Gas prices and alternative fuels -- two questions

I did not say that.

"...we have had situations..." is not in the present.

Although I shall personally not be voting for the Labour Party (just in case
it is not clear to everybody, we vote for Members of Parliament only, not
the prime minister, though of course, this vote might be placed not on the
basis of the local candidate but on the basis of the preferred party leader)
I can understand why he has widespread support. Might not be so obvious
abroad. Similarly, Margaret Thatcher's standing abroad was much better than
in the UK for longer, as abroad one did not have her on TV or in the papers
every day.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> You're about to have an election (where god knows why you're about to
> put Tony Bliar back in power) and you're telling me the gov't has the
> balls to _raise_ taxes on petrol just before an election?
[...]

David wrote:

> > Some of Ontario's nuclear power plants are not on-line for some
> > reason,
>
> Actually, it is because they are undergoing significant upgrading

Which has already been done (and which had taken much longer to do,
and the British company that bought some of the Ontario nuclear plants
got "burned" by the lack of profits and last I heard was trying to
sell them last year. If I recall correctly, all Nuke plants were
supposed to be up and running this year. Then earlier this spring it
was announced that some were either still off-line or will be taken
off line.

> Most nuclear reactors in canada are over 30 years old.

How old is the youngest nuke plant in the USA? UK?

> And with the candu's in foreign countries showing signs of
> failure, they want to make sure they are upgraded in Canada.

I think the candu is the only reactor that doesn't produce
weapons-grade waste material (ie plutonium?). Or, in other words, if
Iran were building Candu's then I don't think there would be any fear
of them being able to use them to refine uranium for weapons.

> 2. One reason there is an increased interest in LNG-powered vehicles
> is that fuel is cheaper. What taxes are included in the price of LNG?
> Is LNG for motor vehicles priced/taxed the same as LNG for heating? I
> am asking because I am sure I recall that, about 20 years or more ago
> in Australia, as LNG became more popular as a motor-vehicle fuel
> (e.g., I recall that most taxis and many other commercial fleets in
> Brisbane were using LNG), so the taxes on it were increased? Couldn't
> the same thing happen elsewhere, thus tending to wipe out the cost
> advantage?

I think you mean LPG - Liquified Propane Gas. Yes, in Europe taxes are lower
on LPG to the point where it becomes ~2x cheaper than gasoline. As others
have pointed out that situation can change, and apparently LPG prices are
bound to go up in future. LPG is also widely used for heating purposes... if
all else fails I'll get myself a nice house heating system and fill up my
car from it

Alternatively there's CNG - Compressed Natural Gas (methane), which can be
produced from organic sources as well. It's not as popular as LPG due to
various reasons, but is much cheaper and supplies are abundant...

Peter

Peter wrote:
> ...in Europe taxes are lower
> on LPG to the point where it becomes ~2x cheaper than gasoline...

What does the phrase "2x cheaper" mean? Statements like that must drive
mathematicians nuts.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

>> ...in Europe taxes are lower
>> on LPG to the point where it becomes ~2x cheaper than gasoline...
>
> What does the phrase "2x cheaper" mean? Statements like that must
> drive mathematicians nuts.

Well, I'm a mathematician by education

What I meant was that for any given unit of measurement (where unit is less
than 1000 liters) the following statement is true:

(cost to purchase LPG) = (cost to purchase regular gas) / 2

Is it clear now? ))

In practical terms I pay ~1.8$/gal for LPG, and ~3.5$/gal for gasoline. CNG
is cheaper still, not sure how they meter it since it's in gaseous form but
I've heard your cost per mile is about the same as if you were buying
gasoline at ~0.7$/gal

Peter

This reminds me of a story told by my mother about the time she was a
student (many years ago....violin strings please....).

The lecturer/professor lectured the class about the misuse of the word
"half" and then concluded the harangue with the admonition that the "greater
half" of the class had not been listening....

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> What does the phrase "2x cheaper" mean? Statements like that must drive
> mathematicians nuts.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')

LNG is actually practical to an extent, Beech Aircraft had a project
with vacuum-insulated dewar tanks in vehicles and an airplane. However,
at natural gas prices currently the economic advantage isn't huge.

I have heard also that about 3 ounces of acetone in you tank will increase
your mileage by a few MPH. Currently waiting for someone in a Yahoo group
to give us his results before testing it in one of my rides...
http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/
~ Paul
aka "Tha Driver"

A flower is nothing more than an educated weed.

On Tue, 10 May 2005, "ThaDriver" > wrote

> I have heard also that about 3 ounces of acetone in you tank will increase
> your mileage by a few MPH.

Kee-ryste, will this stupid idea *never* die? Is it so much to ask that
you use the brain you were born with to think about this?

In the first place, mileage is not measured in "MPH". In the second place,
adding 3 ounces of *ANYTHING* added to a tank of gas will not improve your
mileage by any amount. In the third place, you can do extensive damage to
your fuel system by adding acetone, which is an aggressive active solvent.

DS (in the '70s they said the same thing about napthalene moth balls. It
wasn't true then, either.)