Forget about ethanol and biodiesel

[SvingenB]

The EU has changed 180 degrees (more or less) on biofuels. To me this means only one thing: E85 and biodiesel will dissapear from gas stations very soon, at least here in Europe, with the side effect that mogas can be used on my future RV . The irony of it all is that the pressure to stop biofuels have come from environmental groups (especially Greenpeace) and the UN The same reversal is bound to happen in the US as well I guess.

http://euobserver.com/19/26454

 

[rv8ch]

biofuel

This seems like good news. Thanks for sharing it. I'm curious how the increase in the price of oil has affected Norway. Are your taxes being lowered, or is the increase in revenue being saved up for a "rainy day"?

 

[RScott]

We can only hope. The issue here is so politically charged that it will take a pretty strong case to force politicians to back peddle in an election year.

 

[Geico266]

When 200 bushels of corn is processed into ethanol you still have 190 bushels of livestock feed left. All that is removed is the sugar. You don't use 200 bushes of corn. The "left" doesn't tell you that. Feeding livestock is what 90% of corn is used for in the US.

In addition, we have 35 million acres of idle, productive, tillable land in CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) doing nothing but growing grass that we could and should put into production to take advantage of the ethanol market, and world demand.

Is it just me, or is the lastest poop coming out of Washington about new oil wells taking 7 years to bring in the first barrel of oil into production so it not worth drilling. I plan on being here, flying in 7 years, how about you? I say start drilling NOW and stop talking about it. BTW, it takes less than 18 months to drill & get the oil flowing into production in the middle east, why can't we do that here? Government regulation & environmental wackos.

 

[TSwezey]

When you process 200 bushels of corn into ethanol you still have 190 bushels of feed grain left, all that is used is the sugar. You don't use 200 bushes of corn. Feeding livestock is what 90% of corn is used for in the US. The "left" doesn't tell you that.

In addition, we have 35 million acres of land in CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) doing nothing but growing grass that we could and should put into production to take advantage of the ethanol market, and world demand.

Is it just me, or is the lastest poop coming out of Washington about new oil wells taking 7 years to bring in the first barrel of oil into production so it not worth doing. I plan on being here, flying in 7 years, how about you? I say start drilling NOW and stop talking about it.

Besides we have come up with more efficient ways to produce ethanol. In Georgia they are building a plant to convert pine trees to ethanol. It is suppose to be a lot more efficient at creating ethanol. I think it uses half the energy to produce one gallon that corn uses.

 

[Geico266]

Besides we have come up with more efficient ways to produce ethanol. In Georgia they are building a plant to convert pine trees to ethanol. It is suppose to be a lot more efficient at creating ethanol. I think it uses half the energy to produce one gallon that corn uses.

I'm all for it, but before you do the energy calculation remember with corn you still have 95% of the end product to use to feed livestock. In addition, ethanol has to be consumed locally. It cannot travel in pipelines, and trucking it is counter productive. Using corn in the Midwest makes sense here, trees in GA makes sense for y'all. It is hard to break a bad habit.

Good point though, new technologies are coming for road fuels and that is a good thing.

What cracks me up is I hear people say; "Ethanol does not give you as good of mileage as gasoline." The point is we have to stop burning gasoline so comparing your mileage to gasoline is pretty silly.

 

[frankh]

Good thoughts

On the one hand I am feeling the pain at the pump like everyone else..I'm certainly not wealthy enough to not care.

However, here in the US we have been particularly gluttonous and our appetite for gasoline is outrageous...Now before you all flame me I understand that a lot of that is the great distances we have to drive..On the other we have had no desire to curb our appetite....A new car...lets put 200hp plus under the hood...A new truck.... Hang on a minute..In Europe they don't know what a "Truck" is!

My Wife was complaining the other day that it will be much more expensive to haul her horse to the Summer horse shows..

OK being from the UK I can only shake my head and point out that 1) in the UK its highly unlikely you'd be able to afford a horse and as for 2) hauling it to shows...Well, the only horses that get hauled anywhere are top flight race horses.

Sorry but our privilaged lifestyle is gonna have to change and be more in line with the rest of the world..Gas is going to $5 plus and we'd better deal with it..Sadly it will make a dent in avaiation but maybe we'll be better at conserving resource and get better at finding alternatives.

As for drilling..well lets get on with it cus the high oil price it sure ain't helping our economy or my retirement fund!

Frank

 

[BigSky]

The EU has changed 180 degrees (more or less) on biofuels. To me this means only one thing: E85 and biodiesel will dissapear from gas stations very soon, at least here in Europe, with the side effect that mogas can be used on my future RV . The irony of it all is that the pressure to stop biofuels have come from environmental groups (especially Greenpeace) and the UN The same reversal is bound to happen in the US as well I guess.

http://euobserver.com/19/26454

Awesome! I know it's bad news for farmers but good news for the rest of us.

 

[BigSky]

Is it just me, or is the lastest poop coming out of Washington about new oil wells taking 7 years to bring in the first barrel of oil into production so it not worth drilling. I plan on being here, flying in 7 years, how about you? I say start drilling NOW and stop talking about it. BTW, it takes less than 18 months to drill & get the oil flowing into production in the middle east, why can't we do that here? Government regulation & environmental wackos.

Sorry for the double post, but I'm with you. I heard yesterday that President Bush just rescinded an executive order banning offshore drilling (thank goodness). So, there is going to be a battle about that now with Congress. But I say let's drill in AK too. It's the biggest state in the Union (I think over half the size of the lower 48 combined) and only about 600,000 people in the entire state. Heck, San Antonio has over twice that many people alone. A little drilling isn't going to hurt anything. Besides, Congress doesn't seem to complain about the same drilling going on over the middle east probably causing some bug to go extinct.

I am all for some alternative form of energy but it has to make sense. This Ethanol train was never and will never be viable (unless we find a way to grow alot more corn than we do now and a better cheaper way to refine it) and never made economic sense, to the government anyway. The pine tree thing sounds good but that would probably increase the cost of lumber, causing home prices to go up. So we will still have something to complain about and the environmentalists will of course go balistic (e.g. "WTF do you think your doing! cutting down trees!?! You are raping the land! Don't you know trees don't grow back!).

If we move to another form of energy let's have it be better than what we use now. I know it's taken about 100 years to get the engine where it is today, but at least let's have the potential for greatness rather than trying to revive a dead horse from the start.

 

[RV8iator]

.

Good point though, new technologies are coming for road fuels and that is a good thing.

What cracks me up is I hear people say; "Ethanol does not give you as good of mileage as gasoline." The point is we have to stop burning gasoline so comparing your mileage to gasoline is pretty silly.

The only problem I see with this statement is I still only have a 42 gallon capacity. I am definitely interested in the efficiency of a fuel. If it is only 60 percent as efficient as 100L that makes my plane about 40% less efficient to travel in.

We have to come up with alternatives, but to just quit using and searching for oil in the meantime is not the smartest thing. The alternate fuel ferry can't wave a wand and power all our transportation needs for years to come.

 

[robpar]

A big problem for ethanol in addition to the energy to produce is the amount of water required for the process. One report I heard is 3 liters of water for every liter of ethanol produced. That is a big problem for a lot of locales. I live in a rain forest (West Coast Canada) where water supply is not a problem but that is not the case everywhere.

I know this will never come about, but there is a fuel out there that would be perfect in my view for aircraft engines. It is a fuel that has greater supply than market or it at least did not too long ago. That fuel is - ready for this - Propane.

Now I know, I have heard all the negatives about propane. I have had propane powered vehicles and they were excellent.

The downside: Tankage in the past was very heavy. Recently there have been composite tanks used for natural gas and hydrogen vehicles. These tanks are very light and could be incorporated into the design of the wing. They are used at pressures upto 3500 psi (240 bar). Propane is only pressurized to about 100 psi at room temperature so tanks using these design concepts could be used.

The Upside:

Propane has very high octane and would allow compression ratios as high as 14 :1 maybe 15 : 1 with careful design.

Propane has slight less energy per liter than gasoline, but has slightly more energy per Kg.

Clever design of injection systems that do not involve pre-vapourization would aid in cooling the engine.

Propane would not have water contamination problems and would last nearly indefinitely in the tank.

Because the tanks are pressurized fuel pumps could be eliminated.

In the case of an accident propane would not be any worse than gasoline with stronger tanks may even be slightly better, but I would not count on it. Try not to bend the plane!

When I was involved with a Fuel Cell Transit Bus project one of our industry board members who had experience with alternate fuels, Natural Gas, Ethanol, Methanol and propane said that if he had to choose a fuel other than gasoline or diesel it would be propane.

I know this is not going to happen and I may get flamed but it is my thoughts on alternate fuel of spark ignited engines.

Bob Parry

 

[rv8ch]

Energy density

This chart should help us focus. Click on it for more details:



Looks like Hydrogen stores a lot of energy per unit of mass, but the volume seems to be an issue. Considering so many people are trying to lose weight, we could find a way to burn fat!

 

[Top_prop]

BUY biofuel?

My friends at the squadron make there own biofuel... I'm looking for a TDI diesel and already working on sources of waste oil to make my own... the EU and UN can go do whatever it is they do...

 

[TSwezey]

The pine tree thing sounds good but that would probably increase the cost of lumber, causing home prices to go up. So we will still have something to complain about and the environmentalists will of course go balistic (e.g. "WTF do you think your doing! cutting down trees!?! You are raping the land! Don't you know trees don't grow back!).

No. They use the waste from all the trees that are used for wood and paper. All those pine needles, bark, pine cones and what ever is left over.

http://www.savannahnow.com/node/391525

 

[SHIPCHIEF]

These are all interesting posts, but I think one point can't be overlooked.
I'm a ferryboat engineer in the northwest, and we are doing a 20% biodiesel expiriment right now.
My point is that any new fuel will need to fit into the existing fuel stream or it will be an economic failure. It needs to run in existing engines and be transported in pipelines, tankers, railcars and trucks. It needs to be dispensed in gas stations, FBO, and marinas. It needs to be cost competative either directly, or proportionatly. That means alcohol should cost less per gallon than gas, and diesel might cost more.
It needs to have an acceptable shelf life, and not go bad in a few months if you don't use it. It needs to be clean for the environment and not use a feed stock that already is in limited supply.
Ethanol and biodiesel are not the fuels of the future. I just talked to a Canadian enviromental engineer (female and russian, also very cute) who told me that the current ethanol and biodiesel are not wanted but they fill in the gap for now as better processes and ideas come forth. I believe it.
Sythetic fuel is comming soon. Perfect avgas; 100 octane with no lead and no alcohol. (Swiftfuel 100LL)
The rising cost of fuel makes it economically possible to go forward with research and development. You get to pay for it.

 

[SvingenB]

This seems like good news. Thanks for sharing it. I'm curious how the increase in the price of oil has affected Norway. Are your taxes being lowered, or is the increase in revenue being saved up for a "rainy day"?

Taxes being lowered that was a good one (with or without oil money) The revenue is put into a special fond. Right now the value is about 400,000,000,000.- US$ invested in international companies.

Top_prop: I don't think home made fuel or home made energy production has anything to do with this. The point is that there will not be any drive from the governments to force E85, biodiesel etc into the market by legislations. It looks like "good old" petroleum based gasoline and diesel will be available in the forseeable future unless electric cars start to catch on because of the oil prices, and that wide spread biofuels is a dead end lane.

 

[Top_prop]

.... Top_prop: I don't think home made fuel or home made energy production has anything to do with this. The point is that there will not be any drive from the governments to force E85, biodiesel etc into the market by legislations. .....

I'm for one not into "forcing" anything on the market. Though I like tax breaks for things you want to foster, like renewable energy sources.

As for Europe let them do what they want. Common sense is always over ruled by their emotional, irrational, leftest thought. (I lived in Spain and Greece for three years and just visited this spring... so I speak from my own observations)

Fact: Biofuels right now are gaining momentum here in the US. As for Biodiesel, its been accepted at B80 as meeting the same specs as petrodiesel, and you can make your own out of waste vegitable oil and it runs fine at B100 in warm climates.

If I don't buy the petro fuel, or just enough to mix my B100 to B80 in the winter, along with a lot of other folks, then the market will shift to sell us what we are willing to buy.

There is lots of hope in cultivating algae for biomass as well... the world is not ending.

 

[mwilkers]

why do we want to drill?

So as a businessman and fiscal conservative, I've never understood why there's this group that call themselves conservatives that are all for drilling in the U.S. Now the big thing is to open up the coastal drilling and of course ANWR has been around for a long time.

I do understand the desire to reduce or dependency on oil, but why do we want to use up what we have when others are willing to give us what they have? I understand the concept of not wanting to fund bad regimes, but remember that Canada is our biggest source, and Mexico and other friendly countries are in the top ten as well. And as long as they and the others including Saudi Arabia are willing, I say take it. Let's save the stuff we have for the day when we can't get it any where else.

Again, as a businessman I look at it from the business point of view. To make the math simple let's say I have $1,000,000 cash in the bank. I have it there for emergencies or operating expenses should business dip a bit (keeping employees paid). Now one day I need to buy a new system that is imperative for my business and it costs...yes $1,000,000. Do I spend my savings on this new tool? Absolutely not! I go and get a loan from the bank and use their money instead. Yes I pay a little more for the interest (and let's face it, my money isn't actually just sitting there either), but as long as somebody else is willing to give me some money to by my new system, I'm going to keep my money for a rainy day.

So why is everybody so ready to spend our resources when Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and the others (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html) are willing to give us oil now?

I want to keep every drop we have in the ground, so that when the day comes that nobody is sharing, we still have some left. Nevermind that there isn't a single economist out there who says drilling will have a significant impact on the price (the best case I could find was $.05 in 10-12 years).

Meanwhile while we're whining about this, Spain somehow is making a mint on selling wind energy systems, which really angers me, because I can't figure out how a near socialist system is able to kick our asses in the business arena. I may have to switch industries and go where the money is (and hopefully will allow more fuel for my airplane, though if I ever finish an -8, at least it will be less of a fuel bill).

 

[SvingenB]

I want to keep every drop we have in the ground, so that when the day comes that nobody is sharing, we still have some left. Nevermind that there isn't a single economist out there who says drilling will have a significant impact on the price (the best case I could find was $.05 in 10-12 years).

Keeping the oil in the reservoirs for a "rainy day" makes as much sense as building thousands of huge deposit tanks for biofuels and filling them up over a period of years - none whatsoever. The human race is not likely to deplete the recources of hydrocarbon with today's consumption for thousands of years. There are plenty of coal and gas that can easely be converted to liquid fuel or used as is (gas). However, if we continue to use fossil fuel at the rate we do today, then the planet will be inhabitable long before the recources are exhausted. Within 10-20 years I am sure all private cars will be electric, because electric energy is much cheaper than fossil fuel, and do not pollute (recharged by nuclear, sun, wind, hydro). This means that the money you don't earn by selling easely produced oil today, will be lost forever, since there will be no shortage of energy in any foreseable future scenario, only a change in direction away from fossil fuels.

 

[Steve A]

Drill the US

It is simple economics, when you increase the supply the price drops. Remember in the early 70's, we had an energy crisis. When we drill our own reserves in Alaska and offshore, we start the ball rolling to decrease the price. The price is artificially high right now just as the price of tech stocks were artificially high in 2000 and real estate was artificially high in 2006.

The environmental nuts are the one's saying that if we drill ANWR and offshore that it will not have any effect... BS. We were perfectly happy to have all these environmental issues with no fall out. But collectively the policies of not developing our own resources have made imported oil essential to modern suburban life. When we all live 4-50 miles from work, want to keep the themostat on 68 in the summer, drive big cars we make ourselves vulnerable to the energy rich countries with nut cases at the head of the government: Venezela, and Iran to name a few.

ANWR may have 10-13 Billion barrells of oil which will have an impact. And if it is a discovery, the footprint is probably less than two square miles. Look at Hurricane Katrina and Rita came through the offshore platforms of Louisiana and there were no oil spills, no environmental disasters from offshore oil.

Steve Anderson
RV 7A H-6
Finished.

 

[mwilkers]

but the math says otherwise

It is simple economics, when you increase the supply the price drops. Remember in the early 70's, we had an energy crisis. When we drill our own reserves in Alaska and offshore, we start the ball rolling to decrease the price. The price is artificially high right now just as the price of tech stocks were artificially high in 2000 and real estate was artificially high in 2006.

The environmental nuts are the one's saying that if we drill ANWR and offshore that it will not have any effect... BS.
.

I don't debate you on the environmental fronts, I think it can all be done with very minimal risk. But can you tell me where ANY oil economist type says drilling here will significantly reduce prices? I'm looking at some of the oil industry information and their numbers are the ones I mentioned earlier of $.05 in 10-12 years. The 'environmentalists' of course give far worse numbers. From what I can find out, the scale of what we bring in from the top 5 is just that big. Drilling here won't make an impact.

The 'simple economics' that you speak of just don't work out. The simple math shows this. Looking at the top 5 suppliers of oil to the U.S. alone (Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria), we get roughly 6,500,000 barrels per day. If you use the upper end of your estimate of 13,000,000,000 barrels in ANWR, you're talking about only 5.5 years worth of what we get from just the top 5!!! Sorry but the simple economics don't work when you take a real look at the scale of what we import, math doesn't lie. From what I understand (and others, including the oil industry), it won't make a significant impact at the pump.

Ironically, what has stabilized the price of fuel over the past 3 weeks has been the other side of the simple economics, demand. As people used less, the price has leveled off. I love free market economics!!!!

Again, I'm all for drilling for our oil, just can't find anybody who says it will lower prices, and don't want to use up our reserves as long as we can take from somebody else.

I'm sorry if I've taken this too far from the RV heartland, but I figure since my current plane and my hopefully flying some day -8 both will be burning some sort of petroleum product for the foreseeable future, it does seem relevant. Hopefully SvingenB is right and cars will go electric, so airplanes can keep flying.

 

[BigSky]

So as a businessman and fiscal conservative, I've never understood why there's this group that call themselves conservatives that are all for drilling in the U.S. Now the big thing is to open up the coastal drilling and of course ANWR has been around for a long time.

I do understand the desire to reduce or dependency on oil, but why do we want to use up what we have when others are willing to give us what they have? I understand the concept of not wanting to fund bad regimes, but remember that Canada is our biggest source, and Mexico and other friendly countries are in the top ten as well. And as long as they and the others including Saudi Arabia are willing, I say take it. Let's save the stuff we have for the day when we can't get it any where else.

Again, as a businessman I look at it from the business point of view. To make the math simple let's say I have $1,000,000 cash in the bank. I have it there for emergencies or operating expenses should business dip a bit (keeping employees paid). Now one day I need to buy a new system that is imperative for my business and it costs...yes $1,000,000. Do I spend my savings on this new tool? Absolutely not! I go and get a loan from the bank and use their money instead. Yes I pay a little more for the interest (and let's face it, my money isn't actually just sitting there either), but as long as somebody else is willing to give me some money to by my new system, I'm going to keep my money for a rainy day.

So why is everybody so ready to spend our resources when Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and the others (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html) are willing to give us oil now?

I want to keep every drop we have in the ground, so that when the day comes that nobody is sharing, we still have some left. Nevermind that there isn't a single economist out there who says drilling will have a significant impact on the price (the best case I could find was $.05 in 10-12 years).

Meanwhile while we're whining about this, Spain somehow is making a mint on selling wind energy systems, which really angers me, because I can't figure out how a near socialist system is able to kick our asses in the business arena. I may have to switch industries and go where the money is (and hopefully will allow more fuel for my airplane, though if I ever finish an -8, at least it will be less of a fuel bill).

I have to respectfully disagree. (although I would like to see those stats about the impact of drilling offshore and in ANWR only changing the price $.05.) The problem, is that it is assumed that OPEC and other countries are reliable.

Having other countries provide oil to us gives them the upper hand when it comes to any negotiations that may take place because oil is what this economy runs on. By drilling offshore and in ANWR we will be reducing the tight grip other countries have on our balls.

Further, the US is becoming less and less significant to the other countries as their primary buyer because of China.

The thing is, while they don't directly control the price, they do indirectly control the price because they control supply. Thus, the less impact they have on our supply, the more stable the price should remain.

As to saving for a rainy day - it is a rainy day. Airlines are going in the tank because of the cost of fuel, there is talk about releasing some of the strategic reserves, gas is more than four bucks a gallon, etc etc.

Also, the stuff for the rainy day is in the Rocky Mountains (shale). There is enough to last us for the next 110 years at current cunsumption rates. Of course, if I had my way we would be getting at that too.

So why shouldn't we reduce other countries control over us? We have the resources to do it.

 

[Brantel]

As to saving for a rainy day - it is a rainy day. Airlines are going in the tank because of the cost of fuel, there is talk about releasing some of the strategic reserves, gas is more than four bucks a gallon, etc etc.

Amen to that.... We definately need to be moving to alternatives which will lower our demand but if we started right now with 150% effort in making this transition, it will take 20 years for this to make a significant impact.

We need to be 150% committed today and move to make this happen. The feds need to put laws in place that force the auto/truck/transportation makers to develop alternative fuel vehicles. We need more wind, solar, and nuclear power sources to be built now not later. Along with this, open up our own reserves to fill the demand now!

The US is different than it was in the great depression. The US would not survive another one of those events. People have no idea how to survive with nothing. That is exactly what is going to happen if something is not done to stop the bleeding!

 

[Geico266]

If you use the upper end of your estimate of 13,000,000,000 barrels in ANWR, you're talking about only 5.5 years worth of what we get from just the top 5!!! Sorry but the simple economics don't work when you take a real look at the scale of what we import, math doesn't lie. From what I understand (and others, including the oil industry), it won't make a significant impact at the pump.

The estimates in ANWAR are of estimated reserves. Once they start drilling there they will surly find more. The ban on drilling has been for EXPLORATORY drilling as well, there has been no drilling in ANWAR to even see what the reserves are. The estimates are based on limited seismic data. To ban responsible oil exploration anywhere is just about as dumb as not securing the borders and allowing 20 million illegals here, to burn gas, use other resources, ect. How much fuel do the illegals use? They should be burning Mexican gas. That would mean a huge drop in demand here, but I digress.

We should have, at the very least, allowed exploration, then capped the wells for just an event like this. The larger problem is no leadership in Washington, just partisan politics as usual, which has caused the rapid decline of the US......and it ain't over by a long shot.

Brain has it right, but I'm afraid it is already too late. The smooth ride is over boys & girls, tighten your seat belts, it's gonna be a rough ride from here on out. No country has stayed a world power forever, and none ever will. Romans, Italy, Spain, Great Britain, Germany. What we are seeing is the fall of a great capitalist experiment with a "free people", killed by political correctness, special interest groups, constant over regulation, stifling liability concerns, and greed.

The good news is if you own an airplane worth $75K now, inflation will make it worth $150K in a few months! If you are sitting on the fence now about buying you better jump now. You'll be able to pay it off with much cheaper money in the future.....if you have income.

Hmmmmm........inflation figures for July '08 just out. Worst inflation in 26 years.... that is 1982. I remember 1982 pretty well, house loans were 18%, unemployment was 22% in Rockford, IL., inflation was 21%. You young guys better read up on how to protect yourselves and your assets.


.............. and yet we still have people who think we should not drill for future oil just to save a karaboo. My head hurts.

 

[mwilkers]

How much fuel do the illegals use? They should be burning Mexican gas. That would mean a huge drop in demand here, but I digress.

Hmmm, while I'm against the illegal immigration, my guess tells me they're actually helping on the fuel demand front. I can't think of another group of people in the US who use less. Many don't drive cars, they use public transport, many live with several people to a single house saving on fuel heating/ac bills. If all the illegal immigrants doing all the ag work in the west were replaced with SUV driving, suburb living types, then we'd really see a drain on the supply. Never mind the price of lettuce would double or triple.

But I agree with what you say about politics ruining many things. Both sides are more focused on showing the other is wrong than getting anything done. And then my conservative party has been hijacked the last several years by a big government admin that seems to create a government bureaucratic solution for every problem. Can't wait until conservatives take it back to the days when less government was better government. And one that doesn't seem **** bent on interfering with my life through stripping away my privacy and civil liberties.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

 

[Danny7]

The pine tree thing sounds good but that would probably increase the cost of lumber, causing home prices to go up. So we will still have something to complain about and the environmentalists will of course go balistic (e.g. "WTF do you think your doing! cutting down trees!?! You are raping the land! Don't you know trees don't grow back!).

nah, lumber prices are the lowest they have been in probably 20 years. converting a bunch of scrub pine in the SE will have no effect on the price of dimensional housing lumber.

 

[N574FL]

Is it just me, or is the lastest poop coming out of Washington about new oil wells taking 7 years to bring in the first barrel of oil into production so it not worth drilling. I plan on being here, flying in 7 years, how about you? I say start drilling NOW and stop talking about it. BTW, it takes less than 18 months to drill & get the oil flowing into production in the middle east, why can't we do that here? Government regulation & environmental wackos.

I agree - DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, SAVE MONEY AT THE PUMP! But where can I find ethanol free autogas for my airplane?

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Do you have Veg Oil? Make your own fuel?

Well I am not going to post anything on ethanol because we have a few corn farmers. Don't want to make them mad.

Diesel engines for light planes is well marginal (sorry don't get mad). It has been shown to be expensive, problematic and below expectations (so far). I HOPE IT GETS BETTER.

I have investigated is making DIY bio-diesel fuel for my car or truck, with used vegetable oil. The process of DIY diesel is some what involved, not free and involves dangerous chemicals that can affect your health if not careful. Also the process should be continuous to be cost effective. Methanol (drag racer) and Lye (burn you skin) are two chems you need. This stuff gets into your body its bad.

It takes power, electricity's (heaters, pumps) as well as equipment and a safe place (not in your house garage) to make it. I hear prices of $1.50 per gal to make it? It depends on many factors. Price of Methanol has gone way up as well.

A Co-Op bio-diesel operation with buddies would be ideal. You still have to find used veg oil. If making bio-diesel takes off, than used veg oil will be a commodity like oil. People will not give it away, which is part of the equation now. I

Also bio-diesel is not quite up to petro-diesel in operation. It is totally useless in cold weather unless you have a dual tank system. The bio tank has hot coolant fun through it. You start on regular petro-diesel and than switch to bio-diesel when it's heated. You also need insulated fuel lines. BEFORE you shut down the engine you MUST switch back to petro-diesel and run it through the engine. Other wise the bio-diesel will solidify in the engine injectors.

I dread that in 10 years we'll be driving 80 hp Euro clown cars (no offense to clowns). My plan is to make more money so I can afford the gas. With that said my next car will be diesel or a clown car (+40 mpg minimum). I would rather put the gas in the plane.

 

[DanH]

<<You still have to find used veg oil. If making bio-diesel takes off, than used veg oil will be a commodity like oil. People will not give it away, which is part of the equation now.>>

Already is a commodity. I have a friend representing a company with collections contracts. Once they got paid for hauling away used oil/grease products. Now they do it for free, but the suppliers are breaking contracts left and right. They can get paid for their grease....and locally, the entity willing to pay is city government.

 

[breister]

Whether or not drilling here directly affects the price of gas in a large way or only a little should not affect our decision to drill.

We are shipping $700 billion per year off shore for oil. That deficit negatively impacts the price of ALL goods and services. Anything we can do in ANY way to reduce that is worth doing.

For AvGas, I am rather liking Swift Enterprises solution long-term. Better energy-density and purity, and it can be made from garbage.

For land and sea transportation, I'm still betting on someone delivering some kind of super battery. EEStor announced 3rd party testing results (positive) on the purity and composition of their "secret sauce." Remaining to be proved is "permittivity" - the measure of how much energy the stuff can sponge up reliably. Tests are due before the end of this year. If they hit even 75% of their stated estimate, it is a done deal and the problem is "solved" - all that will remain is manufacturing spin-up and the natural process of fleet replacement over time.

 

[Dmadd]

curious

Gas prices in ANC, Alaska are higher than they are here in Louisville Kentucky. They pull it out of the ground AND refine it up there. Price still one of the highest in the nation. Quite a contradiction to overcome when you tell me more drilling in the US will LOWER the price.
Anchorage prices are a reality. "Drill here/now save money" is pure speculation,(and election year drivel) which the current facts don't prove out.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
DM
Ps
cheap fuel is not an entitlement for every American. (like some seem to think) It's a business. You'll be charged what you are willing to pay. The more you need, the more they can fleece you for...

I agree - DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, SAVE MONEY AT THE PUMP! But where can I find ethanol free autogas for my airplane?

 

[FredMagare]

It seems to me that with gas hovering around $4/gal it may be worth it to the oil companies to put new wells in. Does it seem reasonable that they would drill for oil with the intent to bring the price down? Not likely. I don't think a major corporation is so short sighted to go into such an expensive venture to lose money. Additional sources in the marketplace only have the effect of competition which "might" bring the price down a bit or stabilize it. We might also occassionally benefit from a "gas war" type of sale.

It's interesting how five years or so ago, gas jumped to $2.50/gal and as America complained, it stabilized around $1.75/gal (my recall). As it slowly crept back-up not much was heard. Do you think the crazy fuel jumps might also be a test of the market place and what it might bear?

I don't know what the fix is except that so long as people are buying at those prices, it'll keep selling at those prices. We're kind of over a barrel. (Or should I say a 55-gallon drum?)

 

[m3tt5]

Energy victory

Go buy the book Energy Victory by Robert Zurbrin. Everybody here on the forum wants to keep sending our money overseas to people that hate us. Lets keep the money in Amercia who can disagree with that. We send hour money over for oil so the Terrorist have money to fight us then we have to spend money and send Men and Women over to fight them. We are paying for both sides can't anybody see that. We are subsidizing a war against ourself. I see on the news that China is driving more cars and you never see them on bicycles no more. The streets used to be full of bicycles now their full of cars. Then I pick up the local paper and I see Americans are riding more bicycles to work. Is their something wrong with this picture. It looks like to me we Americans are going backwords. Energy independence that is Americas fight. I love to fly and can think of nothing more rewarding that what we do here but lets not distroy America just so we can have fuel for our airplanes. I think we as a country get energy independ and keep our money in America and their will be plenty of fuel for our airplanes that is ethanol free. So please do not respond to this post or thread until you read this book and have the facts in hand and please do not try to drag down the people working hard that is trying to step in the right direction to get America energy independ which in return keeps money in America in return keeps money out of the hands that want to kill us Americans and in return keep our Men and Women at home. We should all know here on the forum that building something you don't start with say like the seats or the engine and start building a airplane no most of us buy a tool kit then a pratice peace from Vans and the way we go to building a airplane And Van he did not just wake up one day and say hay I am going to build a RV 7 or 10 no he started buy putting some wings on a airplane and flew it and liked it them he built the RV 3 and 4 and 6 and 7 and everybody knows the story. So anyway to get from point A to Z you have to start at A not c but A. So to get energy independ lets start at A like Van did and not just say oh A don't work so lets not even go to B lets just kill A But get to B we have to start with A.
So lets quit complaining about A and start working towards B. I want my kids and everybody elses kids to be around to get to Z. Lets not let the terrorist get to Z before us OK. We are Americans lets not fight within ourselfs and keep the money in America.

 

[Steve Brown]

A little bit tips the supply/demand balance

So as a businessman and fiscal conservative, I've never understood why there's this group that call themselves conservatives that are all for drilling in the U.S. Now the big thing is to open up the coastal drilling and of course ANWR has been around for a long time.
......

I don't understand how you connect conservatism with sitting on oil reserves. That would be connected with a liberal agenda of adhering to some phantom higher ethic that proclaims using oil is somehow evil.

If it makes economic sense to drill for and use the reserves, that's what should be done.

It doesn't take much excess supply to tip the balance on prices. As has been seen recently, just threatening to increase supply caused a dip in prices. Supply and demand economics is immutable. increase the supply, prices go down. Anecdotal accounts of high gas prices in Alaska don't change that at all.

Also, as others have pointed out, its more than gas prices. We're boosting the economies of crazies in the middle east. We need to stop doing that as an end in itself.

I'm personally sick of the dual arguments that we are simultaneously running out of fossil fuels, so they aren't viable for the future, but wait, we're destroying the planet with then so we shouldn't use them.

Along this lines, I seem to dimly remember from the early 70s that we were supposed to be just about out of oil by now. Somehow that hasn't happened on schedule. Of course that was also when scientists were sure that we were cooling the earth with sun blocking pollution and would ultimately end up in an ice age if we didn't stop burning the evil fossil fuels in our cars. The pollution driven ice age seems to be behind schedule as well.

Maybe all those "scientists", and including the ones proclaiming the doom of "global warming" are just full of dodo. Seems to me like they look at which way the climate seems to be moving, then create a theory on why that's because of the evil fossil fuels.

Anyway, I like wind, solar, & nuke power. Those can run virtually everything, including cars (electric). All clean and renewable.
Unfortunately, however, airplanes won't run on electricity in a practical way. The physics just doesn't pan out.

That means liquid burnable fuel is going to be needed for as long as man wants to fly. At least until some other form of energy storage/use that hasn't even been thought of comes on line. So, I'm in favor of using every single drop of fossil fuels available until they're gone (whenever that is).

Drill & pump.

Or, alternatively:

We can just clean the bugs off our wings and change the plugs. That should far exceed the energy benefit of off shore drilling

 

[Dmadd]

My point exactly. Drilling off California or in ANWR is NOT in itself going to make the price go down. Proximity doesn't matter in the world market. Heck, Exxon would pull the oil out of Los Angeles harbor and sell it to Korea if they paid more for it. Pure and simple. It's a business. Not a right.
Kennedy challenged a generation to get us to the moon, and they did it. We need the same gauntlet thrown down to this generation to find "the next big thing" energy wise... They will respond.

DM


Steve wrote:
Supply and demand economics is immutable. increase the supply, prices go down. Anecdotal accounts of high gas prices in Alaska don't change that at all.

 

[RScott]

Come on, guys, use your heads.

10-20 years? Nonsense! They discovered oil in Alaska in 1968, had some lawsuits, got approval to build the pipeline by going to Congress--not something you do over night. It still took 515 federal permits and 832 state permits. The pipeline, 800 miles long, mostly across wilderness, was called the largest privately funded construction project in history up to then, employing 70,000 workers. Oil started flowing in 1977, just 9 years after the discovery of oil. Most of these places where we might drill will have oil to market in much less time. If you really believe 10 years or more, you have been listening to much to politicians.

13 billion barrels of oil was on the North Slope. Some say that any new sources will only supply us for some small amount of time. The situation is that oil comes from hundreds of fields, so no one new source will supply the huge needs of the world for very much time. We need hundreds of more fields, not one or two.

So if we don't drill, how much will gas cost? We have decreasing production, therefore decreasing supplies and increasing demand as India and China improve their economies. As supplies tightened you saw the price of gas, what, double in a couple years? Without drilling, supplies will only get tighter. What will gas cost without drilling? A lot more, you can bet.

Sure we could go for renewables, but how long will that take? We can build wind farms quickly, but you gotta get that power to market and most big markets are not where the wind blows. Transmission lines take rights of way, meaning you have to purchase the right of way or have government condemn the property--after the environmental statements and lawsuits and public outcries--NIMBY! Solar? Daytime only. And when we are all driving electric cars and plug them in at night, we will all be drawing on the system at the same time, when the sun isn't shining and the wind has died down. That means coal or nuclear will power your electric car.

We need oil and we need it now, and renewables are a good idea too, but we can't wait. We need to drill now.

 

[Steve Brown]

The neverending excuse

Come on, guys, use your heads.

10-20 years? Nonsense! .......

It is nonsense, but even if true, had we drilled the last time this excuse was used oil would be flowing now.

A big part of the problem: A generally technologically ignorant public can apparently be duped into believing that somehow we are only a year or two away from major breakthroughs in energy technology that would somehow obviate the need for oil.

Alternative energy should be developed full steam ahead now. That means nuke plants, bio whatever, wind, solar, geothermal. It will still take decades to fully reverse our lack of effort in this area.

Drilling is nearer, maybe a year or two until some results with full benefit coming within a decade.

Unwillingness to accept that progress will take time in both areas is "sitcom mentality". No one seems to want to deal with any solution that cannot be achieved with 1/2 hour of effort.

Then there is the green angle. Interestingly, it is the irrational strangle hold of the green people that is preventing both alternative energy and fossil fuel expansion:
Imagine, for example, the "environmental impact" nightmare associated with a wind farm covering hundreds of square miles in the desert. Nuke plant development has been restrained by virtually insurmountable legislative hurdles put in place by those who get their science from Jane Fonda (China Syndrome).

Before anyone says "Three Mile Island", keep in mind that happened at a technological point when the total computing power available for monitoring and managing a nuke plant was less than that of the laptop I'm typing this blurb on.

Meanwhile the French seem to have no problem getting almost 90% of their power from Nuke plants. They also run high speed trains for comercial travel on electricity, which means they run their trains off of nuke power, at speeds dwarf RV cruise speed and rival the airliners for short hops. There is no reason, for example, to run a big jet between LA and San Jose CA. A high speed train could do the trip in virtually the same time, running off of perfectly clean nuke power, putting no demand at all on fossil fuels. Same is true of many short hops around the country. Maybe even some longer ones.

The point is these big picture changes take years to develop and even longer to form the infrastructure to fully realize their benefit. Also, that we can no longer allow the green extremists make our energy decisions. That is, those whose ideal world vision is that of humans running naked with the forest animals and sharing our berries with the grizzlies.

IMO its time to quit whining about gas prices and invest in the future on both fronts so we don't pass this problem to our grandchildren.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

From the Forum Rules as posted by our Fearless Leader:

I need to remember to put out this reminder every so often. It sure is easy for me to get complacent and start letting things slide a bit, but in the end, down the road the knowledge base suffers (I think). Here are a few examples of some things I would appreciate not being posted in the forums:

- selling your (non-RV) aircraft to fund the purchase of an RV (Cessna, Piper, Taylorcraft, etc).
- video clips of crashes
- anything political

This thread is flirting with being closed due to violation of the "political" rule. Hopefully this note will be sufficient warning.

 

[breister]

Good point Sam.

We don't need to take political sides to realize that there is no easy answer right this minute to energy problems which affect RVs today (how's that for steering it back on course?).

Demand will continue to go up before any new miracle technological breakthrough(s) achieve significant market penetration - that is impossible to deny. Also impossible to deny is the intuitive / empirical fact that market futures now impact prices as much as actual supply / demand, and that even ALLOWING drilling can continue to keep prices in check while we wait for a technological way out.

Aside from political action (which has historically been the slowest path to progress), what can WE do TODAY?


I'm personally all for conservation and non-polluting solutions. On a personal level, we replaced our HVAC and water heating systems with heat pumps and an on-demand water heater. Gas lamp replaced with photo-electric electric lamps. Lights replaced with compact fluorescent where possible. Our real-world savings are over $200 / month compared to last year, and that does not take into account actual price increases in both electricity and natural gas.

On a bigger scale, we can unite to support promising technologies. While I have great hopes for EEStor to solve the battery problem, they are not public so I cannot invest there. However, I HAVE invested in Raser Technologies which is primarily a geothermal power company but also has patents on a variation on the A/C traction motor which achieves good efficiency without need of rare-earth magnets (which must come from China).

Finally, bringing it home to all of us as Pilots, we might band together and see if we can't get a large enough group of us (money wise) to make a significant investment in a company like Swift Enterprises. I'm talking really big - like maybe we mobilize the EAA and / or AOPA to become direct investors or coordinate a group investment (everyone ponies up $1,000 or some such). With this kind of action we could conceivably start seeing $3 / gallon AvGas within just a few years.

I'm willing to commit some of my time to help make this possible - any other takers?

 

[Steve Brown]

Swift not credible

.....like Swift Enterprises.
......

Their claims are not credible. The claimed advantages are on the order of those of diesel over 100LL, but running in an unmodified lyco.

The advantages of Swift Bio-Synthetic Fuel are:

• Seamless replacement of 100LL (no engine modifications)
• 15-25% increase in range over 100LL (no oxygenates)
• 20% drop in pollutants over the current 100LL fuel
• 15% more volumetric energy than 100LL
• No need for stabilizers or additives

I had the stomach to read just one of the "news" items linked from their site claiming that all this can be achieved at 1/2 the cost of fossil fuels. Yet, somehow, months after the first I read of this company (on VAF) the news doesn't include flying an airplane with this fuel.

Rather than invest in Swift's magic technology, piston pilots should invest in a good reliable diesel replacement that runs on Jet A. Jet A is here to stay.

I'd go with a company that knows how to make aircraft engines, like lycoming. I have no idea if they would be interested, but if so, I would be willing to put money into that.

 

[breister]

Their claims are not credible. The claimed advantages are on the order of those of diesel over 100LL, but running in an unmodified lyco.

The advantages of Swift Bio-Synthetic Fuel are:

• Seamless replacement of 100LL (no engine modifications)
• 15-25% increase in range over 100LL (no oxygenates)
• 20% drop in pollutants over the current 100LL fuel
• 15% more volumetric energy than 100LL
• No need for stabilizers or additives

I had the stomach to read just one of the "news" items linked from their site claiming that all this can be achieved at 1/2 the cost of fossil fuels. Yet, somehow, months after the first I read of this company (on VAF) the news doesn't include flying an airplane with this fuel.

Rather than invest in Swift's magic technology, piston pilots should invest in a good reliable diesel replacement that runs on Jet A. Jet A is here to stay.

I'd go with a company that knows how to make aircraft engines, like lycoming. I have no idea if they would be interested, but if so, I would be willing to put money into that.

Steve,

I use them as an example, and I agree with you that no one should invest in anything without first vetting the technology. Throwing money at miracles is no way to make real progress.

As for Swift in particular:
- The mileage claims are pretty simple - the fuel is denser. I would bet they overstate the advantage a bit, but would simply chalk that up to marketing hype.
- The cleanliness claims are actually quite reasonable - when you start with 99.999% pure ethanol, there will be no sulfur or lead unless you introduce it in your process. Absent those two nasties, and with a product that is far more uniform that today's AvGas distilled from varying sources of ook pumped from the ground, it is entirely reasonable that their fuel is far cleaner than what we use today.
- Their cost estimates are to PRODUCE the fuel. That is absent taxes; transportation; and markup at the airport. Delivered price would likely be competitive with current AvGas initially, while they strive to maximize their profits. However, given two competing similar technologies it is also possible we could start to see the price come down.

In any case, if we pursued such a thing I am in wholehearted agreement that the product should first receive certification by the FAA (at a minimum).

If these folks don't cut the mustard, there are at least 3 others that I know of with bacteria-based processes:

LS9
Amrys Biotech
Bell Bioenergy

The goal is not for us here in this forum to choose a solution - the goal would be to coordinate a significant action fund representing the interests of pilots to pursue the RIGHT solution once it is identified. The Fund could be established such that all monies are to be in (for example) tax-free bonds, and that an investment solution is to be identified within xx years or all funds to be returned to shareholders.

Naturally, if you are diametrically opposed to any group action pursuing solutions not pumped out of the ground then no one is saying you must participate.