The ethanol nightmare has arrived!

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:mso1d5-jsb.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:

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.



And he was right


Bertie

Dan Luke wrote:

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?

No one fool.

If the natural oil runs out before finding a practical replacement,
civilization comes to a screeming halt.

It's a statement of fact.

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.

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

You can't have it both ways.

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.

Yeah, pump water uphill assuming you have water and an uphill to put it.

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

Right now.

Yeah, that's where we live, right now.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Apr 11, 3:45*am, wrote:
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...2920080228?fee...
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


To supply CA's 30 GW demand you would need about 300 square kilometers
of solar panels(assuming 100W/m2). That's a truly huge area and I
think it shows why solar is not a viable solution. If you now want to
add to that power for thousands of cars then nuclear seems to be the
only viable option.

Cheers

wrote:


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?

No one fool.

There's more than one fool advocating it?

Friends of yours?

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:34:01 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

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

Good grief. So it's all true about the Left Coast?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 01:37:02 -0700 (PDT), M wrote:

* MTBE was later found to be contaminating ground water, and the
congress in 2005(6?) denied MTBE producer's request for a liability
waver.

Democrats paying their debts to the plaintiffs' bar!

The same thing is happening to the telephone companies, which will no
longer cooperative with the Feds looking for terrorist chat because
the (Democratic) Congress won't give them immunity from lawsuits for
so cooperating.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

"Al" wrote in message . ..
I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling
my car this morning. Upon further investigation with my fuel retailer, the local fuel jobber, and the fuel distributor
here in Spokane, Washington that there is a federal mandate to add 9 billion gallons of ethanol per year to the
nationwide gasoline fuel stream. A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon federal fuel tax break to the oil companies to
get this "alternative" fuel into the market. Tomorrow (April 8) is the first day of the program and the dealers get
their price tonight. According to my sources, there is a possibility that some retailers may opt out, however if that
5.1 cent break is passed on to them, it won't be likely.


Worse than that, htere is NO requirement from the feds to mark the gas pumps with the 'may contain 10%' warning. There
may be a local or state requirement to do so though. I wonder if the gas companies will pass on the 5.1 cent savings to
us (Not!) to compensate for the degraded performance (read mileage) the contaminated gasoline provides.



I was lucky and just happened to ask the right question at the right time. I haven't seen an outcry on this issue by
EAA, AOPA or any other aviation group.

This is a nationwide situation. Not just in a few states. You may not find non-ethanol autogas at your usual outlet.
Our jobber started mixing in ethanol last week, however I had not purchased any since mid-March so was unaware.

In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal government has just killed the Aviation autogas
concept.

I'm trying to locate a new source, but may not be successful. The ethanol is added at the distribution rack. Chevron
and a couple others are requiring their retailers to go to E-10.


Al
Spokane, Wa
1964 Skyhawk with an AutoGas STC


Like you said above, the ethanol is added at the the distribution rack. There is a chance that uncontaminated gasoline
can be purchased there. I did see a pump at the marina labeled 'no ethanol added' here in Michigan last summer...

Dan
Kalamazoo, MI
1960 172A (not a Skyhawk yet) autogas STC

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:27:30 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


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

Because it absorbs water?


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:WrJKj.57870$TT4.6732@attbi_s22...
In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal government has just killed the Aviation autogas
concept.

Thanks for the head's up. We've used over 9,000 gallons of mogas in our Lycoming O-540, without a burp, at a savings
of well over $10K. Obviously this change will be catastrophic if it is, indeed, nationwide.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


I told you this last year, Jay, and you acknowledged it, yet you still said that none of the gas you put in atlas had
ethanol contamination. I warned you to test all the gas you put in if it was not 100LL Hope you did!

"Cubdriver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message ...
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:27:30 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


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

Because it absorbs water?


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com


Probably also seals, gaskets and sealants are not compatible, same problems we have in planes...