"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
than it actually produces,

There is a certain amount of healthy debate on that issue.

A couple of professors from Cornell and Berkeley have been making that
argument, but the Dept. of Energy has come out with the "definitive"
analysis that concludes you get something like 25 or 30% more energy out,
when corn is used as the base. A higher level of return is projected for
other sources, like switchgrass.

There are still arguments about the DOE study, however.

Most ethanol plants use natural gas in the distillation process, which is
where most of the energy is used, so the production of ethanol is really
a conversion of natural gas to a liquid fuel, with a bit left over.

Since North America is projected to be importing something like 20
percent of its natural gas by 2020, the amount of ethanol reaching the
market will probably drop because of the need to move to more self-
contained production, i.e. using some ethanol to make slightly more
ethanol.

To which I again ask: Where is EAA on this? Why are they washing their
hands of this all-important issue? Are the asleep at the switch, or
simply hoping the issue goes away?

They probably hope it will go away.

We have already been discussing some of the problems with pumping ethanol
through existing engines without making appropriate modifications to
accept the different chemical properties of the fuel. Such things as the
effect on gaskets and synthetic materials, the attraction of ethanol to
water, and potentially increased risk of vapor lock, filter clogging, and
ice crystal development.

One thing I don't think has been touched on is the different physical
properties, which can have significant implications to pilots. These are
that ethanol has about 30 percent lower energy content per gallon than
gasoline, and has about 5 to 10 percent higher density. Think for a
moment what effect these factors have on range and weight limits.

With the lower energy content, range is significantly affected,
particularly for those who use personal margins that are more restrictive
than typical minimums.

The higher density means that even to get that reduced range, you will
have to sacrifice payload to compensate for the added weight of the lower
energy fuel.

As far as EAA's position on the subject, here is a statement from their
web site on what they are doing to influence legislation in various
states:

================================================== ====
EAA Keeps Aircraft Fuel Tanks Full

EAA is focusing its organizational and member resources to head off an
attempt by several states to require ethanol additives in gasoline before
it leaves countless pilots without a way to obtain suitable fuel for
their aircraft.

Legislation being debated in Missouri, for example, would require all
gasoline sold to consumers for use in motor vehicles to contain 10
percent ethanol. Even though provisions are included to allow the sale of
non-ethanol gasoline for use by aircraft, vintage cars, and motorboats,
these aren’t feasible because they could impose financial and logistical
burdens on fuel sellers, including installation of special tanks and/or
requiring potentially expensive special delivery arrangements to ensure
non-ethanol fuel availability.

Instead, EAA is promoting a simple solution based on legislation passed
in Montana, exempting one grade of gasoline—premium grade (antiknock
index number of 91 or greater)—from the ethanol requirement. This will
cover any and all possible combinations of exemptions to this proposed
new rule and allow ethanol-free premium gasoline to be available to all
aircraft, vintage cars, recreational vehicles, etc., at every gas station
in the state.

Idaho and Washington are currently facing Senate and House Bills that
would require all gasoline sold to consumers for use in motor vehicles to
contain 2 percent denatured ethanol by December 1, 2008. Even though
pending Idaho Senate bills include aviation exemptions, EAA feels they
aren’t practical. But aircraft owners in Idaho who rely on auto fuel to
operate their aircraft gained a reprieve earlier this month thanks in
part to the efforts of EAA and its members. As a result, Idaho’s proposed
legislation failed to make it out of a House committee which killed the
state’s ethanol mandate for this session.

In Wisconsin, legislative action to require 10 percent ethanol in
gasoline other than premium grade sold in the state was postponed
indefinitely by a 17-15 vote in the State Senate. An EAA-led provision to
exclude premium grade gasoline was included in the bill’s final version.

EAA is currently engaged in pending ethanol legislation in several other
states, working to ensure that ethanol-free fuel remains widely available
to its members and other pilots who need it.