If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
"Blueskies" wrote in message t... How can "pure gasoline" coming out of a 'supply depot' have the same 87 octane as the same "pure gasoline" mixed with 10% ethanol? Since all auto gasoline is coming from the same distribution pipes, what is the octane in those pipes? IIRC, the octane rating is what it is measured at DELIVERY, not in the pipeline. Think (I think): Adjustments in the chemical composition at various points in the delivery system. |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
In article ,
Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment. -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
In article ,
Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? Jose The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
"Blueskies" wrote How can "pure gasoline" coming out of a 'supply depot' have the same 87 octane as the same "pure gasoline" mixed with 10% ethanol? Since all auto gasoline is coming from the same distribution pipes, what is the octane in those pipes? Folks have said that the various sellers have their own additive packages, and others have said that the ethanol is added near the point of use, and still others have indicated the ethanol is added to increase the octane rating. If all this is true, then the gas in hte pipes could be some low octane rating which is then boosted with ethanol to 87 octane for the pumps. That infers to me that even if you bought gas straight from the pipe it would not be 87 octane. Not good for STC holders... Not to worry. The pipeline people send many various grades of gas, all through the same pipeline. They may send 95 octane straight gas for 4 hours, then switch to 82 octane for 2 hours, and so on, with the right storage facilities along the way intercepting it, and putting it into separate tanks. I believe how they know how to switch over, is to first know how long the switch in types to get to them, then the senders put a dye package into the fuel to alert the storage and distribution people that it is time to switch some valves, and send the next fuel into a different tank. When the tanker comes to deliver the fuel to the gas station, they blend the correct amounts of each into the tank, and you get what you ordered. Specialty fuels may not travel the pipeline, but be shipped some distances by tanker truck, or barge. -- Jim in NC |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals? The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment. Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and companies don't spend money for nothing. Jose -- You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment. Is it even something that NEEDS TO BE CURED? |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
Jose wrote:
I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? What has panic and mindless blather ever solved? Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured? |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:38:41 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote: In article , Jose wrote: I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on. Anything that uses a hydrocarbon fuel releases CO2. In the case of the fuel cell, or any other engine or power generation that uses a hydrocarbon fuel for that matter, CO2 is released. If that CO2 is coming from a renewable source then it is only putting back what had been removed in producing the fuel. Fossil fuels OTOH strictly add CO2 to the atmosphere. Great strides have been made in engine design allowing much smaller engines to develop the HP that took much larger displacement in the past and we've ended up with much more reliable and longer lived engines. It still takes almost the same fuel to develop the same HP now as it did then, BUT the smaller engines, like most car engines, spend most of their lives developing on the order of 20 to 50 HP and there the smaller engines take far less fuel. Also today's engines produce far less nitrides than older, high compression, large displacement engines. HOWEVER, in the long run our consumption of fuel has gone up roughly on the order of 3.5% every year over the past 3 or 4 decades and it has not slackened with today's high prices. Fleet economy, or MPG reached a peak of about 21.5 MPG some time in the 1980's, but the loophole that lets SUVS and light trucks adhere to a lesser standard has basically driven it down to just over 20 MPG. Had we stuck to the fuel economy standards law passed in the 70's we'd now be driving a fleet that would be getting roughly 37 MPG and saving more than one million barrels of oil a day. Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? Maybe, maybe not. Generally hystericals cause more resistance, and/or create a lack of credibility. OTOH it sometimes takes a radical to create public attention. Jose The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade Most scientists agree that is has. There are only a few vocal holdouts and fringe groups still denying it exists. Inhofe still calls it a hoax. Most information is less than 5 years old. Most over that is outdated or outright misleading. Most valid references are no more than a couple of years old. global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles. I seriously doubt that. The upward trend of oil prices doesn't need any help. Mainstream science around the world has pretty well concluded that the rise in CO2 is creating accelerated warming and nearly all of that increase is due to mankind. The oceans are absorbing a phenomenal amount, rather than releasing it, but we are still seeing a large net gain. The US government was slow (downright reluctant) to admit the problem even exists let alone being due to man, but they and even many staunch deniers are swinging around. They are still playing down the results of research and demanding government review of papers on the subject. Even Bjorn Lomborg, a past Danish Greenpeace leader and author of the book "Skeptical Environmentalist" is changing his stance. The conclusions of the "G-8 summit" (June 7) are pretty forceful. http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel...cationFile.pdf (Watch out for line wrap in some readers) It's interesting if you can stay awake long enough to read through 38 pages of that kind of report. As to China, they only took over the tile of most polluting "from us" within the past few months. It's difficult for any complaint we make about China to carry much, if any weight unless we clean house and try to set a good example. |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
In article ,
Jose wrote: Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no hystericals? The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment. Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and companies don't spend money for nothing. I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues. -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gasohol | Blueskies | Piloting | 240 | July 6th 07 12:42 AM |
How scary is gasohol? | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 27 | March 1st 04 11:39 AM |