|
Re: Related Question, but different
You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production. What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix. Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes. Jeff Strickland wrote: > If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > > I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to > meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but > eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the > legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers > have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would > defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. > > So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of > vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only > fuel available? > > > > > > > > "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > >> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) >> >> >> >> > |
Re: Related Question, but different
Global Warming?
Is it a cover for something even more frightning? http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html Jeff Strickland wrote: > > "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message > news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed: >>> >>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? >>> >>> >>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion >>> boxes. >>> >>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. >> >> >> >> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel >> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different >> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it >> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of >> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as >> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about >> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is >> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for >> the amount of BTU you can get out of it) > > > Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not > suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad > thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? > > If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same > amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the > fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems > to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global > warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 > emissions. > > Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on > to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food > supply, we are looking at some serious issues here. > > > > > |
Re: Related Question, but different
Global Warming?
Is it a cover for something even more frightning? http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html Jeff Strickland wrote: > > "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message > news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed: >>> >>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? >>> >>> >>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion >>> boxes. >>> >>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. >> >> >> >> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel >> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different >> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it >> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of >> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as >> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about >> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is >> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for >> the amount of BTU you can get out of it) > > > Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not > suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad > thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? > > If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same > amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the > fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems > to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global > warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 > emissions. > > Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on > to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food > supply, we are looking at some serious issues here. > > > > > |
Re: Related Question, but different
Global Warming?
Is it a cover for something even more frightning? http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html Jeff Strickland wrote: > > "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message > news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed: >>> >>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? >>> >>> >>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion >>> boxes. >>> >>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. >> >> >> >> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel >> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different >> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it >> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of >> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as >> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about >> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is >> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for >> the amount of BTU you can get out of it) > > > Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not > suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad > thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? > > If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same > amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the > fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems > to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global > warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 > emissions. > > Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on > to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food > supply, we are looking at some serious issues here. > > > > > |
Re: Related Question, but different
Global Warming?
Is it a cover for something even more frightning? http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html Jeff Strickland wrote: > > "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message > news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed: >>> >>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? >>> >>> >>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion >>> boxes. >>> >>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. >> >> >> >> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel >> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different >> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it >> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of >> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as >> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about >> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is >> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for >> the amount of BTU you can get out of it) > > > Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not > suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad > thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? > > If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same > amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the > fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems > to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global > warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 > emissions. > > Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on > to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food > supply, we are looking at some serious issues here. > > > > > |
Re: Re: Re: Related Question, but different
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:22:48 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not >suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad >thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? Yes it is but many in DS do not see CO2 as a problem even though science says otherwise. > >If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same >amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact >that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me >that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.) >an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. Yes it does. It is not the volume of fule that makes extra carbon (because propane does not when used as a motor fuel) but because the fuel itself has a higher carbon content pure energy reliesed from it when burning it. THis high carbon content is why it is called a preburnt fuel. > >Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to >flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, >we are looking at some serious issues here. Yes you do not have to be a tree hugger to see the problem with this political solution being offered to the masses to keep the happy for a bit. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Re: Related Question, but different
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:22:48 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not >suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad >thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? Yes it is but many in DS do not see CO2 as a problem even though science says otherwise. > >If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same >amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact >that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me >that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.) >an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. Yes it does. It is not the volume of fule that makes extra carbon (because propane does not when used as a motor fuel) but because the fuel itself has a higher carbon content pure energy reliesed from it when burning it. THis high carbon content is why it is called a preburnt fuel. > >Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to >flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, >we are looking at some serious issues here. Yes you do not have to be a tree hugger to see the problem with this political solution being offered to the masses to keep the happy for a bit. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Re: Related Question, but different
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:22:48 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not >suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad >thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? Yes it is but many in DS do not see CO2 as a problem even though science says otherwise. > >If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same >amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact >that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me >that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.) >an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. Yes it does. It is not the volume of fule that makes extra carbon (because propane does not when used as a motor fuel) but because the fuel itself has a higher carbon content pure energy reliesed from it when burning it. THis high carbon content is why it is called a preburnt fuel. > >Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to >flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, >we are looking at some serious issues here. Yes you do not have to be a tree hugger to see the problem with this political solution being offered to the masses to keep the happy for a bit. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Re: Related Question, but different
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:22:48 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote: >Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not >suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad >thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? Yes it is but many in DS do not see CO2 as a problem even though science says otherwise. > >If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same >amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact >that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me >that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.) >an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. Yes it does. It is not the volume of fule that makes extra carbon (because propane does not when used as a motor fuel) but because the fuel itself has a higher carbon content pure energy reliesed from it when burning it. THis high carbon content is why it is called a preburnt fuel. > >Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to >flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, >we are looking at some serious issues here. Yes you do not have to be a tree hugger to see the problem with this political solution being offered to the masses to keep the happy for a bit. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Related Question, but different
The poor children of Mexico are staving, because of the price of
tortillas. God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "RoyJ" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message news:Fa_ii.3813$Od7.2512@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net... > You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x > increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply > shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production. > > What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix. > Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California > banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting > the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real > tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:30 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands