The ethanol nightmare has arrived!

On Apr 9, 11:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote innews
Mxsmanic wrote:
M writes:

Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in pipelines.

Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?

The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of the
plumbing start leaking.

It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is replace
fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden mogas.

Bertie

So does this conversion have any limitations? Can you run E85? How
about E20?

Brian

Brian wrote in
:

On Apr 9, 11:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews
Mxsmanic wrote:
M writes:

Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in
pipelines.

Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?

The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of
the plumbing start leaking.

It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is replace
fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden mogas.

Bertie

So does this conversion have any limitations? Can you run E85? How
about E20?


If it'd start on carrot juice, I ran it.


Bertie

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:

We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular perception
did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor source), rather
they greatly increased domestic petroleum production. Ever heard of
Alaska?

Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?

Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.


There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.

None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.

And more environmental destruction and more cost to recover and no
reduction in GHG emissions.


While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
becomes economically viable.

Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

http://www.doe.gov/pricestrends/5091.htm

http://www.news.com/Solar-cell-busin...3-6126962.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...ort/solar.html

====================
....demand is rising and [] the prices of solar cells, measured in cost
per watt, continue to drop. In 1980, a solar panel cost about $21 per
watt. (That is, each watt produced from the panel would cost about $21
each over the life of the panel.) Now it's about $2.70 per watt.

By 2010, crystalline silicon solar cells will sell for about $1.25 to
$1.50 per watt, while thin-film solar cells will sell for 90 cents to
$1.30 per watt. The thin-film cells, however, will be less efficient.

He likened the cost decline to what has occurred in transistors. In
1974, a transistor cost about 10 cents to produce. Now, an individual
transistor costs 5 nanodollars, or 5 billionths of a dollar.
=====================

No unobtanium needed.

On 2008-04-10, Dan Luke wrote:
Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.

Only if you're willing to use it at some point. Otherwise, it's worthless.

Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

Just as soon as I can power my car - and get the same performance, the same
range, and the same carrying capacity - that way, I'll be happy to listen.

Or my airplane.

He likened the cost decline to what has occurred in transistors. In
1974, a transistor cost about 10 cents to produce. Now, an individual
transistor costs 5 nanodollars, or 5 billionths of a dollar.

It took 34 years to reach that point.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

You are wrong.

Jim




--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
news:625af64a-d1c1-473a-91ec-


I believe out here in California its illegal to sell mogas w/o the
ethanol.

-robert

Jay Maynard wrote in
:

On 2008-04-10, Dan Luke wrote:
Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.

Only if you're willing to use it at some point. Otherwise, it's
worthless.

Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

Just as soon as I can power my car - and get the same performance, the
same range, and the same carrying capacity - that way, I'll be happy
to listen.

Or my airplane.

He likened the cost decline to what has occurred in transistors. In
1974, a transistor cost about 10 cents to produce. Now, an individual
transistor costs 5 nanodollars, or 5 billionths of a dollar.

It took 34 years to reach that point.



Easy to see why you're a computer genius. You counted from 74 to 08 just
like that!





Bertie

Dan Luke wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:

We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular perception
did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor source), rather
they greatly increased domestic petroleum production. Ever heard of
Alaska?

Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?

Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
to a screaming halt in the mean time.

Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.

Oil in the ground is about as usefull as a screen door on a submarine.

There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.

None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.

And more environmental destruction and more cost to recover and no
reduction in GHG emissions.

Weren't you the one complaining about hand wringing?

Did you miss the part about improving the technologies?

While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
becomes economically viable.

Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

Wind is not dependable as Texas has found out:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...feedType=RSS&f
eedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Right now the delivered cost of solar is several times that of conventional
electricity, which is OK if you don't mind your electric bill being tripled.

The other minor problem with solar is there isn't any at night and peak
demand is around 8 to 9 pm most of the year. During Summer, there is
an additional midafternoon peak.

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

But electricity currently has very little to do with oil.

If you want to do fuel synthesis with solar energy during the day,
the delivered cost needs to go down by an order of magnitude for it
to be viable unless you are OK with paying $25/gal for fuel.

That is going to take time and research.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in :

Dan Luke wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:

We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular
perception did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor
source), rather they greatly increased domestic petroleum
production. Ever heard of Alaska?

Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?

Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
to a screaming halt in the mean time.

having been to LA and seen big Brother on TV, I think it can safely be
said that civilisation has already come to a screeching halt.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in :

Dan Luke wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:

We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular
perception did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor
source), rather they greatly increased domestic petroleum
production. Ever heard of Alaska?

Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?

Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
to a screaming halt in the mean time.

having been to LA and seen big Brother on TV, I think it can safely be
said that civilisation has already come to a screeching halt.

I believe the oldest recorded statement to that effect was made by
Cicero.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?

Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
to a screaming halt in the mean time.

LOL.

Who's advocating civilization coming to a screaming halt?

Besides Rush Limbaugh's strawman, I mean.

And how long would the Alaskan reserves satisfy the U. S. demand?



Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.

Oil in the ground is about as usefull as a screen door on a submarine.

Wrong. Reserves in the ground are money in the bank. Using them up would
merely be a short postponement of the inevitable.



There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.

None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.

And more environmental destruction and more cost to recover and no
reduction in GHG emissions.

Weren't you the one complaining about hand wringing?

Did you miss the part about improving the technologies?

Why spend money improving technologies that keep us wedded to
environmentally destructive and non-renewable energy sources? Why not work
on getting out from under this stuff?



While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
becomes economically viable.

Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

Wind is not dependable as Texas has found out:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...feedType=RSS&f
eedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

It's early days yet. There are ways to flywheel wind energy.



Right now the delivered cost of solar is several times that of
conventional
electricity,

Right now.

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6432171.html


which is OK if you don't mind your electric bill being tripled
The other minor problem with solar is there isn't any at night and peak
demand is around 8 to 9 pm most of the year. During Summer, there is
an additional midafternoon peak.

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

But electricity currently has very little to do with oil.

If you want to do fuel synthesis with solar energy during the day,
the delivered cost needs to go down by an order of magnitude for it
to be viable unless you are OK with paying $25/gal for fuel.

That is going to take time and research.

Exactly. Time to get going on it in a big way.