Gas Prices

The 1UZFE EGR Delete Kit is available for sale here.
Tradewind said:
In the USA they got those Powerstroke 7.3 diesels running 11 sec quarters in full size trucks. So yeah, plenty hotting up is possible for diesel engines. Just look at the diesel tractor pullers, they get some ultra serious horsepower from tractor engines
yes but they are so environnementally friendly that when they go WOT you don't even see the truck behind the smoke screen.
 
UZZ30-Québec said:
208kw from a 6 liter V12 engine? sux.

Clean combustion is nice, but where do you take your Hydrogen? it takes a LOT of energy to create good amounts of Hydrogen.
That's changing rapidly, as every manufacturer and oil company are knee-deep in research, along with companies like Ballard. there are now potable wind powered hydrogen generation stations, portable solar powered hydrogen generation stations, etc. groups are getting hydrogen out of bacteria in the same way methane is produced. And of course, some countries have an abundance of geothermal energy to create hydrogen from.

While the horsepower may be down, the only waste from a hydrogen ICE is pure water and a little heat. Same for fuel cells.

There are already bus fleets running off of hydrogen, as well as some government fleet vehicles. Shell recently opened up a hydrogen refuleing station in Washington DC, and Honda has their own series of hydrogen refueling stations.

Hydrogen is our best long term solution, and as soon as we can collectively accept that fact, the sooner we can restructure the infrastructure to allow it to happen. The hydrogen extracted from a gallon of water using a hydrogen generator could drive a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle as far as gasoline vehicles travel today on a gallon of gasoline.
 
id love to hear a hydrogen powered car. i remember back in school when we burned hydrogen from test tubes and it went 'pop'.
i found the starrotor site interesting, every one of the benefits listed has a ..should... in it.
 
Hey there lex

you guys are lucky on having to pay 3.40 per gallon

that works out to about 89c a litre

Here in OZ were paying 1.40 a litre
now convert that to gallons and it works out to 5.29 a gallon

I drive a ls1 Holden Commodore SS and I get about 320klm to a 75lt tank of gas
Just image how im hurting :approve:
 
Tradewind - the US is importing sweet crude and stockpiling.

they are not tapping their reserves because they want the middle east to run out first before they decide to sell - like what AUS is doing with NG.

and they're running scared of the bio-fuel craze now - Gull service stations here in West Aus are already selling a 10% blend - aiming for 50% by 2008.
 
Pro said:
Tradewind - the US is importing sweet crude and stockpiling.

they are not tapping their reserves because they want the middle east to run out first before they decide to sell - like what AUS is doing with NG.

and they're running scared of the bio-fuel craze now - Gull service stations here in West Aus are already selling a 10% blend - aiming for 50% by 2008.
The Aus government is subsidising unviable sugar cane farmers to produce ethanol. Then the Gov intends to shove it in our fuel tanks whether we like it or not. It's a conspiracy I tell you a conspiracy.:eek1:

This leads to the on going debate of whether or not ethanol is good or bad for your engine.
 
The interesting issue is that of smog. On one hand, ethanol blends are touted as being much cleaner and reducing smog. On the other, even the California Air Resources board has found it to be just the opposite, in that is INCREASES smog.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050421/NEWS01/504210377/1008

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17703/article_detail.asp

http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=4&id=637

Hell, even the Sierra Club doesn't like Ethanol production...

http://pennsylvania.sierraclub.org/moshannon/issues_snow%20shoe_parks.htm

A summer 2003 paper published in Natural Resources Research 12(2): 127 134. June 2003 describes the problem with ethanol production precisely, "...studies suggest that the $1.4 billion in government subsidies are encouraging the ethanol program without substantial benefits to the U.S. economy ...Subsidized ethanol production from U.S. corn is not a renewable energy source."

Bob Barkanic, former DEP Deputy Secretary for Air, Recycling & Radiation, in a March 6, 2002 speech before the PA 21st Century Commission said that Pennsylvania should "... not trade off dependence on fossil fuel for dependence on large Midwestern agricultural concerns."

It should be noted that Pennsylvania is already a net importer of corn; i.e., at this time, Pennsylvania does not grow enough corn to satisfy current needs for human food production and livestock feed. Fuel ethanol production would remove available livestock feed resources.

Ethanol production is inefficient with 29% more fossil fueled energy needed to produce a gallon of ethanol, than is available in that gallon of ethanol for energy use. The raising of corn increases soil erosion, depletes soil nutrients and uses more herbicides, pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers than any other crop. Ethanol evaporates easily, causing increases in summertime ozone smog pollution in higher population areas, such as Philadelphia, Lancaster, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Ethanol blended with gasoline is more volatile (evaporates more easily) than gasoline with other additives, and ethanol blends combined with other gasoline in the vehicle gas tank can be more volatile still, putting significantly more pollution into the air. Ethanol blends also increase VOC emissions from gasoline, one of major necessary components that combine to create polluting ground level ozone smog.

The state of Wisconsin reported in 2002 that offensive odors will be expected to result from production and will be in evidence from ½ mile to 1 mile from the source. So severe was the problem that they recommended and required an "Odor Mitigation Plan" for a proposed facility. Production causes pollution byproducts to be emitted into the air & include carcinogenic formaldehyde and acetic acid, and methanol, a federally classified hazardous pollutant. The Philadelphia Inquirier reported on May 4, 2002 that EPA had issued a letter to the ethanol industry’s trade group identifying problems with plants releasing air pollutants in quantities many times greater than originally measured, with the problem being common to "...most, if not all, ethanol facilities..." In the air, ethanol itself will break down into highly toxic constituents (acetaldehyde and peroxyacetylnitrates [PAN] ), and Pennsylvania has yet to assess the effects of public exposure.

Ethanol has been evaluated for the effect of its use here in the northeast United States; ethanol degrades quickly in the environment and is therefore of concern because:

* At higher concentrations, ethanol can make other gasoline components more soluble in groundwater;
* In gasoline spills, ethanol can delay the degradation of other more toxic substances; and
* Ethanol can cause gasoline to spread out laterally over greater distances as a layer on top of the water table.
* The breakdown of ethanol in surface waters could potentially result in the consumption of significant quantities of dissolved oxygen and could result in fish kills, jeopardizing the local tourism industry;
* Due to ethanol’s higher solubility, current treatment technologies such as adsorptive filters will not be effective;
* The hazard potential for ethanol in drinking water is higher compared to other oxygenates from gasoline that leak into groundwater and drinking water systems, because of irreversible damage possible from repeated high level exposures.

There are health effects:

* ethanol itself will break down into highly toxic constituents (acetaldehyde and peroxyacetylnitrates [PAN] ), and Pennsylvania has yet to assess the effects of public exposure.
* Air toxics and ozone precursor pollution emissions into the air will increase if ethanol replaces current oxygenates in gasoline.
 
the production plant/farm that produces a gallon of ethanol using 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel has to be the most inefficient plant in the world. this is a rediculous claim.
another interesting claim is that ethanol 'breaks down' into peroxyacetylnitrates (C2H3NO5 etc). how a molecule consisting of the basic structure C2H5OH breaks down into a more complex, nitrogen containing molecule is beyond me. do we have any chemists on this site to please confirm this for us?

the worst claim is that ethanol isn't a renewable resource. you grow corn, make ethanol, and then grow some more corn, to make more ethanol. how is this not renewable?
the main benefit of crop derived fuels that these reports seem to glaze over is that they're carbon dioxide neutral. this is due to the fact that the carbon dioxide from your exhaust as you burn the fuel is absorbed again by the plant that is growing for use as a fuel source. when you burn hydrocarbons from oil, it is left in the atmosphere, which some people... would say leads to the greenhouse effect. i will refrain from comments of political coverups and facts on who the worlds leading carbon dioxide producer is.
 
340i said:
the production plant/farm that produces a gallon of ethanol using 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel has to be the most inefficient plant in the world. this is a rediculous claim.
another interesting claim is that ethanol 'breaks down' into peroxyacetylnitrates (C2H3NO5 etc). how a molecule consisting of the basic structure C2H5OH breaks down into a more complex, nitrogen containing molecule is beyond me. do we have any chemists on this site to please confirm this for us?

the worst claim is that ethanol isn't a renewable resource. you grow corn, make ethanol, and then grow some more corn, to make more ethanol. how is this not renewable?
the main benefit of crop derived fuels that these reports seem to glaze over is that they're carbon dioxide neutral. this is due to the fact that the carbon dioxide from your exhaust as you burn the fuel is absorbed again by the plant that is growing for use as a fuel source. when you burn hydrocarbons from oil, it is left in the atmosphere, which some people... would say leads to the greenhouse effect. i will refrain from comments of political coverups and facts on who the worlds leading carbon dioxide producer is.
I agree fully with your renewable points but I'm confused about your carbon dioxide comment. Are you saying that the C02 from burning ethanol is different to that produced from fossil fuel, or that fossil fuel produces other harmful gases as well.

As I understand it the global warming debate suggests that we are producing C02 faster than plants can remove it. A bit like pumping exhaust gas into your car with the windows up and then trying to remove it with your air-conditioner. The best remedy for global warming if it exists are the old ones, war, famine, and disease. Wars don't kill enough people these days, diseases are overcome too easily so the cure for the human infestation will be famine. On the other hand, when famine sets in war and disease will start lifting their game. We're doomed and amoeba will rule the world.

To get rid of all the dead humans they could be mummified and burnt to produce steam. A bit like the British did in Egypt during the early 19th century to fuel their trains.

That's the answer - a steam powered 1uzfe. :bigeyes:
 
he means all the CO2 produced by burning 1 gallon of ethanol (high % ethanol) is the same amount all the plants that we'll be needed to produce that gallon, will filter in photosynthesis, so it's a balance.

Hydrogen might be the next fuel, but not in a near future.

Ppl claims electric cars, but how do you produce you electricity??? by burning coil??? and heavy oil??? come on, it's just swapping a problem to another.

USA needs to invest in durable developments, solar P. plants, wind P. plants etc. the big problems is that with all these typhoons (typhoons? tornado? can't remember the correct word) the plants would be destroyed in no time. they have HUGE amount of desert that could be used to produce solar powerplants, but the cost of electricity is not high enough yet to go this way. Electricity will go the same way as oil sands works in Alberta, when the electricity will cost X dollar, high enough to be able to make solar P plants, they will build them, as now, they extract oil sands since the barrel is over 40$ each. (costs 20$ to produce a barrel of oil from alberta's oil sands)

Forgive my poor english, I'm trying to do my best.
 
doey,
Why are you starting speaking French suddenly? I don't speak French but I hope you're not too worried about the climbing gas price that turned on your French. Just kidding. :smileysex


doey said:
Votre anglais est meilleur que mon Français
 
doey,
uzz30-quebec got it right. plants basically live on carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen, so as long as theres more plants to grow, the co2 produced by burning ethanol will be absorbed by the plants growing to make ethanol.
the problem with ethanol as a fuel is it is impossible to produce enough of it to even slightly look at replacing the volume of energy used currently by oil.
what is needed is for everyone to stop eating corn (and sugar too), and then there will be a bit more available to make into ethanol. i would happily give up eating corn for the rest of my life, if i could fill up my car cheaper.
we need some fear of corn to be introduced, maybe by a sort of corn equivalent to mad cow disease or bird flu, so that people will be too scared to eat the stuff.
not the best plan, but it sure would help at the pump prices.
whos with me? no more eating corn. :)
 
So what you propose is instead of "mad cow disease" we invent "deaf ear disease" or "crazy ear disease".

It just could work.
 
Deaf and Crazy ear disease? Funny I like that, I had gotten that disease with my Sc400 a few months ago with my roaring exhaust... Got it tammed abit now...hearing is returniing.....Although, my aftermarket AMP in the trunk and 10" sub isn't helping matters any....
 
Somebody needs to invent the perpertual motor....Runs on it's own without fuel consumption, or close to no fuel consumption... Everyone, is thinking in the wrong direction....Technology is so advanced who's to say it's not possible?

Modern science is getting close, just look at that new train I think in Japan or China that runs and moves with magnitised force..No fuel...I'm telling you we must be getting close... Perpetual is the answer, fosil fuels are played out....
 


Top