  Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 3285 Registered: 06-2004 |
quote: | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1636 Registered: 11-2003 |
I heard about this on WWJ this morning. THis could be huge for GM. They have made slow and steady improvements in so many areas, this is just one more positive thing they are continuing to do to turn around business. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6967 Registered: 02-2004 |
Smart ideal GM. That would beat the those Asian car companies. No more depending of foreign oil. Arabs, you can keep your useless black fuel. YAY DETROIT! We still and always is the Motor City. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4839 Registered: 10-2004 |
Another story is that GM is planning to reduce its operating costs. The Freep on Sunday carried this: quote: | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1521 Registered: 12-2004 |
GM should keep this stuff secret, until they crush Toyota! | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 4575 Registered: 10-2003 |
That's not the only good news from the Autoshow. http://www.chicagotribune.com/ business/chi-autoshow-blog,0,2 074319.story quote: (P.S., I see LY has been especially busy spreading his pessimism around lately! Seems every thread has a post where he is micturating on otherwise positive news.) | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1921 Registered: 05-2005 |
ethanol is still a poor source of energy (as compared to gasoline), but at least this way, its consuming what is otherwise a waste procuct and not F'ing with the corn/agricultural industry as much | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 502 Registered: 12-2006 |
Gravitymachine, What do you mean that it is a poor source of energy compared to gasoline? | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4840 Registered: 10-2004 |
There are several Web sites comparing E85 and naphthas. Here is merely one of them: E85 in standard engines. There are several negatives to using the Savior--ethanol--in addition to its roughly 30% energy loss compared to a typical naphtha on a volumetric basis. But, they have been cited literally numerous times on this forum. So, rehashing those litanies can be averted by simply searching DY. | ||
Gravitymachine Member Username: Gravitymachine Post Number: 1922 Registered: 05-2005 |
what LY said  | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4841 Registered: 10-2004 |
Apparently JL doesn't desire that GM continue as a viable company. Why is he so negative toward GM??? Instead, in his entitlement mindset, he would rather keep GM at risk competitively--thereby weakening both GM and their employees in the future. Instead of the alternative of cutting some overpaid (and quite probably utterly useless) employees, he would prefer that GM continue overpaying them. Typical cradle-to-grave socialist behavior. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 91 Registered: 12-2007 |
And how efficient is gasoline? Where are your numbers there? | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 503 Registered: 12-2006 |
but according to coskata, they get 7.7 times the output of energy compared to the amount of energy needed as an input and that the production costs are under $1 a gallon. With those type of numbers, that should more than overcome the 30% energy loss in terms of cost. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4842 Registered: 10-2004 |
The theoretical efficiency is determined from the laws of thermodynamics and physics. As a practical matter, that has been determined literally thousands of times already. That's applied science or physics--otherwise known as engineering. Ethanol can never be made as efficient as naphtha on a mass or volumetric basis because that would violate the laws of physics, including the laws of thermodynamics as a subset of physics. There's much less heat energy per gallon with CH3-CH2OH. A half-way literate physics or chemistry teacher in high school should know that. Fortunately, your HS might have had one or more of those and could have taught you what you want to know. In the interim, Google E85 or ethanol and be advised that not all Web sites are glorifying ethanol. Most with chemical-engineering educations as I have don't see much value in alcohol--at least corn-derived ethanol. Converting some alcohols from waste stuffs at a lower cost is another thing. That might have some benefit. However, E100 ethanol (100% w/o water) has only around 66% of the heating value (enthalpy) as conventional naphthas. If sold at a price over 2/3 that of naphtha (including taxes), a consumer is getting screwed... Even with subsidies because there is no such thing as a free lunch. Besides, it's expected that engines would not last as long without them being overhauled burning E85. The proof of that pudding will be in its taste--when consumers of E85 bitch loudly enough about their higher maintenance costs and refuse to purchase it any longer. IMO, it'll be another Windows Me... (Message edited by LivernoisYard on January 14, 2008) | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 504 Registered: 12-2006 |
Livernois, The method that coskata announced they are using involves the use of switchgrass, not corn. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 92 Registered: 12-2007 |
ethanol is only a place holder, you should know, with your extensive educational background, for other Bio-Fuels and Hydrogen or electric vehicles. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4843 Registered: 10-2004 |
Electricity will either be derived from nuclear energy or be coal based, as now. Expect many more nuke plants if one doesn't want coal plants. The other sources of energy are essentially low-grade heat or are not available in sufficient quantity. Why is it that so much is expected from technology, especially when so few kids today even take the routine physics and chemistry courses that the vast majority of kids took only forty years ago? Ditto for math and other science courses. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on January 14, 2008) | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 93 Registered: 12-2007 |
Whats wrong with nuclear power, it's only the cleanest and most sustainable form of energy we currently have, unless the government would actually build the green coal plants, which produce energy, hydrogen, and ethanol all at once. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 4845 Registered: 10-2004 |
Why don't you ask how many nuclear power plants the US has commissioned during the past three decades? Has the US demand for energy increased the past thirty years? | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 95 Registered: 12-2007 |
I know how many have been built, or rather not built. I am sure that has to do with the publics misconception of nuclear power and its effects. But...surely you do. |
