stuckincincy Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Not if each vehicle was burning E85, but you are right with the current formula. Question does that efficiency issue apply to MTBE? 671404[/snapback] MTBE - methyl tert-butyl ether has its problems. As fuel additives go, it has a useful energy content, but its combustion products are aldehydes - not a common tailpipe emission, and has some alleged health repercussions. It is a relatively stable molecule and as it turned out, the inevitable spillage and underground tank leakage proved what chemists knew for a long time - its groundwater persistance. It does reduce HC emissions from an IC engine, though. Its champion was then-VP Al Gore, owner of zinc mines that get in occassional trouble for RCRA pollution violations, worker health issues, and beneficiary of the family's large holdings in Occidental Petroleum, and son of famous Democrat Al Gore Sr. - notable for his leadership in opposition of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I'm not sure if Al was involved in the quid pro quo with James Riady, owner of the Lippo Group in Indonesia, the declaring off-limits of U.S. low-sulfur coal reserves in Utah etc. - Lippo having huge reserves of that desireable product. After all, there were Buddist monks forking over $10,000 checks to occupy Al, and of course, as he said about the whole issue of foreign contributions, there was no "controlling legal authority". Who exactly runs that big California seaport, these days? And the Clinton Administration's approval of the mergers of Exxon and Mobil, BP and Sohio, Texaco and Conoco and so forth, had to occur; the rise of Enron, the 29 federal contracts awarded to Kenny Lay et al, well, that just had to happen - the geometric rise in trade deficit from 1993 on - well, the focus-group model of leadership demanded that!!! Who wanted Presidential teardrops; quivering lip biting. So sad to see... By the way - another shoe is going to drop - July, I think - low sulfur diesel fuel mandates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I have not participated in a partisan discussion here, but want to rant a bit and add to AD's points. If the Democrat's are truly in favor of moving towards energy independence, can they get Edward Kennedy also to play ball ? The Cape Cod wind farm project aims to install windmills off Nantucket Sound - a project that will reduce energy generated from fossil fuels. The only reason this idiot is leading the opposition to this project is because that farm will be an eyesore as it will be visible from their family compound. I just cannot believe these hypocritical attitude of politicians such as Senator Kennedy. Sure, go for alternative energy but let it be an eyesore for anybody but themselves. Who cares about the aesthetic needs of the average American when it suits their purpose to endorse 'green' reforms ? Bloody idiots ! 670892[/snapback] Great example of the hypocrisy of our "leaders". But Kennedy is hardly the only scumbag opposing this plan. John Warner is another Senator putting his vacation home view ahead of the national energy problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 By the way - another shoe is going to drop - July, I think - low sulfur diesel fuel mandates. 672983[/snapback] You actually mean Ultra low sulfur diesel for on-road consumption. On road has been low in sulfur for a while but ULSD drops the limit down to 15 ppm which will be by Sept 1 in California and Oct 15 for the rest of the country. As you probably know, the less the output sulfur required, the harder it gets to take it out during processing. Logistical challenge for ULSD is that when diesel is transported by pipes, it will pick up old deposited sulfur and what comes out at the back end will most certainly be much higher than what went in at the refinery. I think the industry is going by making 8 ppm at the refinery to get 15 ppm at the retail outlets ! Huge investments have gone into meeting this mandate. It is good for the environment no doubt, but the public must be made aware of the level of spending that big bad oil does for meeting the specs. I think the biggest mistake the oil industry did over the years is not devoting adequate attention and effort to public relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 You aren't gonna like this approach, but we do have liberties... My happiness isn't your happiness... You sound like a tree-hugger. If somebody wants to guzzle gas let them... You aren't advocating controlling them?... Just let them pay the price... Everybody has their own threshold. I have said before... I won't start sweating it till gas tops 6 bucks a gallon... Then I will change my habits... I at least have so much lattitude to give and cut budget wise IF I CHOOSE to ENJOY these types of things... If you can't afford to do it all, then make choices on where you spend it... In the tank or some other activity you like... 670182[/snapback] I agree. But those who saddle themselves with huge gas guzzlers shouldn't be crying about high gas prices either. You (in general, not YOU specifically EiI) can't have it both ways. I drive a fuel efficient car becuase I don't like spending more money than I have to to get to work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 I agree. But those who saddle themselves with huge gas guzzlers shouldn't be crying about high gas prices either. You (in general, not YOU specifically EiI) can't have it both ways. I drive a fuel efficient car becuase I don't like spending more money than I have to to get to work... 673358[/snapback] And that is your choice... A good choice for YOU... There has to be a threshold with the price of gas... Can't be to insanely low... It would be like people in society not having to earn a buck... Things get out of whack and consumption goes through the roof... Have people make choices... Choices on what vehicle, where to work, how far to commute, etc... etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts