Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: guns and the internal combustion engine

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    157

    guns and the internal combustion engine

    In lew of the current administrations pursuit to erradicate the internal combustion engine with unrealistic sanctions it occured to me that who's to say that a "no fly zone" or kinetic campaign wouldn't be carried out against the American people dedicated to preserving the Constitution once they've acheived sucess. The military, and every other country who despises us, will never be able or even contemplate getting rid of the internal combustion engine. Which means our government, once they sucessfully irradicate oil in our free market or price it out of the common mans budget, will control it. This would allow them to turn on any American who opposes them. To me, this is the bases of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. It's not that each man has the right to protect themselves from harm, that's our God given right, it's to intervene when a tyrannical government starts to errode the values that founded this country of which we hold dear. They've already made it difficult to obtain an automatic weapon, but are willing to hand them out to Jihaddist who could care less for western civilization. The time has come for every American who values our Constitutional rights to stand up and speak in one voice, similiar to the labor unions determined to bankrupt the states and our nation.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    Did you really mean to say the administrations push to eradicate the gasoline/diesel powered internal combustion engine? I assume that's what you meant, so if it's not, disregard the rest of this post.

    The push to move away from gasoline and diesel has to do with our species long term survival. We can and do run internal combustion engines on many fuels other than gasoline and diesel. We have used, propane, compressed and liquid natural gas, compressed and liquid propane, food oils, grease, kerosene, helium and, in my mind, most importantly hydrogen. Hydrogen is one of the most if not the most abundantly available elements in the universe. We can replace our reliance on foreign oil as a fuel source by switching to hydrogen. It works in an internal combustion engine and it's output is water.

    The sooner we as a nation embrace these new fuels, the more oil we save to make plastics and 1000's of other products. There are so many new jobs that can be created if we begin to embrace alternative fuels. Think of all the wind power we could be harvesting in this nation with little environmental impact. Solar panels on your roof can add surplus energy back into the system and make the expense of powering our homes almost nil. So many options other than oil and yet all people want to talk about is the price of gasoline. Embrace alternatives and pressure our leaders into using them like we as the populace have the ability to and we won't care about oil in 50years.

    Sorry if that got to be a bit of a rant.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    157
    I'm not against alternative energy sources like wind and solar, coal, CNG, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. What I'm against is the government forcing me away from the most efficient method of travel, when they have no intention nor do other countries, friend or foe, of replacing it with alternative methods. You can't fly a Blackhawk, or stealth bomber on solar power. What about the complaint from the left during the Bush administration when they claimed we're at war for oil. Seems that's what Libya's all about, the French rely heavily on Libyan refineries. Now, they want to arm the Jihadist rebels, that won't come back and bite us. You keep thinking China (worlds worst polluter) is going to give up on oil, don't be surprised when thier tanks roll over you in your town square. The current administration has continued to sanction the American oil companies in the gulf with their unconstitutional moritorium on drilling. Meanwhile the President goes on vacation to Brazil right after they're granted rights to storing oil on the Gulf waters. Let the free market dictate what's needed, not the government. News Flash: We're never leaving the middle east militarily, and oil production for the internal combustion engine will never be irradicated from the face of the earth. As always:
    Sic Semper Tyrannis
    Last edited by Placementvs.Calibur; 03-31-2011 at 04:18 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    157
    Here, Here!
    Friggin' Sic Semper Tyrannis
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    They will have to pry my F-350 from my cold dead hands.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    You could power a blackhawk on any fuel that will compress and ignite. The blackhawk is also not powered by an internal combustion engine like a truck or car, it is gas turbine powered. The Abrams M1 tank is also powered by a gas turbine engine.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    5
    As someone who immensely enjoys the virtues of the internal combustion engine, I think you're taking the wrong side in this fight. There are some applications for which gasoline/ethanol/diesel/Jet-A/100LL will remain the only viable option for a long time to come. Not only are a huge number of machines built on these technologies, but it will be quite a while before battery electric or fuel cell or hydrogen combustion or really any other 'new' technology can approach the energy densities of hydrocarbon fuels. However, there are plenty of applications where energy density is not all that important. Additionally, these use of these fuels has additional costs that are not, at present, fully reflected in the monetary cost of operating polluting machinery. ( I should add that this is true whether or not you accept climate change as reality).

    For this reason I can appreciate the government incentivizing the use of alternative technologies. Note that incentivizing is not the same as outlawing of internal combustion, which I'm not sure that anyone actually supports. I would prefer that, at the moment, such efforts would focus more on electrical power generation (i.e. the move from coal to nuclear/geothermal/solar), but nonetheless the fewer people using oil as a transportation fuel, the more it can be used for applications where it cannot be easily replaced. I drive an '86 Porsche, and fly an airplane running 100LL, and I adore the symphony of noise made by a race engine under load, but I see no reason soccer mom's shouldn't be using hybrid or electric vehicles.

    Policies which allow fuel prices to reflect true costs allow for people that really care about what they drive or fly to make that choice, while still decreasing the use of crude oil an prolonging it's availability, so that hopefully gasoline will still be available to the people who still care about cars in 2040 and beyond.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    157
    In 2040 I hope we have the flux capacetor, oh no that's fueled by uranium. The point I was trying to make was expressed by everyone who's replied:
    The hippy with his notion that we are the world will replace fossil fuels with a mighty wind, and the government should regulate the private commodity market.
    The Gentleman who said they'd have to pry his truck from his cold dead hands, which I beleive the liberals intend to do by any means necessary.
    The Playboy (I use the term with respect) with his Porshe, and airplane, who can afford $5 a gallon, based on the material wealth he's deservedly aquired.
    I just hope everything Obama blamed Bush for doesn't come back to bite him in the &%@. Oh wait , it's happening:
    Katrina-Gulf oil spill
    Iraq-Libya
    "No war for oil"
    Afghanistan-well, Afghanistan
    What were those famous words Sen. Joe Wilson exclaimed during the Presidents speech????
    Was it, Gitmo isn't a vacation destination, no, oh yeah I got it:
    YOU LIE!
    Sic (of all the lies) Semper Tyrannis

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Ethanol?? A total waste of time and energy!!

    I have learned that it takes 1.6 gallons of petroleum to bring 1 gallon of ethanol to market, then when you use it as a motor fuel, you lose about 45% of your mileage.

    So why are we wasting time, energy, and petroleum on an unsustainable substance like ethanol?

    Brazil has a sustainable ethanol fuel program, but their feedstock is sugar from sugarcane, the way the distilleries are doing ethanol is by converting starches from grains to sugar, then fermenting and distilling, this is where the loss comes into play along with the petroleum powered farm equipment, the trucks and trains that haul it, and the petroleum based fertilizers to grow it.

    So, with simple math, we are using more petroleum to try and not use petroleum! Ethanol as an adult beverage? Perfect! Ethanol as a motor fuel, stupid and wasteful using current technology.
    I would rather see biodiesel fuels made from recycled cooking oils, algae, and other sources. A hybrid running a small turbine engine could power an electric generator, and use electric traction motors similar to how our locomotives currently operate.
    A turbine engine can run on any combustible substance, LPG, Diesel, (Bio & petroleum derived) gasoline, alcohol, and even smoke from a biomass!

    In other words, burning ethanol in motor vehicles is wasteful and it is going to cause starvation, and further debt in this country. it is an absolute waste, and a fraud committed against the people of this country!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    I have learned that it takes 1.6 gallons of petroleum to bring 1 gallon of ethanol to market, then when you use it as a motor fuel, you lose about 45% of your mileage.
    Do you have a citation for this?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    157
    I beleive the point about ethanol, besides it's inefficiencies, is that no one else is using it. Realisticaly we're substituting oil with a commodity which can be sold, along with wheat, at the same ridiculous cost that we pay for imported oil. There's an inbalance of exported vs. imported goods which we've sucked up for years now for the favor of financing most of our debt by outsiders. The fact of the matter is we have what the world needs (food) and they have what we need (fossil fuels). We need to be compensated for being the scapegoat and saving everyone's butts overseas, instead of bowing down to everyone. This is what Reagan did so well, he understood where we stood and stuck his chin out in the wind. This is what I fear Obama Bin Biden didn't understand as they took on the responsibility of securing the greatest experiment in the history of the world. Now, every President takes one on the chin every once in awhile, they all make mistakes, but that's what leadership is about. Just say these things every once in awhile:
    America is the greatest country in the world, that's why everyone flocks to it.
    I pledge allegence to the flag, .....one nation under God, ....for liberty and justice for all.
    My Country 'tis of the, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing....
    You know the rest, it's called American exceptionalism.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis
    Last edited by Placementvs.Calibur; 04-02-2011 at 08:18 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by flightline View Post
    Do you have a citation for this?
    I din't have any cite on the 1.6 for one gallon but I have seen that number thrown around for the US when all factors are included such as the fuel for the tractors to plow the ground and truck to carry the crop to market. It is probably overblown but makes a good point that those pushing alternative energy often fail to take into account the total cost. The electric car or hydrogen fueled car are wonderful when considered alone but the energy has go come for somewhere and that usually is the power plants and the electrical transmission grid. With the recent problems in Japan and their nuclear problems it just got worse for all types of alternative auto fuels. Right now if every car in the US could immediately be converted to either electric or hydrogen fuel from gasoline at least half would be sitting beside the road waiting for someone to find a place and time to plug them in as the grid couldn't come close to handling them

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    Right now if every car in the US could immediately be converted to either electric or hydrogen fuel from gasoline at least half would be sitting beside the road waiting for someone to find a place and time to plug them in as the grid couldn't come close to handling them
    Hydrogen powered vehicles require no charging. Hydrogen can work as a fuel for a converted gasoline engine, just like propane and compressed can easily be adapted.

    I sometimes don't understand the drill here drill now concept. If we invested the same time and energy into hydrogen as a vehicle fuel, we would be well on our way to it's everyday use.

    We don't need to rely on foreign powers to get oil if we the people would push a bit harder for fuel conversion. It's not difficult for auto manufacturers to do if their customers demand it.

    I'm no hippy, by any means, but I love fast cars and 4x4's and want future generations to be bale to enjoy them as well. If we push for reliable alternative power and fuel, that saves oil for everything else, including my not so fuel efficient toys. There are so many "clean" ways to generate our nations need for energy, windmills, natural gas, solar etc...

  13. #13
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by irish52084 View Post
    Hydrogen powered vehicles require no charging. Hydrogen can work as a fuel for a converted gasoline engine, just like propane and compressed can easily be adapted.

    I sometimes don't understand the drill here drill now concept. If we invested the same time and energy into hydrogen as a vehicle fuel, we would be well on our way to it's everyday use.

    We don't need to rely on foreign powers to get oil if we the people would push a bit harder for fuel conversion. It's not difficult for auto manufacturers to do if their customers demand it.

    I'm no hippy, by any means, but I love fast cars and 4x4's and want future generations to be bale to enjoy them as well. If we push for reliable alternative power and fuel, that saves oil for everything else, including my not so fuel efficient toys. There are so many "clean" ways to generate our nations need for energy, windmills, natural gas, solar etc...
    And hydrogen comes from where? I actually laughed when I read what I put in red in your comment.

    Let's see, you can extract it from hydrocarbons (fossil fuel) but then you're putting energy into energy. You can extract it from water, but you still need to put more energy in than you get out.

    Only way I see that being any good is if you use solar to create hydrogen from water. You will have losses but it can ease transport/storage.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

  14. #14
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by flightline View Post
    Do you have a citation for this?
    The correct citable answer is:

    Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 Btu are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 Btu. "Put another way," Pimentel said, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."
    http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl...l-ethanol.html

    Edit to add scary quote.

    If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.
    Last edited by sharkey; 04-03-2011 at 10:08 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    And hydrogen comes from where? I actually laughed when I read what I put in red in your comment.

    Let's see, you can extract it from hydrocarbons (fossil fuel) but then you're putting energy into energy. You can extract it from water, but you still need to put more energy in than you get out.

    Only way I see that being any good is if you use solar to create hydrogen from water. You will have losses but it can ease transport/storage.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
    There is no 100% effective way to make energy. There will always be a loss. What I was referencing was the fact that if a car was powered by hydrogen, it doesn't need to be charged.

    The Wiki link provided doesn't cover the cost of clean up for fossil fuel recovery and use, the dwindling supply of fossil fuels or the cost of transportation and production. It also didn't tell you that hydrogen creates about 3 times the energy of gasoline.

    There are significant hurdles to hydrogen production and compression, but they need to be addressed now, not decades from now. Fossil fuels are not being replaced at the rate we use them while hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. The long term math is in favor of energy and fuels other than those produced by fossil fuels.

    We can supply our own oil for fuel if we wanted to in the USA, but that is a losing battle. We need the oil to make many other products besides fuel, so why not save the oil for petroleum based products we need elsewhere and for a longer period of time? My larger point here is that we can power our vehicles on things other than oil based energy sources and we can create our grid energy without fossil fuels. The ability to make this happen is there, but apparently the will is not.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by irish52084 View Post
    There is no 100% effective way to make energy. There will always be a loss. What I was referencing was the fact that if a car was powered by hydrogen, it doesn't need to be charged.

    The Wiki link provided doesn't cover the cost of clean up for fossil fuel recovery and use, the dwindling supply of fossil fuels or the cost of transportation and production. It also didn't tell you that hydrogen creates about 3 times the energy of gasoline.

    There are significant hurdles to hydrogen production and compression, but they need to be addressed now, not decades from now. Fossil fuels are not being replaced at the rate we use them while hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. The long term math is in favor of energy and fuels other than those produced by fossil fuels.

    We can supply our own oil for fuel if we wanted to in the USA, but that is a losing battle. We need the oil to make many other products besides fuel, so why not save the oil for petroleum based products we need elsewhere and for a longer period of time? My larger point here is that we can power our vehicles on things other than oil based energy sources and we can create our grid energy without fossil fuels. The ability to make this happen is there, but apparently the will is not.
    Sorry, I should have be more succinct. Where do we get this hydrogen?

    Hydrogen has a lower energy density than gasoline.
    Last edited by sharkey; 04-04-2011 at 04:26 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by irish52084 View Post
    Hydrogen powered vehicles require no charging. Hydrogen can work as a fuel for a converted gasoline engine, just like propane and compressed can easily be adapted.

    I sometimes don't understand the drill here drill now concept. If we invested the same time and energy into hydrogen as a vehicle fuel, we would be well on our way to it's everyday use.

    We don't need to rely on foreign powers to get oil if we the people would push a bit harder for fuel conversion. It's not difficult for auto manufacturers to do if their customers demand it.

    I'm no hippy, by any means, but I love fast cars and 4x4's and want future generations to be bale to enjoy them as well. If we push for reliable alternative power and fuel, that saves oil for everything else, including my not so fuel efficient toys. There are so many "clean" ways to generate our nations need for energy, windmills, natural gas, solar etc...
    You are technically correct that hydrogen cars do not require you to plug them into an electrical outlet to be recharged but you do have to plug them into the dispenser to refill the hydrogen tank. Now where does the station get the hydrogen to fill your car? It removes it from some source using electrical power. Where does the filling station get the electrical power? From the same place that you would get it if you had to plug in your car.

    Hydrogen fueled cars do have advantages but the car will not just magically pull the hydrogen from some source with no energy being used to get the hydrogen. Yes hydrogen is found everywhere but there is no big tank of pure hydrogen that we can hook into to fill our car up with no cost of production other than the transport. The problem with hydrogen cars is not the development of the car but with the development of the hydrogen source. In fact that is the problem with every type of fuel that any vehicle uses. Right now we are oriented toward the gasoline fueled vehicle and there is a filling station on every corner. When you find a vehicle that doesn't have to be refueled or one that can pull the fuel out of the air without having to use some type of energy to pull it from the air then you have a winner. Until then you are just swapping one problem for another.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    I am all for alternative energy sources. That being said, while we are working on this alternative, we should open all areas known to possess oil to drilling. I do not want the feds picking winners and losers in the alternative experimentation by subsidizing any of these trials. I say let the market decide who wins and who loses. When someone comes up with a truely viable replacement, oil as an energy source will die out fairly quickly.

    My understanding is wind power is only about 17% efficient (the wind doesn't always blow) and it does take more BTUs to produce ethanol and bio-diesel than it gives back. These are both losers as far as the environment goes. Solar is pretty good except it takes a lot of real estate to produce, as does wind power.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Sorry, I should have be more succinct. Where do we get this hydrogen?

    Hydrogen has a lower energy density than gasoline.
    We get hydrogen through the methods already posted in the link you provided several post above. I understand the current limitations to obtaining hydrogen and compressing it as my previous post stated, but if we want the best possible long term fuel then we need to look more seriously at hydrogen. Especially since it can be produced without using fossil fuels as it's source. It may not be efficient to do so right now, but it will become more efficient at extracting hydrogen as it becomes a priority.

    You are correct that hydrogen has lower energy density than gasoline. I stated the problem with compressing hydrogen in an earlier post as well, it's right here: "There are significant hurdles to hydrogen production and compression, but they need to be addressed now, not decades from now.".

    The change in fuel is only a small part of the issue. We have to change our national paradigm on energy. We need to be proactive about ridding ourselves of a reliance on fossil fuels. The longer we wait, the worse it gets and the more expensive it becomes to change. If you're looking for some magical thing that will provide 100% efficient energy, you'll never find it and you'll pay a huge price for looking without changing the energy paradigm.

    Solar, wind, and sea power are all potential energy options that don't rely on foreign governments to distribute them. They are not going away and are sustainable at a much lower environmental impact, which is good for all of us.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Puyallup< WA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    You are technically correct that hydrogen cars do not require you to plug them into an electrical outlet to be recharged but you do have to plug them into the dispenser to refill the hydrogen tank. Now where does the station get the hydrogen to fill your car? It removes it from some source using electrical power. Where does the filling station get the electrical power? From the same place that you would get it if you had to plug in your car.

    Hydrogen fueled cars do have advantages but the car will not just magically pull the hydrogen from some source with no energy being used to get the hydrogen. Yes hydrogen is found everywhere but there is no big tank of pure hydrogen that we can hook into to fill our car up with no cost of production other than the transport. The problem with hydrogen cars is not the development of the car but with the development of the hydrogen source. In fact that is the problem with every type of fuel that any vehicle uses. Right now we are oriented toward the gasoline fueled vehicle and there is a filling station on every corner. When you find a vehicle that doesn't have to be refueled or one that can pull the fuel out of the air without having to use some type of energy to pull it from the air then you have a winner. Until then you are just swapping one problem for another.
    While I hate to say this, because I generally despise california, calfornia has hydrogen re-fueling stations. About 300 if I remember correctly. The gasoline pumps use the same energy grid as the hydrogen ones. Whether you want gas or hydrogen from the pump doesn't matter you still need electricity and an energy infrastructure. It's just a choice between producing that energy with coal, hydro-electric dams, nuclear power etc..., or you get it through wind, solar, sea power etc... Maybe we'll never be a 100% fossil fuel free energy system, but if we dropped it to less than 50% we'd still be better off.

    There will never be a car that never needs to be fueled. Energy is needed to create energy, we can do a lot of things to recycle wasted energy, but that is still not a 1:1 ratio and never will be.

    It all boils down to demand and shifting our paradigm on energy. It's been done, it just needs to be done on a large scale and more efficiently. Our entire energy system needs an overhaul to be more efficient if we want to continue to compete globally.

    We can continue on this path we've been down that is slowly disappearing or we change paths and set an example for the rest of the world. Do what has made us great in the past and lead. Surprise the world by doing something they don't think the United States would do, lead the world in a positive way. This is not some pipe dream, it's reality, and we need to embrace it if not for ourselves, then for the next generations.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    157
    The point of the thread, which was proven early on, is that our government is unconstitutionally forcing a change on the American people which isn't being done throughout the world. This is reducing our national securtiy as well as our individual securtities. By reducing the most common and efficient method of fueling our vehicles puts us at considerable risks form outside and inside regimes hell bent on fundementally changing our way of life including the Constitution. Once they've limited us to an electric car they could easily set up a kinetic campaign to destroy those who oppose them. Again, this is one more way to limit us, to were if we had to fight we're already at a disadvantage. I'm sorry not enough of you don't understand the point I'm making. Perhaps you will when the government tries to cram it down our throats. As for setting an example, this is what they'll tell you, but do you think Venezuala, N. Korea, Iran, China, and Russia care. This will be perceived as weakness, and will be used against us sooner than you think. I give it less than 10 years.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  22. #22
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Placementvs.Calibur View Post
    The point of the thread, which was proven early on, is that our government is unconstitutionally forcing a change on the American people which isn't being done throughout the world. This is reducing our national securtiy as well as our individual securtities. By reducing the most common and efficient method of fueling our vehicles puts us at considerable risks form outside and inside regimes hell bent on fundementally changing our way of life including the Constitution. Once they've limited us to an electric car they could easily set up a kinetic campaign to destroy those who oppose them. Again, this is one more way to limit us, to were if we had to fight we're already at a disadvantage. I'm sorry not enough of you don't understand the point I'm making. Perhaps you will when the government tries to cram it down our throats. As for setting an example, this is what they'll tell you, but do you think Venezuala, N. Korea, Iran, China, and Russia care. This will be perceived as weakness, and will be used against us sooner than you think. I give it less than 10 years.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis
    Sorry to hijack your thread. I found the alternative energy discussion both debatable and interesting. The original premise seemed conspiratorial.

    Can you cite the sanctions you refer to? Can you explain what you mean by no fly zone and kinetic campaign.

    I want to make sure I correctly understand that you're saying incentives for alternative fuels will lead to war on the American populace.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    131
    You don't have to put hydrogen in your vehicle. Just water. When you use electrolysis, you split the H20 molecule. In which you get the hydrogen. The engine burns the hydrogen creating power. The alternator provides power to keep splitting the molecule. Thus more hydrogen etc etc.

    The only emissions is oxygen. And not only does this not put out any emissions. But the air than comes in the intake, will be cleaner as it exits the exhaust. Driving a hydrogen car will actually clean our air.

    There is absolutely no reason we should be using petroleum to power our cars.
    Last edited by impulse418; 04-09-2011 at 03:58 PM.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    I have learned that it takes 1.6 gallons of petroleum to bring 1 gallon of ethanol to market, then when you use it as a motor fuel, you lose about 45% of your mileage.
    This argument is pure bunk.

    Only because of the BATFE.

    I'm sick of counter-rhetoric that is even more devoid of science than the average Hippie....

    Ethanol cannot be sold in a potable fashion or it is considered a beverage. Liquor license, the whole 9 yards. Doesn't matter what you INTEND to do with it.

    The problem is that roughly 15% of supposedly 'pure' Ethanol, is actually water. In order to mix it with Gasoline, there can be NO water. E85 = 15% gasoline. roughly 15% of that E was water, too... So it's a perfect setup.. If you mix that 15% water with an equal amount of gas... this is simple math. Go try it. Fill a gas can halfway with gas, then halfway with water. Now dump it in your gas tank. Doesn't work very well, does it?

    Almost ALL of the expense of producing E85/E95 is in getting that last little bit of water out of it so that it can be mixed with gasoline (as required by law) and not gunk up the gasoline the government requires it to be mixed with.

    If we were ALLOWED to use the purest Ethanol without having to mix it with gasoline, that last little bit of water wouldn't matter, and it would cost pennies to produce. Also, you could get drunk for a lot less; and nobody involved in producing alcoholic beverages likes that Idea. The ATF's tax revenue would almost disappear... So that's why it'll never happen.

    Look at Brazil. Game over. Half-baked Conservative arguments are just as half-baked as anyone else's half-baked argument...

    Science > political rhetoric.

    Once you remove the need to get rid of that 15%, the process of making Ethanol is basically "Let it sit there and rot." This is not complicated or expensive. Heat can be applied to accelerate the process... There is a reason for that mess at the bottom of a grain silo; it occurs naturally without any effort on the part of humans. Virtually zero cost.
    Last edited by ixtow; 04-11-2011 at 11:19 AM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    There are problems with ethanol.

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/1...anol-subsidies

    There are other fuels that are better. Better yet is we give up on the idea that we need a 3000 pound machine to whisk us everywhere we go. Perhaps the gov should subsidize motorcycles next so gas mileage goes up and we can OC more effectively.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •