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.

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.

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!!!)

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.

"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

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.

"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?

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?

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.

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!!!)