Gas news. Problem I dont know.

Mike,
I am absolutely NOT referring to you.
You nailed it in the last paragraph. The auto industry came up with the
converter and Standard Oil perfected no /low lead fuel but it was the Gov't that
pushed it down the motoring publics tanks before compatibility issue could be
fully resolved. The fuel thing was quite honestly instituted in part by the industry
to stretch out maintenance intervals which in turn would hopefully increase sales.
Let's face it guys its always about the money.....
I now relinquish the soap box !!
Charlie ny
 
When I get my hot rod biult I'm gonna get a portable micron filter for fuel and filter it at the nossle at the pump. Filter it before it goes in the tank that's what I always do on my atv, lawn mower, and tiller plows.

I was just seeing if you guys knew they were gonna do this, and your right we all need to like the EPA on one hand but watch out for there legislation.
 
My biggest problem with the logic being used today is that the aim is to keep greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere which would be a great thing as long as it doesn't stifle the already weak economy. You can completely stop using coal as a fuel but you can't stop volcanoes from errupting. That makes me wonder what the point is of leaving no human footprints where mother nature can still jump up and down all she wants. Johnny Appleseed had the only idea that made much sense. Plant a tree then hug the damn thing.
 
rotorwrench said:
My biggest problem with the logic being used today is that the aim is to keep greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere which would be a great thing as long as it doesn't stifle the already weak economy. You can completely stop using coal as a fuel but you can't stop volcanoes from errupting. That makes me wonder what the point is of leaving no human footprints where mother nature can still jump up and down all she wants. Johnny Appleseed had the only idea that made much sense. Plant a tree then hug the damn thing.
Click to expand...

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Johnny Appleseed didn't love trees. He was an entrepreneur who sold apple tree saplings to immigrants so they could grow apples to produce hard cider.
 
rotorwrench said:
My biggest problem with the logic being used today is that the aim is to keep greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere which would be a great thing as long as it doesn't stifle the already weak economy. You can completely stop using coal as a fuel but you can't stop volcanoes from errupting. That makes me wonder what the point is of leaving no human footprints where mother nature can still jump up and down all she wants. Johnny Appleseed had the only idea that made much sense. Plant a tree then hug the damn thing.
Click to expand...
That makes sence.
 
Mike51Merc said:
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Johnny Appleseed didn't love trees. He was an entrepreneur who sold apple tree saplings to immigrants so they could grow apples to produce hard cider.
Click to expand...

You sort of missed the point. We can completely stop using all fuels and there will still be harmful gasses generated by mother nature. What happens to the ecconomy if we stop using fuels? We may even need the volcanic eruptions to cool the planet off although I think I'd rather be warm than freezing.

At least planting a tree will scrub some CO2. Nobody looks for a way to combat CO2 they just want us to stop generating it.
 
rotorwrench said:
You sort of missed the point. We can completely stop using all fuels and there will still be harmful gasses generated by mother nature. What happens to the ecconomy if we stop using fuels? We may even need the volcanic eruptions to cool the planet off although I think I'd rather be warm than freezing.

At least planting a tree will scrub some CO2. Nobody looks for a way to combat CO2 they just want us to stop generating it.
Click to expand...
Sorry didnt quite get it but now I do.
 
Haven't figured out Washington yet??? No one else has either...Bet there's no EPA in China and India.
 
Uncle Bob said:
Going back to your original post, one would believe you think sulphur is a useful component of gasoline. It helps none of those things you listed, so rest easy on that.

Keep in mind that in gasoline from the nozzle the sulphur component is in solution and is thus practically innocuous. AFTER the combustion process is when some amount of it is released as free sulphur and other sulphur compounds depending on what other elements/compounds are available (e.g. oxygen and water which could form sulphuric or sulphurous acid ). It's that potential for acids that could deteriorate the down stream emissions control systems that the auto manufacturers (because they have to warrant performance for extended operation cycles) and the EPA gestapo are interested in. What visible damage it will inflict is the cost of removing such small (thus more difficult) amounts of additional sulphur, which in turn is passed on to the consumer. The diesel guys got hit with this a few years ago when similar demands where put on diesel fuel (if interested look at the labeling on a diesel fuel pump at the station next time you're there, there will be some commentary about "ultra-clean", plus probably some reference to reduced sulphur).
Click to expand...

The sulfur levels in diesel at 15ppm are lower than in gasoline at 30ppm. It is much more difficult to get the sulfur out of diesel and the yield is less as well. That is the reason diesel costs more than gasoline as it is so expensive to manufacture and fewer refineries can make diesel anymore. The sulfur gets converted to SO2 and then sulfuric acid. Expect more expensive gasoline if sulfur is lowered again.

I looked at the EPA site and gasoline max was 30ppm in 2011 but 80ppm for imported gasoline. So clamp down more on the domestic refiners and relax on the overseas ones!
 
rotorwrench said:
My biggest problem with the logic being used today is that the aim is to keep greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere which would be a great thing as long as it doesn't stifle the already weak economy. You can completely stop using coal as a fuel but you can't stop volcanoes from errupting. That makes me wonder what the point is of leaving no human footprints where mother nature can still jump up and down all she wants. Johnny Appleseed had the only idea that made much sense. Plant a tree then hug the damn thing.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. Environmentalism is a religion. They don't want you to use gasoline or electricity generated by fossil fuels ir-regardless of whether enough could be generated by "green" methods which it can't. How about concrete? Can't make concrete without emitting CO2!
 
This thread has nothing to do with old Fords, but I'll raise my glass of hard cider to Johnny Appleseed and W.C Fields any day!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top