- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
"I Pulled Out Of Pittsburg Headin' Down The Eastern Seaboard..."
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
And some tell me (and others) that this is nonsense, and they can be pumping in far less time than that. Why don't we give them a chance to show us?
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Funny timing... I was working on that song last night, for tonight's gig..
I don't do stuff like you did with the Beemer, Tom, diesel is too expensive... That's why our lil' Dodge Dakota with the 4.7L is fun sometimes.. blow off folks without using a lot for fuel.. lol
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
1968 or so, college, used to fill up the 10 gallon tank on my Karmann Ghia for $2.50 (the whole tank, not per gallon) during the sporadic "gas wars" (that phrase has taken on a whole different meaning now).
Jerry
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
The technology is in place to use CNG as a bridge fuel for transportation, thus reducing some of the pressure on oil.
Needs a better distribution system to be viable.
I'm a member of the "All options are open" club".
Wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen, etc.
Coal has major possibilities, but also major disposal issues.
Maybe coal gasification?
Even nuclear if the disposal issue is solved; however, stuffing the waste into Yucca mountain leaves a lot to be desired.
About all I remember from my thermodynamics classes is the Mollier diagram (Enthalpy vs Entropy for water) and it's use in analyzing steam generation for electricity generation as well as the basic thermo process for converting fuel into usable mechanical energy (Internal Combustion Engine).
Both were low efficiency (20% was considered good back then) thus very wasteful, but fuel was cheap and emissions were ignored.
Times have changed.
Lew
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Yes. There is a lot of re-thinking being done (and yet to do) - and we're seeing a revival of interest in external combustion engines that can be driven with solar energy without fuel and without emissions.
Puckdropper's comment prompts a quip that "waste heat" is an obsolete term - it's now "recovered", "secondary use", or "foolishly /wasted/ heat". :-)
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Tim,
That's funny as heck!!!
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
It's always those dang semantics that always get me....... How about those summer dresses? Saw another good one the other day. My wife has also went back to the occasional summer dress after three years of cancer treatment. Damn good to have her back.
cm
>- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
...then I woke up...
...with my hands on the wheel of my beat up 5 1/2 cylinder f150 with the blown headgasket and the cancer spots on the rockers...
...the one that had never been driven over 90...
...had it all been a dream?
...I looked at the receipt for the gas...
... not dream...nightmare...
...i drove home and read myself to sleep...
...some book about a guy named Mitty, or some such...
...
...
...
t.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
My daddy said "Son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin' If you don't stop drivin' that
Hot
Rod
Lincoln!"
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
I remember paying 22.9 cents per gallon occasionally in my VDubya days -- could barely get $2.00 worth of gas into that 10.6 gallon tank.
Used to walk to 4 miles to school every day when I was a kid too. In the snow. Uphill. Both ways! :-)
--Steve
1968 or so, college, used to fill up the 10 gallon tank on my Karmann Ghia for $2.50 (the whole tank, not per gallon) during the sporadic "gas wars" (that phrase has taken on a whole different meaning now).Jerry
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
formatting link
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
+1 For a Strunk & White reference. Bravo!
OK, grammar correct (I think), but it's arguable that this is still in the fantasy stage.
As a recovering Canadian, I know the US is held with sort of mix of bemusement, irritation, and love - kind of like how our spouses probably see us. OTOH, I'd much rather send my money North than to pests like Chavez...
Uh, take off ya hoser ... get a new tuke ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Heck I walked 6 miles uphill both ways on my hands and knees...... wait a minute I didn't have hands and knees, I only had stubs. he he he.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
I'm just saying that ANY proposal will take years before it's useful. The only short term fix is to reduce consumption. Carpool, telecomute, etc.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Carpooling doesn't work for people who are on-call.
Try to fix a busted pipe by telecommuting.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
In a similar vein as Clarke's response, carpooling doesn't work for people who walk to work, children who don't drive. Carpooling doesn't work for bus-drivers either...or truckers..and more of such silly shiat. I kid, I kid....
The europeans, and other people in countries elsewhere, haven't had the 'luxury' of wasting energy, for a long time already. They have developed some good ideas, like electrification and high speed railroads. Expensive you say? ... naaaa, you can do a lot with 700 billion. I absolutely agree on reducing consumption. A lot of that can be done immediately, but what is lacking is the mindset. Too many people (myself included) don't want to have to deal with missing the bus are having to rush like crazy to make the train on time. But freight? Easily handled by rail... at least a great big chunk of it. There is a network in place already that can be used while the expansion and electrification is underway. All you have to do is look at what it costs to send a 20 ton 40-foot container from LA to NY via rail and via truck.. in terms of fuel consumed.