If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.biodiesel.org/
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html http://www.biodieselnow.com/ http://www.biodieselamerica.org/bios...=141,0,0,1,0,0 and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't have much personal experience with this stuff but the technology looks good. Let's not forget that Fords 6.0 diesel engine is slated for discontinuation in model year 07. Scuttlebut has a 6.4 litre twin turbo model waiting in the wings.... "RichA" > wrote in message ... > On 7 May 2005 20:03:50 -0700, "Kruse" > wrote: > > > > >66 6F HCS wrote: > >> There's a local guy here in Denver who converts engines to run on the > >used > >> oil from the fryers at McDonald's, Burger King, et al. The exhaust > >smells > >> like whatever was fried in the oil. Fries, chicken, fish, whatever. > >lol. > >> -- > > > >With very few emissions, I may add. > > > >Actually, it's not that hard. After that french fry (FF) oil gets to > >~170 degrees, the diesel engine will burn it like the regular stuff. > >Most of those cars just have two fuel tanks, a small one with regular > >diesel and a larger tank with the FF oil. Start the car on regular > >diesel, heat up the FF oil with the engine heat and then just switch > >the fuel over. Most of these cars are a novelty though. Can you imagine > >taking a cross country trip without knowing where to stop to get your > >fuel? > > And that's the point; Nitwits jump at any crack-pop idea without a > thought at to it's true viability. IF they took the refuse from > every restaurant in a city and converted it, it "might" become a > viable and widely available fuel source. But then I'd have to know > the volumes to make any kind of reasonable assumption about it. > As it is, it makes about as much sense as "hydrogen fueling" which > costs MORE in conventional energy to make than any reduction in > emissions it achieves. > -Rich |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I seriously doubt you could come up with a strategy which would work
to accomplish such a goal. You can threaten not to reelect politicians, but when they get huge campaign contributions from the oil companies, you think they'll care? You could boycott the oil companies to try to get them to push for lower taxes on gas. But they don't care. They have a product which everyone "needs" and which people will buy whatever the price. If, and only if, you could get the overwhelming majority to stand together and demand the lowering of the taxes, would it happen, and I don't see that happening. For decades, this has been a goal with regard to income taxes. It has not happened yet. People think of self first. In order to feed themselves and their families, they need to get to work. If that means paying the high pump prices, they'll pay them. It won't matter what part is product and what part is tax. It's pretty rare when even a "temporary" tax is instituted with a specific end date, actually goes away. Once in place, as the end date approaches, the politicos find another use for a tax the people are already accustomed to paying. And they get enough people to support the new cause to keep it in place. On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:04:57 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote: >If we would all make it clear that high gasoline taxes are unacceptable >and vote accordingly then those taxes would vanish very quickly. > >Spike wrote: >> Tax or no tax, you're still paying what you pay. Just like in >> California. I makes no difference what the state tax and the fed tax >> are, I still have to pay whatever the pump price is. >> >> On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:39:32 -0700, Quiet Desperation >> > wrote: >> >> >>>In article >, Michael Johnson, PE > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Ouch! I guess I'm 10 years behind the times then. >>> >>>You also have to take local gas taxes into account. I believe much of >>>the EU has enormous gas taxes. >> >> >> Hey! Spikey Likes IT! >> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok >> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior >> Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" >> w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 Hey! Spikey Likes IT! 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:55:30 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>I seriously doubt you could come up with a strategy which would work >to accomplish such a goal. > >You can threaten not to reelect politicians, but when they get huge >campaign contributions from the oil companies, you think they'll care? It's very simple; NO politician, conservative or liberal has the guts anymore to cut programs. Because of that your choices are simple; Cut taxes and run higher deficits, or leave taxes in-place in the hopes that they cover some of the program costs and keep deficits down, a bit. However, I would like to be given a choice (Ontario-Canada taxes on gasline sales represent about 40% of the price) as to WHERE the money goes. -Rich |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
They said the same thing about desalinization. I like trees but I'm in
no way a tree hugger. There needs to be balance. But with desalinization they found that while it costs more to take the salt out, the resulting fresh water reaching arid lands produces great crop yields in areas previously non-productive. Yet some "nitwit" promoted the idea. Look back through history at all the nitwit ideas that turned out to be major advances. Using dino products beat the heck out of steam, and led to other advances. Who knows where something like hydrogen fueling might lead? My tea leaves are on the fritz right now, so I don't know what will come along tomorrow. On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:48:33 -0400, RichA > wrote: >On 7 May 2005 20:03:50 -0700, "Kruse" > wrote: > >> >>66 6F HCS wrote: >>> There's a local guy here in Denver who converts engines to run on the >>used >>> oil from the fryers at McDonald's, Burger King, et al. The exhaust >>smells >>> like whatever was fried in the oil. Fries, chicken, fish, whatever. >>lol. >>> -- >> >>With very few emissions, I may add. >> >>Actually, it's not that hard. After that french fry (FF) oil gets to >>~170 degrees, the diesel engine will burn it like the regular stuff. >>Most of those cars just have two fuel tanks, a small one with regular >>diesel and a larger tank with the FF oil. Start the car on regular >>diesel, heat up the FF oil with the engine heat and then just switch >>the fuel over. Most of these cars are a novelty though. Can you imagine >>taking a cross country trip without knowing where to stop to get your >>fuel? > >And that's the point; Nitwits jump at any crack-pop idea without a >thought at to it's true viability. IF they took the refuse from >every restaurant in a city and converted it, it "might" become a >viable and widely available fuel source. But then I'd have to know >the volumes to make any kind of reasonable assumption about it. >As it is, it makes about as much sense as "hydrogen fueling" which >costs MORE in conventional energy to make than any reduction in >emissions it achieves. >-Rich Hey! Spikey Likes IT! 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
My crystal ball says we are heading toward a society based on energy
produced from the process of fusion. IMO, it is the best hope of man to provide cheap, clean and limitless energy. It won't be here soon but if we can keep things from going to hell for another 200-300 years we might make it. Spike wrote: > They said the same thing about desalinization. I like trees but I'm in > no way a tree hugger. There needs to be balance. But with > desalinization they found that while it costs more to take the salt > out, the resulting fresh water reaching arid lands produces great crop > yields in areas previously non-productive. Yet some "nitwit" promoted > the idea. Look back through history at all the nitwit ideas that > turned out to be major advances. Using dino products beat the heck out > of steam, and led to other advances. Who knows where something like > hydrogen fueling might lead? My tea leaves are on the fritz right now, > so I don't know what will come along tomorrow. > > On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:48:33 -0400, RichA > wrote: > > >>On 7 May 2005 20:03:50 -0700, "Kruse" > wrote: >> >> >>>66 6F HCS wrote: >>> >>>>There's a local guy here in Denver who converts engines to run on the >>> >>>used >>> >>>>oil from the fryers at McDonald's, Burger King, et al. The exhaust >>> >>>smells >>> >>>>like whatever was fried in the oil. Fries, chicken, fish, whatever. >>> >>>lol. >>> >>>>-- >>> >>>With very few emissions, I may add. >>> >>>Actually, it's not that hard. After that french fry (FF) oil gets to >>>~170 degrees, the diesel engine will burn it like the regular stuff. >>>Most of those cars just have two fuel tanks, a small one with regular >>>diesel and a larger tank with the FF oil. Start the car on regular >>>diesel, heat up the FF oil with the engine heat and then just switch >>>the fuel over. Most of these cars are a novelty though. Can you imagine >>>taking a cross country trip without knowing where to stop to get your >>>fuel? >> >>And that's the point; Nitwits jump at any crack-pop idea without a >>thought at to it's true viability. IF they took the refuse from >>every restaurant in a city and converted it, it "might" become a >>viable and widely available fuel source. But then I'd have to know >>the volumes to make any kind of reasonable assumption about it. >>As it is, it makes about as much sense as "hydrogen fueling" which >>costs MORE in conventional energy to make than any reduction in >>emissions it achieves. >>-Rich > > > Hey! Spikey Likes IT! > 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok > Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior > Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" > w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Spike wrote:
> I seriously doubt you could come up with a strategy which would work > to accomplish such a goal. It's easy, just vote for the guy that wants to eliminate/reduce the gas tax. > You can threaten not to reelect politicians, but when they get huge > campaign contributions from the oil companies, you think they'll care? If they know the money won't be enough to get them re-elected they will do the people's will. Oil companies don't vote, people do. > You could boycott the oil companies to try to get them to push for > lower taxes on gas. But they don't care. They have a product which > everyone "needs" and which people will buy whatever the price. It's not the oil companies fault that we have gas taxes. It's the politicians' fault. > If, and only if, you could get the overwhelming majority to stand > together and demand the lowering of the taxes, would it happen, and I > don't see that happening. For decades, this has been a goal with > regard to income taxes. It has not happened yet. People think of self > first. In order to feed themselves and their families, they need to > get to work. If that means paying the high pump prices, they'll pay > them. It won't matter what part is product and what part is tax. IMO, the next great political upheaval will occur when a person runs for president that can articulate to the average Joe citizen just how much money they pay in taxes every year and make them see just what they are receiving in return from the government (Federal, State and Local). We are seeing the tip of this iceberg right now. We just need the right politician to manifest it. I see a great need for a third party to develop in this country. > It's pretty rare when even a "temporary" tax is instituted with a > specific end date, actually goes away. Once in place, as the end date > approaches, the politicos find another use for a tax the people are > already accustomed to paying. And they get enough people to support > the new cause to keep it in place. Every new tax they put on us brings these politicians closer to their own demise. It's a slow painful process that we are having to endure but one day enough of us will "get it" and actually demand a change. > On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:04:57 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > > wrote: > > >>If we would all make it clear that high gasoline taxes are unacceptable >>and vote accordingly then those taxes would vanish very quickly. >> >>Spike wrote: >> >>>Tax or no tax, you're still paying what you pay. Just like in >>>California. I makes no difference what the state tax and the fed tax >>>are, I still have to pay whatever the pump price is. >>> >>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 22:39:32 -0700, Quiet Desperation > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>In article >, Michael Johnson, PE > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ouch! I guess I'm 10 years behind the times then. >>>> >>>>You also have to take local gas taxes into account. I believe much of >>>>the EU has enormous gas taxes. >>> >>> >>>Hey! Spikey Likes IT! >>>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok >>>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior >>>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" >>>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 > > > Hey! Spikey Likes IT! > 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok > Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior > Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" > w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:55:30 -0700, Spike > wrote: > > >>I seriously doubt you could come up with a strategy which would work >>to accomplish such a goal. >> >>You can threaten not to reelect politicians, but when they get huge >>campaign contributions from the oil companies, you think they'll care? > > It's very simple; NO politician, conservative or liberal has > the guts anymore to cut programs. Because of that your choices > are simple; Cut taxes and run higher deficits, or leave taxes > in-place in the hopes that they cover some of the program costs > and keep deficits down, a bit. However, I would like to be given > a choice (Ontario-Canada taxes on gasline sales represent about > 40% of the price) as to WHERE the money goes. > -Rich There is another choice... cut taxes and have no deficit. Government officials have wasted so much money for so long that they think it is THEIR right to do so. I have no doubt that anyone that has balanced a checking account could take the budget of any government agency and cut it substantially WITHOUT greatly affecting their basic function. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:29:32 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote: >RichA wrote: >> On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:55:30 -0700, Spike > wrote: >> >> >>>I seriously doubt you could come up with a strategy which would work >>>to accomplish such a goal. >>> >>>You can threaten not to reelect politicians, but when they get huge >>>campaign contributions from the oil companies, you think they'll care? >> >> It's very simple; NO politician, conservative or liberal has >> the guts anymore to cut programs. Because of that your choices >> are simple; Cut taxes and run higher deficits, or leave taxes >> in-place in the hopes that they cover some of the program costs >> and keep deficits down, a bit. However, I would like to be given >> a choice (Ontario-Canada taxes on gasline sales represent about >> 40% of the price) as to WHERE the money goes. >> -Rich > >There is another choice... cut taxes and have no deficit. Government >officials have wasted so much money for so long that they think it is >THEIR right to do so. I have no doubt that anyone that has balanced a >checking account could take the budget of any government agency and cut >it substantially WITHOUT greatly affecting their basic function. alberta should just close the valve and watch you guys freeze lmfao hurc ast |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
So easy to say, but it does not take into account human nature, or how
the system really has worked since the earliest days of the Republic, when the Founding Fathers; wealthy, educated, landowners; determined that women, slaves, anyone who did not own land, frontiers people, Indians, etc, should not be able to vote. They lacked the education, worldly experience, and personal investment motivation to know what was best for themselves. Elitists then, elitists now. We all know how we were taught in school about how it's supposed to work, but has it ever really worked that way? Not really. There have only been times when it was closer than other times. Sometimes the devil you know is much better than the devil you don't. I for one would rather have what we have than some of the possibilities we could have; think North Korea, China, the chaos of the former Soviet Union, Malaysia where chewing gum in public is punishable by caning, or the theocracy of Islam. As for Special Interest groups, from corporations to religions, they DO vote with their wallets and their influence over employees/members. On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:24:16 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote: >Spike wrote: >> I seriously doubt you could come up with a strategy which would work >> to accomplish such a goal. > >It's easy, just vote for the guy that wants to eliminate/reduce the gas tax. > >> You can threaten not to reelect politicians, but when they get huge >> campaign contributions from the oil companies, you think they'll care? > Hey! Spikey Likes IT! 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8" w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
warman i am surprised you mix oil | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 5 | May 8th 05 04:04 AM |
Diesel vs. Gasoline - why one preferred over another?? | Mark Levitski | Technology | 42 | April 27th 05 10:52 PM |
More Infor on BioDiesel | North | 4x4 | 236 | June 30th 04 03:58 AM |
Any word on US versions of the diesel Jeep Liberty or diesel Land Rover Discovery? | Exit | 4x4 | 36 | January 20th 04 04:12 PM |