Ethanol Mandate for Iowa?

"Montblack" wrote

First one reads better - there's a whiff of style to it. g

I was glad that it was "tight on the lake," 'cause it was a very
unmistakable landmark, when navigating the lake using ded reckoning and
pilotage. g

I never once mistook it for an antenna. ;-))
--
Jim in NC

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:45 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

You can't really replace natural gas plants with nuclear plants. Nuclear
plants provide base load power (they can't easily be throttled) for the
continuous supply you always need.

Traditional nuclear plants are "throttled" by controlling the reaction.
As demand goes down, the reaction is slowed, which produces less heat,
creates less steam, and lowers the net energy production. In most nuclear
reactors, this is done via the "control rods". By throttling the nuclear
reaction, they also save fuel and reduce wear-n-tear on the associated
turbines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_control_rod
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power3.htm


Greg



Basically true. The control rods are set for an optimum power level but the
"throttling" is accomplished by the recirculation pumps. Increase the
circulation, cooler water rises into the core. The cooler water is denser
thus providing more hydrogen atoms per square inch for the neutrons to react
with providing more heat.
The delay in powering a reactor up is thermal stresses, namely the
cylindrical fuel pellets. The ends of the pellets expand quicker than the
middle giving it an hour glass shape. If done too quickly the fuel casing
can be damaged reducing the life of the fuel bundle.

Marty

You are right that we can attack the problem with scientific and
enginering studies. My quick search showed quite a few articles
relating to the subject

1. http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/t...ram/P18201.HTM

"Effects of Ethanol as a Fuel Additive on General Aviation Aircraft
Fuel System Electrochemical Corrosion"

Big Snip of lots of good stuff

Thanks, Hai, for posting. This is great stuff!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:12:12 -0400, W P Dixon wrote:

Where does all this hemp info come from?


I'm not sure I understand your question properly, but I'll take a stab at
it. Industrial hemp is not pot. Pot can be used as hemp. Hemp is not
normally used as pot. In fact, smoking hemp normally provides a killer
headache and no high. As such, hemp is grown just as any other plant.
Hemp is related to (its in the same family) but is not the exact same
plant(s) as it traditionally grown for recreational use. Industrial hemp
has something like 0.3% THC. There are now industrial hemp seeds available
which can grow hemp which contains 0.0% THC.

Those that believe hemp = pot are victems of misinformation spread by
those involved with oil, cotton, and plastics. Feel free to do some quick
checking on the 'net. You'll be amazed at how much misinformation you
have been given your entire life on the subject.


Greg


Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:45:48 -0500, Dan Engleman wrote:

So......my not so valuable opinion is that we should encourage all our
legislators to pass legislation requiring us to be energy independent
within a few years. Ethanol is a large part of that.

Only if you want to pay more for fuel. Ethanol makes absolutely no
economical sense at all. Ethanol always has been about politics, plain
and simple. Our great goverment pays farmers to grow corn to make
ethanol. It then takes more energy to produce ethanol than what we get
out of it. Then, they turn around and sell it, at a premium price no
less. Proponents of corn-ethanol expansion fall into three categories.
One, the uninformed. Two, farmers. Three, politicians that cater to
farms.

Building an energy economy on corn-ethanol makes as much sense as building
an energy economy on fusion. At least fusion *may* pay off one day. On
the other hand, if they want to shift America's corn growers to
hemp...then I'll shutup and let them do something that might actually make
sense.

A typical hemp crop (which is not the same thing as pot; you can't get
high from it) yields roughly 3x more per year of ethanol than what corn
does. That makes it roughly 1-2 times more profitable and requires no
government handouts. Hemp does not require nearly as much water as corn,
making it drought resistant. Can you imagine a drought hitting the US and
our fuel prices going up 10x? That's the future of a corn-based fuel
economy. Hemp is insect resistant and requires no insecticides; unlike
corn, which requires a lot. Hemp can make industrial oils and lubricants,
clothes, and of course rope. Hemp can be eaten, and can be used as a food
filler. Hemp-ethanol does not contribute to carbon emissions anywhere near
the same degree corn-ethanol does. This is because you actually get more
energy out of a hemp-ethanol based economy than you do out of a
corn-ethanol economy. Surprising, hemp can replace corn in almost every
way, with on possible exception, flavor. I have no idea how hemp oils
compare to corn oils in flavor.

Greg

Greg,
I know what hemp is, my question was where does the info come from on it's
different uses ( I know about ropes clothes and such) but as far as making a
fuel out of it ..that I have never read anything on. Has there been a actual
study that is documented?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:12:12 -0400, W P Dixon wrote:

Where does all this hemp info come from?


I'm not sure I understand your question properly, but I'll take a stab at
it. Industrial hemp is not pot. Pot can be used as hemp. Hemp is not
normally used as pot. In fact, smoking hemp normally provides a killer
headache and no high. As such, hemp is grown just as any other plant.
Hemp is related to (its in the same family) but is not the exact same
plant(s) as it traditionally grown for recreational use. Industrial hemp
has something like 0.3% THC. There are now industrial hemp seeds available
which can grow hemp which contains 0.0% THC.

Those that believe hemp = pot are victems of misinformation spread by
those involved with oil, cotton, and plastics. Feel free to do some quick
checking on the 'net. You'll be amazed at how much misinformation you
have been given your entire life on the subject.


Greg


Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:45:48 -0500, Dan Engleman wrote:

So......my not so valuable opinion is that we should encourage all our
legislators to pass legislation requiring us to be energy independent
within a few years. Ethanol is a large part of that.

Only if you want to pay more for fuel. Ethanol makes absolutely no
economical sense at all. Ethanol always has been about politics, plain
and simple. Our great goverment pays farmers to grow corn to make
ethanol. It then takes more energy to produce ethanol than what we get
out of it. Then, they turn around and sell it, at a premium price no
less. Proponents of corn-ethanol expansion fall into three categories.
One, the uninformed. Two, farmers. Three, politicians that cater to
farms.

Building an energy economy on corn-ethanol makes as much sense as
building
an energy economy on fusion. At least fusion *may* pay off one day. On
the other hand, if they want to shift America's corn growers to
hemp...then I'll shutup and let them do something that might actually
make
sense.

A typical hemp crop (which is not the same thing as pot; you can't get
high from it) yields roughly 3x more per year of ethanol than what corn
does. That makes it roughly 1-2 times more profitable and requires no
government handouts. Hemp does not require nearly as much water as
corn,
making it drought resistant. Can you imagine a drought hitting the US
and
our fuel prices going up 10x? That's the future of a corn-based fuel
economy. Hemp is insect resistant and requires no insecticides; unlike
corn, which requires a lot. Hemp can make industrial oils and
lubricants,
clothes, and of course rope. Hemp can be eaten, and can be used as a
food
filler. Hemp-ethanol does not contribute to carbon emissions anywhere
near
the same degree corn-ethanol does. This is because you actually get
more
energy out of a hemp-ethanol based economy than you do out of a
corn-ethanol economy. Surprising, hemp can replace corn in almost every
way, with on possible exception, flavor. I have no idea how hemp oils
compare to corn oils in flavor.

Greg

"W P Dixon" writes:

I know what hemp is, my question was where does the info come from on it's
different uses ( I know about ropes clothes and such) but as far as making a
fuel out of it ..that I have never read anything on. Has there been a actual
study that is documented?

Here are some starting points with references.
http://www.hempevolution.org/energy/energy.htm
http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Hemp4NRG/Hemp4NRG.htm
http://www.ratical.org/renewables/greenEcon.html
I've seen several charts that show (directly or indirectly) "energy/acre"
and I usually note that corn is very low and hemp is much higher.

Even if hemp was equivalent to corn/soybeans as far as energy production
I'd be excited about it just for its lower need for herbicides and
pesticides. Getting away from genetically engineered (and strictly
licensed) seed would be wonderful.

Now to get diesel engines on my Aztec...

--kyler