"E-15" Warning !!!

Henry Ford in 1908 built a car: Model T--which ran on ethanol, kerosene or gasoline. Gasoline won out for a variety of reasons.

Obtaining hydrogen and oxygen from water is nothing new, even in the 70's. The problem is that it violates the laws of thermodynamics to get the separate elements without consuming more power in the process! Most of these schemes have been frauds. (and there have been a lot of them).

Fuel cells have been around for over 150 years.

Where you are wrong is both in the science and the politics.
 
It takes a stupid amount of electricity to get hydrogen and oxygen to separate in water. Possible? Sure, but like the making of ethanol, if you are using electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from their polar covalent bonds, it is going to come at a huge cost. I remember at a science fair recently one of the high school students separated H and O and his research paper said it was something like 60 kw hours to get 2 pounds of H through electrolysis. That is 600 or so 100 watt light bulbs going for an hour to obtain a mere 2 pounds of hydrogen. It is probably more viable to do it with natural gas or oil. Ironic actually.....
 
But, the science and politics doesn't necessarily rule out consideration of all alternative energy sources, does it? Certainly, IMO, science should be considered and economics (especially more than politics). Geothermal, solar, and wind can be fine alternatives, where science and economics supports.

Ah, the great hours spent in hot springs, on our sailboat, and basking in sunshine on a cold day. All wonderful alternative energy uses. Now, for generating electricity, to use in my light bulb, there are economic considerations, of course.

But, we often seem to ignore long term economics. This seems especially true when considering alternative energy (nonrenewable vs renewable energy) or costs involved with climate change with certain fuels. For instance, a small monthly increase in my power bill (today) because of the addition of wind power to the grid may be less than the long-term costs of losing non-renewable resources (which have other non-energy uses) or costs resulting from climate change. And, that small increase in today's bill may stay the same for the next thirty years, where dependence on a non-renewable might result in an increase in monthly cost due to depletion of the non-renewable.

Complicated issues indeed - makes one engine vs. two engines seem simple.
Interesting discussion on a cold winter day.
 
Not the point gentleman! The point is there were various efforts being made to find an alternative fuel/energy and I have my politics right.

The puppet president of big business was instructed by his handlers to end the alternative fuel programs. He was instructed on who to appoint to his cabinet.

It was a controlled Tea Pot Dome Scandal where big oil had polished, smoothed and refined their efforts.

PS it didn't require that much energy to release the hydrogen... the problem they ran into was hydrogen is highly corrosive as is the f---ing alcohol.

But it is a good conversation for a rainy day. We all seem to agree there is a problem... we just don't agree on how to reach a solution... or who was responsible... :)
 
Hoo yaa on that.

Have fun guys n gals... I now have a different problem... something called

HONEY DEWS

or whatever my wife has come up wife. :lol:
 
Actually, I don't feel the government nor oil companies are corrupt. Our energy problems are our fault -- the common citizen. Here is why:

Why do people need engines in excess of 100 horsepower? People who trailer boats or need trucks for work -- that is one thing, but the average commuter driving to work does not need it.

"Not in my neighborhood!" Few states want refineries. No new refineries have been built for years. So even though the price of oil has stabilized, refined fuels are in shorter supply due to lack of refinery capacity. Not to mention that everything has to be transported great distances. Add complex regulations to the mix, and it is a real headache for them.

Is our governement corrupt or incompetent because of complex air quality standards? -- absolutely not! Just fly over to Beijing China to see what happens to a country that does not take air quality seriously. Their pollution is so bad, it has been impacting the West Coast of America. People in China are dying early deaths due to pollution. I'm gad to be living in a country where the government has a genuine concern for the health of its citizens.

Our easy to get oil is nearing its end, but newer, albeit more costly methods of extraction such as fracking and deep water driling has undergone a revolution in the past decade. We have enough fuel to be energy efficient.

Why don't we all write to our representtives and demand expenditures for an infrastructure that supports liquified natural gas for our automobiles? It will greatly reduce pollution and help us to meet air quality standards. I'll bet it can be practical for outboard motors, too. Or perhaps we should go one step further and step-up research on hydrogen power sources?

Ethanol E10 -- that's our only choice in New England. What's amusing about ethanol is that it yields approx. 10 percent less energy then gasoline. And not so coincidentally, I get 10 percent less miles per gallon in my car. Is it really helping us? We do have alternatives if we collectively push for them.

Rich
 
As a farmer I am need to sell my corn for the highest price available. If Ethanol helps me get a higher price, wonderful. The university studies indicate that ethanol raises the price of a bushel of corn from 15 cents to 25 cents (depending on whose study) and that ending ethanol would drop it by that amount.

The flip side of that coin is that as a consumer I am not happy with ethanol. It attracts water, gums up fuel systems, destroys the gaskets on older motors, and does not store well. Along, with the low BTU dropping fuel mileage significantly.
In response we have changed over to diesel for >95% of our fuel use. Only our 2 cars and the plane now use gas.

Those of you blaming ethanol for high corn prices, rest easy. South America and other parts of the world, attracted by high grain prices (not just corn) over the past 5 years are plowing pampa and other delicate grass lands under and growing grain. Most of this land is not suited for long term crop production and the ecological fall out will be considerable down the road.
Anyway, US exports of grains are expected to fall for the foreseeable future and a glut from new foreign production of grain will depress grain prices worldwide.
Significantly, the new demand for petrochemicals to farm this new land will exceed what is used per acre here in the US, putting upward pressure on crude oil prices.

We really need to bite the bullet and pass the laws to end importation of crude oil to the US and operate on domestic sources of energy. (well, that ought to be enough to spin this thread into the moderators round file) :mrgreen:
 
Levitation":27cuk0fh said:
As a farmer I am need to sell my corn for the highest price available. If Ethanol helps me get a higher price, wonderful. The university studies indicate that ethanol raises the price of a bushel of corn from 15 cents to 25 cents (depending on whose study) and that ending ethanol would drop it by that amount.

The flip side of that coin is that as a consumer I am not happy with ethanol. It attracts water, gums up fuel systems, destroys the gaskets on older motors, and does not store well. Along, with the low BTU dropping fuel mileage significantly.
In response we have changed over to diesel for >95% of our fuel use. Only our 2 cars and the plane now use gas.

Those of you blaming ethanol for high corn prices, rest easy. South America and other parts of the world, attracted by high grain prices (not just corn) over the past 5 years are plowing pampa and other delicate grass lands under and growing grain. Most of this land is not suited for long term crop production and the ecological fall out will be considerable down the road.
Anyway, US exports of grains are expected to fall for the foreseeable future and a glut from new foreign production of grain will depress grain prices worldwide.
Significantly, the new demand for petrochemicals to farm this new land will exceed what is used per acre here in the US, putting upward pressure on crude oil prices.

We really need to bite the bullet and pass the laws to end importation of crude oil to the US and operate on domestic sources of energy. (well, that ought to be enough to spin this thread into the moderators round file) :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Denny-O:

Nice discussion / good thinking / big monkey wrench!

Yikes! Politics, again! :lol:

Why not let the Free Market decide?

Offer E-10 along with straight gas types at the pumps and let the consumers decide what they want……?

Amazing how conservative and liberal politic supporters often join one side or the other of the argument when their own pocketbook feels the squeeze.

Apparently philosophy is plastic while money is rigid.

Have a great Sunday, I'm outta here!

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
In Business Week a couple of issues back, there was an article about kerosene lights and an alternate energy replacement which was cheaper and safer in many 3rd world countries.

One product now coming to market involves a 1/2 lb counter weight, on a rope, which goes thru a pulley, and gears to move a micro generator to power a LED. The 1/2 lb weight moving 6 feet in half an hour gives light equal to or greater than kerosene lamp. This mechanism can be sold for about $5. A great sum in many economies, but in the long run will offset the cost of kerosene and much safer. Plus it is "human powered". There are many other applications--and the technology is very old, yet combined with very new innovations, so it can charge cell phones etc. It may also have applications in the US--such as back packers carrying the small mechanism, paracord, and then grabbing a rock for the counter weight to give light or charge their camera etc.
 
thataway":2cjtvrmq said:
One product now coming to market involves a 1/2 lb counter weight, on a rope, which goes thru a pulley, and gears to move a micro generator to power a LED. The 1/2 lb weight moving 6 feet in half an hour gives light equal to or greater than kerosene lamp.
Click to expand...

Now that sounds super interesting and useful :thup
 
Alternative power for your boat:

We carried a solar-powered flashlight on our boats for over 15 years -- much better than kerosene light and easier to use and store than an LED relying on 1/2 pound weights. We still have the flashlight (it works perfectly) as a safety light in our bedroom.

Backpacking, we have a flashlight you 'hand crank' and it has a fine beam -- have had it about 20 years or so. Small, compact, and efficient.

Alternative energy sources of electricity have been around a long time. Now, powering an auto is something else...
 
We have used the bright sidewalk type of solar lamps for a number of years as an "anchor light" in regular anchorage areas. I don't think it would have the range required of an anchor light by the Coast Guard--2 nautical miles or about 13.8 Lumen.

My experience with the wind up flash lights has not been good. The seem to fail after a few months to a year or so.
 
Concerning big oil, their integrity & a personal glimpse into it. To set the stage. I'm now retired, but while employed it was by a long list of varied employers with only three of those years working for government not including the Military. The remaining years consisted of working for very small companies to huge corporations as a labor, operator, supervisor & manager. During these years, I spent time supervising union & non union employees & about equal time working as a labor & equipment operator & a union & non union employee for different corporations in different industries. This included 19 years as a member of the United Mine Workers of America" local 1307 & 13 years as a supervisor in the Timber Industry. I worked the last three years in the timber industry as a Manager for Louisiana Pacific Corp of a large waferwood producing plant in Colorado. I resigned this position due to actual corporate corruption. The only way, I could manage the plant, so the bottom line was matching their request was to increase production to the point of going over the max pollution level set in the plant operating permit & monitored by the particulate monitoring devices. To do this, these devices would have to be by passed or adjusted to give false data. If the goals demanded of me as Manager were not met, then I knew, I would be replaced. The Manager, who took over from me, met the requested goals by having directed those involved with the monitoring devices to rig them for false data, with the end results being, Louisiana Pacific Corp was given the largest fine at that time ever by the EPA of over a 100 million dollars & the Managers in line from that plant to Corporate Head, lost their jobs including the chairman of the board with some suffering much more than just job loss. I ended up testifying against Louisiana Pacific Corporation in the Grand Jury phase of the trail, upon summons by the US Attorney in Denver. So yes, I do understand Corporate corruption & not just as a conspiracy theory. Overall though in my working career, I have found the smaller companies including single owner, partnerships or those small incorporated ones to be more inclined to bend or brake the law to advance their interest & the pay, benefits, safety & work conditions poor in comparison to the larger corporations. I worked the last 15 years as a Equipment Operator for the giant oil company Chevron & it was by far the GEM of my entire working career. Pay & benefits top notch compared to industry standards. A yearly bonus based on a combination of how well our operation & Corporate performed, that was payed to all from the top to the laborer & was substantial. A super safety program, that wasn't just talk. Any employee from management to labor was given the authority to have a operational area shut down until it could be reviewed at any time if they didn't think the proper safety procedures were being followed with zero recrimination if afterwards their concern was found to be in error. The management was honest & operational information at our work location involving cost & profit was made open to us union employees. And last but not least environmental concerns & practices were taken as serious as safety. This, I got first hand due to one of my sons being the operations environmental tech before taking the position of Geologist. Deer & antelope were in large numbers on the many square mile site & not rare to see a large variety of other wildlife including moose, elk, mountain lions & bob cats, due to no hunting allowed & a very strict conservation policy restoring the land to a better state than original.

The high cost of gas & diesel, have many down on the oil companies & they, being so huge in assets, that profits made are in the billions, though low in percentage of total investment for return in comparison to many other corporations are still a easy target of the media, politicians & many others. This vitriol doesn't extend to the state owned oil operations of Mexico, Venezuela & others including PetroChina the Chinese state owned oil company pumping more oil than any other country last year & buying up massive oil reserves the world over or with the Russian Oil Company this month thats being declared the present world's largest. I would think with the world competition & demand setting the price of this commodity & how many different plausible world events could stop the oil flow to us, which if restricted enough at the present time or in the foreseeable future may well collapse our entire system, creating chaos & anarchy, so yes, I feel it would be better to have an improved working relationship between big oil & our own government to more quickly gain energy independence or at least the government not be a roadblock to it. One thing for sure, China isn't hesitating to do all in its increasing power to keep the oil flowing to them & I have no doubt there is some real corruption involved in the process.

Jay
 
Back
Top