Katy,

I think it may be time for you to up-grade your thinking, along with
others.

With the introduction of E85 as a fuel, rather than 100% fossil Fuel and
the advent of Flex-Fuel Vehicles; the days of private transportation may
have a long time to go.

Ford Motors, with its F 150 PU, Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Marquis,
Lincoln Town car, & Explorer SUV all have the ability to operate on
less Fossil Fuel than most other Vehicles being manufacture today.

They are also helping to develop a E85 corridor from Illinois thru
Missouri to make that fuel available to motorist with Fuel-Flex Cars.

If we can reduce our fossil fuel usage by 85% and with our own Petroleum
reserve, Our fuel independence is assured.

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

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.
Vegetable based smog would not carry the sulfurous fumes that
constitute the pollution we scrub from the fuel now. And losing
mpg? What a joke. All auto manufacturers have to do is put their
nose to the grindstone utilize their E&D departments, and come up
with a way to increase the mileage. After all, they did that very
thing with fossil fuels. Looking for answers with the fossil fuel
people is ridiculous. You actually think they're going to give way?
Too bad some enterprising person with speculative cash galore
doesn't just move right in and take over.


Thom Stewart wrote:
Katy,

I think it may be time for you to up-grade your thinking, along with
others.

With the introduction of E85 as a fuel, rather than 100% fossil Fuel and
the advent of Flex-Fuel Vehicles; the days of private transportation may
have a long time to go.

Ford Motors, with its F 150 PU, Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Marquis,
Lincoln Town car, & Explorer SUV all have the ability to operate on
less Fossil Fuel than most other Vehicles being manufacture today.

They are also helping to develop a E85 corridor from Illinois thru
Missouri to make that fuel available to motorist with Fuel-Flex Cars.

If we can reduce our fossil fuel usage by 85% and with our own Petroleum
reserve, Our fuel independence is assured.

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

"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.

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.

"katy" wrote ...
Vito wrote:
"katy" wrote...
Huh? Thom, I totally believe in switching to veggie based fuel, not
only ethanol but soy-derived diesel. .... The specious argument
that switching won't work because vehicles will lose mileage and
create smog is ridiculous. ....

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

Nitric Oxide does not come from gasoline, it come from air,

So you're saying we don't have the technology to do something about
that? Or is it the cost? ...

I'm saying that there is no such technology. If we switch to methanol in
today's engines mileage will perforce suffer and carbon emissions will be even
worse. If we instead raise compression ratios to efficiently burn ethanol then
mileage won't suffer as much nor will carbon emissions be worse BUT we will have
much more nitric acid in our air. We could even continue to burn gasoline but
use less of it if we accepted more acids. These are the trade offs. Believe
what you like but I know of no magic "scrubbers" that will "eat" the nitric
oxide and we already have catalytic converters so it's simply a question of how
we'd rather have our kids and grandkids die - their lungs eaten by acid or drown
due to global warming. Maybe better that some of them not be born? Huh? Huh?

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

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

Ah, but it is - in the form of water vapor (fog) which mixes with the nitric
oxide to mke acid.

Vito wrote:

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

Ah, but it is - in the form of water vapor (fog) which mixes with the nitric
oxide to mke acid.

Well, what we are really talking about is the creation/emission of
nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (N02) and nitrous oxide (N2O), not
nitric acid (HNO3. The nitric acid thing happens in the atmosphere and
forms acid rain. After doing a little research you are basically
correct, the rate of formation of nitrogen oxides is related to
compression ratios, has to do with heat of the reaction and rate of burn
apparently.

Interestingly the catalytic converter which reduces NO and NO2, both
contributors to smog may actually increase the production of nitrous
oxide. Nitrous oxide is not regulated by the Clean Air Act as it is not
considered to contribute to smog formation. It is however considered to
be nasty greenhouse gas, over 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide.

Cheers
Marty