Take ethanol out of the mix

[Jkkinz]

Just read this on the AOPA website and thought you would find it interesting since there was a recent thread on why not use ethanol.

As states look for alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, AOPA is making sure legislators know about the harm ethanol can do to aircraft engines.

Ethanol deteriorates seals in aircraft engines, harms fuel bladders and hoses, and attracts water, which promotes rust that can damage cylinders and pistons. It also can lead to problems in electric fuel pumps and cause inaccurate indications on fuel gauges, according to FAA studies.

"Since fuel blends, including ethanol, cannot be used in general aviation aircraft at this time, AOPA strongly supports an exemption for avgas from any legislation mandating a renewable fuel component," wrote AOPA Vice President of Regional Affairs Greg Pecoraro to legislators.

Pecoraro also recommended an exemption for automobile gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher because some aircraft have supplemental type certificates to burn this fuel.

Jim Kinsey
7A Fuselage

[RVbySDI]

Originally Posted by Jkkinz

Just read this on the AOPA website and thought you would find it interesting since there was a recent thread on why not use ethanol.

As states look for alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, AOPA is making sure legislators know about the harm ethanol can do to aircraft engines.

Ethanol deteriorates seals in aircraft engines, harms fuel bladders and hoses, and attracts water, which promotes rust that can damage cylinders and pistons. It also can lead to problems in electric fuel pumps and cause inaccurate indications on fuel gauges, according to FAA studies.

"Since fuel blends, including ethanol, cannot be used in general aviation aircraft at this time, AOPA strongly supports an exemption for avgas from any legislation mandating a renewable fuel component," wrote AOPA Vice President of Regional Affairs Greg Pecoraro to legislators.

Pecoraro also recommended an exemption for automobile gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher because some aircraft have supplemental type certificates to burn this fuel.

Jim Kinsey
7A Fuselage

I don't mean to start sounding as if I am on some type of crusade or something but I am in strong disagreement with this stand taken by EAA, AOPA and indeed most pilots I tend to be in contact with concerning the use of ethanol in fuel. The truth is that those against these changes are against it not because these terrible things will happen to our airplanes because of this alternative fuel. No, the opposition is firmly placed on the back of the fact that in order to make our aircraft function in this alternative fuel environment it will take changing out some components of our fuel delivery systems for our aircraft and perhaps changing some of the ways we do things. And that will take money. Those who are strongly opposed to ethanol are opposed because no one wants to have to spend the money it takes to make our existing airplanes work with these fuels.

I am sorry but this is the same weak argument that has existed for the last 30+ years concerning converting our measuring system to the metric system. No one wants to convert because of the effort involved in learning the new system. The fear is that the conversion will cause all kinds of problems and overcoming those problems will take money. The reality is that if the conversion is allowed to happen in a timely manner any pain involved with the conversion will be short lived and prove to really be of no great problem after all.

This is how it would be with converting to an alcohol based fuel system. Stop fretting over what the changes mean in the short term. If the final outcome proves to be better in the long term any short term problems will ultimately be ironed out. I, for one, do not want to be a hindrance to the advent of progress in this area just because I have some fears associated with changing the way I currently do things.

[Ironflight]

Steve - I think you have good points - we don't need to stand in the way of change if it is good change. My only "problem" is that no one has ever been able to tell me exactly what I have to change in my fuel system to make sure that nothing will be deteriorated by the alchohol. I'd love to have such a list, because I'd change the parts in a heartbeat, and know that I could use whatever fuel I could find in a pinch.

Ideally, someone would sell a kit.

(I must admit that there is a little, cynical part of me that wonders if anything actually has to be changed - if no one can give me a list....is this just an OWT? I'm not going to take a chance on that, but stilll...I'm always curious!)

Paul

[Low Pass]

Originally Posted by RVbySDI

......This is how it would be with converting to an alcohol based fuel system. Stop fretting over what the changes mean in the short term. If the final outcome proves to be better in the long term any short term problems will ultimately be ironed out. I, for one, do not want to be a hindrance to the advent of progress in this area just because I have some fears associated with changing the way I currently do things.

Steve -

I hear a bit of a push in your comments from the "accept change, it's good" camp. Well, from a practical standpoint, ethanol in gasoline is at best a *very* poor choice. It is there purely as an insincincere effort by the likes of corn growers and companies like ADM to make money. There's almost no good science in using (corn derrived) ethanol in gasoline or alone as fuel, despite what the pop-culture scientists would have us all believe.

But this doesn't mean we don't need to learn to adapt to the reality of (ethanol) reformulated gasoline.

[the_other_dougreeves]

Originally Posted by RVbySDI

...I am in strong disagreement with this stand taken by EAA, AOPA and indeed most pilots I tend to be in contact with concerning the use of ethanol in fuel. The truth is that those against these changes are against it not because these terrible things will happen to our airplanes because of this alternative fuel. No, the opposition is firmly placed on the back of the fact that in order to make our aircraft function in this alternative fuel environment it will take changing out some components of our fuel delivery systems for our aircraft and perhaps changing some of the ways we do things. And that will take money.

There's two issues here: (1) Certain people are resisting the use of EtOH, which you note. (2) There is no compelling reason to use EtOH.

With respect to EoTH in whatever fuel you're using in your airplane (MoGas, AvGas, etc), let's ask these three basic questions:
1. Does it improve safety? No. It allows more water to dissolve in your gas, increasing corrosion and water contamination.
2. Does it help the environment? No. Ethanol is in MoGas to satisfy EPA requirements for oxygenates in gasoline, which helps reduce CO emissions from cars. It does not reduce emissions from your aircraft, nor does it produce less pollution to manufacturer and transport.
3. Does it reduce cost? No. Most EtOH is the US is produced from corn. Corn costs a lot to grow. Why do we grow it from corn? AgriBiz, in particular ADM. There's also the issue that making aircraft and fueling infrastructure compatible with EtOH will cost money.

Ok, so why, again, do we want to use ethanol-containing fuels in our airplanes? I don't, so I'm in favor of granting AvGas and 91 octane MoGas exemptions from EtOH requirements. My Rotax will accept 5% EtOH, but why should we put it in gas to begin with?

Sorry to be so grumpy here - just got back from a bumpy MD80 ride from LAX and WX looks poor for flying myself tomorrow - but I have yet to see a good reason to use EtOH as a component of fuel for an aircraft. Yes, certain people / groups may have profit-driven motives for pushing back against EtOH, but I don't care, because I don't see EtOH as a good thing for aviation.

Doug

[David-aviator]

Originally Posted by the_other_dougreeves

Sorry to be so grumpy here - just got back from a bumpy MD80 ride from LAX and WX looks poor for flying myself tomorrow - but I have yet to see a good reason to use EtOH as a component of fuel for an aircraft. Yes, certain people / groups may have profit-driven motives for pushing back against EtOH, but I don't care, because I don't see EtOH as a good thing for aviation.

Doug

Nor is it a good thing for autos. It will take more of it travel a mile and in the end it will cost at least as much as relatively cheap Mideast oil. The government would like to stop corn subsidies. That in turn will make the cost even higher.

If there is any good in the technology, it is reducing a dependence on foreign oil but even that is a stretch - we need so much of it.

[Ron Lee]

My limited understanding of this subject is that ethanol is just another "feel good" attempt to solve a non-problem. It also may cost more total energy than just using gasoline. When do-gooders start walking or riding everywhere then they can talk about screwing things up for everyone else.

[dsyvert]

This may be a little off subject, but some of the ethanol benefits are not good for the environment. Consider the amount of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere. 31 bbls of oil from Saudi results in a net 30 bbls of usable fuel at your gas station . I can't remember the source for this but it is probably close when you consider transportation, refining, etc.

Now consider this from the following website. http://www.ethanolfacts.com/quickfacts.html.

"Ethanol production results in a net energy gain?producing 67 percent more energy than it takes to grow and process the corn into ethanol."

If you do the math, starting off with two bbls you end up with around one bbl. Just think about all of the CO2 that went into the atmosphere to produce energy from corn.

I'm not opposed to corn or any other alternative that reduces dependence on foreign oil, however, ethanol is not a panacea and alot more work needs to be done. It is part of the solution, but not a total replacement.

Sorry about the rant, I just find environmentalist a bit insincere where their arguments are emotional rather than fact based.


Dsyvert

[ddurakovich]

Originally Posted by dsyvert

If you do the math, starting off with two bbls you end up with around one bbl. Just think about all of the CO2 that went into the atmosphere to produce energy from corn.

I agree we have a ways to go. I have a fudamental problem with people starvng to death in the world while we take food and put it in our cars!

However, the issue of CO2 is not a good rallying point..... the growing of corn, through photosynthesis, utilizes more CO2 than is produced, and then some during final combustion. Crude oil will never, ever come close.

But, I still think the priority is feeding people.

Now, if you want to talk nuclear energy.....

[Low Pass]

Originally Posted by ddurakovich

........Now, if you want to talk nuclear energy.....

what about it? Anyone true to the (socialist agenda) proposition that humans are a major contributor to "global warming" would agree that nuclear power is the only viable energy source available today that can produce the quantity of energy necessary and not produce CO2. Ever wonder why the French are pushing the Kyoto protocol so hard? Might have something to do with the fact that somewhere around 75% of their total generation is nuclear fueled.

You want to end dependence on foreign petroleum sources, build about 100 pressurized water nuclear reactors and use the electricity to charge battery powered cars and to produce H2 and O2 for fuel cells. Use domestic petroleum production for aircraft, heavy truck and train fuels. Problem solved.