HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

Laurence Payne wrote:
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.


Hopefully, the same way it worked the last time the fuel ran out.

We'll have to find another way to power our society. If we're smart,
we'll look to use more renewable energy sources like solar & wind.

For those things that must have IC engines there's bio-fuels.

If I remember from my school days, Diesel originally designed his engine
to run on peanut oil (because petroleum oil was too expensive).

Hydrogen fuel cell technology may some day power transportation, but I
don't know how soon it's really likely to happen.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Personal transport is a freak that has been available for only a few
generations, and MIGHT persist one or two more. But we're using up
what powers it. And there just isn't an alternative waiting in the
wings. Shall we all hold hands and wish?

Only a few generations?

As far as I know, Mary and Joseph could afford a donkey.

The cowboy had his horse; the farmer his mules & wagon; the peddler his
cart.

Powered personal transportation is a relatively recent invention.

Michael wrote:

Ethanol is cheaper to make from sugar cane (less energy to produce) than
from corn, which is why Brazil produces and uses a lot of ethanol
Sadly sugar cane doesn't do well in most of the US.
IMO ethanol as a fuel will make millions for a few who build ethanol plants,
however the US can not grow enough corn to make a significant dent in oil /
gasoline imports.

The US made over 3.4B gallons of ethanol in 2004 and hasn't stretched
feedstock capacity at all. That's the equivalent of 174M barrels of oil
(you get about 19.5 Gal of gas per barrel). Derate that by 25% (less
energy by volume) and you're at 131M barrels of oil not imported in 2004.

However, at 1 unit of ethanol consumed to produce 1.38 units for the
market (from corn), then the 3.4B above is reduced to: 1.43B Gallons.

That's the same as 2.75 full days worth of oil. (US: about 20M bbl /
day of oil use).

That's 41.6 days of Saudi Arabian oil not bought.
(Or 32.3 days of Canadian oil not bought).

That's about $3.3 B that stays in the US.

And it's increasing every year. The goal mandated by law is 4B Gallons
in 2006 and 7.5 B gallons by 2012, a mere 6 years away.

Rerun the numbers above for 2012 and you're at:
92 days worth of SA imports (2012 at 2005 consumption rates).
$7.3B staying in the US.

Pretty good dent I would say.

Other feedstocks: sugar beet (does quite well in north america), prarie
grasses, etc.

It is true that you can't displace it all... but you can certainly dent
imports and keep $ and jobs at home.

Palaces built in the SA desert do little trade wise for the US.

Of course the _real_ culprit is using too much energy in the first
place. It is always easiest to reduce consumption before finding
alternates.

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.

Bob Hickey wrote:

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



They could ship it by pipeline. Might have to build some new pipelines,
but the original pipelines had to be built didn't they?

Alan Browne wrote:

3) In 2005 the US made over 600M gallons of the stuff. It got around
somehow.

Sorry: 3.4 B gallons.

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.

I thought E85 was putting 15% gasoline into alcohol?

Toni Nikkanen wrote:
Alan Browne writes:

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).

...and a lot of drunk farmers..

Well, if you were dependent on the price of corn for your living,
wouldn't you drink?

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

William Graham wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
news On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:50:29 +0000, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , William
Graham writes

major snippage


I have a 3 year old car with ABS, and have gotten into the ABS function
only once. I was coming over an overpass, only to see that some idiot
had closed two lanes of traffic in front of me. Fortunately, I was able
to steer out of the situation using the control, and time, given by the
ABS operation. Worth the investment for that single incident.

I _hate_ ABS. If I want to use a skid, I damn well want to use a skid
(and they have their uses). If I don't want to skid, I know enough to
adjust my breaking pressure or cycle the brakes. Again, ABS brakes are
designed for the average idiot on the road who only knows how to
"operate a motor vehicle", not how to *drive* it.

And that is exactly what is driving behind you... Think about it!

Bob Hickey wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
They do, to an extent. Crumple zones.

No one invented crumple zones, they just started saving as
much car as they could without having it collapse in on itself. Using no
frame at all was a master stroke. These things are so weak they created the
need for flat beds for towing. Try to jack one up and then close the doors.
Bob Hickey



You're supposed to close the doors *before* you jack it up.

Alan Browne wrote:
Bob Hickey wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...

They do, to an extent. Crumple zones.


No one invented crumple zones,

Mercedez Benz were the first to deliberately engineer front quarter
panels to crumple in an energy/time manner to reduce impact g forces.



I think Volvo beat them to it, but whatever ...