Ethanol Powered Aircraft

We use propane in the balloon. So that's an example of "propane in an
aircraft". The balloon I used to fly has three 15-gal tanks. So each
tank has 75 lb of LP in it. The stainless tanks are quite heavy,
requiring 4 of us to set it up. It's easier when we have to put it
away. Also, in the dead cold winter, a heater must be attached to it
over night before the flight so the LP will vaporize. Just like
preheating an airplane.

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:59:57 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote:
I really don't want a Natural Gas powered lawn mower.

Probably wouldn't be any more inconvenient than one of the electrical
ones that require a cord (i.e. not the rechargable battery types)...
I've used air hoses like you use for shop air tools for routing
natural gas to grills for temporary use... CNG (compressed natural
gas) would work, but is not as convenient as LPG...

LPG (aka propane) would probably work since you see LPG powered fork
lifts and such...

Hmmm... A quick search via google shows that it's already been done...

http://www.landscapemanagement.net/l....jsp?id=317568
http://chenchang.en.alibaba.com/prod...awn_Mower.html

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:56:11 -0500, James Robinson
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:

On 15 Aug 2006 08:15:58 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote in om:

Natural gas is methane, which can be turned into methanol pretty
cost-effectively. Ethanol, despite its poorer power density and seals
compatibility issues, is far more benign and has more energy per gallon
than does methanol.


How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?

LNG has about 73,000 BTU/US Gal., while ethanol has about 80,000. Gasoline
ranges between 110,000 and 125,000.

Keep in mind that the LNG is also accompanied by a very heavy tank, which
has payload implications.


If Kevlar reinforced aluminum is used in the construction of the tank
(as is used for aviation O2), tank weight shouldn't be such a large
factor:
http://www.mhoxygen.com/index.phtml?...product_id=372
1,800 psig service pressure
The KF series cylinders are the perfect solution for cylinder
installations far aft in the aircraft previously not possible
before. A thin-wall, seamless aluminum (6061-T6) alloy
'liner-cylinder' is reinforced by a full over-wrapping of Kevlar
fibers sealed in epoxy. This yields about a 50% to 60% weight
savings over conventional cylinder technology without any
compromise in safety.

KF-050, Item #CYL1050 For built-in applications
MAX DIAMETER: 17.27 cm. (6.8 in)
MAX LENGTH: 64.00cm. (25.2 in)
AVG WEIGHT: 3.58kg. (7.9 lbs)
SERVICE VOLUME: 1416 liters (50 cu. ft.)


Below are the results of my research on BTU content of various fuels:


http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
Natural gas: LHV = 930 Btu/ft3 = 34.6 MJ/m3
Therm (used for natural gas, methane) = 100,000 Btu (= 105.5 MJ)
Ethanol energy content (LHV) = 11,500 Btu/lb = 75,700 Btu/gallon =
26.7 GJ/t = 21.1 MJ/liter.

Barrel of oil equivalent (boe) = approx. 6.1 GJ (5.8 million Btu),
equivalent to 1,700 kWh. "Petroleum barrel" is a liquid measure
equal to 42 U.S. gallons (35 Imperial gallons or 159 liters);
about 7.2 barrels oil are equivalent to one tonne of oil (metric)
= 42-45 GJ.

Gasoline: US gallon = 115,000 Btu = 121 MJ = 32 MJ/liter (LHV).
There are 19.5 gallons of gasoline in a barrel of oil,
4.1 gallons of kerosene-type jet fuel in a barrel of oil

Petro-diesel = 130,500 Btu/gallon (36.4 MJ/liter or 42.8 GJ/t)

Efficiency of an internal combustion engine is about 22% and
electric motor...about 96%(plus or minus a few points...depending
on who built it).

Electricity at 3412 Btu input per kWh.



http://www.ethanol-gec.org/netenergy/NEYShapouri.htm
http://www.ethanol.org/EthanolNewsSpecial1.28.05.htm
This report estimates the net energy balance of corn ethanol utilizing
the latest survey of U.S. corn producers and the 2001 U.S. survey of
ethanol plants.

On the average, dry mill ethanol plants used 1.09 Kwh of
electricity and about 34,700 Btu of thermal energy (LHV) per
gallon of ethanol. When energy losses to produce electricity and
natural gas were taken into account, the average dry mill ethanol
plant consumed about 47,116 Btu of primary energy per gallon of
ethanol produced. Wet mill ethanol plants that participated in the
survey used 49,208. Btu per gallon of natural gas and coal, on
average, to produce steam and electricity in the plants. After
adjustments for energy losses to produce natural gas and coal, on
the average, a wet mill ethanol plant used 52,349 Btu of energy to
make a gallon of ethanol.

All energy inputs used in the production of ethanol is adjusted
for energy efficiencies developed by GREET model. The estimated
energy efficiencies are for gasoline (80.5 percent), diesel fuel
(84.3 percent), LPG (98.9 percent), natural gas (94 percent), coal
(98 percent), electricity (39.6 percent), and transmission loss
(1.087 percent). After adjusting the energy inputs by these energy
efficiencies, the total estimated energy required to produce a
bushel of corn in 2001 was 49,753 Btu.


http://www.herecomesmongo.com/ae/comptab.html
1 gallon non-reformulated gasoline = approximately 113,500 BTU
(depending on seasonality and other factors... Oil Industry
Literature reportedly indicates that real-world gasoline sold at
US pumps can go to 108,500 BTU or lower).

1 gallon of #2 diesel = approximately 131,295 BTU (LHV)

1 gallon of biodiesel = approximately 117,093 BTU (LHV)
(10/08/02: BTU per gallon for diesel and biodiesel updated using
best-available info from US DOE website).

1 cubic foot of natural gas = approximately 1000 BTU

1 lb of H2 = approximately 61,000 BTU

1 gallon = approximately 3.785 liters (1 quart = 1 quarter of a
gallon = .946 Liters)

Definitions: 1 kWh = 3412 BTU = 3,599,660 Joules

1 barrel (of Petroleum) = 42 gallons

1.0 US bushel = 0.0352 m3 = 0.97 UK bushel = 56 lb, 25 kg (corn or
sorghum) = 60 lb



http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleanciti...ri_webcast.pdf
Btu content (LHV):- Diesel fuel 128,450 per gallon
- Gasoline 116, 090 per gallon
- LPG 84,950 per gallon
- Natural gas 983 per cubic ft.
- Electricity 3,412 per kwh
- Coal 9,773 per pound
- Ethanol 76,330 per gallon


http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAn...s/testpick.htm
Commodity Costs and Returns: U.S. and Regional Cost and Return
Data


http://energy.cas.psu.edu/costcomparator.html
Energy Cost Calculator is an EXCEL spreadsheet.

Also, in the dead cold winter, a heater must be attached to it
over night before the flight so the LP will vaporize. Just like
preheating an airplane.

You fly a balloon -- in WINTER?

BRRRRRRR!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 15 Aug 2006 15:15:31 -0700, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:
You fly a balloon -- in WINTER?

BRRRRRRR!

Well, they do carry a really big heater with 'em...

Grumman-581 wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

You fly a balloon -- in WINTER?

BRRRRRRR!

Well, they do carry a really big heater with 'em...

and once aloft, there is no wind.

The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines....

Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
it will probably be easier to understand.

Fine, except that the argument is that the ethanol production (analogy
to large central engine) is -less- efficient.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[The Saudis] are a low grade bunch of whores. They are literally
pigs, living off their cash flow as if there is no tomorrow.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.

The only problem with that point of view, is that every energy
transformation and use carries a penalty of a percentage of the energy being
lost.
--
Jim in NC

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:40:11 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?

It's less than gasoline, but I'm not sure how it compares to
ethanol... Do you mean LNG or LPG though?

Propane has an octane rating of 110 to 120... Sounds great, right?
Unfortunately, the weight of the tanks is what would probably get
us... Our tanks would have to be built quite a bit sturdier to handle
the increased pressure... Although typical operating pressures are
around 130 psi, tanks are typically rated to over 300 psi...

With LNG, you need either higher pressure or a cooling system...


LNG, as used in the Beech system (Beech Aircraft really did the
pioneering work on LNG, of course it went nowhere....) was stored at
very low temperature at approximately atmospheric pressure in a dewar
type insulated tank. It's important to understand that methane-natural
gas- is an incondensible gas for all intents and purposes, like oxygen
and nitrogen but unlike propane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, ammonia
which can be stored at human-habitable ambient temperatures at
pressures feasible for storage tanks.

Methane and propane can be burned in an IC engine in similar fashion
once they are a gas, but at very different fuel-air mixtures. Methane
is approximately 108 octane and propane is in the 103-106 range
depending on exactly what's in it (LP motor fuel is nothing like
reagent grade and contains methane, butane, methanol, and lots of
other junk).

LNG would be practical but the cost of distribution would be high and
the fuel system is fairly complex, at least in the Beech system. CNG
has no range to speak of. LPG is very practical for all sort of ground
vehicles and has been done successfully in helicopters, but large
volume storage in fixed wing aircraft is problematic. A fixed wing
aircraft designed around a fuselage LP tank as a stressed member might
make some sense.

ktbr wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

Tell you what fellow, *you* are the one who needs an education!

The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
anything you can even imagine.

Oh, and *you* have almost certainly never been to ANWR if you
think all it is is "frozen tundra"! Some people (those with a
bit more knowledge than you) are aware that frozen tundra is
some pretty awesome landscape.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)