Alcohol Mixed Gasolone... WHY?!?!

[Dan Duncan]

That makes me wonder about fuel cells. For a long time I've
seen al those "energy efficent" and "clean burning" slogans
attached to it.

Those same people will tell you an electric car is a "zero
emissions vehicle" because it doesn't have a tailpipe.

Bullshit!

If I bought an electric car, the tailpipe would be sticking
out of my local coal-burning power plant.

For other people the tailpipe may resemble a spent nuclear
fuel rod, a dammed up river, heavy metals used in solar
panels, etc. (wind power is pretty clean though)

I'm no expert. I do know, however, that to build
a fuel cell, you need to get pure 02 and H2 and compress
both. It seems to me that both processes require quite a bit
of energy. So I am trying to understand what kind of net energy
efficiency are fule cells purport to possess?

I think the best way to picture a fuel cell is as a rechargeable
battery. It will store energy more efficiently than most
rechargeable batteries, but the energy has to come from somewhere.

Exactly how clean a fuel cell is depends on how cleanly you "charge"
it up. If you charge it up overnight with a modified 2-stroke chainsaw,
you probably aren't reducing your emissions. Heh.

-DanD

 

[D H]

Well yes, actually there WAS an in-between option, kinda.

That option would have been to build an international
consensus to go in,

So how many years do you think is justifiable in the (hopeless) attempt
to build an international consensus to go to war with Iraq? I count about a
decade already spent getting nothing done, countless violations by Iraq all
along the way, some of them obvious and in the open, some of them well
hidden.
You've been breathing too many ethanol fumes already if you think we
would have EVER EVER EVER gotten support of the international community to
go to war. And this is the ONLY way Sadaam would have ever been removed from
power. Deal with it; you don't have to like it; I personally hate that it
ever came to this, but I also believe completely that the alternative
(including the one you suggested) were nothing but dead-end streets.
The time has come to recognize the seriousness of the enemies we have in
the world, and rotten choices are all that will be offered to us. We chose
one that was less rotten than the others. It sucks. But please don't kid
yourself any longer with false notions that we could somehow reason with
terrorists, or that countries that have forgotten that freedom is costly
would ever go along with paying the price of it themselves. That's one of
the reasons the USA exists, in my opinion. We know just how expensive it is
to attain freedom, and we know that some peoples in the world simply have no
access to accomplish it themselves.
The Iraqi peoples could not overthrow Sadaam themselves. Period!

instead of doing our best to piss off
all the allies we've had for the last 100 years or more
by making stupid and arrogant pronouncements.

Allies? You really are kidding, right? They are just as self-serving as
they accuse Bush of being. And many of them have been about as useless as
(insert proper imagery here) throughout most of the dealings with Iraq and
terrorists in general.

And then
going in all alone, arguably illegally,

I'm sorry, but it makes me laugh to hear that put that way. As if there
are some rules we should abide by when dealing with the Sadaams of the
world. There is _nothing_ we should even think is off limits when it comes
to scum that needs to be eradicated. And we should have done it a _long_
time ago.

and certainly doing
a great job of squandering all the good will this country
has built up over the last century or so and especially
the sympathy after the Sept11 attacks.

Sympathy wouldn't remove Sadaam.

And if we HAD
done it that way, we'd have a bunch of other countries
helping us to clean up the mess we made, instead of
flailing about at doing it all alone. Even many people
who supported the war (with or without international
consensus) cannot believe the incompetence we've brought
to the reconstruction job.

As Bill pointed out, nothing we are seeing should be even slightly
surprising. Horrible? Absolutely! But surprising? Not even. We should
already have FULL support of the international community after revelations
about what Sadaam was doing there, in SPITE of no WMDs found. Who really
thought we would find tons of WMDs laying around? Sadaam had way too much
time to either remove or destroy that which did exist, and don't think some
of it couldn't turn up on our doorsteps tomorrow morning.
The reconstruction job is probably the biggest task ever undertaken of
its kind in history, IMO, and I don't know if it has much of a chance of
true success by democratic standards even if we get LOTS more support in the
effort. I hope it can work but I'm not optimistic. My standard of success
would be that Iraq at least ends up with a leadership that has some form of
mixed representation, even if it is only minimal at that. That would be a
HUGE change in cultural expectations for most Iraqis.

 

[Dan Duncan]

THANK YOU! i'm a pretty avid environmentalist, but i'm also a
scientist, so i'm always fighting with the other environmentlists.

Keep it up! They NEED you whether they realize it or not.

I've always hated the ethanol in gas solution to a non-problem. It
reduces gas milage, ruins fuel filters (collects water), and takes way
more energy to convert corn into ethanol than you get out of it by
burning. (btw - the ideal solution, imho, bio-diesel, but that's a
whole different topic).

Yeah man! Biodiesel is good stuff. I'm still wondering why the
current crop of hybrid electrics are using gasoline instead of
an alternative fuel like diesel, LP, or NG.

way off topic - you have the people afraid of
nuclear power, however WAY more radioactive waste is put into the air
by burning coal than ever is release in the lifetime of a nuclear
plant.

People have similar unfounded complaints about replacing the batteries
in hybrid electric cars. If hybrid can cut fuel consumption by 20%,
I guarantee you the emissions you would otherwise end up putting into the
atmosphere would weigh at least as much as that battery and in the case
of the battery everything is contained in a nice little box for
recycling or disposal instead of scattered in the air where your
best hope of collecting it is with your lungs.

-DanD

 

[de la rosa]

Even if neither ethanol nor hydrogen is that much more efficient
than gasoline, it still may be a good idea, for political reasons,
if it helps to reduce our reliance on mid-east oil.

You forgot "If it saves just ONE child, ....."

I recently heard this quote over the radio, "The main difference between
humans and the rest of the animal world is our ability to rationalize!"

 

[keith]

Must get damned cold there for gas to freeze.

Where's the proof that it lowers gas mileage? I have run ethanol blend
gasoline in my vehicles over the years (13 vehicles in 10 years including
import/domestic/exotic cars) and have noticed no measurable difference in
gas mileage between blend and regular petroleum based gasoline.(just for the
record I track nearly every fill for gas mileage.) The main reason I use
ethanol blend (usually 10% blended with 90% regular gasoline) is that it
offers me increased octane for a lower price, in fact if I want 93 octane or
higher street legal fuel I have to buy ethanol blend where I live.


Another potential advantage is that (and this is a guess, not a carved in
stone fact so someone feel free to correct me here) ethanol would be able to
withstand colder temperatures before icing up the gas line than would petro
based gasoline (yes, it gets that cold in ND/MN/MT/Canada, etc...)

 

[Frank Logullo]

That makes me wonder about fuel cells. For a long time I've
seen al those "energy efficent" and "clean burning" slogans
attached to it. I'm no expert. I do know, however, that to build
a fuel cell, you need to get pure 02 and H2 and compress
both. It seems to me that both processes require quite a bit
of energy. So I am trying to understand what kind of net energy
efficiency are fule cells purport to possess?

Oxygen comes from the air but you must have hydrogen under pressure
otherwise it only weighs ~2 grams/sq.ft.
Hydrogen absorption systems under study only absorb a few percent. I
suspect the GM concept car that goes ~200 miles on a charge of hydrogen has
tanks at 10,000 psi. When they perfect the methanol fuel cell (carbon
deactivates hydrogen fuel cells) they will have a practical machine. You
can make methanol from natural gas or coal. I saw the commercial coal
syn-gas process at Tennessee Eastman and it was remarkably clean. This
thread prompted me to check George Olah's comments and I see DARPA has
advanced research on a practical methanol fuel cell.
Frank

 

[Steffen Kluge]

That's the problem with many (most?) environmentalists. They
have no background in science or engineering so they latch
on to these ideas that actually cause more harm than good.

My own experience has been quite different. All environmentalists
I know have a very firm standing in science and/or engineering.
They seem to be fighting not their own ignorance but obstacles
such as the oils cartels and car manufacturing lobby.

"Hydrogen is a clean fuel!" Sure, but where do you get it?
It may be plentiful in the universe on average, but here on
earth where we live it's not. "You can get it from water!"
Sure, by splitting water, which requires you put in as much
energy as you get out even if you could do it with 100%
efficiency.

Well, the obvious answer is, use regenerative energy sources such
as solar or wind. Electrolysis of water seems like a pretty good
way of storing those fleeting/seasonal energy sources for later
use. Far better and cheaper than batteries.

Cheers
Steffen.

 

[Dan Duncan]

Hydrogen absorption systems under study only absorb a few percent. I
suspect the GM concept car that goes ~200 miles on a charge of hydrogen has
tanks at 10,000 psi.

I don't know about you, but the thought of sitting on a tank
of hydrogen at 10,000 psi doesn't exactly thrill me. It's why
I prefer propane over natural gas: It liquifies at a much
more reasonable pressure.

When they perfect the methanol fuel cell (carbon
deactivates hydrogen fuel cells) they will have a practical machine. You
can make methanol from natural gas or coal. I saw the commercial coal
syn-gas process at Tennessee Eastman and it was remarkably clean. This
thread prompted me to check George Olah's comments and I see DARPA has
advanced research on a practical methanol fuel cell.

You're still using fossil fuels, but if the use is cleaner it's
a good step.

-DanD

 

[S]

Hi Mike, All!

THANK YOU! i'm a pretty avid environmentalist, but i'm also a
scientist, so i'm always fighting with the other environmentlists.
I've always hated the ethanol in gas solution to a non-problem. It
reduces gas milage, ruins fuel filters (collects water), and takes way
more energy to convert corn into ethanol than you get out of it by
burning. (btw - the ideal solution, imho, bio-diesel, but that's a
whole different topic). way off topic - you have the people afraid of
nuclear power, however WAY more radioactive waste is put into the air
by burning coal than ever is release in the lifetime of a nuclear
plant.

Well, I _was_ gonna keep my nose outta this one, but Mike has touched
on a sore spot; environmentalists/sheep who regurgitate non-facts fed
to them thru mainstream (or otherwise) "green" periodicals, without an
ounce of original thought added to the mix.
For instance:
I lived in Boulder CO many years ago. There was a fad among the green
crowd at the time to sport bumper-stickers that proclaimed "Split
Wood, Not Atoms". I'm not sure if I want to laugh, or cry at the
mentality that spawned this oxymoron, but just try and argue the point
with someone who's convinced that they're saving the planet by heating
their home thru the Colorado winter with burning pine trees
And, lest you think that I am picking on the environmentalists (well,
I guess I am, kinda . . .), I have observed that there are plenty of
people on both sides of the fence who are more than willing to
vociferously parade their opinions as fact, and who wouldn't recognize
an original thought if it bit them in the ass.
Sigh.
Rant mode off.

ByeBye! S.

Steve Jernigan KG0MB
Laboratory Manager
Microelectronics Research
University of Colorado
(719) 262-3101

 

[Jim Stewart]

My own experience has been quite different. All environmentalists
I know have a very firm standing in science and/or engineering.
They seem to be fighting not their own ignorance but obstacles
such as the oils cartels and car manufacturing lobby.




Well, the obvious answer is, use regenerative energy sources such
as solar or wind. Electrolysis of water seems like a pretty good
way of storing those fleeting/seasonal energy sources for later
use. Far better and cheaper than batteries.

I wanted to stay the hell away from this thread, but I can't.

Since you have a very firm standing in science and/or engineering
perhaps you can tell us the best practical overall efficiency
of electrolysis. While you're at it, how about a fuel to user
breakdown of your system's efficiency?

 

[Steffen Kluge]

No - we'd still be playing meaningless games doing exactly what the
murdering Islamists would have wanted us to do. Feel-good solutions
with no progress whatsoever. If I have a choice between the so-called
good will of the French or the safety of my family, guess which one I
will choose every time. BTW, did you hear about the French town making
an honorary citizen of a cop killer that they refuse to extradict back
to the U.S.? Sorry - I don't need their good will.

Yes, you do. You'll need everyone's good will. Alienating other
cultures with your collective superiority complex will see you
ending up sacrificing your family on the altar of your
mis-conceived patriotism. Do you really think they blew up the
WTC just because most US citizens don't believe in Allah? Why
didn't they fell the Eiffel Tower instead? It would have been
much easier, much more symbolic and much closer to home.

Only idiots would have expected a cakewalk. Check the history of any
war on the time for re-establishing order after it's over. There are
always chaotic events that are predictable only in the sense that they
will happen and will not be predictable. That's the nature of war.

Well, why war in the first place? War to facilitate a regime
change is illegal in anyones (other that the US') book and would
have been unanimously condemned by the UN and the international
public. So, "WMD!" was the war cry. Most countries, and the UN
weapons inspectors didn't believe there were any. The US went to
war anyway. And, it turns out, there aren't any. Hence we have a
simple case of illegal regime change. I suppose, with post-war
costs mounting, the US tax payers get what they deserve by
supporting (or not stopping) their administration going to war.

Cheers
Steffen.

 

[Steffen Kluge]

You've been breathing too many ethanol fumes already if you think we
would have EVER EVER EVER gotten support of the international community to
go to war.

Doesn't that make you stop and think, maybe it isn't right going
to war?

And this is the ONLY way Sadaam would have ever been removed from
power. Deal with it; you don't have to like it; I personally hate that it
ever came to this, but I also believe completely that the alternative
(including the one you suggested) were nothing but dead-end streets.

Just imagine, the Kingdom of Borduria decides the American people
needs to be liberated from G.W.Bush. After all, he's hording
WMD's and other evil stuff, and controls the world economy to the
benefit of a few US mega corporations. The Kingdom of Borduria
doesn't get anywhere with its idea in the UN, so they simply
decide to assassinate him. Not that they'd find the whole US
population in opposition to that, after all, less than half of
them actually wanted him as president. What would you think? How
would you feel?

The time has come to recognize the seriousness of the enemies we have in
the world, and rotten choices are all that will be offered to us.

Don't you think time has come to leave the pirate days behind and
behave like a civilised nation?

The Iraqi peoples could not overthrow Sadaam themselves. Period!

This has got to be the most arrogant and self-righteous statement
I've heard in years...

I'm sorry, but it makes me laugh to hear that put that way. As if there
are some rules we should abide by when dealing with the Sadaams of the
world.

Well, good morning, there are.

There is _nothing_ we should even think is off limits when it comes
to scum that needs to be eradicated.

If you leave the path of lawfulness you're just another rogue
state. Beware, somebody might decide to deal with you!

And we should have done it a _long_
time ago.

"A long time ago", the US practically installed Saddam
Hussein as dictator and sold him the WMD's they accused him later
of having. Although he used them all up in the '80s and '90s.

Sympathy wouldn't remove Sadaam.

But why remove Saddam as a priority? He didn't flatten the WTC.
There would surely be more important things to be removed, like
budget deficit or inflation. Or the stranglehold the
military-industrial complex has on the US administration.

Cheers
Steffen.

 

[Frank Logullo]

I wanted to stay the hell away from this thread, but I can't.

Since you have a very firm standing in science and/or engineering
perhaps you can tell us the best practical overall efficiency
of electrolysis. While you're at it, how about a fuel to user
breakdown of your system's efficiency?

As a Subaru owner, I have been generally pleased with this thread and the
technical understanding of fellow owners.
It is widely toted that about 20% of all Americans are functionally
illiterate, i.e. they cannot even read newspapers and road signs. I feel
that the technical illiteracy rate is far higher. A hydrogen economy based
on the thought that "we have all the hydrogen we need in water" is ludicrous
yet believed by a lot of Americans.
Frank

 

[Steffen Kluge]

Since you have a very firm standing in science and/or engineering

I wouldn't really claim to have that, but

perhaps you can tell us the best practical overall efficiency
of electrolysis.

Solar or wind powered electrolysis doesn't require high
efficiency, as it uses plentiful and renewable energy sources.

It wouldn't matter too much if we wasted 90% of the solar energy
that hits a square metre, if we conserved the remaining 10% as
hydrogen. Those 10% are a free bonus. Photovoltaic plants are far
more efficient than that, or course.

The biggest problem today is (still) deployment costs (and hence,
from the business point of view, amortisation), since solar or
wind plants are still not the mass market product the should be,
and hence more expensive than they should be.

Since energy policy still has to bow to the business balance
sheet much more than to the environmental balance sheet this is
going to be an ongoing struggle for years to come.

It may be cheaper to burn oil right now, but if we don't ramp up
renewable energy technologies before the oil runs out we're in
deep shit.

Cheers
Steffen.

 

[Chauncey Gardener]

Liberals don't look at all the effects of what they do.

Is it the liberals who are behind the gasohol requirements? I always
thought it was Big Agriculture.

Love it when regulations funnel money straight into the pockets of
mega-corporations...

 

[Jim Stewart]

I wouldn't really claim to have that, but




Solar or wind powered electrolysis doesn't require high
efficiency, as it uses plentiful and renewable energy sources.

It wouldn't matter too much if we wasted 90% of the solar energy
that hits a square metre, if we conserved the remaining 10% as
hydrogen. Those 10% are a free bonus. Photovoltaic plants are far
more efficient than that, or course.

The biggest problem today is (still) deployment costs (and hence,
from the business point of view, amortisation), since solar or
wind plants are still not the mass market product the should be,
and hence more expensive than they should be.

Since energy policy still has to bow to the business balance
sheet much more than to the environmental balance sheet this is
going to be an ongoing struggle for years to come.

It may be cheaper to burn oil right now, but if we don't ramp up
renewable energy technologies before the oil runs out we're in
deep shit.

No we won't be. Intrinsically safe nuclear power plants with
fuel reprocessing is the only thing that will work medium-term.

Solar power is fine, but if you run the numbers, you'll see that
we will have to pave over the state of Arizona to collect enough
power to make a sizable dent in our consumption.

 

[Frank Logullo]

Is it the liberals who are behind the gasohol requirements? I always
thought it was Big Agriculture.

Love it when regulations funnel money straight into the pockets of
mega-corporations...

Wacko environmentalists tend to be Liberals but, that said, ADM gave
generously to both parties
Frank

 

[Dan Duncan]

My own experience has been quite different. All environmentalists
I know have a very firm standing in science and/or engineering.

We clearly have different experience then.

They seem to be fighting not their own ignorance but obstacles
such as the oils cartels and car manufacturing lobby.

Well, the obvious answer is, use regenerative energy sources such
as solar or wind. Electrolysis of water seems like a pretty good
way of storing those fleeting/seasonal energy sources for later
use. Far better and cheaper than batteries.

Got it in one! Fuel cells should be thought of as batteries.

-DanD

 

[John Varela]

Well, why war in the first place? War to facilitate a regime
change is illegal in anyones (other that the US') book and would
have been unanimously condemned by the UN and the international
public.

Unanimously? Really?

 

[Bill Putney]

Yes, you do. You'll need everyone's good will. Alienating other
cultures with your collective superiority complex will see you
ending up sacrificing your family on the altar of your
mis-conceived patriotism. Do you really think they blew up the
WTC just because most US citizens don't believe in Allah? Why
didn't they fell the Eiffel Tower instead? It would have been
much easier, much more symbolic and much closer to home.


Well, why war in the first place? War to facilitate a regime
change is illegal in anyones (other that the US') book and would
have been unanimously condemned by the UN and the international
public.

And we already know that condemnation by the U.N. is worthless.

Hey - BTW - do you remember in the 90's hearing some obscure news items
about the U.S. being behind in paying its U.N dues? I remember hearing
the stories on the news for a couple of days, but don't remember any
details being given. Only within the last year did I become aware of
what was behind the news stories that got buried. What happened was
that the U.N. had signed agreements with worldwide gay organizations to
agree to recognize and endorse organizations who actively promoted
pedophilia (NAMBLA - take a look at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
if you don't know who they are). The U.S. Congress found out about
about it and passed a resolution agreeing that we would withhold paying
our dues as long as the U.N. continued to endorse such organizations.
Strangely, the U.N withdrew its support of such organizations No doubt
you think we had a legal obligation that surpassed our doing the right
thing. Thankfully there are still some people who will stand on
principle even when it's maybe "legally" wrong. Do you think the French
government would ever have taken such a stand? Do you think *any* other
country besides the U.S. would have taken or did take such a stand?
(Answer: no)

Oh - and I notice you had no comment on the French making an honorary
citizen out of the U.S. cop killer. Figures.

So, "WMD!" was the war cry. Most countries, and the UN

weapons inspectors didn't believe there were any...

That's B.S. There is documentation that they existed but none
explaining what had happened to them. Your other post says that he did
have them and used them (on his own people, BTW). He couldn't and
wouldn't account for them - in violation of the worthless U.N.
directives. Nobody said he didn't have them, including the U.N.
inspectors. The most commitment you could get out of even them was that
he had them, but he couldn't account for where they were now. Do ya
think maybe he couldn't figure out how to account for them without
admitting to the whole world that he had used them to kill his own
people, and at the same time secretly disposing/hiding/moving the
remainder out of the country? You tell me where the ones that are
unaccounted for - you know - the ones that the Clinton administration,
and the U.N., and (contrary to what you claim) practically every other
country said he *did* have - are now.

The US went to

war anyway. And, it turns out, there aren't any.

He couldn't account for what even you admit that he at one time had. So
the fact that he used them on his own people or hid them in the years
that the U.N gave him to do so, or a combination of the two makes it
alright in spite of the U.N. directives to the contrary?

Hence we have a

simple case of illegal regime change. I suppose, with post-war
costs mounting, the US tax payers get what they deserve by
supporting (or not stopping) their administration going to war.

Ah yes - I know - Sadam Hussein is good, George Bush is bad. That's the
kind of thinking we're supposed to get along with, reason with, fear
alienation from, earn good will of. What utter B.S.

Look - it's real simple. After loosing 3000+ people to terrorists (and
that's only in the last three years), we declared war on terrorists -
and thank God someone had the guts to do it in spite of "world
opinion". Sadam Hussein offered and in fact paid money ($25k is the
figure I've head and read) as a reward to families of Islamists who
intentionally murdered innocent people. We made it known that our war
on terrorism included those who harbored or supported it. When laws
(i.e., the U.N.) are worthless, then it's time to do what has to be done
to protect one's self and family precisely as if there were no police
force in a local situation. If a person in my community vowed to kill
my family and the local police refused to do anything about it, what do
you think I'd do if he approached my house? Let him kill my kid because
it would be illegal to harm him? Again I say B*** S***!

Have a nice day.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")