|
Fuel comparison charts
Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.shtml Fwiw. -- EA |
Fuel comparison charts
"Existential Angst" wrote in message ... Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. |
Fuel comparison charts
On 27/06/2013 1:16 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. |
Fuel comparison charts
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:16:03 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote: #6 fuel oil has markedly higher energy per gal: http://www.hrt.msu.edu/energy/pdf/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Not only de-sulfurization, but the stuff has to be heated to be pumped. It has to be heated in the range of 250F degrees to flow and be atomized to burn. In industrial boilers, the boilers are started with #2 or natural gas, then some of the steam is diverted to a pre-heat tank with heat exchanger for the oil. If you shut your car down, it is not going to restart as the fuel injectors and lines will be like carrying molasses. |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/27/2013 1:16 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. |
Fuel comparison charts
"Rodwell" wrote in message
. au... On 27/06/2013 1:16 PM, Existential Angst wrote: Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. -- EA |
Fuel comparison charts
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:18:55 AM UTC-4, Rodwell wrote:
On 27/06/2013 1:16 PM, Existential Angst wrote: Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. Because people buy gas and think that gasoline with ethanol added performs just like gas without it. If you add water to ham, you have to state it on the label. Yet in this case, the govt does the opposite. And then factor in that whatever the price of gas with ethanol is, it's AFTER huge subsidies to the ethanol producers. And the diversion of crops to ethanol has doubled the price of all grains. So, when you go buy a doughnut, loaf of bread, cereal or beef, you're paying for that ethanol again. |
Fuel comparison charts
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 7:39:11 AM UTC-4, RBM wrote:
On 6/27/2013 1:16 AM, Existential Angst wrote: Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.shtml Fwiw. As far as diesel vehicles go, I think at this point they have effectively removed every reason a person would buy one. Except the govt still standing in the way, refusing a couple of very small changes in the clean air standards that would allow a lot more versions of diesel cars. I don't remember the details, but diesels are actually slightly better with regard to some emissions and slightly worse with another. If the enviromnental nuts would just allow the small tradeoff, there would be even more diesel vehicles. But they prefer to screw around with solar electric, ethanol, etc, which still aren't economically feasible, 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. |
Fuel comparison charts
RBM wrote:
And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol Around here (Ontario, Canada) diesel is usually less expensive than regular gasoline. As of this minute, prices a Diesel: $1.10 CAD/Liter ($3.97 USD per-US Gallon) (0.80 Euros/liter) Gasoline: $1.19 CAD/Liter ($4.50 USD / Gallon) (0.87 Euros/liter) This is 87-octane gas with probably 10% ethanol. Premium gasoline (91 or 92 octane) cost is: $1.32 CAD/liter ($4.77 USD/gallon) (0.96 Euros/liter) As far as diesel vehicles go, I think at this point they have effectively removed every reason a person would buy one. Diesel cars should be BANNED. Or, they should force people who drive diesel cars to have to smell the exhaust coming from their tail pipes. Feed back some of that exhaust through a small pipe into the passenger compartment. |
Fuel comparison charts
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:16:03 -0400, Existential Angst wrote:
Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. |
Fuel comparison charts
"richard" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:16:03 -0400, Existential Angst wrote: Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/27/2013 8:31 AM, Homo Gay wrote:
RBM wrote: And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol Around here (Ontario, Canada) diesel is usually less expensive than regular gasoline. As of this minute, prices a Diesel: $1.10 CAD/Liter ($3.97 USD per-US Gallon) (0.80 Euros/liter) Gasoline: $1.19 CAD/Liter ($4.50 USD / Gallon) (0.87 Euros/liter) This is 87-octane gas with probably 10% ethanol. Premium gasoline (91 or 92 octane) cost is: $1.32 CAD/liter ($4.77 USD/gallon) (0.96 Euros/liter) As far as diesel vehicles go, I think at this point they have effectively removed every reason a person would buy one. Diesel cars should be BANNED. Or, they should force people who drive diesel cars to have to smell the exhaust coming from their tail pipes. Feed back some of that exhaust through a small pipe into the passenger compartment. Hey Homo Gay, if Cannabis oil is added to the diesel, you can cure everyone of cancer and make traffic slow down because all the other drivers will be stoned. It would be a perfect world for you! ^_^ TDD |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/27/2013 9:31 AM, Home Guy wrote:
RBM wrote: And, funnily enough, diesel appears to be about 13% more expensive at the pump!!?? Conspiratorial coincidence?? lol Around here (Ontario, Canada) diesel is usually less expensive than regular gasoline. As of this minute, prices a Diesel: $1.10 CAD/Liter ($3.97 USD per-US Gallon) (0.80 Euros/liter) Gasoline: $1.19 CAD/Liter ($4.50 USD / Gallon) (0.87 Euros/liter) This is 87-octane gas with probably 10% ethanol. Premium gasoline (91 or 92 octane) cost is: $1.32 CAD/liter ($4.77 USD/gallon) (0.96 Euros/liter) As far as diesel vehicles go, I think at this point they have effectively removed every reason a person would buy one. Diesel cars should be BANNED. Or, they should force people who drive diesel cars to have to smell the exhaust coming from their tail pipes. Feed back some of that exhaust through a small pipe into the passenger compartment. In the U.S. at least, diesels have been pretty clean to extremely clean since around 2006, maybe things are different on your planet. |
Fuel comparison charts
richard wrote in
: On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:16:03 -0400, Existential Angst wrote: Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...0common%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...,%20Wood,%20Pe llet,%20Gas%20and%20Electricity%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. 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 **** 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 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. |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/27/2013 8:16 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
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. |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/27/2013 12:28 PM, harryagain wrote:
"richard" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:16:03 -0400, Existential Angst wrote: Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. |
Fuel comparison charts
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:39:11 -0400, RBM wrote:
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. |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/27/2013 5:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:39:11 -0400, RBM wrote: 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. |
Fuel comparison charts
"RBM" wrote in message ... 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. |
Fuel comparison charts
In article , RBM wrote:
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 -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Fuel comparison charts
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" wrote in message ... 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. |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/27/2013 9:27 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , RBM wrote: 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. |
Fuel comparison charts
"Frank" wrote in message ... On 6/27/2013 12:28 PM, harryagain wrote: "richard" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:16:03 -0400, Existential Angst wrote: Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. |
Fuel comparison charts
richard wrote: 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. |
Fuel comparison charts
"Michael A. Terrell" on Fri, 28 Jun 2013
07:53:38 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: richard wrote: 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." |
Fuel comparison charts
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message m... 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, |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/28/2013 1:54 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" on Fri, 28 Jun 2013 07:53:38 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: richard wrote: 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. |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/28/2013 1:05 AM, harryagain wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message ... On 6/27/2013 12:28 PM, harryagain wrote: "richard" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:16:03 -0400, Existential Angst wrote: Perty inneresting. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_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/he...on%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 **** us for a de-sulfuization unit in each car..... Some other useful charts: http://www.chestnuthillchimney.com/C...ty%20Costs.htm http://www.energykinetics.com/saving...parisons.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. |
Fuel comparison charts
Ralph Mowery wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message m... 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. ;-) |
Fuel comparison charts
Frank on Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:41:16 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On 6/28/2013 1:54 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" on Fri, 28 Jun 2013 07:53:38 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: richard wrote: 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. 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." |
Fuel comparison charts
"Michael A. Terrell" on Fri, 28 Jun 2013
17:49:02 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: Ralph Mowery wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: 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." |
Fuel comparison charts
On 06/28/2013 06:26 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
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 -- Finally, a good use for jon banqer. |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote:
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. This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and irrigation power units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but on farm equipment? |
Fuel comparison charts
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
... On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote: 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. This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and irrigation power units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but on farm equipment? It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses? |
Fuel comparison charts
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message ... On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote: 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. This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and irrigation power units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but on farm equipment? It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses? Depends on the trade offs. The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How many more people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with modern safety features? |
Fuel comparison charts
Dean Hoffman " wrote:
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote: "Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message ... On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote: 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. This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and irrigation power units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but on farm equipment? It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses? Depends on the trade offs. The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How many more people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with modern safety features? Some of those were terrible in crash tests. They didn't fold right. Greg |
Fuel comparison charts
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/ |
Fuel comparison charts
Dean Hoffman " wrote:
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote: "Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message ... On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote: 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. This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and irrigation power units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but on farm equipment? It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses? Depends on the trade offs. The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How many more people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with modern safety features? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g Greg |
Fuel comparison charts
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:55:54 -0500, Richard
wrote: 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) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter