Last post on Oct 27, 2006 at 5:34 AM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Chrysler, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mercury, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Chevrolet Avalanche, Alternative Fuels, Hybrid Cars, Coupe, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, SUV
#2085 of 2104 Re: maybe we should revert back to something from an earlier age [kw5kw]
Oct 19, 2006 (10:55 am)
1-Nuclear Powerplant, produces enough hydrogen to power "X" amount of cars a yr. (It's a very significant #)
#2087 of 2104 Re: E85 pumps lose UL safety rating [rockylee]
Oct 19, 2006 (4:48 pm)
Very interesting indeed. Same reason Toyota is balking on FFVs. Corrosion of anything aluminum. Good thing FFVs can run on regular gas.
A move by the nation's largest product-safety laboratory to remove its approval of ethanol fuel pumps has frozen the rollout of new ethanol stations and cast doubt on the legal status of the roughly 1,000 stations already selling E85 fuel.
Without certification from Underwriters Laboratories, the company that tests thousands of products for safety and manages the "UL" symbol, state officials and ethanol industry executives say E85 pumps may run afoul of state and local fire codes that require "listed" equipment for pumping fuel. A fire marshal in Columbus, Ohio, ordered two E85 pumps shut down last week because of a lack of UL approval and Michigan officials are wrestling with the question as well.
Mark Griffin, president of the Michigan Petroleum Association, which represents 1,500 stores, said state officials were still wrestling with the question of whether the pumps at Michigan's 26 E85 stations still met state standards, and new pumps wouldn't be available until UL clears up the confusion, which "could be a matter of weeks. It could be months or years."
"Somebody asked whether this thing is heading toward a train wreck," Griffin said. "Well, I don't know."
In a statement, UL said it had no reports of problems with E85 systems, but withdrew its certification due to concerns about how ethanol can corrode parts of the fueling system.
#2088 of 2104 Re: E85 pumps lose UL safety rating [gagrice]
Oct 19, 2006 (4:51 pm)
gagrice, as you already know pal I like to add topics to the forums pal. I try to read every post I can most of the time when I'm on my days off from work.
#2089 of 2104 Re: E85 pumps lose UL safety rating [rockylee]
Oct 19, 2006 (4:58 pm)
This may be a blessing. It will make the price of ethanol come down and gas with it. Much of the last gas price run up was refiners looking for sources of ethanol to mix with gas. To fulfill the mandate for 2.97% ethanol in all unleaded gas.
Keep reading and posting interesting auto stuff.
#2090 of 2104 Re: E85 pumps lose UL safety rating [gagrice]
Oct 19, 2006 (6:03 pm)
Keep reading and posting interesting auto stuff.
Will do my best when time permits.
#2091 of 2104 Re: maybe we should revert back to something from an earlier age [kw5kw]
Oct 19, 2006 (6:49 pm)
"The Freestyle was intended as one of the Bold Move vehicles to get them on a turn-around path, but it turned out to be little more than Bold Talk. The next Bold Move will probably be to Mexico."
You might better explain that to Indonesia, where the forest fires are making it impossible for planes to land.
You are proposing burning items that are carbon based and will produce a lot of CO2 and other pollutants, including ash.
#2092 of 2104 Re: Stupid US Consumers.. [snakeweasel]
Oct 20, 2006 (9:47 am)
I'm out in aurora now, so this past summer has been cooler than last year. But my thing is sitting in traffic to/from work, which is very hairy on the way home. I'm looking at a minimum 38 mile loop. So a range of 50 miles would not do it for me. I'd like more than a 10 mile cushion. Most likely this would be a summer car for me, like a toy to drive on good / not so bad days. In the winter I'd probably park the thing.
Again, there are things about an EV that I really don't like and need these things figured out and presented in an all-around manner. Meaning, just don't give me the good, give me the con as well. Myself and others would be more accepting of it if alternatives were presented in that manner.
#2093 of 2104 Re: maybe we should revert back to something from an earlier age [stevedebi]
Oct 20, 2006 (10:57 am)
Where you have uncontrolled combustion, i.e.: the forest fires, building fires, &c. one will have polution. I'm not advocating uncontrolled fireboxes as in the past but very specific, very conrolled combustion.
#2094 of 2104 Re: maybe we should revert back to something from an earlier age [kw5kw]
Oct 20, 2006 (12:55 pm)
"I'm not advocating uncontrolled fireboxes as in the past but very specific, very conrolled combustion."
What do you propose to do with the by products?