A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gasohol



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 24th 07, 04:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Matt Barrow[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,119
Default 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.



  #2  
Old June 24th 07, 05:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default Gasohol

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.
  #3  
Old June 24th 07, 05:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Gasohol

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!!!)

  #4  
Old June 24th 07, 10:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default Gasohol

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.
  #5  
Old June 25th 07, 12:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Gasohol

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!!!)

  #6  
Old June 25th 07, 02:31 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default Gasohol

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.
  #7  
Old June 25th 07, 02:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Matt Barrow[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,119
Default Gasohol


"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.


  #8  
Old June 24th 07, 10:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Matt Barrow[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,119
Default Gasohol


"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?


  #9  
Old June 24th 07, 05:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default Gasohol

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.
  #10  
Old June 24th 07, 10:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.piloting
Matt Barrow[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,119
Default Gasohol

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?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gasohol Blueskies Piloting 240 July 6th 07 12:42 AM
How scary is gasohol? Charles Talleyrand Owning 27 March 1st 04 11:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.