[Rhodes22-list] Hey Roger, Ethanol News

[Hank]

On Mar 3rd the IRL (Indy Racing League) announced that they would use
Ethanol to fuel the cars beginning in 2006 with a 90-10 mix and going
to 100% ethanol in 2007.

Indy cars have traditionally used methanol to fuel and the colorless
burning has always been a safety issue. At the races, each pit keeps
several 5 gallon paint buckets full of water in case of fire, which is
usually noticed when the driver comes flying out of the car beating
the s**t out of his flame suit.  At that point everyone grabs the
water and throws it on everything.  Water is used because it disburses
the alcohol down to a point where it is no longer flammable.

Just another little tidbit on Ethanol.

Hank

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:43:41 -0500, Roger Pihlaja
<cen09402 at centurytel.net> wrote:
> Rummy,
> 
> At the moment, US ethanol production capacity is about 4.1E9 gal/yr.
> Construction of new corn to ethanol plants is booming, with about 2 or 3
> world scale plants coming on-line adding about 60E6 gal/yr additional
> capacity each.  This rate of capacity growth is set to continue for at least
> the next couple of years based upon the number of plants currently in the
> pipeline.  There are only a couple of companies that design & build these
> corn to ethanol plants in the United States.  They are operating at or near
> capacity as far as building new plants is concerned.  The current ethanol
> capacity is sufficient to replace about 3.3%wt of the gasoline burned in the
> United States.  The 1st capacity milestone will be reached when the ethanol
> production capacity is about 3X today's capacity.  That production capacity
> will provide sufficient ethanol to completely phase out the use of MTBE in
> gasoline.  After that goal is reached, the rate of increase in ethanol usage
> will slow down and match the rate of increase in gasoline usage unless the
> US Congress changes the rules.
> 
> Some vehicles, like the Toyota Prius hybrid, can already accept any blend of
> gasoline/ethanol from 0%wt to 95% wt ethanol.  Note that you don't want to
> burn 100%wt ethanol because the flame burns without color.  So, for safety
> considerations, you blend in at least 5%wt gasoline and the flame is nice
> and yellow & smoky.  Basically, the only changes required to run any spark
> ignited engine on ethanol are to upgrade some of the elastomer components
> like hoses and gaskets in the fuel system to a material that is not degraded
> by ethanol, adjust the spark ignition timing, and provide for up to about
> 20% greater volume of fuel being injected in the fuel injection system.
> With modern computerized engine management systems & fuel injection, the
> fuel injection volume and ignition timing can be changed on the fly to
> accomodate any gasoline/ethanol blend.  For example, The Toyota system uses
> the engine knock sensor & exhaust gas air/fuel ratio sensor to adjust the
> engine's fuel delivery and spark ignition characteristics to suit whatever
> the ethanol/gasoline blend happens to be at that moment.  It all happens
> hundreds of times per second and is completely transparent to the driver.
> This is mature, well-understood, easily implemented technology and almost
> every manufacturer's on-board engine management and fuel injection systems
> could be made compatable with minimal effort.  If ethanol became the fuel of
> choice; then, every manufacturer could offer a kit that would probably sell
> for a couple hundred $ and would be installed by a mechanic.  These kits
> would retrofit all the existing cars on the road to be compatable with any
> blend of ethanol/gasoline.
> 
> Why, in the midst of this apparent boom, I can't get any of these companies
> to talk to me is a complete mystery to me.
> 
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Hey Roger, Ethanol News
> 
> > Rummy,
> >
> > I'll let Roger handle the question why current
> > production engines can't handle a higher concentration
> > of ethanol.  In Brazil, where about 40% of the fuel
> > supply is ethanol, they have dual fuel tanks and
> > vehichles designed to run on ethanol.  My personal
> > preference is for diesel-electric hybrids powered by
> > biodiesel.  This is old technology (think trains) and
> > Detroit could start building them next week if the
> > market demands them. Here's a couple of timely
> > articles.
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon
> > There have been many calls for programs to fund
> > research. Beneath the din lies a little-noticed
> > reality-the solution is already with us
> >
> > By Fareed Zakaria
> > Newsweek
> >
> >
> > March 7 issue - The most important statement made last
> > week came not from Vladimir Putin or George W. Bush
> > but from Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia's shrewd oil
> > minister. Naimi predicted that crude prices would stay
> > between $40 and $50 throughout 2005. For the last two
> > years OPEC's official target price has been $25.
> > Naimi's statement signals that Saudi Arabia now
> > believes that current high prices are not a momentary
> > thing. An Asian oil-industry executive told me that he
> > expects oil to hit $75 this decade.
> >
> > We are actually very close to a solution to the
> > petroleum problem. Tomorrow, President Bush could make
> > the following speech: "We are all concerned that the
> > industrialized world, and increasingly the developing
> > world, draw too much of their energy from one product,
> > petroleum, which comes disproportionately from one
> > volatile region, the Middle East. This dependence has
> > significant political and environmental dangers for
> > all of us. But there is now a solution, one that the
> > United States will pursue actively.
> >
> > "It is now possible to build cars that are powered by
> > a combination of electricity and alcohol-based fuels,
> > with petroleum as only one element among many. My
> > administration is going to put in place a series of
> > policies that will ensure that in four years, the
> > average new American car will get 300 miles per gallon
> > of petroleum. And I fully expect in this period to see
> > cars in the United States that get 500 miles per
> > gallon. This revolution in energy use will reduce
> > dramatically our dependence on foreign oil and achieve
> > pathbreaking reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions,
> > far below the targets mentioned in the Kyoto accords."
> >
> > Ever since September 11, 2001, there have been many
> > calls for Manhattan Projects and Marshall Plans for
> > research on energy efficiency and alternate fuels.
> > Beneath the din lies a little-noticed reality-the
> > solution is already with us. Over the last five years,
> > technology has matured in various fields, most
> > importantly in semiconductors, to make possible cars
> > that are as convenient and cheap as current ones,
> > except that they run on a combination of electricity
> > and fuel. Hybrid technology is the answer to the
> > petroleum problem.
> >
> > You can already buy a hybrid car that runs on a
> > battery and petroleum. The next step is "plug-in"
> > hybrids, with powerful batteries that are recharged at
> > night like laptops, cell phones and iPods. Ford, Honda
> > and Toyota already make simple hybrids. Daimler
> > Chrysler is introducing a plug-in version soon. In
> > many states in the American Middle West you can buy a
> > car that can use any petroleum, or ethanol, or
> > methanol-in any combination. Ford, for example, makes
> > a number of its models with "flexible-fuel tanks."
> > (Forty percent of Brazil's new cars have flexible-fuel
> > tanks.) Put all this technology together and you get
> > the car of the future, a plug-in hybrid with a
> > flexible-fuel tank.
> >
> >
> > Here's the math (thanks to Gal Luft, a tireless-and
> > independent-advocate of energy security). The current
> > crop of hybrid cars get around 50 miles per gallon.
> > Make it a plug-in and you can get 75 miles. Replace
> > the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank
> > that can run on a combination of 15 percent petroleum
> > and 85 percent ethanol or methanol, and you get
> > between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (You
> > don't get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the
> > crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum. And
> > ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than gasoline,
> > so fuel costs would drop dramatically.)
> >
> > If things are already moving, why does the government
> > need to do anything? Because this is not a pure free
> > market. Large companies-in the oil and automotive
> > industry-have vested interests in not changing much.
> > There are transition costs-gas stations will need to
> > be fitted to pump methanol and ethanol (at a cost of
> > $20,000 to $60,000 per station). New technologies will
> > empower new industries, few of which have lobbies in
> > Washington.
> >
> > Besides, the idea that the government should have
> > nothing to do with this problem is bizarre. It was
> > military funding and spending that produced much of
> > the technology that makes hybrids possible. (The
> > military is actually leading the hybrid trend. All new
> > naval surface ships are now electric-powered, as are
> > big diesel locomotives and mining trucks.) And the
> > West's reliance on foreign oil is not cost-free. Luft
> > estimates that a government plan that could accelerate
> > the move to a hybrid transport system would cost $12
> > billion dollars. That is what we spend in Iraq in
> > about three months.
> >
> > Smart government intervention would include a
> > combination of targeted mandates, incentives and
> > spending. And it does not have to all happen at the
> > federal level. New York City, for example, could
> > require that all its new taxis be hybrids with
> > flexible-fuel tanks. Now that's a Manhattan Project
> > for the 21st century.
> >
> > Write the author at comments at fareedzakaria.com
> >
> > © 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
> > URL:
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037844/site/newsweek/page/2/
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Neocons for Conservation?
> > By Robert Bryce
> > Slate.msn.com | February 1, 2005
> >
> >
> > President Bush has a simple policy about energy:
> > produce more of it. The former oilman has packed his
> > administration with veterans of the oil and coal
> > industries. And for most of the first Bush term, his
> > energy policy and his foreign policy were joined at
> > the hip. Since the Bush administration believed that
> > controlling the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf was
> > critically important to the American economy, the
> > invasion of Iraq seemed to serve both the president's
> > energy goals and his foreign policy ones.
> >
> > But a curious transformation is occurring in
> > Washington, D.C., a split of foreign policy and energy
> > policy: Many of the leading neoconservatives who
> > pushed hard for the Iraq war are going green. James
> > Woolsey, the former director of the Central
> > Intelligence Agency and staunch backer of the Iraq
> > war, now drives a 58-miles-per-gallon Toyota Prius and
> > has two more hybrid vehicles on order. Frank Gaffney,
> > the president of the Center for Security Policy and
> > another neocon who championed the war, has been
> > speaking regularly in Washington about fuel efficiency
> > and plant-based bio-fuels.
> >
> > The alliance of hawks and environmentalists is new but
> > not entirely surprising. The environmentalists are
> > worried about global warming and air pollution. But
> > Woolsey and Gaffney-both members of the Project for
> > the New American Century, which began advocating
> > military action against Saddam Hussein back in
> > 1998-are going green for geopolitical reasons, not
> > environmental ones. They seek to reduce the flow of
> > American dollars to oil-rich Islamic theocracies,
> > Saudi Arabia in particular. Petrodollars have made
> > Saudi Arabia too rich a source of terrorist funding
> > and Islamic radicals. Last month, Gaffney told a
> > conference in Washington that America has become
> > dependent on oil that is imported from countries that,
> > "by and large, are hostile to us." This fact, he said,
> > makes reducing oil imports "a national security
> > imperative."
> >
> > Neocons and greens first hitched up in the fall, when
> > they jointly backed a proposal put forward by the
> > Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a
> > Washington-based think tank that tracks energy and
> > security issues. (Woolsey is on the IAGS advisory
> > board.) The IAGS plan proposes that the federal
> > government invest $12 billion to: encourage auto
> > makers to build more efficient cars and consumers to
> > buy them; develop industrial facilities to produce
> > plant-based fuels like ethanol; and promote fuel cells
> > for commercial use. The IAGS plan is keen on "plug-in
> > hybrid vehicles," which use internal combustion
> > engines in conjunction with electric motors that are
> > powered by batteries charged by current from standard
> > electric outlets.
> >
> > The Natural Resources Defense Council and the American
> > Council on Renewable Energy (Woolsey is on the
> > latter's advisory board, too) both endorsed the IAGS
> > plan. The environmental groups, who have been in the
> > weeds ever since George W. Bush moved in at 1600
> > Pennsylvania, are happy for any help they can get.
> > "It's a wonderful confluence. We agree on the same
> > goals, even if it's for different reasons," says Deron
> > Lovaas, the NRDC's point-man on auto issues.
> >
> > For Woolsey and Gaffney, the fact that energy
> > efficiency and conservation might help the environment
> > is an unintended side benefit. They want to weaken the
> > Saudis, the Iranians, and the Syrians while also
> > strengthening the Israelis. Whether these ends are
> > achieved with M-16s or hybrid automobiles doesn't seem
> > to matter to them.
> >
> > They aren't the only Iraq hawks who have joined the
> > cause. The Hudson Institute's Meyrav Wurmser also
> > signed the IAGS plan. In 1996, she was one of the
> > authors-along with Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, of
> > a famous strategy paper for Israeli Prime Minister
> > Benjamin Netanyahu that called for the overthrow of
> > Saddam Hussein and military assaults against Lebanon
> > and Syria. (Wurmser's married to fellow neocon David
> > Wurmser, an adviser to Dick Cheney, former AEI fellow,
> > and enthusiast for the Iraq war.) Clifford May, the
> > president of the Foundation for the Defense of
> > Democracies, endorsed the IAGS scheme, too. And the
> > Committee on the Present Danger is about to join the
> > Prius-and-ethanol crowd, as well. A driving force for
> > America's military buildup since the '50s now
> > reconstituted as an antiterror group, the CPD will
> > issue a paper in the next few months endorsing many
> > elements of the IAGS plan. CPD members include Midge
> > Decter, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Newt Gingrich, and Steve
> > Forbes, as well as Woolsey and Gaffney.
> >
> > So far, the neocons are the only ones on the right to
> > break with Bush on energy policy. They can do this
> > because opposing the energy policy doesn't cost them
> > anything-either politically or economically. The
> > neocons come mostly out of academia and government so,
> > unlike other conservative Republicans, they have few
> > ties to big business and no significant connections to
> > the energy lobbyists who are so influential with the
> > White House.
> >
> > Despite the setbacks in Iraq, the green neocons
> > believe they can convince Congress and the White House
> > to adopt their program. May, the head of the
> > Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, predicts
> > that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay will be "open to
> > arguments that we can increase and enhance national
> > security for a reasonable price." Gaffney won't name
> > names, but he too is confident, saying, "We continue
> > to enjoy access to and friendships with people who are
> > key policymakers."
> >
> > If they can convince Congress and the White House to
> > enact meaningful legislation on energy efficiency and
> > conservation-issues that have been marginalized since
> > the Carter administration-then perhaps the neocons
> > will finally have a success story that they can brag
> > about. Better still, it won't require the services of
> > the 82nd Airborne Division.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:
> > > Brad,
> > > Great article, but why is the amount added to
> > > gasoline so low? Why can't an
> > > automobile engine burn a mixture let's say of 50/50
> > > mix or even higher? Roger,
> > >  help.
> > >
> > > Rummy
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>