Gasohol

On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, 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.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Jose

The case against CO2 has not been proven

Basic physics, molecular spectroscopy and the conservation
of energy prove the greenhouse effect. Do you consider
either of those to be unproven? If so, which.

It follows therefor that ncreasing the concentration of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect. What
proof do you consider to be missing?

-- nor has the case for manmade
global warming.

The case for anthropogenic CO2 being responsible for the
observed rise in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is well established
both by closure and by the Suess effect. What is it that
you doubt about either or both of those?


The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.

Hystericals are fond of raising this issue in newsgroups where
it is off-topic. I have crossposted to sci.environment, where it is
on-topic, set follow-ups accordingly, and will be happy to answer
any reasonable questions you would like to pose there.

Hystericals are also fond of making all sorts of irrational
excuses for not discussing such issues in newsgroups
frequented by people familiar with the subject matter. I
trust you will not.

--

FF

On Jun 24, 4:38 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
...
The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.
...

Now, if you can provide any evidence whatsoever to support that
assertion, please let me know.

Note followups.

--

FF

On Jun 24, 10:47 pm, "Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

...

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 Most over that is outdated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.

Oh no!

That is a very common misconception. The most important
observations date to the 1970s. It was ignored by the popular
Press which found a new ice age to be a more interesting story.
But if you look at the proceedings of the climate conferences
of that time you will find a different story.

The essential Physics was established well before that. The
effects of aerosols also have been understood since then.

Quantifying the combined effects on global temperatures
is the more recent work, and there remains a lot of uncertainty
there. But the uncertainty is about how much of a rise and
how fast, not the direction of future trends.

...
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.

Unfortunately the oceans are rapidly approaching saturation. Should
the
oceans stop absorbing CO2, the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 will
jump to about 15 times the current rate.

....

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.

And they are going to take over in a very big way.

Note followups.

--

FF

On Jun 24, 12:38 pm, 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.

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.

I can GUARANTEE that the world will continue to heat up, or else it
will not. If it does get hotter, it will prove that the hystericals
were right, and we should have done something. If it does not, it will
prove that the hystericals were right and we did something good. There
is no point in fighting it.

John Halpenny

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?

I was not referring to hysterics, but rather, to "hysterics", and should
have quoted the word originally. People opposed to environmental
safeguards call them hysterics in the same way that people opposed to
airport closures refer to "noise nazis".

In that sense, "hysterics" (legitimage drawing of attention to the
damage we are causing to our and our neighbor's environment) have cured
many things. I am most grateful to the "hysterics" of the 1960s for the
relatively clean air we breathe today. One only has to go to parts of
Europe to breathe the difference (at least when I was last there).

As for whether CO2 needed to be "cured", that's not my point. The
statement was made that it =was= cured (along with other things
including doubling the gas milage), proving that the "hysterics" were
unnecessary. I do not see any such proof demonstrated by the facts
presented (which I will stipulate), especially as the "cure" was likely
to be costly, and business doesn't like costly things.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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.

Alas, I was misread. Hysterical arguments don't convince anybody, but
rational arguments are derided as "hysterical" by those who oppose them.
I should have quoted the word.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

If it does get hotter, it will prove that the hystericals
were right, and we should have done something. If it does not, it will
prove that the hystericals were right and we did something good.

No, that only works if we =did= do something good. Or at least
something expensive (that is, something that business would not do on
their own, like install scrubbers in their smokestacks, or pre-treat
waste before dumping it in the river, or improve gas milage).

And no, before some quick-ass jumps at the chance, I am not suggesting
that "something expensive" is a good substitute for "something good".

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:

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! He's a teacher, not a scholar.

"Morgans" writes:


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.

Pretty close.

We never used dye. The operator has a stainless sink that drains into the
slop tank. In it is a large graduated cylinder. The faucet samples the
incoming line and pours into the cylinder; it oveflows into the sink. He
has an approprite hydrometer bobbing in it.

He "makes the cut" by observing the color change and the specific
gravity. He punches the [explosion-proof, of course!] pushbutton on the
valve panel when it's time.

He may cut early. middle or late; it depends on the two products. The
schedulers try to make adjacent 'tenders' friendly. Say $2 Fuel Oil
followed by Jet-A. That would be an late cut; he waits until he's sure
it's all Jet-A then he swings the valve. A few barrels of Jet-A aka
Kerosene will not hurt 100,000 bbls of #2FO.

If an unfriendly cut, say gas to Jet-A; he'll cut early to the slop
tank, and then ~~5-10 min later to Jet-A.

The slop tank is eventually emptied by being slowly injected into
a Kero/FO incoming stream; the tank is later tested to be sure its
flashpoint remains above 110F.


Specialty fuels may not travel the pipeline, but be shipped some
distances by tanker truck, or barge.

Fuels such as.... AvGas.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" wrote in message ...

We never used dye. The operator has a stainless sink that drains into the
slop tank. In it is a large graduated cylinder. The faucet samples the
incoming line and pours into the cylinder; it oveflows into the sink. He
has an approprite hydrometer bobbing in it.

He "makes the cut" by observing the color change and the specific
gravity. He punches the [explosion-proof, of course!] pushbutton on the
valve panel when it's time.

He may cut early. middle or late; it depends on the two products. The
schedulers try to make adjacent 'tenders' friendly. Say $2 Fuel Oil
followed by Jet-A. That would be an late cut; he waits until he's sure
it's all Jet-A then he swings the valve. A few barrels of Jet-A aka
Kerosene will not hurt 100,000 bbls of #2FO.

If an unfriendly cut, say gas to Jet-A; he'll cut early to the slop
tank, and then ~~5-10 min later to Jet-A.

The slop tank is eventually emptied by being slowly injected into
a Kero/FO incoming stream; the tank is later tested to be sure its
flashpoint remains above 110F.


Specialty fuels may not travel the pipeline, but be shipped some
distances by tanker truck, or barge.

Fuels such as.... AvGas.
--

Thanks Dave! Can 87 octane be mixed with ~93 octane to arrive at 90 octane? Seems like a lot of black magic (no pun
intended) in the oil business...