and corrodes carburetors and cylinders. Ethanol is also more
expensive than gasoline. Although it is based on a renewable resource,
the fact is that the resource is not nearly large enough to meet demand
should it become mandated, meaning that costs will soar. Automobile
drivers might be able to live with these problems, but aircraft owners
would find them unacceptable.

Rep. Nussle will ignore your letter, though. It is Iowa, after all, and
the farmers and Archer Daniels Midland are much more powerful
consituencies than private pilots.

[RST Engineering]

> Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
> seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic

The hell you say. Your source? And to WHAT is it caustic? To fuming red
nitric acid, WATER is caustic.


and eats
> hoses

Hasn't eaten a single hose on my Miata and it has been running on the stuff
for ten years.


and corrodes carburetors

How? The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum appears to be
benign. Again, your source other than OWT?


and cylinders.

Seems that the entire US auto fleet would be in serious doo doo if this were
true. It ain't.




Ethanol is also more
> expensive than gasoline.

Not the argument. Keep OT please.


Jim

[cjcampbell]

RST Engineering wrote:
> > Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
> > seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic
>
> The hell you say. Your source? And to WHAT is it caustic? To fuming red
> nitric acid, WATER is caustic.
>

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_392b.html

[cjcampbell]

I should elaborate a little more. A little research indicates that
there are many problems with ethanol.


RST Engineering wrote:
> > Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
> > seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic
>
> The hell you say. Your source? And to WHAT is it caustic? To fuming red
> nitric acid, WATER is caustic.
>
>
> and eats
> > hoses
>
> Hasn't eaten a single hose on my Miata and it has been running on the stuff
> for ten years.
>

Rubber hoses in recent models of cars have been made more resistant to
ethanol. The vast majority of airplanes, however, were built before
1987.


>
> and corrodes carburetors
>
> How? The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum appears to be
> benign. Again, your source other than OWT?
>

The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum is not benign.
I was able to turn up several papers documenting that ethanol was
corrosive to aluminum, at the very lest. It also corrodes fuel
injectors.

>
> and cylinders.
>
> Seems that the entire US auto fleet would be in serious doo doo if this were
> true. It ain't.
>

Oh, but it is true. You may be a little young to remember, but back in
the days when ethanol was first introduced, the entire US auto fleet
was in very serious doo doo. Mechanics all over the country were kept
busy cleaning and repairing engines and fuel system components damaged
by ethanol. No part of the fuel system was immune, from the gas tank to
the exhaust system. Of course, this was all before the Internet
existed, so if all you know is what you learn from the Internet, you
are probably totally ignorant of that bit of history.

An airplane is not an automobile. Over time automobiles have been
redesigned to be more tolerant of ethanol, whereas airplanes have not.
A somewhat shorter engine life may be acceptable to an automobile
owner. It is not to an airplane owner.

>
>
>
> Ethanol is also more
> > expensive than gasoline.
>
> Not the argument. Keep OT please.
>

Well, that was random. What are you, an ethanol salesman? You are going
to have to come up with a better argument than just telling me to shut
up. Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. It also reduces gas
mileage. I suggest that those things are important to pilots.

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:46:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>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.

Though not to that extent, it will almost certainly be a nationwide
problem. There's no mandate, but Congress has declined to pass a
waiver for producers of MBTE to protect them from lawsuits. Much of
Northeast is on the MBTE standard, including the part of New Hampshire
in which I live.

Refiners won't use MBTE if they can be sued for the effects from
spills. The only other existing oxygenate is ethanol, so the Northeast
and I assume California (if it isn't already) will soon have only
alky-denatured gasoline.

I assume that Iowa and other state legislators are smart enough to
exempt 100LL from their ruling, but the spread of the alky economy is
really bad news for flyers who use mogas.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:17:03 GMT, Kyler Laird >
wrote:

>>Only when the corn is heavily subsidized. A farmer cannot make a profit
>>from selling the corn outright to an ethanol producer.
>
>Uh...you want to give some details there? Ethanol plants pay about (but
>typically *slightly* more) what local grain elevators pay.

The subsidy goes to the ethanol producer, primarily Archer Daniels
Midland.

(The corn is subsidized too, of course, but no more for ethanol than
for cornflakes :)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:20:30 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Hasn't eaten a single hose on my Miata and it has been running on the stuff
>for ten years.

The typical GA engine is a lot older than the one in your Miata.

The STC for mogas on the Piper Cub specifically rules out
ethanol-denatured gasoline, or at least the placard does.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Morgans]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
> > > Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft.
It
> > > seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic
> >
> > The hell you say. Your source? And to WHAT is it caustic? To fuming
red
> > nitric acid, WATER is caustic.
> >
>
> http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_392b.html

It cracks me up, that anyone can put something on the web, and it is gospel.
So I could put on a web site, that the world is flat, and it is true?

Right. SCIENTIFIC cites, please?
--
Jim in NC
>

[RST Engineering]

>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> > Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
>> > seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic
>>
>> The hell you say. Your source? And to WHAT is it caustic? To fuming
>> red
>> nitric acid, WATER is caustic.
>>
>>
>> and eats
>> > hoses
>>
>> Hasn't eaten a single hose on my Miata and it has been running on the
>> stuff
>> for ten years.
>>
>
> Rubber hoses in recent models of cars have been made more resistant to
> ethanol. The vast majority of airplanes, however, were built before
> 1987.

Then we'd better wake up and smell the coffee. I don't mind tilting at
windmills, but when I've got legislators the country-wide embracing alcohol
as a Good Thing(tm) I'd damned well better learn to live with it. Politics,
my young friend. Get used to it. Replace the damned hoses if that's what
it takes.



>
>
>>
>> and corrodes carburetors
>>
>> How? The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum appears to
>> be
>> benign. Again, your source other than OWT?
>>
>
> The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum is not benign.
> I was able to turn up several papers documenting that ethanol was
> corrosive to aluminum, at the very lest. It also corrodes fuel
> injectors.

OWT.


>
>>
>> and cylinders.
>>
>> Seems that the entire US auto fleet would be in serious doo doo if this
>> were
>> true. It ain't.
>>
>
> Oh, but it is true. You may be a little young to remember,

Sonny, I was shaving heads on flathead Fords when you were in liquid form.



but back in
> the days when ethanol was first introduced, the entire US auto fleet
> was in very serious doo doo. Mechanics all over the country were kept
> busy cleaning and repairing engines and fuel system components damaged
> by ethanol. No part of the fuel system was immune, from the gas tank to
> the exhaust system. Of course, this was all before the Internet
> existed, so if all you know is what you learn from the Internet, you
> are probably totally ignorant of that bit of history.

First mechanic certificate came along in 1965. I hardly think the Internet
existed then. Sure there were unforecast problems, but if the aviation
industry can't build on that storehouse of information and experience and do
some serious redesign, then we'd better take the wings off and use the
fuselages for chicken coops, because that's what's going to happen.



>
> An airplane is not an automobile. Over time automobiles have been
> redesigned to be more tolerant of ethanol, whereas airplanes have not.
> A somewhat shorter engine life may be acceptable to an automobile
> owner. It is not to an airplane owner.

The world is changing. Get used to it.


>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ethanol is also more
>> > expensive than gasoline.
>>
>> Not the argument. Keep OT please.
>>
>
> Well, that was random. What are you, an ethanol salesman? You are going
> to have to come up with a better argument than just telling me to shut
> up. Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. It also reduces gas
> mileage. I suggest that those things are important to pilots.

I'm not telling anybody to shut up. I'm asking for serious, unbiased,
analytic, scientific study instead of you quoting "Cecil" (the Seasick Sea
Serpent???) as your points and authority.

Jim
>

[RST Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:20:30 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>>Hasn't eaten a single hose on my Miata and it has been running on the
>>stuff
>>for ten years.
>
> The typical GA engine is a lot older than the one in your Miata.
>
> The STC for mogas on the Piper Cub specifically rules out
> ethanol-denatured gasoline, or at least the placard does.

So does the one in my 182, which is why I'm starting to beat the bandwagon
for ways around the gasahol restriction other than undocumented old wive's
tales. I'm as much a mogas enthusiast as anybody, but I'm starting to
understand the politics of the game.


Jim

[Kyler Laird]

"cjcampbell" > writes:

>I should elaborate a little more. A little research indicates that
>there are many problems with ethanol.

Oh, *research*??? Is that where we're going now? O.k., so you're
familiar with these folks, right?
http://www.age85.org/

>Rubber hoses in recent models of cars have been made more resistant to
>ethanol. The vast majority of airplanes, however, were built before
>1987.

Like the Cessna 180/182?
http://www.age85.org/STCs.htm

>I was able to turn up several papers documenting that ethanol was
>corrosive to aluminum, at the very lest.

Piper Owner Society:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010808194734/http://www.piperowner.org/Ethanol.htm

Tests have shown there is no problem with AGE-85 and aluminum.
In fact, it seems to cause less corrosion than avgas. Virtually
all polymers used in aircraft made in the last decade are
alcohol compatible.

>Oh, but it is true. You may be a little young to remember, but back in
>the days when ethanol was first introduced, [...]

Ah...there we go.

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

"RST Engineering" > writes:

>Replace the damned hoses if that's what
>it takes.

Does everyone else get over 20 years out of the old rubber hoses? (I
sure don't!) I would have expected them to be replaced anyway.

Is all this wailing and gnashing of teeth really over replacing decades
old rubber?

--kyler

[Icebound]

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> "cjcampbell" > writes:
>
>>I should elaborate a little more. A little research indicates that
>>there are many problems with ethanol.
>
> Oh, *research*??? Is that where we're going now? O.k., so you're
> familiar with these folks, right?
> http://www.age85.org/
>
>>Rubber hoses in recent models of cars have been made more resistant to
>>ethanol. The vast majority of airplanes, however, were built before
>>1987.
>
> Like the Cessna 180/182?
> http://www.age85.org/STCs.htm
>
>>I was able to turn up several papers documenting that ethanol was
>>corrosive to aluminum, at the very lest.
>
> Piper Owner Society:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010808194734/http://www.piperowner.org/Ethanol.htm
>
> Tests have shown there is no problem with AGE-85 and aluminum.
> In fact, it seems to cause less corrosion than avgas. Virtually
> all polymers used in aircraft made in the last decade are
> alcohol compatible.
>


One of the problems that recent society seems to have developed, is the
politicization of science. No one believes "the other side" anymore. No
one will even *read* the other side of the argument.

Also, the belief that the only people who can be trusted are you and me (and
I'm not so sure about you). If somebody else is doing it, (such as Brazil)
it can't possibly be any good.

There was a time where science was independent, and above all that. If we
don't get back to that state soon, every chance of progress will be scuttled
by one more OWT masquerading as scientific fact.

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:07:09 -0700, cjcampbell wrote:

> expensive than gasoline. Although it is based on a renewable resource,
> the fact is that the resource is not nearly large enough to meet demand
> should it become mandated, meaning that costs will soar. Automobile
> drivers might be able to live with these problems, but aircraft owners
> would find them unacceptable.
>

Since almost all ethanol comes from corn, actually costs more to produce
(or roughly equal using the most modern and advance technology we have)
than what it can be sold for. As long as ethanol is produced from corn
crops, ethonol will remain a government hand out to farmers. There is no
way, based on current corn-ethanol conversion technology, corn makes any
economical sense at all.

This is no surprise this is happening in the middle of corn country.
These moves show just how corrupt the representatives in Iowa really are.
They've been trying to do stuff like this for over a decade...probably a
lot longer even...


Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:45:48 -0500, Dan Engleman wrote:

> So......my not so valuable opinion is that we should encourage all our
> legislators to pass legislation requiring us to be energy independent
> within a few years. Ethanol is a large part of that.

Only if you want to pay more for fuel. Ethanol makes absolutely no
economical sense at all. Ethanol always has been about politics, plain
and simple. Our great goverment pays farmers to grow corn to make
ethanol. It then takes more energy to produce ethanol than what we get
out of it. Then, they turn around and sell it, at a premium price no
less. Proponents of corn-ethanol expansion fall into three categories.
One, the uninformed. Two, farmers. Three, politicians that cater to
farms.

Building an energy economy on corn-ethanol makes as much sense as building
an energy economy on fusion. At least fusion *may* pay off one day. On
the other hand, if they want to shift America's corn growers to
hemp...then I'll shutup and let them do something that might actually make
sense.

A typical hemp crop (which is not the same thing as pot; you can't get
high from it) yields roughly 3x more per year of ethanol than what corn
does. That makes it roughly 1-2 times more profitable and requires no
government handouts. Hemp does not require nearly as much water as corn,
making it drought resistant. Can you imagine a drought hitting the US and
our fuel prices going up 10x? That's the future of a corn-based fuel
economy. Hemp is insect resistant and requires no insecticides; unlike
corn, which requires a lot. Hemp can make industrial oils and lubricants,
clothes, and of course rope. Hemp can be eaten, and can be used as a food
filler. Hemp-ethanol does not contribute to carbon emissions anywhere near
the same degree corn-ethanol does. This is because you actually get more
energy out of a hemp-ethanol based economy than you do out of a
corn-ethanol economy. Surprising, hemp can replace corn in almost every
way, with on possible exception, flavor. I have no idea how hemp oils
compare to corn oils in flavor.

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:45 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

> You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear
> plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for the
> continuous supply you always need.

Traditional nuclear plants are "throttled" by controlling the reaction.
As demand goes down, the reaction is slowed, which produces less heat,
creates less steam, and lowers the net energy production. In most nuclear
reactors, this is done via the "control rods". By throttling the nuclear
reaction, they also save fuel and reduce wear-n-tear on the associated
turbines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_control_rod
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power3.htm


Greg

[W P Dixon]

Where does all this hemp info come from?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:45:48 -0500, Dan Engleman wrote:
>
>> So......my not so valuable opinion is that we should encourage all our
>> legislators to pass legislation requiring us to be energy independent
>> within a few years. Ethanol is a large part of that.
>
> Only if you want to pay more for fuel. Ethanol makes absolutely no
> economical sense at all. Ethanol always has been about politics, plain
> and simple. Our great goverment pays farmers to grow corn to make
> ethanol. It then takes more energy to produce ethanol than what we get
> out of it. Then, they turn around and sell it, at a premium price no
> less. Proponents of corn-ethanol expansion fall into three categories.
> One, the uninformed. Two, farmers. Three, politicians that cater to
> farms.
>
> Building an energy economy on corn-ethanol makes as much sense as building
> an energy economy on fusion. At least fusion *may* pay off one day. On
> the other hand, if they want to shift America's corn growers to
> hemp...then I'll shutup and let them do something that might actually make
> sense.
>
> A typical hemp crop (which is not the same thing as pot; you can't get
> high from it) yields roughly 3x more per year of ethanol than what corn
> does. That makes it roughly 1-2 times more profitable and requires no
> government handouts. Hemp does not require nearly as much water as corn,
> making it drought resistant. Can you imagine a drought hitting the US and
> our fuel prices going up 10x? That's the future of a corn-based fuel
> economy. Hemp is insect resistant and requires no insecticides; unlike
> corn, which requires a lot. Hemp can make industrial oils and lubricants,
> clothes, and of course rope. Hemp can be eaten, and can be used as a food
> filler. Hemp-ethanol does not contribute to carbon emissions anywhere near
> the same degree corn-ethanol does. This is because you actually get more
> energy out of a hemp-ethanol based economy than you do out of a
> corn-ethanol economy. Surprising, hemp can replace corn in almost every
> way, with on possible exception, flavor. I have no idea how hemp oils
> compare to corn oils in flavor.
>
> Greg
>

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:33:20 -0400, Icebound wrote:

> Since my post, I looked up those references to Brazil.
>
> THEY think it is cost effective.

They are not doing it on corn. Cane sugar delivers much better results.

Comparing Brazil's cane-ethanol efforts to the US' corn-ethanol effort is
like comparing apples to rotten oranges...and paying extra for the oranges. ;)

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:42:58 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem is if you use a gallon of Ethanol to produce 0.99 gallons of
>>> Ethanol all of the fuel produced will go into production and you are
>>> going to have to add .01 petro just to break even.
>>
>> then could it still have a practical use as a means of storing
>> energy instead? I mean, producing ethanol using the output of
>> say nuclear plants (ok, replace that with wind mills or whatever
>> takes your fancy if 'nuclear' is against your religion); it was
>> my (probably mistaken) understanding that the output of a nuclear
>> plant could not easily be throttled up or down...
>>
>> any recommendation about some good reading on the subject of
>> alternative fuel technologies?
>>
>> --Sylvain
>
> That is still not an efficient way to store energy. But how about this? We
> get rid of the of some of the unneeded regulations around Nuclear plants and
> move to a point where all electrical production is created with nuclear
> power and only use petro based fuel where they are the most effecient form
> of energy storage. i.e. cars, trucks, and airplanes.
>
> Nuclear is feared because the first thing it was used for was blowing up two
> cities in Japan. If the first use of electricity had been for the electric
> chair we'd have people out there chanting "No more watts."

Thankfully Edison failed at his attempts!

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/pet/topsy.html

Edison was out to provide bad PR for Tesla (Westinghouse) new A/C form of
electricity generation of power delivery. Edison thought if the showed
the "horrors of A/C power compared to D/C" (paraphrasing), no one would
use it.

On a side note, many speculate that a fair number of Edison's inventions
actually originated on Tesla's drawing board. When they parted ways,
Edison did pretty much everything he could do to cause financial and
personal woe on Telsa. Sadly, Edison was greatly successful in his
attempts. Mysteriously, Tesla's lab burned down from unknown causes at
the height on Edison's ire for Tesla. Seems Edison wasn't such a nice guy
after all.

Greg

[George Patterson]

Icebound wrote:

> There was a time where science was independent, and above all that. If we
> don't get back to that state soon, every chance of progress will be scuttled
> by one more OWT masquerading as scientific fact.

We are never going to get back to that state. Research has gotten so expensive
that nearly every project lives off Federal funding.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Longworth]

Jim,
You are right that we can attack the problem with scientific and
enginering studies. My quick search showed quite a few articles
relating to the subject

1. http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/techprogram/P18201.HTM

"Effects of Ethanol as a Fuel Additive on General Aviation Aircraft
Fuel System Electrochemical Corrosion"

If you have the time, you can read the whole dissertation here

http://library.msstate.edu/etd/show.asp?etd=etd-11072004-122317

then with your ingenuity and entrepreneural spirit, you can team up
with Dr. Xie to market a X-ray/Whiskey mystery oil for gasohol use in
GA aircraft ;-)

2. http://www.westbioenergy.org/dec2003/08.htm
"Can 85 Percent Ethanol Gasoline Replace Aviation Fuel?"

3. http://www.westbioenergy.org/reports/55029/55029final.htm
"Airframe & Engine Modification and Testing Leading to FAA
Certification of AGE-85"

4. http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm

"Ethanol-Based Aviation Fuel: Extensive research has shown that an
aviation fuel blend containing 85 percent ethanol offers superior
performance in prop-driven aircraft. The Federal Aviation
Administration and several universities are conducting research on
ethanol-based aviation fuel to determine the feasibility of the fuel as
an alternative to the leaded aviation fuel currently being used."

5. http://bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/pdfs/bcota/abstracts/26/z313.pdf
"Engine endurance tests showed considerably less wear on ethanol than
on avgas. Consequently, it is estimated that the Time Between Overhaul
(TBO) in an engine on ethanol could easily be extended by 100% over
avgas."

Hai Longworth

[cjcampbell]

RST Engineering wrote:
> >
> > RST Engineering wrote:
> >> > Ethanol should not be approved for use in general aviation aircraft. It
> >> > seems like a great idea, but the ethanol is highly caustic
> >>
> >> The hell you say. Your source? And to WHAT is it caustic? To fuming
> >> red
> >> nitric acid, WATER is caustic.
> >>
> >>
> >> and eats
> >> > hoses
> >>
> >> Hasn't eaten a single hose on my Miata and it has been running on the
> >> stuff
> >> for ten years.
> >>
> >
> > Rubber hoses in recent models of cars have been made more resistant to
> > ethanol. The vast majority of airplanes, however, were built before
> > 1987.
>
> Then we'd better wake up and smell the coffee. I don't mind tilting at
> windmills, but when I've got legislators the country-wide embracing alcohol
> as a Good Thing(tm) I'd damned well better learn to live with it. Politics,
> my young friend. Get used to it. Replace the damned hoses if that's what
> it takes.
>

Yeah, right. The scientific studies are wrong and the politicians are
right. What sort of engineer are you, anyway?

If you want to just bend over and let the politicians do whatever they
want, fine. But don't call it science.


> >> and corrodes carburetors
> >>
> >> How? The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum appears to
> >> be
> >> benign. Again, your source other than OWT?
> >>
> >
> > The chemical reaction between ethanol and steel/aluminum is not benign.
> > I was able to turn up several papers documenting that ethanol was
> > corrosive to aluminum, at the very lest. It also corrodes fuel
> > injectors.
>
> OWT.

Really? Here is a study that shows ethanol corrodes engines.

http://age-web.age.uiuc.edu/faculty/qzhang/Publications/2005BT96(2)Hansen.pdf

And this study shows that ethanol corrodes aircraft engines:

http://library.msstate.edu/etd/show.asp?etd=etd-11072004-122317

The automobile industry dealt with the problem by developing new
automobiles. The aviation industry can, too, but there will always be a
lot of legacy aircraft around that will not be able to handle ethanol.
All the bombast and belligerence in the world will not make that
problem go away.

I might mention that Cecil Adams of the Straight Dope has a board of
accredited scientists who check his columns. If it came down to his
word vs. yours, I would have to go with his. You can belittle him all
you want, but I suspect that the team that checked his column probably
knows quite a bit more than you do.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-30, Greg Copeland > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:45 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>> You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear
>> plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for the
>> continuous supply you always need.
>
> Traditional nuclear plants are "throttled" by controlling the reaction.
> As demand goes down, the reaction is slowed, which produces less heat,
<snip>

Yeah, sure they can - but they can't be throttled like a gas station,
and that's why they are baseload power rather than brought up and down
as demand fluctuates. You wouldn't run your entire electrical system off
baseload generators, you'd still need powerplants that can be brought up
and down quickly.

--
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"

[sfb]

Is that a technical or economic statement?

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-09-30, Greg Copeland > wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:45 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:
>>
>>> You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants.
>>> Nuclear
>>> plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for
>>> the
>>> continuous supply you always need.
>>
>> Traditional nuclear plants are "throttled" by controlling the
>> reaction.
>> As demand goes down, the reaction is slowed, which produces less
>> heat,
> <snip>
>
> Yeah, sure they can - but they can't be throttled like a gas station,
> and that's why they are baseload power rather than brought up and down
> as demand fluctuates. You wouldn't run your entire electrical system
> off
> baseload generators, you'd still need powerplants that can be brought
> up
> and down quickly.
>
> --
> 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"

[Marty]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:i5K_e.410799$xm3.180028@attbi_s21...
>
> Um, well, these aren't quite the '50s and '60s vintage, but Zion Nuclear
> Power Plant in Zion, IL, was built in 1970. It's still chugging along 35
> years later.
>
SNIP
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Actually the reactors at Zion were shut down many years ago. It was over
economics and politics. The plant (generators) is being used as an exciter
at the North end of ComEds grid. The NRC license may still be in effect, but
the reactors are not running. It has been a number of years since I left
ComEd but Zion 1 & 2 were mothballed when I did leave. I'd find it hard to
belive they were restarted.

Dresden Unit #1 was down for refuel when TMI happened, I was working in the
RX building when I first got the news. In the aftermath, it was determined
that Unit #1 did not produce sufficient power to pay for the new
modifications required for startup post TMI. The unit was turned into a test
lab and the results of those tests are responsible for extending the life
span of BWRs. Units 2 and 3 were also co-labrats to Unit 1, in that the
findings of Unit 1 tests were verified in real time on them. The biggest
life extension was the injection of hydrogen which drastically reduced the
oxidation of the steel.

Just a little nuke trivia,

Marty

[Marty]

"Marty" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Actually the reactors at Zion were shut down many years ago. It was over
> economics and politics. The plant (generators) is being used as an exciter
> at the North end of ComEds grid. The NRC license may still be in effect,
> but the reactors are not running. It has been a number of years since I
> left ComEd but Zion 1 & 2 were mothballed when I did leave. I'd find it
> hard to belive they were restarted.
>
>
> Marty
>

Nope, Zion is permanently mothballed.

http://www.exeloncorp.com/ourcompanies/powergen/nuclear/zion_generating_station.htm

Physically it could be recommisioned, with todays energy woes who knows.
Never say never.
;-)
Marty

[Jay Honeck]

> > Actually the reactors at Zion were shut down many years ago.>
>
> Nope, Zion is permanently mothballed.
>
> http://www.exeloncorp.com/ourcompanies/powergen/nuclear/zion_generating_station.htm
>
> Physically it could be recommisioned, with todays energy woes who knows.
> Never say never.

I was presuming that the dual nuke plants we see every time we fly to
our home town of Racine, WI, was Zion? The cooling towers are visible
east/northeast Rockford, IL.

If conditions are right, the columns of steam are visible from 70 miles
out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Marty]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > Actually the reactors at Zion were shut down many years ago.>
>>
>> Nope, Zion is permanently mothballed.
>>
>> http://www.exeloncorp.com/ourcompanies/powergen/nuclear/zion_generating_station.htm
>>
>> Physically it could be recommisioned, with todays energy woes who knows.
>> Never say never.
>
> I was presuming that the dual nuke plants we see every time we fly to
> our home town of Racine, WI, was Zion? The cooling towers are visible
> east/northeast Rockford, IL.
>
> If conditions are right, the columns of steam are visible from 70 miles
> out.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Zion station is directly south of Racine and has no cooling towers. It used
Lake Michigan for cooling.

Byron station is just southwest of Rockford, it has 2 cooling towers just
under 500' tall, maybe thats the one you see?

I have used it many times as a fix when going to Rockford and calling
approach.

Marty

[Jay Honeck]

> Byron station is just southwest of Rockford, it has 2 cooling towers just
> under 500' tall, maybe thats the one you see?

Yep, that's the one, thanks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Marty" > wrote

> Zion station is directly south of Racine and has no cooling towers. It
used
> Lake Michigan for cooling.

Davis Bessie, near Port Clinton, Ohio has cooling towers, and it is tight on
the lake. My understanding is that the water is cooled via cooling towers
before being returned to the lake. I believe it is still running, and it
has to be at least 30 years old now.
--
Jim in NC

[Marty]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Marty" > wrote
>
>> Zion station is directly south of Racine and has no cooling towers. It
> used
>> Lake Michigan for cooling.
>
> Davis Bessie, near Port Clinton, Ohio has cooling towers, and it is tight
> on
> the lake. My understanding is that the water is cooled via cooling towers
> before being returned to the lake. I believe it is still running, and it
> has to be at least 30 years old now.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

If restarted, I'm sure Zion would also have to have a cooling tower. To
control thermal pollution all plants, including fossil fueled, now need
either a cooling tower or lake (man made). Again, it was Dresden that was
the labrat for cooling lake construction. The water is cooled to acceptable
temps before it is returned to the natural source. This also lowers the
dependency and impact on the natural source.
The added cooling isn't for Nukes only. Near Dresden is the Collins plant
that is oil fired, my house used to sit on land now under the Collins
Station cooling lake. ;-)

I don't know about Bessie, but many operated for years on the natural
sources alone.

Often the plants have been called upon to help control freezing of navigable
waterways such as the Illinois and Mississippi rivers.

I used to take company photographers up to take the annual aerial photos of
the plants. I wonder what kind of flight planning it takes to do that
nowadays. 8-)

Marty

[Morgans]

"Morgans" > wrote

> and it is tight on the lake.

Crap. I hate when I can't type. Should read "right on the lake."
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
>> and it is tight on the lake.
>
> Crap. I hate when I can't type. Should read "right on the lake."


First one reads better - there's a whiff of style to it. <g>


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> First one reads better - there's a whiff of style to it. <g>

I was glad that it was "tight on the lake," 'cause it was a very
unmistakable landmark, when navigating the lake using ded reckoning and
pilotage. <g>

I never once mistook it for an antenna. ;-))
--
Jim in NC

[Marty]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:45 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>> You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear
>> plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for the
>> continuous supply you always need.
>
> Traditional nuclear plants are "throttled" by controlling the reaction.
> As demand goes down, the reaction is slowed, which produces less heat,
> creates less steam, and lowers the net energy production. In most nuclear
> reactors, this is done via the "control rods". By throttling the nuclear
> reaction, they also save fuel and reduce wear-n-tear on the associated
> turbines.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_control_rod
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power3.htm
>
>
> Greg
>
>

Basically true. The control rods are set for an optimum power level but the
"throttling" is accomplished by the recirculation pumps. Increase the
circulation, cooler water rises into the core. The cooler water is denser
thus providing more hydrogen atoms per square inch for the neutrons to react
with providing more heat.
The delay in powering a reactor up is thermal stresses, namely the
cylindrical fuel pellets. The ends of the pellets expand quicker than the
middle giving it an hour glass shape. If done too quickly the fuel casing
can be damaged reducing the life of the fuel bundle.

Marty

[Jay Honeck]

> You are right that we can attack the problem with scientific and
> enginering studies. My quick search showed quite a few articles
> relating to the subject
>
> 1. http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/techprogram/P18201.HTM
>
> "Effects of Ethanol as a Fuel Additive on General Aviation Aircraft
> Fuel System Electrochemical Corrosion"

<Big Snip of lots of good stuff>

Thanks, Hai, for posting. This is great stuff!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:12:12 -0400, W P Dixon wrote:

> Where does all this hemp info come from?
>

I'm not sure I understand your question properly, but I'll take a stab at
it. Industrial hemp is not pot. Pot can be used as hemp. Hemp is not
normally used as pot. In fact, smoking hemp normally provides a killer
headache and no high. As such, hemp is grown just as any other plant.
Hemp is related to (its in the same family) but is not the exact same
plant(s) as it traditionally grown for recreational use. Industrial hemp
has something like 0.3% THC. There are now industrial hemp seeds available
which can grow hemp which contains 0.0% THC.

Those that believe hemp = pot are victems of misinformation spread by
those involved with oil, cotton, and plastics. Feel free to do some quick
checking on the 'net. You'll be amazed at how much misinformation you
have been given your entire life on the subject.


Greg


> Patrick
> student SP
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:45:48 -0500, Dan Engleman wrote:
>>
>>> So......my not so valuable opinion is that we should encourage all our
>>> legislators to pass legislation requiring us to be energy independent
>>> within a few years. Ethanol is a large part of that.
>>
>> Only if you want to pay more for fuel. Ethanol makes absolutely no
>> economical sense at all. Ethanol always has been about politics, plain
>> and simple. Our great goverment pays farmers to grow corn to make
>> ethanol. It then takes more energy to produce ethanol than what we get
>> out of it. Then, they turn around and sell it, at a premium price no
>> less. Proponents of corn-ethanol expansion fall into three categories.
>> One, the uninformed. Two, farmers. Three, politicians that cater to
>> farms.
>>
>> Building an energy economy on corn-ethanol makes as much sense as building
>> an energy economy on fusion. At least fusion *may* pay off one day. On
>> the other hand, if they want to shift America's corn growers to
>> hemp...then I'll shutup and let them do something that might actually make
>> sense.
>>
>> A typical hemp crop (which is not the same thing as pot; you can't get
>> high from it) yields roughly 3x more per year of ethanol than what corn
>> does. That makes it roughly 1-2 times more profitable and requires no
>> government handouts. Hemp does not require nearly as much water as corn,
>> making it drought resistant. Can you imagine a drought hitting the US and
>> our fuel prices going up 10x? That's the future of a corn-based fuel
>> economy. Hemp is insect resistant and requires no insecticides; unlike
>> corn, which requires a lot. Hemp can make industrial oils and lubricants,
>> clothes, and of course rope. Hemp can be eaten, and can be used as a food
>> filler. Hemp-ethanol does not contribute to carbon emissions anywhere near
>> the same degree corn-ethanol does. This is because you actually get more
>> energy out of a hemp-ethanol based economy than you do out of a
>> corn-ethanol economy. Surprising, hemp can replace corn in almost every
>> way, with on possible exception, flavor. I have no idea how hemp oils
>> compare to corn oils in flavor.
>>
>> Greg
>>

[W P Dixon]

Greg,
I know what hemp is, my question was where does the info come from on it's
different uses ( I know about ropes clothes and such) but as far as making a
fuel out of it ..that I have never read anything on. Has there been a actual
study that is documented?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:12:12 -0400, W P Dixon wrote:
>
>> Where does all this hemp info come from?
>>
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question properly, but I'll take a stab at
> it. Industrial hemp is not pot. Pot can be used as hemp. Hemp is not
> normally used as pot. In fact, smoking hemp normally provides a killer
> headache and no high. As such, hemp is grown just as any other plant.
> Hemp is related to (its in the same family) but is not the exact same
> plant(s) as it traditionally grown for recreational use. Industrial hemp
> has something like 0.3% THC. There are now industrial hemp seeds available
> which can grow hemp which contains 0.0% THC.
>
> Those that believe hemp = pot are victems of misinformation spread by
> those involved with oil, cotton, and plastics. Feel free to do some quick
> checking on the 'net. You'll be amazed at how much misinformation you
> have been given your entire life on the subject.
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>> Patrick
>> student SP
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:45:48 -0500, Dan Engleman wrote:
>>>
>>>> So......my not so valuable opinion is that we should encourage all our
>>>> legislators to pass legislation requiring us to be energy independent
>>>> within a few years. Ethanol is a large part of that.
>>>
>>> Only if you want to pay more for fuel. Ethanol makes absolutely no
>>> economical sense at all. Ethanol always has been about politics, plain
>>> and simple. Our great goverment pays farmers to grow corn to make
>>> ethanol. It then takes more energy to produce ethanol than what we get
>>> out of it. Then, they turn around and sell it, at a premium price no
>>> less. Proponents of corn-ethanol expansion fall into three categories.
>>> One, the uninformed. Two, farmers. Three, politicians that cater to
>>> farms.
>>>
>>> Building an energy economy on corn-ethanol makes as much sense as
>>> building
>>> an energy economy on fusion. At least fusion *may* pay off one day. On
>>> the other hand, if they want to shift America's corn growers to
>>> hemp...then I'll shutup and let them do something that might actually
>>> make
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> A typical hemp crop (which is not the same thing as pot; you can't get
>>> high from it) yields roughly 3x more per year of ethanol than what corn
>>> does. That makes it roughly 1-2 times more profitable and requires no
>>> government handouts. Hemp does not require nearly as much water as
>>> corn,
>>> making it drought resistant. Can you imagine a drought hitting the US
>>> and
>>> our fuel prices going up 10x? That's the future of a corn-based fuel
>>> economy. Hemp is insect resistant and requires no insecticides; unlike
>>> corn, which requires a lot. Hemp can make industrial oils and
>>> lubricants,
>>> clothes, and of course rope. Hemp can be eaten, and can be used as a
>>> food
>>> filler. Hemp-ethanol does not contribute to carbon emissions anywhere
>>> near
>>> the same degree corn-ethanol does. This is because you actually get
>>> more
>>> energy out of a hemp-ethanol based economy than you do out of a
>>> corn-ethanol economy. Surprising, hemp can replace corn in almost every
>>> way, with on possible exception, flavor. I have no idea how hemp oils
>>> compare to corn oils in flavor.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>

[Kyler Laird]

"W P Dixon" > writes:

> I know what hemp is, my question was where does the info come from on it's
>different uses ( I know about ropes clothes and such) but as far as making a
>fuel out of it ..that I have never read anything on. Has there been a actual
>study that is documented?

Here are some starting points with references.
http://www.hempevolution.org/energy/energy.htm
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRG.htm
http://www.ratical.org/renewables/greenEcon.html
I've seen several charts that show (directly or indirectly) "energy/acre"
and I usually note that corn is very low and hemp is much higher.

Even if hemp was equivalent to corn/soybeans as far as energy production
I'd be excited about it just for its lower need for herbicides and
pesticides. Getting away from genetically engineered (and strictly
licensed) seed would be wonderful.

Now to get diesel engines on my Aztec...

--kyler