Please define what YOU want us to use as a definition of "source." At this point, it seems that you cannot productively continue in the discussion/debate until you and you alone tell us what you want us to define as a "source." So I guess on this forum we are forced to abide by your own rules.CANGAS said:
Fuel choices, Global Warming & Polution
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
V:
You read, and, quoted me, suggesting that you study the dictionary definition of " source".
Then, you ask me what definition of "source" I want you to use.
Are you continually hallucinating? Do you have a short term memory of zero?
Since you have firmly established a track record of guessing, why SHOULDN'T you continue to guess now?
If you or anyone else has a useful idea about helping human civilization in terms of obtaining energy in a manner which is not injurious to our environment, I will be VERY eager to contemplate it, and, if it is genuinely worthwhile, add my truly meagre ability as an inventor to try to improve it and implement it. Vague ramblings about background radiation are not piquing my interest.
Are vague rantings about background radiation YOUR BEST SHOT?
You read, and, quoted me, suggesting that you study the dictionary definition of " source".
Then, you ask me what definition of "source" I want you to use.
Are you continually hallucinating? Do you have a short term memory of zero?
Since you have firmly established a track record of guessing, why SHOULDN'T you continue to guess now?
If you or anyone else has a useful idea about helping human civilization in terms of obtaining energy in a manner which is not injurious to our environment, I will be VERY eager to contemplate it, and, if it is genuinely worthwhile, add my truly meagre ability as an inventor to try to improve it and implement it. Vague ramblings about background radiation are not piquing my interest.
Are vague rantings about background radiation YOUR BEST SHOT?
Last edited:
In some Brazilian states, with few or no cane-to-alcohol plants, the cost of driving on alcohol is now almost as high as using gasoline. Even here in Sao Paulo, which is near many such plants, the saving is now reduced to only about 20%. 
I think the "candy munchers" are responsible. When plants can sell sugar at same profit as alcohol, they tend to do so.
Hey - Don't you know candy is bad for the teeth?
Sugar is almost a poison - causes lots of heath problem.
STOP EATING IT, so I can drive at half price again.
By edit, after reading financial newspaper: I guessed right. - Problem is price of sugar. - It is at a 10 year high on the global market (14.5 cents/ pound) but of course most Americans pay much more (and farm subsides taxes also for the "privilege" of paying more for sugar) so a few large corporation can grow sugar beets and turn a nice profit by sell sugar to you at much higher price.
I think the "candy munchers" are responsible. When plants can sell sugar at same profit as alcohol, they tend to do so.
Hey - Don't you know candy is bad for the teeth?
Sugar is almost a poison - causes lots of heath problem.
STOP EATING IT, so I can drive at half price again.
By edit, after reading financial newspaper: I guessed right. - Problem is price of sugar. - It is at a 10 year high on the global market (14.5 cents/ pound) but of course most Americans pay much more (and farm subsides taxes also for the "privilege" of paying more for sugar) so a few large corporation can grow sugar beets and turn a nice profit by sell sugar to you at much higher price.
Last edited by a moderator:
We need a source on your final sentence, else it is unscientific hearsay.CANGAS said:
I looked over ALL over your previous posts starting from page 2 and none of them provide a source, reference, or citation.
You state: "Background Radiation? Did your hot key to wikipedia break?"
Please explain this comment as I do not understand what you mean.
If you are going to post on a scientific forum, then please be scientific. Simply posting your own subjective opinion is in the realm of crackpots: not of science.
State what you want, but cite your sources that others can use for reference.
To Valich:
You must have missed my reply to CANGAS's request for more infromation. See it on 29Nov05 at 47 Minutes past the hour, just below this post of CANGAS.
I also direct your attention to the recent Scientific American selection of a new Brazilian airplane that uses only alcohol as fuel. Annually, Scientific American selects the 50 most important developments of the prior year. Two airplanes were among the 50 advances chosen (the Airbus 380 was the other plane selected.) Full text of SA's comments are posted in the Business & Economics forum's thread "Alcohol fuel -the obvious choice - Yes or No" part reproduced below for your convenience:
"The single-seat EMB 202 Ipanema agricultural utility aircraft from Neiva/Embraer is the first production-series model to burn ethanol produced from sugarcane. This achievement is a natural progression for Brazil because its automobiles have been running on this type of renewable alcohol fuel for more than two decades, an effort that was launched in response to the 1970s oil crisis."
"Not only is ethanol a third or fourth the price of aviation gasoline and a cleaner energy source, it helps to improve the aircraft's overall performance. The new Ipanema piston engine also brings other advantages, including lower maintenance costs and a 20 percent reduction in operating costs.
The article goes on to state that conversion of gas powered airplanes to alcohol is economically attractive and feasible (They are doing it for earlier gasoline models, already sold.) There is no question that alcohol can power your car and save you money if sugar price is not significantly increased from current levels (Which unfortunately are at a 10 year high. I only save about 20% per mile now instead of 50% last year in my car's fuel.) Chinese demand has driven up the price of almost all raw materials /commodities.
You must have missed my reply to CANGAS's request for more infromation. See it on 29Nov05 at 47 Minutes past the hour, just below this post of CANGAS.
CANGAS said:
I also direct your attention to the recent Scientific American selection of a new Brazilian airplane that uses only alcohol as fuel. Annually, Scientific American selects the 50 most important developments of the prior year. Two airplanes were among the 50 advances chosen (the Airbus 380 was the other plane selected.) Full text of SA's comments are posted in the Business & Economics forum's thread "Alcohol fuel -the obvious choice - Yes or No" part reproduced below for your convenience:
"The single-seat EMB 202 Ipanema agricultural utility aircraft from Neiva/Embraer is the first production-series model to burn ethanol produced from sugarcane. This achievement is a natural progression for Brazil because its automobiles have been running on this type of renewable alcohol fuel for more than two decades, an effort that was launched in response to the 1970s oil crisis."
"Not only is ethanol a third or fourth the price of aviation gasoline and a cleaner energy source, it helps to improve the aircraft's overall performance. The new Ipanema piston engine also brings other advantages, including lower maintenance costs and a 20 percent reduction in operating costs.
The article goes on to state that conversion of gas powered airplanes to alcohol is economically attractive and feasible (They are doing it for earlier gasoline models, already sold.) There is no question that alcohol can power your car and save you money if sugar price is not significantly increased from current levels (Which unfortunately are at a 10 year high. I only save about 20% per mile now instead of 50% last year in my car's fuel.) Chinese demand has driven up the price of almost all raw materials /commodities.
Last edited by a moderator:
To Billy T and CANGAS: I think I must've had too many holiday "spirits" during the spirit of the holiday when I posted that. I overlooked the forum again and I do owe CANGAS an apology as I see that he has provided some very good contributions to the forum.
Sorry CANGAS. Please accept my apologizes.
Billy T: Thanks for the added reference but I don't think I need to read it as I am total agreement that ethanol is a good viable alternative. I've never heard or read anything to the contrary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 Hottest Year on Record
"2005 will end up just above or below 1998 as the hottest year on record. Most significant, climate scientists say, is that this year's readings occurred without the help of a major El Niño event. "In just seven years, the background global temperature has increased to a level equal to the peak in the 1997–98 El Niño," says James Hansen, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
That record-breaking El Niño slathered the tropical Pacific with anomalously warm sea water. There was no such event this year, but many other regions were notably warm — including the North Atlantic, where an unprecedented number of tropical cyclones formed. Hansen says that NASA is likely to dub 2005 as the warmest year on record.
This year's heat was not a total surprise — NASA predicted early in 2005 that it would be one of the warmest years on record. Over the past century, says NASA, Earth's average surface temperature has risen 0.8 °C, with three-quarters of that occurring since the 1970s. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.
Hansen, who compiles the annual rankings for NASA, says the recent warming is consistent with the increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "Climate change is real and should begin to be noticed by real people," he says." http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051...l/4381062a.html
Sorry CANGAS. Please accept my apologizes.
Billy T: Thanks for the added reference but I don't think I need to read it as I am total agreement that ethanol is a good viable alternative. I've never heard or read anything to the contrary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 Hottest Year on Record
"2005 will end up just above or below 1998 as the hottest year on record. Most significant, climate scientists say, is that this year's readings occurred without the help of a major El Niño event. "In just seven years, the background global temperature has increased to a level equal to the peak in the 1997–98 El Niño," says James Hansen, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
That record-breaking El Niño slathered the tropical Pacific with anomalously warm sea water. There was no such event this year, but many other regions were notably warm — including the North Atlantic, where an unprecedented number of tropical cyclones formed. Hansen says that NASA is likely to dub 2005 as the warmest year on record.
This year's heat was not a total surprise — NASA predicted early in 2005 that it would be one of the warmest years on record. Over the past century, says NASA, Earth's average surface temperature has risen 0.8 °C, with three-quarters of that occurring since the 1970s. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995.
Hansen, who compiles the annual rankings for NASA, says the recent warming is consistent with the increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "Climate change is real and should begin to be noticed by real people," he says." http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051...l/4381062a.html
Glad you agree. Would you also agree that the reason why most Americans are ignorant of this option is that those whose fortunes are directly related to oil (like most of current US government leadership) are successful in protecting their self interest despite the public harm it does?valich said:
I would suggest that the reason why most Americans are ignorant of this option is because most are just plain ignorant of all things scientific and technical. This is probably associated with the amazingly small proportion of students that graduate from American public education and then go on to get a degree in science or engineering rather than a liberal arts degree.
-Dale
-Dale
I have some related data:DaleSpam said:
From Physics Today page 30 March 2005 issue:
"The ratio of college undergraduates degrees in natural sciences is 5.7 per 100 students in the US .... "Taiwan and South Korea each award about 11 per 100." For several other countries listed the ratio ranges between 8 to 13.
I agree that this ignorance makes "mind control" by vested interest (oil energy system) easier, but an ignorant population is always easy prey. - Give them "bread and circus" to keep them happy, until the lack of productivity collapses the society.
While I have no doubts whatsoever that vested interests are at work, I don't believe it's quite as much a conspiracy as you seem to think it is.Billy T said:
I think the major problem in the U.S. is that gasoline is still readily available even though at a higher price. Momentum (status quo method of operation) is also a big factor. The average American has a highschool (12 years) education and lacks the general knowledge to fully understand all the alternatives. Most of them DO know and agree that petroleum will run out but they are also swayed by things like the "hydrogen economy" (which is a net loss, energy wise). Also, most of them are aware of gasohol and alcohol being used as fuels but simply don't see a need to convert - yet.
I too hesitate to call it a "conspiracy." - It is too openly done for that term. Please take a look at post I made a few minutes ago in the Politics Forum thread "O Tom Delay." It is 90% a Brazilian "case study" in how political power corrupts, but after mentioning US lobbists Abramoff's recent confession of handing out Billions to US congressmen, concludes with paragraph below:Light said:
In closing, the CNN report about the Sago mine disaster, noted that under the administration of GWB, most of the safety violations of US mines carry fines of less than a speeding ticket and that the coal industry has provided 13 billion dollars to Republican campaigns in last four years, second only to the oil industry. (They also gave 3 Billion to Democrats in this same period. - It is not that Democrats are less corruptible, it is only that they currently have less control of safety and environment inspection law enforcement agencies.)
As far as I know, the ONLY change typically made to switch to alcohol, in the entire system of distribution of fuel, is to insert a vertical glass walled tube, about 10 inches long in Brazil, between the "gas pump" hose and the pumping box displaying the quantity and price. This tube contains a cheap hydrometer, which floats in the alcohol, so anyone can see that there has not been water added.Light said:
The inertia / momentum is mental, not physical.
Education could help with that, but don't expect the oil compaines to do it. They will (and are) spending a lot to promote "hydrogen powered" fuel-cells cars as the future, solar-power car races, solar endurance trips across Australia, etc. - anything which is really not any threat to their control of mobile fuel dominance.
Their great TV blitzes about these "alternatives" they and Detroit are working to develop, never mention the practical alcohol alternative, proven by 30 years of use in Brazil. (I bet fact that it is cheaper, cleaner burning, non-polluting, and renewable has the ---- scared out of them. They understand that they must continue to spend a lot on TV and news papers ads to keep the public misguided and misinformed - ignorant about alcohol.)
Their "educational campaigns" are to divert the public from learning the truth, and they are spending heavily to do this "mass-miss-education" / thought control.
Give me a break! Wise up. Think for yourself.
Last edited by a moderator:
He was elected by a majority in a high-turnout election; that is the most legitimizing outcome possible in any democracy. If money bought elections why isn't Forbes President-for-life? It is much more reasonable to say that money can buy legislation (especially tax breaks, tarriffs on foriegn competitors, etc.) than that it can buy elections.valich said:
-Dale
This thread is rapidly spinning off topic, but I guess I will be part of the problemBilly T said:
I disagree with the common assertions that power and/or money corrupts. There are people who have integrity and people who do not. Money and power simply expose the lack of integrity that some people already have. It is also probable that politics attracts corrupt people in general.-Dale
I think that the only real costs for converting an efficient gasoline-burning engine into an efficient alcohol-burning engine is the replacement of the fuel filter and a tune-up to the best alcohol parameters. The change over would only be difficult on the production and distribution side, since it would be produced in different locations and distributed in different ways (e.g. no supertankers).Billy T said:
-Dale
Sad to report, especially for me, that alcohol fuel for my car now is almost as expensive as Gasoline. Only in half of Brazil's states is it still about 5 to 10% cheaper.
Three factors have caused this:
(1) Sugar's global price is at all time high. To appreciate the harm done by tariffs & quotas plus direct transfer of your tax dollars to a wealthy few and a few large corporation that elevate the cost of this item in the store, note the true cost without these "protectives"* is 15 cents per pound. - I have not bought any in US grocery for 12 years -Can someone post the price of a pound bag of sugar now?
(2) 70+% of all cars sold recently in Brazil can burn pure alcohol, and do when it is cheaper. This increasing demand will probably keep the price only slightly less than gas in areas near the cane fields, for years. The increased profits farmers are gaining is already converting pastures to cane fields. (Brazil is worlds largest exporter of beef, so you may soon see increases in cost of beef.)
(3) Government policy has been encouraging export of alcohol. and is reducing the legal limit of alcohol added to gas from 25 to 20% (All gas in Brazil is "high test" with near legal limit of alcohol added.- No "regular" or pure gas as that would cost more and give worse performance in high compression engines and more carbon deposits, etc.)
This is an election year, and people who bought "flex/fuel" cars expecting to cut the cost of driving in half (and did 6 months ago) are angry at government. - Governments response appears to be to continue encouraging export but cut domestic use as gas additive. Especially now that Brazil exports more oil than it consumes and bio-diesel use is growing. (Small but increasing percent now mixed in with oil-diesel at the refineries.)
High Japanese officials, now in Brazil, are planning import of Alcohol and Flex/fuel technology to reduce their dependency on oil and get cleaner city air. Brazil want to keep farmers profits high so production will increase every year for many years. If dollar does not collapse too much during next few year, perhaps American‘s will be able import flex/fuel cars from both Japan and Brazil to enjoy these same benefits, but do not count on this. - China may buy all the cars and alcohol that can be produced, paying higher prices than Americans, with a failing dollar, can afford. - My bet.
-----------------------------------
* Note who is being "protected" - the big campaign contributors, not the little guy with the "sweet tooth craving."
Three factors have caused this:
(1) Sugar's global price is at all time high. To appreciate the harm done by tariffs & quotas plus direct transfer of your tax dollars to a wealthy few and a few large corporation that elevate the cost of this item in the store, note the true cost without these "protectives"* is 15 cents per pound. - I have not bought any in US grocery for 12 years -Can someone post the price of a pound bag of sugar now?
(2) 70+% of all cars sold recently in Brazil can burn pure alcohol, and do when it is cheaper. This increasing demand will probably keep the price only slightly less than gas in areas near the cane fields, for years. The increased profits farmers are gaining is already converting pastures to cane fields. (Brazil is worlds largest exporter of beef, so you may soon see increases in cost of beef.)
(3) Government policy has been encouraging export of alcohol. and is reducing the legal limit of alcohol added to gas from 25 to 20% (All gas in Brazil is "high test" with near legal limit of alcohol added.- No "regular" or pure gas as that would cost more and give worse performance in high compression engines and more carbon deposits, etc.)
This is an election year, and people who bought "flex/fuel" cars expecting to cut the cost of driving in half (and did 6 months ago) are angry at government. - Governments response appears to be to continue encouraging export but cut domestic use as gas additive. Especially now that Brazil exports more oil than it consumes and bio-diesel use is growing. (Small but increasing percent now mixed in with oil-diesel at the refineries.)
High Japanese officials, now in Brazil, are planning import of Alcohol and Flex/fuel technology to reduce their dependency on oil and get cleaner city air. Brazil want to keep farmers profits high so production will increase every year for many years. If dollar does not collapse too much during next few year, perhaps American‘s will be able import flex/fuel cars from both Japan and Brazil to enjoy these same benefits, but do not count on this. - China may buy all the cars and alcohol that can be produced, paying higher prices than Americans, with a failing dollar, can afford. - My bet.
-----------------------------------
* Note who is being "protected" - the big campaign contributors, not the little guy with the "sweet tooth craving."
More data from Today's newspaper:
There are in Brazil, 320 distillaries, making alcohol fuel, 100 authorized distributers and 30,000 posts that sell it for your car. (Michigan, has two - from a report about the Detroit auto show.) Government wants to get to a larger storage capacity and long term contracts so the current price surge, that has made alcohol almost as expensive as gas, can be controlled. Presidential election is this October, and government is making noise about "confiscating the stock" to get the price back in line, but will not as they also want to increase production for export to Japan etc. (Have a very recently signed "memo of understanding" between majority government owned Petrobras and "Nippon Alcohol Hanbai" to use the Hanbai's fleet of oil tankers to ship alcohol to Japan starting in 2008 - a new company will be formed, to be callled Brazil-Japan Alcohol.)
The US government is not very popular here (or anywhere in world) and will soon be losing more of its exports when Japan pays for this alcohol, with high tech items some of which now come from USA. Japan has too many cars in crowed cities and wants to clean it air, and needs to meet Kyoto obligations. They, not the US, will get the new alcohol-fuel motor jobs & cars to export also. Bush thinks Kyoto agreement is bad for the economy, when it is his rejection of it that will really hurt US. - my view.
There are in Brazil, 320 distillaries, making alcohol fuel, 100 authorized distributers and 30,000 posts that sell it for your car. (Michigan, has two - from a report about the Detroit auto show.) Government wants to get to a larger storage capacity and long term contracts so the current price surge, that has made alcohol almost as expensive as gas, can be controlled. Presidential election is this October, and government is making noise about "confiscating the stock" to get the price back in line, but will not as they also want to increase production for export to Japan etc. (Have a very recently signed "memo of understanding" between majority government owned Petrobras and "Nippon Alcohol Hanbai" to use the Hanbai's fleet of oil tankers to ship alcohol to Japan starting in 2008 - a new company will be formed, to be callled Brazil-Japan Alcohol.)
The US government is not very popular here (or anywhere in world) and will soon be losing more of its exports when Japan pays for this alcohol, with high tech items some of which now come from USA. Japan has too many cars in crowed cities and wants to clean it air, and needs to meet Kyoto obligations. They, not the US, will get the new alcohol-fuel motor jobs & cars to export also. Bush thinks Kyoto agreement is bad for the economy, when it is his rejection of it that will really hurt US. - my view.