E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?

How many batteries does it take to store that PV power for a month?

"Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch"
> wrote in message
. 17.102...
> Steve > wrote in
> :
>
> Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV
>
> 26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
> sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.
>
> http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
>
> Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
> 8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.
>
> How many gallons of your biofuels **** per acre per year?
>
>
> http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
> http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
> http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
> http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
> http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
> http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_ar...prior_art.html
> http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
> http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
> http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
> http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html

"Solar Flare" > wrote in
:

> How many batteries does it take to store that PV power for a month?

You mean "how much volume does it take to store that much hydrogen".

That depends on if you store bulk gas, lquid gas or gas stored in zeolites
in stationary depots. You might store it in underground wells or floating
bags tethered over someplace, or in submerged bags deep under water.

Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV

26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.

http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html

Raw solar power MEGAWATTS per acre per day.
8,863 MEGAWATTS per year per acre.

How many gallons of your biofuels **** per acre per year?


http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html
http://h2-pv.tripod.com/PV/solar_maps.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_ar...prior_art.html
http://h2-pv.us/PV/DOE_Slides/Govt_PDFs_01.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2_Basics.html
http://h2-pv.us/H2/H2-PV_Breeders.html

Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch wrote:
> Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV
>
> 26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
> sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.
======================================
Whats with the fake name and copying the same message over and over?
Just use your real name and type real sentences.

"BobG" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Sponsored by OILY INC. Exxon-Koch wrote:
>> Hydrogen Electrolysis from solar PV
>>
>> 26,282 kilograms per year per acre of scrubland in
>> sunny southwest USA sunbelt states.
> ======================================
> Whats with the fake name and copying the same message over and over?
> Just use your real name and type real sentences.

The Real name is too long. It's "Why are you going on and on about
biofuels that cost an acre per year to produce 300 gallons, when you can
get 26,282 kilograms of Hydrogen from the same acre?"

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:

> >Ya think?
>
> I may have read that wrong, the ethanol group did
> put up money for the 17 car, but I don't know if the article
> discussed what prompted the Indy officials to make a
> complete switch to ethanol next year.

We could have put our name on the side of a car to promote
ethanol, but instead we did it the hard way, so we arranged this
fuel switch,"

IOWs, palms were greased.

> >> But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points,
> >> that means the timing can be advanced, and the same
> >> engine will have more pep.
> >
> >I hadn't realized that Indy cars suffered from a "pep" problem.
>
> All the teams want more pep, that is the reason
> they race, to try to win.
> Top speed is not where the race is won, it is
> getting out of the slow turns quicker.

And if the engine overpowers the tires, what do you suppose
happens?

Bear in mind, while the article mentions some track records being
broken by ethanol powered cars, it stops short of actually
attributing those broken records to the specific use of ethanol.
IOWs, those track records may well have been broken anyway
without the use of ethanol.

> >> I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody
> >> had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a
> >> supercharger, it had to be timed way before TDC, at
> >> least 35 degrees, which is a lot.
> >> The car was sluggish before timing it correctly,
> >> and real peppy after.
> >
> >I worked on a 1994 GMC Safari and a 2001 Pontiac Bonneville SSEi
> >yesterday. Interestingly, they both belong to the same person,
> >an official with CART
>
> Are they timed at 35 degrees BTC? :-)

I am 100% certain that at some given throttle position, RPM and
manifold pressure, the ignition timing would be 35 degrees BTDC

Is the base timing on either vehicle 35 degrees BTDC?
Nope, and I'm 100% certain that the base timing on a 1964
Corvair Spyder isn't 35 degrees BTDC either.

> >> There are lots of things good mentioned in the
> >> article, and not much bad.
> >
> >Naturally, it's a sales job.
>
> If the published US oil reserves were accurate,
> there would not be much choice to switch from gasoline
> as quickly as possible.

Taxes are charged on published reserves, the less reserves you
report, the less the tax you pay.

> Gasoline is down to $2.29 here, and I fear
> any lower price and it will put ethanol on the back
> burner again, and we need to reduce oil imports,
> every year we give the money equivalent of an
> entire state to buy imported oil.

Same can be said for a lot of products/circumstances.

> And there are people who would like to see
> a fuel used that will use the same (amount of) CO2
> over and over, and not release more and more, even
> people other than Al Gore.

"Like to see" and actually seeing are two different things.

> >> It mentioned some smoke
> >> when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol.
> >
> >No doubt an insurmountable problem when they made the switch from
> >gasoline years ago.
>
> It was a problem seeing if there was a fire, but
> neither are very pleasant to think about.
>
> >> Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is
> >> a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol.
> >
> >Thing is; you only need to feed half as much of that "real dog"
> >compared to ethanol or methanol.
>
> Chances are it is not anywhere "half".

Long ago established. Run alcohol, double the jet size.

> The BTU
> per pound may not be the total picture, a study of fuels
> may show that oxygen is the indicator of power.

To a point, yes.

> Ethanol contains oxygen. If I were to build
> a dragster, I would want to use pure oxygen instead
> of air, allowing the use of more than three times as
> much fuel, but the engine would probably need
> beefed up crankshaft, connecting rods, and better
> bearings.

The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here
was never heard from again.

> It is too early to predict what will happen
> with ethanol, in racing, or in wide use in vehicles.
>
> But it is easy to predict what the motor fuel
> of the future will be, and it will be alcohol.

That may well be, but I doubt that it will be in any form that
we're seeing marketed now.

On Fri, aarcuda69062 > wrote:

>........
>The last guy who mentioned using pure oxygen in an IC engine here
>was never heard from again.

A bad thing about pure oxygen, it doesn't need
a spark, all it needs is a hydrocarbon.

I think it will be very interesting to see what the
Indy car mechanics do with ethanol.

Joe Fischer

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:

> > Its an obvious and complete fictional statement by
> >someone who has doubtfully ever turned a wrench on a mechanical device.
>
> Or a mechanic instructor with 60 years experience,
> on ICEs up to 4000 horsepower. :-)

If this "mechanic instructor" happens to join in on this
discussion, be sure to let us know.

> >Anyone who believes supercharging requires MORE timing advance obviously
> >doesn't have a stinking clue.
>
> Nobody said that, the Spider was supercharged,
> the regular corvair was not, if there was some other
> difference that required such a drastic change in
> timing advance to have any pep at all, WHAT WAS IT?

Timing light installed on wrong cylinder
Harmonic balancer slipped
Timing chain jumped a tooth
Timing marks installed wrong/bent, etc.
Advance weights frozen

>
> >> Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is
> >> a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol.
> >
> >It contains almost twice as much energy per unit volume. How exactly
> >does that make it a "dog?"
>
> It pings (ignites prematurely), with excessive
> loss of power and spits out lots of particulates and
> smoke.

Are you sure? AFAIK, no federal or state emission test tests for
either of those two things on a gasoline powered engine.

> One of the things that made removal of the
> tetraethyl lead from gasoline was the use of ethanol
> or other (non-lead) additives.

(makes no sense)

> It will take some time to find out all the
> problems with ethanol, and make changes to the
> engine,

Uh, no, that's all pretty well understood.

> but it needs to be done, better now than
> later.

Because someone at ADM has a new yacht on order?
Great news for the boat builders in Manitowoc, bad news for the
rest of us.

On Fri, aarcuda69062 > wrote:

>> >Anyone who believes supercharging requires MORE timing advance obviously
>> >doesn't have a stinking clue.
>>
>> Nobody said that, the Spider was supercharged,
>> the regular corvair was not, if there was some other
>> difference that required such a drastic change in
>> timing advance to have any pep at all, WHAT WAS IT?
>
>Timing light installed on wrong cylinder
>Harmonic balancer slipped
>Timing chain jumped a tooth
>Timing marks installed wrong/bent, etc.
>Advance weights frozen

http://www.carnut.com/specs/gen/vair60.html

I long time to remember exact numbers.

Joe Fischer

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:

> On Fri, aarcuda69062 > wrote:
>
> >> >Anyone who believes supercharging requires MORE timing advance obviously
> >> >doesn't have a stinking clue.
> >>
> >> Nobody said that, the Spider was supercharged,
> >> the regular corvair was not, if there was some other
> >> difference that required such a drastic change in
> >> timing advance to have any pep at all, WHAT WAS IT?
> >
> >Timing light installed on wrong cylinder
> >Harmonic balancer slipped
> >Timing chain jumped a tooth
> >Timing marks installed wrong/bent, etc.
> >Advance weights frozen
>
> http://www.carnut.com/specs/gen/vair60.html
>
> I long time to remember exact numbers.
>

Or whether it was supercharged or turbocharged.

In article > ,
> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Joe Fischer > wrote:
>>>>>On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
>>>>>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
>>>>>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
>>>>>>vs
>>>>>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't that simple, there can be more power
>>>>>from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine
>>>>>needs to be timed different and other changes made.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You cannot get more power from burning something which produces less
>>>> energy.
>>>> Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics.
>>>
>>>First you have to understand the laws of physics. Power is the _rate_ of
>>>delivery/production of energy, and is not subject to conservation like
>>>energy is.
>>
>> True, but irrelevant.
>
>No, it's not. The post to which you replied was about power, not energy.
>And you made the statement that "you cannot get more power from burning
>something which produces less energy"--that is just simply not a correct
>statement. That's like saying that "you cannot go faster if you're not
>capable of going further" or "you cannot make water flow faster if you do
>not have more water to flow." All three statements are just simply not
>true, since they all make the mistake of comparing a quantity and its rate
>of generation. This indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what power
>is, and how it relates to a conserved quantity like energy. There have been
>a lot of people in this discussion confusing power and total energy content.
>Your post only served to further the confusion.
>
>Eric Lucas
>
>
You can only get so much energy from combusting a tank of fuel. OK, happier?