Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels

Orval Fairbairn turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:


>> I looked up the story of the ev1 you refered to, very interesting.
>> I've got who killed the electric car ? on order, looking forward to
>> seeing it. I think some important lessons may be learned from that
>>
>> thank you
>
> The answer to "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is "Physics and Chemistry."
>
> No battery ever built can store enough energy (at a reasonable weight)
> to compete with hydrocarbon-fueled engines.
>

What about when you use the dilithium crystals in the engine?

Huh?


--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Aug 23, 1:53*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Aug 17, 11:51*am, "marx404" > wrote:
> >
> > > > Hydrogen cars. As far as the Honda Clarity, refer to the Saturn EV1,
> > > > mark my
> > > > words, history will repeat itself once the leases are up. (ref: Who
> > > > killed
> > > > the electric car?)
> >
> > > > How about Mr. Garrison's "IT" vehicle in the South Park episode?
> > > > Personally
> > > > I think it makes more sense than E85.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > marx404
> >
> > > I looked up the story of the ev1 you refered to, very interesting.
> > > I've got who killed the electric car ? on order, looking forward to
> > > seeing it. I think some important lessons may be learned from that
> >
> > > thank you
> >
> > The answer to "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is "Physics and Chemistry."
> >
> > No battery ever built can store enough energy (at a reasonable weight)
> > to compete with hydrocarbon-fueled engines.
> >
> > --
> > Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> how about in terms of emissions ?

Unless your original source of electricity is nuclear, hydro, wind or
solar, all you are doing is transferring the emissions to another
location.

In any event, batteries are STILL a very inefficient means of storing
motive energy -- they are limited by the laws of physics and chemistry
-- subjects with which most environmentalists and politicians have, at
best, minimal knowledge.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Aug 24, 1:06*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 1:53*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 17, 11:51*am, "marx404" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Hydrogen cars. As far as the Honda Clarity, refer to the Saturn EV1,
> > > > > mark my
> > > > > words, history will repeat itself once the leases are up. (ref: Who
> > > > > killed
> > > > > the electric car?)
>
> > > > > How about Mr. Garrison's "IT" vehicle in the South Park episode?
> > > > > Personally
> > > > > I think it makes more sense than E85.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > marx404
>
> > > > I looked up the story of the ev1 you refered to, very interesting.
> > > > I've got who killed the electric car ? on order, looking forward to
> > > > seeing it. I think some important lessons may be learned from that
>
> > > > thank you
>
> > > The answer to "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is "Physics and Chemistry."
>
> > > No battery ever built can store enough energy (at a reasonable weight)
> > > to compete with hydrocarbon-fueled engines.
>
> > > --
> > > Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > how about in terms of emissions ?
>
> Unless your original source of electricity is nuclear, hydro, wind *or
> solar, all you are doing is transferring the emissions to another
> location.
>
> In any event, batteries are STILL a very inefficient means of storing
> motive energy -- they are limited by the laws of physics and chemistry
> -- subjects with which most environmentalists and politicians have, at
> best, minimal knowledge.
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am aware of transference of emissions; I think even your coal fired
generators are cleaner to produce the electricity to charge a battery
than gas to go the same distance

"PerfectReign" > wrote in message ...
> Orval Fairbairn turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
>
>>> I looked up the story of the ev1 you refered to, very interesting.
>>> I've got who killed the electric car ? on order, looking forward to
>>> seeing it. I think some important lessons may be learned from that
>>>
>>> thank you
>>
>> The answer to "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is "Physics and Chemistry."
>>
>> No battery ever built can store enough energy (at a reasonable weight)
>> to compete with hydrocarbon-fueled engines.
>>
>
> What about when you use the dilithium crystals in the engine?
>
> Huh?
>
>
> --
> www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
>
> powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org

Don't dilithium crystals require a matter-anti-matter reactor? I think we have to wait for Ephram Cochrane to invent it.

In article >,
"Steve" m> wrote:

> "PerfectReign" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Orval Fairbairn turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> I looked up the story of the ev1 you refered to, very interesting.
> >>> I've got who killed the electric car ? on order, looking forward to
> >>> seeing it. I think some important lessons may be learned from that
> >>>
> >>> thank you
> >>
> >> The answer to "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is "Physics and Chemistry."
> >>
> >> No battery ever built can store enough energy (at a reasonable weight)
> >> to compete with hydrocarbon-fueled engines.
> >>
> >
> > What about when you use the dilithium crystals in the engine?
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
> >
> > powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org
>
> Don't dilithium crystals require a matter-anti-matter reactor? I think we
> have to wait for Ephram Cochrane to invent it.
>

I agree! Most of the "alternate energy" movement is pure hype, including
alcohol and batteries.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

>
> it's bull**** lip flapping; hydrogen fuel makes the most sense,
> universally available, easy to produce and a significant source of
> energy; this flex fuels nonsense is just more footdragging by the
> small minded herd mentallity pandemic in detroit. gm is in a fight to
> survive and these imbecile execs waffel over flex fuels- it will be
> justice when they are begging for change on the street corner in a few
> years. morons !

Hey moron, do you know how much energy it takes to produce hydrogen
fuel? How about the cost to build production facilities? You got a clue
as to the distribution and refueling problems? Obviously not.

--
Gyz

If a man is speaking in the middle of the forest and there is no woman
around to hear him, is he still wrong?

In article >,
Gyzmologist > wrote:

> >
> > it's bull**** lip flapping; hydrogen fuel makes the most sense,
> > universally available, easy to produce and a significant source of
> > energy; this flex fuels nonsense is just more footdragging by the
> > small minded herd mentallity pandemic in detroit. gm is in a fight to
> > survive and these imbecile execs waffel over flex fuels- it will be
> > justice when they are begging for change on the street corner in a few
> > years. morons !
>
> Hey moron, do you know how much energy it takes to produce hydrogen
> fuel? How about the cost to build production facilities? You got a clue
> as to the distribution and refueling problems? Obviously not.

Not only that, but pure hydrogen has a very low density, requires either
very high pressures or extremenly low temperatures (around 30 K), has a
combustible range in air from 3% to 97%, burns with a clear flame and is
colorless and odorless. Most hydrogen comes from natural gas, not
electrolysis.

Hydrocarbons are a far more efficient and safer means of carrying fuel.
The Fischer-Frosch process converts coal to usable hydrocarbons, if we
cannot get them from petroleum.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Aug 25, 9:00*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *Gyzmologist > wrote:
>
> > > it's bull**** lip flapping; hydrogen fuel makes the most sense,
> > > universally available, easy to produce and a significant source of
> > > energy; this flex fuels nonsense is just more footdragging by the
> > > small minded herd mentallity pandemic in detroit. gm is in a fight to
> > > survive and these imbecile execs waffel over flex fuels- it will be
> > > justice when they are begging for change on the street corner in a few
> > > years. morons !
>
> > Hey moron, do you know how much energy it takes to produce hydrogen
> > fuel? How about the cost to build production facilities? You got a clue
> > as to the distribution and refueling problems? Obviously not.
>
> Not only that, but pure hydrogen has a very low density, requires either
> very high pressures or extremenly low temperatures (around 30 K), has a
> combustible range in air from 3% to 97%, burns with a clear flame and is
> colorless and odorless. Most hydrogen comes from natural gas, not
> electrolysis.
>
> Hydrocarbons are a far more efficient and safer means of carrying fuel.
> The Fischer-Frosch process converts coal to usable hydrocarbons, if we
> cannot get them from petroleum.
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.

it's still possible to develop solar and wind powered hydrogen farms;
the investment in such facillities would be way way cheaper than your
average refinery. eventually transportation will have to move away
from using non-renewable resources, so the question becomes when are
you going to start ?