Gas prices
 

Vito wrote:
"katy" wrote...
Huh? Thom, I totally believe in switching to veggie based fuel, not
only ethanol but soy-derived diesel. The letter you posted just
confirmed my suspicions that it is not the product at fault, but the
politics and money behind the oil industry. The specious argument
that switching won't work because vehicles will lose mileage and
create smog is ridiculous. There is smog, and there is SMOG....

These arguments are hardly specious or ridiculous, they are factual.

Research had shown that the worst component of smog was Nitric Acid so, back in
1970, the gummymint dictated less efficient low compression engines to reduce
Nitric Oxide - the stuff that mixes with water in the air to form these acids -
acids that burn your eyes and rot your curtains and worse. Typical gas mileage
dropped by 30%. A mid-size sedan that had been getting 20mpg in 1969 only got
12 by the 72 model year. This was the primary cause of the gas shortages a few
years later when these "environmentally friendly" cars replaced earlier more
efficient cars. So, how can you get 12 mpg instead of 20 and make less smog?

Nitric Oxide does not come from gasoline, it come from air, which is some 70%
Nitrogen and 28% Oxygen IIRC. Normally the two don't mix. But they do if you
compress them inside an engine then set off an explosion in the chamber. And the
higher the compression pressure (ratio) the more mixes and becomes one of the
strongest acids known. That's why environmentalists were willing to trade poorer
gas mileage and more hydrocarbon emissions for less acid. Simple as that.

Ethanol requires even higher compression ratios than gasoline to burn
efficiently - to extract the most energy per gallon - and diesels depend on very
high compression ratios to run at all. Therefor, if one burns ethanol in a
relatively low compression engine like we have today, designed to minimize
emissions, they will definitely lose gas mileage. How much? Well, when 10%
"gasohol" was popular my cars got 10% poorer mileage, indicating that they were
not burning the alcohol at all, that it was just a filler. OTOH racing engines,
using ultra high ratios burn it fine. So we can switch to ethanol but only if we
redesign our motors to use it - and that means more acid smog. Ditto diesel, we
can use diesel engines, but that too means more acid smog. We cannot repeal the
laws of physics or chemistry.


So you're saying we don't have the technology to do something about
that? Or is it the cost? At this point, cost no longer matters.
The fact is, we are going to run out of fossil fuel and we are not
doing enough to find a replacement. I still maintain that we have
the ability to make scrubbers, etc. that will clean the whatevers
out of vegetable based emissions. We're just not doing it because
of the hold the oil companies have on our economy.

Gas prices
 

Vito wrote:
"Thom Stewart" wrote
Pipelines are problem but not as much a problem as Crude by Tankers, all
the way from the Middle East. The raw material for Ethanol can be
transported by open bed Trucks (Even Horse and wagon) to the
fermentation stations. They can be harvested with out high pressure
wells and transported without fear of explosion and a spill of a load of
Corn doesn't damage the environment like a tank truck rollover, or a
ship running aground or a pipe line braking. Trade off seems to favor
Ethanol. Don't you think?

Transport is only part of the picture. Growing and transporting enough corn to
make a gallon of ethanol, then actually making it, consumes mucho energy
itself - some claim it takes more energy to produce than we can get back out of
it. I don't know if that's true but I do know that a tractor plowing a field,
or even just disking and planting "no-till" corn uses more fuel than most folk
can imagine. The exact figures escape me but maybe one of y'all know. Also,
farming is about as dangerous as mining.


So, Mr. Doom and Gloom...there's no answer in fossil fuel...and
there's no answer in vegetable fuel. Are you going to be the first
to offer yourself up in sacrifice or do you just advocate sitting
around watching as humanity collapses? Nah...don't answer that. I
already know your answer.

Gas prices
 

Vito wrote:


Nitric Oxide does not come from gasoline, it come from air, which is some 70%
Nitrogen and 28% Oxygen IIRC. Normally the two don't mix. But they do if you
compress them inside an engine then set off an explosion in the chamber.

Hmmm, not sure about your chemistry here Vito, Nitric acid, HN03, you
need hydrogen too, and that's not coming from the air.

I don't have the time to delve into it further but I wonder how much of
your argument is idle speculation and unsubstantiated rumor.

Cheers
Marty

Gas prices
 

Thom Stewart wrote:
Kate,

I wasn't aware of the fact that you have a diesel engine car and use
veggie fuel. Good for you. What Model do you have? Is it a truck or
foreign car?

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

O dpn't have a diesel fueled car. I do have a boat with a diesel
engine, though, and a tractor. I think all agriculturally based
states should offer veggie fuel for consumption by the general
public. Right now there is no choice. You get whatever's at the
pump. Which means, the oil company is once again making the
decision for you.

Gas prices
 

Oh----------------
I thought the Service Station back East had Diesel Pumps. They do here
in Washington.

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Gas prices
 

Thom Stewart wrote:
Oh----------------
I thought the Service Station back East had Diesel Pumps. They do here
in Washington.

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

They do here, too. But they have petro based diesel, not soy based
for the most part. Farmers who use soy based have their own tanks
on site.

Gas prices
 

On 3 May 2006 17:55:03 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 03 May 2006 17:08:11 -0400, katy
said:

Nope. More self-sufficiency on a state basis...if a state becomes
economically responsible for itself, then the burden is taken off
the Federal gommit.

Hey, sounds good to me. You folks out in the Midwest subsidize your farmers
to produce ethanol and run your cars on the stuff 100%. Meanwhile take off
that silly mandate that the rest of us burn 10% ethanol in our gasoline. New
York and NJ get first dibs on the foreign crude as it comes into the port,
refine it into gasoline and run our vehicles on that, and, if there's any
left over might send some out your way.


Sounds good to me. And we on the Gulf Coast get to keep all the oil
in the Gulf and all the output from Gulf State refineries.

Frank

Gas prices
 

OzOne wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 10:34:51 -0400, katy
scribbled thusly:

So, Mr. Doom and Gloom...there's no answer in fossil fuel...and
there's no answer in vegetable fuel. Are you going to be the first
to offer yourself up in sacrifice or do you just advocate sitting
around watching as humanity collapses? Nah...don't answer that. I
already know your answer.

Worth a read.
http://www.issues.org/18.2/lave.html


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Yep....good article. India is capturing methane from their pig
sties and using it for energy. Do you know how much methane is
produced by one silage pit? A lot. If we capped off all the silage
feed pits and siphoned off the methane, we would have another
renewable resource. Problem is, no one will get ricj doing any of this.

Gas prices
 

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 17:08:11 -0400, katy
said:

Nope. More self-sufficiency on a state basis...if a state becomes
economically responsible for itself, then the burden is taken off
the Federal gommit.

Hey, sounds good to me. You folks out in the Midwest subsidize your farmers
to produce ethanol and run your cars on the stuff 100%. Meanwhile take off
that silly mandate that the rest of us burn 10% ethanol in our gasoline. New
York and NJ get first dibs on the foreign crude as it comes into the port,
refine it into gasoline and run our vehicles on that, and, if there's any
left over might send some out your way.

Nope...the other part of the equation is that no more foreign oil
comes into the country.

Gas prices
 

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Thom Stewart" wrote
Pipelines are problem but not as much a problem as Crude
by Tankers, all
the way from the Middle East. The raw material for
Ethanol can be
transported by open bed Trucks (Even Horse and wagon) to
the
fermentation stations. They can be harvested with out
high pressure
wells and transported without fear of explosion and a
spill of a load of
Corn doesn't damage the environment like a tank truck
rollover, or a
ship running aground or a pipe line braking. Trade off
seems to favor
Ethanol. Don't you think?

Transport is only part of the picture. Growing and
transporting enough corn to
make a gallon of ethanol, then actually making it,
consumes mucho energy
itself - some claim it takes more energy to produce than
we can get back out of
it. I don't know if that's true but I do know that a
tractor plowing a field,
or even just disking and planting "no-till" corn uses more
fuel than most folk
can imagine. The exact figures escape me but maybe one of
y'all know. Also,
farming is about as dangerous as mining.


They use pull horses around here. Only pollution from them
is recycled into fertilizer.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_