Alcohol Mixed Gasolone... WHY?!?!

[John Eyles]

I don't know about you, but the thought of sitting on a tank

of hydrogen at 10,000 psi doesn't exactly thrill me.

Gasoline is not exactly a low-risk fuel either.

It's why I prefer propane over natural gas: It liquifies at a
much more reasonable pressure.

True, but propane is also heavier than air, whereas natural gas
(mostly methane) is lighter than air.

This means that if a tank of LNG or hydrogen ruptures, the stuff
will quickly dissipate into the atmosphere. Whereas, if a tank of
propane ruptures, it just sits at ground level and mixes up with
air, until something sets it off.

Hydrogen is lighter than air (much lighter) too.

BTW, many people think that the next major terrorist attack is
likely to involve propane. Piracy is commonplace in the Straits
of Malacca. Apparently pirates are now practicing piloting the
tankers before they escape. The fear is they'll drive a big
propane tanker into a major harbor like Boston, dump all the
propane, and blow it up. It'll be close to a tactical nuke in
destructive power. (Supposedly all other traffic in Boston harbor
is suspended when a propane tanker arrives, because such a thing
happening, accidentally, is such a terrifying scenario).

John

P.S. And guess what, taking Saddam down is probably not likely
to do much to stop this from happening. Badly damaged int'l
relations probably makes it more likely.

 

[Dan Duncan]

Gasoline is not exactly a low-risk fuel either.

It's not stored under extreme pressure, but it is explosive.

Yet another reason I like diesel so much.

True, but propane is also heavier than air, whereas natural gas
(mostly methane) is lighter than air.

I think the pressure difference is worth it. YMMV.

This means that if a tank of LNG or hydrogen ruptures, the stuff
will quickly dissipate into the atmosphere. Whereas, if a tank of
propane ruptures, it just sits at ground level and mixes up with
air, until something sets it off.

Both of which are preferable (to me) over gasoline.

Hydrogen is lighter than air (much lighter) too.

And more explosive than propane or natural gas, and
would probably be contained at a much higher pressure.

BTW, many people think that the next major terrorist attack is
likely to involve propane. Piracy is commonplace in the Straits
of Malacca. Apparently pirates are now practicing piloting the
tankers before they escape. The fear is they'll drive a big
propane tanker into a major harbor like Boston, dump all the
propane, and blow it up. It'll be close to a tactical nuke in
destructive power. (Supposedly all other traffic in Boston harbor
is suspended when a propane tanker arrives, because such a thing
happening, accidentally, is such a terrifying scenario).

Natural gas or hydrogen could be similarly detonated. I heard
on the news this morning that it has become economical to
transport liquid natural gas at high pressure and low temperature
using refrigerated ships, so we'll likely start receiving it
that way. A station is planned or being built in Baja, CA, to
receive these shipments. Good plan. Store the stuff away
from major population centers.

A well-shielded nuke sailed into New York's harbor would
be similarly destructive.

P.S. And guess what, taking Saddam down is probably not likely
to do much to stop this from happening. Badly damaged int'l
relations probably makes it more likely.

Saddam was a big over-comfortable fish in a small pond. He
really didn't have anything to gain and much to lose by striking
out. I never believed he posed any threat to the US whether he
had WMDs or not.

Now he doesn't have anything to lose by striking out.

-DanD

 

[Lance B]

Keep in mind that the ethanol produces Z amount of energy, where X>Z
and gasoline produces W amount of energy where Y<W. You get more energy
out of gasoline than you put into producing, so it's a net gain. Ethanol
is a net loss.


There's a whole lot more pollution produced before the corn ever gets
there. Tractors, trucks, pumps... The math just doesn't work out.


The final product burns more cleanly, but the process from end to
end does not.

As to the price, it's heavily subsidized by tax money. The rest of
us are chipping in a little on every tank.

-DanD

The reason for using ethanol is that there is supposed to be a zero
effect on the enviroment as the co2 made when the ethanol is burnt is
reabsorbed by the plants that they use to produce it, whereas burning
oil is just producing co2. This is why there has been a push to plant
more trees so as to absorb some of the co2 emissions that we produce.

As to how this actually works in practise is anybodys guess. It sounds
nice in theory so if it does help a little in reducing co2 emissions
then it could be good.

 

[John Eyles]

Hydrogen is lighter than air (much lighter) too.

And more explosive than propane or natural gas ...

Are you sure about that ? You get a mixture of propane
and natural gas with the right amount of air, and it
doesn't take much to set it off.

Natural gas or hydrogen could be similarly detonated.

I don't think so. Because of their light weight, they
will quickly drift harmlessly into the upper atmosphere,
unless the detonation is well-timed. With the propane,
just let it sit there - something WILL set it off soon
enough.

Actually, the reason propane is so bad is that its
heavier-than-airness allows it to dissipate over a
very wide area (without floating up and away) and so
do more extensive damage when it goes off. Even if a
hydrogen or natural-gas explosion was timed to go off
before it drifts away, it wouldn't be able to spread
out that far.

Yep, seems to me LPG is FAR more dangerous as a terrorist
weapon than is LNG or H. Yikes, this is spooky. Hopefully
we've pulled a few resources away from invading soveriegn
states that haven't attacked anyone recently so that they
can think about stuff like this ...

A well-shielded nuke sailed into New York's harbor would
be similarly destructive.

Yeah, but a wee bit harder to come by than a tanker full of
LPG !

John

 

[Mark Jones]

Good point. But power plants are also a HELL of a lot
more efficient than internal combustion engines, for
obvious economic reasons.

So it doesn't just reduce the emissions at the place of
use (where the car is), but overall as well.

You are correct. Now if they can just figure out how
to make a high performance zero emissions vehicle.

 

[de la rosa]

Yes, you do. You'll need everyone's good will. Alienating other
cultures with your collective superiority complex will see you
ending up sacrificing your family on the altar of your

Boy, I remember how much we needed the French good will back
during the late 1930s - early 40s, huh? If it hadn't been for De Gaulle,
well, ......... (fill in the blank)

public. So, "WMD!" was the war cry. Most countries, and the UN
weapons inspectors didn't believe there were any. The US went to
war anyway. And, it turns out, there aren't any. Hence we have a

BS. There was, there still is. Your side simply demands that proof
take the form of our troops "interrupting an actual production facility"...

costs mounting, the US tax payers get what they deserve by
supporting (or not stopping) their administration going to war.

I hope so. I think we deserve to see large numbers of terrorist
training camps closed for repairs and a lot of dictators who are
no longer willing to support, board, house and train those types.

Cheers
Steffen.

That's right. Be happy!

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

Most plants give off co2 at night and when decomposing.(whether they're
digested or burned or composted).

Most 'enviros' only seem to want to discuss limiting human behavior to
attempt to alter some perceived risk/trend the planet is experiencing.
But there may be some remedial actions worthwhile if we want to affect
the planet. One involved dumping iron filings in the north Pacific to
create algae blooms to absorb co2. Another involved deploying a solar
shage in geosync orbit above the pacific to reduce heat absorption.

some things we know, 99% of all species became extinct before man got
here, there were many ocean inundations and ice ages before man got
here, and there probably will be after we move out to the stars where we
belong.

Carl
1 Lucky Texan

 

[WRXtreme]

Keep in mind that the ethanol produces Z amount of energy, where X>Z
and gasoline produces W amount of energy where Y<W. You get more energy
out of gasoline than you put into producing, so it's a net gain. Ethanol
is a net loss.
plants.

There's a whole lot more pollution produced before the corn ever gets
there. Tractors, trucks, pumps... The math just doesn't work out.

I know, I grew up on a grain and corn farm. There is a lot that goes into
bringing crude oil over here as well (Tanker ships, Tractor/Trailer rigs,
and the overall processing),

The final product burns more cleanly, but the process from end to
end does not.

As to the price, it's heavily subsidized by tax money. The rest of
us are chipping in a little on every tank.

-DanD

I agree with what you have stated. I also believe that in time the refining
process will be brought to be more efficient. Another thing to consider is
that the "by-product" of ethanol can be fed to cattle so therefore it does
help in recouping some of the losses involved. Gasoline production wasn't
nearly as efficient 50 years ago as it is today, corn based ethanol will
become more efficient in time as technology advances and yes it will take
some subsidizing to get it there, otherwise there would be no way for
ethanol plants to compete with big oil companies. I don't like it either
and I don't think ethanol is the "save-all" that environmentalists seem to
think it is, but it is a step towards an alternate fuel, maybe a small step
but a step none the less.

 

[Dominic Richens]

Solar power is fine, but if you run the numbers, you'll see that
we will have to pave over the state of Arizona to collect enough
power to make a sizable dent in our consumption.

Arizona, sure, I'll second that!

 

[Edward Hayes]

Lets do it

Arizona, sure, I'll second that!

 

[Catherine Hampton]

I assume you've never experienced wind chill factors that are about negative
100 F. EVERYTHING freezes during these times.

Uh.... Wind chill factor affects only warm-blooded animals, like human
beings. It has no effect whatsoever on inanimate objects or substances, like
gasoline -- the correct temperature to look at is the actual outside
temperature.



--
Catherine Hampton <(e-mail address removed)>
Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>

(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)