 | |
98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Jeep and Willys Vehicles Discussions on Jeep and Willys vehicles. (rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel -
05-08-2007
, 09:44 PM
|
Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" natural gas. Earle |
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" natural gas. |
On that nothing, up until about the 50's they used to burn of Propane
in massive fires (it is a byproduct of cracking) until they decided to
develop a market for it in late 50. A lot of farm tractors were built
to run on it until early 70's as it could be had for 10 or 12 cents a
gallon then.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
The candles are in all the oil crackers I worked, and they regularly exploded. When it goes out, run for you life: http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/blur/8...1/b634115m.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:LWHughes3rd (AT) aol (DOT) com http://www.billhughes.com/kenworth.jpg "Earle Horton" <earle (AT) angloburgues (DOT) usa> wrote in message news:46411705$0$31844$a82e2bb9 (AT) reader (DOT) athenanews.com Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" natural gas. Earle -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
What is the name of that old movie about the guys who put out the flame in an out of control oil well, using dynamite? I am thinking 40s-50s, but that is all that comes up. Earle "L.W. (Bill) Hughes III" <billhughes (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote in message news:4641399e$0$16367$88260bb3 (AT) free (DOT) teranews.com... The candles are in all the oil crackers I worked, and they regularly exploded. When it goes out, run for you life: http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/blur/8...1/b634115m.jpg God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:LWHughes3rd (AT) aol (DOT) com http://www.billhughes.com/kenworth.jpg "Earle Horton" <earle (AT) angloburgues (DOT) usa> wrote in message news:46411705$0$31844$a82e2bb9 (AT) reader (DOT) athenanews.com Heh, I like the open flames one sees over oil wells to burn off "surplus" natural gas. Earle -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
FRH
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Hellfighters" 1968 with John Wayne based on the real life exploits of Red Adair? |
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
put out the flame in an out of control oil well, using dynamite |
It works by removing all of the oxygen from the fire for a bit and
fire goes out. Kinda extreme but it does work well when done
properly.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi Earle, Which is six gallons of petroleum to make one gallon of ethanol. The Bore people want to buy windmills and solar diodes to produce electricity, that have used the same amount of petroleum to make and last their life time.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/27/MNG1VDF6E... http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...udy_ethan.html God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O mailto:LWHughes... (AT) aol (DOT) comhttp://www.billhughes.com/ "Earle Horton" <e... (AT) angloburgues (DOT) usa> wrote in message news:4641101a$0$31790$a82e2bb9 (AT) reader (DOT) athenanews.com... Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to mean anything. Earle "SnoMan" <a... (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote in message news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c... (AT) me (DOT) org> wrote: I can believe the emissions claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass production. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. |
First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
lbs)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it. First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423 degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4 lbs) ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
that
1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
clear up this point?
2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a... (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal, etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol, hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply. Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it. First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423 degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4 lbs) ----------------- TheSnoMan.com Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is that 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could clear up this point? 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes more energy to seperate than you get back by burning. There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy. Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring. |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.