Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yknurd on February 18, 2008, 06:08:56 PM
-
I pay $ 2.95 a gallon.
My wife pays $ 2.45 a gallon for E85.
I wish I could use E85.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I pay $ 2.95 a gallon.
My wife pays $ 2.45 a gallon for E85.
I wish I could use E85.
$2.71 for 87 cheapo stuff......
$4.79 for 100LL for light aircraft....
-
I pay 14.95$ for unlimited fuel for all my planes in AH2...
(But in case you are talking about non-AH gas prices: Current price at my next gas station is 1.38€ /l -> app. 5.22€ per gal. At current exchange rates that translates into app. 7.65$ :D)
-
Well here in IL it's been around $3 a gallon for 87 octane, for some reason IL usually has the highest gas prices in the nation. I've heard that in Saudi Arabia they pay around 20 cents U.S to completely fill there tanks.
-
Doh...
Wrong forum... mea culpa
Of course I only drive ten minutes to work.
-
87 Octane Gasoline here in St. Louis $2.89/gallon
105 Octane E85 here in St. Louis (For my Flex-fuel ranger) $2.59/gallon (but a 10-15% decrease in fuel economy)
Buying THIS:
(http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/AHMerciful/2005fordescape20021914-E.jpg)
And getting 30+MPG, and getting my Father-In-Law to shut up about how us buying an SUV is raising *HIS* gas prices... PRICELESS
Even better.. Buying THAT and getting it for $6000 below bluebook because the salesman didn't realize it was a Hybrid until after we decided on the price (Paperwork's all signed, picking it up in the morning after they Detail it, and throw on four brand new tires + alignment)... PRICELESS
-
$5.12 US dollars per US gallon of 91 octane unleaded.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I pay $ 2.95 a gallon.
My wife pays $ 2.45 a gallon for E85.
I wish I could use E85.
$5.20 for 100 octane.
-
Keep in mind, Octane is calculated differently in Europe than it is here in the US.
100 Octane there is about 90 Octane here.
-
Originally posted by Tigger29
Keep in mind, Octane is calculated differently in Europe than it is here in the US.
100 Octane there is about 90 Octane here.
I should've mentioned its 100LL - 100 Low Lead.
AVGAS.
-
Originally posted by Tigger29
87 Octane Gasoline here in St. Louis $2.89/gallon
105 Octane E85 here in St. Louis (For my Flex-fuel ranger) $2.59/gallon (but a 10-15% decrease in fuel economy)
Buying THIS:
(http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/AHMerciful/2005fordescape20021914-E.jpg)
And getting 30+MPG, and getting my Father-In-Law to shut up about how us buying an SUV is raising *HIS* gas prices... PRICELESS
Even better.. Buying THAT and getting it for $6000 below bluebook because the salesman didn't realize it was a Hybrid until after we decided on the price (Paperwork's all signed, picking it up in the morning after they Detail it, and throw on four brand new tires + alignment)... PRICELESS
i diagnose and repair cars for a living...and have been arguing about this for a looong time......everyone's convinced ethenol is the cure-all.....and it's not.....it costs more to produce, it produces less power, thus requiring more fuel into the engine to accomplish what 87 octane gas does....it's an all around really bad idea.......but then who am i to say, right?:D
-
Originally posted by CAP1
i diagnose and repair cars for a living...and have been arguing about this for a looong time......everyone's convinced ethenol is the cure-all.....and it's not.....it costs more to produce, it produces less power, thus requiring more fuel into the engine to accomplish what 87 octane gas does....it's an all around really bad idea.......but then who am i to say, right?:D
Well the good thing about it is it's a renewable energy source, unlike fossil fuels.
-
Unfortunately for us in the PNW we are having it shoved down out throats. It is now the only thing you can buy except they made an exception for av gas.
-
Some 1,39 euros / litre (95 oct) = 7,82 us$ / gallon... you guys would be rioting with these prices, right? :D
-
Gas is free w/ one of these,
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa211/crzwhiteboy1121/bike.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I pay $ 2.95 a gallon.
My wife pays $ 2.45 a gallon for E85.
I wish I could use E85.
we pay like $6 per gallon stop whining ;)
-
costs me £45 = $90 ish to fill my tank up and that would last 2 weeks or so.
We really need to riot and stop our government taking the piss!
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
costs me £45 = $90 ish to fill my tank up and that would last 2 weeks or so.
We really need to riot and stop our government taking the piss!
remember fuel protests are now classed as terrorism in the UK. Thanks Mr Blair...
-
1,089 euro / lit
-
$3.09 at the little store across the highway.
-
well thats just our nature suck it up, moan about it and not do anything pro-active to change it.
Theres one thing I admire America for. Wrong or right.
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
well thats just our nature suck it up, moan about it and not do anything pro-active to change it.
Theres one thing I admire America for. Wrong or right.
the only thing that "works" is to block the fuel refineries. Do that and you will get locked up.
But then saying that theres no more prison spaces so we ok :aok
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I pay $ 2.95 a gallon.
My wife pays $ 2.45 a gallon for E85.
I wish I could use E85.
and $1000.00 to replace the valves, tank, and fuel pump once the water damage starts.:aok
-
Originally posted by MajWoody
Unfortunately for us in the PNW we are having it shoved down out throats. It is now the only thing you can buy except they made an exception for av gas.
It's not E85, our gas is only 10% ethanol. Matter of fact, there are only a handful of places all across Oregon that you can get E85.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I pay $ 2.95 a gallon.
My wife pays $ 2.45 a gallon for E85.
We all pay the difference because of the 51¢ per gallon federal blenders credit. Our federal tax dollars at work. Every time someone drives on E85, we all pay.
-
For the last month we've been bouncing between $2.97 three days during the week and $3.35 during the other four days of the week.
They used to hike it up on Thursay and drop it on Monday but since the general price has gone up so much people have been more aware of when gas is cheaper. Now you never know when they're going to jack it up. It's totally random (as far as I can tell).
-
It's around $2.80 in Ft.Worth. Add 20 cents a gallon for the extra distance they don't have to ship it (we have a refinery) to here.:huh
Get ready for it to jump about 20 cents a gallon because of Hugo Chavez. Any excuse to jack up the price.
-
2.80 to 2.83 a gal.
Life is good.
-
$5.10 a gal here so quit you bit*hin
:)
-
Yeah, you have to add about $.40 in tax subsidy to E85 the subtract about 20 percent of your gas mileage. Then consider that so many crops have been converted to corn for ethanol that your food prices have increased.
Charon
-
Yoy know that E85 really dosent do much as far as cost. All e85 really dose is put out less emisions (sp) and decreases your MPH 5-10 miles. so you be spending more time at the gas station with e85 than 87, 89, or 100 octane
-
man i love it whe americans start complaining about
petrol prices
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
boy have you lot got it easy
-
Originally posted by Banzzai
man i love it whe americans start complaining about
petrol prices
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
boy have you lot got it easy
Well you know what, your use to paying those prices for your petrol, were not. Imagine that if over the period of a year your prices almost tripled and then stayed that way and never went back down, now you don't think you might complain a little?
Plus Europe is small compared to the U.S, we have to drive farther, and your car makers have been making your cars have great gas millage.
-
I converted my old 69 international to run on used cooking oil we have enough fast food joints around here i can drive forever for nothin they give me the stuff. It smells like french fries while youre cruisin around and makes ya wanna stop at the local sonic burger for a fry fix. but it works so ya wont hear me complaining.:aok
-
Originally posted by smokey23
I converted my old 69 international to run on used cooking oil we have enough fast food joints around here i can drive forever for nothin they give me the stuff. It smells like french fries while youre cruisin around and makes ya wanna stop at the local sonic burger for a fry fix. but it works so ya wont hear me complaining.:aok
What did it cost you to convert your diesel engine to run on cooking oil?
-
Originally posted by smokey23
I converted my old 69 international to run on used cooking oil we have enough fast food joints around here i can drive forever for nothin they give me the stuff. It smells like french fries while youre cruisin around and makes ya wanna stop at the local sonic burger for a fry fix. but it works so ya wont hear me complaining.:aok
i call balderdash, you need to treat used cooking oil before you can burn it in your engine.
(clip)
Transesterification For Wasted Vegetable Oil (WVO)
Vegetable Oil: Diesel has a chain of 11-13 carbons, and new vegetable oil has a chain of about 18--but wasted vegetable oil-- which has been heated--has chains of up to 32 carbons. To burn in an engine, the chain needs to be broken down to be similar in length to diesel
Lye: (Sodium Hydroxide ((NaOH)-- or potassium hydroxide also works) is the catalyst for transesterification. It works by "cracking" the vegetable oil molecules, splitting the triglycerides from the hydrocarbons and shortening the carbon chain. (3.5g or .35% is the standard amount of lye necessary to create a reaction, when using fresh vegetable oil, so you can figure that used vegetable oil will always use more.)
Methanol: The amount of methanol needed will also vary, but the ideal is to use the least amount of methanol necessary in order to get the highest yield. The yield is related to completion; so if you get a 90% yield that means that 90% of the fatty acids have been eliminated from the vegetable oil. We have found that the best is to use 15% to 20% methanol, based upon the total weight of your batch of oil.
*it is best to use dry gas methanol (we found methanol at an automotive racing store)
A hydrometer can also be used to check the amount of completion according to density
Vegetable Oil has a specific density of .910
Biodiesel has a specific density of .850-.870
and you will still need a heated fuel tank and some conversions have to use diesel to start and warn up the engine and to purge the fuel lines of veggy oil before shut down.
-
Yeah, bio-diesel engines have small gas tanks that hold about 1/2 - 1 gallon of regular diesel fuel to heat up the engine before you switch to the bio-diesel fuel.
-
Originally posted by CAP1
i diagnose and repair cars for a living...and have been arguing about this for a looong time......everyone's convinced ethenol is the cure-all.....and it's not.....it costs more to produce, it produces less power, thus requiring more fuel into the engine to accomplish what 87 octane gas does....it's an all around really bad idea.......but then who am i to say, right?:D
I diagnose and repair cars for a living as well. I am an ASE L1 certified master technician with 15 years of experience.
You are both correct and incorrect. In the long run, yes ethanol is more expensive.. both to use and to produce. The decrease per gallon cost is offset by the loss of fuel economy.
There are two reasons I like to use it. For one, my truck absolutely loves the stuff.. runs great.. has more power.. smoother. Plus "bragging rights" to having something different.
Two... It supports local farmers more so than middle eastern oil. This is not for a political discussion at this time though, and I don't use it for political reasons. All I know is I like it.. my truck likes it.. and even if it costs a bit more, I'll still continue to use it.
Now as far as producing less power.. yes and no. While gallon per gallon, ethanol has less energy than gasoline (thus making it less efficient), but in theory a vehicle can crank out more power using it... but you have to use MORE of it. This is why using E85 typically results in a 10 to 15.. to 20% decrease in economy.
To classify it as an "all around really bad idea"... well this is more opinion than fact. As technology evolves and we're able to produce E85 more efficiently and from more products than CORN... well heck look at South America.. they are using Soy.. then there's switchblade alcohol. If they can essentially use WEEDS that nobody is going to in their right minds consume or use for anything else than throwing away... then how is this an overall bad idea?
The problem is that this technology will never get developed if nobody supports it. Our current methods of using Corn may be inefficient, but it is a "stepping stone" for our country. The USA is driven by business. A business is not going to develop a product (unless mandated by the government, and we all know how well that works out) that has little or no demand. If people keep discounting E85 as a viable solution, then no one will invest in it and it will die away.
If we DO show this to be a profitable, viable option, they will explore further technologies, and eventually will be using weeds and garbage to fuel our cars. Now.. is THAT a bad idea?
-
Originally posted by trax1
Well here in IL it's been around $3 a gallon for 87 octane, for some reason IL usually has the highest gas prices in the nation. I've heard that in Saudi Arabia they pay around 20 cents U.S to completely fill there tanks.
That is because we pay both Federal and state taxs on our gas. I live in Cook County and they even have a county tax :mad:
-
4 ft of garden hose. $0.00
2 each empty 5gal fuel cans. $0.00
2 times a week, late at night. $0.00
1 huge bottle of mouth wash. Wal-Mart generic $1.17
I haven't done the math yet but I'm sure it's cheaper.
:D
Mac
-
come on mac, get one of them squeeze bulb syphon things, no more gas taste.
-
Originally posted by CAP1
i diagnose and repair cars for a living...and have been arguing about this for a looong time......everyone's convinced ethenol is the cure-all.....and it's not.....it costs more to produce, it produces less power, thus requiring more fuel into the engine to accomplish what 87 octane gas does....it's an all around really bad idea.......but then who am i to say, right?:D
Let the American Farmer and the market work on Ethanol for a while. I don't doubt that the production efficiency will increase as they figure new methods of production. Whether it comes from switchgrass, or genetically engineered corn, or raw sugar - I'd rather give the money to the farmers than to the oil dictators of the middle east and south america.
The really bad idea is to leave ourselves at the mercy of an illegal price-fixing oil cartel (OPEC).
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
The really bad idea is to leave ourselves at the mercy of an illegal price-fixing oil cartel (OPEC).
EagleDNY
$.02
Exactly, this way we can produce are own energy fuel, and it's a renewable source, which means we'll never run out of it, and we don't have to be at the mercy of OPEC.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
4 ft of garden hose. $0.00
2 each empty 5gal fuel cans. $0.00
2 times a week, late at night. $0.00
1 huge bottle of mouth wash. Wal-Mart generic $1.17
I haven't done the math yet but I'm sure it's cheaper.
:D
Mac
Getting 2 Oz of 12Ga double-barrelled ROCK SALT picked out of your buttocks in the emergency room.... $6,410.15
;)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Some 1,39 euros / litre (95 oct) = 7,82 us$ / gallon... you guys would be rioting with these prices, right? :D
LOL, still no-one else even over 6 $ / gallon
You lucky biatchees :cry
-
Did the barren in NY just tip the 100$ mark, or did i hear wrong?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Did the barren in NY just tip the 100$ mark, or did i hear wrong?
You heard correct sir.
I'm assuming you meant barrel not barren
-
Originally posted by Tigger29
I diagnose and repair cars for a living as well. I am an ASE L1 certified master technician with 15 years of experience.
There are two reasons I like to use it. For one, my truck absolutely loves the stuff.. runs great.. has more power.. smoother. Plus "bragging rights" to having something different...
Now as far as producing less power.. yes and no. While gallon per gallon, ethanol has less energy than gasoline (thus making it less efficient), but in theory a vehicle can crank out more power using it... but you have to use MORE of it. This is why using E85 typically results in a 10 to 15.. to 20% decrease in economy.
Quick question: whats the emissions difference between E85 and regular gas?
Do you still have / need a catalytic converter?
-
Originally posted by trax1
You heard correct sir.
I'm assuming you meant barrel not barren
hehe yeah barrel :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Did the barren in NY just tip the 100$ mark, or did i hear wrong?
$100 a barrel oil courtesy of OPEC telling the world they might have to drop production a bit. Did I mention how much having an illegal price-fixing oil cartel in charge of world energy really bites?
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
$100 a barrel oil courtesy of OPEC telling the world they might have to drop production a bit. Did I mention how much having an illegal price-fixing oil cartel in charge of world energy really bites?
Thats why we need more ethanol production here in the U.S, I know people say it's just as bad for the environment as crude oil is, but ethanol has a couple pluses to it that crude doesn't have, one it's renewable so we can make more of it when ever we need it, takes the Earth a few million years to make more crude oil, secondly we can tell OPEC to go to hell.
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
$100 a barrel oil courtesy of OPEC telling the world they might have to drop production a bit. Did I mention how much having an illegal price-fixing oil cartel in charge of world energy really bites?
A great incentive to move to other fuels and less consumption before it gets worse. Nothing is done over night, but anyone who buys a NEW car now would be a fool if he buys a guzzler.
With the "low" dollar everyone "loses" really. The sellers of oil gets less real income and the american consumers has to pay more.
-
Yeah If I were to purchase a car now a days fuel millage would probably be my number 1 thing to look for in deciding on which car I'd want to get. I'd really look hard at those new hybrid cars that get like 50+ mpg.
-
Originally posted by trax1
I've heard that in Saudi Arabia they pay around 20 cents U.S to completely fill there tanks.
in suadi arabia they have all the oil they want, y should they have to pay more than 20 cents?
-
Originally posted by Tigger29
I diagnose and repair cars for a living as well. I am an ASE L1 certified master technician with 15 years of experience.
You are both correct and incorrect. In the long run, yes ethanol is more expensive.. both to use and to produce. The decrease per gallon cost is offset by the loss of fuel economy.
There are two reasons I like to use it. For one, my truck absolutely loves the stuff.. runs great.. has more power.. smoother. Plus "bragging rights" to having something different.
Two... It supports local farmers more so than middle eastern oil. This is not for a political discussion at this time though, and I don't use it for political reasons. All I know is I like it.. my truck likes it.. and even if it costs a bit more, I'll still continue to use it.
Now as far as producing less power.. yes and no. While gallon per gallon, ethanol has less energy than gasoline (thus making it less efficient), but in theory a vehicle can crank out more power using it... but you have to use MORE of it. This is why using E85 typically results in a 10 to 15.. to 20% decrease in economy.
To classify it as an "all around really bad idea"... well this is more opinion than fact. As technology evolves and we're able to produce E85 more efficiently and from more products than CORN... well heck look at South America.. they are using Soy.. then there's switchblade alcohol. If they can essentially use WEEDS that nobody is going to in their right minds consume or use for anything else than throwing away... then how is this an overall bad idea?
The problem is that this technology will never get developed if nobody supports it. Our current methods of using Corn may be inefficient, but it is a "stepping stone" for our country. The USA is driven by business. A business is not going to develop a product (unless mandated by the government, and we all know how well that works out) that has little or no demand. If people keep discounting E85 as a viable solution, then no one will invest in it and it will die away.
If we DO show this to be a profitable, viable option, they will explore further technologies, and eventually will be using weeds and garbage to fuel our cars. Now.. is THAT a bad idea?
same approximate experience here.....areound 18-20 years, ase L1, state emissions repair license, brakes, suspension, electrical, heating, a/c, engine repair, state inspection license engine performance....i think that's it....
if i thought it would work better, then i'd back it in the blink of an eye....but brazille, i believe did try to use only ethonol...and they've reverted back to using gasoline if i recall.....
i like the idea of hydrogen...again, if i remember correctly, there's a company in norway that's been using hydrogen in their vehicles since the 60's. they've got converters powered by the sun, about the size of a large refrigerator, that extract hydrogen from water, and they do it safely....when it's burned in the cars, the only thing to come out of the tailpipe is water. sounds much more efficient than ethonol.......and i understand how to make more power too........built a 9 second camaro for track only, and a 12 second mustang(100% street legal in NJ). the ethonol doesn't burn as hot, and i think this is why more is needed........
i'll google some of the things i just mentioned when i get home tonight.....but please..keep these things comming! good conversation...and we all learn from it.....i never thought of the weeds idea.........
<>
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Let the American Farmer and the market work on Ethanol for a while. I don't doubt that the production efficiency will increase as they figure new methods of production. Whether it comes from switchgrass, or genetically engineered corn, or raw sugar - I'd rather give the money to the farmers than to the oil dictators of the middle east and south america.
The really bad idea is to leave ourselves at the mercy of an illegal price-fixing oil cartel (OPEC).
EagleDNY
$.02
true true.........
-
The worst idea is to pay massive subsidies on ethanol that cost you more than just buying oil, and put up your food prices as well.
A much better idea would be to buy a car that uses less fuel, that way you cut the amount of money you are sending to the Arabs, cut your bills, and don't increase the cost of food.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
A much better idea would be to buy a car that uses less fuel
But we Americans need 0-60 in under 5 seconds and be able to haul pallets of groceries.
-
Lazs says we will never run out of oil. What's the problem?
-
Originally posted by trax1
Plus Europe is small compared to the U.S, we have to drive farther, and your car makers have been making your cars have great gas millage.
Funny how you have a few solutions to the American "problems", but you fail to mention them. Albeit, in a passing sentence.
Oh yeah, since that explosion at the Texas refinery, gas went up .15 immediately. They ought to get about 2-3 weeks of "free money" out of it.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Lazs says we will never run out of oil. What's the problem?
No, you liberal studmuffingort, he said name one resource that we HAVE run out of.
I thought you fascists knew how to read.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
No, you liberal studmuffingort, he said name one resource that we HAVE run out of.
I thought you fascists knew how to read.
Excuse me? No need to launch a personal attack just because Lazs is wrong.
-
Originally posted by trax1
Thats why we need more ethanol production here in the U.S, I know people say it's just as bad for the environment as crude oil is, but ethanol has a couple pluses to it that crude doesn't have, one it's renewable so we can make more of it when ever we need it, takes the Earth a few million years to make more crude oil, secondly we can tell OPEC to go to hell.
"Few Million"? Longer than that. The US has already used up about 90% of the Crude Oil Reserves. Some think the "US Crude Oil Reserve is a large supply", it isn't. This is why we are dependant on Foreign Imported Crude (not the "we're running them out first" theory, that theory is non-existant).
Ethanol is a snake oil diversion that is currently being used as a Band-Aid on a symptom with a definite diagnosis. But the cure is ignored.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
No, you liberal studmuffingort, he said name one resource that we HAVE run out of.
I thought you fascists knew how to read.
You really want to get PNG'd. Personal attacks now? Dr. Huey P. Newton would be proud of you.
-
In a pseudo-intellectual discussion I find it odious, reprehensible and disingenuous when someone misrepresents that facts.
Next, I expect rpm to make a "This is What a Police State Looks Like" video. Whiny female voice and all.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
"Few Million"? Longer than that. The US has already used up about 90% of the Crude Oil Reserves. Some think the "US Crude Oil Reserve is a large supply", it isn't. This is why we are dependant on Foreign Imported Crude (not the "we're running them out first" theory, that theory is non-existant).
Ethanol is a snake oil diversion that is currently being used as a Band-Aid on a symptom with a definite diagnosis. But the cure is ignored.
So whats your answer to the problem of running out of crude oil? If it's not ethanol then what can we use? I've read estimates that say the Earth has approximately enough crude oil to meet the energy needs for 50 more years, then it's gone. Ethanol is a substance that can be used as a crude oil replacement and its renewable, as long as we grow the crops to produce it from we'll be ok.
-
Originally posted by trax1
So whats your answer to the problem of running out of crude oil? If it's not ethanol then what can we use? I've read estimates that say the Earth has approximately enough crude oil to meet the energy needs for 50 more years, then it's gone. Ethanol is a substance that can be used as a crude oil replacement and its renewable, as long as we grow the crops to produce it from we'll be ok.
50 years? LOL. 30 on the max.
crops are dependant on water and weather. Remember the Dust Bowl.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
50 years? LOL. 30 on the max.
crops are dependant on water and weather. Remember the Dust Bowl.
Agreed, but we need to do something, time is running out fast on the crude oil supply and if we don't start planning now, and adjusting our infrastructure now it's gonna be too late and socity as we know it is gonna come to a grinding halt.
I see wars coming to fight over the last crude oil deposits.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
In a pseudo-intellectual discussion I find it odious, reprehensible and disingenuous when someone misrepresents that facts.
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think anyone can say how much oil we have or when we will run out or even if it is possible to.
lazs
You know knurd, I hate people that misrepresent the facts, too. You might want to retake reading comprehension 101 and take a manners course while you're at it.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
50 years? LOL. 30 on the max.
crops are dependant on water and weather. Remember the Dust Bowl.
current oil demand is about 87.3 million barrels a day (32 billion barrels a year)
http://omrpublic.iea.org/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nonopec.html
there is 1.28 trillion proven barrels of oil reserves, including canadian non-conventional, but not other countries.
thats 40 years of oil.
-
Originally posted by trax1
Yeah, bio-diesel engines have small gas tanks that hold about 1/2 - 1 gallon of regular diesel fuel to heat up the engine before you switch to the bio-diesel fuel.
Oh really? Odd, just filled up the diesel Duramax with biodiesel. It has one fuel tank. Starts and runs in cold weather, too.
-
Once again, ethanol is a poor choice. It contains less than have the energy of gasoline, by volume. Methanol would be a far better choice, even though it has only slightly more energy by volume than ethanol. But any sort of alcohol will be difficult to make work, for any number of reasons. At least methanol can be made from all sorts of byproducts and waste.
By the way, in order to get ALL of that half the amount of energy of gasoline per gallon, the engine needs to be specifically DESIGNED to run on alcohol. An alcohol fueled engine needs a lot more static compression, as well as a different camshaft. A gasoline engine operating on alcohol is doing so at greatly reduced efficiency.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Oh really? Odd, just filled up the diesel Duramax with biodiesel. It has one fuel tank. Starts and runs in cold weather, too.
biodesel is not used cooking oil.
<<
Biodiesel is distinguished from the straight vegetable oil (SVO) (aka "waste vegetable oil", "WVO", "unwashed biodiesel", "pure plant oil", "PPO") used (alone, or blended) as fuels in some converted diesel vehicles. "Biodiesel" is standardized as methyl ester and other non-diesel fuels of biological origin are not included.>>>
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Oh really? Odd, just filled up the diesel Duramax with biodiesel. It has one fuel tank. Starts and runs in cold weather, too.
I could be mistaken then, I know that there is some kind of alternative fuel that requires a small gas tank with conventional diesel to warm up the engine at first.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
current oil demand is about 87.3 million barrels a day (32 billion barrels a year)
http://omrpublic.iea.org/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nonopec.html
there is 1.28 trillion proven barrels of oil reserves, including canadian non-conventional, but not other countries.
thats 40 years of oil.
Take into account that the amount of uses for Crude is increasing.
Again. You've made my point even more valid. Once it's gone, it's gone for a long time. Amazing how the same argument can be debated and folks still are left with the same fact.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Take into account that the amount of uses for Crude is increasing.
Again. You've made my point even more valid. Once it's gone, it's gone for a long time. Amazing how the same argument can be debated and folks still are left with the same fact.
There was another thread on here a few days ago and people were actually trying to argue that the planet will never run our of crude oil, and that the Earth will replace it, and that oil wells that have already been drilled are already starting to fill back up, utter nonsense.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You know knurd, I hate people that misrepresent the facts, too. You might want to retake reading comprehension 101 and take a manners course while you're at it.
Really? Out of that "I don't think anyone can say how much oil we have or when we will run out or even if it is possible to.", you get "We won't ever run out of oil."?
I'd call it a lack of reading comprehension, but I think it's more likely that's just what you wanted to get out of reading it.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Take into account that the amount of uses for Crude is increasing.
Again. You've made my point even more valid. Once it's gone, it's gone for a long time. Amazing how the same argument can be debated and folks still are left with the same fact.
those are global numbers for proven reserves. as prices go up, profitability of getting more difficult oil does as well, and were always finding new oil.
canada actually increased its proven reserves of crude by 100 million cubic meters from 2001 - 2005 (statscan)
between tar sands and oil shale, canada and the US has 3.2 trillion total barrels of oil (wikipedia, and confirmed with other sites as best i could)
only a few hundred billion barrels are easily recoverable, and less than that with any degree of profitability...even at 100 a barrel. i cant find accurate numbers on the oil shale, but theres at least as much of it recoverable as there is tar sands...
47 billion of crude in canada (according to stats can)
21 billion barrels of crude in america. (according to several results on google)
canada and america consume 7.8 billion barrels of oil a year (according to the CIA world fact book and a slightly shakey conversion from million barrels a day to barrels a year). thats 12 years to every 100 billion barrels of oil,
canada has enough proven crude to last itself 40 years, if we stop exporting...more because that would be disastorous to the economy.
we can get will into the next century with the tar sands.
america can feed itself for 3 years on its own oil.
between us, we have 8 years of our own oil for our own demand. this is at 2005 consumption.
with oil sand and shale...60 years.
we could get 100 years if we were the only oil consumers, and milked the current reserves of ourself, iraq and saudi arabia.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Really? Out of that "I don't think anyone can say how much oil we have or when we will run out or even if it is possible to.", you get "We won't ever run out of oil."?
I'd call it a lack of reading comprehension, but I think it's more likely that's just what you wanted to get out of reading it.
Have you read the thread that he is quoting lazs from?
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=226974
-
Originally posted by vorticon
those are global numbers for proven reserves. as prices go up, profitability of getting more difficult oil does as well, and were always finding new oil.
canada actually increased its proven reserves of crude by 100 million cubic meters from 2001 - 2005 (statscan)
between tar sands and oil shale, canada and the US has 3.2 trillion total barrels of oil (wikipedia, and confirmed with other sites as best i could)
only a few hundred billion barrels are easily recoverable, and less than that with any degree of profitability...even at 100 a barrel. i cant find accurate numbers on the oil shale, but theres at least as much of it recoverable as there is tar sands...
47 billion of crude in canada (according to stats can)
21 billion barrels of crude in america. (according to several results on google)
canada and america consume 7.8 billion barrels of oil a year (according to the CIA world fact book and a slightly shakey conversion from million barrels a day to barrels a year). thats 12 years to every 100 billion barrels of oil,
canada has enough proven crude to last itself 40 years, if we stop exporting...more because that would be disastorous to the economy.
we can get will into the next century with the tar sands.
america can feed itself for 3 years on its own oil.
between us, we have 8 years of our own oil for our own demand. this is at 2005 consumption.
with oil sand and shale...60 years.
we could get 100 years if we were the only oil consumers, and milked the current reserves of ourself, iraq and saudi arabia.
To think that were gonna be just alright, and no need to worry about crude oil is shortsighted, no matter what we need to start getting ready for the day we have no crude oil left, the earlier we start getting ready for this the better off our country is gonna be.
-
Originally posted by trax1
To think that were gonna be just alright, and no need to worry about crude oil is shortsighted, no matter what we need to start getting ready for the day we have no crude oil left, the earlier we start getting ready for this the better off our country is gonna be.
sure. now i'll actually do a post you could respond like that to...
we have 50 years to do it.
start? START? we've already started...there is a lot of public interest in, and a lot of research going into this...do not think these efforts (and oil exploration efforts) will not increase in time, or yeild results.
without even trying, like we have started to in the past several years...
well
50 years ago we were getting 12mpg and 100 hp from a gasoline engine...
even 10 years ago, we could get 3 times that mileage, from a engine half the size, at better power ratings...
-
Originally posted by SOB
I'd call it a lack of reading comprehension, but I think it's more likely that's just what you wanted to get out of reading it.
I'd say it was pretty much dead on. I could have pulled the quote about oil magicly refilling.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
sure. now i'll actually do a post you could respond like that to...
we have 50 years to do it.
start? START? we've already started...there is a lot of public interest in, and a lot of research going into this...do not think these efforts (and oil exploration efforts) will not increase in time, or yeild results.
without even trying, like we have started to in the past several years...
well
50 years ago we were getting 12mpg and 100 hp from a gasoline engine...
even 10 years ago, we could get 3 times that mileage, from a engine half the size, at better power ratings...
Well from what you posted you made it sound as if you believed that theres no worries because we have all this oil.
-
Originally posted by trax1
Well from what you posted you made it sound as if you believed that theres no worries because we have all this oil.
well, if my natural optimism comes across in my writing style to the point that you feel the need to make a negative comment on it...when its contents are based on hard numbers and facts then there is little i can say or do about it.
-
Gas prices suck. my poor trucks only gets 9 to 12 mpg at the moment. She has an exhaust leak i gotta get sealed up. When she is running good, i can get 18 outa her. If this stupid city had a decent public transit system i would gladly use it
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Quick question: whats the emissions difference between E85 and regular gas?
Do you still have / need a catalytic converter?
Honestly... the newer cars that are flex-fuel are going to burn pretty darn clean to begin with, so the emissions difference is really not going to be that much, although E85 (85% grain alcohol) is going to burn cleaner.
And YES you still need a catalytic converter.. this is MANDATED by Federal law. Keep in mind flex fuel vehicles can run on 100% gasoline (E0), or 15% gasoline (E85), or anywhere in between.
So even if Ethanol was magical and produced zero emissions (still not the case), the simple fact that you COULD run regular fuel would require the converter.
-
Originally posted by trax1
Well the good thing about it is it's a renewable energy source, unlike fossil fuels.
check these links..............
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051011_oil_origins.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
i've only partly read them...i'll read them more thoroughly tomorrow after work....but i've heard from others before this that this may be true......don't know yet though.........
<>
-
Originally posted by CAP1
check these links..............
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051011_oil_origins.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
i've only partly read them...i'll read them more thoroughly tomorrow after work....but i've heard from others before this that this may be true......don't know yet though.........
<>
Thanks for posting those links, I hope it turns out to be true.
-
no fair.. I didn't even get to answer before everyone beat up grocery boy?
I did say that we could run out of easy to get oil. there is no way that we can run out of oil tho.. we can make the stuff from coal if we have to.. we can drill in the ocean.
the fact is that we will have to change our ways as it gets harder and more expensive. this is natural and normal and part of progress and should be handled by the free market.. there is no earth crushing rush to do it. it is not like we will "run out" in 30 or 100 years or.. as I was told.. by 1990.
We will "run out" of the easy to get stuff.
We somehow survived the "running out" of buffalo hides that were the only way to keep warm in our horse drawn buggies.. we survived the leather crisis that would have made it impossible to make any more buggy whips...
We will survive this.. I don't think looking into the future 50 or 100 years and saying what we will need or even have is very accurate.
It has been accurate so far at a rate of oh.... 0 frigging percent. A logical man would go with the odds..
The rest of you can just get in your skycars and leave.
lazs
-
Originally posted by trax1
Thanks for posting those links, I hope it turns out to be true.
i do too....as at the age of 45, i still haven't grown up......i have to have my fast cars..........
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no fair.. I didn't even get to answer before everyone beat up grocery boy?
I did say that we could run out of easy to get oil. there is no way that we can run out of oil tho.. we can make the stuff from coal if we have to.. we can drill in the ocean.
the fact is that we will have to change our ways as it gets harder and more expensive. this is natural and normal and part of progress and should be handled by the free market.. there is no earth crushing rush to do it. it is not like we will "run out" in 30 or 100 years or.. as I was told.. by 1990.
We will "run out" of the easy to get stuff.
We somehow survived the "running out" of buffalo hides that were the only way to keep warm in our horse drawn buggies.. we survived the leather crisis that would have made it impossible to make any more buggy whips...
We will survive this.. I don't think looking into the future 50 or 100 years and saying what we will need or even have is very accurate.
It has been accurate so far at a rate of oh.... 0 frigging percent. A logical man would go with the odds..
The rest of you can just get in your skycars and leave.
lazs
i'm trying to remember exactly why the arab oil embargo happened in 73.....was it them being greedy, or was there an "oil shortage"?
then there was the one in 79......that i remember was an "oil shortage", as it's when i started driving, and could buy 89 octane leaded for .89, or 94 octane leaded for 1.01......and had to go by the odd even system on the lisence plates...and they wouldn't pump gas for you unless your car was below 1/2 tank(at least that's how it was here in south jersey)
<>
-
we were told it was an embargo.. and.. that it was because we were too dependent on mid east oil.
Then the scientists got political about it and "predicted" that this was just the beginning.. playing to the fears of people in lines for gas to get to work... claiming that we would run out of oil buy the 1990's for all practical purposes.. it was yet another disgusting display of science being the potato for politicians and for the almighty research grant.
much like the current world ending crisis.. pick one.. any one.. the smart money is on them exaggerating and fear mongering in order to gain fame and fortune..
every single crisis they have told us about has been bogus so far..
yet.. we keep on falling for it.
lazs
-
i'm trying to remember exactly why the arab oil embargo happened in 73.....was it them being greedy, or was there an "oil shortage"?
then there was the one in 79......that i remember was an "oil shortage",
1973 the Arab countries reduced supply, driving up the oil price. In 1979 there was a revolution in Iran, followed by a war between Iran and Iraq, that reduced oil production by both countries.
Both are examples of the sort of short term problems that can have a major effect on oil prices. We are probably even more vulnerable to such situations now because oil demand is very high, and there is very little spare capacity.
Then the scientists got political about it and "predicted" that this was just the beginning.. playing to the fears of people in lines for gas to get to work
What have "scientists" got to do with forecasting political developments in the Persian Gulf area? Many environmentalists, politicians and the media were certainly predicting disaster, but "scientists" don't really have much to do with forecasting political events.
-
nashwan.. I recall the predictions of us running out of oil by the 1990's.. that is the political part of the science.
My point is that anyone who listens to someone who claims to know exactly how much oil there is on the planet.. is a fool. we don't even know where it comes from.
"known reserves" is a mealy mouthed way of saying "we haven't a clue cause it is not possible to know"
lazs
-
Originally posted by trax1
.
I see wars coming to fight over the last crude oil deposits.
See? Coming?
Try alreay here.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nashwan.. I recall the predictions of us running out of oil by the 1990's.. that is the political part of the science.
My point is that anyone who listens to someone who claims to know exactly how much oil there is on the planet.. is a fool. we don't even know where it comes from.
"known reserves" is a mealy mouthed way of saying "we haven't a clue cause it is not possible to know"
lazs
Always holding out that everyone is wrong.... I admire your stubborn ways, Lazs. I also can't wait for the day you open your eyes.
You clingingly think that there are vast reserves out there... when we're already drilling into the MANTLE of the planet. LOL. Maybe the core is actually one big oil pond and we'll be saved. (of course it's easy to figure out from our magnetosphere that the core is molten heavy iron and nickel... but I'm sure you'll find some crackpot that will tell you there's a big pool of oil there and that that's where the "Land of the Lost" was really filmed, along with the Moon landings.)
Ignorance must certainly be bliss.
-
No offense, but...
Originally posted by MORAY37
You clingingly think that there are vast reserves out there...
Is not an accurate perception of
Originally posted by lazs2
"known reserves" is a mealy mouthed way of saying "we haven't a clue cause it is not possible to know"
lazs
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Always holding out that everyone is wrong.... I admire your stubborn ways, Lazs. I also can't wait for the day you open your eyes.
You clingingly think that there are vast reserves out there... when we're already drilling into the MANTLE of the planet. LOL. Maybe the core is actually one big oil pond and we'll be saved. (of course it's easy to figure out from our magnetosphere that the core is molten heavy iron and nickel... but I'm sure you'll find some crackpot that will tell you there's a big pool of oil there and that that's where the "Land of the Lost" was really filmed, along with the Moon landings.)
Ignorance must certainly be bliss.
MORAY, you know I was thinking the same as you about us running out of oil here soon, and that we knew where all the oil was already, and where oil comes from, I mean look at some of my other posts on here, but after reading a couple articles that CAP1 posted on here for me to read I have to say I'm not so sure anymore, these articles make some really good points about just where the oil is and how much we have, and they are respectable scientific websites too, not crack pot ones, so give them a read.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051011_oil_origins.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nashwan.. I recall the predictions of us running out of oil by the 1990's.. that is the political part of the science.
My point is that anyone who listens to someone who claims to know exactly how much oil there is on the planet.. is a fool. we don't even know where it comes from.
"known reserves" is a mealy mouthed way of saying "we haven't a clue cause it is not possible to know"
lazs
proven reserves is not.
proven reserves "defined as oil and gas "Reasonably Certain" to be producible using current technology at current prices, with current commercial terms and government consent"
which is to say how much cheap and readily available oil there is...
but when it comes down to it, once it hits $20 a gallon or something equally ridiculous for gas...it may as well not be there at all for all its use to me.
-
"proven reserves" is another meaningless term for mental masturbation by chart makers and computer model geeks.. fun to do but pretty worthless.
I have no idea if there is more or less oil yet to be found than we have already used.. I have no idea why some fields fill up again and at what rate.
I am pretty sure that they are right when they say that there is a lot of undiscovered oil...
I am also pretty sure that those who thought that they would run out of leather for buggy whips are the same type who think most people will be driving a 2000 honda civic 100 years from now.
I do know that there is a large amount of people who are not happy unless they are contemplating the doom of themselves and everyone else.
Relax.. have some faith in the free market and the mother of invention.. these things have a 100% reliability factor compared to the doom and gloomers who have......
a zero frigging percent accuracy record.
lazs