| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
| Date: |
05 Oct 2004 04:15:22 PM |
| Object: |
HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS
Forwarded message from
[ Subject: Ford Lays Out a Move to Cut Auto Emissions
[ From:
[ Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004
Ford Lays Out a Move to Cut Auto Emissions
By DANNY HAKIM
October 2, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/business/02ford.html?pagewanted=all
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030, joining companies like BP and
Toyota in approaching the issue as a business opportunity rather than
a regulatory chore.
Ford's goal, according to its own internal projections, would require
an improvement of about 80 percent in the fuel economy of its cars
and trucks by 2030, according to people who have been informed of the
plan.
The goal was laid out by the company's chairman, William Clay Ford
Jr., and other executives at a meeting on Aug. 3 at their
headquarters in Dearborn, Mich.
Companies including Ford have used computer models to assess how
their current emissions contribute to concentrations of carbon and
other gases linked by scientific organizations to a global warming
trend. Some companies have also modeled how they would have to reduce
their own emissions to proportionally scale back the environmental
impact.
Ford's plan envisions carbon concentrations in the atmosphere that
are significantly above current levels but well below what they would
be by 2030 if left unchecked. The company is studying long-range
product-development strategies to reach its goal and has not yet
established shorter-range targets. Among those strategies could be
more reliance on hybrid technology or other advances, like cleaner
diesel engines and hydrogen fuel cells.
The company's senior executive team attended the August meeting,
among them Mr. Ford; James Padilla, the chief operating officer;
Allan Gilmour, the vice chairman; James Vella, Mr. Ford's chief of
staff; and Philip Martens, executive vice president for product
creation.
The company had not planned to publicize the strategy because it is a
long-term objective subject to change and because Ford has recently
been the focus of stinging attacks from environmental groups for
falling short of previously stated objectives. Most recently, the
company said it was abandoning a commitment made in 2000 to improve
the fuel economy of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over
five years.
"This is a stunning change of direction for Ford, whose emissions are
greater than all of Mexico," said Daniel Becker, the top global
warming strategist at the Sierra Club, which has long been pressuring
the company to improve its automotive emissions and fuel economy.
"This really is a better idea. We will continue to work with them to
ensure that they implement this commitment."
Asked about the meeting, Carolyn Brown, a Ford spokeswoman, said:
"It's a group of senior high-level Ford executives that meet to
discuss a sensible approach to the issues of climate change, energy
security and fuel economy. The work of the group is intended to help
Ford drive its product-development strategies for the future."
"Beyond that I don't want to get into any specifics of internal
meetings," she added.
The August meeting came soon before California adopted a regulation
that will force automakers to reduce global warming emissions in the
state by 30 percent by the 2016 model year. Ford and other
automakers, including Toyota and Honda, have argued that the
California regulation moves too far too fast, and the industry is
expected to sue to block the measure.
Ford's internal strategy, by contrast, would call for a reduction in
emissions of about 45 percent, equivalent to a roughly 80 percent
improvement in fuel economy, according to its projections.
Government has long regulated smog-forming particles released from
tailpipes, but the California regulation is the first in the United
States to tackle global warming emissions.
Fred Webber, the industry's top lobbyist, cast doubt on a
presentation on global warming by the staff of the state's air
resources board at a hearing last month. The board cited a variety of
hazards from climate changes, including rising sea levels that would
threaten coastlines and fresh water supplies, an increase in asthma
problems and poor crop irrigation because of the premature melting of
mountain snow.
Mr. Webber called the topic "a big if."
Mr. Ford has been outspoken in Detroit on environmental issues and
has long said that global warming is a matter of concern. His company
even published a newspaper advertisement in 2001 that read: "Global
warming. There. We said it."
In a May interview, citing "The Day After Tomorrow," a doomsday movie
about climate change, Mr. Ford said, "If you look at where society is
headed, whether it's the Kyoto compact, whether it's the Hollywood
movie that's coming out this summer on global warming, all of those
things will truly have an impact on the debate."
"I don't want Ford to be caught unaware or for us to be always
saying, 'No, we can't do something,' " he added.
This year, the company has feuded with environmentalists over its
decisions to stop making vehicles powered by natural gas and over
plans, now abandoned, to destroy a few hundred electric-powered
vehicles it had once leased to drivers and had decided posed future
liability issues.
At the same time, Ford has begun to market a hybrid electric version
of its Escape sport utility vehicle, becoming the third automaker,
after Toyota and Honda, to sell a hybrid that offers fuel economy
gains of 40 percent or more.
Since becoming chief executive in 2001, Mr. Ford, 47, has been
uneasily balancing his oft-stated environmental goals with a
frequently bleak industrial task: righting his great-grandfather's
company after a $5.5 billion loss that year. Since then, the company
has recovered to post steady, if modest, profits, and Mr. Ford has
said he wants to be more aggressive in setting long-range goals.
He and some other senior executives at the company - though certainly
not all of them - see environmental initiatives as a critical part of
the company's business strategy and are particularly concerned about
Toyota's aggressive strategy to lead in fuel-efficient technologies
as regulations around the world tighten. In its most recent fiscal
year, Toyota more than doubled the combined earnings of Ford, General
Motors and DaimlerChrysler.
"This is becoming an investment issue for two reasons," said John
Casesa, an analyst at Merrill Lynch who was recently the host of a
conference call assessing the potential cost of complying with
tougher car regulations worldwide.
"First, there is some evidence that there is natural market demand
for more fuel-efficient, less-polluting automobiles," he said. "The
second reason is that we are entering a world where we will have a
more conservation-oriented energy policy and that will require
companies to comply, or face the cost of not complying."
Ford's strategy, somewhat similar to an approach used by BP,
incorporates a goal of reducing its emissions to contribute to a
stable global level of carbon concentration in the atmosphere of 550
parts per million by 2030. While that is significantly above the
current level of about 370 parts per million, it is also
significantly below where it could be by then if emissions are left
unchecked.
End of forwarded message from
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake." |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
09 Oct 2004 09:29:57 PM |
|
|
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kshatriya" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
10 Oct 2004 02:47:03 AM |
|
|
Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM <Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake.> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bd23e7bb548c5ed98a287@text.giganews.com>...
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
Electrically powered ones ?
Cause by then there shouldn't be much oil left for the "good old" gas
guzzling SUV's.
More likely pure hydrogen powered vehicles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
10 Oct 2004 03:04:22 AM |
|
|
In article <a35cedea.0410092347.34654d47@posting.google.com>,
(Kshatriya) posted:
Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM <Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake.> wrote in
message news:<MPG.1bd23e7bb548c5ed98a287@text.giganews.com>...
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
Electrically powered ones ?
Cause by then there shouldn't be much oil left for the "good old" gas
guzzling SUV's.
More likely pure hydrogen powered vehicles.
"...there shouldn't be much oil left"? Are you predicting
the end of the Crawford-Riyadh axis?
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kshatriya" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
10 Oct 2004 06:31:50 PM |
|
|
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:<YDX5V45wmsL6@Px692X6JjioqCG>...
In article <a35cedea.0410092347.34654d47@posting.google.com>,
kshatriya_bharat@yahoo.com (Kshatriya) posted:
Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM <Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake.> wrote in
message news:<MPG.1bd23e7bb548c5ed98a287@text.giganews.com>...
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
Electrically powered ones ?
Cause by then there shouldn't be much oil left for the "good old" gas
guzzling SUV's.
More likely pure hydrogen powered vehicles.
"...there shouldn't be much oil left"? Are you predicting
the end of the Crawford-Riyadh axis?
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Yes , the rate at with Saudi is pumping out oil there won't be much
left within 30-40 years.
Thats why the Saudi's are funding as much Islamic scum as they can
throughout the world. Right now they have billions of $'s to spend for
thier grand global Islamization project but with 40 years they will
have NOTHING.
Unfortunately , the rate at which they're going they would have
already colonized most of India and Europe with Islamic filth within
40 years. So no worries , the Arab scum will just take over the rest
of the world by outbreeding others. But all they seem to be doing is
producing the largest race of half-breed , incompetent and ape-like
idiots the world has ever seen. And thats truely scary.
When the Arabs run out of oil thier whole economy will collapse ,
while the world would have already moved over to other sources of fuel
like bio-Diesel or nuclear fission . And since these idiots have
destroyed thier croplands by desertification , it looks very likely
that they will either take over most of the civilized world or utterly
fail . And as long as people like us are around the second option
looks very likely.
But either way , the world will have to decide on what to do with
these half-breed scum they would have left behind in 40 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
10 Oct 2004 10:00:03 PM |
|
|
In article <a35cedea.0410101531.3bbc3dbd@posting.google.com>,
(Kshatriya) posted:
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
In article <a35cedea.0410092347.34654d47@posting.google.com>,
(Kshatriya) posted:
Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM <Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake.> wrote
in
message news:<MPG.1bd23e7bb548c5ed98a287@text.giganews.com>...
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
Electrically powered ones ?
Cause by then there shouldn't be much oil left for the "good old" gas
guzzling SUV's.
More likely pure hydrogen powered vehicles.
"...there shouldn't be much oil left"? Are you predicting
the end of the Crawford-Riyadh axis?
Jai Maharaj
Yes , the rate at with Saudi is pumping out oil there won't be much
left within 30-40 years.
Thats why the Saudi's are funding as much Islamic scum as they can
throughout the world. Right now they have billions of $'s to spend for
thier grand global Islamization project but with 40 years they will
have NOTHING.
Unfortunately , the rate at which they're going they would have
already colonized most of India and Europe with Islamic filth within
40 years. So no worries , the Arab scum will just take over the rest
of the world by outbreeding others. But all they seem to be doing is
producing the largest race of half-breed , incompetent and ape-like
idiots the world has ever seen. And thats truely scary.
When the Arabs run out of oil thier whole economy will collapse ,
while the world would have already moved over to other sources of fuel
like bio-Diesel or nuclear fission . And since these idiots have
destroyed thier croplands by desertification , it looks very likely
that they will either take over most of the civilized world or utterly
fail . And as long as people like us are around the second option
looks very likely.
But either way , the world will have to decide on what to do with
these half-breed scum they would have left behind in 40 years.
Incompetent and ape-like . . . unmistakenly the smirking chimp in
the White House. Sure enough, he has proclaimed -- incorrectly --
that Islam is a religion of peace.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
10 Oct 2004 03:12:59 AM |
|
|
In article <a35cedea.0410092347.34654d47@posting.google.com>, (Kshatriya) writes:
Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM <Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake.> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bd23e7bb548c5ed98a287@text.giganews.com>...
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
Electrically powered ones ?
Cause by then there shouldn't be much oil left for the "good old" gas
guzzling SUV's.
More likely pure hydrogen powered vehicles.
And how, do you think, you're going to get the hydrogen? There is no
free hydrogen on Earth.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
10 Oct 2004 12:11:06 PM |
|
|
138 hp is 97 cubic feet intake per hour.
the compresion is 20:1
It gets 20 to 1 compresion by firing the very small cyliner inside each
liquid piston cylinder 1/50 sec befor the cylinderfires.
This engine runs at 500 psi .
8.6 hours at 138 hp equals one gallon gas.
its 500 foot pounds at 1450 rpm rotor with a 60 rpm piston.
2 cylinder 2 stroke , the cylinders are 2 and 1/2 inch pipes about 3
feet tall and have a compresses air intake 1/2 down the stroke and a
valve at the top and 3 injectors.
about a 30 inch stroke .
500 psi at 1 second stroke .
1 square inch of vane at 12 R is 500 LB
at 1450 rpm rotor speed.
The intake is .027 cubic feet per stroke OR 97 cubic feet per hour.
thats at 138 hp 8.5 hours per gallon of gas.
516 mpg .
Its corect . Ive run them for about 15 years.
The last 5 years of 2500 hp inline dual fuel use
has evolved into coiled cyliners and ball valve heads . staged stacked
12 24 and 48 inch rotors ,,the 48 inch rotor is 6 inches thick.
the cylinders are 60 gallon each with a 2 gallon pre fire compresion
booster.
That 2500 hp will put out 20 hp up to 10,000 hp. it can use ext
coolant and keep the liquid cool and never boil.
it can allso run in ballance without coolant.
138 HP but more tourk than a V8.
dont nead a trans ,,,and the internal resistance of the engine is GONE
compair with a V8 .
Thats 2/3 of your fuel bill.
O2 is 10 times the power.
a V8 200 hp would run 1500 HP wit liquid oxygen boost . but would melt
the engine .
The best big ship engine runs at 109 rpm full speed. a jap diesel 3500
tons of iron 30 feet tall and 50 feet long. the stroke is 6 feet.
Its a 2 stroke diesel .
The liquid piston engine dont do anything that a 2 stroke dont do.
This vane rotor has a wheel inside it.
The vanes are held in flush in the rotor by valve springs , and if you
push the innerwheel down the vanes run over the wheel and stick out the
bottom of the rotor .
The wheel moves the bottom director away from the rotor and maintains a
gap between the vanes and slide away directors on top and bottom of the
rotor.
as the two cyliners run they send water back and forth between them .
The rotor will manipulate the inner wheel and how far to move it or how
long to stay center.
Its the baddest rotors on the planet.
You cant hurt the rotors no matter what you do.
You can rip the sidewalls off yer tires evry time.
Aux fuel is deisel and amonium nitrate and thats better than TNT
injected.
That would blow the heads off and send a crank threw the road in the
worlds best V8.
But in a LPE , its just a cannon standing on end as each cylinder . The
monster rotor is 8 foot tall and 6 inches thick and can extend out 9
inches of vane and it runs 100 gallons water up a 8 foot stroke at 30
rpm.
This big 100,000 hp is only 40 tons.
the ac it drives is twin 50,000 hp american superconductor AC pods.
Runs 24 7 365 on one tank .
it never backs off the 100,000 hp .
if you dump the load it runs the same rpm.
Its idiot proof.
5000 hp bow thruster .
I have an electronic HD pool table where the old diesel came out the
ship.
Thats all the CE has to do in the engine room.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 09:56:44 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <a35cedea.0410092347.34654d47@posting.google.com>, (Kshatriya) writes:
Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM <Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake.> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bd23e7bb548c5ed98a287@text.giganews.com>...
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
Electrically powered ones ?
Cause by then there shouldn't be much oil left for the "good old" gas
guzzling SUV's.
More likely pure hydrogen powered vehicles.
And how, do you think, you're going to get the hydrogen? There is no
free hydrogen on Earth.
With oil at $100 a barrel quite a few schemes that would not be considered today
become economically feasible.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
10 Oct 2004 12:00:45 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:12:59 GMT
<fa6ad.18$45.3085@news.uchicago.edu>:
In article <a35cedea.0410092347.34654d47@posting.google.com>, (Kshatriya) writes:
Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM <Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake.> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bd23e7bb548c5ed98a287@text.giganews.com>...
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
Electrically powered ones ?
Cause by then there shouldn't be much oil left for the "good old" gas
guzzling SUV's.
More likely pure hydrogen powered vehicles.
And how, do you think, you're going to get the hydrogen? There is no
free hydrogen on Earth.
An interesting issue is how we're going to keep all the streetlights
on at night, never mind what we're driving. The simplest method
I can think of for that is fabricating lots of transatlantic
fiber-optic cable, although if one can't keep the loss down one
will have to use solar/geothermal/biomass power to create oil-like
fuels, which can be transported with less lossage. It turns out
the C=O bond creation is far more effective than the O-H bond
creation, so why are we eschewing carbon dioxide as a byproduct?
Also, as Uncle Al helpfully pointed out some weeks back, hydrogen
tends to make things brittle. If one looks at it from a submicroscopic
viewpoint (at least, in my imagination); it's not hard to see why.
What happens when one bends a piece of plastic? Bonds have
to break; if we assume C-C bonds are the ones breaking, then the
hydrogen steps in, makes C-H bonds everywhere, and over time
the plastic has fewer C-C bonds and more C-H bonds. (Yes, this is
very simplistic; one possibility is to fabricate the plastic so
that the molecules are little zigzags, instead of straight-line.
We may already be doing that.)
Even without hydrogen I see this -- though I've no idea what causes it.
A plastic mat (polyurethane?) on my carpet ultimately cracks and
fragments. I doubt this is planned, though it depends on my cynicism.
Rubber bands also seem to have this problem -- even natural ones.
I don't know if carbon nanotubes can solve this problem, or not.
Somehow, I doubt it. Even diamond surface coatings might degrade
after awhile.
If someone has a brilliant flash of insight and comes up with a
very cheap infrared HUD, we wouldn't need streetlights. If
the HUD becomes more expensive, then the police cars might have
it, and we wouldn't. (My taxpayer dollars at work?)
Or we could just all walk...which is probably healthier anyway. :-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
10 Oct 2004 01:00:36 PM |
|
|
Dear The Ghost In The Machine:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:qn5o32-ng5.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
....
What happens when one bends a piece of plastic? Bonds have
to break; if we assume C-C bonds are the ones breaking, then the
hydrogen steps in, makes C-H bonds everywhere, and over time
the plastic has fewer C-C bonds and more C-H bonds.
Actually, "work hardening" plastic *only* affects H-H "bonds". Breaking
the C-C or C=C bonds is called scissioning, and it takes more directed
energy than simple flexure.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 01:00:08 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<>
wrote
on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:00:36 -0700
<4Nead.24308$R43.5629@fed1read01>:
Dear The Ghost In The Machine:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:qn5o32-ng5.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
...
What happens when one bends a piece of plastic? Bonds have
to break; if we assume C-C bonds are the ones breaking, then the
hydrogen steps in, makes C-H bonds everywhere, and over time
the plastic has fewer C-C bonds and more C-H bonds.
Actually, "work hardening" plastic *only* affects H-H "bonds". Breaking
the C-C or C=C bonds is called scissioning, and it takes more directed
energy than simple flexure.
David A. Smith
OK, dumb question. Why do things go brittle around
hydrogen gas?
The only other answer I can think of might be an
interesting one; if there's contamination of the H2,
say with sodium and water, things get rather interesting
chemically -- mostly because of various acids. However,
that's easily forestalled by an appropriate membrane
or catalyst.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 09:36:07 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
wrote in message news:1khp32-edd.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
& in message news:qn5o32-ng5.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
What happens when one bends a piece of plastic? Bonds have
to break; if we assume C-C bonds are the ones breaking, then the
hydrogen steps in, makes C-H bonds everywhere, and over time
the plastic has fewer C-C bonds and more C-H bonds.
[Smitty]
Actually, "work hardening" plastic *only* affects H-H "bonds".
Breaking the C-C or C=C bonds is called scissioning,
and it takes more directed energy than simple flexure.
[GHost]
Why do things go brittle around hydrogen gas?
The only other answer I can think of might be an
interesting one; if there's contamination of the H2,
say with sodium and water, things get rather interesting
chemically -- mostly because of various acids. However,
that's easily forestalled by an appropriate membrane
or catalyst.
[hanson]
Work Hardening & Hydrogen embrittlement are very different.
WH occurs when **some** solids are repeatedly deformed,
like copper. Check it out on a thick 10 gage Cu wire
and see how each bending repeat requires more force.
OTOH some solids get more pliable when you "work" them.
Hydrogen embrittlement is experienced most noticeably in
some high strength steels. The H2 molecules diffuse into the
Fe lattices and act like nano/atomic sized ball bearings. The
though HSS becomes brittle like glass and shatters easily.
That's why all susceptible high strength steels are baked at
375°F for 3 hrs to effuse the H2 before entering use to relieve
any Hydrogen-embrittlement induced dangers. One of the first
incidents that drew attention to this problem occurred in the
early 1960's when crews washed down two C130 flying boxcar
air transporters with acid(HF) containing cleaners to shine up
the aluminum. Naturally, the sour juices ran down over the
(HHS) landing gears onto the tarmac. 6 hrs later the nightguard
heard a thump, went looking and saw one of the C130 flat on
its belly on the ground. Before he could turn around another
loud bang behind him crashed the other plane. Both landing
gears broke and shattered due to hydrogen embrittlement.
These days any cleaners that are used for aircraft maintenance
must be certified not to cause hydrogen embrittlement.
hanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 07:43:08 PM |
|
|
Dear The Ghost In The Machine:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:1khp32-edd.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<>
wrote
on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:00:36 -0700
<4Nead.24308$R43.5629@fed1read01>:
Dear The Ghost In The Machine:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:qn5o32-ng5.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
...
What happens when one bends a piece of plastic? Bonds have
to break; if we assume C-C bonds are the ones breaking, then the
hydrogen steps in, makes C-H bonds everywhere, and over time
the plastic has fewer C-C bonds and more C-H bonds.
Actually, "work hardening" plastic *only* affects H-H "bonds". Breaking
the C-C or C=C bonds is called scissioning, and it takes more directed
energy than simple flexure.
OK, dumb question. Why do things go brittle around
hydrogen gas?
The only other answer I can think of might be an
interesting one; if there's contamination of the H2,
say with sodium and water, things get rather interesting
chemically -- mostly because of various acids. However,
that's easily forestalled by an appropriate membrane
or catalyst.
Only temporarily. Usually, all that is required is hydrogen.
Google Advanved provides lots of good hits,
all the words: mechanism
exact phrase: hydrogen embrittlement
URL:http://www.techplate.com/hydrogenembrittlement.html
.... "separates the grain boundaries" (think freezing water inside cracks
in stone)
URL:http://robertson.mse.uiuc.edu/publications/Hydrogenembrittlement.pdf
.... has hydride formation as the mechanism.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 08:41:39 AM |
|
|
Then again ,,In china I dont nead te pattent .
In USA I wavor the pattent so GM and ford can copy the thing
,,,snicker...it will take them 7 years to figer out the run program .
Bulding the engine is simple .
Ballancing gas air steam is not simple.
They may well not ever figer it out.
The idia of the run program is simple.
back off the fuel to controle the boil..
but do it in the corect amount befor it boils over. Wile your racing
around town .
Use the steam and intake air and gas and liquid oxygen without ever
having water go past the exhaust valve leaving the engine without water.
things like that must be done and tested.
that takes time . Im 14 years ahead of them.
I told GM and evryone ,,pay to play or else.
Or else they wount compeat soon enouph and Ill buy them out.
Yea Im building in china.
It will consume GM and Ford and Honda quicker.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 08:27:48 AM |
|
|
You would fill your car with gas once a year and with water once a month
and with O2 once week.
Ford will change auto emissions by changing your fuel and charging you
more to drive on less gas.
I will produce cars the consumer will pay the most for ,,,evry kind
,,pick out a body and we will make it .
Yank the drivtrain off any car and install ours.
Real quick ,,ford and GM Honda has a problem ,,the problem is of the
Giant nature.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 08:21:03 AM |
|
|
Your retarted or just a worthless ***** .
Your entitled to your own stupid opinon but not your own facts.
A piston at 60 rpm VRS the same piston at 4000 rpm or 1000 intake
strokes VRS 60.
1000/60
call it 10 to 1 . in intake volume .
But Im adding liquid oxygen for a fuel boost.
X 10 constant volume is 10 times the power.
Thats the same as saing 10 times your gas milage and 10 times the HP.
IF you calculate it by its book MOLE then its 2000 mpg not 516 .
You wount deal with ANY facts . You will try beeing retarted like you
dont understand .
lets see...1.3 cubic feet per minute is around 100 cubic feet per hour
of intake air.
The fucking real facts scare you dont they.
The slidng vanes never hit the director and this engine runs 10 times
stronger on 10% of the gas and will run for a million miles.
Its much cheeper to build than a V8.
It takes up less room than a V8 and trans .
It dont nead a hood over the engine .
The 2500 hp is 6 feet wide 9 feet tall 1 foot thick and uses 144
gallons diesel day.
Instant reverse ,,a prop on the end of a shaft that can be reversed
quick and will never ever let you down . Evrything else that suports
the old engine comes out.
a 138hp X 3 aux for ac.
That replaces 3 crew , 4 tons fuel day ,
$ 1500 a day saved per 2000 tons cargo.
In a $ 200,000 2000 ton small ship thats alot of money .
In a 100,000 ton aframax its a chuck of change evry day. $ 75,000 a
day .
In 10 days its $ 750,000 IN 100 days its $ 7.5 million in a year its 21
million .
$ 21 million saved on fuel a year and te 100,000 ton ship cost $ 17
million.
Plus the load $ 45 mil a year.
Thats 60 mil a year .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
10 Oct 2004 02:57:28 PM |
|
|
In article <qn5o32-ng5.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> writes:
In sci.physics,
<>
wrote
on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:12:59 GMT
<fa6ad.18$45.3085@news.uchicago.edu>:
In article <a35cedea.0410092347.34654d47@posting.google.com>, (Kshatriya) writes:
Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM <Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake.> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bd23e7bb548c5ed98a287@text.giganews.com>...
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
Electrically powered ones ?
Cause by then there shouldn't be much oil left for the "good old" gas
guzzling SUV's.
More likely pure hydrogen powered vehicles.
And how, do you think, you're going to get the hydrogen? There is no
free hydrogen on Earth.
An interesting issue is how we're going to keep all the streetlights
on at night, never mind what we're driving. The simplest method
I can think of for that is fabricating lots of transatlantic
fiber-optic cable, although if one can't keep the loss down one
will have to use solar/geothermal/biomass power to create oil-like
fuels, which can be transported with less lossage.
Aha. Question is, how much of it we'll have available and at what
cost.
It turns out
the C=O bond creation is far more effective than the O-H bond
creation, so why are we eschewing carbon dioxide as a byproduct?
Also, as Uncle Al helpfully pointed out some weeks back, hydrogen
tends to make things brittle. If one looks at it from a submicroscopic
viewpoint (at least, in my imagination); it's not hard to see why.
What happens when one bends a piece of plastic? Bonds have
to break; if we assume C-C bonds are the ones breaking, then the
hydrogen steps in, makes C-H bonds everywhere, and over time
the plastic has fewer C-C bonds and more C-H bonds. (Yes, this is
very simplistic; one possibility is to fabricate the plastic so
that the molecules are little zigzags, instead of straight-line.
We may already be doing that.)
Even without hydrogen I see this -- though I've no idea what causes it.
A plastic mat (polyurethane?) on my carpet ultimately cracks and
fragments. I doubt this is planned, though it depends on my cynicism.
Rubber bands also seem to have this problem -- even natural ones.
That would indicate that (cynicism aside) it is not planned.
Creationists may disagree, of course:-)
I don't know if carbon nanotubes can solve this problem, or not.
Somehow, I doubt it. Even diamond surface coatings might degrade
after awhile.
If someone has a brilliant flash of insight and comes up with a
very cheap infrared HUD, we wouldn't need streetlights. If
the HUD becomes more expensive, then the police cars might have
it, and we wouldn't. (My taxpayer dollars at work?)
Or we could just all walk...which is probably healthier anyway. :-)
Well, sure, couple hundred years ago nearly everybody walked all the
time. How healthy they were?:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
09 Oct 2004 10:33:44 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1bd23e7bb548c5ed98a287@text.giganews.com>,
Dr. Philip von Braun, ICBM <Gimme some cake. Some chochlate cake.> posted:
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030,
By 2030 we will be driving golf carts.
. . . Vijay Singh autographed.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
09 Oct 2004 10:36:26 PM |
|
|
re: news:HmW4H76Nqnm3@yr629Q0xViulBM said:
DETROIT, Oct. 1 - Top executives at the Ford Motor Company have
privately endorsed an aggressive goal of reining in emissions from
the automaker's vehicles by 2030.... ....[but] has not yet established
shorter-range targets. ....strategies could be hybrid technology or
other advances, like cleaner diesel engines and hydrogen fuel cells.
"This is becoming an investment issue for two reasons," said John
Casesa, an analyst at Merrill Lynch who was recently the host of a
conference call assessing the potential cost of complying with
tougher car regulations worldwide".
IOW, the hushed up meeting at Ford et.al. is simple and simply
**standard yarn** to pump up Ford's stock value......AHAHAHAHA....
The company had not planned to publicize the strategy because it
has been the focus of stinging attacks from environmental groups...
Ford ...was abandoning a commitment made in 2000 to improve
the fuel economy of its sport utility vehicles by 25% over 5 years.
"This is a stunning change of direction for Ford, whose emissions are
greater than all of Mexico," said Daniel Becker, the top global warming
strategist at the Sierra Club, .... "This really is a better idea. We will
continue to work with Ford to ensure implement of this commitment."
In a normal world Becker would be in jail for attempted extortion.
But of course, he, Becker, prefers to work WITH Ford. Literally!
Because he hopes, like all big enviro turds before him, to land an
executive job at Ford with an annual $million/salary and a golden
parachute. **Standard yarn**, green ***** style!
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to get rid of any politician
that is green.......ahahahaha....Californians maybe nutty but they
ain't crazy lunatics....well, the green shits amongst them of are.
Ford, Toyota and Honda is expected to sue to block the measure.
Who is making the big money at this junction?......it's the other
set of green shits........the lawyers feeding off the "environment"
and that "environment" will ultimately be your own wallet....ahahaha..
Fred Webber, the industry's top lobbyist, cast doubt on a
presentation on global warming by the staff of the state's air
resources board at a hearing last month. The board cited a variety of
hazards from climate changes, including rising sea levels that would
threaten coastlines and fresh water supplies, an increase in asthma
problems and poor crop irrigation because of the premature melting of
mountain snow.
**Standard yarn**, green *****, by the green bureaucracy who principally
uses the "environment" as their gimmick to make sure that their 80%
salary retirement pension stays assured thru legal extortions of high permit
charges, big user fees and persistent enviro surtaxes. Any solution
to GW and or pollution clean ups will threaten the security of their nest
egg, a fund that you little green idiots pay for....instead of investing it in
the college fund for your own kids.....ahahahaha.....shame on you!
"First, there is some evidence that there is natural market demand
for more fuel-efficient, less-polluting automobiles," he said. "The
second reason is that we are entering a world where we will have a
more conservation-oriented energy policy and that will require
companies to comply, or face the cost of not complying."
Can't you see, all you little green idiots, it's about green BACKS!
enviro $$$$$$$$$......."environment" is their gimmick to get graft
from permit charges, user fees and enviro surtaxes.....ahahaha..
They, *** BOTH SIDES ***are fucking you, thru', with and by the
"environment"...and you are too stupid to see that.......AHAHAHAHA...
.....ahahaha.......ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 09:55:34 AM |
|
|
hanson wrote:
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to get rid of any politician
that is green.......ahahahaha....Californians maybe nutty but they
ain't crazy lunatics....well, the green shits amongst them of are.
I think the peak oil crisis will be well upon us by then, with oil at $100 a
barrel. That should take care of it nicely.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 10:50:21 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2svl71F1qds3dU1@uni-berlin.de...
hanson citing a Ford news release:
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
hanson wrote
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to get rid of any politician
that is green.......ahahahaha....Californians maybe nutty but they
ain't crazy lunatics....well, the green shits amongst them of are.
[Dirk]
I think the peak oil crisis will be well upon us by then, with oil at
$100 a barrel. That should take care of it nicely.
[hanson]
Right and wrong, Dirk. It's just a temporary crisis. Look at the history
of oil prices. They will not be over $30 by 2016, give or take inflation.
The current $spike is 90% due to commodity futures speculators and
10% due to delays in production increases because of those
*contemporary* expansion demands from Indian & Chinese industries.
Oil is a money game, the biggest one there is. The oil itself is just the
gimmick. Hence, like in any other game, there are always ups & downs.
But the long term future use of fossil fuel is assured!.....ahahahaha......
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
Carbonates. Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into
the air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available O2.
So, each 32 gr O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4). Hence,
there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14 tons of fossil C in store,
buried somewhere. So, at a current use of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil
stuff will be reoxydised in 5E+20 gr/3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!.
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil carbon
be burned. So, (addressing the green turds, enviro shits and all the happy
little green idiots) their cherished,green dooms day of now or tomorrow
will not arrive till after global warming is over and/or the next Ice age is
gone..........hahahahaha........ahahaha.......ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 10:58:14 AM |
|
|
hanson wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2svl71F1qds3dU1@uni-berlin.de...
hanson citing a Ford news release:
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
hanson wrote
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to get rid of any politician
that is green.......ahahahaha....Californians maybe nutty but they
ain't crazy lunatics....well, the green shits amongst them of are.
[Dirk]
I think the peak oil crisis will be well upon us by then, with oil at
$100 a barrel. That should take care of it nicely.
[hanson]
Right and wrong, Dirk. It's just a temporary crisis. Look at the history
of oil prices. They will not be over $30 by 2016, give or take inflation.
The current $spike is 90% due to commodity futures speculators and
10% due to delays in production increases because of those
*contemporary* expansion demands from Indian & Chinese industries.
Oil is a money game, the biggest one there is. The oil itself is just the
gimmick. Hence, like in any other game, there are always ups & downs.
I doubt that China and India are going to slow economic growth over the next
decade, barring nuclear war. That means 10% pa for China alone.
And the problem is not fossil fuels in general, but cheap *oil*.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 11:30:10 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2svosiF1qb1r3U1@uni-berlin.de...
news:2svl71F1qds3dU1@uni-berlin.de...
hanson citing a Ford news release:
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
hanson wrote
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to get rid of any politician
that is green.......ahahahaha....Californians maybe nutty but they
ain't crazy lunatics....well, the green shits amongst them of are.
[Dirk]
I think the peak oil crisis will be well upon us by then, with oil at
$100 a barrel. That should take care of it nicely.
[hanson]
Right and wrong, Dirk. It's just a temporary crisis. Look at the history
of oil prices. They will not be over $30 by 2016, give or take inflation.
The current $spike is 90% due to commodity futures speculators and
10% due to delays in production increases because of those
*contemporary* expansion demands from Indian & Chinese industries.
Oil is a money game, the biggest one there is. The oil itself is just the
gimmick. Hence, like in any other game, there are always ups & downs.
[Dirk]
I doubt that China and India are going to slow economic growth over
the next decade, barring nuclear war. That means 10% pa for China alone.
And the problem is not fossil fuels in general, but cheap *oil*.
[hanson]
That 10% is peanuts and digestible **IF** the global show for what
you label as *oil* runs more or less smooth. The problem is and
has always been the very uneven (and perhaps unavoidable) income
distribution. When (as today, globally) CEOs do make 4000 to 10'000
times more income the average pay of their workers......then I am
sorry to say that such disparities do cause **NOT** smooth sailing.
I am glad that you see that "the problem is not fossil fuels in general"
as can and should be seen by every thinking person. The investment
division gets a half a dozen inquires every time I post this reminder:
.......the long term future use of fossil fuel is assured!.....ahahahaha......
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
Carbonates. Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into
the air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available O2.
So, each 32 gr O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4). Hence,
there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14 tons of fossil C in store,
buried somewhere. So, at a current use of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil
stuff will be reoxydised in 5E+20 gr/3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!.
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil carbon
be burned. So, (addressing the green turds, enviro shits and all the happy
little green idiots) their cherished,green dooms day of now or tomorrow
will not arrive till after global warming is over and/or the next Ice age is
gone..........hahahahaha........ahahaha.......ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. R. L. Cowan" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 12:47:11 PM |
|
|
hanson included:
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
Carbonates. Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into
the air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available O2.
So, each 32 gr O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4). Hence,
there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14 tons of fossil C in store,
buried somewhere. So, at a current use of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil
stuff will be reoxydised in 5E+20 gr/3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!.
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil carbon
be burned.
But perhaps quite a bit earlier, if 3e15 g/y burn rate,
supposing that's right, were slavishly continued,
all the fossil carbon whose combustion would yield more energy
than would be taken in setting up said combustion, would be gone.
Minor detail.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 12:56:27 PM |
|
|
G. R. L. Cowan wrote:
hanson included:
Don't hope for fossil oil to get scarce or to run out! Not a chance.
Ain't gonna happen. Listen. Initially, "they" say the earth had an
anaerobic envelope:~0 % O2. Present was only (relevant) CO2 and
Carbonates. Photosynth. etc. has liberated by now ~21% free O2 into
the air: That translates into ~1E+21 gr or ~1E+15 tons of available O2.
So, each 32 gr O2 buried somewhere 12-14 gr = 1 C (max CH4). Hence,
there is 1E+21 * 12/32 = 5E+20 gr or ~ 5.E+14 tons of fossil C in store,
buried somewhere. So, at a current use of 3E+15 gr/yr of oil, the fossil
stuff will be reoxydised in 5E+20 gr/3E+15 gr/yr =~ 1.5E+05 years!.
Alas, no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil carbon
be burned.
But perhaps quite a bit earlier, if 3e15 g/y burn rate,
supposing that's right, were slavishly continued,
all the fossil carbon whose combustion would yield more energy
than would be taken in setting up said combustion, would be gone.
Minor detail.
Earth - a hitech wouldbe star faring civilisation powered by digging up stuff
and setting it on fire.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 12:38:49 PM |
|
|
hanson wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2svosiF1qb1r3U1@uni-berlin.de...
news:2svl71F1qds3dU1@uni-berlin.de...
hanson citing a Ford news release:
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
hanson wrote
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to get rid of any politician
that is green.......ahahahaha....Californians maybe nutty but they
ain't crazy lunatics....well, the green shits amongst them of are.
[Dirk]
I think the peak oil crisis will be well upon us by then, with oil at
$100 a barrel. That should take care of it nicely.
[hanson]
Right and wrong, Dirk. It's just a temporary crisis. Look at the history
of oil prices. They will not be over $30 by 2016, give or take inflation.
The current $spike is 90% due to commodity futures speculators and
10% due to delays in production increases because of those
*contemporary* expansion demands from Indian & Chinese industries.
Oil is a money game, the biggest one there is. The oil itself is just the
gimmick. Hence, like in any other game, there are always ups & downs.
[Dirk]
I doubt that China and India are going to slow economic growth over
the next decade, barring nuclear war. That means 10% pa for China alone.
And the problem is not fossil fuels in general, but cheap *oil*.
[hanson]
That 10% is peanuts and digestible **IF** the global show for what
you label as *oil* runs more or less smooth. The problem is and
http://business.news.designerz.com/chinas-crude-oil-imports-in-july-up-nearly-40-pct-year-on-year.html
"China's imports of crude oil in the first seven months rose nearly 40 percent
from a year ago as the energy-hungry economy expanded at close to double-digit
levels, state press reported.
In the seven months to July crude imports rose an annualised 39.5 percent to
70.63 million metric tonnes, the official Xinhua news agency reported Friday,
citing figures from the General Administration of Customs.
Crude oil imports rose 39.3 percent year-on-year to 61.02 million tons in the
first six months, it said.
The world's second largest oil consumer after the United States has seen oil
imports soar as flagging domestic production has failed to keep up with booming
economic growth and demand for gasoline in the auto market."
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 02:41:55 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2svup5F1q75seU2@uni-berlin.de...
hanson citing a Ford news release:
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
hanson wrote
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to
*** get rid of any politician that is green***.......ahahahaha....
Californians maybe nutty but they ain't crazy lunatics.
...well, the green shits amongst them of are.
[Dirk]
I think the peak oil crisis will be well upon us by then, with oil at
$100 a barrel. That should take care of it nicely.
[hanson]
Right and wrong, Dirk. It's just a temporary crisis. Look at the history
of oil prices. They will not be over $30 by 2016, give or take inflation.
The current $spike is 90% due to commodity futures speculators and
10% due to delays in production increases because of those
*contemporary* expansion demands from Indian & Chinese industries.
Oil is a money game, the biggest one there is. The oil itself is just the
gimmick. Hence, like in any other game, there are always ups & downs.
[Dirk]
I doubt that China and India are going to slow economic growth over
the next decade, barring nuclear war. That means 10% pa for China alone.
And the problem is not fossil fuels in general, but cheap *oil*.
[hanson]
That 10% is peanuts and digestible **IF** the global show for what
you label as *oil* runs more or less smooth.
[Dirk]
http://business.news.designerz.com/chinas-crude-oil-imports-in-july-up-nearly-40-pct-year-on-year.html
[China's] Crude oil imports rose 39.3 percent year-on-year in the
first 6 months. [China], the world's 2nd largest oil consumer after
the US has seen oil imports soar as flagging domestic production
has failed to keep up with booming economic growth and demand
for gasoline in the auto market."
[hanson]
Guessing time! Game time! Bet on oil futures!......ahahaha...
See, you are now in the unhappy intellectual emotional position
to have to look at two opinions, like the man with two clocks. He
never knows exactly what time it is.........which leaves with the
hard and lonely choice that the young fat-man offered some 2600
years ago:
"Bros, do NOT believe 'cuz it is written in an official text, or 'cuz
the man of authority said so, or because everybody else does.
Believe only what you yourself judge to be true" - Gautamo Buddha
ahahaha......ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 02:46:22 PM |
|
|
hanson wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2svup5F1q75seU2@uni-berlin.de...
hanson citing a Ford news release:
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
hanson wrote
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to
*** get rid of any politician that is green***.......ahahahaha....
Californians maybe nutty but they ain't crazy lunatics.
...well, the green shits amongst them of are.
[Dirk]
I think the peak oil crisis will be well upon us by then, with oil at
$100 a barrel. That should take care of it nicely.
[hanson]
Right and wrong, Dirk. It's just a temporary crisis. Look at the history
of oil prices. They will not be over $30 by 2016, give or take inflation.
The current $spike is 90% due to commodity futures speculators and
10% due to delays in production increases because of those
*contemporary* expansion demands from Indian & Chinese industries.
Oil is a money game, the biggest one there is. The oil itself is just the
gimmick. Hence, like in any other game, there are always ups & downs.
[Dirk]
I doubt that China and India are going to slow economic growth over
the next decade, barring nuclear war. That means 10% pa for China alone.
And the problem is not fossil fuels in general, but cheap *oil*.
[hanson]
That 10% is peanuts and digestible **IF** the global show for what
you label as *oil* runs more or less smooth.
[Dirk]
http://business.news.designerz.com/chinas-crude-oil-imports-in-july-up-nearly-40-pct-year-on-year.html
[China's] Crude oil imports rose 39.3 percent year-on-year in the
first 6 months. [China], the world's 2nd largest oil consumer after
the US has seen oil imports soar as flagging domestic production
has failed to keep up with booming economic growth and demand
for gasoline in the auto market."
[hanson]
Guessing time! Game time! Bet on oil futures!......ahahaha...
See, you are now in the unhappy intellectual emotional position
to have to look at two opinions, like the man with two clocks. He
never knows exactly what time it is.........which leaves with the
hard and lonely choice that the young fat-man offered some 2600
years ago:
"Bros, do NOT believe 'cuz it is written in an official text, or 'cuz
the man of authority said so, or because everybody else does.
Believe only what you yourself judge to be true" - Gautamo Buddha
ahahaha......ahahahanson
I predict that the more expensive oil is, the more profits the oil companies
will make.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 02:58:58 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2t068bF1pv721U2@uni-berlin.de...
hanson citing a Ford news release:
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
hanson wrote
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to
*** get rid of any politician that is green***.......ahahahaha....
Californians maybe nutty but they ain't crazy lunatics.
...well, the green shits amongst them of are.
[Dirk]
I think the peak oil crisis will be well upon us by then, with oil at
$100 a barrel. That should take care of it nicely.
[hanson]
Right and wrong, Dirk. It's just a temporary crisis. Look at the history
of oil prices. They will not be over $30 by 2016, give or take inflation.
The current $spike is 90% due to commodity futures speculators and
10% due to delays in production increases because of those
*contemporary* expansion demands from Indian & Chinese industries.
Oil is a money game, the biggest one there is. The oil itself is just the
gimmick. Hence, like in any other game, there are always ups & downs.
[Dirk]
I doubt that China and India are going to slow economic growth over
the next decade, barring nuclear war. That means 10% pa for China alone.
And the problem is not fossil fuels in general, but cheap *oil*.
[hanson]
That 10% is peanuts and digestible **IF** the global show for what
you label as *oil* runs more or less smooth.
[Dirk]
http://business.news.designerz.com/chinas-crude-oil-imports-in-july-up-nearly-40-pct-year-on-year.html
[China's] Crude oil imports rose 39.3 percent year-on-year in the
first 6 months. [China], the world's 2nd largest oil consumer after
the US has seen oil imports soar as flagging domestic production
has failed to keep up with booming economic growth and demand
for gasoline in the auto market."
[hanson]
Guessing time! Game time! Bet on oil futures!......ahahaha...
See, you are now in the unhappy intellectual emotional position
to have to look at two opinions, like the man with two clocks. He
never knows exactly what time it is.........which leaves with the
hard and lonely choice that the young fat-man offered some 2600
years ago:
"Bros, do NOT believe 'cuz it is written in an official text, or 'cuz
the man of authority said so, or because everybody else does.
Believe only what you yourself judge to be true" - Gautamo Buddha
ahahaha......ahahahanson
Dirk
I predict that the more expensive oil is,
the more profits the oil companies will make.
hahahaha.......AHAHAHAHA....right on!.....AHAHAHA...
ahahaha.....ahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: HOW FORD PLANS TO CUT AUTO EMISSIONS |
11 Oct 2004 03:43:08 PM |
|
|
hanson wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2t068bF1pv721U2@uni-berlin.de...
hanson citing a Ford news release:
California adopted a regulation that will force automakers to reduce
global warming emissions in the state by 30 percent by the 2016
model year.
hanson wrote
So, what if that goal is not achieved? Does anyone really think that
Californians will go for bicycles, pedaling 8 hrs to work and another
8 hrs back.....ahahaha.... If there is a stop going to be put onto
new car sales in 2016.... then from then on Californians will drive
older and older cars that pollute more and more....ahahaha...
and at next election there will be initiatives to
*** get rid of any politician that is green***.......ahahahaha....
Californians maybe nutty but they ain't crazy lunatics.
...well, the green shits amongst them of are.
[Dirk]
I think the peak oil crisis will be well upon us by then, with oil at
$100 a barrel. That should take care of it nicely.
[hanson]
Right and wrong, Dirk. It's just a temporary crisis. Look at the history
of oil prices. They will not be over $30 by 2016, give or take inflation.
The current $spike is 90% due to commodity futures speculators and
10% due to delays in production increases because of those
*contemporary* expansion demands from Indian & Chinese industries.
Oil is a money game, the biggest one there is. The oil itself is just the
gimmick. Hence, like in any other game, there are always ups & downs.
[Dirk]
I doubt that China and India are going to slow economic growth over
the next decade, barring nuclear war. That means 10% pa for China alone.
And the problem is not fossil fuels in general, but cheap *oil*.
[hanson]
That 10% is peanuts and digestible **IF** the global show for what
you label as *oil* runs more or less smooth.
[Dirk]
http://business.news.designerz.com/chinas-crude-oil-imports-in-july-up-nearly-40-pct-year-on-year.html
[China's] Crude oil imports rose 39.3 percent year-on-year in the
first 6 months. [China], the world's 2nd largest oil consumer after
the US has seen oil imports soar as flagging domestic production
has failed to keep up with booming economic growth and demand
for gasoline in the auto market."
[hanson]
Guessing time! Game time! Bet on oil futures!......ahahaha...
See, you are now in the unhappy intellectual emotional position
to have to look at two opinions, like the man with two clocks. He
never knows exactly what time it is.........which leaves with the
hard and lonely choice that the young fat-man offered some 2600
years ago:
"Bros, do NOT believe 'cuz it is written in an official text, or 'cuz
the man of authority said so, or because everybody else does.
Believe only what you yourself judge to be true" - Gautamo Buddha
ahahaha......ahahahanson
Dirk
I predict that the more expensive oil is,
the more profits the oil companies will make.
hahahaha.......AHAHAHAHA....right on!.....AHAHAHA...
ahahaha.....ahahanson
Actually, hardly a prediction.
As oil prices rise so does the share value and profits of the oil industry
biggies. They are raking it in right now.
Iraq is a no-lose situation for them.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
