Fuel comparison charts

[Existential Angst]

Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol

It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.

Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.

#6 fuel oil has markedly higher energy per gal:
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf

The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....

Some other useful charts:
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml

Fwiw.

[harryagain]

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself
should give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little
deeper, as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high
test -- by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate, in the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay
attention in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck
us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.
--
EA

Interesting but misleading charts some of them.
Intentionally so probably. Deliberate misinformation.
Not very useful to the average home owner.

The most useful information of all is concealed.

[Rodwell]

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I
live at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

[Existential Angst]

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no
fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I live
at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Ultimately the bottom line, from an immediate wallet pov, is the dollars per
mile req'd to operate a vehicle, or dollars per degree to heat a house..
Some of those factors are the cost to actually produce the fuel/bring it to
market, and as was alluded to by RBM, the expense of utilizing it, such as
complex diesels.
Along these lines, Consumer Reports evaluates "the lowest cost to own over 5
years", of which fuel is just one component.

Paying big bucks up front for the privilege of burning a cheap fuel -- to
wit, electricity -- most often yields a payback that's waaay too long -- ie,
the Volt, Leaf over much less expensive traditional cars.

Recently discussed were the methane stores lying at the bottom of oceans,
3,000 years worth, they're saying. Dudn't really matter what the energy
density of a fuel is, if you can pretty much just suck it up with a straw.

Hydrogen would appear to be the, uh, Bomb, since every kitchen with a solar
cell on the window sill can produce it. Altho usefully packaging it would
be a bit, uh, volatile.

Just fuel for thought.

[Tom Gardner]

Post by Existential Angst
Hydrogen would appear to be the, uh, Bomb, since every kitchen with a solar
cell on the window sill can produce it. Altho usefully packaging it would
be a bit, uh, volatile.
Just fuel for thought.

If Hydrogen could be easily and cheaply produced and stored at home from
rain water, you would get a tax bill every time it rained.

[Terry Coombs]

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no
fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I live
at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Up here in rural Arkansas we have a couple of stations that sell no-eth gas
. I pay about 3% more for it , but my truck gets about 8-9% better m ileage
... you do the math .

[Existential Angst]

Post by Terry Coombs

Post by Rodwell

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no
fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I
live at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Up here in rural Arkansas we have a couple of stations that sell no-eth
gas . I pay about 3% more for it , but my truck gets about 8-9% better m
ileage ... you do the math .

That's VERY inneresting, speaks volumes.

[Ed Huntress]

Post by Terry Coombs

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no
fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I live
at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Up here in rural Arkansas we have a couple of stations that sell no-eth gas
. I pay about 3% more for it , but my truck gets about 8-9% better m ileage
... you do the math .

FWIW, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran extensive tests with a
variety of cars and trucks built during the last decade (and
lawnmowers, pressure washers -- you name it) and found the same
results that labs have been getting for a couple of decades now. The
loss in fuel economy is virtually a straight line related to
percentage of ethanol.

For E10, it's within a fraction of 3.5% across the board. With E20,
it's 7.7%. And so on. Most of the blends sold in the US are E10 or
E15.

http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

[Existential Angst]

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Terry Coombs

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate,
in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could
fuck
us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I live
at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Up here in rural Arkansas we have a couple of stations that sell no-eth gas
. I pay about 3% more for it , but my truck gets about 8-9% better m ileage
... you do the math .

FWIW, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran extensive tests with a
variety of cars and trucks built during the last decade (and
lawnmowers, pressure washers -- you name it) and found the same
results that labs have been getting for a couple of decades now. The
loss in fuel economy is virtually a straight line related to
percentage of ethanol.

Which is sort of like studying whether adding more rocks to a bucket makes
it heavier or not....
That "result" is virtually by definition of heat content of fuel!!

Post by Ed Huntress
For E10, it's within a fraction of 3.5% across the board. With E20,
it's 7.7%. And so on. Most of the blends sold in the US are E10 or
E15.
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:34:27 -0400, "Existential Angst"

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Terry Coombs

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate,
in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could
fuck
us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I live
at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Up here in rural Arkansas we have a couple of stations that sell no-eth gas
. I pay about 3% more for it , but my truck gets about 8-9% better m ileage
... you do the math .

FWIW, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran extensive tests with a
variety of cars and trucks built during the last decade (and
lawnmowers, pressure washers -- you name it) and found the same
results that labs have been getting for a couple of decades now. The
loss in fuel economy is virtually a straight line related to
percentage of ethanol.

Which is sort of like studying whether adding more rocks to a bucket makes
it heavier or not....
That "result" is virtually by definition of heat content of fuel!!

There's much more to it than that. It also measures the ability of the
adaptive spark control to adjust advance appropriately, and the
effectiveness of the fuel injection system's atomization with the
mixed fuel, etc.

There are enough variables that it was worth running real-world tests,
to settle some arguments and empty theorizing. They were mostly
interested in emissions and economy performance with higher
percentages of ethanol, but they tested it down to 10%.

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
For E10, it's within a fraction of 3.5% across the board. With E20,
it's 7.7%. And so on. Most of the blends sold in the US are E10 or
E15.
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.

[Existential Angst]

Post by Ed Huntress
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:34:27 -0400, "Existential Angst"

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Terry Coombs

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate,
in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could
fuck
us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I live
at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Up here in rural Arkansas we have a couple of stations that sell no-eth gas
. I pay about 3% more for it , but my truck gets about 8-9% better m ileage
... you do the math .

FWIW, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran extensive tests with a
variety of cars and trucks built during the last decade (and
lawnmowers, pressure washers -- you name it) and found the same
results that labs have been getting for a couple of decades now. The
loss in fuel economy is virtually a straight line related to
percentage of ethanol.

Which is sort of like studying whether adding more rocks to a bucket makes
it heavier or not....
That "result" is virtually by definition of heat content of fuel!!

There's much more to it than that. It also measures the ability of the
adaptive spark control to adjust advance appropriately, and the
effectiveness of the fuel injection system's atomization with the
mixed fuel, etc.
There are enough variables that it was worth running real-world tests,
to settle some arguments and empty theorizing. They were mostly
interested in emissions and economy performance with higher
percentages of ethanol, but they tested it down to 10%.

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
For E10, it's within a fraction of 3.5% across the board. With E20,
it's 7.7%. And so on. Most of the blends sold in the US are E10 or
E15.
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.

Mebbe all them above variables impacted his truck negatively. Mebbe that's
not too uncommon?

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:02:18 -0400, "Existential Angst"

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:34:27 -0400, "Existential Angst"

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Terry Coombs

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate,
in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could
fuck
us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I live
at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Up here in rural Arkansas we have a couple of stations that sell no-eth gas
. I pay about 3% more for it , but my truck gets about 8-9% better m ileage
... you do the math .

FWIW, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran extensive tests with a
variety of cars and trucks built during the last decade (and
lawnmowers, pressure washers -- you name it) and found the same
results that labs have been getting for a couple of decades now. The
loss in fuel economy is virtually a straight line related to
percentage of ethanol.

Which is sort of like studying whether adding more rocks to a bucket makes
it heavier or not....
That "result" is virtually by definition of heat content of fuel!!

There's much more to it than that. It also measures the ability of the
adaptive spark control to adjust advance appropriately, and the
effectiveness of the fuel injection system's atomization with the
mixed fuel, etc.
There are enough variables that it was worth running real-world tests,
to settle some arguments and empty theorizing. They were mostly
interested in emissions and economy performance with higher
percentages of ethanol, but they tested it down to 10%.

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
For E10, it's within a fraction of 3.5% across the board. With E20,
it's 7.7%. And so on. Most of the blends sold in the US are E10 or
E15.
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.

Mebbe all them above variables impacted his truck negatively. Mebbe that's
not too uncommon?

The research report I linked to above includes multiple vehicles and
has the statistics in it -- standard deviation and so on. It wasn't a
lot of vehicles, but anything losing more than 4% on E10 is an
outlier.

[Richard]

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.

Mebbe all them above variables impacted his truck negatively. Mebbe that's
not too uncommon?

The research report I linked to above includes multiple vehicles and
has the statistics in it -- standard deviation and so on. It wasn't a
lot of vehicles, but anything losing more than 4% on E10 is an
outlier.

I reported my experience a while back.

E10 cost me 8 to 10% drop in MPG.


But that's my experience.
Obviously not what the report states.

[Ed Huntress]

Post by Richard

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.

Mebbe all them above variables impacted his truck negatively. Mebbe that's
not too uncommon?

The research report I linked to above includes multiple vehicles and
has the statistics in it -- standard deviation and so on. It wasn't a
lot of vehicles, but anything losing more than 4% on E10 is an
outlier.

I reported my experience a while back.
E10 cost me 8 to 10% drop in MPG.
But that's my experience.
Obviously not what the report states.

I don't remember your example. What year? Carb or FI?

[Richard]

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Richard

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.

Mebbe all them above variables impacted his truck negatively. Mebbe that's
not too uncommon?

The research report I linked to above includes multiple vehicles and
has the statistics in it -- standard deviation and so on. It wasn't a
lot of vehicles, but anything losing more than 4% on E10 is an
outlier.

I reported my experience a while back.
E10 cost me 8 to 10% drop in MPG.
But that's my experience.
Obviously not what the report states.

I don't remember your example. What year? Carb or FI?

2000 Chevy Blazer. I've been driving it for 10 years now.

4.3 V6 (FI) - 4 speed automatic
It has 178k on the odometer now.
150k of that is mine. :)

On straight gasoline I get 22 mpg average city.
With E10 it's 19.5 to 20.

Highway is 24 now, was 26+?

Those are my 10 year averages.
Regardless of what some government report says.

[Gunner Asch]

Post by Richard

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.

Mebbe all them above variables impacted his truck negatively. Mebbe that's
not too uncommon?

The research report I linked to above includes multiple vehicles and
has the statistics in it -- standard deviation and so on. It wasn't a
lot of vehicles, but anything losing more than 4% on E10 is an
outlier.

I reported my experience a while back.
E10 cost me 8 to 10% drop in MPG.
But that's my experience.
Obviously not what the report states.

My various Ford Rangers, 3.0 v6 engines get about 19 MPG on regular
gas. Ive been getting 16.569 on California fuel with 10% ethanol

Btw...you guys seen this?

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp



--
""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small
children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of
repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for
hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just
about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in
politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing
frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members
of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann
Coulter)

[Richard]

Post by Gunner Asch

Post by Richard

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.

Mebbe all them above variables impacted his truck negatively. Mebbe that's
not too uncommon?

The research report I linked to above includes multiple vehicles and
has the statistics in it -- standard deviation and so on. It wasn't a
lot of vehicles, but anything losing more than 4% on E10 is an
outlier.

I reported my experience a while back.
E10 cost me 8 to 10% drop in MPG.
But that's my experience.
Obviously not what the report states.

My various Ford Rangers, 3.0 v6 engines get about 19 MPG on regular
gas. Ive been getting 16.569 on California fuel with 10% ethanol
Btw...you guys seen this?
http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp

Sure. Long time ago.

I only checked Texas, so you guys check around your own areas?

I don't see a single station listed in ANY large city.

Gee. I wonder why...

[Gunner Asch]

Post by Richard

Post by Gunner Asch

Post by Richard

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.

Mebbe all them above variables impacted his truck negatively. Mebbe that's
not too uncommon?

The research report I linked to above includes multiple vehicles and
has the statistics in it -- standard deviation and so on. It wasn't a
lot of vehicles, but anything losing more than 4% on E10 is an
outlier.

I reported my experience a while back.
E10 cost me 8 to 10% drop in MPG.
But that's my experience.
Obviously not what the report states.

My various Ford Rangers, 3.0 v6 engines get about 19 MPG on regular
gas. Ive been getting 16.569 on California fuel with 10% ethanol
Btw...you guys seen this?
http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp

Sure. Long time ago.
I only checked Texas, so you guys check around your own areas?
I don't see a single station listed in ANY large city.
Gee. I wonder why...

I was surprised as hell to find (7) only ....in California

But then..we only allow 4 cycle outboards on boats in most waters
these days


--
""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small
children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of
repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for
hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just
about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in
politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing
frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members
of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann
Coulter)

[Terry Coombs]

Post by Ed Huntress
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:34:27 -0400, "Existential Angst"

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Terry Coombs

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate,
in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could
fuck
us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I live
at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Up here in rural Arkansas we have a couple of stations that sell no-eth gas
. I pay about 3% more for it , but my truck gets about 8-9% better m ileage
... you do the math .

FWIW, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran extensive tests with a
variety of cars and trucks built during the last decade (and
lawnmowers, pressure washers -- you name it) and found the same
results that labs have been getting for a couple of decades now. The
loss in fuel economy is virtually a straight line related to
percentage of ethanol.

Which is sort of like studying whether adding more rocks to a bucket makes
it heavier or not....
That "result" is virtually by definition of heat content of fuel!!

There's much more to it than that. It also measures the ability of the
adaptive spark control to adjust advance appropriately, and the
effectiveness of the fuel injection system's atomization with the
mixed fuel, etc.
There are enough variables that it was worth running real-world tests,
to settle some arguments and empty theorizing. They were mostly
interested in emissions and economy performance with higher
percentages of ethanol, but they tested it down to 10%.

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
For E10, it's within a fraction of 3.5% across the board. With E20,
it's 7.7%. And so on. Most of the blends sold in the US are E10 or
E15.
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.
--
Ed Huntress

The truck in question is an '86 GMC w/305 V8/700R4 trans and 2.72 rear
axle ratio . No adaptive anything , it's got a quadrajet carb and a
distibutor . That axle ratio might be just fine for flatland high speed
runnin' , but I need something lower up here in the woods . Got feelers out
for a 3.42 , which should have me near the torque peak in high/OD at around
55-60 MPH .

[Ed Huntress]

Post by Terry Coombs

Post by Ed Huntress
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:34:27 -0400, "Existential Angst"

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Terry Coombs

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate,
in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could
fuck
us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Why misleading? You may use more fuel per kilometer/mile but (where I live
at least) the ethanol added fuel is cheaper to purchase.

Up here in rural Arkansas we have a couple of stations that sell no-eth gas
. I pay about 3% more for it , but my truck gets about 8-9% better m ileage
... you do the math .

FWIW, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran extensive tests with a
variety of cars and trucks built during the last decade (and
lawnmowers, pressure washers -- you name it) and found the same
results that labs have been getting for a couple of decades now. The
loss in fuel economy is virtually a straight line related to
percentage of ethanol.

Which is sort of like studying whether adding more rocks to a bucket makes
it heavier or not....
That "result" is virtually by definition of heat content of fuel!!

There's much more to it than that. It also measures the ability of the
adaptive spark control to adjust advance appropriately, and the
effectiveness of the fuel injection system's atomization with the
mixed fuel, etc.
There are enough variables that it was worth running real-world tests,
to settle some arguments and empty theorizing. They were mostly
interested in emissions and economy performance with higher
percentages of ethanol, but they tested it down to 10%.

Post by Existential Angst

Post by Ed Huntress
For E10, it's within a fraction of 3.5% across the board. With E20,
it's 7.7%. And so on. Most of the blends sold in the US are E10 or
E15.
http://feerc.ornl.gov/pdfs/pub_int_blends_rpt1_updated.pdf

What's inneresting about Snag's observation is how it *disproportionately*
costs us!!
Figgers.

Well, his truck is unusual. On the average, the cost of running one
fuel versus the other is an exact wash.
--
Ed Huntress

The truck in question is an '86 GMC w/305 V8/700R4 trans and 2.72 rear
axle ratio . No adaptive anything , it's got a quadrajet carb and a
distibutor . That axle ratio might be just fine for flatland high speed
runnin' , but I need something lower up here in the woods . Got feelers out
for a 3.42 , which should have me near the torque peak in high/OD at around
55-60 MPH .

That carb and distributor probably are the reasons you're getting such
bad mileage with E10. There's a lot of research on this, and I haven't
tried to round it up, but overall, E10 wants about 3 degrees more
spark advance at full throttle. And atomization with a carburetor and
E10 probably is not as good as it is with straight gasoline. I do
remember some higher figures for loss of economy with carbs and E10
some decades ago, but I can't find it right now.

There could be other issues, but those *probably* explain it.

[RBM]

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

As far as diesel vehicles go, I think at this point they have
effectively removed every reason a person would buy one. You use to pay
a boat load more for a diesel engine vehicle because the fuel mileage
was considerably better than gasoline, they had plenty of power, and
they lasted forever, not to mention that diesel was cheap.
I have a 2010 "clean diesel" van which gets 17 MPG compared to 22 MPG on
my "pre emissions" 2006 version of the same truck. This truck has a tank
of urea, which gets injected into the exhaust system, as well as a
catalytic converter, and a particulate filter, attached to a pile of
chips and sensors and exposed wires all over the engine and exhaust
system. Anything associated with the exhaust/emission system that
malfunctions and allows pollutants out the tail pipe, invokes a check
engine light and a dash board message," 20 starts rem ", which means you
have to stop what you're doing and get it to the dealer now, which in my
case the nearest dealer is in a hell hole called Yonkers (just kiddin)
All the new "clean diesels" have a 100,000 mile warranty on the
emissions systems, so at least these huge expenses don't come out of
pocket, but I sure don't want to own this thing one minute after the
warranty is up.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Post by RBM
All the new "clean diesels" have a 100,000 mile warranty on the
emissions systems, so at least these huge expenses don't come out of
pocket, but I sure don't want to own this thing one minute after the
warranty is up.

A guy at work has one. It has not cost him a penny for the emissions
related repairs, but they keep his trucks for days at a time trying to
figure out the problems. He finally traded it for a gas model.

[RBM]

Post by Ed Pawlowski

Post by RBM
All the new "clean diesels" have a 100,000 mile warranty on the
emissions systems, so at least these huge expenses don't come out of
pocket, but I sure don't want to own this thing one minute after the
warranty is up.

A guy at work has one. It has not cost him a penny for the emissions
related repairs, but they keep his trucks for days at a time trying to
figure out the problems. He finally traded it for a gas model.

The third problem I had with mine, was a faulty "diesel emission fluid"
pump. The dealership mechanics were clueless and needed help from techs
at Mercedes, which took five days. I'm afraid that they are just too
complicated and no longer reliable.

[Ralph Mowery]

pump. The dealership mechanics were clueless and needed help from techs at
Mercedes, which took five days. I'm afraid that they are just too
complicated and no longer reliable.

Same old deal. Every time something new comes out it is too complicated for
the dealer mechanics to repair. I bought a new car in 1972. Same basic car
as a 1969. The 69 ran fine for about 30,000 and someone ran a stop sign on
me. I then bought a 72 and it had all the smog stuff on it. The never
could fix the electronic system so it would start. That thing left me
sitting about 5 times and I had to have it towed to the dealer. Ran the
battery down several other times, but as it was a manual transmission, I was
sble to push it off. Finally traded it with about 15000 miles on it.

The stuff usually works great unless there is a problem, then you beter
trade it off as it probably will not be fixed or if it is, it may take a
month.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by RBM
The third problem I had with mine, was a faulty "diesel emission fluid"
pump. The dealership mechanics were clueless and needed help from techs
at Mercedes, which took five days. I'm afraid that they are just too
complicated and no longer reliable.

Wait... wait... you bought a Mercedes and you are surprised that it is too
complicated and "no longer" reliable?

I think Mercedes invented the whole philosophy of "never use one part when
you can use ten," or maybe that was Bosch....

This is not a new thing.... Mercedes has been doing this for nearly a
hundred years now.
--scott

[RBM]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by RBM
The third problem I had with mine, was a faulty "diesel emission fluid"
pump. The dealership mechanics were clueless and needed help from techs
at Mercedes, which took five days. I'm afraid that they are just too
complicated and no longer reliable.

Wait... wait... you bought a Mercedes and you are surprised that it is too
complicated and "no longer" reliable?
I think Mercedes invented the whole philosophy of "never use one part when
you can use ten," or maybe that was Bosch....
This is not a new thing.... Mercedes has been doing this for nearly a
hundred years now.
--scott

I think this stuff is just the only successful technology currently
available that meets the EPA standards for diesels. It doesn't matter
who the manufacturer is, all diesel trucks in the U.S. made after 2010
have the same stuff strapped on to them.

[Stormin Mormon]

Sounds like a by product of government regulation.

"..... and I'm here to help."
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"Ed Pawlowski" <***@snet.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

A guy at work has one. It has not cost him a penny
for the emissions related repairs, but they keep his
trucks for days at a time trying to figure out the
problems. He finally traded it for a gas model.

[richard]

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Just to set you straight on the prices, diesel had always been 10 cents
cheaper than regular gas.
When fuel prices surged up to around the $2.50 mark for the first time,
people put up a big fuss over it. The prices dropped back down a little.
Then went right back, up and over $3.00 a gallon.
But the future markets brokers didn't want to lose their cash cow so they
made diesel more expensive.
Why? Because truckers get a tax break on the fuel.
Unfortunately, that action ultimately practically killed off the nation's
MUST have trucking industry to the point where only those that can afford
the fuel, are still in business.

The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two, is to
go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking oil will
run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

[harryagain]

Post by richard

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no
fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Just to set you straight on the prices, diesel had always been 10 cents
cheaper than regular gas.
When fuel prices surged up to around the $2.50 mark for the first time,
people put up a big fuss over it. The prices dropped back down a little.
Then went right back, up and over $3.00 a gallon.
But the future markets brokers didn't want to lose their cash cow so they
made diesel more expensive.
Why? Because truckers get a tax break on the fuel.
Unfortunately, that action ultimately practically killed off the nation's
MUST have trucking industry to the point where only those that can afford
the fuel, are still in business.
The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two, is to
go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking oil will
run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

Diesel engines are over 50% of cars in the UK.
Some diesel engines will run on used cooking oil but not all.
The new technology ones won't.

The latest diesel engine cars over here have ceramic exhaust gas filters as
well as catalysers.
They rely on a high speed run to burn the carbon out of the filters every
now and then.
If you don't do this, the filter gets f***d and a new one costs a fortune.

And fuel is getting on for $11/gallon. Our gallons are a bit bigger than
yours.

[Frank]

Post by harryagain

Post by richard

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation intermediate, in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no
fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could fuck us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Just to set you straight on the prices, diesel had always been 10 cents
cheaper than regular gas.
When fuel prices surged up to around the $2.50 mark for the first time,
people put up a big fuss over it. The prices dropped back down a little.
Then went right back, up and over $3.00 a gallon.
But the future markets brokers didn't want to lose their cash cow so they
made diesel more expensive.
Why? Because truckers get a tax break on the fuel.
Unfortunately, that action ultimately practically killed off the nation's
MUST have trucking industry to the point where only those that can afford
the fuel, are still in business.
The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two, is to
go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking oil will
run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

Diesel engines are over 50% of cars in the UK.
Some diesel engines will run on used cooking oil but not all.
The new technology ones won't.
The latest diesel engine cars over here have ceramic exhaust gas filters as
well as catalysers.
They rely on a high speed run to burn the carbon out of the filters every
now and then.
If you don't do this, the filter gets f***d and a new one costs a fortune.
And fuel is getting on for $11/gallon. Our gallons are a bit bigger than
yours.

I understand diesel price parity in EC is basically mandated by the
government and the consumers are hosed by the government in extremely
high fuel taxes. That's why the more efficient diesel engines are in
such high usage. Normal market forces and lower taxes in the US give
much less advantage. Diesel engines cost more and fuel costs more here.

[harryagain]

Post by Frank

Post by harryagain

Post by richard

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate,
in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could
fuck
us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Just to set you straight on the prices, diesel had always been 10 cents
cheaper than regular gas.
When fuel prices surged up to around the $2.50 mark for the first time,
people put up a big fuss over it. The prices dropped back down a little.
Then went right back, up and over $3.00 a gallon.
But the future markets brokers didn't want to lose their cash cow so they
made diesel more expensive.
Why? Because truckers get a tax break on the fuel.
Unfortunately, that action ultimately practically killed off the nation's
MUST have trucking industry to the point where only those that can afford
the fuel, are still in business.
The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two, is to
go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking oil will
run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

Diesel engines are over 50% of cars in the UK.
Some diesel engines will run on used cooking oil but not all.
The new technology ones won't.
The latest diesel engine cars over here have ceramic exhaust gas filters as
well as catalysers.
They rely on a high speed run to burn the carbon out of the filters every
now and then.
If you don't do this, the filter gets f***d and a new one costs a fortune.
And fuel is getting on for $11/gallon. Our gallons are a bit bigger than
yours.

I understand diesel price parity in EC is basically mandated by the
government and the consumers are hosed by the government in extremely high
fuel taxes. That's why the more efficient diesel engines are in such high
usage. Normal market forces and lower taxes in the US give much less
advantage. Diesel engines cost more and fuel costs more here.

The same over here. Diesel fuel used to be cheap but now is more than
petrol.
And the cars cost more.
The MPG is not that much different now except about town where diesels score
better.

[Frank]

Post by harryagain

Post by Frank

Post by harryagain

Post by richard

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself should
give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon alone.
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the
pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little deeper,
as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high test --
by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate,
in
the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay attention
in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuels.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no fractionating
at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah, the sulfur....
But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each vehicle, they could
fuck
us
for a de-sulfuization unit in each car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pellet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Just to set you straight on the prices, diesel had always been 10 cents
cheaper than regular gas.
When fuel prices surged up to around the $2.50 mark for the first time,
people put up a big fuss over it. The prices dropped back down a little.
Then went right back, up and over $3.00 a gallon.
But the future markets brokers didn't want to lose their cash cow so they
made diesel more expensive.
Why? Because truckers get a tax break on the fuel.
Unfortunately, that action ultimately practically killed off the nation's
MUST have trucking industry to the point where only those that can afford
the fuel, are still in business.
The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two, is to
go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking oil will
run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

Diesel engines are over 50% of cars in the UK.
Some diesel engines will run on used cooking oil but not all.
The new technology ones won't.
The latest diesel engine cars over here have ceramic exhaust gas filters as
well as catalysers.
They rely on a high speed run to burn the carbon out of the filters every
now and then.
If you don't do this, the filter gets f***d and a new one costs a fortune.
And fuel is getting on for $11/gallon. Our gallons are a bit bigger than
yours.

I understand diesel price parity in EC is basically mandated by the
government and the consumers are hosed by the government in extremely high
fuel taxes. That's why the more efficient diesel engines are in such high
usage. Normal market forces and lower taxes in the US give much less
advantage. Diesel engines cost more and fuel costs more here.

The same over here. Diesel fuel used to be cheap but now is more than
petrol.
And the cars cost more.
The MPG is not that much different now except about town where diesels score
better.

Did not know if taxed differently but could be pure market forces.
Higher prices in EC still might favor diesel. Guess it depends on how
much you drive. Retired, myself, and not driving that much, I would not
get a more expensive diesel or hybrid vehicle just to save money on fuel.

[Kevin Bottorff]

Post by richard

Post by Existential Angst
Perty inneresting.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Apropos of some recent diesel discussions, diesel fuel all by itself
should give 13% more mpgs, just from the higher btu's per gallon
alone. And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more
expensive at the pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol
It also becomes clear how gasahol shoves it in the motorist a little
deeper, as well -- radically lower btu's per gallon.
Unbeknownst to most people, regular gas has more btu's/gal than high
test -- by dint of the higher stability of the tertiary carbocation
intermediate, in the combustion process.... no foolin.
Texaco was successfully sued over this li'l factoid, in their false
advertising of their premium fuels. Someone at Texaco didn't pay
attention in Organic Chem I.
http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/heating%20value%20of%20common%20fuel
s.pdf
The thing about #6 fuel oil is that it may need little to no
fractionating at all, radically lowering its delivered cost. Yeah,
the sulfur.... But mebbe by adding another mere 500 lbs to each
vehicle, they could fuck us for a de-sulfuization unit in each
car.....
http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/Comparison%20of%20Oil,%20Wood,%20Pe
llet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm
http://www.energykinetics.com/savingsHeatingFuelComparisons.shtml
Fwiw.

Just to set you straight on the prices, diesel had always been 10
cents cheaper than regular gas.
When fuel prices surged up to around the $2.50 mark for the first
time, people put up a big fuss over it. The prices dropped back down a
little. Then went right back, up and over $3.00 a gallon.
But the future markets brokers didn't want to lose their cash cow so
they made diesel more expensive.
Why? Because truckers get a tax break on the fuel.

in the US this is incorrect. the trucking industry never got any tax
breaks on diesel. off road doesn`t pay the road tax, but trucking is deff
not off road.

Post by richard
Unfortunately, that action ultimately practically killed off the
nation's MUST have trucking industry to the point where only those
that can afford the fuel, are still in business.

most are now charging a fuel surcharge based on the price of fuel.
what hurt the trucking industry is the economy slow down that killed
the load demand, and the "dramatic" increase in DOT regulations and
officers writting ticket for every little piss ant thing to raise
revenue. Gee thanks for more "its not a tax" taxes, because it sure as
heck is not about the safety. KB

Post by richard
The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two,
is to go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking
oil will run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by richard
The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two, is to
go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking oil will
run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

There isn't enough used cooking oil to make a dent in the amount of
fuel burnt in diesel engines.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by richard
The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two, is to
go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking oil will
run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

There isn't enough used cooking oil to make a dent in the amount of
fuel burnt in diesel engines.

Biodeisel - used cooking oil, only skipping the food portion.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

[Frank]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by richard
The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two, is to
go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking oil will
run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

There isn't enough used cooking oil to make a dent in the amount of
fuel burnt in diesel engines.

Biodeisel - used cooking oil, only skipping the food portion.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Biodiesel, though, makes more sense than using ethanol. It is much
easier to produce not requiring fermentation or distillation and
glycerine biproduct is more useful.

In the far South where temperatures stay above freezing, used cooking
oil can be used directly. I heard Willie Nelson uses it in his tour
bus. Extra benefit is cooking smell of exhaust masks the smell of pot.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Frank

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by richard
The next step, which probably won't happen for another decade or two, is to
go to distilled alcohol fuel. Tests have shown that used cooking oil will
run just fine in diesel engines with no conversions.

There isn't enough used cooking oil to make a dent in the amount of
fuel burnt in diesel engines.

Biodeisel - used cooking oil, only skipping the food portion.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Biodiesel, though, makes more sense than using ethanol. It is much
easier to produce not requiring fermentation or distillation and
glycerine biproduct is more useful.

True. "Bio-diesel" can be made form any oil or fat, even the
stuff not edible.

Post by Frank
In the far South where temperatures stay above freezing, used cooking
oil can be used directly. I heard Willie Nelson uses it in his tour
bus. Extra benefit is cooking smell of exhaust masks the smell of pot.

So, if you smell fried chicken and lots of sage - it means there's
a Willi Nelson concert nearby?


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

[Richard]

16 year-old Evie Sobczak from St. Petersburg, Florida has engineered a
new method of turning algae into biofuel. She determined a novel and
more efficient way to grow the organisms, extract oil, and use the
product as biodiesel. Her method uses no chemicals, and creates 20
percent more oil than current technologies. Her efforts won her first
place at Intel’s International Science and Engineering Fair.

(more)
<http://www.inhabitots.com/16-year-old-develops-cleaner-more-efficient-method-of-creating-biofuel/>

[Gunner Asch]

Post by Richard
16 year-old Evie Sobczak from St. Petersburg, Florida has engineered a
new method of turning algae into biofuel. She determined a novel and
more efficient way to grow the organisms, extract oil, and use the
product as biodiesel. Her method uses no chemicals, and creates 20
percent more oil than current technologies. Her efforts won her first
place at Intel’s International Science and Engineering Fair.
(more)
<http://www.inhabitots.com/16-year-old-develops-cleaner-more-efficient-method-of-creating-biofuel/>

Cool! Another Marie Curie!!


--
""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small
children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of
repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for
hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just
about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in
politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing
frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members
of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann
Coulter)

[The Daring Dufas]

Post by Richard
16 year-old Evie Sobczak from St. Petersburg, Florida has engineered a
new method of turning algae into biofuel. She determined a novel and
more efficient way to grow the organisms, extract oil, and use the
product as biodiesel. Her method uses no chemicals, and creates 20
percent more oil than current technologies. Her efforts won her first
place at Intel’s International Science and Engineering Fair.
(more)
<http://www.inhabitots.com/16-year-old-develops-cleaner-more-efficient-method-of-creating-biofuel/>

What a fantastic kid, I hope she doesn't burn out at a young age and
goes on to develop more brilliant solutions to problems facing the
World. ^_^

TDD

[Edward A. Falk]

Post by Frank
Biodiesel, though, makes more sense than using ethanol.

Pretty much. Ethanol is a huge loser. It takes as much energy
to process it as it contains. The only time it makes sense is
if your processing plant is right next to the fields where the
plants are grown, and the processing plant runs on solar, wind,
or nuclear power. In which case, ethanol isn't really an energy
*source*, but an energy *storage system*.

[Stormin Mormon]

Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"Edward A. Falk" <***@rahul.net> wrote in message news:kqq2q7$cb2$***@blue-new.rahul.net...
In article <kqkl2j$5n3$***@dont-email.me>,

Pretty much. Ethanol is a huge loser. It takes as much energy
to process it as it contains. The only time it makes sense is
if your processing plant is right next to the fields where the
plants are grown, and the processing plant runs on solar, wind,
or nuclear power. In which case, ethanol isn't really an energy
*source*, but an energy *storage system*.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.

We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.

All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?
--
Ed Huntress

Post by Stormin Mormon
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
Pretty much. Ethanol is a huge loser. It takes as much energy
to process it as it contains. The only time it makes sense is
if your processing plant is right next to the fields where the
plants are grown, and the processing plant runs on solar, wind,
or nuclear power. In which case, ethanol isn't really an energy
*source*, but an energy *storage system*.

[Martin Eastburn]

Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Martin

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.
We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.
All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.

Ed Huntress

Post by Martin Eastburn
Martin

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.
We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.
All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

[.]

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.
Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Martin Eastburn
Martin

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been
used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the
other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA,
and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to
Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.
We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.
All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

[Ed Huntress]

Post by .

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.
Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Ed Huntress

Post by .

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Martin Eastburn
Martin

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been
used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the
other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA,
and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to
Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.
We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.
All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

[jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@]

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .
During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

MTBE mixes with water. Gasoline doesn't.
It also does not bind as well to soil as gasoline molecules.
That means it travels quickly with rain water into aquifers.
The EPA for years said it was safe until it started showing
up in water supplies wherever it was used.

[Ed Huntress]

Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .
During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

MTBE mixes with water. Gasoline doesn't.
It also does not bind as well to soil as gasoline molecules.
That means it travels quickly with rain water into aquifers.
The EPA for years said it was safe until it started showing
up in water supplies wherever it was used.

So what's the bottom line on MTBE as it's understood today?

[Richard]

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .
During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

MTBE mixes with water. Gasoline doesn't.
It also does not bind as well to soil as gasoline molecules.
That means it travels quickly with rain water into aquifers.
The EPA for years said it was safe until it started showing
up in water supplies wherever it was used.

So what's the bottom line on MTBE as it's understood today?

Like many things that our economy rides on - necessary evil...

[Martin Eastburn]

It was exposed that MTBE was made in Canada and a certain
small investor group - turned out to be advisory panel that
voted for MTBE.

MTBE has been banned as soon as anything else was useful in the place.

California dumped it. Other states took longer but understood and
got rid it it also.

Martin

Post by Richard

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .
During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

MTBE mixes with water. Gasoline doesn't.
It also does not bind as well to soil as gasoline molecules.
That means it travels quickly with rain water into aquifers.
The EPA for years said it was safe until it started showing
up in water supplies wherever it was used.

So what's the bottom line on MTBE as it's understood today?

Like many things that our economy rides on - necessary evil...

[jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@]

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .
During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

MTBE mixes with water. Gasoline doesn't.
It also does not bind as well to soil as gasoline molecules.
That means it travels quickly with rain water into aquifers.
The EPA for years said it was safe until it started showing
up in water supplies wherever it was used.

So what's the bottom line on MTBE as it's understood today?

As far as I know it was banned in a many states.
That is when the EPA and oil cos gave up promoting it
and switched to ethanol.

Post by Ed Huntress
--
Ed Huntress

[Kurt Ullman]

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.
Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?
I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Don't think it is the toxicity but rather the persistence. In
otherwords, it doesn't break down as quickly so it can be less nasty but
for a longer period of time.

From the EPA website.
Because MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not "cling" to soil very
well, it migrates faster and farther in the ground than other gasoline
components, thus making it more likely to contaminate public water
systems and private drinking water wells. MTBE does not degrade
(breakdown) easily and is difficult and costly to remove from ground
water.
How long will MTBE remain in water?
MTBE is generally more resistant to natural biodegradation than other
gasoline components. Some monitoring wells have shown little overall
reduction in MTBE concentration over several years which suggests that
MTBE is relatively persistent in ground water. In contrast, studies of
surface water (lakes and reservoirs have shown that MTBE volatilizes
(evaporates) relatively quickly.

[Ed Huntress]

Post by Kurt Ullman

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.
Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?
I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Don't think it is the toxicity but rather the persistence. In
otherwords, it doesn't break down as quickly so it can be less nasty but
for a longer period of time.
From the EPA website.
Because MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not "cling" to soil very
well, it migrates faster and farther in the ground than other gasoline
components, thus making it more likely to contaminate public water
systems and private drinking water wells. MTBE does not degrade
(breakdown) easily and is difficult and costly to remove from ground
water.
How long will MTBE remain in water?
MTBE is generally more resistant to natural biodegradation than other
gasoline components. Some monitoring wells have shown little overall
reduction in MTBE concentration over several years which suggests that
MTBE is relatively persistent in ground water. In contrast, studies of
surface water (lakes and reservoirs have shown that MTBE volatilizes
(evaporates) relatively quickly.

Aha. Very interesting. Thanks, Kurt.

[.]

Post by Kurt Ullman

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.
Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?
I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Don't think it is the toxicity but rather the persistence. In
otherwords, it doesn't break down as quickly so it can be less nasty but
for a longer period of time.
From the EPA website.
Because MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not "cling" to soil very
well, it migrates faster and farther in the ground than other gasoline
components, thus making it more likely to contaminate public water
systems and private drinking water wells. MTBE does not degrade
(breakdown) easily and is difficult and costly to remove from ground
water.
How long will MTBE remain in water?
MTBE is generally more resistant to natural biodegradation than other
gasoline components. Some monitoring wells have shown little overall
reduction in MTBE concentration over several years which suggests that
MTBE is relatively persistent in ground water. In contrast, studies of
surface water (lakes and reservoirs have shown that MTBE volatilizes
(evaporates) relatively quickly.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

Unlike the petroleum distillates it is in solution with, MTBE
is easily removed by, to name but one, common activated
charcoal filtration systems. The scare tactic was nothing
more than a smoke screen generated by the petroleum
refiners and distributors in a cynical attempt to misdirect
the populace (by blaming a government mandated additive)
and conceal the actual problem, leaking fuel storage tanks.

[Gunner Asch]

Post by .

Post by Kurt Ullman

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.
Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?
I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Don't think it is the toxicity but rather the persistence. In
otherwords, it doesn't break down as quickly so it can be less nasty but
for a longer period of time.
From the EPA website.
Because MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not "cling" to soil very
well, it migrates faster and farther in the ground than other gasoline
components, thus making it more likely to contaminate public water
systems and private drinking water wells. MTBE does not degrade
(breakdown) easily and is difficult and costly to remove from ground
water.
How long will MTBE remain in water?
MTBE is generally more resistant to natural biodegradation than other
gasoline components. Some monitoring wells have shown little overall
reduction in MTBE concentration over several years which suggests that
MTBE is relatively persistent in ground water. In contrast, studies of
surface water (lakes and reservoirs have shown that MTBE volatilizes
(evaporates) relatively quickly.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

Unlike the petroleum distillates it is in solution with, MTBE
is easily removed by, to name but one, common activated
charcoal filtration systems. The scare tactic was nothing
more than a smoke screen generated by the petroleum
refiners and distributors in a cynical attempt to misdirect
the populace (by blaming a government mandated additive)
and conceal the actual problem, leaking fuel storage tanks.

So we should believe someone who has no name, nym or valid email
address?

Right. Oh fuck yes.

Gunner

--
""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small
children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of
repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for
hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just
about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in
politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing
frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members
of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann
Coulter)

[.]

Post by Gunner Asch

Post by .
Unlike the petroleum distillates it is in solution with, MTBE
is easily removed by, to name but one, common activated
charcoal filtration systems. The scare tactic was nothing
more than a smoke screen generated by the petroleum
refiners and distributors in a cynical attempt to misdirect
the populace (by blaming a government mandated additive)
and conceal the actual problem, leaking fuel storage tanks.

So we should believe someone who has no name, nym or valid email
address?
Right. Oh fuck yes.
Gunner

You shouldn't believe ANYONE based on their name or
email address, you mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging moron.

[Gunner Asch]

Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking,alt.home.repair,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Fuel comparison charts
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:00:59 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: eGFUODT6QZ6/1XNBhyGyIQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 2074
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.autos.tech:571576 alt.home.repair:1481396 rec.crafts.metalworking:1443033

Post by Gunner Asch

Post by .
Unlike the petroleum distillates it is in solution with, MTBE
is easily removed by, to name but one, common activated
charcoal filtration systems. The scare tactic was nothing
more than a smoke screen generated by the petroleum
refiners and distributors in a cynical attempt to misdirect
the populace (by blaming a government mandated additive)
and conceal the actual problem, leaking fuel storage tanks.

So we should believe someone who has no name, nym or valid email
address?
Right. Oh fuck yes.
Gunner

You shouldn't believe ANYONE based on their name or
email address, you mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging moron.

We obviously pay a lot of attention to your nym....(not)...

Laugh laugh laugh!!

Begone troll!!

<plink>

Gunner

--
""Almost all liberal behavioral tropes track the impotent rage of small
children. Thus, for example, there is also the popular tactic of
repeating some stupid, meaningless phrase a billion times" Arms for
hostages, arms for hostages, arms for hostages, it's just about sex, just
about sex, just about sex, dumb,dumb, money in politics,money in
politics, Enron, Enron, Enron. Nothing repeated with mind-numbing
frequency in all major news outlets will not be believed by some members
of the populace. It is the permanence of evil; you can't stop it." (Ann
Coulter)

[Martin Eastburn]

Wonder about Tahoe. It went deep into the cold and
just created a big bubble.

Maybe in shallow lakes that get mixed up all of the time
by the wind and boats - it might release itself, but I seem
to recall it was heaver than water. So agitation is required.

Martin

Post by Kurt Ullman

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by .

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.
Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?
I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Don't think it is the toxicity but rather the persistence. In
otherwords, it doesn't break down as quickly so it can be less nasty but
for a longer period of time.
From the EPA website.
Because MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not "cling" to soil very
well, it migrates faster and farther in the ground than other gasoline
components, thus making it more likely to contaminate public water
systems and private drinking water wells. MTBE does not degrade
(breakdown) easily and is difficult and costly to remove from ground
water.
How long will MTBE remain in water?
MTBE is generally more resistant to natural biodegradation than other
gasoline components. Some monitoring wells have shown little overall
reduction in MTBE concentration over several years which suggests that
MTBE is relatively persistent in ground water. In contrast, studies of
surface water (lakes and reservoirs have shown that MTBE volatilizes
(evaporates) relatively quickly.

[Martin Eastburn]

Leases don't mean drilling. Billions of dollars were spent
on the large state size leases offshore of California. Then after
paying the government for the leases, the loonies pleaded and got
a drilling halt and forbade wells out in the water.

Large tracks are held at bay in the gulf. Some were active but shut
down after the spill. The area near Miami was rich in oil, but
it was held back because of ugly rigs in the skyline. Then Cuba / China
moved in and their rig can be seen from Miami.

MTBE dropped miles / gallon. It polluted ground water. And there is
a huge bubble of it at the bottom of Lake Tahoe.

Ethanol is hygroscopic and when a tank is a breather and not sealed,
it pulls in cool damp air at night, and condenses into the tank. This
is a common failure mode of gas now. Special ethanol additives have
been developed to trap the water and allow it to be burned. Typically
it sits and freezes - cracking small motor parts. I try to run all of
them wide open to use up the gas before letting them sit.

And taxes are more than Federal. Tax on the whole product string.
And having the Gasoline and Crude oil different commodity and have
been the souce of the 'excessive gain tax' - where the oil companies
buy crude and sell the results of their work at a much higher value
due to the demand price on gas and anti-demand on Crude.

So taxes are from many levels and many methods.

And I live in cattle, gas/oil/timber/farming area of Texas - and the
large feed mills have had prices rise (brother worked at a large mill)
and the chicken / turkey feed is up as well as dairy cattle feed / horse
and pig feed. Any product that used grain - higher gas / fuel cost -
rises the cost of feed. Supply and demand is another. Taking feed corn
to be turned into this poor example of fuel is shameful. It was easy.

Brazil has special engines. They did it correctly. Indy cars did it also.

Martin

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.
Ed Huntress

Post by Martin Eastburn
Martin

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.
We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.
All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 22:25:14 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Leases don't mean drilling. Billions of dollars were spent
on the large state size leases offshore of California. Then after
paying the government for the leases, the loonies pleaded and got
a drilling halt and forbade wells out in the water.

What are you talking about? There have been no new offshore federal
leases issued in California since 1984. Are you talking about state
leases? Which ones?

Post by Martin Eastburn
Large tracks are held at bay in the gulf.

No. There are as many oil rigs operating or contracted in the Gulf
today as were predicted for 2013 before the BP oil spill.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Some were active but shut
down after the spill. The area near Miami was rich in oil, but
it was held back because of ugly rigs in the skyline. Then Cuba / China
moved in and their rig can be seen from Miami.

No. The nearest exploratory rig off Cuba is over 200 miles from Miami.
And it's Cuba and Russia, in this case. It was the last rig off Cuba's
coast. It just shut down and is being moved to South America.

Post by Martin Eastburn
MTBE dropped miles / gallon. It polluted ground water. And there is
a huge bubble of it at the bottom of Lake Tahoe.
Ethanol is hygroscopic and when a tank is a breather and not sealed,
it pulls in cool damp air at night, and condenses into the tank. This
is a common failure mode of gas now. Special ethanol additives have
been developed to trap the water and allow it to be burned. Typically
it sits and freezes - cracking small motor parts. I try to run all of
them wide open to use up the gas before letting them sit.
And taxes are more than Federal. Tax on the whole product string.
And having the Gasoline and Crude oil different commodity and have
been the souce of the 'excessive gain tax' - where the oil companies
buy crude and sell the results of their work at a much higher value
due to the demand price on gas and anti-demand on Crude.
So taxes are from many levels and many methods.
And I live in cattle, gas/oil/timber/farming area of Texas - and the
large feed mills have had prices rise (brother worked at a large mill)
and the chicken / turkey feed is up as well as dairy cattle feed / horse
and pig feed. Any product that used grain - higher gas / fuel cost -
rises the cost of feed. Supply and demand is another. Taking feed corn
to be turned into this poor example of fuel is shameful. It was easy.
Brazil has special engines. They did it correctly. Indy cars did it also.
Martin

I can't chase all of your claims down, Martin. Without citations, they
just aren't worth tracking.
--
Ed Huntress

Post by Martin Eastburn

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

Post by Martin Eastburn
The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.
Ed Huntress

Post by Martin Eastburn
Martin

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.
We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.
All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

[Martin Eastburn]

I talk to oil drillers, remote working tool men and deep sea
welding and tooling. Guys that go out for weeks at a time
and rotate with another crew. These men work on the rigs and
know what is there and what isn't. What rig is a ghost waiting
for crews to work again. Locals used to work in the gulf but now
work all over the world. The local work isn't there as it was.

And yes - the California rip off continues. Still no drilling.

I drove 90 miles a day and noticed the poor performance.
For those who drove on flat land roads and could putt about
it might be ok - but getting energy out of the junk just didn't
do it. The effective octane was reduced, the material was used
as they wanted - no percentage. Just over 10% could be 50% or more.

The rig count was low in 2013 because of the spill and the flat holdback
on operating rigs that were shut down as well as exploring wells.

Martin

Post by Ed Huntress
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 22:25:14 -0500, Martin Eastburn

Post by Martin Eastburn
Leases don't mean drilling. Billions of dollars were spent
on the large state size leases offshore of California. Then after
paying the government for the leases, the loonies pleaded and got
a drilling halt and forbade wells out in the water.

What are you talking about? There have been no new offshore federal
leases issued in California since 1984. Are you talking about state
leases? Which ones?

Post by Martin Eastburn
Large tracks are held at bay in the gulf.

No. There are as many oil rigs operating or contracted in the Gulf
today as were predicted for 2013 before the BP oil spill.

Post by Martin Eastburn
Some were active but shut
down after the spill. The area near Miami was rich in oil, but
it was held back because of ugly rigs in the skyline. Then Cuba / China
moved in and their rig can be seen from Miami.

No. The nearest exploratory rig off Cuba is over 200 miles from Miami.
And it's Cuba and Russia, in this case. It was the last rig off Cuba's
coast. It just shut down and is being moved to South America.

Post by Martin Eastburn
MTBE dropped miles / gallon. It polluted ground water. And there is
a huge bubble of it at the bottom of Lake Tahoe.
Ethanol is hygroscopic and when a tank is a breather and not sealed,
it pulls in cool damp air at night, and condenses into the tank. This
is a common failure mode of gas now. Special ethanol additives have
been developed to trap the water and allow it to be burned. Typically
it sits and freezes - cracking small motor parts. I try to run all of
them wide open to use up the gas before letting them sit.
And taxes are more than Federal. Tax on the whole product string.
And having the Gasoline and Crude oil different commodity and have
been the souce of the 'excessive gain tax' - where the oil companies
buy crude and sell the results of their work at a much higher value
due to the demand price on gas and anti-demand on Crude.
So taxes are from many levels and many methods.
And I live in cattle, gas/oil/timber/farming area of Texas - and the
large feed mills have had prices rise (brother worked at a large mill)
and the chicken / turkey feed is up as well as dairy cattle feed / horse
and pig feed. Any product that used grain - higher gas / fuel cost -
rises the cost of feed. Supply and demand is another. Taking feed corn
to be turned into this poor example of fuel is shameful. It was easy.
Brazil has special engines. They did it correctly. Indy cars did it also.
Martin

I can't chase all of your claims down, Martin. Without citations, they
just aren't worth tracking.

[.]

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been
used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other
hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off
the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC,
not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.
We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.
All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?
--
Ed Huntress

Are any more clues than religious or Mormon necessary?

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when
religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM."
- David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Stormin Mormon
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
Pretty much. Ethanol is a huge loser. It takes as much energy
to process it as it contains. The only time it makes sense is
if your processing plant is right next to the fields where the
plants are grown, and the processing plant runs on solar, wind,
or nuclear power. In which case, ethanol isn't really an energy
*source*, but an energy *storage system*.

[Ed Huntress]

Post by .

Post by Ed Huntress
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been
used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other
hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off
the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC,
not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.
We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.
All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?
--
Ed Huntress

Are any more clues than religious or Mormon necessary?
"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when
religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM."
- David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

I don't know much about the Mormons. From what little I've seen, they
tend to be pretty well educated, in general. I'm sure there are
exceptions.

It looks more like paleo-conservative cynicism to me. Things have to
be going wrong, and it has to be somebody else's fault -- especially
if there are any non-conservatives in power. We're on the road to
perdition and no amount of evidence to the contrary will be
considered.

It turns their minds into oatmeal and they're incapable of examining
evidence in an objective way.
--
Ed Huntress

Post by .

Post by Ed Huntress

Post by Stormin Mormon
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
Pretty much. Ethanol is a huge loser. It takes as much energy
to process it as it contains. The only time it makes sense is
if your processing plant is right next to the fields where the
plants are grown, and the processing plant runs on solar, wind,
or nuclear power. In which case, ethanol isn't really an energy
*source*, but an energy *storage system*.

[Ralph Mowery]

Post by Michael A. Terrell
There isn't enough used cooking oil to make a dent in the amount of
fuel burnt in diesel engines.

The cooking oil sounds good, except that I doubt that there is enough in an
average town to power a tenth of a percent of the cars,

[Michael A. Terrell]

Post by Ralph Mowery

Post by Michael A. Terrell
There isn't enough used cooking oil to make a dent in the amount of
fuel burnt in diesel engines.

The cooking oil sounds good, except that I doubt that there is enough in an
average town to power a tenth of a percent of the cars,

That was my point. OTOH, you could render enough fat from the
shiftless slobs to power at least one percent. ;-)

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Michael A. Terrell

Post by Ralph Mowery

Post by Michael A. Terrell
There isn't enough used cooking oil to make a dent in the amount of
fuel burnt in diesel engines.

The cooking oil sounds good, except that I doubt that there is enough in an
average town to power a tenth of a percent of the cars,

That was my point. OTOH, you could render enough fat from the
shiftless slobs to power at least one percent. ;-)

Hmm, there's a new "energy source".

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

[technomaNge]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Michael A. Terrell
That was my point. OTOH, you could render enough fat from the
shiftless slobs to power at least one percent. ;-)

Hmm, there's a new "energy source".

Soylent Green Diesel is people!



technomaNge

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by technomaNge

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by Michael A. Terrell
That was my point. OTOH, you could render enough fat from the
shiftless slobs to power at least one percent. ;-)

Hmm, there's a new "energy source".

Soylent Green Diesel is people!

No it's not - iz made from Lieberuls. They just look like
Peoples.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."