Air Force wants coal for fuel, but will idea fly?

[Otis Willie PIO The American War Library]

Air Force wants coal for fuel, but will idea fly?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23811258/

{EXCERPT} MSNBC Robin Loznak / AP AP MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. - On a
wind-swept air base near the Missouri River, the Air Force has launched an
ambitious plan to...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23811258/

Air Force Service Discussion/News/Info Exchange Forum
http://members.aol.com/militarypeople/e-usaf.htm

U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully
reproducing copyrighted material. In abidance
with our laws this report cannot be provided in
its entirety. However, you can read it in full
today at the supplied URL. The subject/content of
this report is not necessarily the viewpoint of
the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.

-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247
1-310-532-0634

Military Webmaster Site Link Request Form:
http://www.amervets.com/linkreq.htm

Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/share.htm

[Hawkeye]

Having once been stationed at Malmstrom for a number of years and
working in a facility directly across the street from the bases coal
plant, it makes perfect sense. The coal is locally sourced, the base
has the geographical territory for the expansion to facilitate the
building required and it is another alternative fuel to ease our
dependence on foreign oil.

Malmstrom has had a long history, but its mission has shrunk over the
years. Back in the early 90s it was booming with both a flying and
missile missions...now it is surviving on a fraction of the missile
mission and a couple of other smaller ones. It would be a boost to the
economy to the state of Montana and the community of Great Falls.

I say go for it.

[Don Stauffer in Minnesota]

On Apr 1, 9:51 pm, Otis Willie PIO The American War Library

Air Force wants coal for fuel, but will idea fly?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23811258/
{EXCERPT} MSNBC Robin Loznak / AP AP MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. - On a
wind-swept air base near the Missouri River, the Air Force has launched an
ambitious plan to...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23811258/
Air Force Service Discussion/News/Info Exchange Forumhttp://members.aol.com/militarypeople/e-usaf.htm
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully
reproducing copyrighted material. In abidance
with our laws this report cannot be provided in
its entirety. However, you can read it in full
today at the supplied URL. The subject/content of
this report is not necessarily the viewpoint of
the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.
-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247
1-310-532-0634
http://www.amervets.com/linkreq.htm
Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/share.htm

I see two ways to use coal. First, make jet fuel FROM coal. After
all, kerosene, which is a useful jet fuel, was originally called "coal
oil" was made, well over a century ago, from coal. I am sure that
even better technology is available today.

Second, engines COULD operate on a coal slurry. Now, that is far more
difficult, and the effects on the engine (erosion of turbine blades,
etc.) would be horendous. But, maybe there are ways to do it better
with enough development.

However, either way adds tremendously to greenhouse emissions. Carbon
is by far the worst fossil fuel for its ratio of CO2 per joule of
energy. Even when made into kerosene, there are a LOT of byproducts
containing or generating carbon dioxide.

To me a biofuel from something like soybeans, or some more easily
grown product (or even a natural-wild plant) seems like a better
answer.

[Rob Arndt]

I don't see why any of this would be a problem- Nazi Germany used coal
gasification from 16 plants to produce 85% of German aviation fuel
during WW2. After WW2, German synthetic fuel was produced in the US
with 2 transported pilot plants operating for a decade. Results were
positive, but back then the German synthetic would cost $16/barrel vs
$3/barrel for Arab crude. So the oil companies dismantled the plants
and filed away their information with Texas A & M. Later, this
information was confiscated by the US Army and locked away, but Texas
A & M copied it on microfilm and it is now being re-examined due to
the ever-increasing cost of a barrel of oil, which now has hit $104/
barrel mark.

Rob

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Rob Arndt
I don't see why any of this would be a problem- Nazi Germany used coal
gasification from 16 plants to produce 85% of German aviation fuel
during WW2. After WW2, German synthetic fuel was produced in the US
with 2 transported pilot plants operating for a decade. Results were
positive, but back then the German synthetic would cost $16/barrel vs
$3/barrel for Arab crude. So the oil companies dismantled the
plants
and filed away their information with Texas A & M. Later, this
information was confiscated by the US Army and locked away, but Texas
A & M copied it on microfilm and it is now being re-examined due to
the ever-increasing cost of a barrel of oil, which now has hit
$104/
barrel mark.
Rob

It works when using Coal but not when you use Vegie oil. The
byproduct of Coal or Shale isn't that much different than Crude.
When refined, it becomes able to withstand some extremely cold temps.
Veggie Oil, on the other hand, will thicken up as the temp drops
until it has the consistency of a sticky basketball.

You can mix the Veggie based in with the Petrol Based (including Coal
and Shale) and it will be able to withstand a reasonable low temp but
you can't take it too low. For instance, Ethynol powered cars in
Brazil still have a small Gasoline tank for cold starting.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by Rob Arndt
I don't see why any of this would be a problem- Nazi Germany used coal
gasification from 16 plants to produce 85% of German aviation fuel
during WW2. After WW2, German synthetic fuel was produced in the US
with 2 transported pilot plants operating for a decade. Results were
positive, but back then the German synthetic would cost $16/barrel vs
$3/barrel for Arab crude. So the oil companies dismantled the plants
and filed away their information with Texas A & M. Later, this
information was confiscated by the US Army and locked away, but Texas
A & M copied it on microfilm and it is now being re-examined due to
the ever-increasing cost of a barrel of oil, which now has hit $104/
barrel mark.
Rob

It works when using Coal but not when you use Vegie oil. The byproduct of
Coal or Shale isn't that much different than Crude. When refined, it
becomes able to withstand some extremely cold temps. Veggie Oil, on the
other hand, will thicken up as the temp drops until it has the consistency
of a sticky basketball.

Actually vegetable oil is a FAR BETTER feedstock. Liquid fuels
are hydrocarbons, coal has much less hydrogen than oil from
either fossil sources or a farmers field. The simple reality is
that you dont expect to run car engines on crude oil straight from
the ground so expecting unprocessed vegetable oil to work
that way is silly.

Winterizing biodiesel is quite simple. There are a number of
commercially available products that control waxing but one
of the most promising techniques is the transesterification of triglycerides
with ethanol or methanol.

This is relatively simple and low cost process used in Europe to
commercially produce biodiesel. Neste Oil in Finland are building
large commercial biodiesel plants for use at home and in Singapore

Finland is not renowned for its warm winters.

You can mix the Veggie based in with the Petrol Based (including Coal and
Shale) and it will be able to withstand a reasonable low temp but you
can't take it too low. For instance, Ethynol powered cars in Brazil still
have a small Gasoline tank for cold starting.

The problem with raw ethanol is its relatively high flash point
which is a problem for spark ignition engines but not compression
ignition engines.

Keith

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Rob Arndt
I don't see why any of this would be a problem- Nazi Germany used coal
gasification from 16 plants to produce 85% of German aviation fuel
during WW2. After WW2, German synthetic fuel was produced in the US
with 2 transported pilot plants operating for a decade. Results were
positive, but back then the German synthetic would cost
$16/barrel vs
$3/barrel for Arab crude. So the oil companies dismantled the plants
and filed away their information with Texas A & M. Later, this
information was confiscated by the US Army and locked away, but Texas
A & M copied it on microfilm and it is now being re-examined due to
the ever-increasing cost of a barrel of oil, which now has hit $104/
barrel mark.
Rob

It works when using Coal but not when you use Vegie oil. The
byproduct of Coal or Shale isn't that much different than Crude.
When refined, it becomes able to withstand some extremely cold
temps. Veggie Oil, on the other hand, will thicken up as the temp
drops until it has the consistency of a sticky basketball.

Actually vegetable oil is a FAR BETTER feedstock. Liquid fuels
are hydrocarbons, coal has much less hydrogen than oil from
either fossil sources or a farmers field. The simple reality is
that you dont expect to run car engines on crude oil straight from
the ground so expecting unprocessed vegetable oil to work
that way is silly.
Winterizing biodiesel is quite simple. There are a number of
commercially available products that control waxing but one
of the most promising techniques is the transesterification of
triglycerides
with ethanol or methanol.
This is relatively simple and low cost process used in Europe to
commercially produce biodiesel. Neste Oil in Finland are building
large commercial biodiesel plants for use at home and in Singapore

Yes, and what is their primary Auto Fuel? Diesel. And not
Biodiesel. You can use biofuels to fire a burner for steam or heat.
But in cold climate, it's a poor replacement for Diesel.

Post by Keith Willshaw
Finland is not renowned for its warm winters.

Nope, but they ARE renouned for their Diesels. Diesel is the reason
Europe isn't jumping on the Biofuel Auto fuel. They already get
40+mpg in their cars. One of the things coming out of Mercedes (just
to name one) is the joint venture with Chrysler for an
Electric/Diesel combo. Jeep has a concept car. it runs on the
electrics for the first 50 miles or so and then the Diesel kicks in.
40+ out of a very large Sport Utility with zip makes Toyota and GM
invious. They chose gas and Europe chose diesel.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
You can mix the Veggie based in with the Petrol Based (including
Coal and Shale) and it will be able to withstand a reasonable low
temp but you can't take it too low. For instance, Ethynol powered
cars in Brazil still have a small Gasoline tank for cold starting.

The problem with raw ethanol is its relatively high flash point
which is a problem for spark ignition engines but not compression
ignition engines.

In an all Ethynol/ all Petro (Gas) vehicle (they are sold now and
have been for years by GM) the best performance comes from Ethynol.
It gets over 20% better power per gallon. Now for the bad news. it
gets a little less than 20 mpg worse fuel mileage. It works out that
it's barely marginally better than Gas.

Virgin Airlines made the announcement that they were going to run
Biofuels. Yes, it's a blend much like the gasoline we buy from the
pumps in that it's probably no more than 10% blend of Biofuel laced
with the Jet Fuel. It was already announce that his Airlines was the
only one to even go near it for the reason I have given. Since the
MultiBillionaire that owns Virgin is a huge PR guy, he did leave out
the fact it was a blend. He made it sound like it was all Biofuel.
Hardly.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Rob Arndt
I don't see why any of this would be a problem- Nazi Germany used coal
gasification from 16 plants to produce 85% of German aviation fuel
during WW2. After WW2, German synthetic fuel was produced in the US
with 2 transported pilot plants operating for a decade. Results were
positive, but back then the German synthetic would cost $16/barrel vs
$3/barrel for Arab crude. So the oil companies dismantled the plants
and filed away their information with Texas A & M. Later, this
information was confiscated by the US Army and locked away, but Texas
A & M copied it on microfilm and it is now being re-examined due to
the ever-increasing cost of a barrel of oil, which now has hit $104/
barrel mark.
Rob

It works when using Coal but not when you use Vegie oil. The byproduct
of Coal or Shale isn't that much different than Crude. When refined, it
becomes able to withstand some extremely cold temps. Veggie Oil, on the
other hand, will thicken up as the temp drops until it has the
consistency of a sticky basketball.

Actually vegetable oil is a FAR BETTER feedstock. Liquid fuels
are hydrocarbons, coal has much less hydrogen than oil from
either fossil sources or a farmers field. The simple reality is
that you dont expect to run car engines on crude oil straight from
the ground so expecting unprocessed vegetable oil to work
that way is silly.
Winterizing biodiesel is quite simple. There are a number of
commercially available products that control waxing but one
of the most promising techniques is the transesterification of triglycerides
with ethanol or methanol.
This is relatively simple and low cost process used in Europe to
commercially produce biodiesel. Neste Oil in Finland are building
large commercial biodiesel plants for use at home and in Singapore

Yes, and what is their primary Auto Fuel? Diesel.

They are making diesel fuel for auto use.

Post by Daryl Hunt
And not Biodiesel. You can use biofuels to fire a burner for steam or
heat. But in cold climate, it's a poor replacement for Diesel.

The Finns think otherwise, have you been to Finland ?

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
Finland is not renowned for its warm winters.

Nope, but they ARE renouned for their Diesels. Diesel is the reason
Europe isn't jumping on the Biofuel Auto fuel.

They are however jumping on biodiesel, its cheaper and easier
to produce than ethanol with the feedstocks avaliable. Sugar
cane isnt indigenous to Europe and Sugar Beet production is
already fully used for sugar production

Post by Daryl Hunt
They already get 40+mpg in their cars.

Most do more like 60+ on the highway, even my 16ft long
1.5 ton gasoline engined car does 38+ at cruising speed

Post by Daryl Hunt
One of the things coming out of Mercedes (just to name one) is the joint
venture with Chrysler for an Electric/Diesel combo. Jeep has a concept
car. it runs on the electrics for the first 50 miles or so and then the
Diesel kicks in. 40+ out of a very large Sport Utility with zip makes
Toyota and GM invious. They chose gas and Europe chose diesel.

GM and Toyota sell large numbers of diesels in Europe. These are not
concept cars but current mass production models. While Jeep
have a diesel option the engines are supplied by Mercedes
and at 25mpg it still isnt exactly fugal

The diesel Toyota Hilux Pickup does 34mpg (combined)

The diesel Toyota Auris 2.2 car does 45 mpg can do 0-60 in 6 seconds
and has a top speed of 130 mph

Its more frugal brother the 1.4 diesel does 56 mpg has a 0-60
of 11.7 seconds and a top speed of 109 mph

If you want real economy in a smaller car the the Citroen C3
1.4 Hdi diesel will give you 63 mpg and still have a top speed
of 118 mph and give you a 0-60 of 9.6 seconds

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

You can mix the Veggie based in with the Petrol Based (including Coal
and Shale) and it will be able to withstand a reasonable low temp but
you can't take it too low. For instance, Ethynol powered cars in Brazil
still have a small Gasoline tank for cold starting.

The problem with raw ethanol is its relatively high flash point
which is a problem for spark ignition engines but not compression
ignition engines.

In an all Ethynol/ all Petro (Gas) vehicle (they are sold now and have
been for years by GM) the best performance comes from Ethynol. It gets
over 20% better power per gallon. Now for the bad news. it gets a little
less than 20 mpg worse fuel mileage. It works out that it's barely
marginally better than Gas.

Actually its far WORSE . The simple reality is that ethanol produces
30 MJ per kg, gasoline produces 47 MJ per kg and
diesel has 45 MJ per kg

Post by Daryl Hunt
Virgin Airlines made the announcement that they were going to run
Biofuels. Yes, it's a blend much like the gasoline we buy from the pumps
in that it's probably no more than 10% blend of Biofuel laced with the Jet
Fuel.

Indeed but adopting that for all fuels would reduce US reliance
on imported oil by 10%

Keith

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Rob Arndt
I don't see why any of this would be a problem- Nazi Germany used coal
gasification from 16 plants to produce 85% of German aviation fuel
during WW2. After WW2, German synthetic fuel was produced in the US
with 2 transported pilot plants operating for a decade. Results were
positive, but back then the German synthetic would cost
$16/barrel vs
$3/barrel for Arab crude. So the oil companies dismantled the plants
and filed away their information with Texas A & M. Later, this
information was confiscated by the US Army and locked away, but Texas
A & M copied it on microfilm and it is now being re-examined due to
the ever-increasing cost of a barrel of oil, which now has hit $104/
barrel mark.
Rob

It works when using Coal but not when you use Vegie oil. The
byproduct of Coal or Shale isn't that much different than Crude.
When refined, it becomes able to withstand some extremely cold
temps. Veggie Oil, on the other hand, will thicken up as the
temp drops until it has the consistency of a sticky basketball.

Actually vegetable oil is a FAR BETTER feedstock. Liquid fuels
are hydrocarbons, coal has much less hydrogen than oil from
either fossil sources or a farmers field. The simple reality is
that you dont expect to run car engines on crude oil straight from
the ground so expecting unprocessed vegetable oil to work
that way is silly.
Winterizing biodiesel is quite simple. There are a number of
commercially available products that control waxing but one
of the most promising techniques is the transesterification of triglycerides
with ethanol or methanol.
This is relatively simple and low cost process used in Europe to
commercially produce biodiesel. Neste Oil in Finland are building
large commercial biodiesel plants for use at home and in
Singapore

Yes, and what is their primary Auto Fuel? Diesel.

They are making diesel fuel for auto use.

Post by Daryl Hunt
And not Biodiesel. You can use biofuels to fire a burner for
steam or heat. But in cold climate, it's a poor replacement for
Diesel.

The Finns think otherwise, have you been to Finland ?

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
Finland is not renowned for its warm winters.

Nope, but they ARE renouned for their Diesels. Diesel is the
reason Europe isn't jumping on the Biofuel Auto fuel.

They are however jumping on biodiesel, its cheaper and easier
to produce than ethanol with the feedstocks avaliable. Sugar
cane isnt indigenous to Europe and Sugar Beet production is
already fully used for sugar production

Post by Daryl Hunt
They already get 40+mpg in their cars.

Most do more like 60+ on the highway, even my 16ft long
1.5 ton gasoline engined car does 38+ at cruising speed

Post by Daryl Hunt
One of the things coming out of Mercedes (just to name one) is the
joint venture with Chrysler for an Electric/Diesel combo. Jeep
has a concept car. it runs on the electrics for the first 50
miles or so and then the Diesel kicks in. 40+ out of a very large
Sport Utility with zip makes Toyota and GM invious. They chose
gas and Europe chose diesel.

GM and Toyota sell large numbers of diesels in Europe. These are not
concept cars but current mass production models. While Jeep
have a diesel option the engines are supplied by Mercedes
and at 25mpg it still isnt exactly fugal

Except the first 50 miles is strictly on electrricity. That's coming
down the pike. And the particular diesel that jeep is playing with
gets over 40. And where did you get the 25mpg for a Mercedes. On
one show on PBS they tested a 300D (that's a pretty good sized luxury
car) using both straight diesel and Veggie oil. The Diesel got 33
and the Veggiemaster got 30. Now, that's still pretty impressive for
used and filtered cooking oil but it would end up costing more than
diesel.

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Hilux Pickup does 34mpg (combined)

Note: Diesel and not Gas. And 34mpg on a straight mini pickup ain't
something to write home about.

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Auris 2.2 car does 45 mpg can do 0-60 in 6
seconds
and has a top speed of 130 mph

And there is that word again, "Diesel". And 6 seconds is about
average these days for just about any powerplant. Want to bet the
electric Diesels are going to be quicker due to the zero torgue value
of the electric?

Post by Keith Willshaw
Its more frugal brother the 1.4 diesel does 56 mpg has a 0-60
of 11.7 seconds and a top speed of 109 mph

And Chrysler had a car in the late 70s that had that top end and did
0-60 in less than 5. And it was tested at 53 mpg on GAS. They
aren't getting better but their PR is doing wonderful things on
paper. I am not just singling out the Orient. It's that way all
around for every company.

Post by Keith Willshaw
If you want real economy in a smaller car the the Citroen C3
1.4 Hdi diesel will give you 63 mpg and still have a top speed
of 118 mph and give you a 0-60 of 9.6 seconds

Yes, these are the cars I have been talking about. Europe is far
ahead in Diesel and Gas is lagging bad all over. The
Electric/Diesel is a natural.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
You can mix the Veggie based in with the Petrol Based (including
Coal and Shale) and it will be able to withstand a reasonable
low temp but you can't take it too low. For instance, Ethynol
powered cars in Brazil still have a small Gasoline tank for cold
starting.

The problem with raw ethanol is its relatively high flash point
which is a problem for spark ignition engines but not compression
ignition engines.

In an all Ethynol/ all Petro (Gas) vehicle (they are sold now and
have been for years by GM) the best performance comes from
Ethynol. It gets over 20% better power per gallon. Now for the
bad news. it gets a little less than 20 mpg worse fuel mileage.
It works out that it's barely marginally better than Gas.

Actually its far WORSE . The simple reality is that ethanol
produces
30 MJ per kg, gasoline produces 47 MJ per kg and
diesel has 45 MJ per kg

I was comparing it to gas. Yes Diesel wins especially when hybrided
up with an Electric where the Electric is used independent of the
diesel. That first 50 miles is much quicker and costs in the
neighborhood of 15 cents per mile.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
Virgin Airlines made the announcement that they were going to run
Biofuels. Yes, it's a blend much like the gasoline we buy from
the pumps in that it's probably no more than 10% blend of Biofuel
laced with the Jet Fuel.

Indeed but adopting that for all fuels would reduce US reliance
on imported oil by 10%

No it won't . During the Reagan and back years, the way the US kept
the price of oil even doing a 40% import rate was to tap into the
Strategic Reserves. They ceased doing that sometime during the
Reagan years and have never done it again. We are still importing
less than 50% of our oil. And between Canada and the US, there is
enough oil reserves to bankrupt Russia and the Middle East. But it's
kept as reserves either by capping or not drilling. And when you
couple the Shale that can be used, the Coal that can be used and some
mighty black and sticky sand that Canada has, North America is doing
just fine and will be the last to run out of oil. It's not to the
longterm benefit of the US and Canada to import less.

[Jim Yanik]

Post by Daryl Hunt
And Chrysler had a car in the late 70s that had that top end and did
0-60 in less than 5. And it was tested at 53 mpg on GAS. They
aren't getting better but their PR is doing wonderful things on
paper. I am not just singling out the Orient. It's that way all
around for every company.

got a link to that 53 MPG '70s Chrysler?

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Jim Yanik

Post by Daryl Hunt
And Chrysler had a car in the late 70s that had that top end and did
0-60 in less than 5. And it was tested at 53 mpg on GAS. They
aren't getting better but their PR is doing wonderful things on
paper. I am not just singling out the Orient. It's that way all
around for every company.

got a link to that 53 MPG '70s Chrysler?

Dang Jim, this was back around 1978 or 1980. The car was claimed by
Chrysler to get 47 hiway mileage. One of the car mags went along
with a Chrysler Driver as a passenger. The driver did some pretty
unique things that wouldn't be considered normal hiway driving but he
posted a 53 mpg on open road and 42 average. There is no way we
would drive that conservative. Can I find that again? Not without
a month of sundays looking at all the back issues of the Car Mags.
It wasn't hard to get the 37/47 mileage out of the little Plymouth
Champ (designed by Chrysler, built by Mitsubishi). It was the
forerunner to the Colt.

I did find this though: They aren't being kind to new cars on this
one

http://www.gasmileageimprove.com/best-gas-mileage-vehicle.php
Some older cars that got really great miles per gallon were the Chevy
Sprint or Chevette, the Ford Escort, Pinto, and Fiesta, the Dodge
Colt, the Plymouth Champ, and any of the small Japanese imports.
These include Datsun, Honda, Mazda, and Toyota. One of the best
vehicles simply for economy was the old Chevy Luv pickup, which could
get up to 53 mpg on the highway.

Also, if you do a search for the Plymouth Champ it is claimed by
quite a few to get in the neighborhood of high 40s. One claims to
gat 52 but he must coast down hill alot. The Factory Driver did that
frequently in his test for the car mag.

The following are excellent mileage cars from 1981. You will note
that most are imports. And two had severe influence by the US
Automakers.

AMPG Cyl Disp DispCI Wt Yr
30.0 4. 135.0 84.00 2385. 81. 1."plymouthreliant"
39.1 4. 79.00 58.00 1755. 81. 3."toyotastarlet"
39.0 4. 86.00 64.00 1875. 81. 1."plymouthchamp"
35.1 4. 81.00 60.00 1760. 81. 3. "honda
civic 1300"
32.3 4. 97.00 67.00 2065. 81. 3."subaru"37.0 4. 85.00 65.00 1975. 81. 3.
"datsun 210 mpg"

These are average MPG and you will note that all are above 30 and two
are pushing 40. Before 1981, there was no MGB in the fuel. And the
fuel mileage was even better. But records are hard to find as
complete as these. This was 2 years before the Colt was completely
redesigned and the champ name was dropped.

The champ went by many names, the Colt, the Cricket, the Arrow.

Funny, out of all these, the only one with any size was the Plymouth
Reliant which is a small panned K-Car along the lines of the Horizon.
Also known as the TC2 and a few other names. They first used a
stroker 1.7 VW motor. It was derived by stroking the VW1.6. Out of
all the cars above, the Reliant was the most complete car instead of
just a skateboard with an engine.I owned a Reliant and found it quite
roomy for a 4 banger. Of course I did come from tiny Chevy.

As far as I can find, not all Champs were made by Mitzubishi. There
was a time where Plymouth owned the plans and rights. Seems Mit was
trying to get rid of it. Plymouth saw it as a way to fight back
against tthe Toyotas and Datsun. It faired quite well as you can see
above. Getting 40mpg according to the Government means that it could
easily have reached 47 as Plymouth claimed. And by driving tricks,
it could reach 53 but you would probably be passed by amblatory
patients going up hill to get it. The Champ may not have been what
Plymouth claimed but it is mentioned in EVERY top MPG listing when
the full spectrum of years and cars are listed. And you were a
danged site more comfy than the Datsun 210. BTW, in defense of the
210, I owned one, liked it and bought a 310. One word, DON'T.

Now, let's compare those little cars to a prius. When I saw my first
Prius I didn't know whether it was something you ride in or something
you give your 7 year old to drive on the sidewalk. Man, that puppy
is small and tight. The cars above, not ONE are that small with the
exception of maybe the Honda Civic but I believe even it is larger.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/hybridwatch01.html
How about 34mpg on the average accross many drivers and cars with
your knees touching your chin. You will also note that the testing is
different now. It's not real world driving anymore that is displayed
on those stickers. The rule of thumb now is that the real rating is
75% of what the EPA reports (and Toyota claims). Now, the EPA does
static testing for emissions and uses it's slide rule to come up with
the mileage figure. It's not real. So guess what, using the 75%, if
you reported 53 mpg in todays testing, it would be 39 in 1980. The
cars above are all real world driving figures by a EDU. Except the
1980 cars had more zip. The EPA did a revision on the newer Prius
and came up with 48mpg. Using the 75% rule, it would be 36 mpg by
1981 standards. Looks to me that we went a bit backward but we did
use Voodoo to get the favorable rating. But the new ones do sound
like they are going light speed with those nifty tuned forks.

And what rates right up there with th hybrids in average fuel
economy? You guessed it the Mini Cooper B that will run circles
around all of them. What's funny, the EPA claims it at 31 mpg while
test drives have it at 40. Hmm, Voodoo testing by the EPA in
reverse.

I'll say it again, we aren't getting better but our Voodoo Math
certainly is.

[Hawkeye]

I owned a '79 Plymouth Champ..the Mitsi built unit. It pulled a
respectable 34 mpg on the highway, could pull like a truck because of
its dual range transmission. I successfully rally raced it as well,
giving sport cars a run for their money especially on gravel and
unimproved roads. Seemed the Porsche and Datsun owners were afraid to
scratch their expensive rides. I sold it for more than I paid for it,
it was one well built vehicle.

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Hawkeye
I owned a '79 Plymouth Champ..the Mitsi built unit. It pulled a
respectable 34 mpg on the highway, could pull like a truck because of
its dual range transmission. I successfully rally raced it as well,
giving sport cars a run for their money especially on gravel and
unimproved roads. Seemed the Porsche and Datsun owners were afraid to
scratch their expensive rides. I sold it for more than I paid for it,
it was one well built vehicle.

Funny, after all these years, they still advertise Gas savings
devices for the little Champ. Hmm. could it be......

[Dan]

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Rob Arndt
I don't see why any of this would be a problem- Nazi Germany used coal
gasification from 16 plants to produce 85% of German aviation fuel
during WW2. After WW2, German synthetic fuel was produced in the US
with 2 transported pilot plants operating for a decade. Results were
positive, but back then the German synthetic would cost
$16/barrel vs
$3/barrel for Arab crude. So the oil companies dismantled the plants
and filed away their information with Texas A & M. Later, this
information was confiscated by the US Army and locked away, but Texas
A & M copied it on microfilm and it is now being re-examined due to
the ever-increasing cost of a barrel of oil, which now has hit $104/
barrel mark.
Rob

It works when using Coal but not when you use Vegie oil. The
byproduct of Coal or Shale isn't that much different than Crude.
When refined, it becomes able to withstand some extremely cold
temps. Veggie Oil, on the other hand, will thicken up as the
temp drops until it has the consistency of a sticky basketball.

Actually vegetable oil is a FAR BETTER feedstock. Liquid fuels
are hydrocarbons, coal has much less hydrogen than oil from
either fossil sources or a farmers field. The simple reality is
that you dont expect to run car engines on crude oil straight from
the ground so expecting unprocessed vegetable oil to work
that way is silly.
Winterizing biodiesel is quite simple. There are a number of
commercially available products that control waxing but one
of the most promising techniques is the transesterification of triglycerides
with ethanol or methanol.
This is relatively simple and low cost process used in Europe to
commercially produce biodiesel. Neste Oil in Finland are building
large commercial biodiesel plants for use at home and in
Singapore

Yes, and what is their primary Auto Fuel? Diesel.

They are making diesel fuel for auto use.

Post by Daryl Hunt
And not Biodiesel. You can use biofuels to fire a burner for
steam or heat. But in cold climate, it's a poor replacement for
Diesel.

The Finns think otherwise, have you been to Finland ?

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
Finland is not renowned for its warm winters.

Nope, but they ARE renouned for their Diesels. Diesel is the
reason Europe isn't jumping on the Biofuel Auto fuel.

They are however jumping on biodiesel, its cheaper and easier
to produce than ethanol with the feedstocks avaliable. Sugar
cane isnt indigenous to Europe and Sugar Beet production is
already fully used for sugar production

Post by Daryl Hunt
They already get 40+mpg in their cars.

Most do more like 60+ on the highway, even my 16ft long
1.5 ton gasoline engined car does 38+ at cruising speed

Post by Daryl Hunt
One of the things coming out of Mercedes (just to name one) is the
joint venture with Chrysler for an Electric/Diesel combo. Jeep
has a concept car. it runs on the electrics for the first 50
miles or so and then the Diesel kicks in. 40+ out of a very large
Sport Utility with zip makes Toyota and GM invious. They chose
gas and Europe chose diesel.

GM and Toyota sell large numbers of diesels in Europe. These are not
concept cars but current mass production models. While Jeep
have a diesel option the engines are supplied by Mercedes
and at 25mpg it still isnt exactly fugal

Except the first 50 miles is strictly on electrricity. That's coming
down the pike. And the particular diesel that jeep is playing with
gets over 40. And where did you get the 25mpg for a Mercedes. On
one show on PBS they tested a 300D (that's a pretty good sized luxury
car) using both straight diesel and Veggie oil. The Diesel got 33
and the Veggiemaster got 30. Now, that's still pretty impressive for
used and filtered cooking oil but it would end up costing more than
diesel.

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Hilux Pickup does 34mpg (combined)

Note: Diesel and not Gas. And 34mpg on a straight mini pickup ain't
something to write home about.

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Auris 2.2 car does 45 mpg can do 0-60 in 6
seconds
and has a top speed of 130 mph

And there is that word again, "Diesel". And 6 seconds is about
average these days for just about any powerplant. Want to bet the
electric Diesels are going to be quicker due to the zero torgue value
of the electric?

Post by Keith Willshaw
Its more frugal brother the 1.4 diesel does 56 mpg has a 0-60
of 11.7 seconds and a top speed of 109 mph

And Chrysler had a car in the late 70s that had that top end and did
0-60 in less than 5. And it was tested at 53 mpg on GAS. They
aren't getting better but their PR is doing wonderful things on
paper. I am not just singling out the Orient. It's that way all
around for every company.

Post by Keith Willshaw
If you want real economy in a smaller car the the Citroen C3
1.4 Hdi diesel will give you 63 mpg and still have a top speed
of 118 mph and give you a 0-60 of 9.6 seconds

Yes, these are the cars I have been talking about. Europe is far
ahead in Diesel and Gas is lagging bad all over. The
Electric/Diesel is a natural.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
You can mix the Veggie based in with the Petrol Based (including
Coal and Shale) and it will be able to withstand a reasonable
low temp but you can't take it too low. For instance, Ethynol
powered cars in Brazil still have a small Gasoline tank for cold
starting.

The problem with raw ethanol is its relatively high flash point
which is a problem for spark ignition engines but not compression
ignition engines.

In an all Ethynol/ all Petro (Gas) vehicle (they are sold now and
have been for years by GM) the best performance comes from
Ethynol. It gets over 20% better power per gallon. Now for the
bad news. it gets a little less than 20 mpg worse fuel mileage.
It works out that it's barely marginally better than Gas.

Actually its far WORSE . The simple reality is that ethanol
produces
30 MJ per kg, gasoline produces 47 MJ per kg and
diesel has 45 MJ per kg

I was comparing it to gas. Yes Diesel wins especially when hybrided
up with an Electric where the Electric is used independent of the
diesel. That first 50 miles is much quicker and costs in the
neighborhood of 15 cents per mile.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
Virgin Airlines made the announcement that they were going to run
Biofuels. Yes, it's a blend much like the gasoline we buy from
the pumps in that it's probably no more than 10% blend of Biofuel
laced with the Jet Fuel.

Indeed but adopting that for all fuels would reduce US reliance
on imported oil by 10%

No it won't . During the Reagan and back years, the way the US kept
the price of oil even doing a 40% import rate was to tap into the
Strategic Reserves. They ceased doing that sometime during the
Reagan years and have never done it again. We are still importing
less than 50% of our oil. And between Canada and the US, there is
enough oil reserves to bankrupt Russia and the Middle East. But it's
kept as reserves either by capping or not drilling. And when you
couple the Shale that can be used, the Coal that can be used and some
mighty black and sticky sand that Canada has, North America is doing
just fine and will be the last to run out of oil. It's not to the
longterm benefit of the US and Canada to import less.

Wasn't there a shale oil plant built under the Carter administration?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Dan

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
Virgin Airlines made the announcement that they were going to
run Biofuels. Yes, it's a blend much like the gasoline we buy
from the pumps in that it's probably no more than 10% blend of
Biofuel laced with the Jet Fuel.

Indeed but adopting that for all fuels would reduce US reliance
on imported oil by 10%

No it won't . During the Reagan and back years, the way the US
kept the price of oil even doing a 40% import rate was to tap into
the Strategic Reserves. They ceased doing that sometime during
the Reagan years and have never done it again. We are still
importing less than 50% of our oil. And between Canada and the
US, there is enough oil reserves to bankrupt Russia and the Middle
East. But it's kept as reserves either by capping or not
drilling. And when you couple the Shale that can be used, the
Coal that can be used and some mighty black and sticky sand that
Canada has, North America is doing just fine and will be the last
to run out of oil. It's not to the longterm benefit of the US and
Canada to import less.

Wasn't there a shale oil plant built under the Carter
administration?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yes, Dan. In fact, it was about 30 miles down the road from here.
It caused one hell of a boom. Then it busted. Now, we are in a
Natural Gas and Oil Boom but it's going to bust in about 5 to 10
years. But they are seriously looking at the Coal around here.
Seems we have one hell of a lot more than we can ever ship. And they
keep revisiting the Shale but not too seriously. Between the Coal
and Shale, just around here, there are trillions of potential barrels
of crude just laying around. They still haven't come up with an
economical way to extract the crude from Shale. If Crude were to go
to say, 200 bucks a barrel, I am quite sure there would be plants all
around here processing the Coal and Shale. Crude is still the king.

[Eunometic]

Post by Daryl Hunt
They still haven't come up with an
economical way to extract the crude from Shale.  

newkler is the way the US inteligensia pronounce this technology.

[Herbert Viola]

Post by Daryl Hunt
No it won't . During the Reagan and back years, the way the US kept
the price of oil even doing a 40% import rate was to tap into the
Strategic Reserves. They ceased doing that sometime during the
Reagan years and have never done it again. We are still importing
less than 50% of our oil. And between Canada and the US, there is
enough oil reserves to bankrupt Russia and the Middle East. But it's
kept as reserves either by capping or not drilling. And when you
couple the Shale that can be used, the Coal that can be used and some
mighty black and sticky sand that Canada has, North America is doing
just fine and will be the last to run out of oil. It's not to the
longterm benefit of the US and Canada to import less.

I think you have overstated your points. During most of the '70s and
early '80s every member of OPEC was exceeding its quota except Saudi
Arabia, which produced less than its quota for the purpose of keeping
prices high. In the mid '80s the Saudis decided to produce up to their
quota in an effort to punish the other states for overproduction. This
led to a collapse of oil prices and to the surprise of the Saudis, no
greater disclipine among the other OPEC producers. This, plus increased
production outside of OPEC, was the real cause of the decline in oil
prices during the mid 80s.

The usual estimate for Saudi's price of production is $3 a barrel. The
US and Canada do not have enough oil to reduce the price below that
point and bankrupt Saudi. Even if North America did have that much oil
its price of production is higher than Saudi's. The other Gulf states
have higher costs, but none of them can be bankrupted. Russia's cost of
production is usually estimated at $19 a barrel, perhaps their economy
could be wrecked, but not for long. Economic growth in India and China
simply guarantees vast increases in demand.

Shale and such can only be profitable if the price of oil is kept high,
so even if I'm wrong about North America's ability to bankrupt Saudi,
its clear that we can not both bankrupt Saudi _and_ make use of Shale
and such.

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Herbert Viola

Post by Daryl Hunt
No it won't . During the Reagan and back years, the way the US kept
the price of oil even doing a 40% import rate was to tap into the
Strategic Reserves. They ceased doing that sometime during the
Reagan years and have never done it again. We are still importing
less than 50% of our oil. And between Canada and the US, there is
enough oil reserves to bankrupt Russia and the Middle East. But it's
kept as reserves either by capping or not drilling. And when you
couple the Shale that can be used, the Coal that can be used and some
mighty black and sticky sand that Canada has, North America is doing
just fine and will be the last to run out of oil. It's not to the
longterm benefit of the US and Canada to import less.

I think you have overstated your points. During most of the '70s and
early '80s every member of OPEC was exceeding its quota except
Saudi
Arabia, which produced less than its quota for the purpose of
keeping
prices high. In the mid '80s the Saudis decided to produce up to their
quota in an effort to punish the other states for overproduction. This
led to a collapse of oil prices and to the surprise of the Saudis, no
greater disclipine among the other OPEC producers. This, plus
increased
production outside of OPEC, was the real cause of the decline in oil
prices during the mid 80s.

During that time period (not like today and previous times) the US
wasn't nearly as agressive in petroleum search. I think the
agressiveness or lack of in environmental protections played a huge
role as well. Prior to that time, there was little thought given to
the environmental impact of anything. During the time you are
covering I think there were tremendous overreactions on the
environmental side. It grew slowly and then it became unbearble.
Today there seems to be a good marriage between the two and
exploration has begun in a huge way. But the days of the unlimited
Petro Barrel is just about gone. Those that have the alternatives
will be much better off than those that don't. Europe should be
quaking in it's boots right about now.

Post by Herbert Viola
The usual estimate for Saudi's price of production is $3 a barrel. The
US and Canada do not have enough oil to reduce the price below that
point and bankrupt Saudi. Even if North America did have that much oil
its price of production is higher than Saudi's. The other Gulf
states
have higher costs, but none of them can be bankrupted. Russia's cost of
production is usually estimated at $19 a barrel, perhaps their
economy
could be wrecked, but not for long. Economic growth in India and China
simply guarantees vast increases in demand.

I, for one, am glad to see it. In the end, the US and Canada will be
quite well off. And Russia won't be hurting either. But those
countries that do depend on the oil export will be in serious
trouble. When the cost of oil goes even higher, alternative sources
become worthwhile. Colorado has a state mandate to provide at least
10% of it's electrical engergy by Wind Power. It's nearing that
goal. When Electricity gets extremely cheap through the use of Wind
and Hydo power then that might make a decent replacement for Gasoline
for day to day driving. I see at least one of the big companies in
the US getting ready to produce an Electric/Diesel powered vehicle
where Electric is the primary and Diesel is the secondary. 50 miles
before the diesel becomes the primary. You plug in it at night for
recharge. Yes, I know, some areas do have shortages of Electricity
and they this areas biggest customers for coal and gas. But those
that have can afford to search out and implememt alternative sources.
Those that don't have usually can't or won't. In the end, those
alternatives will be sold to those that can't or won't.

Post by Herbert Viola
Shale and such can only be profitable if the price of oil is kept high,
so even if I'm wrong about North America's ability to bankrupt
Saudi,
its clear that we can not both bankrupt Saudi _and_ make use of Shale
and such.

It's just a mater of time. It may not happen in our lifetime but
Petro isn't renewable at this time unless it does come from
alternative sources.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by Daryl Hunt
I, for one, am glad to see it. In the end, the US and Canada will be
quite well off. And Russia won't be hurting either. But those countries
that do depend on the oil export will be in serious trouble.

Trouble is the USA is by far the largest oil importer in the world

Here are the statistics from the DOE for the top 10 importers

Rank Country Imports (thousand barrels per day)
1 United States 12,357
2 Japan 5,031
3 China 3,428
4 Germany 2,514
5 Korea, South 2,156
6 France 1,890
7 India 1,733
8 Italy 1,568
9 Spain 1,562
10 Taiwan 940

Keith

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
I, for one, am glad to see it. In the end, the US and Canada will
be quite well off. And Russia won't be hurting either. But those
countries that do depend on the oil export will be in serious
trouble.

Trouble is the USA is by far the largest oil importer in the world
Here are the statistics from the DOE for the top 10 importers
Rank Country Imports (thousand barrels per day)
1 United States 12,357
2 Japan 5,031
3 China 3,428
4 Germany 2,514
5 Korea, South 2,156
6 France 1,890
7 India 1,733
8 Italy 1,568
9 Spain 1,562
10 Taiwan 940
Keith

We also have the largest total Reserves. We just have never tapped
the HUGE reserves we have. Your turn. But know this, I do include
ALL resources when I type while you only include a partial amount.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
I, for one, am glad to see it. In the end, the US and Canada will be
quite well off. And Russia won't be hurting either. But those
countries that do depend on the oil export will be in serious trouble.

Trouble is the USA is by far the largest oil importer in the world
Here are the statistics from the DOE for the top 10 importers
Rank Country Imports (thousand barrels per day)
1 United States 12,357
2 Japan 5,031
3 China 3,428
4 Germany 2,514
5 Korea, South 2,156
6 France 1,890
7 India 1,733
8 Italy 1,568
9 Spain 1,562
10 Taiwan 940
Keith

We also have the largest total Reserves. We just have never tapped the
HUGE reserves we have. Your turn. But know this, I do include ALL
resources when I type while you only include a partial amount.

Utter nonsense

I took the figures directly from the United States Dept of Energy.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging its existence.
You are like an alcoholic who refuses to recognise the problem.

If you want to include oil sands then the countries with the
largest reserves of that resource are Saudi Arabia, Venezuela
and Canada

Keith

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
I, for one, am glad to see it. In the end, the US and Canada
will be quite well off. And Russia won't be hurting either.
But those countries that do depend on the oil export will be in
serious trouble.

Trouble is the USA is by far the largest oil importer in the
world
Here are the statistics from the DOE for the top 10 importers
Rank Country Imports (thousand barrels per day)
1 United States 12,357
2 Japan 5,031
3 China 3,428
4 Germany 2,514
5 Korea, South 2,156
6 France 1,890
7 India 1,733
8 Italy 1,568
9 Spain 1,562
10 Taiwan 940
Keith

We also have the largest total Reserves. We just have never
tapped the HUGE reserves we have. Your turn. But know this, I do
include ALL resources when I type while you only include a partial
amount.

Utter nonsense
I took the figures directly from the United States Dept of Energy.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

That's believable in regards to Crude alone. But as the time passes,
the Crude goes down and the alternatives go up. We have yet to tap
trillions of barrels of oil from the alternatives. But that day is
coming. Just keep increasing the cost of a barrel of oil.

Post by Keith Willshaw
The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging its existence.
You are like an alcoholic who refuses to recognise the problem.

And you are like an alchiemer patient who refuses to see anything
around him and lives somewhere in the past (see, I can do that as
well)

Post by Keith Willshaw
If you want to include oil sands then the countries with the
largest reserves of that resource are Saudi Arabia, Venezuela
and Canada

LOL, I have always include Canada. It's hard not to considering the
US sends oil from Western US to Canadas West while Canada sends an
equal amount of oil from it's East to the US Eastern side. When you
talk of one you must include the other.

Besides, SA and Ven. doesn't have enough to count. I would bet that
Russia has much more but it's never been included in anything.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Rob Arndt
I don't see why any of this would be a problem- Nazi Germany used coal
gasification from 16 plants to produce 85% of German aviation fuel
during WW2. After WW2, German synthetic fuel was produced in the US
with 2 transported pilot plants operating for a decade. Results were
positive, but back then the German synthetic would cost $16/barrel vs
$3/barrel for Arab crude. So the oil companies dismantled the plants
and filed away their information with Texas A & M. Later, this
information was confiscated by the US Army and locked away, but Texas
A & M copied it on microfilm and it is now being re-examined due to
the ever-increasing cost of a barrel of oil, which now has hit $104/
barrel mark.
Rob

It works when using Coal but not when you use Vegie oil. The
byproduct of Coal or Shale isn't that much different than Crude. When
refined, it becomes able to withstand some extremely cold temps.
Veggie Oil, on the other hand, will thicken up as the temp drops until
it has the consistency of a sticky basketball.

Actually vegetable oil is a FAR BETTER feedstock. Liquid fuels
are hydrocarbons, coal has much less hydrogen than oil from
either fossil sources or a farmers field. The simple reality is
that you dont expect to run car engines on crude oil straight from
the ground so expecting unprocessed vegetable oil to work
that way is silly.
Winterizing biodiesel is quite simple. There are a number of
commercially available products that control waxing but one
of the most promising techniques is the transesterification of triglycerides
with ethanol or methanol.
This is relatively simple and low cost process used in Europe to
commercially produce biodiesel. Neste Oil in Finland are building
large commercial biodiesel plants for use at home and in Singapore

Yes, and what is their primary Auto Fuel? Diesel.

They are making diesel fuel for auto use.

Post by Daryl Hunt
And not Biodiesel. You can use biofuels to fire a burner for steam or
heat. But in cold climate, it's a poor replacement for Diesel.

The Finns think otherwise, have you been to Finland ?

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
Finland is not renowned for its warm winters.

Nope, but they ARE renouned for their Diesels. Diesel is the reason
Europe isn't jumping on the Biofuel Auto fuel.

They are however jumping on biodiesel, its cheaper and easier
to produce than ethanol with the feedstocks avaliable. Sugar
cane isnt indigenous to Europe and Sugar Beet production is
already fully used for sugar production

Post by Daryl Hunt
They already get 40+mpg in their cars.

Most do more like 60+ on the highway, even my 16ft long
1.5 ton gasoline engined car does 38+ at cruising speed

Post by Daryl Hunt
One of the things coming out of Mercedes (just to name one) is the joint
venture with Chrysler for an Electric/Diesel combo. Jeep has a concept
car. it runs on the electrics for the first 50 miles or so and then the
Diesel kicks in. 40+ out of a very large Sport Utility with zip makes
Toyota and GM invious. They chose gas and Europe chose diesel.

GM and Toyota sell large numbers of diesels in Europe. These are not
concept cars but current mass production models. While Jeep
have a diesel option the engines are supplied by Mercedes
and at 25mpg it still isnt exactly fugal

Except the first 50 miles is strictly on electrricity. That's coming down
the pike.

I'll believe it when I see it

And the particular diesel that jeep is playing with gets over 40. And
where did you get the 25mpg for a Mercedes.

I mentioned a Jeep with a mercedes supplied diesel. The
road tests are on the web

On one show on PBS they tested a 300D (that's a pretty good sized luxury
car) using both straight diesel and Veggie oil. The Diesel got 33 and the
Veggiemaster got 30. Now, that's still pretty impressive for used and
filtered cooking oil but it would end up costing more than diesel.

Not in Europe where diesel is heavily taxed

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Hilux Pickup does 34mpg (combined)

Note: Diesel and not Gas. And 34mpg on a straight mini pickup ain't
something to write home about.

On the combined urban rural cyle its not bad for 4wd pickup

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Auris 2.2 car does 45 mpg can do 0-60 in 6 seconds
and has a top speed of 130 mph

And there is that word again, "Diesel". And 6 seconds is about average
these days for just about any powerplant. Want to bet the electric
Diesels are going to be quicker due to the zero torgue value of the
electric?

You may want to rethink that - zero torque value would mean
zero acceleration. Hybrid's have a lot of extra weight to
hump around , that costs fuel. Six speed transmissions
are doing pretty much as well at lower cost.

Post by Keith Willshaw
Its more frugal brother the 1.4 diesel does 56 mpg has a 0-60
of 11.7 seconds and a top speed of 109 mph

And Chrysler had a car in the late 70s that had that top end and did 0-60
in less than 5. And it was tested at 53 mpg on GAS.

Cite please

They aren't getting better but their PR is doing wonderful things on
paper. I am not just singling out the Orient. It's that way all around
for every company.

Feel free to tell us which production Chrysler pickup
does 56 mpg

Post by Keith Willshaw
If you want real economy in a smaller car the the Citroen C3
1.4 Hdi diesel will give you 63 mpg and still have a top speed
of 118 mph and give you a 0-60 of 9.6 seconds

Yes, these are the cars I have been talking about. Europe is far ahead in
Diesel and Gas is lagging bad all over. The Electric/Diesel is a
natural.

Only if you can produce lightweight batteries and electrical
gear. Right now the signs are that advanced transmissions
are a better option.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
You can mix the Veggie based in with the Petrol Based (including Coal
and Shale) and it will be able to withstand a reasonable low temp but
you can't take it too low. For instance, Ethynol powered cars in
Brazil still have a small Gasoline tank for cold starting.

The problem with raw ethanol is its relatively high flash point
which is a problem for spark ignition engines but not compression
ignition engines.

In an all Ethynol/ all Petro (Gas) vehicle (they are sold now and have
been for years by GM) the best performance comes from Ethynol. It gets
over 20% better power per gallon. Now for the bad news. it gets a
little less than 20 mpg worse fuel mileage. It works out that it's
barely marginally better than Gas.

Actually its far WORSE . The simple reality is that ethanol produces
30 MJ per kg, gasoline produces 47 MJ per kg and
diesel has 45 MJ per kg

I was comparing it to gas. Yes Diesel wins especially when hybrided up
with an Electric where the Electric is used independent of the diesel.
That first 50 miles is much quicker and costs in the neighborhood of 15
cents per mile.

Only if you can provide long life lightweight batteries and
electricity thats not produced from fossil fuels. Otherwise
you simply switch the use of oil/coal from the auto with
an efficiency of more than 40% to a power plant that
is lucky to manage 35%. Net result - more fuels is used

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
Virgin Airlines made the announcement that they were going to run
Biofuels. Yes, it's a blend much like the gasoline we buy from the
pumps in that it's probably no more than 10% blend of Biofuel laced with
the Jet Fuel.

Indeed but adopting that for all fuels would reduce US reliance
on imported oil by 10%

No it won't . During the Reagan and back years, the way the US kept the
price of oil even doing a 40% import rate was to tap into the Strategic
Reserves. They ceased doing that sometime during the Reagan years and
have never done it again.

Thats because the reserve is tint compared to US usage

We are still importing less than 50% of our oil.

More like 70%

And between Canada and the US, there is

enough oil reserves to bankrupt Russia and the Middle East.

Thats just wishful thinking

But it's kept as reserves either by capping or not drilling.

Utter nonsense, the following figures are from 2005
are from US Dept of Energy

Country Oil Reserves(billion barrels)
USA 29.2
Canada 16.5
Mexico 13.7
Iran 137
Iraq 115
Kuwait 101
Saudi Arabia 264

Keith

[Daryl Hunt]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
Except the first 50 miles is strictly on electrricity. That's
coming down the pike.

I'll believe it when I see it

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4244409.html

Estimated Fuel Mileage: 110mpg. This is producable now. Look for
it in less Impressive body styles.

Now, something still on the horizon. This one is still fighting the
little problem of Hydrogen Leakage like all the other companies. Not
quite ready for prime time yet.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4244399.html?series=47

And for you Aero People
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4257294.html

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
And the particular diesel that jeep is playing with gets over 40.
And where did you get the 25mpg for a Mercedes.

I mentioned a Jeep with a mercedes supplied diesel. The
road tests are on the web

One problem, Jeep is introducing it's own Diesel next year. The
problem with the Jeep/Mercedes Diesel is that it's not that clean and
isn't accepted in all 50 states. They had to delay production on
this years Jeep/Diesel until it met the 46 state requirement.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
On one show on PBS they tested a 300D (that's a pretty good sized
luxury car) using both straight diesel and Veggie oil. The Diesel
got 33 and the Veggiemaster got 30. Now, that's still pretty
impressive for used and filtered cooking oil but it would end up
costing more than diesel.

Not in Europe where diesel is heavily taxed

And so is Gasoline along with any other petrobased fuels. And so is
food, clothing and every other part of a persons life. It takes
taxes to pay for those social programs.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Hilux Pickup does 34mpg (combined)

Note: Diesel and not Gas. And 34mpg on a straight mini pickup
ain't something to write home about.

On the combined urban rural cyle its not bad for 4wd pickup

And the checy luv pulled over 50mpg in 1978 on gas.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Auris 2.2 car does 45 mpg can do 0-60 in 6
seconds
and has a top speed of 130 mph

And there is that word again, "Diesel". And 6 seconds is about
average these days for just about any powerplant. Want to bet the
electric Diesels are going to be quicker due to the zero torgue
value of the electric?

You may want to rethink that - zero torque value would mean
zero acceleration. Hybrid's have a lot of extra weight to
hump around , that costs fuel. Six speed transmissions
are doing pretty much as well at lower cost.

The Jeep concept swings a 268 hp electric motor. The Diesel isn't
hooked directly to the drive train. It works on the Diesel Electric
priciple where it produces torque and rotation and that is translated
to electric power. On the batteries alone (there are between eight
and 16 batteries weighing in between about 96lbs to 192 lbs) produce
that 268 for the first 50 miles. That 268 at ZERO rpm. This means
that you have the power at any RPM or speed. This equates that Urban
driving is the area that the Electric will shine where the Gas engine
and Diesel gets pretty well beaten up. And on an Electric, there is
no need to a 6 speed. Some will not have any transmission at all
while others might have up to 3 speeds. It's the Gas and Diesel that
needs all those gears due to having to stay within a certain RPM
range.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
Its more frugal brother the 1.4 diesel does 56 mpg has a 0-60
of 11.7 seconds and a top speed of 109 mph

And Chrysler had a car in the late 70s that had that top end and
did 0-60 in less than 5. And it was tested at 53 mpg on GAS.

Cite please

Already did. And it's easy to find a Chevy Luv Pickup getting over
50 mpg in the 70s. Do some research.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
They aren't getting better but their PR is doing wonderful things
on paper. I am not just singling out the Orient. It's that way
all around for every company.

Feel free to tell us which production Chrysler pickup
does 56 mpg

56? Are you numbers growing?

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
If you want real economy in a smaller car the the Citroen C3
1.4 Hdi diesel will give you 63 mpg and still have a top speed
of 118 mph and give you a 0-60 of 9.6 seconds

Yes, these are the cars I have been talking about. Europe is far
ahead in Diesel and Gas is lagging bad all over. The
Electric/Diesel is a natural.

Only if you can produce lightweight batteries and electrical
gear. Right now the signs are that advanced transmissions
are a better option.

Except they aren't doing any better. The point here is that we have
just about reached to limits inside the box. If we wish to continue
then we have to get another box.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
I was comparing it to gas. Yes Diesel wins especially when
hybrided up with an Electric where the Electric is used
independent of the diesel. That first 50 miles is much quicker and
costs in the neighborhood of 15 cents per mile.

Only if you can provide long life lightweight batteries and
electricity thats not produced from fossil fuels. Otherwise
you simply switch the use of oil/coal from the auto with
an efficiency of more than 40% to a power plant that
is lucky to manage 35%. Net result - more fuels is used

Coal should be seperated from Gas. It's resource that has hardly
been tapped and is actually more plentiful than Petro based crude.
While it may not be "Renewable" it is plentiful.

I stated already that Colorado has a mandate that at least 10% of
all electric power will be from wind and it's close to reaching that
goal. When you figure in Colorado's Hydropower, it's electricity
should be able to meet and exceed the 50% mark of totally renewable
electric power in the very near future. I don't plan on seeing New
York meet those requirements or goals in my lifetime. But other
states will easily. It's just been a matter of the Governments to
mandate it, enforce it and assist in the development.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
Virgin Airlines made the announcement that they were going to
run Biofuels. Yes, it's a blend much like the gasoline we buy
from the pumps in that it's probably no more than 10% blend of
Biofuel laced with the Jet Fuel.

Indeed but adopting that for all fuels would reduce US reliance
on imported oil by 10%

No it won't . During the Reagan and back years, the way the US
kept the price of oil even doing a 40% import rate was to tap into
the Strategic Reserves. They ceased doing that sometime during
the Reagan years and have never done it again.

Thats because the reserve is tint compared to US usage

Huh?

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
We are still importing less than 50% of our oil.

More like 70%

Now it's your turn to quote. But to help you, go here and ask your
questions. But remember, remove Canada as the US imports from
Eastern Canada and Canada exchanges those imports from Western US.
The answer to your question is there. Mine was just a few points low
while yours is dramatically off the scale.

Post by Keith Willshaw
And between Canada and the US, there is

Post by Daryl Hunt
enough oil reserves to bankrupt Russia and the Middle East.

Thats just wishful thinking

Wishing and reality do come together in time.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
But it's kept as reserves either by capping or not drilling.

Utter nonsense, the following figures are from 2005
are from US Dept of Energy
Country Oil Reserves(billion barrels)
USA 29.2
Canada 16.5
Mexico 13.7
Iran 137
Iraq 115
Kuwait 101
Saudi Arabia 264

Not considered is the Coal, Shale and Crude Sand from the US and
Canada. Since the US and Canada, for all practical purposes for this
discussion, are the same country then you have to include ALL. And
if you do then the US and Canada figures are in the Trillions not
billions. Meanwhile, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's
numbers only goes down as it's used up. Newsflash: We get a low
percentage of our oil from the Middle East.

From Coal, Shale and Crude Sand, Aviation Fuel can be made. The cost
of flying will be going up, of course.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
Except the first 50 miles is strictly on electrricity. That's coming
down the pike.

I'll believe it when I see it

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4244409.html
Estimated Fuel Mileage: 110mpg. This is producable now. Look for it in
less Impressive body styles.

Lets see what independent tests on a production vehicle show
before placing an order eh

You missed the minor issue that the claimed figures include a full
battery charge before the trip. That electricity also needs
fossil fuels to produce and most US power plants have a
lower efficiency than a diesel engine. Throw in losses in
electrical distribution and you get a net INCREASE in fossil
fuel uses.

Post by Daryl Hunt
Now, something still on the horizon. This one is still fighting the little
problem of Hydrogen Leakage like all the other companies. Not quite ready
for prime time yet.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4244399.html?series=47
And for you Aero People
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4257294.html

Guess how hydrogen is made commercially Daryl ?

Hint the process uses natural gas , which is not available in the
quantities required to replace gasoline

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
And the particular diesel that jeep is playing with gets over 40. And
where did you get the 25mpg for a Mercedes.

I mentioned a Jeep with a mercedes supplied diesel. The
road tests are on the web

One problem, Jeep is introducing it's own Diesel next year. The problem
with the Jeep/Mercedes Diesel is that it's not that clean and isn't
accepted in all 50 states. They had to delay production on this years
Jeep/Diesel until it met the 46 state requirement.

Always Jam tomorrow eh

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
On one show on PBS they tested a 300D (that's a pretty good sized luxury
car) using both straight diesel and Veggie oil. The Diesel got 33 and
the Veggiemaster got 30. Now, that's still pretty impressive for used
and filtered cooking oil but it would end up costing more than diesel.

Not in Europe where diesel is heavily taxed

And so is Gasoline along with any other petrobased fuels. And so is food,
clothing and every other part of a persons life. It takes taxes to pay
for those social programs.

And make the driver select more fuel efficient vehicles

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Hilux Pickup does 34mpg (combined)

Note: Diesel and not Gas. And 34mpg on a straight mini pickup ain't
something to write home about.

On the combined urban rural cyle its not bad for 4wd pickup

And the checy luv pulled over 50mpg in 1978 on gas.

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw
The diesel Toyota Auris 2.2 car does 45 mpg can do 0-60 in 6 seconds
and has a top speed of 130 mph

And there is that word again, "Diesel". And 6 seconds is about average
these days for just about any powerplant. Want to bet the electric
Diesels are going to be quicker due to the zero torgue value of the
electric?

You may want to rethink that - zero torque value would mean
zero acceleration. Hybrid's have a lot of extra weight to
hump around , that costs fuel. Six speed transmissions
are doing pretty much as well at lower cost.

The Jeep concept swings a 268 hp electric motor. The Diesel isn't hooked
directly to the drive train. It works on the Diesel Electric priciple
where it produces torque and rotation and that is translated to electric
power. On the batteries alone (there are between eight and 16 batteries
weighing in between about 96lbs to 192 lbs) produce that 268 for the first
50 miles. That 268 at ZERO rpm.

Thats not zero torque which was what you posted

Post by Daryl Hunt
This means that you have the power at any RPM or speed. This equates that
Urban driving is the area that the Electric will shine where the Gas
engine and Diesel gets pretty well beaten up.

Trouble is that electricity has to be generated somewhere

Post by Daryl Hunt
And on an Electric, there is no need to a 6 speed. Some will not have
any transmission at all while others might have up to 3 speeds. It's the
Gas and Diesel that needs all those gears due to having to stay within a
certain RPM range.

<snip>

Post by Daryl Hunt
Coal should be seperated from Gas. It's resource that has hardly been
tapped and is actually more plentiful than Petro based crude. While it may
not be "Renewable" it is plentiful.

Hardly been tapped is just a silly statement.

Coal was the first fossil fuel used on an industrial scale. Many
of the more easily tapped high quality reserves in the eastern USA
are already worked out


Now the USA current uses 882.8 million tons of oil a year.
The yield of the Fischer-Tropsch process is only around 30%
so to replace it you would need around 2400 million tons
of coal per annum

Current US coal production is 1,161.4 tons so to replace oil with
coal you are going to have to quadruple that output. In addition to
the cost of mine expansion and distribution the scale of development
required for the building of hydrogenation plants will be staggering

At is peak German WW2 synth oil production was under 4 million
tons per annum. You would need to produce 200 times that
amount. The financial and environmental costs would be enormous

Post by Daryl Hunt
I stated already that Colorado has a mandate that at least 10% of all
electric power will be from wind and it's close to reaching that goal.
When you figure in Colorado's Hydropower, it's electricity should be able
to meet and exceed the 50% mark of totally renewable electric power in the
very near future. I don't plan on seeing New York meet those requirements
or goals in my lifetime.

You should. New York is on the ocean and wave power is likely
to be far more reliable than wind power.

Post by Daryl Hunt
But other states will easily. It's just been a matter of the Governments
to mandate it, enforce it and assist in the development.

All of which will be resisted by those who dislike big government,
the existing energy companies and the environmentalists
will howl

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
Virgin Airlines made the announcement that they were going to run
Biofuels. Yes, it's a blend much like the gasoline we buy from the
pumps in that it's probably no more than 10% blend of Biofuel laced
with the Jet Fuel.

Indeed but adopting that for all fuels would reduce US reliance
on imported oil by 10%

No it won't . During the Reagan and back years, the way the US kept the
price of oil even doing a 40% import rate was to tap into the Strategic
Reserves. They ceased doing that sometime during the Reagan years and
have never done it again.

Thats because the reserve is tint compared to US usage

Huh?

US strategic reserve consists of around 700 million barrels of oil

The US uses 20 million barrels per DAY

That means the US has a reserve that would last less
than a year if it was used to supply all its needs or two years
if used to replace oil imports.

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
We are still importing less than 50% of our oil.

More like 70%

Now it's your turn to quote. But to help you, go here and ask your
questions. But remember, remove Canada as the US imports from Eastern
Canada and Canada exchanges those imports from Western US. The answer to
your question is there. Mine was just a few points low while yours is
dramatically off the scale.

Post by Keith Willshaw
And between Canada and the US, there is

Post by Daryl Hunt
enough oil reserves to bankrupt Russia and the Middle East.

Thats just wishful thinking

Wishing and reality do come together in time.

Not in this case

Post by Daryl Hunt

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Daryl Hunt
But it's kept as reserves either by capping or not drilling.

Utter nonsense, the following figures are from 2005
are from US Dept of Energy
Country Oil Reserves(billion barrels)
USA 29.2
Canada 16.5
Mexico 13.7
Iran 137
Iraq 115
Kuwait 101
Saudi Arabia 264

Not considered is the Coal, Shale and Crude Sand from the US and Canada.

Indeed , neither are the tar sands of Saudi Arabia, the largest
such deposits in the world.

Post by Daryl Hunt
Since the US and Canada, for all practical purposes for this discussion,
are the same country then you have to include ALL.

I dont think many Canadians will agree with that.

Post by Daryl Hunt
And if you do then the US and Canada figures are in the Trillions not
billions. Meanwhile, Mexico, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's
numbers only goes down as it's used up. Newsflash: We get a low
percentage of our oil from the Middle East.

So what

Here's a new flash

Canada is NOT the 51st state

As for Tar Sands the worlds largest reserves are in Saudi Arabia.
Canada comes in second and Venezuela third

The top 10 supplier of US oil imports in Jan 2008 were

Country qty (1000's of barrels per day)
CANADA 1,944
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479
MEXICO 1,198
NIGERIA 1,163
VENEZUELA 1,135
ANGOLA 566
IRAQ 543
ALGERIA 366
ECUADOR 247
KUWAIT 239

The US better start being nice to its neighbours, they
control its energy supplies

Post by Daryl Hunt
From Coal, Shale and Crude Sand, Aviation Fuel can be made. The cost of
flying will be going up, of course.

There are major envirionmental and resource issues in producing
oil from tar sands. The bitumen in those sands lacks the hydrogen
needed and you need large amounts of energy to extract, hydrogenate
and refine those sands.

In Alberta and Saudi Arabia that comes from local gas reserves.

Guess which countries have the largest reserves of natural gas ?

Hint it's a Moslem country in the Persian Gulf.

Keith

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's end this with this.

I am in a major energy producing area and we keep producing much more
than we can use so we export it. You are in a major energy using
area and you never can get enough. Here is the secret to having
enough.

Stop your building past your own efforts to produce energy. The Tap
around here will go down one day and you will have nothing but
blackouts. Meanwhile, we will have enough for our own needs. Bank
on it.

[Eunometic]

SNIP

Post by Keith Willshaw
GM and Toyota sell large numbers of diesels in Europe. These are not
concept cars but current mass production models. While Jeep
have a diesel option the engines are supplied by Mercedes
and at 25mpg it still isnt exactly fugal
The diesel  Toyota Hilux Pickup does 34mpg (combined)
The diesel Toyota Auris 2.2 car does 45 mpg can do 0-60 in 6 seconds
and has a top speed of 130 mph
Its more frugal brother the 1.4 diesel does 56 mpg has a 0-60
of 11.7 seconds and a top speed of 109 mph
If you want real economy in a smaller car the the Citroen C3
1.4 Hdi diesel will give you 63 mpg and still have a top speed
of 118 mph and give you a 0-60 of 9.6 seconds

Just a note.

US gallons are 3.7L while British Imperial Gallons are 4.2. That's
why British cars get better mileage. Also diesel has around 10% more
energy for the same volume.

Overall British mpg figures fir diesel need to be scaled back 20% to
get gasoline equivlent mpg in US system. Despite this the new common
rail turbocharged diesels are extremely impressive.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by Eunometic
Just a note.
US gallons are 3.7L while British Imperial Gallons are 4.2. That's

why British cars get better mileage.

Its PART of the reason. The fact that British car buyers are
prepared to pay a higher sticker price for better gas mileage
is another. US car buyers historically were not prepared to
pay the extra since gas was cheap.

Post by Eunometic
Also diesel has around 10% more
energy for the same volume.

The difference depends on exact formulations, the caloric value
per kg is roughly the same but while gasoline is pretty consnitent
in having a specific gravity of around .74 the SG of Diesel
varies between .820 and .94

However diesel formulated for cars is usually at the
lower end of the range with ultra low sulphur (or City)
diesel bearing a lower tax in the UK to encourage its use.


Keith

[Eunometic]

SNIP

Post by Keith Willshaw
Winterizing biodiesel is quite simple. There are a number of
commercially available products that control waxing but one
of the most promising techniques is the transesterification of triglycerides
with ethanol or methanol.

What do you mean promising? You take oil from a fast food fryer, add
10% or so ethanol or methanol, add a pinch of potasium or sodium
hydroxid and then heat and stir. Can be done in the back yard with
home built heaters and stirers.

If you look around there are plenty of people running SVO straight
vegetable oil straight from the supermarket. The warnings of the
diesel engine manufactueres are a bit exagerated though I'd be a but
reluctant to try it on one of those machines with common rail and
pizeo injectors.

[Keith Willshaw]

SNIP

Post by Eunometic

Post by Keith Willshaw
Winterizing biodiesel is quite simple. There are a number of
commercially available products that control waxing but one
of the most promising techniques is the transesterification of triglycerides
with ethanol or methanol.

What do you mean promising? You take oil from a fast food fryer, add
10% or so ethanol or methanol, add a pinch of potasium or sodium
hydroxid and then heat and stir. Can be done in the back yard with
home built heaters and stirers.

Not if you want your engine tostart when the temperature
falls to around 0 deg C. This may not be a problem in most
of Australia but it sure as hell is in northern Europe and
North America

Keith

[Eunometic]

Post by Keith Willshaw
SNIP

SNIP

Post by Keith Willshaw

What do you mean promising?  You take oil from a fast food fryer, add
10% or so ethanol or methanol, add a pinch of potasium or sodium
hydroxid and then heat and stir.  Can be done in the back yard with
home built heaters and stirers.

Not if you want your engine tostart when the temperature
falls to around 0 deg C. This may not be a problem in most
of Australia but it sure as hell is in northern Europe and
North America

The issues seems to be getting the viscosity of the oil low enough to
ensure good vaporisation. Side issues are gumming from oxidation.
Preheating with duel tank system is one way to lower the viscosity.
The first time I came across SVO was some 8 years ago. A German guy
in his english language blog mentioned that he ran out of fuel at a
supermarket. Since his old Ford Fiesta diesel was getting on a bit he
chanced it and put litres of vegatable oil into his empty tank and had
no problems and did so persistantly.

There are seem to be varieties of vegetable oil that are thin enough
to use directly.

European plants, deep sea fish are high in polyunsaturates and omega
threes that resist solidification and thickening at low temperature
for obvious reasons. Of course these same oils are vulnerable to
oxidation. That's why polyunsaturates and vegetable oils are bad for
your arteries as well unless they are cold pressed, kept from oxygen
and not used for frying. Butter and animal lard is probably better.
Flax/lineseed oil is sold in health food shops out of the refrigerator
and is famous for cross linking into linoleum and for oiling wood.

So the oils resistence to thickening at low temps needs to be balanced
against its oxidative resistence.

[Eunometic]

Post by Rob Arndt
I don't see why any of this would be a problem- Nazi Germany used coal
gasification from 16 plants to produce 85% of German aviation fuel
during WW2.

The aviation fuel was produced in 7 bergius hydrogenation plants.
This was not a coal gasification followed by synthesis fischer-tropsch
process as it involved forcing pressurised hydrogen into a coal-
tolulene slury at 700 ata.

The coal gasification was however used at the 6 Fisher-Tropsch fuels
supplied waxes, lubricants, and diesel and a low grade 'army' fuel.

Coal gasification was used indirectly at the Bergius plants to make
the hydrogen required.

Some of the Bergius plants had an elaborate process for taking syn gas
and synthesising iso-octane. It started out as sygas and was
converted to butanol, then iso-butane, then iso-butene and
plymerisation to iso-octane. Supplines were very challenged due to
the need to use the butene in producing buna synthetic rubber.

Post by Rob Arndt
After WW2, German synthetic fuel was produced in the US
with 2 transported pilot plants operating for a decade. Results were
positive, but back then the German synthetic would cost $16/barrel vs
$3/barrel for Arab crude.

The main cost was the huge amount of steel required, however some of
the technology the Germans were working on such as fluidised bed
reactors and gasifiers would have led to a dramatic increase in
efficiency.


So the oil companies dismantled the plants

Post by Rob Arndt
and filed away their information with Texas A & M. Later, this
information was confiscated by the US Army and locked away, but Texas
A & M copied it on microfilm and it is now being re-examined due to
the ever-increasing cost of a barrel of oil, which now has hit $104/
barrel mark.

The real reason is not cost but that the US military is strategically
vulnerable. The USA imports 70% of its crude. Remember the Arab oil
embargo of the 70's? That was when the USA was supplying a the bulk
of its needs. The next embargo could be much worse.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by Don Stauffer in Minnesota
On Apr 1, 9:51 pm, Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
I see two ways to use coal. First, make jet fuel FROM coal. After
all, kerosene, which is a useful jet fuel, was originally called "coal
oil" was made, well over a century ago, from coal. I am sure that
even better technology is available today.

Not quite. Coal oil was distilled from what was called Cannell coal
which is actually a form of oil shale which in certain coalfields
was found below the normal coal deposits. Standard grades of
coal have insufficient hydrogen to produce much coal oil by
simple distillation.

The alternative is hydrogenation in which hydrogen supplied from
outside is combined with the coal under pressure and at a high
temperature to produce an oil substitute. The classic Fischer-Tropsch
process produced hydrogen by alternating blowing steam
and air over hot beds of coke. When you blow steam
over white hot coke you split the steam into hydrogen and
oxygen. The H2 is then combined with coal and makes the
synthetic oil. This causes the coke bed to cool so you alternate
the process by blowing air over the coke which produces
carbon monoxide which is burned to fire the steam boilers.

Post by Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Second, engines COULD operate on a coal slurry. Now, that is far more
difficult, and the effects on the engine (erosion of turbine blades,
etc.) would be horendous. But, maybe there are ways to do it better
with enough development.
However, either way adds tremendously to greenhouse emissions. Carbon
is by far the worst fossil fuel for its ratio of CO2 per joule of
energy. Even when made into kerosene, there are a LOT of byproducts
containing or generating carbon dioxide.
To me a biofuel from something like soybeans, or some more easily
grown product (or even a natural-wild plant) seems like a better
answer.

Except that growing such crops on the scale required uses
agricultural land forcing up food prices and reducing food production.

Biofuel can make a contribution but it can only replace a
small percentage of fossil fuels.

Keith

[Stephen Harding]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Second, engines COULD operate on a coal slurry. Now, that is far more
difficult, and the effects on the engine (erosion of turbine blades,
etc.) would be horendous. But, maybe there are ways to do it better
with enough development.
However, either way adds tremendously to greenhouse emissions. Carbon
is by far the worst fossil fuel for its ratio of CO2 per joule of
energy. Even when made into kerosene, there are a LOT of byproducts
containing or generating carbon dioxide.
To me a biofuel from something like soybeans, or some more easily
grown product (or even a natural-wild plant) seems like a better
answer.

Except that growing such crops on the scale required uses
agricultural land forcing up food prices and reducing food production.
Biofuel can make a contribution but it can only replace a
small percentage of fossil fuels.

A recent report in Science states that biofuels actually add
to the greenhouse gas emission problems (when taking into account
ethanol/biodiesel production and loss of biodiversity in converting
to agricultural feedstock for their production).

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0207-biofuels.html

I believe another Science article from last month states that unless
we can go to *zero* greenhouse gas emissions within the next 10-20
years, the possibilities in "correcting" the climate will be gone.

Since zero carbon emissions ain't gonna happen in 10-20 years,
seems we're doomed.

I like the environmentalist/economist in Denmark(???) who regularly
gets hate mail from environmentalists from all over the world when
he claims global warming is a "small" problem on the "pressing
problems of the world list".

He's calculated the return on investment, or benefit return on
money spent to solve various world problems and reversing global
warming has very low return. There is a far better return on
eliminating malaria or hunger, poverty, etc.

Of course if you're a polar bear in Hudson Bay, you may not feel
the analysis was fully comprehensive enough.


SMH

[Eunometic]

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Second, engines COULD operate on a coal slurry.  Now, that is far more
difficult, and the effects on the engine (erosion of turbine blades,
etc.) would be horendous.  But, maybe there are ways to do it better
with enough development.
However, either way adds tremendously to greenhouse emissions.  Carbon
is by far the worst fossil fuel for its ratio of CO2 per joule of
energy.  Even when made into kerosene, there are a LOT of byproducts
containing or generating carbon dioxide.
To me a biofuel from something like soybeans, or some more easily
grown product (or even a natural-wild plant) seems like a better
answer.

Except that growing such crops on the scale required uses
agricultural land forcing up food prices and reducing food production.
Biofuel can make a contribution but it can only replace a
small percentage of fossil fuels.

A recent report in Science states that biofuels actually add
to the greenhouse gas emission problems (when taking into account
ethanol/biodiesel production and loss of biodiversity in converting
to agricultural feedstock for their production).
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0207-biofuels.html
I believe another Science article from last month states that unless
we can go to *zero* greenhouse gas emissions within the next 10-20
years, the possibilities in "correcting" the climate will be gone.
Since zero carbon emissions ain't gonna happen in 10-20 years,
seems we're doomed.

Possible. The sad thing about this is that much of the problem is
driven by profligacy in energy use that could be avoided without a
reduction in living standards. Eg oversized cars with oversized
engines or cars which have saved themseves a few hundred dollars in
sticker priced in order to avoid an extra gear ratio in the
transmission.

The extreme would be to give up high powered IC cars. Even if we were
to give up the internal combustion engine society could function quite
well using electric cars akin to an upsized golf buggy, capable of no
more than 50km/h and ranges of no more than 100km. Such a vehicle
would be enough to do shopping trips, get the children to the school
or soccer or get to the train station. The low performance mitigates
the challenges in safety, performance and electrical energy supply of
electic cars which become exorbitantly expensive if an Electric
vehicle is asked to opperate above about 80km/h and 100km range. Yet
one could still be comfortable, safe, dry or cool in an spacious
electric car if reduced performance was accepted and catered for. This
is a radical approach but it shows the world doesn't have to end.

In Britain some people (elektor electronics magazine) have added a
small number of extra batteries to the toyota prius and altered the
software to make the toyota drive system think it is full of
charged. As a result the car can achieve over 100mpg for the first
50 miles or so. That's 2.5L/100km.

The strategy of the prius's hybrid drive system is to always keep the
petrol engine running at optimal point by using the power to supplment
the main engine even to the extent of switching it off for a time.

So if this or similar technology is perfected and made economical over
the next 5 years (possible) and then encouraged (no taxes on the
vehicles) and then mandated I assert the worlds car fleets can be
replaced over the next 15-20 years.

Post by Stephen Harding
I like the environmentalist/economist in Denmark(???)

Bjørn Lomborg. To his credite he's brought empirical arguments into
the debate.
The book 'the skeptical environmentalist' is quite long but spend only
a few pages on the green house debate. It effectively debunked many
of the more absurd claims of the enviromental movement.

Post by Stephen Harding
who regularly
gets hate mail from environmentalists from all over the world when
he claims global warming is a "small" problem on the "pressing
problems of the world list".

No quite what he says but he pointed out that for a fraction of the
cost of kyoto everyone in the world could have fresh pure drinking
water.

Post by Stephen Harding
He's calculated the return on investment, or benefit return on
money spent to solve various world problems and reversing global
warming has very low return.  There is a far better return on
eliminating malaria or hunger, poverty, etc.
Of course if you're a polar bear in Hudson Bay, you may not feel
the analysis was fully comprehensive enough.
SMH- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Eunometic]

Post by Don Stauffer in Minnesota
On Apr 1, 9:51 pm, Otis Willie PIO The American War Library

Air Force wants coal for fuel, but will idea fly?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23811258/

SNIP

Post by Don Stauffer in Minnesota
I see two ways to use coal.  First, make jet fuel FROM coal.  After
all, kerosene, which is a useful jet fuel, was originally called "coal
oil" was made, well over a century ago, from coal.  I am sure that
even better technology is available today.

I suspect coal to oil will get nowhere due to the CO2 emissions
issues. It emits a huge amount of CO2 I think about 3 times as much
when the losses in sythesis are counted. Oil based petroleum emits
CO2 and water but the energy of coal is all from carbon.

There are two ways it could be used effectively. One is sequestering
the CO2 as it comes out of the coal to oil plant (eg underground,
undersea or in minerals) and the other is to find a source of Hydrogen
(solar or nuclear electrolysis or pyrolosis) and use this as a
feedstock into the synthesis process so that the CO2 emisions are
eliminated by conveting them into more fuel. There are significant
technical and economic challenges with either.

The process used to make coal into diesel or aviation style kerosene
is
called Fischer-Tropsch, named after two German chemists. It was one
of the two main processes used by Germany in WW2. This process was
improved upon in South Africa by SASOL who turned its use more towards
producing gasoline rather than diesels and lubricants. The early
German FT and SASOL process was barely 30% efficient. Currently
fisher tropsch for coal to oil conversion is over 55% efficient
pushing nearly 60% though the conversion of natural gas to oil using
the Fishcher Tropsch catalysts is now between 90% to 95% efficient and
so good it can be converted to diesel at the gas head. This is done
when there is no gas pipeline.

The main process used in WW2 Germany was Bergius hydrogenation rather
than fischer tropsch synthesis in which a coal-oil backfeed slurry was
pressurised at 700 atmospheres by hydrogen. Major turbo-machinary
technology and alloy steel technology. Plant was so heavy it used to
resist direct hits by bombs.

Fishcher Tropsh was far less inportant to WW2 Germany. The Bergius
Hydrogenation plants produced the high grade gasolines while the FT
plants produced diesels, waxes, luibricants and low grade ie low RON
'army fuel'

In fisher tropsch the coal is gasified by a lurgi gasifier (heat and
added steam) to make syn gas consiting of CO, CO2 and H2 which is
synthesised over catalysts of iron, cobalt, chromium etc. The
sythesis process tends to produce long linear chains suited to making
outstanding diesel and jet fuel. These are much better than mineral
based diesels and jet fuels as there long open linear chains burn
evenly and completely without formming soot. Much cleaner.

The diesel fuel comming out of Germanies ww2 plants had such a high
cetane rating it was too good and had to be blended down with low
grade diesels from the Bergius plants. The cetane rating measures how
slow the diesel burns, In this case it was so slow it burns so that
diesel knocking is minimised. In this case was so slow it was still
combusting as it was pushed out of the exhaust.

If you want gasoline out of coal the best process is called MTG
'methanol to gasoline'. This works the same was as fisher-tropsch
only you make alcohol first (either methanol or ethanol, fisher
tropsch discrovered these catalysts as well) and then convet it into
gasoline inside zeolites impregnated with catalysts, Zeolites are
clays with pores of extremely consistant dimensions so dimensioned you
constain the synthesis of small iso-octane like isomers needed for
petrol production rather than long linear chains. Its a very
efficient process. better than FT on its own.

Post by Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Second, engines COULD operate on a coal slurry.  Now, that is far more
difficult, and the effects on the engine (erosion of turbine blades,
etc.) would be horendous.  But, maybe there are ways to do it better
with enough development.

Nah, always the same issues, erosion of the parts and its CO2
emisions are unaccteptable. Coal must die in the next 50 years well
before it is depleted.

There was a "Hoelzer" constant volume gas turbine opperating of coal
dust in Germany in the late 1920s used to power railways. Turbine
erosion was an big issue. It's hard enough protecting boiler tubes.

Post by Don Stauffer in Minnesota
However, either way adds tremendously to greenhouse emissions.  Carbon
is by far the worst fossil fuel for its ratio of CO2 per joule of
energy.  Even when made into kerosene, there are a LOT of byproducts
containing or generating carbon dioxide.
To me a biofuel from something like soybeans, or some more easily
grown product (or even a natural-wild plant) seems like a better
answer.- Hide quoted text -

The biofuels are good for maybe 10% of a nations requirements and even
then they require massive imputs of energy and land that negates about
half of the advantage.

Why bother with this pitifull joke considering the costs to the
environment. The most productive oil plant is the palm plant (10
times more productive than sunflower or rape or soy) and in Malaysia
the Orangoutan is threatend with extinction due to the Europeans
Unions encouragement of biodiesel. Its not worth the life of even one
of those magnificent animals.

The plant oils can be used to make excellent lubricants and it has
been pointed out that they would save more fuel if used as lubricants
(due to lower friction) than they do in burning. I believe
biodiesels are best used in environmentally sensitive areas for fuels,
hydraulics and lubricants since leaks are easily processed by nature
into harmless products eg for machinary in the timer industry or for
work near rivers and wetlands.

There is a process in Germay called the choren process which converts
wood, sawdust and fast growning trees via fisher-tropsch synthesis to
a high grade diesel overall though I think biodiesel is a sad insane
joke on the world.

[J a c k]

Post by Don Stauffer in Minnesota
To me a biofuel from something like soybeans, or some more easily
grown product (or even a natural-wild plant) seems like a better
answer.

How many acres do we need, what are the costs in soil degradation over
time, how much of an increase in food prices will result from the
competition for acreage, how much fertilizer runoff damage to our water
and wildlife environments, etc., etc.?

There are a lot of daydreams being espoused as though they constitute
solutions. For example, we actually believe, apparently, the myth that
burning ethanol in our automobiles amounts to conservation of resources.
It is great for farmers' bank accounts, at any rate.

We should start by limiting population. At least that would have the
side benefit of producing fewer latter-day Luddites who simply fear the
future whatever it may hold.



Jack

[Hawkeye]

It boils down to what is more important. Cheap gas or cheap food? Is
driving more important than eating? I guess if the price of food goes
up, some of the overweight people will no doubt find a diet that
finally works. I'd like nothing more to see an electric car parked in
my driveway. Or for something for longer range a diesel/electric
hybrid. If Americans would all downsize their vehicles, we would need
to have those big SUV that "offer greater protection" (purely a
misconception) we'd lower our consumption. Even small cars can survive
tremendous impacts, more that what the human body can sustain.
Regardless of the vehicle, exceed the window of forces survivable, you
die.