HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 03:27:06 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bob Hickey wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
jeremy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
The US auto industry has made (so far) over 6M vehicles capable of
burning E85 (85% ethanol; 15% gasoline). One issue is the price: you
pay almost the same for a gallon of E85 as you do for gasoline. But you
get 20 - 25% less miles per gallon when burning E85.

Using ethanol is part of a good substitution strategy, however the first
environmental tenant is "reduce".

Cheers,
Alan


I think the biggest problem with E-85 is not only hi
price and poor milage but the fact that it can't use the pipeline to ship
the stuff. Imagine an oil company having to buy a tractor/trailer for every
station for every day coming from say, Iowa to NY, and getting maybe 3 to 4
MPH As it is there are gas drops all over NY. They can place an order
when they close and expect to have full tanks before 6 AM. What happens
when they have to come from the midwest? Bob Hickey


Somehow the logic of putting 10% alcohol into gasoline and causing 20%
reduction in miles/gallon (the actual case with my E85 capable engine),
to save gasoline totally escapes me.

E85 is 85% ethanol, not 10%.
E10 doesn't cause a 20% drop in mileage, though E85 comes pretty
close.
If E10 causes a 20% drop in your mileage, there's something else
wrong.

Uhhh, I believe E85 is 85% gasoline, and 15% ethanol. There isn't
enough farm land in the US to make that much (85%) ethanol, and I would
miss my break, and sugar, and .....

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:35:19 +0000, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:38:55 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

I also fly high performance airplanes. The interesting comparison is
insurance rates and vehicle value. The more you drive the higher your
rates due to exposure, but the more you fly the lower your rates due
to time building competency.
Well, sort of.
The more you drive, the more experience you get, which lowers your
rate; try comparing an 18-year old with a 40-year old, bith driving
since age 16, both driving the same number of miles per year in the
same market.
As for the pilot, the real danger is on the ground; while any flight
might be any number of hours, there's only two ground contacts:
takeoff and landing (or crashing). So, the more you fly (the more
hours), it's reasonable to assume the number of grounds contacts
remain at two per flight, but the hours will go up with more
experience.

So what's your point? DO American insurers charge more for
high-mileage drivers? (UK insurers don't.)

What type of "high mileage" do you mean?
Daily exposure, or lifetime experience?
The first raises exposure, thus rates.
The second raises experience, thus reduces rates.
DO they take account
of years of experience, or just of age?

Obviously, experience counts.
take two people, each, say, 30 years old.
Person A has 15 years driving experience, while person B has zero
experience; all other factors the same.
Person A will have lower premiums than person B.

DOES a pilot who flies more
miles get a lower rate? More miles per year, or more total miles in
his log book? Does more miles equate to longer journeys, fewer
landings? Why? Wouldn't it just as likely mean similar trips but
more of them?

As with cars, experience and exposure both go into the rate makeup.

Along with one's credit history (which is insane).

Ron Hunter wrote:
Uhhh, I believe E85 is 85% gasoline, and 15% ethanol. There isn't
enough farm land in the US to make that much (85%) ethanol, and I
would miss my break, and sugar, and .....

Your belief is in error.

http://www.ethanol.org/e85.html

Ron Hunter wrote:

Uhhh, I believe E85 is 85% gasoline, and 15% ethanol. There isn't
enough farm land in the US to make that much (85%) ethanol, and I would
miss my break, and sugar, and .....

E85 is 85% ethanol.

20-25% less mpg but only 5 - 10% cheaper in the US.

Brazil is E90 and represented (2005) over 40% of automobile fuel
consumption. The pricing, however, makes it advantageous in Brazil
whereas in the US it is not as yet.

Summer gasoline blends in most of the US contain up to 10% ethanol.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Ron Hunter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


As to mileage E85 is 20 - 25% less efficient than gasoline. So if you
get 30 mpg on gasoline you should get at least 22.5 mpg on E85. As to
price, that will become more competitive as more E85 producers enter
the fray.

Side effects include a reduction in dependance on foreign oil and cash
staying in the US. (Something the US has had a hard time of lately).

Explain how one saves gasoline if adding 15% of alcohol results in loss
of 25% of the miles/gallon. Do the math! You burn MORE gasoline, not
less. sigh.

Do your own math. E85 is 85% ethanol, 15% gasoline.

"Summer" gas in most states is about 10% ethanol accounts for most of
the over 600M Gallons of ethanol production (2005).

And at 10% (what is currently in the stations), I already lose 20% of my
miles/gallon, so adding 5% more isn't likely to help, and my engine was
designed for E85, which is not the case for most.

Over 6 M vehicles (big 3 built) in the US are E85 compatible. I have no
idea what % of those owners actually fuel with E85 but I wouldn't bet on
it being more than 20% of them.

Until E85 is competitively priced (it's cheaper per gallon by a few %
but 20 - 25% less efficient by volume) it won't fly.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Bill Funk wrote:


As I said before, it E10 is getting you 20% less mileage,there's
something other than the 10% ethonal that's causing it.
The difference in BTUs isn't enough to account for that much
difference.

E10 hardly affects mileage as the ethanol is only 1/10 of the overall fuel.

E85 (85% ethanol) results in a 20 - 25% efficiency drop by volume which
would be acceptable if the price were adjusted to account for it. But
it isn't.

In Brazil where 40% (2005) of auto fuel consumption is E90, the pricing
is set to make it more advantageous to use E90.

I'm very pro-ethanol, but not convinced that it is "of age" in North
America. It's not even available where I live and it would have to come
in at CAD$0.70 / litre to make it almost economical. (I'd willingly pay
a 5% premium to use it, accounting for efficiency).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 03:25:26 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

10 dollars a litre??? Not in MY lifetime.


In the UK petrol is already almost a £1 per litre.
--
Neil
Reverse 'ra' and delete 'l'.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:28:23 -0700, Bill Funk
wrote:

All these people who argue as if their personal needs and preferences
are in the slightest relevant..... you've gotta laugh!

Are you saying that personal needs and preferences don't count?
That everyone should somehow conform to some norm?

They won't stop the oil running out.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:42:55 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

I think we have a lot of Europeans who need to live in
America for a few years and vice-versa. Maybe then this
conversation might be a bit more connected with reality.

No-one's disputing how America (or Europe) works now. The point is
how they will work when the fuel runs out. Or maybe we pollute
ourselves to a standstill first.

cue chorus: "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING NYAH NYAH..."

On 27 Dec 2006 15:30:16 GMT, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Uh, why are there going to be "very few generations when personal powered
transport is available to citizens of rich countries"?

Are you one of those technologically illiterate loons who thinks that the
only way to power a motor vehicle is with substances pulled out of a hole
in the ground?

Are you one of those hopeful types who think "They" will develop new
power sources conveniently in time to let your lifestyle continue
without modification?