|
Re: Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 8 May 2007 22:29:15 -0600, "Earle Horton"
<earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote: >put out the flame in >an out of control oil well, using dynamite It works by removing all of the oxygen from the fire for a bit and fire goes out. Kinda extreme but it does work well when done properly. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On May 8, 9:28 pm, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III" <billhug...@cox.net>
wrote: > Hi Earle, > Which is six gallons of petroleum to make one gallon of ethanol. The > Bore people want to buy windmills and solar diodes to produce electricity, > that have used the same amount of petroleum to make and last their life > time.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/27/MNG1VDF6E... > http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...udy_ethan.html > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O > mailto:LW------...@aol.comhttp://www.----------.com/ > > "Earle Horton" <e...@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message > > news:4641101a$0$31790$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om... > > > > > > > Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > > counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to > > mean anything. > > > Earle > > > "SnoMan" <a...@snoman.com> wrote in message > >news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com.. . > > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c...@me.org> wrote: > > > > > I can believe the emissions > > > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > > > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > > > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > > > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > > > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > > > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > > > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > > > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > > > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > > > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > > > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > > > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > > > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > > > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > > > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > > > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > > > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > > > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > > > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > > > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > > > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > > > production. > > > ----------------- > > > TheSnoMan.com > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On May 8, 9:28 pm, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III" <billhug...@cox.net>
wrote: > Hi Earle, > Which is six gallons of petroleum to make one gallon of ethanol. The > Bore people want to buy windmills and solar diodes to produce electricity, > that have used the same amount of petroleum to make and last their life > time.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/27/MNG1VDF6E... > http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...udy_ethan.html > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O > mailto:LW------...@aol.comhttp://www.----------.com/ > > "Earle Horton" <e...@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message > > news:4641101a$0$31790$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om... > > > > > > > Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > > counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to > > mean anything. > > > Earle > > > "SnoMan" <a...@snoman.com> wrote in message > >news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com.. . > > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c...@me.org> wrote: > > > > > I can believe the emissions > > > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > > > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > > > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > > > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > > > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > > > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > > > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > > > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > > > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > > > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > > > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > > > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > > > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > > > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > > > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > > > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > > > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > > > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > > > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > > > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > > > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > > > production. > > > ----------------- > > > TheSnoMan.com > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On May 8, 9:28 pm, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III" <billhug...@cox.net>
wrote: > Hi Earle, > Which is six gallons of petroleum to make one gallon of ethanol. The > Bore people want to buy windmills and solar diodes to produce electricity, > that have used the same amount of petroleum to make and last their life > time.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/27/MNG1VDF6E... > http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...udy_ethan.html > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O > mailto:LW------...@aol.comhttp://www.----------.com/ > > "Earle Horton" <e...@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message > > news:4641101a$0$31790$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om... > > > > > > > Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > > counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to > > mean anything. > > > Earle > > > "SnoMan" <a...@snoman.com> wrote in message > >news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com.. . > > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c...@me.org> wrote: > > > > > I can believe the emissions > > > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > > > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > > > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > > > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > > > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > > > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > > > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > > > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > > > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > > > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > > > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > > > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > > > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > > > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > > > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > > > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > > > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > > > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > > > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > > > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > > > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > > > production. > > > ----------------- > > > TheSnoMan.com > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On May 8, 9:28 pm, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III" <billhug...@cox.net>
wrote: > Hi Earle, > Which is six gallons of petroleum to make one gallon of ethanol. The > Bore people want to buy windmills and solar diodes to produce electricity, > that have used the same amount of petroleum to make and last their life > time.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/27/MNG1VDF6E... > http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...udy_ethan.html > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O > mailto:LW------...@aol.comhttp://www.----------.com/ > > "Earle Horton" <e...@angloburgues.usa> wrote in message > > news:4641101a$0$31790$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om... > > > > > > > Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are > > counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to > > mean anything. > > > Earle > > > "SnoMan" <a...@snoman.com> wrote in message > >news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com.. . > > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c...@me.org> wrote: > > > > > I can believe the emissions > > > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > > > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > > > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > > > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > > > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > > > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > > > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > > > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > > > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > > > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > > > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > > > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > > > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > > > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > > > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > > > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > > > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > > > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > > > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > > > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > > > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > > > production. > > > ----------------- > > > TheSnoMan.com > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it. First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423 degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4 lbs) ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it. First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423 degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4 lbs) ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it. First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423 degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4 lbs) ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale_rs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it. First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423 degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4 lbs) ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
> On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, > >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are > >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, > >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct > >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for > >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is > >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers > >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. > > Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it. > First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a > gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for > greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423 > degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about > 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and > a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's > per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound > and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less > than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4 > lbs) > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is that 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could clear up this point? 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes more energy to seperate than you get back by burning. There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy. Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:25 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands