 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / April 2005Diesel vs. Gasoline - why one preferred over another??
Know nothing of cars (electrical person) - used public transportation all my life. Why is that 95% of passenger cars in the US are gasoline, yet diesel used in much of Europe? I read somewhere diesel is more efficient, plus unlike gas engine even UNMODIFIED diesel unit can run on "biofuels" (filtered cooking, etc. natural oils), so why diesel not dominating the market? I thought it's even cheaper? However, my primary question is: Is it true Diesel engine causes a much worse pollution, especiall;y carcerogenic (CANCER-causing) exhaust?? If so that would answer questions above. But again I thought new diesels burn as clean as gasoline? I wouldn't bother with all this, if it wasn't for the growing interest in biofuels and several people said "cooking oil", etc. works ONLY in diesel engines, it will NOT run in gasoline - dont even try. Thanks for your time, I might answer your electrical questions in the future, who knows... so it's not a waste of your time. >Why is that 95% of passenger cars in the US are gasoline, yet diesel used in >much of Europe? I read somewhere diesel is more efficient, plus unlike gas >engine even UNMODIFIED diesel unit can run on "biofuels" (filtered cooking, >etc. natural oils), so why diesel not dominating the market? Because General Motors did such a bad job with their Oldsmobile diesel in the early '80s. They slapped a diesel injection system into a 5.7 L gasoline engine. It was so miserably unreliable that it soured the US consumer on "diesel" power. > I thought it's even cheaper? Latest prices I've seen posted have diesel about 10-15 cents more than gasoline, for a US gallon. >However, my primary question is: >Is it true Diesel engine causes a much worse pollution, especiall;y >carcerogenic (CANCER-causing) exhaust?? If so that would answer questions >above. But again I thought new diesels burn as clean as gasoline? Even cleaner, in some cases. The idea that diesels are "smoky," "dirty," etc. is perpetuated by some who continue to operate engines that are in need of repairs, or those which have been maladjusted in an attempt to produce more power. In addition, there's more energy stored in a specific volume of diesel than in the same volume of gasoline. Treated properly, diesel-powered vehicles are more efficient and economical to operate. >I wouldn't bother with all this, if it wasn't for the growing interest in >biofuels and several people said "cooking oil", etc. works ONLY in diesel >engines, it will NOT run in gasoline - dont even try. > >Thanks for your time, I might answer your electrical questions in the >future, who knows... so it's not a waste of your time. I HOPE TO SEE MORE/ALTERNATIVE RESPONSES TO MY POSTING, APPRECIATE ALL. Thanks for input. Your response runs in contradiction to my expectation (e.g. 100% of all Googled search hits for "diesel pollution" show muich higher 100 to 200x more pollution than gasoline!! esp. carcirogenic partciles - whether old/needing repair or new engine, diesel is labeled "bad" for health everywhere. But thanks - it shows I needed more "research", I dont know what to make of it. Maybe buy a used diesel and start playing with biofuels - biofuel is the only reason I suddenly became interested in diesel. As of prices, probably a vicious circle: lack of diesel consumers makes it costly to add diesel service at regular US stations, or I might be wrong - thought Europeans were using it exactly for that lower prices reason, NOTE: cost per mile driven, not per gallon. I HOPE TO SEE MORE/ALTERNATIVE RESPONSES TO MY POSTING, APPRECIATE ALL. Diesels of the early '80's were indeed loud, sluggish, and stinky. Add into this the fact that finding fuel was and still is difficult and you can see why they are not very popular. Diesels of recent vintage are whole new monster getting more power and torque and being smooth and quiet. NOT the same thing most Americans have pop into mind when they think of diesel powered cars. I recently watched a TV program where they took a turbo diesel Ford and had it doing a burnout that would make any muscle car run for cover. >Diesels of the early '80's were indeed loud, sluggish, and stinky. Add >into this the fact that finding fuel was and still is difficult and you >can see why they are not very popular. Although you are correct about the '80's diesels, I'm unaware of any problems finding fuel. I have a friend that travels extensively throughout the U.S. and Canada,and has never had the slightest problem finding diesel fuel. > >Diesels of the early '80's were indeed loud, sluggish, and stinky. Add > >into this the fact that finding fuel was and still is difficult and you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > throughout the U.S. and Canada,and has never had the slightest problem > finding diesel fuel. Of course one finds where to refuel at home. However - I recall being on the road with my dad looking for some place to refuel his Mercedes 300D-Turbo. You're rarely too far away, but it might take driving around until you find it at the 3rd or 4th gas station. >Of course one finds where to refuel at home. However - I recall >being on the road with my dad looking for some place to refuel his >Mercedes 300D-Turbo. You're rarely too far away, but it might >take driving around until you find it at the 3rd or 4th gas >station. Out on the road, refueling a diesel car is easy, since there are truck stops. Unfamiliar urban areas are the places where it is hardest to find a diesel pump.  Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. > >Of course one finds where to refuel at home. However - I recall > >being on the road with my dad looking for some place to refuel his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > truck stops. Unfamiliar urban areas are the places where it is > hardest to find a diesel pump. Exactly. What was really curious was the "marbles in a coffee can" sound the engine made at near idle. Our neighbor also owned a 1984 Mercedes-Benz 300D-Turbo, and my dog would start jumping at that distinctive sound, even it was the neighbor's car. That was a well-built car, although the MB-Tex vinyl seats were among the worst I've ever sat on. The were borderline OK in the front seats, but as a kid I had to sit in the rear middle back on one particular long trip. It's a solid hump with no contouring or soft padding, and a wooden bench would have been preferable. > Diesels of the early '80's were indeed loud, sluggish, and stinky. Add > into this the fact that finding fuel was and still is difficult and you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > torque and being smooth and quiet. NOT the same thing most Americans > have pop into mind when they think of diesel powered cars. Diesels have made an incredible amount of progress, but they're STILL loud, and stinky compared to gasoline engines. About the most user-friendly small diesel on the American market right now is the VW TDI, and yes it still stinks like a diesel (although it rarely emits visible exhaust) and sounds like steel shot being shaken in a coffee can. LESS so than a 1970 Mercedes, but not nearly as quiet as a gasoline v6. Diesels have caught on big-time in the US light truck market, thanks 99% to the Dodge/Cummins pairing that subsequently pushed Ford to come out with a decent turbo/intercooled diesel with Navistar International in the form of the Powerstroke. The current Dodge/Cummins diesel is in many ways more remarkable than the VW TDI, because it manages to produce 325 horsepower and 610 foot-lb of torque while not being much louder than the TDI, thanks to staged fuel injection, and virtually never emitting visible smoke. Its clear exhaust gas still SMELLS like a Diesel, though. > Its clear exhaust gas still SMELLS like a Diesel, though. Wouldn't that have more to do with the higher-sulfur diesel fuel sold in the US? I know the amount of sulfur has gone down in recent years though. >>Its clear exhaust gas still SMELLS like a Diesel, though. > > Wouldn't that have more to do with the higher-sulfur diesel fuel > sold in the US? I know the amount of sulfur has gone down in > recent years though. Possible, but doubtful. Its not a sulfurous smell at all. I guess we'll find out when we start getting low-sulfur fuel similar to what Europe gets now. >>> Its clear exhaust gas still SMELLS like a Diesel, though. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > find out when we start getting low-sulfur fuel similar to what Europe > gets now. There are many different sulphur compounds possible in an engine exhaust. Each smells different. Most people associate a "sulphur smell" with hydrogen sulfide. However, there are many sulphur compounds in exhausts that smell nothing like H2S. >>>> Its clear exhaust gas still SMELLS like a Diesel, though. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > smell" with hydrogen sulfide. However, there are many sulphur compounds > in exhausts that smell nothing like H2S. Like I said, we'll see when true low-sulfur fuel gets widespread here. I personally think it'll still smell the same- yes there are different sulfur compounds, but the vast majority of them do have a recognizable sulfuroous smell. For example, its perfectly easy to tell sulfur dioxide from hydrogen sulphide, but the smells are similar enough to both be recognizable as sulphur compounds. >>Why is that 95% of passenger cars in the US are gasoline, yet diesel used in >>much of Europe? I read somewhere diesel is more efficient, plus unlike gas >>engine even UNMODIFIED diesel unit can run on "biofuels" (filtered cooking, >>etc. natural oils), so why diesel not dominating the market? > Because General Motors did such a bad job with their >Oldsmobile diesel in the early '80s. They slapped a diesel injection >system into a 5.7 L gasoline engine. It was so miserably unreliable >that it soured the US consumer on "diesel" power. No, it's because diesels are slow to accelerate, start to start, stink, are harder to find fuel for, and noisy. They're great if you want to haul a massive load, but are mediocre at best for day to day driving. "Hard to find fuel for" is not an argument, as I said it's a vicious circle: no diesel consumers ->no diesel suppliers->no diesel consumers, it's easy to break. But the rest is somewhat OK inline with my thoughts especially 'stink" part. WHat you call stink is indeed 100-200x more pollution than gasoline, but the other guy response is also valuable, I appreciate all because unlike you I am a car nut. I was born in a counry of excellent public transport and very very expensive cars so until last October NEVER been behind the wheel, so asking stupid diesel questions... It seems however US trucks/fleet vehicles, etc. non-personal vehicles are using diesel extensively, it's that passenger cars normnal people buy are almost never diesel in the US but very common in Europe and is the reason i asked this question thinkiong of biofuiels that someone said only work in DIESEL (so I cant use in my Nissan Sentra). > >>Why is that 95% of passenger cars in the US are gasoline, yet diesel used in > >>much of Europe? I read somewhere diesel is more efficient, plus unlike gas [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > They're great if you want to haul a massive load, but are mediocre at best for > day to day driving. You have obviously not driven a contemporary european diesel. I have a 2001 Audi A6 2.5 tdi V6 quattro automatic, 180 bhp, and it is quicker than many gasoline engines of the same vintage. They can now be had with a 2.7 liter V6, 180 bph, or a 3 liter V6, 225 bhp. The 180 hp does 0-100 kph (0-60 mph) in 8.3 seconds, and the 225 one does it in 7.3, which is not bad for a car weighing almost two tons. The A8 can be had with a 4 liter disel V8, 275 bhp, does 0-100 kph in 6.7 seconds. The BMW 535d (3.0 liter) is 272 bhp, does 0-100 in 6.5 seconds. The VW Golf GTI could be had with either a gas or diesel engine a few years back, both were 150 bhp, and every test I read recommended the diesel as it was by far the quickest of them. Current diesels have cat converters and exhaust filters making them cleaner than gas engines. Diesels are quickly becoming the prefered type in Europe. Even Jaguar and Alfa Romeo now has diesels. Take one for a test, you'll be surprised. Thomas > No, it's because diesels are slow to accelerate, start to start, stink, are > harder to find fuel for, and noisy. > > They're great if you want to haul a massive load, but are mediocre at best for > day to day driving. Acceleration is purely a horsepower to weight thing. Put a powerful enough diesel in a light car, no problem with acceleration. Diesels ran at Indy, you know. The stink can be removed with emissions controls and cleaner diesel fuel. The reason they are used for massive loads is that is a commercial need, where efficiency affects the bottom line of the business. If gasoline were cheap enough compared to diesel fuel, it is certainly possible to build large gasoline diesels. Aircraft engines were built with over 4000 horsepower. >The reason they are used for massive loads is that is a commercial need, >where efficiency affects the bottom line of the business. If gasoline >were cheap enough compared to diesel fuel, it is certainly possible to >build large gasoline diesels. Aircraft engines were built with over >4000 horsepower. People flying aircraft don't mind having to wait for warmup. Most of the time is spent operating at a constant load where diesels excel. Tell us about indy car drivers using diesels. I've love to hear about that. > >The reason they are used for massive loads is that is a commercial need, > >where efficiency affects the bottom line of the business. If gasoline [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tell us about indy car drivers using diesels. I've love to hear about that. Here's a link pertaining to diesels at Indy. http://beta.motorsportsforum.com/ris01/legends.htm FRED AGABASHIAN Enshrined 1992 Agabashian was one of the winningest drivers during the postwar boom years of West Coast Midget racing. He began racing in 1936, winning an AAA Midget championship, was the Bay Cities Racing Association champion in 1947, ’48 and ’49, and also won the 1948 Aztec Championship, a special 15-race series between BCRA and Mexican drivers. During his run of championships he won between 27 and 56 races a year in seasons that often stretched to 150 nights against contemporaries that included Bill Vukovich, Johnnie Parsons and Bob Sweikert. He made 11 Indy appearances, and in 1952 became the only driver to qualify a diesel-powered machine on the pole (at 138.010 mph). After retiring as a driver, he became a spokesman for Champion Spark Plugs and was on the radio broadcast crew for the Indy 500 for many years. And a link about performance diesels in general. http://www.bankspower.com/Tech_dieselperf.cfm The Banks Sidewinder is the world's fastest pickup. http://www.bankspower.com/sidewinder.cfm Ken >Here's a link pertaining to diesels at Indy. Got anything newer than 1952? > >Here's a link pertaining to diesels at Indy. > > Got anything newer than 1952? Google it. >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:50:21 -0400, Napalm Heart ><olsonfam@iserv.net> wrote: >> >> >Here's a link pertaining to diesels at Indy. >> >> Got anything newer than 1952? >Google it. In other words, no. >>>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:50:21 -0400, Napalm Heart >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In other words, no. There is an autobiography by Clessie Cummins. I forget the name, but search by author. It is his career in the Diesel industry, and he has quite a bit about the efforts at Indy. The book is a good read for the other stuff too, although it is strictly one man's view, and Cummins was no shrinking violet. >>The reason they are used for massive loads is that is a commercial need, >>where efficiency affects the bottom line of the business. If gasoline [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tell us about indy car drivers using diesels. I've love to hear about that. There HAVE been aircraft powered by Diesel engines. I think it was Jumo that did the German ones that powered Dornier flying boats. In the US Packard built them. But the sparkplug of the operation was killed in a crash and the rest of Packard management didn't continue development. One major problem- the Diesel fumes made pilots ill. These were the fumes from the fuel itself, not the exhaust. The Indy cars were sponsored by Cummins. They ran twice- once pre-war and once postwar. The post-war car, driven by Freddie Agabashian, was a highlight! It captured the pole. However, while fast it was heavy, and ended up going through tires way to fast, and didn't place well because of number of pit stops. While Cummins continued to enter cars, subsequent ones were conventional si engines. >>>The reason they are used for massive loads is that is a commercial need, >>>where efficiency affects the bottom line of the business. If gasoline [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Tell us about indy car drivers using diesels. I've love to hear about that. >There HAVE been aircraft powered by Diesel engines. I think it was Jumo >that did the German ones that powered Dornier flying boats. In the US So f.cking what? We also have aircraft carriers using diesels, and semi's. Neither are even slightly like a passenger car. > Know nothing of cars (electrical person) - used public transportation all my > life. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Thanks for your time, I might answer your electrical questions in the > future, who knows... so it's not a waste of your time. Been to a European city lately? Diesel fumes and oil slime cover everything. No, heard from others on related Newsgroups. Born/raised in Europe (Russia) 1972-1992, but never been to Europe since 1992 (and dont want to... liberals, except UK or Italy) and Russia circa 1980's didn't have too many cars anyway, we were all riding trains/busses... subway (Metro) of St Petersburg and Moscow is world-famous. I started driving only here in the states, and my thing makes 40+mpg after relieving it of unnecessary weight (2004 Nissan Sentra, unladen, even one seat & spare tire removed) exactly, what I found on the Web on diesel higher pollution than that of gasoline, already turned off any desire to experiement with it even if running on cooking oil could be as clean as gasoline or in fact CLEANER, but first you need money to experiement with all this, dont think after reading your responses and 'stinky" part of diesel. "Been to a European city lately? Diesel fumes and oil slime cover everything. " Really???? I've been to numerous european cities including London, Bath, Canterbury, Vienna, Salzburg, Verona, Rome, Venice, Padova within the last 5 years and didn't notice omnipresent diesel fumes or oil slime covering everything. "wouldn't bother with all this, if it wasn't for the growing interest in biofuels and several people said "cooking oil", etc. works ONLY in diesel engines, it will NOT run in gasoline - dont even try." Biodiesel is made from converted cooking oils and it will run just fine in a diesel engine. It is not cheap however, because the cost of collection, cleaning, refining and distribution all add to the price. It is not possible to take cooking oil from the restaurant directly into your car. > Know nothing of cars (electrical person) - used public transportation all my > life. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Thanks for your time, I might answer your electrical questions in the > future, who knows... so it's not a waste of your time. Diesels ARE more efficient for a couple of reasons. They DO emit undesireable emissions. However, most of these can be eliminated by design or by emission control devices (also improved [low sulphur] fuel). Gasoline can be made from bio-products. It is just a bit harder to make. Ethanol and methanol are both bio-fuels. My concern about the later two fuels is the energy efficiency of making them. If carbon-based fuels are used to make them (and they take a lot of energy to make) the result is likely to be worse emissions of greenhouse gases. Until we can make ethanol or methanol without significant greenhouse gases, I don't see it as a great solution. I'd rather see effort put towards an efficient source of hydrogen. Thanks, except one thing: methanol is NOT acceptable. I am not in a business of racing to hell, methanol destroys regular/consumer engines, my onwership style is a direct opposite - dont have spare cash to abuse my car so methanol is out and ruled out in Nissan Sentra manual. It's corrosive. Pure ethanol i salso not an option but 10-15% additive is defacto standard additive at ALL gas stations I ever used here in NewYork/NewJersey, it's a given fact. SO thiese both are nopt a solution and dont come to my mind when referring to biofuiels. Biofuel is something dirt cheap (e.g. used cooking oil), nontoxic and homemade, ethanol is alcohol, if it were so simple we'd seen hordes of people drving aroung on alcohol, it's too aggressive for fuel lines. > Thanks, except one thing: methanol is NOT acceptable. I am not in a > business of racing to hell, methanol destroys regular/consumer engines, my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > simple we'd seen hordes of people drving aroung on alcohol, it's too > aggressive for fuel lines. But it IS possible to make fuel systems that can use methanol. Thousands of race cars around the country do. Yes, you cannot use it in existing engines, but you can't use E85 with existing engines either without some changes. Ditto hydrogen. We should make cars for almost ANY alternate fuel specific for that fuel. I am in the fix of a state intending to move to 20% ethanol. Even it it WILL work in cars, mfgs will void warranty. I can't afford to buy a new car that does not have a warranty, so I am opposed to this move until Detroit says it is okay. Yet my one car has almost 90,000, the other 110,000 miles, so I will be needing new cars soon. >I am in the fix of a state intending to move to 20% ethanol. Even it it >WILL work in cars, mfgs will void warranty. I can't afford to buy a new >car that does not have a warranty, so I am opposed to this move until >Detroit says it is okay. Yet my one car has almost 90,000, the other >110,000 miles, so I will be needing new cars soon. Biggest problem with ethanol is the fact it only has about half the energy of gasoline by volume. 20% equals 10% worse fuel mileage. They should title legislation requiring ethanol to be added to gas the "Corn Farmers Endowment Act" 'cause that's the group who really benefit. Regards, Al. >>I am in the fix of a state intending to move to 20% ethanol. Even it it >>WILL work in cars, mfgs will void warranty. I can't afford to buy a new [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Regards, Al. Anyone know how many BTUs it takes to make a gallon of ethanol? I guess I could assume that fermentation creates about 5% alcohol, so one would need to start with about 20 gallons of alcohol and water, and raise those 20 to BP. But sure would like to have a better figure. Methanol corrodes regular fuel lines and I dont own/dont plan to buy a Ferrari or racing cars to kill in a year or so, every car I woned-every manuals warned against methanol, ethanol is already present in most US gas puimps any way - to act as oxygenate to reduce pollution, also supposedly add horsepower but very little. Oh Hydrogen: I WAS THE ONE WHO RAISED HYDROGEN SUBJECT REPEATEDLY HERE AND ALL OTHER AUTO NEWSGROUPS, MANY RIDICULED ME, I FIRED BACK AND WAS RIDICULED EVEN MORE, NOW I SEE YOU MENTION IT. SO I AM NOT ALONE. GM/EXXON WILL BUILD MULTIPLE HYDROGEN REFUELING STTAIONS HERE IN NY LATER THIS YEAR, CA, MI, FL HAVE THEM AND GROWING FLEET OF FORDS/GM VEHCILES RUN ON THIS MOST ABUNDANT FUEL ON EARTH AND IN UNIVERSE!!! Hydriogen is the basic most abandunt element of the universe, i dont want to get into physics but take as a fact. The first non-quark partcile since creation was probably electron and proton, hydrogen is nothing but that (single proton+electron) > Oh Hydrogen: > I WAS THE ONE WHO RAISED HYDROGEN SUBJECT REPEATEDLY HERE AND ALL OTHER AUTO [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > creation was probably electron and proton, hydrogen is nothing but that > (single proton+electron) I am also a supporter of hydrogen, but believe the R & D should go into SOURCES of hydrogen, not in cars using it. The later is an easy problem. We can do that quickly, IF we have a viable source of hydrogen. > I am also a supporter of hydrogen, but believe the R & D should go > into SOURCES of hydrogen, not in cars using it. The later is an easy > problem. We can do that quickly, IF we have a viable source of > hydrogen. According to the Cato Institute's Donald Anthrop, it takes 140kW-hours of energy to get 17.4kW-hours of power from a hydrogen fuel cell. It's a bit like turning a dollar into a dime and figuring you're getting richer that way. And Jon Hykawy, a director of technology research at Fraser Mackenzie Ltd., says this: "Power from internal combustion costs $100 to $200 per kilowatt. Today's hydrogen fuel cells cost about $2,000 per kilowatt of power produced. If we need 40kW of power in a small car, $80,000 for the power plant seems expensive. "The cost of fuel cells is strongly tied to the platimum catalysts needed to make the reactions in the cell occur at useful rates. Cutting costs means significantly reducing the use of platinum, but doing so to the required level without sacrificing the reaction rate will likely win the lucky researcher a Nobel Prize." Hydrogen ain't happening any time soon. But if it's forced into happening, we'll all be turning our dollars into dimes for the privilege. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >> Oh Hydrogen: >> I WAS THE ONE WHO RAISED HYDROGEN SUBJECT REPEATEDLY HERE AND ALL OTHER AUTO [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >SOURCES of hydrogen, not in cars using it. The later is an easy >problem. We can do that quickly, IF we have a viable source of hydrogen. There are no sources of hydrogen; it isn't something you're going to mine. It can be made from other petrolium products, but it is much much more efficient to use those petrolium products directly. Making hydrogen from electricity is a complete joke. You're lucky to see 10% efficiency by the time you're done. >>>Oh Hydrogen: >>>I WAS THE ONE WHO RAISED HYDROGEN SUBJECT REPEATEDLY HERE AND ALL OTHER AUTO [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to use those petrolium products directly. Making hydrogen from electricity is > a complete joke. You're lucky to see 10% efficiency by the time you're done. Actually, there ARE sources of extracting hydrogen from other materials, but no process that I consider practical at this time. Methane(natural gas) is the most common source today, I believe. But hydrogen can be made from coal and water, though I believe the amount of CO2 liberated is a bad deal. There is an effort to engineer bacteria to manufacture hydrogen as a byproduct instead of methane. That sure seems like a good deal, but even if it works, it will take development. This sort of thing is why I'd like to see R & D funding for alternate fuels increased. > Know nothing of cars (electrical person) - used public transportation all > my life. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cooking, etc. natural oils), so why diesel not dominating the market? I > thought it's even cheaper? From what I've understood, one reason may be that the crude oil which the US gets is higher in sulphur content, and that makes a worse diesel fuel. Europe gets much of it's crude from the middle east, and it's lower in sulphur and consequently emissions. We get much of the oil from same MiddleEastern sources, except cheaper because US was first to get into long-term projects/contracts and we have a higher trade volume with e.g. Saudis than whole of Europe, so I dont know where you got this idea we pump oil from another source? Yes we get some from SOuth America (Venezuela, Mexico, etc) but Europe also gets some from non-middleeastern sources: Nigeria and my country Russia. Russians supply much of natural gas for Europe, by the way > Know nothing of cars (electrical person) - used public transportation all my > life. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Thanks for your time, I might answer your electrical questions in the > future, who knows... so it's not a waste of your time. Both Diesel AND alcohol exhausts have aromatics in them. Some aromatics can be carcinogenic, but I have read mixed comments on whether these specific ones are, at least in reasonable quantities. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.