Gasohol

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...

In the long run we need to become independent from foreign oil as well
as reducing emissions. Currently all ways of doing this cost more than
that expensive foreign oil.

Quite true.

The "foreign oil" dilemma is much more easily solved, but both issues are
political.

As to emissions, contrast engines from the 1960's with those of today. For
example, a 1969 Mustang with a 351ci V-8 for about 12 MPG and delivered 325
HP - today, a Nissan 3.5L for the 350-Z delivers 325HP, from 216ci engine,
gets 24 MPG, and does it with a twentieth the emissions, mostly CO2.
Contrast that with the 351ci that spewed all sorts of noxious stuff out the
tail pipe.

So do we spend $$trillions reducing emissions, while the rest of the world
continues on its merry way? You probably all heard that China now exceeds
the US as the biggest polluter, in terms of CO2 but all the other far more
noxious gases as well. You've all probably seen the charts that US fuel use
per $ of GNP is about a fourth of what it was in the 1980's.

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
It's their karma.

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and
companies don't spend money for nothing.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and
companies don't spend money for nothing.

I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope
you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people
and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope
you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people
and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues.

Alas, I was misread. Hysterical arguments don't convince anybody, but
rational arguments are derided as "hysterical" by those who oppose them.
I should have quoted the word.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jose wrote:

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Then why were the CO2 emissions cured? It certainly costs money, and
companies don't spend money for nothing.

I think you missed my point. I hope you missed my point. I hope
you don't think hysterical arguement actually help convince people
and are the PROPER way to have discussions on issues.


Bob! He's a teacher, not a scholar.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jose wrote:

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel
cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back
on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

The hystericals were not necessary and could have been a detriment.

Is it even something that NEEDS TO BE CURED?

In article ,
Jose wrote:

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?

Jose

The case against CO2 has not been proven -- nor has the case for manmade
global warming. The hystericals have latched onto it to further their
own political ends -- namely control of others' lives and lifestyles.

Jose wrote:

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.

Do you think the CO2 emissions would have been cured had there been no
hystericals?


What has panic and mindless blather ever solved?

Tell me one thing that hysterics have ever cured?