Using Ethanol in Your Plane

[Jay Honeck]

There's a California fellow over on the Cherokee 235/236 user's group who is
using ethanol-laced mogas in his Cherokee 235, exclusively, and without
difficulty.

He admits that he *has* ruined his fiberglass tip tanks -- at something like
$3500 each -- but this has not deterred him from simply shutting them off
and using the aluminum main tanks.

I'm intrigued by his experiment. Although we Iowans just last week defeated
a bill that would have mandated ethanol in all of our gasoline (thanks to
the many here who wrote letters to our legislators!), that threat is always
looming on the horizon.

Jim Weir, you out there? Have you done any barn yard experimenting with
ethanol in your 182?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DdtOf.836777$xm3.407625@attbi_s21...
> There's a California fellow over on the Cherokee 235/236 user's group who
> is using ethanol-laced mogas in his Cherokee 235, exclusively, and without
> difficulty.
>
> He admits that he *has* ruined his fiberglass tip tanks -- at something
> like $3500 each -- but this has not deterred him from simply shutting them
> off and using the aluminum main tanks.
>
> I'm intrigued by his experiment. Although we Iowans just last week
> defeated a bill that would have mandated ethanol in all of our gasoline
> (thanks to the many here who wrote letters to our legislators!), that
> threat is always looming on the horizon.
>
> Jim Weir, you out there? Have you done any barn yard experimenting with
> ethanol in your 182?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Isn't the issue that because of the required fuel/air mixture, an engine
running on Ethanol is going to run lean, assuming the carb or fuel injection
system is configured for gasoline?

Other than the wingtip issues, I wonder if there are hidden problems due to
the ethanol. No telling what impact ethanol has on fuel tank sealant,
hoses, seals, etc.

KB

[[email protected]]

: Isn't the issue that because of the required fuel/air mixture, an engine
: running on Ethanol is going to run lean, assuming the carb or fuel injection
: system is configured for gasoline?

That would be a definate concern. Ethanol is a fine fuel for SI engines, but
it should be optimized for it. That means higher compression, and a richer fuel
schedule.... *double* for 100% ethanol IIRC.

: Other than the wingtip issues, I wonder if there are hidden problems due to
: the ethanol. No telling what impact ethanol has on fuel tank sealant,
: hoses, seals, etc.

Also correct. Seals, hoses, gaskets, and aluminum corrosion are concerns. I
recall reading about that on the EA85 website. Something about the additives they had
to add to the 85% ethanol to keep it from attacking the aluminum.

I have no doubt that it can be done, but I wouldn't want to just do it
willy-nilly. That's one case where certification requirements would be a *good*
thing IMO.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jay Honeck]

> Also correct. Seals, hoses, gaskets, and aluminum corrosion are concerns. I
> recall reading about that on the EA85 website. Something about the additives they had
> to add to the 85% ethanol to keep it from attacking the aluminum.

Hmmm. I hadn't heard that before Why would alcohol attack aluminum?

> I have no doubt that it can be done, but I wouldn't want to just do it
> willy-nilly. That's one case where certification requirements would be a *good*
> thing IMO.

Agreed. EAA is our best (and probably only) hope in this regard, but
I'm not optimistic. They've basically stated that it's just "too hard"
to get gasohol STC'd, which leaves many of us between a rock and hard
place.

I was just surprised -- and hopeful -- to hear about someone openly
flying a certificated aircraft with 15% gasohol, apparently without
difficulty.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

: Hmmm. I hadn't heard that before Why would alcohol attack aluminum?

Just to recall that I'd actually read it somewhere, I did a quick google:

http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/techprogram/P18201.HTM
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/021011_cessna.html

: > I have no doubt that it can be done, but I wouldn't want to just do it
: > willy-nilly. That's one case where certification requirements would be a *good*
: > thing IMO.

: Agreed. EAA is our best (and probably only) hope in this regard, but
: I'm not optimistic. They've basically stated that it's just "too hard"
: to get gasohol STC'd, which leaves many of us between a rock and hard
: place.

Of course, the *real* solution is to realize that producing ethanol as a
substitute synthetic fuel is a bad idea in general.

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf

Study concludes that it Costs 57% more fossil energy to produce the ethanol
than the energy contained within it.

Now, given the unique requirements of GA aircraft fuels (low volume required
compared to automotive gasoline, high octane required), it might be viable as an
alternative to 100LL even considering the additional fossil energy required. For an
automotive fuel ingredient, it is there for purely political (read: financial)
reasons.

: I was just surprised -- and hopeful -- to hear about someone openly
: flying a certificated aircraft with 15% gasohol, apparently without
: difficulty.
: --
There's no doubt it can be done:
http://www.age85.org/

BUT, it must be done correctly to be safe. In particular, thorough
examination and testing of all components of the fuel system, engine, and airframe. I
would suggest you may want to forward this information to the guy doing it. Legal
issues aside, it's probably not a good idea without careful testing.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "KB" == Kyle Boatright > writes:

KB> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
KB> news:DdtOf.836777$xm3.407625@attbi_s21...
>> There's a California fellow over on the Cherokee 235/236 user's
>> group who is using ethanol-laced mogas in his Cherokee 235,
>> exclusively, and without difficulty.
>>
>> He admits that he *has* ruined his fiberglass tip tanks -- at
>> something like $3500 each -- but this has not deterred him from
>> simply shutting them off and using the aluminum main tanks.

He has ruined his tip tanks at a loss of $7000 but is using mogas
"without difficulty". Right. That guy is every bit as stupid and
confused as the moron who blundered into the D.C. ADIZ a few months
ago, and is as likely to give GA an equally bad name.

[RST Engineering]

Unlike some on this newsgroup, Jay, I'm not quick to admit in public to
busting the FARs. Especially since I use my FAA wallpaper to accumulate a
few AMUs from time to time.

Having said that, I have this friend named Ernie ... and before Ernie knew
that California gasoline contained alcohol he flew his elderly 182 for a
couple of years with no apparent difficulties. However, when Ernie found
out that California fuel contained about 5% ethanol, he considered that the
rubber bladder fuel tanks and the neoprene carb needle probably wouldn't be
overjoyed sitting all winter in an ethanol bath and hasn't used it since.

Capiche?

Jim
CFI A&G, A&P/IA and planning on staying that way for a while.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DdtOf.836777$xm3.407625@attbi_s21...

>
> Jim Weir, you out there? Have you done any barn yard experimenting with
> ethanol in your 182?

[Jay Honeck]

> Unlike some on this newsgroup, Jay, I'm not quick to admit in public to
> busting the FARs. Especially since I use my FAA wallpaper to accumulate a
> few AMUs from time to time.

Gotcha.

However, could you not take your 182 into the "Experimental" category, and
experiment to your heart's content? True, the resale value of your 182
would plummet to near zero, but (a) you'd be saving fifty bucks every time
you filled the tanks, (b) you aren't ever planning to sell the plane,
anyway, and (c) you'd be doing everyone a great public service.

What's a few bucks, when in exchange you can get that warm, fuzzy feeling
inside from helping your fellow pilots?

:-)

It sure would be good to know -- from a knowledgeable source -- that the
stuff works safely in airplanes. I'm sick of hearing "it can't be done"
from our AOPA and EAA reps, when clearly that's a load of B.S.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[nrp]

I understood that it took no less than Barry Goldwater's direct (and
probably firey) intervention to get the original autofuel STCs moving
after they were pretty much bottled up in the FAA underbrush. Who can
we find on our side now to make such a demand?

The ~5% reduced heat output and power reduction of gasahol will make
recertification messy at least, even if seal compatibilities are
solved. Maybe a simple reduction in gross weight?

[Doug]

There are better ways of testing this than just putting
ethanol/gasoline in random tanks and "see what happens". That is what
STC's are for. They test the fuel and see if it is ok for that plane.
If your STC says no ethanol, you can't burn ethanol.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

The tip tanks are the only things that have been ruined SO FAR. There is no
telling how many little pieces are slowly dissolving as we speak.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:GaIOf.596354$084.204618@attbi_s22...
>> He has ruined his tip tanks at a loss of $7000 but is using mogas
>> "without difficulty". Right. That guy is every bit as stupid and
>> confused as the moron who blundered into the D.C. ADIZ a few months
>> ago, and is as likely to give GA an equally bad name.
>
> I agree -- but the fact remains that he IS running a stock O-540 on
> gasohol, without difficulty. (Well, other than ruining the fiberglass tip
> tanks -- admittedly a still price to pay.)
>
> This presents some hope for those of us who live in fear of the day when
> our Gubmint removes regular unleaded gasoline from our host of options,
> purportedly "for our own good"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dan Youngquist]

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, RST Engineering wrote:

> However, when Ernie found out that California fuel contained about 5%
> ethanol, he considered that the rubber bladder fuel tanks and the
> neoprene carb needle probably wouldn't be overjoyed sitting all winter
> in an ethanol bath and hasn't used it since.

Did Ernie ever take a look at those & other parts to see if they were
actually affected by the ethanol?

On a related note, I'd be very interested in hearing about experiences or
knowledgeable opinions on using ethanol in an IO-360-A1A. In particular,
I'd like to know if there's anything in the fuel injection system that
would be negatively affected by ethanol, and what octane I need to stay
above to avoid any chance of detonation (8.7:1 compression). It's in an
experimental airplane so there's no concerns about legality.

-Dan

[Icebound]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
>I thought that I read about a C-182 in Brazil running on straight ethanol.
>

Its not a C182, its a certified crop-duster.



http://www.defesanet.com.br/embraer/ipanema1000th.htm

This thread keeps re-surfacing...

[Kyle Boatright]

"Dan Youngquist" > wrote in message
hell.org...
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> However, when Ernie found out that California fuel contained about 5%
>> ethanol, he considered that the rubber bladder fuel tanks and the
>> neoprene carb needle probably wouldn't be overjoyed sitting all winter in
>> an ethanol bath and hasn't used it since.
>
> Did Ernie ever take a look at those & other parts to see if they were
> actually affected by the ethanol?
>
> On a related note, I'd be very interested in hearing about experiences or
> knowledgeable opinions on using ethanol in an IO-360-A1A. In particular,
> I'd like to know if there's anything in the fuel injection system that
> would be negatively affected by ethanol, and what octane I need to stay
> above to avoid any chance of detonation (8.7:1 compression). It's in an
> experimental airplane so there's no concerns about legality.
>
> -Dan

There is a squadron of RV-3's that has flown exclusively on ethanol for 10
years or more. You could probably google them to find out more information.

A couple of things about Ethanol: 1) It has higher octane than avgas. 2)
It has lower specific energy content.

That means you can raise the compression ratio, but gallon for gallon, your
range will be less.

KB

[M]

True. Not only the range will be less gallon for gallon, it'll be less
pound for pound as well, because ethanol has lower specific energy
content by weight as well compared with gasoline.

However, a spark ignited engine specifically designed for burning
ethanol can be lighter because the lower CHT, which reduces the need of
cylinder cooling, which in term allows a cowling design that has
smaller cooling drag. Cooling drag is one of the biggest drag
components in total drag. I don't know the answer, but it's possible
an airframe and engine combination specifically designed for ethanol
fuel might be just as just as good in terms of performance and range,
compared with today's gasoline powered piston planes.

Looking in to the long term future, the day will come when airline
industry sees the need to invest in alternative and renewable fuel for
the sole reason of economy. When that happens we'll probably see
ethanol powered jet engines. Hopefully there will still be private
piston flying in this country and we'll start to see clean sheet design
piston engine and airframe based on a new fuel. Maybe instead of
ethanol, we'll have diesel engine burning corn oil :-)




Kyle Boatright wrote:

>
> A couple of things about Ethanol: 1) It has higher octane than avgas. 2)
> It has lower specific energy content.
>
> That means you can raise the compression ratio, but gallon for gallon, your
> range will be less.
>
> KB

[Roy Smith]

Doug > wrote:
> Alcohol would work just fine in GA aircraft, as well as in
> cars. Very few problems at all, once the engine and fuel system is
> fully designed for it.

I've been reading a bit about what Ford had to do to get the Escape to
run on E85 (85% EtOH, 15% gasoline). One of the issues was the fuel
pump. E85 is electrically conductive (gasoline is not), which was a
problem for the pumps they were using. I don't know how that carries
over to airplane fuel pumps, or what it was about the pump in the
Escape which cared that it was pumping a conductive fluid.

I don't know how EtOH compares to gasoline for available energy per
pound of fuel, which is sort of an important issue for airplanes.

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Jim Weir, you out there? Have you done any barn yard experimenting with
> ethanol in your 182?

Ethanol isn't currently a solution to anything other than
Archer-Daniels-Midland. It's not a viable source of energy (current
production techniques use as much oil to grow and process the
ethanol than the oil it would replace in the market). Further,
the use of it as an oxygenate in reformulated fuels is suspect
as well.

Designing a gasoline vehicle to be fuel-flexible isn't hard.
Retrofitting one isn't impossible (but may be more trouble
than it's worth).

[Ron Natalie]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> Isn't the issue that because of the required fuel/air mixture, an engine
> running on Ethanol is going to run lean, assuming the carb or fuel injection
> system is configured for gasoline?
>
> Other than the wingtip issues, I wonder if there are hidden problems due to
> the ethanol. No telling what impact ethanol has on fuel tank sealant,
> hoses, seals, etc.
>
Ethanol unlike gasoline is hydroscopic. This causes problems with
swelling of rubber fuel components as well as increased corrosion
problems.

[[email protected]]

There are a lot of airplanes not certified mostly crop-dusters running
100% pure Ethanol. The problem with Ethanol is taht it is corosive. It
will eat up your fuel thank, fuel lines, carburator. Cars made to run
in Ethanol have these parts with modified materials to slow down the
corrosion. On airplanes I was told they manufacture stainless steel
fuel thanks and replace the lines with stainless steel ones. These guys
don't care as the diference in Ethanol cost can be 1/3 of Avgas in
Brazil. So for the amount of flying they do it pays for a new engine
every few months.

[[email protected]]

Most new cars sold today in Brazil are fuel flexible. This is made
posible with electronic fuel injection systems. Ethanol today is 1/2"
price of gasoline and 1/3 of Avgas in Brazil. Cars run on Ethanol have
consums more than cars run on gasoline.

[Jay Honeck]

> Ethanol isn't currently a solution to anything other than
> Archer-Daniels-Midland. It's not a viable source of energy (current
> production techniques use as much oil to grow and process the
> ethanol than the oil it would replace in the market). Further,
> the use of it as an oxygenate in reformulated fuels is suspect
> as well.

While this is undoubtedly true, it's sadly irrelevant.

The politicians -- not the scientists, or even the economists -- have made
the decision to go ahead with ethanol, and we're going to be stuck with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Icebound]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Most new cars sold today in Brazil are fuel flexible. This is made
> posible with electronic fuel injection systems. Ethanol today is 1/2"
> price of gasoline and 1/3 of Avgas in Brazil. Cars run on Ethanol have
> consums more than cars run on gasoline.
>

Many new cars sold today in AMERICA are fuel flexible. Here is a list for
2006.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/afdc/afv/models.html

[Icebound]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> Many new cars sold today in AMERICA are fuel flexible. Here is a list for
> 2006.
>
> http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/afdc/afv/models.html
>
>
>
>

Sorry... wrong link.. Here is the correct one:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/my2006_afv_atv.pdf

[Roger]

On 6 Mar 2006 22:13:26 -0800, "M" > wrote:

>True. Not only the range will be less gallon for gallon, it'll be less
>pound for pound as well, because ethanol has lower specific energy
>content by weight as well compared with gasoline.
>
>However, a spark ignited engine specifically designed for burning
>ethanol can be lighter because the lower CHT, which reduces the need of
>cylinder cooling, which in term allows a cowling design that has
>smaller cooling drag. Cooling drag is one of the biggest drag
>components in total drag. I don't know the answer, but it's possible
>an airframe and engine combination specifically designed for ethanol
>fuel might be just as just as good in terms of performance and range,
>compared with today's gasoline powered piston planes.

The energy in a gallon of Ethanol is considerably less than a gallon
of gas.
E85 which is 85% Ethanol and 15% gas requires about 25 to 30% more
fuel flow to produce the same energy as straight gas. Straight Ethanol
contains only 66% the energy of gas which means you'd need to carry
54% more for the same energy output.

So, although it's lighter it takes a whole lot more.
Taken in perspective, to get the range I get with 100 gallons I'd need
154 gallons. That is 4 gallons more than both my mains hold.

>
>Looking in to the long term future, the day will come when airline
>industry sees the need to invest in alternative and renewable fuel for

Quite likely but part of that is going to be due to higher prices for
fuel. The break even point (which is an ever moving target) is around
$3.50 a gallon. Once we reach that point renewable fuels become
economically viable.

Just briefly Alcohol futures hit higher than crude last summer, but in
general Ethanol is more expensive than gas, particularly when the
subsidies are taken into consideration. Plus the generation of
Alcohol is not all that efficient. It depends on which study you
read, but the return is between 1.35 and 1.56 gallons energy wise
(give or take a few hundredths). That means you get back between 1.35
and 1.56 gallons for every gallon of fuel used to produce the stuff.
To produce that much Alcohol would take over 400,000,000 acres of
corn. We currently have about 80,000,000 in production nation wide.
However even 1.56 is not considered sufficient to make the fuel a
viable source long term. It really needs to be on the order of 2:1 or
two gallons out for every gallon in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Energy_balance_in_the_United_States

>the sole reason of economy. When that happens we'll probably see
>ethanol powered jet engines. Hopefully there will still be private

Peanut oil, or some other high energy (BTU) source. Alcohol just
doesn't have the BTUs

First, from the national security approach, or dependence on foreign
oil, we only need to increase the national average mileage by about 7
MPG to eliminate the need for importing crude to use as auto fuel.
It's currently very close to 21 MPG average. It hit about 22 MPG
about 8 or 10 years back before trucks started outselling cars.
It'd only take about 15% going to hybrid cars to do this.

>piston flying in this country and we'll start to see clean sheet design
>piston engine and airframe based on a new fuel. Maybe instead of
>ethanol, we'll have diesel engine burning corn oil :-)

and Jet engines.

However we run the very serious risk of running into the same problems
as Brazil where they use sugar cane as an efficient source of Ethanol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Social_implications
They diverted so much land into the production of sugar cane for fuel
that they lost a lot of biodiversity which led to sharply higher food
prices and crime due to unemployment.

>
>
>
>
>Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>>
>> A couple of things about Ethanol: 1) It has higher octane than avgas. 2)
>> It has lower specific energy content.
>>
>> That means you can raise the compression ratio, but gallon for gallon, your
>> range will be less.

My wife is currently driving a hybrid that uses 13:1 in the gas engine
which is probably made possible by the use of variable cam timing.

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

[Roger]

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:17:45 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> Jim Weir, you out there? Have you done any barn yard experimenting with
>> ethanol in your 182?
>
>Ethanol isn't currently a solution to anything other than
>Archer-Daniels-Midland. It's not a viable source of energy (current
>production techniques use as much oil to grow and process the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Net_fuel_energy_balance
Latest studies show it to have improved a bit, but still not enough to
make it viable. One unit of oil used in the crude to gas process
yields one order of magnitude more fuel than it does Alcohol. The
current yields are supposedly some where between 1.35 and 1.56 gallons
out for each gallon in.

>ethanol than the oil it would replace in the market). Further,
>the use of it as an oxygenate in reformulated fuels is suspect
>as well.
>
>Designing a gasoline vehicle to be fuel-flexible isn't hard.
>Retrofitting one isn't impossible (but may be more trouble
>than it's worth).

I still think the interim fix is the hybrid with economically viable
renewable fuels a ways down the road. Of course the economically
viable also depends on the price of gas hitting as staying around
$3.50 a gallon. We also have to remember that the current price of
Alcohol is as low as it is due to some pretty large subsidies.

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

[Roger]

On 7 Mar 2006 17:43:06 -0800, wrote:

>Most new cars sold today in Brazil are fuel flexible. This is made
>posible with electronic fuel injection systems. Ethanol today is 1/2"
>price of gasoline and 1/3 of Avgas in Brazil. Cars run on Ethanol have
>consums more than cars run on gasoline.

And the cost according to studies is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Social_implications

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

[Roger]

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:06:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Ethanol isn't currently a solution to anything other than
>> Archer-Daniels-Midland. It's not a viable source of energy (current
>> production techniques use as much oil to grow and process the
>> ethanol than the oil it would replace in the market). Further,
>> the use of it as an oxygenate in reformulated fuels is suspect
>> as well.
>
>While this is undoubtedly true, it's sadly irrelevant.
>
>The politicians -- not the scientists, or even the economists -- have made
>the decision to go ahead with ethanol, and we're going to be stuck with it.

The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.
Here the true cost of Alcohol is about $3.50 a gallon, but with the
massive subsidies throughout the chain the consumer can only see about
$2.50 to $3.00 a gallon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Social_implications

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

[Icebound]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
> to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
> corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
> math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.
> Here the true cost of Alcohol is about $3.50 a gallon, but with the
> massive subsidies throughout the chain the consumer can only see about
> $2.50 to $3.00 a gallon.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Social_implications
>

Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but that very concept leads to
politicization of science: ....the answer with the most votes wins,
whether it is scientifically supportable or not.

I am not disputing, nor acknowledging, the accuracy of this particular
article....

But Wikipedia has already had to acknowledge political interference to its
articles in 2005
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_4513833,00.html

Being written only by the readers, wikipedia articles reflect the political
bias and scientific ignorance of those readers. The idea is that other
readers will eventually correct them, sure.... but in a relatively new topic
of discussion such as this one, hard facts are difficult to come by. It is
a case of "first one in, wins", at least until the emergence of study and
documentation that further supports (or disputes).

I urge care in using wikipedia as your information source.

[Kyler Laird]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

>> Ethanol isn't currently a solution to anything other than
>> Archer-Daniels-Midland. It's not a viable source of energy (current
>> production techniques use as much oil to grow and process the
>> ethanol than the oil it would replace in the market). Further,
>> the use of it as an oxygenate in reformulated fuels is suspect
>> as well.

>While this is undoubtedly true, it's sadly irrelevant.

Undoubtedly? Only for someone with a closed mind.

>The politicians -- not the scientists, or even the economists -- have made
>the decision to go ahead with ethanol, and we're going to be stuck with it.

You make it sound like all scientists agree with Ron's assertion.
T'aint so.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/final_word_on_e.php

--kyler

[M]

This is true.

Fundamentally however high compression engines are more efficient
because of the higher combustion temperature, and the availability of
reasonably priced engine component materials limits the combustion
temperature we could have in the engine.

Doug wrote:
> Alcohol also has extremely high octane so you can burn it in a very,
> very high compression engine. High compression engines are more
> efficient than lower compression engines. This would makeup for the at
> least SOME of the lower energy content.

[Jay Honeck]

> You make it sound like all scientists agree with Ron's assertion.
> T'aint so.
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/final_word_on_e.php

You quote a website called "TreeHugger" -- and expect us to take it
seriously? Please, your agenda is showing.

Besides, I believe the UC Berkeley study they are quoting has itself now
been discredited by several other studies. This was talked about rather
extensively on NPR last month (?) -- and NPR can hardly be called anything
but "tree hugging"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roger]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 13:38:55 -0500, "Icebound"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
>> to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
>> corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
>> math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.
>> Here the true cost of Alcohol is about $3.50 a gallon, but with the
>> massive subsidies throughout the chain the consumer can only see about
>> $2.50 to $3.00 a gallon.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Social_implications
>>
>
>Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but that very concept leads to
>politicization of science: ....the answer with the most votes wins,
>whether it is scientifically supportable or not.

Those numbers are also available from the US government and the
University of Michigan.

>
>I am not disputing, nor acknowledging, the accuracy of this particular
>article....
>
>But Wikipedia has already had to acknowledge political interference to its
>articles in 2005
>http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_4513833,00.html
>
>Being written only by the readers, wikipedia articles reflect the political
>bias and scientific ignorance of those readers. The idea is that other
>readers will eventually correct them, sure.... but in a relatively new topic
>of discussion such as this one, hard facts are difficult to come by. It is
>a case of "first one in, wins", at least until the emergence of study and
>documentation that further supports (or disputes).
>
>I urge care in using wikipedia as your information source.

I used it because it was handy, but those studies are also available.
from other sources. What you have to check is the bibliography for
the sources quoted. OTOH you can also chalk it up to me being lazy as
I was not going to do a research project at 3:00 AM<:-)) although I
have studied alternative energy and fuel in depth. I'd really like to
see it become viable, but it's not going to happen soon or until the
price of gas goes to and stays at or above $3.50 a gallon. (Or we
discover a cheaper and more efficient way to make alternative fuels)

In this case I think the information is pretty close, or at least as
close as you are going to be able to find.

What it boils down to is when will we be able to become independent of
foreign oil sources and when will renewable fuels become viable.
And the most important short term question. How do we get American
drivers to change their driving habits and reduce the amount of fuel
they use?

One such fuel that is a long way from becoming viable is Hydrogen.
Hydrogen is more like a battery that can be charged as it takes more
energy to make than you get back from it. The politicians love it,
but it's expensive to produce and store (using metal hydrides which
make a tank full of Hydrogen quite safe compared to gas)

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

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-09, Icebound > wrote:
> Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but that very concept leads to
> politicization of science: ....the answer with the most votes wins,
> whether it is scientifically supportable or not.

The trouble with Wikipedia is that it cannot possibly work in theory, it
only works in practice!

> But Wikipedia has already had to acknowledge political interference to its
> articles in 2005

For scientific or 'geeky' articles, a study was done a while back
showing that Wikipedia was more accurate than Britannica.
Notwithstanding, an encylopedia (big print one or online one, it doesn't
matter) should only be the first port of call if you're seriously
researching something. An encyclopedia by definition is a broad but
shallow discussion of the subject at hand.

> I urge care in using wikipedia as your information source.

Replace 'wikipedia' with World Wide Web. If you're seriously looking
something up, using any one source for your data is generally a bad
idea.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Roy Smith]

Dylan Smith > wrote:

>> I urge care in using wikipedia as your information source.
>
> Replace 'wikipedia' with World Wide Web. If you're seriously looking
> something up, using any one source for your data is generally a bad
> idea.

Wikipedia is a great source of information. It is not, however, a great
source of *reliable* information. Articles are often incomplete, biased,
or just plain wrong. But, as Dylan says, the same is true of many
information sources (including usenet). If I want background and opinion
about an FAA regulation, I'll ask here. If I want the real thing, I'll
look it up in the CFR. Wikipedia has become my primary tool to give me a
quick background on a word or phrase that I see and don't know what it
means, but I sure wouldn't make any major decisions based on what I read
there.

The standard joke is, "Wikipedia is like a public toilet. When you need
it, you're very glad it's there, but you never know who was there before
you".

[Juan Jimenez]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> However we run the very serious risk of running into the same problems
> as Brazil where they use sugar cane as an efficient source of Ethanol.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Social_implications
> They diverted so much land into the production of sugar cane for fuel
> that they lost a lot of biodiversity which led to sharply higher food
> prices and crime due to unemployment.

I was reading news today about how Brazil is very happy with ethanol because
it has reduced their dependence on foreign oil down to under 45%, and it's
still coming down like a rock. Each one of the sugar cane mills that
produces ethanol also produces about 2,000 jobs, and subsidies ended a while
back. They are having to create more sugar mills because of the demand, and
there's not enough ethanol to go around to fuel cars which can run on gas or
ethanol. They had to reduce their mandatory mix of gas/ethanol to 80% gas,
20% ethanol until they can ramp up production again. Seems to me Brazil
doesn't seem to be aware of high food price, crime or unemployment side
effects of ethanol. On top of that I believe they are now producing a type
of aircraft used for agricultural spraying that runs exclusively on ethanol,
and it's selling quite well.



*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Juan Jimenez]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:%d1Qf.810769$x96.125493@attbi_s72...
>> You make it sound like all scientists agree with Ron's assertion.
>> T'aint so.
>> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/final_word_on_e.php
>
> You quote a website called "TreeHugger" -- and expect us to take it
> seriously? Please, your agenda is showing.

That's a completely absurd assertion. Where should people go to get info on
alternative fuels? DickCheneyPocketbook.Com? Any of the oil companies? It's
not his agenda that's showing, it's yours, and it's in dire need of a trip
to the laundry.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:10:48 -0500, Roger wrote:
> The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
> to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
> corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
> math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.

This is why many are looking to hemp as our source for ethanol.
Using current technology, hemp yeilds almost twice the ethanol per acre
corn does. Hemp does not require pesticides and is drought resistent. In
stark contrast, corn requires lots of pesticides and water. Both increase
the costs associated with the crop and cause volatility in the price of
corn at market. Furthermore, hemp can grow is almost all zones within the
US. Corn can not.

To be clear, hemp is NOT pot!! I can not stress this enough! In fact,
there is truly, 0% THC industrial hemp available; and has been available
for years now. Furthermore, industrial hemp can not get you high; though
it does have very low levels of THC (IIRC, 1%-3%). Industrial hemp can
not get you high nor can it be effectively refined to do so. In fact,
smoking industrial hemp will get you a grade-A headache. So please don't
think I preaching some hippy agenda.

The last study I read on this (8-9 months ago) indicated that there is
more than enough land which can grow hemp, in the US, to completely meet
our fuel requirements for the foreseeable future. Best of all, because of
the potential yields, hemp actually requires LESS energy to bring to an
ethanol market than is required to create, unlike corn. Corn based
ethanol, on the other hand, actually requires more energy and money to
bring to market than it provides. Furthermore, corn based ethanol is
currently subsidised (on both ends of the economy!!), making it very
expensive for us, the consumer. Hemp based ethanol can be produced at
small scales around $1.50 - $2.00 a gallon. Research is under way to
further reduce the costs...but keep in mind, we're talking about small
scale production at this point. With better technology, it is thought the
price can be reduced to $1.05 - $1.25 a gallon in the near future. These
prices are based on hemp cellulose enzymatic conversions.

The long of the short, if the law was changed in the US, hemp may yet
prove to be a viable fuel alternative. Currently, any product containing
some fractional amount (sorry, don't remember the amount) of THC is
illegal in the US. Despite this, large scale ("larger" scale may be more
accurate) tests are currently underway in both Canada and Brazil. In
Canada, they are seeking to determine the feasibility of developing a
hemp-based economy. Specifically, they are investigating the farmer needs,
oconomic requirements, costs, and economic impact of converting some of
their existing corn (IIRC) agricultural economy to a hemp based economy.
As is my understanding, the most recent data available on this type of
change dates back to the turn of the century with the introduction of the
peanut as a viable agricultural crop. We know from that experience, it
was not a painless endeavor; becoming possible, thanks mostly to Mr.
Carver giving spirit.

Lastly, hemp is edible! Hemp can be used for clothing. Hemp can also be
used for cooking oils (not as nice tasting as corn oil AFAIK), biofuels,
machine lubricants, and probably many other uses I'm forgetting. Meaning,
hemp can actually hemp grow an economy rather then be part of an economic
down turn; like corn.

Disclaimer: I honestly don't know how accurate the price per gallon is
above. Nonetheless, the rest of the information can fairly easy to find,
providing for cross validation of the information with only a little
digging.

Just some food for thought,
Greg

[Roger]

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:10:48 -0500, Roger wrote:
>> The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
>> to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
>> corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
>> math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.
>
>This is why many are looking to hemp as our source for ethanol.
>Using current technology, hemp yeilds almost twice the ethanol per acre
>corn does. Hemp does not require pesticides and is drought resistent. In
>stark contrast, corn requires lots of pesticides and water. Both increase

Except we don't irrigate for corn so that makes the crop output highly
dependent on nature. Here in Michigan we don't use a lot of pesticides
on corn. Herbicides yes, pesticides no.

If hemp produced twice as much alcohol for about a 1/3 less cost to
the farmer you'd be getting about 2.56 gallons fore every gallon used
in the production cycle although I don't know how much energy is used
in the actual production.

>the costs associated with the crop and cause volatility in the price of
>corn at market. Furthermore, hemp can grow is almost all zones within the
>US. Corn can not.

As I understand it's more difficult to get it to quit growing rather
than to get it to grow.

>
>To be clear, hemp is NOT pot!! I can not stress this enough! In fact,

And just when I thought you'd come up with a good and legal reason I
could make a good living off that 40 acres.

>there is truly, 0% THC industrial hemp available; and has been available
>for years now. Furthermore, industrial hemp can not get you high; though
>it does have very low levels of THC (IIRC, 1%-3%). Industrial hemp can
>not get you high nor can it be effectively refined to do so. In fact,
>smoking industrial hemp will get you a grade-A headache. So please don't
>think I preaching some hippy agenda.
>
>The last study I read on this (8-9 months ago) indicated that there is
>more than enough land which can grow hemp, in the US, to completely meet
>our fuel requirements for the foreseeable future. Best of all, because of
>the potential yields, hemp actually requires LESS energy to bring to an
>ethanol market than is required to create, unlike corn. Corn based
>ethanol, on the other hand, actually requires more energy and money to
>bring to market than it provides. Furthermore, corn based ethanol is

They've actually passed the break even point, but only by about 50%
depending on which study you read. So you get 1.56 gallons out for
every gallon you put in to raise and process the stuff which is not a
very good figure.

>currently subsidised (on both ends of the economy!!), making it very
>expensive for us, the consumer. Hemp based ethanol can be produced at
>small scales around $1.50 - $2.00 a gallon. Research is under way to
>further reduce the costs...but keep in mind, we're talking about small
>scale production at this point. With better technology, it is thought the
>price can be reduced to $1.05 - $1.25 a gallon in the near future. These
>prices are based on hemp cellulose enzymatic conversions.

With almost all current alternative fuels and the present technology
the break even point comes at closer to $3.50 a gallon here in the
states with subsidies taken into account.

>
>The long of the short, if the law was changed in the US, hemp may yet
>prove to be a viable fuel alternative. Currently, any product containing
>some fractional amount (sorry, don't remember the amount) of THC is
>illegal in the US. Despite this, large scale ("larger" scale may be more

We have a number of "zero tolerance" idiots running states and passing
bills ... unfortunately.
Here in Michigan if a couple of teen agers get a bit foolish at least
one of them may be branded a sex offender and will be registered for
life right along with the pervert going after kids. Not far from here
we had a young couple get married and had a *premature* baby. Some
over zealous social worker did the math and said, hey when this
happened.... and he's now a registered offender. Zero tolerance!
Of course he'll have a very difficult time getting a job now to
support his wife and baby.

>accurate) tests are currently underway in both Canada and Brazil. In
>Canada, they are seeking to determine the feasibility of developing a
>hemp-based economy. Specifically, they are investigating the farmer needs,
>oconomic requirements, costs, and economic impact of converting some of
>their existing corn (IIRC) agricultural economy to a hemp based economy.

Depending on equipment, and contracts for sale (as in sugar beets) the
conversion to hemp should be relatively easy for the farmer. In
addition, corn takes more out of the land than most other crops and
requires time for the soil to recover. As corn is of the same family
I'd assume that hemp takes quite a bit out of the soil, but I don't
know that.

>As is my understanding, the most recent data available on this type of
>change dates back to the turn of the century with the introduction of the
>peanut as a viable agricultural crop. We know from that experience, it
>was not a painless endeavor; becoming possible, thanks mostly to Mr.
>Carver giving spirit.

George Washington Carver, but you are talking something far more
involved than introducing the peanut to agriculture and in today's
markets on a scale that is difficult to compare.

OTOH I think the processing plants and disposal of byproducts from
processing, getting the alcohol into the sales chain on a large scale,
and phasing in the vehicles to use the stuff (Usually E85) will be the
big hurtle. The farming should be the easy part.
>
>Lastly, hemp is edible! Hemp can be used for clothing. Hemp can also be
>used for cooking oils (not as nice tasting as corn oil AFAIK), biofuels,
>machine lubricants, and probably many other uses I'm forgetting. Meaning,
>hemp can actually hemp grow an economy rather then be part of an economic
>down turn; like corn.

Like with crude oil you have to make choices during the production
run. It's doubtful it'd become popular for cooking, or as a human food
but there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last
penny per pound out of the stuff.

>
>Disclaimer: I honestly don't know how accurate the price per gallon is
>above. Nonetheless, the rest of the information can fairly easy to find,
>providing for cross validation of the information with only a little
>digging.

Unfortunately, if it's like grain alcohol production there are studies
by supposedly reputable companies and schools that will show just
about any pro or con stance you take. There is so much information
it's difficult to sift through it for the good stuff.

>
>Just some food for thought,
>Greg
>

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

[Private]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland >
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:10:48 -0500, Roger wrote:
>>> The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
>>> to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
>>> corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
>>> math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.
>>
>>This is why many are looking to hemp as our source for ethanol.
>>Using current technology, hemp yeilds almost twice the ethanol per acre
>>corn does. Hemp does not require pesticides and is drought resistent.
snip
> but there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last
> penny per pound out of the stuff.


I have read that the hemp fiber is longer and tougher than the celulose?
fiber from wood normally used to produce paper. This shorter wood fiber is
further shortened by the pulping process durring recycling and requires the
addition of new fiber in the process to create quality recycled paper. One
of the largest sources of raw material for paper is now what is termed the
urban forest of waste paper. It is suggested that the best place for future
paper mills is not close to the trees but rather close to the waste paper
and that the addition of hemp fiber to waste paper will mean we will not
want to cut as many trees.


snip
> Unfortunately, if it's like grain alcohol production there are studies
> by supposedly reputable companies and schools that will show just
> about any pro or con stance you take.


'Scientific?' results are most often a function of who paid for the
'research?'


>There is so much information
> it's difficult to sift through it for the good stuff.
>
>>
>>Just some food for thought,
>>Greg
>>
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

I've heard that the autofuel in the Dallas area will have ethanol in it
after the winter fuel blend is depleted.

The MTBE will be gone and replaced with Ethanol.

It looks like the autofuel days will be over in these parts.
It this the same through out the rest of the country?

100LL isn't a very good alternative.
YUCK!

[Roger]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:18:15 GMT, "Private" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:10:48 -0500, Roger wrote:
>>>> The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
>>>> to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
>>>> corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
>>>> math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.
>>>
>>>This is why many are looking to hemp as our source for ethanol.
>>>Using current technology, hemp yeilds almost twice the ethanol per acre
>>>corn does. Hemp does not require pesticides and is drought resistent.
>snip
>> but there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last
>> penny per pound out of the stuff.
>
>
>I have read that the hemp fiber is longer and tougher than the celulose?
>fiber from wood normally used to produce paper. This shorter wood fiber is
>further shortened by the pulping process durring recycling and requires the
>addition of new fiber in the process to create quality recycled paper. One
>of the largest sources of raw material for paper is now what is termed the
>urban forest of waste paper. It is suggested that the best place for future
>paper mills is not close to the trees but rather close to the waste paper
>and that the addition of hemp fiber to waste paper will mean we will not
>want to cut as many trees.
>
The last I read it takes more energy to recycle paper than to make new
paper. OTOH trees used for pulp grow quite fast which makes it/them a
renewable energy and material source. So which way is really best for
the environment and economy
?

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

[Jay Honeck]

> It looks like the autofuel days will be over in these parts.
> It this the same through out the rest of the country?

Breaking news: the FAA has now approved an STC for a Cessna 182 to burn
ethanol! Great, right?

Not.

In typical government-bureacratic style, the FAA has NOT approved the
"use" of ethanol for that engine.

Only the FAA can make sense of THAT.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Private]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:18:15 GMT, "Private" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:10:48 -0500, Roger wrote:
>>>>> The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
>>>>> to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
>>>>> corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
>>>>> math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.
>>>>
>>>>This is why many are looking to hemp as our source for ethanol.
>>>>Using current technology, hemp yeilds almost twice the ethanol per acre
>>>>corn does. Hemp does not require pesticides and is drought resistent.
>>snip
>>> but there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last
>>> penny per pound out of the stuff.
>>
>>
>>I have read that the hemp fiber is longer and tougher than the celulose?
>>fiber from wood normally used to produce paper. This shorter wood fiber
>>is
>>further shortened by the pulping process durring recycling and requires
>>the
>>addition of new fiber in the process to create quality recycled paper.
>>One
>>of the largest sources of raw material for paper is now what is termed the
>>urban forest of waste paper. It is suggested that the best place for
>>future
>>paper mills is not close to the trees but rather close to the waste paper
>>and that the addition of hemp fiber to waste paper will mean we will not
>>want to cut as many trees.
>>
> The last I read it takes more energy to recycle paper than to make new
> paper. OTOH trees used for pulp grow quite fast which makes it/them a
> renewable energy and material source. So which way is really best for
> the environment and economy
> ?

Interesting and counterintuitive. I wonder how inclusive the analysis is
and if it includes all the energy inputs including logging and freight to
deliver new paper and cost of disposal of waste paper. It is my uninformed
understanding that paper recycling is only viable in a micro economy where
the source of the waste and the location of consumption of the recycled
paper is close geographically. The analysis of hemp as new fiber for
recycled paper supposed that the urban forest was Los Angeles or similar and
that the hemp would be grown close by thus saving transportation to/from the
normal paper mills. I have read that deinking is the biggest problem.

I agree that the big picture often provides a perspective that is missing
from obvious but short sighted solutions and strategies. Both government
and business claim the former but IMHO usually deliver the latter.

The continued creation of large amounts of waste paper reminds me of the
wags claim that 'the paperless office is as likely as the paperless
bathroom'.

Happy landings,

[Juan Jimenez]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> The last I read it takes more energy to recycle paper than to make new
> paper. OTOH trees used for pulp grow quite fast which makes it/them a
> renewable energy and material source. So which way is really best for
> the environment and economy

Not quite. Not even DOE claims that recycling paper uses more energy than
making new paper. The savings are not as spectacular as with other recycling
programs, but they are there. Also, the argument that making new paper is
more efficient does not take into consideration the fact that 39% of our
trash is in fact paper, or that recycling does not just mean making paper
out of the waste, it also means using it for other purposes, such as
packaging material in shipping, etc.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Roger]

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 21:48:12 GMT, "Private" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:18:15 GMT, "Private" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 00:10:48 -0500, Roger wrote:
>>>>>> The thing is, at present yields we can not come near producing enough
>>>>>> to make it competitive. We'd need about 5 to 6 times the acreage in
>>>>>> corn than we have at present just to feed our cars. If you do the
>>>>>> math that doesn't leave much of anything for growing food.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is why many are looking to hemp as our source for ethanol.
>>>>>Using current technology, hemp yeilds almost twice the ethanol per acre
>>>>>corn does. Hemp does not require pesticides and is drought resistent.
>>>snip
>>>> but there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last
>>>> penny per pound out of the stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have read that the hemp fiber is longer and tougher than the celulose?
>>>fiber from wood normally used to produce paper. This shorter wood fiber
>>>is
>>>further shortened by the pulping process durring recycling and requires
>>>the
>>>addition of new fiber in the process to create quality recycled paper.
>>>One
>>>of the largest sources of raw material for paper is now what is termed the
>>>urban forest of waste paper. It is suggested that the best place for
>>>future
>>>paper mills is not close to the trees but rather close to the waste paper
>>>and that the addition of hemp fiber to waste paper will mean we will not
>>>want to cut as many trees.
>>>
>> The last I read it takes more energy to recycle paper than to make new
>> paper. OTOH trees used for pulp grow quite fast which makes it/them a
>> renewable energy and material source. So which way is really best for
>> the environment and economy
>> ?
>
>Interesting and counterintuitive. I wonder how inclusive the analysis is
>and if it includes all the energy inputs including logging and freight to
>deliver new paper and cost of disposal of waste paper.

Supposedly it does.

> It is my uninformed
>understanding that paper recycling is only viable in a micro economy where
>the source of the waste and the location of consumption of the recycled
>paper is close geographically.

One way to tell is a recycling system saves energy is whether thy pay
you for the waste (Aluminum cans) or charge you for your efforts
(paper)

>The analysis of hemp as new fiber for
>recycled paper supposed that the urban forest was Los Angeles or similar and

The LA urban forrest is the wrong kind of hemp. <:-)) OTOH I think
Canada has the right idea.

>that the hemp would be grown close by thus saving transportation to/from the

I would guess that the transportation is one of the smaller costs, but
if you are operating on a thin margin it could make the difference
between profitability and failure.

>normal paper mills. I have read that deinking is the biggest problem.

It gets bleached out or taken care of in the acid wash which is one of
the reasons paper mills smell so bad.

Recycling paper uses a lot of water and energy. It also takes a lot
of labor to sort and seperate out the "unwanted" stuff.

>
>I agree that the big picture often provides a perspective that is missing
>from obvious but short sighted solutions and strategies. Both government
>and business claim the former but IMHO usually deliver the latter.
>
>The continued creation of large amounts of waste paper reminds me of the
>wags claim that 'the paperless office is as likely as the paperless
>bathroom'.

My degree is in CS and I retired from the profession a few years back.
I never really saw computers sucessfully reduce the amount of paper in
offices. Where I did see serious work to eliminate paper from the
office the result was usually deep and expensive regret. Depending on
how important, most things that are stored digitally are also stored
on paper or film. As it stands today, microfilm and regular film will
probably outlast the digital data to which they are transfered. The
problem with microfilm is handling the stuff can be hard on it. OTOH
handling CDs and DVDs is hard on them as well. Still, a trashed
digital doc is one whale of a lot easier to reproduce from the
archives than microfilm. It's also a lot easier to migrate to new
storage media with digital than other forms of storage.


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

>
>Happy landings,
>

[Greg Copeland]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:16:19 -0400, Roger wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland >
> wrote:
>
> Except we don't irrigate for corn so that makes the crop output highly
> dependent on nature. Here in Michigan we don't use a lot of pesticides
> on corn. Herbicides yes, pesticides no.

Except that is exactly the point. A bad crop year for corn means through
the roof ethanol prices. Hemp, on the other hand, continues to grow
rather well while corn is hardly growing at all. Thus, hemp = stable fuel
market; corn = unstable fuel market.

>
> If hemp produced twice as much alcohol for about a 1/3 less cost to
> the farmer you'd be getting about 2.56 gallons fore every gallon used
> in the production cycle although I don't know how much energy is used
> in the actual production.
>
>>the costs associated with the crop and cause volatility in the price of
>>corn at market. Furthermore, hemp can grow is almost all zones within the
>>US. Corn can not.
>
> As I understand it's more difficult to get it to quit growing rather
> than to get it to grow.
>

That's correct. This is why "ditch weed" is still found and killed in the
US. For those that don't know, "ditch weed" is hemp planted to help the
war effort during WWII.

>>
>>To be clear, hemp is NOT pot!! I can not stress this enough! In fact,
>
> And just when I thought you'd come up with a good and legal reason I
> could make a good living off that 40 acres.
>
>
> They've actually passed the break even point, but only by about 50%
> depending on which study you read. So you get 1.56 gallons out for
> every gallon you put in to raise and process the stuff which is not a
> very good figure.

I would enjoy reading any current news on this. Please share if you can.
The last I read, using the very, very, very latest technology, which was
not practical for for any scalable deployment, was just only reaching
break even. You need to be careful about some of the studies which claim
high returns for corn. All of them that I've read conviently forget to
include the fuel used to plant, grow, spray, and harvet (or some
part-of) and only include the energy required for conversion. Based on the
numbers you're tossing out, I'd bet this is the case; probably pushed
forward by corn farmers. A more typical corn based effort is actually
yeilding something between 70-80% of what's required to deliver.


>
>>currently subsidised (on both ends of the economy!!), making it very
>>expensive for us, the consumer. Hemp based ethanol can be produced at
>>small scales around $1.50 - $2.00 a gallon. Research is under way to
>>further reduce the costs...but keep in mind, we're talking about small
>>scale production at this point. With better technology, it is thought the
>>price can be reduced to $1.05 - $1.25 a gallon in the near future. These
>>prices are based on hemp cellulose enzymatic conversions.
>

I should add here, "near future", means within a decade or two...not
tomorrow or day after tomorrow. ...just so we're on the same page.

> With almost all current alternative fuels and the present technology
> the break even point comes at closer to $3.50 a gallon here in the
> states with subsidies taken into account.
>

I don't have numbers to debate here and flatly, I believe it's in
the ballpark...but keep in mind, I'm 100% sure hemp is exluded from those
numbers! So be sure to keep that in mind! Having said that, I've never
read anything which equated it to price per gallon but rather price per
barrel of oil. Typically, alternate fuels become viable between $50-$60;
which is required to support an emerging market. Once a market becomes
viable, it's said the prices can fall from there. Given that we already
see barrel prices in or above that range now and gas price is not $3.50 a
gallon, I suspect the number you're quoting is somewhat inflated.

You might ask, why haven't alternatives already appeared on the market
then? When, volatliity, which the oil companies manipulate and history
assure, prevent the creation of alternatives as an emerging market. Now
that barrel prices are up and look as if they will not be falling below
the magic $50-$60 (let's say $60) mark...suddenly you are seeing a lot of
R&D into alternatives.

>>
>>The long of the short, if the law was changed in the US, hemp may yet
>>prove to be a viable fuel alternative. Currently, any product containing
>>some fractional amount (sorry, don't remember the amount) of THC is
>>illegal in the US. Despite this, large scale ("larger" scale may be more
>
> We have a number of "zero tolerance" idiots running states and passing
> bills ... unfortunately.

Well, I honestly doubt this ban on hemp stems from "zero tolerance
idiots". Historically, hemp was banned by lobbiest form, surprise,
chemical and petrochemical companies. Thing about it...hemp completes
with just about every significant market petrolium products do. Fibers
(rope to clothes); check. Oil (cooking and lubriation); check. Fuel
(ethanol and biofuels); check.

>
> Depending on equipment, and contracts for sale (as in sugar beets) the
> conversion to hemp should be relatively easy for the farmer. In
> addition, corn takes more out of the land than most other crops and
> requires time for the soil to recover. As corn is of the same family
> I'd assume that hemp takes quite a bit out of the soil, but I don't
> know that.
>

That's a good point. I don't know. But, since hemp can grow in many more
places than corn, it's a lot easier to rotate hemp to different locations
to allow for recovery than is even possible with corn.

>>As is my understanding, the most recent data available on this type of
>>change dates back to the turn of the century with the introduction of
>>the peanut as a viable agricultural crop. We know from that experience,
>>it was not a painless endeavor; becoming possible, thanks mostly to Mr.
>>Carver giving spirit.
>
> George Washington Carver, but you are talking something far more
> involved than introducing the peanut to agriculture and in today's
> markets on a scale that is difficult to compare.
>

Let's not be so hasty here. Surprisingly, the peanut as a crop took, if I
remember right, some decade to become viable. Of course, there were a lot
of other variables there which need not apply today. Having said that,
the peanut is the closest crop we can compare...which is why we have so
many unknowns today when talking about hemp as a new crop...especially
since the potential market impact is profound.

> OTOH I think the processing plants and disposal of byproducts from
> processing, getting the alcohol into the sales chain on a large scale,
> and phasing in the vehicles to use the stuff (Usually E85) will be the
> big hurtle. The farming should be the easy part.

Which is exactly why Canada is currently conducting studies on this
exactly subject. There are a lot of unknowns and Canada is looking for
answers.

>>
>>Lastly, hemp is edible! Hemp can be used for clothing. Hemp can also
>>be used for cooking oils (not as nice tasting as corn oil AFAIK),
>>biofuels, machine lubricants, and probably many other uses I'm
>>forgetting. Meaning, hemp can actually hemp grow an economy rather then
>>be part of an economic down turn; like corn.
>
> Like with crude oil you have to make choices during the production run.
> It's doubtful it'd become popular for cooking, or as a human food but
> there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last penny
> per pound out of the stuff.
>

Agreed. At least here in the US. Do keep in mind, in some parts of the
world, hemp is already used in the food chain. Perhaps a new export crop?
I dunno.

Greg

[Roger]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:35:29 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:16:19 -0400, Roger wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:15:11 -0500, Greg Copeland >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Except we don't irrigate for corn so that makes the crop output highly
>> dependent on nature. Here in Michigan we don't use a lot of pesticides
>> on corn. Herbicides yes, pesticides no.
>
>Except that is exactly the point. A bad crop year for corn means through
>the roof ethanol prices. Hemp, on the other hand, continues to grow
>rather well while corn is hardly growing at all. Thus, hemp = stable fuel
>market; corn = unstable fuel market.

I do believe they irrigate corn in the central states, but even then
a dry year (or wet) would raise the growing cost considerably with a
corresponding reduction in yield..

>
>>
>> If hemp produced twice as much alcohol for about a 1/3 less cost to
>> the farmer you'd be getting about 2.56 gallons fore every gallon used
>> in the production cycle although I don't know how much energy is used
>> in the actual production.
>>
>>>the costs associated with the crop and cause volatility in the price of
>>>corn at market. Furthermore, hemp can grow is almost all zones within the
>>>US. Corn can not.

Hemp can certainly grow in a much wider area although corn will do
well in a wide range of temperatures. It will not do well with too
much or too little rain though and that is what limits its growing
range/area.

>>
>> As I understand it's more difficult to get it to quit growing rather
>> than to get it to grow.
>>
>
>That's correct. This is why "ditch weed" is still found and killed in the
>US. For those that don't know, "ditch weed" is hemp planted to help the
>war effort during WWII.

Actually I don't think you can eradicate the stuff.

>
>>>
>>>To be clear, hemp is NOT pot!! I can not stress this enough! In fact,
>>
>> And just when I thought you'd come up with a good and legal reason I
>> could make a good living off that 40 acres.

Unfortunately you need to convince our congress critters of that.
Currently if it even has a trace of TCP? to them it's bad even if it's
so little as to be unrecoverable, or useable in any form.

>>
>>
>> They've actually passed the break even point, but only by about 50%
>> depending on which study you read. So you get 1.56 gallons out for
>> every gallon you put in to raise and process the stuff which is not a
>> very good figure.
>
>I would enjoy reading any current news on this. Please share if you can.
>The last I read, using the very, very, very latest technology, which was

Michigan State University did a recent study that came out positive
although it may take some digging to find the study and the parameters
under which it was taken. To me the parameters are the qualifying
criteria by whether a study can be judged valid.

Most studies are commissioned, or undertaken with specific criteria
given to a supposedly independent, unbiased facility. Coming up with
he true cost of producing a crop from field preparation, to sale at
the elevator is difficult and a bit tricky. Taxes (property, sales,
fuel, and even income), subsidies, fuel, deprecation on equipment, and
labor all need to be factored in.

>not practical for for any scalable deployment, was just only reaching
>break even. You need to be careful about some of the studies which claim
>high returns for corn. All of them that I've read conviently forget to

The problem looking at "studies" is not having the ability to judge
which ones, _if_any_, are valid. The results vary from a substantial
net negative energy return to a substantial net positive return. Only
one actually showed a large return.

>include the fuel used to plant, grow, spray, and harvet (or some
>part-of) and only include the energy required for conversion. Based on the
>numbers you're tossing out, I'd bet this is the case; probably pushed
>forward by corn farmers. A more typical corn based effort is actually
>yeilding something between 70-80% of what's required to deliver.

And that's the problem. there's a lot of information out there with
little of it agreeing with any of the other while some is outright
contradictory.

>
>
>>
>>>currently subsidised (on both ends of the economy!!), making it very
>>>expensive for us, the consumer. Hemp based ethanol can be produced at
>>>small scales around $1.50 - $2.00 a gallon. Research is under way to
>>>further reduce the costs...but keep in mind, we're talking about small
>>>scale production at this point. With better technology, it is thought the
>>>price can be reduced to $1.05 - $1.25 a gallon in the near future. These
>>>prices are based on hemp cellulose enzymatic conversions.
>>
>
>I should add here, "near future", means within a decade or two...not
>tomorrow or day after tomorrow. ...just so we're on the same page.

I was a project manager in industry. "Near future" really doesn't
have a meaning outside of press releases when used in the context we
normally see. Those alternative energy break throughs being touted
have been "just around the corner" ever since the shortages in the
70's.
>
>> With almost all current alternative fuels and the present technology
>> the break even point comes at closer to $3.50 a gallon here in the
>> states with subsidies taken into account.
>>
>
>I don't have numbers to debate here and flatly, I believe it's in
>the ballpark...but keep in mind, I'm 100% sure hemp is exluded from those

I'm only aiming for the stadium, not a particular base<:-)) It's
basically impossible to find definitive figures to pin any of this
down. No matter where you get them and from who ever, there will be
some one who can find equally valid and contradictory numbers.

>numbers! So be sure to keep that in mind! Having said that, I've never
>read anything which equated it to price per gallon but rather price per
>barrel of oil. Typically, alternate fuels become viable between $50-$60;

When it comes to production they look at what it takes to get a useful
net energy gain first. The amount of energy required to drill the
well, pump the oil, refine it, and then get it to the consumer is
about 10% of the final yield. So, although dirty it is by far the
most efficient energy source. Unfortunately it gives us a tremendous
net gain in atmospheric CO2, SO2, and other pollutants. We also use
so much that a major portion has to be imported which makes the US and
much of Europe dependent on the oil producing nations. That in itself
makes for some grand political problems.

>which is required to support an emerging market. Once a market becomes
>viable, it's said the prices can fall from there. Given that we already

Much depends on the definition of "viable" and who is doing the
defining<:-)). There are some alternative fuels that look great at
present that just will not scale up well. For instance, creating
biodeisel from waste works well on a relatively small scale, but it's
already requiring the soy oil. Soybeans are an expensive product. I
wish we could raise them every year. Those and sugar beets.

Fuel cells and Hydrogen. Even given that the Metal Hydrides make the
storage and transportation of the stuff safer than gas; H2 can be
inexpensive to make (given clean fresh water and electricity), but it
gets expensive in a hurry when scaled up. OTOH fuel cells have been
developed that can burn most any burnable liquid but they like much
other technology is waiting for the break through just around the
corner.

Total electric cars are fantastic on a small scale, but we do not have
the technology, or power grid to have more than a small percent of our
fleet all electric.

>see barrel prices in or above that range now and gas price is not $3.50 a
>gallon, I suspect the number you're quoting is somewhat inflated.

That is indeed possible, but I think when rising costs/inflation,
supply and demand, as well as the cost of scaling up new technology
and then looking at the expected investment versus the return I think
by the time we can actually produce alternative fuels on a large (read
useful) scale those will be valid numbers.
>
>You might ask, why haven't alternatives already appeared on the market
>then? When, volatliity, which the oil companies manipulate and history
>assure, prevent the creation of alternatives as an emerging market. Now
>that barrel prices are up and look as if they will not be falling below
>the magic $50-$60 (let's say $60) mark...suddenly you are seeing a lot of
>R&D into alternatives.
>
No argument at all.

>>>
>>>The long of the short, if the law was changed in the US, hemp may yet
>>>prove to be a viable fuel alternative. Currently, any product containing
>>>some fractional amount (sorry, don't remember the amount) of THC is
>>>illegal in the US. Despite this, large scale ("larger" scale may be more
>>
>> We have a number of "zero tolerance" idiots running states and passing
>> bills ... unfortunately.
>
>Well, I honestly doubt this ban on hemp stems from "zero tolerance
>idiots". Historically, hemp was banned by lobbiest form, surprise,
>chemical and petrochemical companies. Thing about it...hemp completes
>with just about every significant market petrolium products do. Fibers
>(rope to clothes); check. Oil (cooking and lubriation); check. Fuel
>(ethanol and biofuels); check. >
>>
>> Depending on equipment, and contracts for sale (as in sugar beets) the
>> conversion to hemp should be relatively easy for the farmer. In
>> addition, corn takes more out of the land than most other crops and
>> requires time for the soil to recover. As corn is of the same family
>> I'd assume that hemp takes quite a bit out of the soil, but I don't
>> know that.
>>
>
>That's a good point. I don't know. But, since hemp can grow in many more
>places than corn, it's a lot easier to rotate hemp to different locations
>to allow for recovery than is even possible with corn.
>
>>>As is my understanding, the most recent data available on this type of
>>>change dates back to the turn of the century with the introduction of
>>>the peanut as a viable agricultural crop. We know from that experience,
>>>it was not a painless endeavor; becoming possible, thanks mostly to Mr.
>>>Carver giving spirit.
>>
>> George Washington Carver, but you are talking something far more
>> involved than introducing the peanut to agriculture and in today's
>> markets on a scale that is difficult to compare.
>>
>
>Let's not be so hasty here. Surprisingly, the peanut as a crop took, if I
>remember right, some decade to become viable. Of course, there were a lot

It did and he basically had to create the uses for the oil before the
crop became viable if I remember my history correctly.

>of other variables there which need not apply today. Having said that,
>the peanut is the closest crop we can compare...which is why we have so
>many unknowns today when talking about hemp as a new crop...especially
>since the potential market impact is profound.
>
>> OTOH I think the processing plants and disposal of byproducts from
>> processing, getting the alcohol into the sales chain on a large scale,
>> and phasing in the vehicles to use the stuff (Usually E85) will be the
>> big hurtle. The farming should be the easy part.

I do have to give GM credit in their adds for E85. They are sticking
with the "clean fuel" rather than any claiming any big energy savings,
or as least the adds I've seen. Alcohol is clean burning and it
doesn't add any new CO2 to the atmosphere. However I don't see corn
alcohol as being a viable fuel to wean us off imported oil.

IF the figures I have are correct and there really is a net energy
gain of about 50% on alcohol, when compared to the energy required to
produce gas from crude is about 2,000 times more efficient. It takes
one gallon of crude to produce the energy to produce 10 gallons of
gas. While it takes one gallon of alcohol to produce a gain of 1/2
gallon. This does not take into account that there is much less energy
in alcohol as well. I looked it up a couple weeks ago, but have
forgotten the actual number, but I think pure alcohol only contains
about 40% of the energy in a gallon of gas. So, as a comparison based
on a poor memory, if we use one million barrels of gas a day we'd need
over two million barrels of Alcohol to get the same energy. Or course
we use a lot more than a million barrels a day.

>
>Which is exactly why Canada is currently conducting studies on this
>exactly subject. There are a lot of unknowns and Canada is looking for
>answers.
>
>>>
>>>Lastly, hemp is edible! Hemp can be used for clothing. Hemp can also

Some how that produces the mental image of chewing on a piece of
rope.<:-)) Yes it's a big green plant through part of its life cycle
that contains a protein rich sap if I remember correctly.

>>>be used for cooking oils (not as nice tasting as corn oil AFAIK),
>>>biofuels, machine lubricants, and probably many other uses I'm
>>>forgetting. Meaning, hemp can actually hemp grow an economy rather then
>>>be part of an economic down turn; like corn.

Another item. Hemp is far easer to harvest than corn. Processing is a
different story.

>>
>> Like with crude oil you have to make choices during the production run.
>> It's doubtful it'd become popular for cooking, or as a human food but
>> there are many other uses as you stated that could wring the last penny
>> per pound out of the stuff.
>>
>
>Agreed. At least here in the US. Do keep in mind, in some parts of the
>world, hemp is already used in the food chain. Perhaps a new export crop?
>I dunno.

There are so many alternatives and so much information along with the
politicians rooting (sounds like pigs doesn't it) for their own
districts. Who knows how much is spin and how much is reality?

No mater how we look at it I don't see the likely hood of any really
useful alternative energy sources on a large scale for some time. That
leaves the general public with the necessity of learning how to
conserve.

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