coming and going....

[bigfatgreenbike]

rm@... wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, klr6501995 wrot > > > >>I do remember Pres. Bush proposing a change to hydrogen for fuel in one >>of his first speaches as Pres. >> >> > >Did he say where we are going to get the hydrogen from? > >RM >

No he didn't, but in this case I actually understand why (and agree). The hydrogen will (at first) come from petroleum. It's presently the cheapest way, and someone has to pay for the ENTIRE fuel infrastructure of the country to be retooled for H2. The environmental lobby and the EPA (the chowderheads who brought us MTBE) shouldn't be trusted to do it. I would rather have the oil companies do it, and yes they should make money off it. Though you're still burning petroleum, the actual point of use (individual vehicles) is a zero emissions process. Meaning that cities and any other built up areas would experience a quick and noticeable drop in motor vehicle stink, and pollution. The pollution would be far more easily monitored and controlled when the petroleum is processed at a few score industrial plants rather than in a million ill-maintained cars. The H2 would be produced from oil, until oil is as expensive as other methods (or other methods get cheaper) and then it would come from somewhere else. But by then there's a hydrogen "pump" at all the gas stations, and conversion kits for gasoline-fueled cars. People don't have to drive some weird vehicle that doesn't seem like their "normal" car, the cars don't drive any different, and the oil companies, which are a large segment of the US economy, don't collapse. Mind you this entire scenario was though up by someone with the oil companies profits in mind, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't consider the plan on its own merits. (note to Socialists: just because someone's making money off it, doesn't mean it's a bad idea). Devon

[a17circusbear]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, bigfatgreenbike wrote:

> > > rm@r... wrote: > > >On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, klr6501995 wrot > > > > > > > >>I do remember Pres. Bush proposing a change to hydrogen for fuel

in one

> >>of his first speaches as Pres. > >> > >> > > > >Did he say where we are going to get the hydrogen from? > > > >RM > > > > No he didn't, but in this case I actually understand why (and

agree).

> > The hydrogen will (at first) come from petroleum. It's presently

the

> cheapest way, and someone has to pay for the ENTIRE fuel

infrastructure

> of the country to be retooled for H2. The environmental lobby and

the

> EPA (the chowderheads who brought us MTBE) shouldn't be trusted to

do

> it. I would rather have the oil companies do it, and yes they

should

> make money off it. > > Though you're still burning petroleum, the actual point of use > (individual vehicles) is a zero emissions process. Meaning that

cities

> and any other built up areas would experience a quick and

noticeable

> drop in motor vehicle stink, and pollution. The pollution would be

far

> more easily monitored and controlled when the petroleum is

processed at

> a few score industrial plants rather than in a million ill-

maintained cars.

> > The H2 would be produced from oil, until oil is as expensive as

other

> methods (or other methods get cheaper) and then it would come from > somewhere else. But by then there's a hydrogen "pump" at all the

gas

> stations, and conversion kits for gasoline-fueled cars. > > People don't have to drive some weird vehicle that doesn't seem

like

> their "normal" car, the cars don't drive any different, and the oil > companies, which are a large segment of the US economy, don't

collapse.

> Mind you this entire scenario was though up by someone with the oil > companies profits in mind, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't

consider

> the plan on its own merits. (note to Socialists: just because

someone's

> making money off it, doesn't mean it's a bad idea). > > Devon

wouldnt this process be similar to the PROPANE thats already in use? they still make conversions for vehicles that run propane, and propane is a product of petroleum, so oil companies still make the money from the sales of propane, propane is not as high as gasonline in my area. propane burns fairly clean (different pollutant than gasoline i think) and if you have a propane fueled vehicle you are exempt from smog regulations in california. of coarse you would still have to have deisel and gasoline powered TRUCKS. my fathers propane powered ford f250 was a gutless turd. same concept, different decade. A17circusbear

[bigfatgreenbike]

a17circusbear@... wrote:

> >wouldnt this process be similar to the PROPANE thats already in use? >

Similar, but not zero emissions from the vehicle.

>they still make conversions for vehicles that run propane, and >propane is a product of petroleum, so oil companies still make the >money from the sales of propane, propane is not as high as gasonline >in my area. propane burns fairly clean (different pollutant than >gasoline i think) >

We have CNG powered city buses in NYC. These seem to work just fine, and run really clean.

> and if you have a propane fueled vehicle you are >exempt from smog regulations in california. of coarse you would >still have to have deisel and gasoline powered TRUCKS. my fathers >propane powered ford f250 was a gutless turd. >

Was it a gasoline conversion? I think a diesel would be different animal. Plus you could run a diesel on biodiesel. Devon

> > >

[Mike Torst]

> Hello, is this the FBI?" > > "Yes. What do you want?" > > "I'm calling to report about my neighbor Billy Bob > Smith! He is hiding marijuana inside his firewood." > > "Thank you very much for the call, sir." > > The next day, the FBI agents descend on Billy Bob's > house. They search the shed where the firewood is > kept. Using axes, they bust open every piece of wood, > but find no marijuana. They swore at Billy Bob and > left.. > > The phone rings at Billy Bob's house. "Hey, Billy Bob! > Did the FBI come?" > > "Yeah!" > > "Did they chop your firewood?" > > "Yep." > > "Merry Christmas Buddy!" >

Mike Torst A16 aka lasvegasrider -----Original Message----- From: a17circusbear [mailto:a17circusbear@...] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 7:36 PM To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: NKLR election now H2 fuel.... --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, bigfatgreenbike wrote:

> > > rm@r... wrote: > > >On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, klr6501995 wrot > > > > > > > >>I do remember Pres. Bush proposing a change to hydrogen for fuel

in one

> >>of his first speaches as Pres. > >> > >> > > > >Did he say where we are going to get the hydrogen from? > > > >RM > > > > No he didn't, but in this case I actually understand why (and

agree).

> > The hydrogen will (at first) come from petroleum. It's presently

the

> cheapest way, and someone has to pay for the ENTIRE fuel

infrastructure

> of the country to be retooled for H2. The environmental lobby and

the

> EPA (the chowderheads who brought us MTBE) shouldn't be trusted to

do

> it. I would rather have the oil companies do it, and yes they

should

> make money off it. > > Though you're still burning petroleum, the actual point of use > (individual vehicles) is a zero emissions process. Meaning that

cities

> and any other built up areas would experience a quick and

noticeable

> drop in motor vehicle stink, and pollution. The pollution would be

far

> more easily monitored and controlled when the petroleum is

processed at

> a few score industrial plants rather than in a million ill-

maintained cars.

> > The H2 would be produced from oil, until oil is as expensive as

other

> methods (or other methods get cheaper) and then it would come from > somewhere else. But by then there's a hydrogen "pump" at all the

gas

> stations, and conversion kits for gasoline-fueled cars. > > People don't have to drive some weird vehicle that doesn't seem

like

> their "normal" car, the cars don't drive any different, and the oil > companies, which are a large segment of the US economy, don't

collapse.

> Mind you this entire scenario was though up by someone with the oil > companies profits in mind, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't

consider

> the plan on its own merits. (note to Socialists: just because

someone's

> making money off it, doesn't mean it's a bad idea). > > Devon

wouldnt this process be similar to the PROPANE thats already in use? they still make conversions for vehicles that run propane, and propane is a product of petroleum, so oil companies still make the money from the sales of propane, propane is not as high as gasonline in my area. propane burns fairly clean (different pollutant than gasoline i think) and if you have a propane fueled vehicle you are exempt from smog regulations in california. of coarse you would still have to have deisel and gasoline powered TRUCKS. my fathers propane powered ford f250 was a gutless turd. same concept, different decade. A17circusbear List sponsored by Dual Sport News at www.dualsportnews.com. List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Unsubscribe by sending a blank message to: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . Yahoo! Groups Links

[a17circusbear]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, bigfatgreenbike wrote:

> > > a17circusbear@y... wrote: > > > > >wouldnt this process be similar to the PROPANE thats already in

use?

> > > Similar, but not zero emissions from the vehicle. > > >they still make conversions for vehicles that run propane, and > >propane is a product of petroleum, so oil companies still make the > >money from the sales of propane, propane is not as high as

gasonline

> >in my area. propane burns fairly clean (different pollutant than > >gasoline i think) > > > We have CNG powered city buses in NYC. These seem to work just

fine, and

> run really clean. > > > and if you have a propane fueled vehicle you are > >exempt from smog regulations in california. of coarse you would > >still have to have deisel and gasoline powered TRUCKS. my fathers > >propane powered ford f250 was a gutless turd. > > > Was it a gasoline conversion? I think a diesel would be different > animal. Plus you could run a diesel on biodiesel. > > Devon > > > > > > > >

Yes it was a gasoline conversion, big tank in the bed of the truck. gutless wonder, LPG was cheap back then. I am unfamiliar with biodeisel. i would assume diesel from fuels other than petroleum? A17circusbear

[bigfatgreenbike]

a17circusbear@... wrote:

>>Was it a gasoline conversion? I think a diesel would be different >>animal. Plus you could run a diesel on biodiesel. >> >>Devon >> >> >Yes it was a gasoline conversion, big tank in the bed of the truck. >gutless wonder, LPG was cheap back then. > >I am unfamiliar with biodeisel. i would assume diesel from fuels >other than petroleum? >

The original Diesel engine, developed by some guy named "Diesel", predated large scale petroleum production and was designed to run on peanut oil, or almost any other vegetable oil that was a clear liquid. Biodiesel (just google "make biodiesel") is made from vegetable oil, is a simple process that anyone capable of doing a valve adjustment on their KLR could manage, in a shed or garage using stuff they got from Home Depot (except for the fresh Methanol, which is best found at a dragstrip). It contains nearly zero sulfur, has lower particulate emissions than petroleum diesel, and the exhaust smells like french fries (assuming you made the biodiesel from used fry oil). It's why I want a diesel KLR650. Devon

[rm@richardmay.net]

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, bigfatgreenbike wrote:

>Though you're still burning petroleum, the actual point of use >(individual vehicles) is a zero emissions process. Meaning that cities >and any other built up areas would experience a quick and noticeable drop >in motor vehicle stink, and pollution. The pollution would be far more >easily monitored and controlled when the petroleum is processed at a few >score industrial plants rather than in a million ill-maintained cars.

How many BTU's will a barrel of crude that's been processed into gas/diesel yield? How about one that's been processed into H2? How long will it take to get enough H2 cars onto the road to make a difference? How much of a difference will, say, one million H2 cars make when compared to ULEV and SULEV gasoline-fueled vehicles? What are the operating characteristics of an H2 vehicle? Range? Power? Expense? The leading potential H2 source right now is natural gas, and natural already makes a halfway decent ICE fuel, as is. RM

[Devon]

rm@... wrote:

> > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, bigfatgreenbike wrote: > >> Though you're still burning petroleum, the actual point of use >> (individual vehicles) is a zero emissions process. Meaning that >> cities and any other built up areas would experience a quick and >> noticeable drop in motor vehicle stink, and pollution. The pollution >> would be far more easily monitored and controlled when the petroleum >> is processed at a few score industrial plants rather than in a >> million ill-maintained cars. > > > How many BTU's will a barrel of crude that's been processed into > gas/diesel yield? How about one that's been processed into H2?

Don't know. I don't know how efficient the process is, nor do I know if what is left over is useful. AFAIK when you process a barrel of crude for gasoline, very little is wasted. All the other fractions go into something else, right?

> > > How long will it take to get enough H2 cars onto the road to make a > difference? How much of a difference will, say, one million H2 cars > make when compared to ULEV and SULEV gasoline-fueled vehicles? What > are the operating characteristics of an H2 vehicle? Range? Power? > Expense? > > The leading potential H2 source right now is natural gas, and natural > already makes a halfway decent ICE fuel, as is.

Yes. Hydrogen from petroleum is just a way to get the oil companies to build a hydrogen infrastructure. You can pretty handily make H2 from water and electricity. Solar, wind etc. Basically ANY idle capacity from a renewable power source like hydroelectric can be redirected during off-peak times to H2 generation. You run the cleanest plants at nearly 100%, nearly 100% of the time, and fill in when needed with others. Eventually, anywhere from 10 to 100 years depending on whose line of bullsh*t you subscribe to, the H2 from renewable sources will be cost-competitive. Also, when we buy a gallon of gas, we don't really pay the true cost at the pump. The environmental cleanups, the inevitable foreign policy snafus because our economy is linked to a volatile and unpredictable area of the world, the health care costs due to pollution, none of it figures into the price per gallon. Regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, how great would it be to make foreign policy decisions that were nearly devoid of energy-related economic issues. Devon

[rm@richardmay.net]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Devon wrote:

>You can pretty handily make H2 from water and electricity. Solar, wind >etc. Basically ANY idle capacity from a renewable power source like >hydroelectric can be redirected during off-peak times to H2 generation.

Is there any idle hydroelectric capacity? Doesn't it already make sense to run those clean sources of power at 100% full-time and throttle back the "dirty" plants at night? If we divert hydro and wind to H2 production, coal/oil plants have to pick up the slack, right? Is solar reliable enough? Wind? How many square feet of photovoltaic panel is necessary to electrolyze enough hydrogen out of water to get to work the next day? Cost of those panels? How productive are they in upper midwest in the dead of winter? RM

[Eric L. Green]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 rm@... wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Devon wrote: > >You can pretty handily make H2 from water and electricity. Solar, wind > >etc. Basically ANY idle capacity from a renewable power source like > >hydroelectric can be redirected during off-peak times to H2 generation. > > Is there any idle hydroelectric capacity? Doesn't it already make sense

No there's not. Furthermore, because of global warming, lakes and rivers in the West where most hydropower is generated are at dangerously low levels, and few of the dams are currently producing power at full capacity.

> Is solar reliable enough?

Yes. Using it to produce hydrogen or (via catalytic combining of hydrogen and CO2) hydrocarbons solves the storage and transmission problems, where you cannot transmit electricity for long distances due to resistance losses, and where it's impossible to store it at all. Hydrocarbons, on the other hand, can and are shipped from one side of the nation to the other with minimal losses. The problem is that producing large amounts of hydrogen using solar energy takes water (in short supply in the desert areas where sunshine is abundant) and covers the desert with solar panels (NOT going to make the environmentalists happy). My conclusion: We're far better off building more nuclear power plants if we want to make H2 from water and electricity. The waste problems with nuclear power plants are solvable (most wastes can be reprocessed and used as fuel for breeder reactors), and nuclear power plants do not of course generate any CO2. As long as the nuclear power plants are sited in geologically stable areas, they are as safe as any other method of generating power. -E