 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / May 2008E85 and Butanol
I have what I guess is a two part question: What physical/electrical differences are there in typical 2007 cars between those that can use E85 and not? Secondly, with what I've been reading, Butanol is a less expensive alternative to gasoline on a gallon for gallon basis. Assuming a person had access to this stuff, would it hurt the running of a modern American car? | I have what I guess is a two part question: What physical/electrical | differences are there in typical 2007 cars between those that can use | E85 and not? Secondly, with what I've been reading, Butanol is a less | expensive alternative to gasoline on a gallon for gallon basis. | Assuming a person had access to this stuff, would it hurt the running | of a modern American car? Butanol Vs. Ethanol search produced this from Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobutanol It looks like the main case against it is that it jells and freezes at room temperature. Heated gas tanks anyone?  SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > > Butanol Vs. Ethanol search produced this from Wikipedia- > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobutanol It looks like the main case > against it is that it jells and freezes at room temperature. Heated gas > tanks anyone? I dont see any indication that butanol would gel and it damn sure does not freeze at room temperature.. The melting (freezing) point is some minus 90 degrees Celsius. It mixes better with gasoline than either methanol or ethanol. It has an energy content some 50% higher than ethanol, and just a little short of gasoline. It is currently made from PETROLEUM, more than anything else. Yes, it could be made from other sources, but traditionally has only been commercially made from butene petroleum fragments. | "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > | > Butanol Vs. Ethanol search produced this from Wikipedia- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | not freeze at room temperature.. The melting (freezing) point is some | minus 90 degrees Celsius. From the article- Octane rating The octane rating of n-butanol is similar to that of gasoline but lower than that of ethanol and methanol. n-Butanol has a RON (Research Octane number) of 96 and a MON (Motor octane number) of 78 while t-butanol has octane ratings of 105 RON and 89 MON.[9] t-Butanol is used as an additive in gasoline but cannot be used as a fuel in its pure form because its relatively high melting point of 25.5 °C causes it to gel and freeze near room temperature. | It mixes better with gasoline than either methanol or ethanol. | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | commercially | made from butene petroleum fragments. So why not go with something we have plenty of at present? Natural gas. CNG looks better to me than Ethanol, Methanol or Butanol. SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > So why not go with something we have plenty of at present? Natural gas. > CNG looks better to me than Ethanol, Methanol or Butanol. Because we dont have plenty of natural gas. That is a commonly perceived fallacy. My previous company measured this every season by storage recharge rates.. It ISNT there. We produce enough, barely, to keep functioning, but we are no longer rich in natural gas. Why do you think we are receiving shiploads of liquified natural gas in our major ports? WE DONT HAVE IT DOMESTICALLY.. In my part of the woods, there has been a very recent boom in natural gas drilling and production. These trends have not been profitable before, nor has the technology been in place to produce them adequately. Now they are profitable, but -still - this is just peeing in the wind. We are in deep trouble at the moment with regard to fossil fuel energy. > I have what I guess is a two part question: What physical/electrical > differences are there in typical 2007 cars between those that can use > E85 and not? Secondly, with what I've been reading, Butanol is a less > expensive alternative to gasoline on a gallon for gallon basis. > Assuming a person had access to this stuff, would it hurt the running > of a modern American car? 1. The main difference is that the E85 car can burn with a richer mixture than a gasoline car. I converted my 1999 miniwagon to flex- fuel by inserting a small control box into the electrical feed to the fuel injectors; it stretches the pulse length so as to admit more fuel per stroke. I can run any combination of gasoline and ethanol and burn it efficiently, since the ECU senses the exhaust and adjusts the pulse length. 2. I don't know of any source of butanol, but my E85 is currently very near $3/gal, while regular gas is very near $4/gal. I sacrifice 15% in mpg, but that still leaves me better off by 13% in miles/dollar. And the car runs better to boot. How about the corrosive effect of e85 on every component in the fuel system? On May 21, 8:13 am, Ted <the_busmas...@msn.com> wrote: > I have what I guess is a two part question: What physical/electrical > differences are there in typical 2007 cars between those that can use > E85 and not? Secondly, with what I've been reading, Butanol is a less > expensive alternative to gasoline on a gallon for gallon basis. > Assuming a person had access to this stuff, would it hurt the running > of a modern American car? 1. The main difference is that the E85 car can burn with a richer mixture than a gasoline car. I converted my 1999 miniwagon to flex- fuel by inserting a small control box into the electrical feed to the fuel injectors; it stretches the pulse length so as to admit more fuel per stroke. I can run any combination of gasoline and ethanol and burn it efficiently, since the ECU senses the exhaust and adjusts the pulse length. 2. I don't know of any source of butanol, but my E85 is currently very near $3/gal, while regular gas is very near $4/gal. I sacrifice 15% in mpg, but that still leaves me better off by 13% in miles/dollar. And the car runs better to boot. ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > How about the corrosive effect of e85 on every component in the fuel system?"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message What corrosive effect? Since the 1980's car makers have had to make their cars tolerate 10% ethanol (E10), and to do so they replaced all rubber with neoprene and have coated all metal parts with whatever they needed to to make them impervious to ethanol. You can drink ethanol, of course, unless you are a teetotaler. In Brazil they have used ethanol in various proportions with all cars on the road for thirty years. On YouTube you can see an engine disassembled for inspection after 102,000 miles running on E85 without any conversion attempt. No damage. Your information is out of date. Ben On May 21, 3:28 pm, "Shep" <djslj...@capital.net> wrote: > How about the corrosive effect of e85 on every component in the fuel system?"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message What corrosive effect? Since the 1980's car makers have had to make their cars tolerate 10% ethanol (E10), and to do so they replaced all rubber with neoprene and have coated all metal parts with whatever they needed to to make them impervious to ethanol. You can drink ethanol, of course, unless you are a teetotaler. In Brazil they have used ethanol in various proportions with all cars on the road for thirty years. On YouTube you can see an engine disassembled for inspection after 102,000 miles running on E85 without any conversion attempt. No damage. Your information is out of date. Ben Not according to my local dealer. 10% is okay, 85% is not on my 2000 GMC Safari. I mistakenly put E85 in it while traveling through Nebraska and it hasn't idled right since. SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups > Your information is out of date. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Anyolmouse Anyolmouse, have you checked your fuel filter? E85 is great at cleaning out gunk from your gas tank and depositing it all in your fuel filter. A standard part of switching to E85 is to change your fuel filter after the engine has run a while. Ben On May 21, 6:47 pm, "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmo...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Your information is out of date. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > Anyolmouse <Anyolmouse, have you checked your fuel filter? E85 is great at <cleaning out gunk from your gas tank and depositing it all in your <fuel filter. A standard part of switching to E85 is to change your <fuel filter after the engine has run a while. < <Ben Yes, it was done when I had it tuned up. Also it was checked for a vacuum leak. SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups > I mistakenly put E85 in it while traveling through Nebraska > and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yes, it was done when I had it tuned up. Also it was checked for a > vacuum leak. Another question, then. Did your check-engine light go on as you continued your trip? If so, has it gone off again now that you've gone back to straight gasoline? The reason I ask is that when one does a conversion from gasoline to E85, one is supposed to run a tankful of E50 (mixed at the pump) as part of the process in which your fuel management system gets used to the new mixtures required. Then one can go all the way to E85. Now you didn't do that, obviously, and I wonder if your fuel management system has recovered from the experience. It must have given up at the upper limit of its ability to enrich the fuel and lit your light, and ideally when you went back to gasoline, it should have recognized that it was back into familiar territory and have started working normally and turned your light off. If it didn't do that, and your light stayed on, the system needs a manual reset. Ben > I mistakenly put E85 in it while traveling through Nebraska > and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yes, it was done when I had it tuned up. Also it was checked for a > vacuum leak. Another question, then. Did your check-engine light go on as you continued your trip? If so, has it gone off again now that you've gone back to straight gasoline? The reason I ask is that when one does a conversion from gasoline to E85, one is supposed to run a tankful of E50 (mixed at the pump) as part of the process in which your fuel management system gets used to the new mixtures required. Then one can go all the way to E85. Now you didn't do that, obviously, and I wonder if your fuel management system has recovered from the experience. It must have given up at the upper limit of its ability to enrich the fuel and lit your light, and ideally when you went back to gasoline, it should have recognized that it was back into familiar territory and have started working normally and turned your light off. If it didn't do that, and your light stayed on, the system needs a manual reset. Ben I topped the tank off and put about 1/4 of a tank of E85 in it. The check engine light did not come on at any time. As I keep track of every gallon of gas and the MPG in my log I did notice the MPG was lower by about 3MPG. On the return trip is when I found out that it was E85 and was not marked at the pumps. I guess if you travel in Nebraska you are supposed to know these things automatically. SignatureAnyolmouse This was about 3 years ago. ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups > I topped the tank off and put about 1/4 of a tank of E85 in it. The > check engine light did not come on at any time. As I keep track of every > gallon of gas and the MPG in my log I did notice the MPG was lower by > about 3MPG. On the return trip is when I found out that it was E85 and > was not marked at the pumps. I guess if you travel in Nebraska you are > supposed to know these things automatically. So what you were running was approximately 3 parts gasoline to 1 part E85. That makes E21. Unmodified cars young and old in Brazil are burning E24 all the time nowadays. I ran E29 in my car for two weeks before conversion. It is inconceiveable to me that E21 could cause the rough idle you are observing. I hope you find the cause. Call me dogmatic, but E85 ain't it. Ben On May 22, 9:17 am, "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmo...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > I topped the tank off and put about 1/4 of a tank of E85 in it. The > check engine light did not come on at any time. As I keep track of every > gallon of gas and the MPG in my log I did notice the MPG was lower by > about 3MPG. On the return trip is when I found out that it was E85 and > was not marked at the pumps. I guess if you travel in Nebraska you are > supposed to know these things automatically. >So what you were running was approximately 3 parts gasoline to 1 part >E85. That makes E21. Unmodified cars young and old in Brazil are >burning E24 all the time nowadays. I ran E29 in my car for two weeks >before conversion. It is inconceiveable to me that E21 could cause >the rough idle you are observing. >I hope you find the cause. Call me dogmatic, but E85 ain't it. > >Ben You may be right but all I have to go on is what the dealer said and the fact that it idled smooth before putting in E85 and rough after. In town mileage is down some but highway mileage is pretty much where it was all along. Texas has also mandated E10 which probably explains the difference I see. Also since we are almost 4,000 Feet AMSL we only get 86 octane here. I consistantly get better mileage on the 87 octane sold off of the caprock when traveling. SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups E10 is not what we are talking about here, e85 can damage the tank and fuel lines. You are missing a lot of issues here, check this link then we will talk http://www.e85answers.com/will_E85_ethanol_damage_my_car.html On May 21, 3:28 pm, "Shep" <djslj...@capital.net> wrote: > How about the corrosive effect of e85 on every component in the fuel > system?"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message What corrosive effect? Since the 1980's car makers have had to make their cars tolerate 10% ethanol (E10), and to do so they replaced all rubber with neoprene and have coated all metal parts with whatever they needed to to make them impervious to ethanol. You can drink ethanol, of course, unless you are a teetotaler. In Brazil they have used ethanol in various proportions with all cars on the road for thirty years. On YouTube you can see an engine disassembled for inspection after 102,000 miles running on E85 without any conversion attempt. No damage. Your information is out of date. Ben ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > E10 is not what we are talking about here, e85 can damage the tank and fuel > lines. You are missing a lot of issues here, check this link then we will > talk http://www.e85answers.com/will_E85_ethanol_damage_my_car.html Shep, the advice in the site you cited is good for very old vehicles, those made before the government required all cars to be ethanol tolerant. Ethanol is absorbed by natural rubber and makes it swell up and tear easily. Cork is also affected; it used to be used as a gasket material. Ethanol is slightly more conductive (electrically) than gasoline, and the old cars often had different metals in the gas tank and could suffer galvanic corrosion. All that should have been taken care of back in the 1980's. I think the author of the web page wasn't sure of this and was covering his a.s. Or maybe his lawyers made him do it. My car's user manual also says not to use ethanol more than as E10, but I am ignoring this advice because of the experience of others -- the pioneers of ethanol. I will pursue information about this site further and let you know what I find out. If my car sputters to a stop because of E85, I will post that information immediately. If I am wrong, it is a matter of honor for me to admit it. But I am confident about this one. Ben > I will pursue information about this site further and let you know > what I find out. Here is what I received from another supporter of E85: -------------- Hey Ben- One look at that page and I can tell you that it is very parochial looking. I have not read it and doubt that they present any type of data to back up their claim. Why are they unable to back up their claims? Because it is bogus. Any one can post anything that they want to on the web even if untrue. Here is my supporting data. If E85 was harmful, the EPA, CPSC and UL would mandate that the nozzle of an E85 pump be a different size than gas....like they did with diesel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuOs1yap8mU. If you look for it on the web, you will find the answer that you are looking for - even if it is wrong ------------ Ben The question should be why does the federal government not allow the oil companies acquire the alcohol for the vast amounts of excess NG that they now must burn off at the well head or in the refining process, rather than subsiding corn alcohol to the tune of around a $1 a gallon? In addition why do we not build more NG lines so the excess could be sold domestically? > How about the corrosive effect of e85 on every component in the fuel > system? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Newsgroups > ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- | > How about the corrosive effect of e85 on every component in the fuel | > system? | > "Uncle Ben" <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message news:e1f442eb-c0ce-4c9f-b966-a642c00db449@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... | > On May 21, 8:13 am, Ted <the_busmas...@msn.com> wrote: | >> I have what I guess is a two part question: What physical/electrical [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | > Newsgroups | > ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- | "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> wrote in message news:qpGdnYyn-cEkHKjVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@ptd.net... | The question should be why does the federal government not allow the oil | companies acquire the alcohol for the vast amounts of excess NG that they | now must burn off at the well head or in the refining process, rather than | subsiding corn alcohol to the tune of around a $1 a gallon? In addition | why do we not build more NG lines so the excess could be sold domestically? T. Boone Pickens (Texas Oilman) tried to promote LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) some years back by traveling coast to coast with a caravan of vehicles. Some municipalities are/were using LNG in their fleets. With all of the natural gas that we have it wouldn't take too much to have fueling stations along the interstates and other well traveled routes. We had two filling stations here in Amarillo for awhile. It makes more sense to me to develop LNG as an alternative fuel than Ethanol or Butanol. Not much different than running LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) as some do now. Both use pressurized tanks and LPG has been used safely for some time. It is time to say no the radical environmentalists and either use the resources we have available or drill for oil offshore and in Alaska in my opinion. SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups | | "Shep" <djsljsrn@capital.net> wrote in message | news:1211397656_2835@isp.n... | | > How about the corrosive effect of e85 on every component in the fuel | | > system? | | > "Uncle Ben" <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message news:e1f442eb-c0ce-4c9f-b966-a642c00db449@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... | | > On May 21, 8:13 am, Ted <the_busmas...@msn.com> wrote: | | >> I have what I guess is a two part question: What [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] | resources we have available or drill for oil offshore and in Alaska in | my opinion. I should have said CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) instead of LNG which must be contained in a double walled insulated pressurized container. Go here for info- http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/natural_gas_cng_lng.html SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > I should have said CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) instead of LNG which > must be contained in a double walled insulated pressurized container. Go > here for info- > http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/natural_gas_cng_lng.html It wouldnt make a lot of difference, financially. NGL, CNG, etc are still going to be expensive, because petroleum hydrocarbons are presently expensive. We can fumblefart around with this sort of exercise, but the problem is that we are producing far less petroleum than we need at out present consumption rates, to wit some 70% is imported from countries that do not give a damn about our discomfort. We have to have a plan, and we have NONE...T. Boone Pickens said the other day that a fool with a plan can defeat a genius without one every time... We need a non partisan, scientifically defensible, sound and workable energy program. And we have a congress full of fools who are only involved in personalities and pork. | "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message | > I should have said CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) instead of LNG which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | going | to be expensive, because petroleum hydrocarbons are presently expensive. CNG prices of $0.91/gallon in OKC and $2.19/gallon in DFW area according to this- http://www.altfuelprices.com/index.php?location=oklahoma+city&lat=35.493138&lng= -97.459141 If we started using CNG more the price would go up. As Mr. Pickens has stated many times- it is all about supply and demand. Something our liberal friends in D.C. can't comprehend. | We can fumblefart around with this sort of exercise, but the problem is that | we are producing far less petroleum than we need at out present consumption | rates, | to wit some 70% is imported from countries that do not give a damn about our | discomfort. No Natural Gas shortage in US per Oil & Gas Journal- http://www.ogj.com/display_article/329589/120/ARTCL/none/GenIn/1/NGSA:-No-natura l-gas-shortage-in-the-US/ | We have to have a plan, and we have NONE...T. Boone Pickens said the other | day that a fool with a plan can defeat a genius without one every time... No arguement here. | We need a non partisan, scientifically defensible, sound and workable energy | program. And we have a congress full of fools who are only involved in | personalities | and pork. And most have a Marxist mentality! All that needs to be done to produce CNG is to filter natural gas and compress it. Interesting site on MPG comparison- http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/CNG2007.shtml SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > No Natural Gas shortage in US per Oil & Gas Journal- > http://www.ogj.com/display_article/329589/120/ARTCL/none/GenIn/1/NGSA:-No-natura l-gas-shortage-in-the-US/ That link only brought me to a map of places you can buy compressed gas. That has nothing to do with the shortage or availability of fuel gas, in my opinion. I havent bought CNG here in the last year, but at that time it was far more than the figure you quoted, even without the fuel tax which is levied upon it. CNG is a wonderful fuel, but to pursue this would be no better than to just ante up for the price of gasoline. > All that needs to be done to produce CNG is to filter natural gas and > compress it. That is pretty much the truth... But I do not believe that CNG is the answer. My company is the worlds largest in its field in oil and gas exploration and production. The official company line is that NG is in short supply. Call the CEO a liar if you will, but we are presently importing massive amounts of CNG. If we had domestic supply, we wouldnt do that. The CEO, not long ago, pronounced that global warming was a myth.. There remains the possibility that ,if not lying, he is just FOS... ;>) | "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message | > | > No Natural Gas shortage in US per Oil & Gas Journal- http://www.ogj.com/display_article/329589/120/ARTCL/none/GenIn/1/NGSA:-No-natura l-gas-shortage-in-the-US/ | That link only brought me to a map of places you can buy compressed gas. | That has [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] | remains | the possibility that ,if not lying, he is just FOS... ;>) You must have overlooked this page of the Oil & Gas Journal with recent statement that there is NO NG shortage. The other link was supposed to be a map of current CNG prices. This is in agreement with the information I get from people I talk to in the drilling business. http://www.ogj.com/display_article/329589/120/ARTCL/none/GenIn/1/NGSA:-No-natura l-gas-shortage-in-the-US/. If, CNG was pushed as much as ethanol as an alternative fuel a shortage might develop. Again, the result of supply and demand, which would also drive the prices up. I've been told that almost every deep well in Oklahoma and Texas is a gas well. All I know is what I am told by those in the O&G business and from what I read about it. Are you importing CNG? or NG? SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > http://www.ogj.com/display_article/329589/120/ARTCL/none/GenIn/1/NGSA:-No-natura l-gas-shortage-in-the-US/. > If, CNG was pushed as much as ethanol as an alternative fuel a shortage > might develop. Again, the result of supply and demand, which would also [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > All I know is what I am told by those in the O&G business and from what > I read about it. Are you importing CNG? or NG? One is related to the other. The company I recently retired from is the worlds largest of its type. I choose not to say the name, but you would readily recognize it. A couple of years ago, natural gas reserves (compressed into underground storage formations) was at the lowest level in recent history, and it appeared that the summer recharge cycle would not be capable of refilling reserves. Drilling and production was at a high level...AFAIK, we did not run out of gas that year, although prices for gas and electricity soared. We are experiencing a fury of leasing and drilling in my part of the country. Wells are going into a gas bearing shale at some 18,000 feet. This will bring an influx of money to this area,but I do not believe our total gas production could supply an expanded market. Maybe you are right...I am not sure we will know until our backs are really against the wall. T. Boone Pickens had an interesting interview last week, and although I find him an unsavory character to some degree, I do not challenge his expertise in the fossil fuels business. He continues to be pessimistic. According to his figures, overall petroleum production in the world now is at the 85 million barrel per day level, while the consumption or demand is at the 86.5 million barrel level. Even though there are some new fields and finds, they offset some depleted operations and the net result is not bringing us closer to breakeven. BP investments are moving heavily toward wind generators, solar, etc. The present and future effects of China and India,and others, are not - I am afraid - well understood. I would not buy an SUV right now. | "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > http://www.ogj.com/display_article/329589/120/ARTCL/none/GenIn/1/NGSA:-No-natura l-gas-shortage-in-the-US/. | > If, CNG was pushed as much as ethanol as an alternative fuel a shortage | > might develop. Again, the result of supply and demand, which would also [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] | afraid - well | understood. I would not buy an SUV right now. If it was the same interview that I saw, Mr. Pickens also stated that drilling in ANWR would not solve the problem either. Neither would off shore production. They would help, but with our high consumption that is all it would do. One of the things that could help most is a voluntary reduction in consumption by the American drivers. Much like Europe has done for over a generation. I can remember in the 1950's that they were paying around $2.50 US/ Imperial gallon when gasoline prices here in the US were a tenth of that. Can't imagine anyone parking a Hummer (or other large SUV) that they still owe $30.000.00 on and buying a Toyota Corolla to drive instead. SignatureAnyolmouse ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in message Can't imagine anyone parking a Hummer (or other large > SUV) that they still owe $30.000.00 on and buying a Toyota Corolla to > drive instead. It is happening already. I understand that old Geo Metros are bringing unheard of prices on Ebay. It is the same interview with T-Bone, I am sure. This has been his public position for several years. "Anyolmouse" <Anyolmouse@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:1211468723_151331 @pro-front01.com: >| "Shep" <djsljsrn@capital.net> wrote in message >| "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> wrote in message > news:qpGdnYyn-cEkHKjVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@ptd.net... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > resources we have available or drill for oil offshore and in Alaska in > my opinion. Two reasons come to mind, the price of NG and Propane are on a big price spiral upward and they are controlled by the same Big Oil companies who are gouging everyone at the gas pumps. As far as ethanol is concerned the subsidy should be ended as this is a very bad idea and does little to help anyone other than the Farmers in the Midwest. Anyone who suggests the Oil companies will do anything to lower the price of fuel is living in a dream world. |
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.