There is no oil drilling in the Chesapeake bay and it has plenty of
oil pollution, largely from the same source. People flushing used oil
down the toilet is another problem.


People flush used oil down the toilet? That must make an awful mess of
the toilet, I've never heard of such a thing.

Around here any autoparts store will take used oil for free. I just
collect it in a 5 gallon jug and when it starts to get full I drop it by
and pour it in the collection tank. Some people have waste oil heaters
to heat their shops or homes, if I had more used oil I'd look into
something like that.

James Sweet wrote in news:YHIah.8454$gJ1.207
@trndny09:

Some people have waste oil heaters
to heat their shops or homes, if I had more used oil I'd look into
something like that.


Some people dump it into their diesel fuel tanks, a couple of quarts to
each fillup, reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

Notice it says DIESEL.

Of course, some people are running their cars on Vegetable Oil for free,
too!...(c;

Larry
--
If we eliminate religion, will they stop murdering each other?

Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal
dreamed up by a beaurocrat.
And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to
bed thinking "I saved the world again today".

"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...

This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they
forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally reduced
tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid seventies?

Matt

Garland Gray II wrote:
Exactly. You can't force technology faster just to meet an arbitrary goal
dreamed up by a beaurocrat.
And the sick thing about it is that whoever dreamed up those regs goes to
bed thinking "I saved the world again today".



Well regardless, the technology caught up and cars get roughly double
the fuel economy as they got in the 70s, have much cleaner emissions,
and many are far more powerful too.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:24:08 +0000, James Sweet wrote:

There is no oil drilling in the Chesapeake bay and it has plenty of
oil pollution, largely from the same source. People flushing used oil
down the toilet is another problem.

People flush used oil down the toilet? That must make an awful mess of
the toilet, I've never heard of such a thing.

Toilet, sink, it's all the same sewer.

Plenty more washes in from streets, etc., and groundwater from
people pouring it into their yards or wherever.

But oil from 2-stroke outboards, especially older ones, is still a major
source of pollution.

Believe it or not, there's serious science behind this. Armies of PhD's
labor for years to identify the most significant sources of pollution, and
then to find the most cost-effective ways of addressing the problems.
The trouble is, too many people still don't want to hear the answers.

Matt O.

Matt:

I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a
link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced
fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe?
Sounds interesting.

Thanks

-Maxime Camirand


Matt Colie wrote:
KLC,

I don't like the thought of spills either, but three Canadian companies
have a total of 450+ wells for both oil and natural gas in Lake Erie
alone. They seem to manage just fine (with gear and technology from
American suppliers).

Recently, I was told by someone that has studied these problems for many
years that most of the oil on Lake Erie comes from untrapped storm
drains. The last big one was the Rouge River about three years ago.

We have the opportunity to correct a lot of problems if we pick the real
ones instead of the "politically correct" ones.

This has been my problem with the "evironmental movement" since they
forced cars to get much reduced fuel economy in favor of maginally
reduced tailpipe emissions. Remember the early cat cars of the mid
seventies?

Matt


KLC Lewis wrote:
"Matt Colie" wrote in message
...

Why do they make noise about dependence on foreign oil and not let anybody
go get what we have. (Canada has wells in most of the great lakes - we
aren't allowed to, Cuba will soon be using Chinese investment to drill
under the Florida straight - we can't do that either.)

Matt Colie - environmentally conscious but educated and realistic




I'm all for energy-independence, but I cannot believe that oil wells on our
Great Lakes would be a good idea. Oil spills from rigs on the oceans are bad
enough -- but similar spills on the Lakes would be disasterous.

max camirand wrote:
Matt:

I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a
link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced
fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe?
Sounds interesting.

Thanks

-Maxime Camirand


Remember the seventies??
With tacky polyester clothing, platform shoes, God awful big hunk of
s*it cars and disco.... who'd want to remember.
Now the 60's...that was a time to remember!

On 28 Nov 2006 13:08:05 -0800, in message
om
"max camirand" wrote:

Matt:

I'm too young to remember the seventies. Can you point me towards a
link that explains what you're talking about, with regards to reduced
fuel efficiency in cars for marginally better results at the tailpipe?
Sounds interesting.

In the sixties cars ran at fairly high compression ratios thanks to
high octane gasoline spiked with tetra ethyl lead. Lead poisoning was
an issue and the higher temperatures produced at high compression
ratios lead to more oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust, a major
contributor to the photo-chemical smog that plagued Los Angeles and
other places. High compression engines are inherently more efficient
due to the thermodynamics involved.

Besides being dangerous, lead poisons the catalyst in catalytic
converters, so there was a triple whammy when it was removed, lower
octane because other additives had not been fully developed, thus
lower compression, lower compression still to cut NOx, and
inefficiently designed catalytic converter systems. Then came the oil
embargo that drove the price of gas up high enough that North
Americans had to care. The results were much better for smog in Los
Angeles, but there was strong sentiment that everybody was paying a
price that didn't make much difference in most locations.

Given time, automotive engineers and fuel specialists have advanced
the state of the art and current vehicles are both more efficient and
much cleaner than those of the 60s, but it took time to figure it out,
and not much attention was given to the problem until government
regulations required it. The result was a few years of absolutely
dismal fuel economy in the seventies.

Ryk

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:24:02 +0000, Don White wrote:

Remember the seventies??
evilunclean disco.... /evil/unclean
shudder....

Matt O'Toole wrote in
news
Armies of PhD's
labor for years to identify the most significant sources of pollution,
and then to find the most cost-effective ways of addressing the
problems.


Wanna bet "armies of PhD's" driving their Escalades to the university and
the armies of bureaucrats administering the programs the PhD's are milking
for tax dollars causes FAR more pollution than all the 2-stroke engines
that have been dipped in a lake since 1900?.....

We just can't help ourselves.....It is inevitable.

Larry
--
If we eliminate religion, will they stop murdering each other?