Using Ethanol in Your Plane

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

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...l_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/drm...513833,00.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

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

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".

"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...l_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 ***

"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..._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 ***

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

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

"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

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!