Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:26:18 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Lessening of consumers' purchasing power causes a reduction of demand, and therefore the prices will drop further, which then leads to deflation, which was a very real fear a few years back. Which is one reason why the fed chopped interest rates so much. Greenspan chopped the prime rate after Bush's tax "rebates" because the expected revenue wasn't coming back -- instead of spending that money people were paying down their credit cards. So the Fed dropped the prime rate to encourage people to borrow and spend -more- money. IOW, the Fed was bailing out the economy after Bush ****ed it up. Well, that's certainly your opinion. Even if it is wrong. Look up "deflation" as it related to the recent recession and see what you find. I'm sure that none of them put it as simply as you did. They know, as you should, that there are many mitigating factors that also influence where a price is set. Think about things like monopolies and economic collusion. Think about taking a couple semesters of economics. Why? I understand the process. snip Wrong again, Dave. The recommended fuel for the Model T was alcohol, No Frank, the Model "T" had the capability to run on alcohol "as an alternative" to gasoline. Henry Ford felt that allowing the car to run on alcohol would sit well with local farmers who produced it. It was a "bell and whistle" not a mandatory requirement. Wrong, Dave. The preferred fuel for the Model T was ethanol, and any Model T fanatic or Ford historian will tell you the same thing. From: http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/spec...al/ethanol.htm "Ford's interest in using ethanol as an alternative fuel goes back to the days of Henry Ford. Ford planned to use ethanol as the primary fuel for his Model T, however, the less expensive gasoline emerged as the dominant fuel." You win a point for getting it almost right. Yes, it would seem that they planned to use alcohol, but Ford soon realized that the less expensive gasoline would become the dominant fuel. In fact, Henry Ford called alcohol "the fuel of the future. There are more stills in this country than filling stations." He sure missed the call on that one...... and that's what automobiles were built to use back in the early years of their history. And it was great because there were a whole bunch of backyard stills that were pumping out gallon after gallon of good ol' moonshine. But along came a big foreign oil company that decided to take a risk by dumping cheap gasoline on the market (at a net loss), a move which shut down the stills and convinced auto manufacturers to build their engines to run only on gasoline. Titusville Pa. (Not all that far from me) is a foreign oil company? We were producing "cheap" oil since 1859. Except that it wasn't refined for gasoline until much later. Otto invented the IC engine to run on alcohol, not oil or gas. It doesn't matter what the I.C. engine was invented to run on initially. It's what it eventually ran on as a practical motor car engine that matters. From: http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/fuel.html "Another early developer of the internal combustion engine was German inventor Nicholas August Otto. In 1860, Otto used ethyl alcohol as a fuel in an early engine because it was widely available for spirit lamps throughout Europe. He devised a carburetor which, like Morey's, heated the alcohol to help it vaporize as the engine was being started. But a January 1861 patent application with the Kingdom of Prussia was turned down, probably because heated alcohol carburetion was already being widely used in spirit lamps.32 It is interesting to note that Otto's initial financing came from Eugen Langen, who owned a a sugar refining company that probably had links to the alcohol markets of Europe. Of course, the Otto & Langen company went on to success in the 1870s by producing stationary gas engines (usually powered by coal gas) and the later "Otto-cycle" engine was fueled primarily with gasoline but was still adaptable to alcohol or benzene from coal." We didn't start importing oil on a large scale until 1970. The world's first oil tanker was built in 1877. Henry Ford continued to push for alcohol fuel until the 40's, even though big-time oil was discovered in the middle east a decade earlier. The rest is history (that you never learned). Until 1970, we relied on our own sources of oil. American oil production peaked then. It has been falling ever since as we have become more dependant on foreign oil. Try entering "US first imported oil" into google and see what you find. You really should stop with the conspiracy theories Frank..... snip If, back in the early 1900's, the alcohol producers were able to stay in business (in a fair and competitive market, protected by import tariffs) they most likely would have developed the technology to produce much cheaper alcohol, technology that is only -now- being developed. We now know that fuel-grade ethanol can be produced cheaply on a large scale using specially developed yeasts & enzymes and vacuum distillation, but there are no 'refineries' large enough to make it profitably. You also discount the potential environmental impact that large scale raw material farms, as well as the effect of production emissions and byproducts of the process might have on pollution. The environmental impact of farming? That's a -real- stretch, Dave. It's true nonetheless. Ethanol comes primarily from corn. Corn needs to be grown. Acreage used for ethanol production would be unavailable for food growth. Also fertilizers used for corn, could cause a local runoff problem in nearby waterways (as a boater I am conscious of these). Excess nitrogen in ponds and lakes has a damaging effect on the eco-system of that waterway. FYI, gasoline was originally just a worthless byproduct of refining kerosene from crude oil. I see you've been doing a little crash internet researching. (What happened to those wonderful books?) That's almost word for word the description used on one site. Here's some mo http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm It would seem that there have been some improvements in the efficiency in the production of alcohol in the last 10 years or so. But there are still some issues. Still, I agree that we should look into it. I owe no allegience to gasoline. I tend to favor that which is cheap. Regardless, part of the 'byproducts' left over from the fermentation process of alcohol are left in the vats to ferment the next batch of mash, while the rest is almost a perfect fertilizer (and sometimes used as hog chow). Ethanol burns cooler so there are no NO emissions Wrong. There are "less" of some emissions, like hydrocarbons, but there are still some VOC's and other byproducts. (thereby reducing ozone pollution), there are almost no hydrocarbon emissions, Wait, you just said above that there are NO emissions. Make up your mind Frank. no need for lead or other additives, no cyclic carcinogens, and the fuel burns more efficiently than gasoline. Ethanol is clean at both ends. Get educated, Dave. How's this for education: From: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deput...ons_062596.htm "Alcohol fuels provide America a way to reduce our oil dependence, but concerning exhaust emissions, test results are disappointing. Alcohol-fueled vehicles emit large amounts of some of the most reactive VOCs, particularly formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene are VOCs considered to be air toxics. Air toxics are known cancer-causing chemicals. Alcohol-fueled vehicles usually produce more air toxics than any other vehicle fuel." Hindsight is always 20/20. We didn't know about such things as global warming, ozone depletion, the finite availability of fossil fuel, and the need for truly renewable fuel sources back in the early 1900's. Oil was cheap, easy to extract, and plentiful. It was a no-brainer back then. Wrong again, Dave. Read up on the Free Alcohol Bill of 1906. So you're denying that oil was cheaper to produce? Read into the term "Net Energy Value" and then see how it has applied to alcohol over the years. Only recently has the technology advanced to the point where the NEV value is significantly positive. If you would agree to back off on your blind, relentless quest to call me wrong at every turn, I can certainly agree that alcohol has the potential of augmenting and offsetting our need for oil. At the current high oil prices, alcohol may be able to compete on a price basis. But cars cannot run on pure alcohol without modifications. Alcohol attracts and retains water, which cause the corrosion of metal parts. Alcohol also deteriorates rubber parts. Some changes would also have to be made to find the optimal stoichiometric air fuel ratio for proper combustion. For gasoline it is currently around 14.7:1. For newer cars with fuel injection systems and OBD-II Engine management systems, the changes could be made in firmware. For older cars with carburetors, the changes would have to be done by changing jets and metering rods (After replacing all the rubber parts). snip I'm not nearsighted. No, in fact, I am a realist. Like you once told me, change is inevitable. We can't go back to what we once were, so our best chance is to adapt to what we will become. Wrong -again-, Dave. Our best chance is to make decisions that will provide the most benefit for us -as- those changes occur. Which is what I meant when I said to anticipate and "adapt" to those changes. For instance, if I was a "young-un" in school right now, I would not pick manufacturing as a career path. Right now your best bet seems to be to pick a career that deals with either information, technology, entertainment, or professional services. snip Wrong again. Oil is inelastic because the -demand- remains constant -regardless- of the price. Demand is never constant. Demand changes with the season, economic and social conditions around the world, and emerging technology in developing nations. Overall, demand has been steadily increasing for the last several years. geez U R dum: http://www.netmba.com/econ/micro/dem...sticity/price/ Nice site. But it does not address my claim that factors other than price can affect demand. I'm tired of educating you, Dave. I think I'll let Twisty or someone else do it for a while. Maybe you should. You're doing a **** poor job of it. That 20 year old obsolete education you have is showing. Dave "Sandbagger" |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Roger Beeps 100% ILLEGAL | CB |