This will be the third attempt at using ethenol as an alternative to gasoline. Electric is not a viable alternative. Sounds good at first, no emmissions from the car. You get more pollution from the energy burned to create the electricity (unless it is nuclear), just in a different location. Battery technology is improved, there is still currently nothing that is efficient enough and long lasting enough for a real solution. Mostly there are three reasons there is not a solution on the market yet. First is cost effectiveness. There is not a cost effective hybrid at this point and that does not take in account the life of the batteries and any additional expenses for maintanace of the vehicle. At some point, the savings will be worth amoratizing but if you use $2000 a year in gas and save 50% with a hybrid, it would take at least 5 years to "break even" for the additional costs. There are additional oil supplies that are becoming cost efficient at these prices. The Canadian oil sands will be worth extracting and have less sulpher than typical oil reserves. In fact there is a French based company that has requested a permit to build a nuclear power plant in the region, which currently has less than a 1000 population. The second is politics which is self explanatory. Politicians are not looking for the best solutions. They are looking to course of least resistance. We could change bad laws, that give tax breaks for larger gas guzzling trucks that are used in cities as regular transportation. If we need a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, we could add nuclear power plants. The problem, ask your politicians to agree on where to put a dozen nuclear power plants. It goes to the "not in my back yard" philosophy that has prevented any development in alternative energy. Politicians are not looking beyond the current situations for what may be needed 50 years from now. The third aspect which is most forgotten is physics. Hydrogen is great, except that you need to go against the nature of the element. Hydrogen has an affinity to bond with oxygen. It takes energy to prevent or break the bond, energy to compress the gas for use, etc. Natural gas has supply issues worse than oil. Ethanol is a renewable resource, but it is not energy efficient to produce. The amount of energy used to produce the ethanol makes it a marginal product. This does not take into account any side effects of over planting such as occured with the dust bowl of the 1930's. There were also side effects to engine gaskets in some cars from the use of ethanol in the 1980's. Sounds good, helps farmers, increases the cost of food, and the politicians can say they did something. Methane from waste is one of the best alternative fuels, but has corrosive issues. Until we make a major change to nuclear power, hopefully in developing nuclear fusion that actually creates energy without a major waste problem. We are going to continue on the use of oil until a cost efficient replacement is found. Boycotts are great for changing things that are used by choice, (even a selection of food such as eggs are a choice). But try to boycott the electricty prices by not using it, or gasoline, or water. It does not work because it is so intregral in the industrial society. End of rantings. Lee 66 # 869 69 # 2055
This will be the third attempt at using ethenol as an alternative to gasoline. Electric is not a viable alternative. Sounds good at first, no emmissions from the car. You get more pollution from the energy burned to create the electricity (unless it is nuclear), just in a different location. Battery technology is improved, there is still currently nothing that is efficient enough and long lasting enough for a real solution. Mostly there are three reasons there is not a solution on the market yet. First is cost effectiveness. There is not a cost effective hybrid at this point and that does not take in account the life of the batteries and any additional expenses for maintanace of the vehicle. At some point, the savings will be worth amoratizing but if you use $2000 a year in gas and save 50% with a hybrid, it would take at least 5 years to "break even" for the additional costs. There are additional oil supplies that are becoming cost efficient at these prices. The Canadian oil sands will be worth extracting and have less sulpher than typical oil reserves. In fact there is a French based company that has requested a permit to build a nuclear power plant in the region, which currently has less than a 1000 population. The second is politics which is self explanatory. Politicians are not looking for the best solutions. They are looking to course of least resistance. We could change bad laws, that give tax breaks for larger gas guzzling trucks that are used in cities as regular transportation. If we need a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, we could add nuclear power plants. The problem, ask your politicians to agree on where to put a dozen nuclear power plants. It goes to the "not in my back yard" philosophy that has prevented any development in alternative energy. Politicians are not looking beyond the current situations for what may be needed 50 years from now. The third aspect which is most forgotten is physics. Hydrogen is great, except that you need to go against the nature of the element. Hydrogen has an affinity to bond with oxygen. It takes energy to prevent or break the bond, energy to compress the gas for use, etc. Natural gas has supply issues worse than oil. Ethanol is a renewable resource, but it is not energy efficient to produce. The amount of energy used to produce the ethanol makes it a marginal product. This does not take into account any side effects of over planting such as occured with the dust bowl of the 1930's. There were also side effects to engine gaskets in some cars from the use of ethanol in the 1980's. Sounds good, helps farmers, increases the cost of food, and the politicians can say they did something. Methane from waste is one of the best alternative fuels, but has corrosive issues. Until we make a major change to nuclear power, hopefully in developing nuclear fusion that actually creates energy without a major waste problem. We are going to continue on the use of oil until a cost efficient replacement is found. Boycotts are great for changing things that are used by choice, (even a selection of food such as eggs are a choice). But try to boycott the electricty prices by not using it, or gasoline, or water. It does not work because it is so intregral in the industrial society. End of rantings. Lee 66 # 869 69 # 2055
This will be the third attempt at using ethenol as an alternative to gasoline. Electric is not a viable alternative. Sounds good at first, no emmissions from the car. You get more pollution from the energy burned to create the electricity (unless it is nuclear), just in a different location. Battery technology is improved, there is still currently nothing that is efficient enough and long lasting enough for a real solution. Mostly there are three reasons there is not a solution on the market yet. First is cost effectiveness. There is not a cost effective hybrid at this point and that does not take in account the life of the batteries and any additional expenses for maintanace of the vehicle. At some point, the savings will be worth amoratizing but if you use $2000 a year in gas and save 50% with a hybrid, it would take at least 5 years to "break even" for the additional costs. There are additional oil supplies that are becoming cost efficient at these prices. The Canadian oil sands will be worth extracting and have less sulpher than typical oil reserves. In fact there is a French based company that has requested a permit to build a nuclear power plant in the region, which currently has less than a 1000 population. The second is politics which is self explanatory. Politicians are not looking for the best solutions. They are looking to course of least resistance. We could change bad laws, that give tax breaks for larger gas guzzling trucks that are used in cities as regular transportation. If we need a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, we could add nuclear power plants. The problem, ask your politicians to agree on where to put a dozen nuclear power plants. It goes to the "not in my back yard" philosophy that has prevented any development in alternative energy. Politicians are not looking beyond the current situations for what may be needed 50 years from now. The third aspect which is most forgotten is physics. Hydrogen is great, except that you need to go against the nature of the element. Hydrogen has an affinity to bond with oxygen. It takes energy to prevent or break the bond, energy to compress the gas for use, etc. Natural gas has supply issues worse than oil. Ethanol is a renewable resource, but it is not energy efficient to produce. The amount of energy used to produce the ethanol makes it a marginal product. This does not take into account any side effects of over planting such as occured with the dust bowl of the 1930's. There were also side effects to engine gaskets in some cars from the use of ethanol in the 1980's. Sounds good, helps farmers, increases the cost of food, and the politicians can say they did something. Methane from waste is one of the best alternative fuels, but has corrosive issues. Until we make a major change to nuclear power, hopefully in developing nuclear fusion that actually creates energy without a major waste problem. We are going to continue on the use of oil until a cost efficient replacement is found. Boycotts are great for changing things that are used by choice, (even a selection of food such as eggs are a choice). But try to boycott the electricty prices by not using it, or gasoline, or water. It does not work because it is so intregral in the industrial society. End of rantings. Lee 66 # 869 69 # 2055
Lee: Great summary! But on the subject of Ethanol, I believe it is Brazil who decided to go the Ethanol route after the last gas crisis - 1975 or so? They now produce a product (can't remember the name) that is 85% Ethanol which they produce from sugar cane. The remaining 15% is gasoline. They are now almost totally free of the "worrying about OPEC" stuff that the rest of us mortals worry about. It was costly and long term, but they are making it work. Just an interesting view. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: GT350HZ (AT) aol (DOT) com To: shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 1:24 AM Subject: Re:boycott gas? and energy This will be the third attempt at using ethenol as an alternative to gasoline. Electric is not a viable alternative. Sounds good at first, no emmissions from the car. You get more pollution from the energy burned to create the electricity (unless it is nuclear), just in a different location. Battery technology is improved, there is still currently nothing that is efficient enough and long lasting enough for a real solution. Mostly there are three reasons there is not a solution on the market yet. First is cost effectiveness. There is not a cost effective hybrid at this point and that does not take in account the life of the batteries and any additional expenses for maintanace of the vehicle. At some point, the savings will be worth amoratizing but if you use $2000 a year in gas and save 50% with a hybrid, it would take at least 5 years to "break even" for the additional costs. There are additional oil supplies that are becoming cost efficient at these prices. The Canadian oil sands will be worth extracting and have less sulpher than typical oil reserves. In fact there is a French based company that has requested a permit to build a nuclear power plant in the region, which currently has less than a 1000 population. The second is politics which is self explanatory. Politicians are not looking for the best solutions. They are looking to course of least resistance. We could change bad laws, that give tax breaks for larger gas guzzling trucks that are used in cities as regular transportation. If we need a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, we could add nuclear power plants. The problem, ask your politicians to agree on where to put a dozen nuclear power plants. It goes to the "not in my back yard" philosophy that has prevented any development in alternative energy. Politicians are not looking beyond the current situations for what may be needed 50 years from now. The third aspect which is most forgotten is physics. Hydrogen is great, except that you need to go against the nature of the element. Hydrogen has an affinity to bond with oxygen. It takes energy to prevent or break the bond, energy to compress the gas for use, etc. Natural gas has supply issues worse than oil. Ethanol is a renewable resource, but it is not energy efficient to produce. The amount of energy used to produce the ethanol makes it a marginal product. This does not take into account any side effects of over planting such as occured with the dust bowl of the 1930's. There were also side effects to engine gaskets in some cars from the use of ethanol in the 1980's. Sounds good, helps farmers, increases the cost of food, and the politicians can say they did something. Methane from waste is one of the best alternative fuels, but has corrosive issues. Until we make a major change to nuclear power, hopefully in developing nuclear fusion that actually creates energy without a major waste problem. We are going to continue on the use of oil until a cost efficient replacement is found. Boycotts are great for changing things that are used by choice, (even a selection of food such as eggs are a choice). But try to boycott the electricty prices by not using it, or gasoline, or water. It does not work because it is so intregral in the industrial society. End of rantings. Lee 66 # 869 69 # 2055
Halibrand and R-Model Magnesium Wheels I found two 8.5 inch GT 40 wheels, and two 8 inch R model type wheels. All magnesium. Anyone know what they might be worth? Great condition. Also in this lot is a Magstar (67 Shelby) and a 2x4 small block FoMoCo intake and one 48 Webber. Prices for any of this stuff???? Rick & Susan Thompson
Brazil produces ethanol from sugar cane; they get 8 times the amount of energy that we derive from ethanol produced from corn (more power & mileage). Plus, it's about $1.10 a gallon (Brazilians pay taxes on it, so my friends in Rio D. told me they pay about $1.60/gallon - in Rio an expensive market). The entire auto industry down there produces flex-fuel cars that can go either gasoline or ethanol, and they do mix as Ron said. But the US government slaps a tax of over $1/gallon on all ethanol imported from Brazil since the late 1970s. I wonder who lobbied for that (Ethanol companies who make it from corn). The Brazilian producers are looking for an American company to invest and go partners with them for this clean, renewable, cheap fuel. Why isn't someone acting on that? Hey, I'm ready to move to Florida and start growing sugar cane! John Dettori 2001 SVT Cobra Smithtown, NY 11787 1986 Mustang SVO jdettori (AT) optonline (DOT) net 1967 Shelby GT350 1967 Mustang GT Vert ----- Original Message ----- From: Ronald. Robertson To: GT350HZ (AT) aol (DOT) com ; shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 8:20 AM Subject: Re: Re:boycott gas? and energy Lee: Great summary! But on the subject of Ethanol, I believe it is Brazil who decided to go the Ethanol route after the last gas crisis - 1975 or so? They now produce a product (can't remember the name) that is 85% Ethanol which they produce from sugar cane. The remaining 15% is gasoline. They are now almost totally free of the "worrying about OPEC" stuff that the rest of us mortals worry about. It was costly and long term, but they are making it work. Just an interesting view. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: GT350HZ (AT) aol (DOT) com To: shelbymustang (AT) carmemories (DOT) com Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 1:24 AM Subject: Re:boycott gas? and energy This will be the third attempt at using ethenol as an alternative to gasoline. Electric is not a viable alternative. Sounds good at first, no emmissions from the car. You get more pollution from the energy burned to create the electricity (unless it is nuclear), just in a different location. Battery technology is improved, there is still currently nothing that is efficient enough and long lasting enough for a real solution. Mostly there are three reasons there is not a solution on the market yet. First is cost effectiveness. There is not a cost effective hybrid at this point and that does not take in account the life of the batteries and any additional expenses for maintanace of the vehicle. At some point, the savings will be worth amoratizing but if you use $2000 a year in gas and save 50% with a hybrid, it would take at least 5 years to "break even" for the additional costs. There are additional oil supplies that are becoming cost efficient at these prices. The Canadian oil sands will be worth extracting and have less sulpher than typical oil reserves. In fact there is a French based company that has requested a permit to build a nuclear power plant in the region, which currently has less than a 1000 population. The second is politics which is self explanatory. Politicians are not looking for the best solutions. They are looking to course of least resistance. We could change bad laws, that give tax breaks for larger gas guzzling trucks that are used in cities as regular transportation. If we need a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, we could add nuclear power plants. The problem, ask your politicians to agree on where to put a dozen nuclear power plants. It goes to the "not in my back yard" philosophy that has prevented any development in alternative energy. Politicians are not looking beyond the current situations for what may be needed 50 years from now. The third aspect which is most forgotten is physics. Hydrogen is great, except that you need to go against the nature of the element. Hydrogen has an affinity to bond with oxygen. It takes energy to prevent or break the bond, energy to compress the gas for use, etc. Natural gas has supply issues worse than oil. Ethanol is a renewable resource, but it is not energy efficient to produce. The amount of energy used to produce the ethanol makes it a marginal product. This does not take into account any side effects of over planting such as occured with the dust bowl of the 1930's. There were also side effects to engine gaskets in some cars from the use of ethanol in the 1980's. Sounds good, helps farmers, increases the cost of food, and the politicians can say they did something. Methane from waste is one of the best alternative fuels, but has corrosive issues. Until we make a major change to nuclear power, hopefully in developing nuclear fusion that actually creates energy without a major waste problem. We are going to continue on the use of oil until a cost efficient replacement is found. Boycotts are great for changing things that are used by choice, (even a selection of food such as eggs are a choice). But try to boycott the electricty prices by not using it, or gasoline, or water. It does not work because it is so intregral in the industrial society. End of rantings. Lee 66 # 869 69 # 2055
