Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (285)	1/4/2001 9:32:06 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

John... I'm not concerned with cost, just so long as the infrastructure is at least partially in place to secure our energy needs in the event of another oil embargo. As for alcohol being a poor fuel, that's not exactly true. While it possesses 1/2 the btu potential as gasoline, it also permits higher compressibility without pre-detonation, thus the reason for its use in racing cars. Some racing cars have a 14:1 compression ratio which provides incredible power in these short-stroke engines. turbofast.com.au turbofast.com.au And calling methanal/ethanol an environmental hazard is laughable given the chemical nature of gasoline and its additives (MTBE.. etc) It's all a matter of perspective. But rather than getting hung up solely on the issue of alcohol as a fuel, I am merely looking at it as ONE area that should be looked at in order to insure energy independence (or at least the capability of quickly becoming so). We have a SPR full of heavy crude oil that some say is sufficient for 90 days of US energy demand. We need to have means at hand, to make available the needed fuel to our economy should a total disruption occur. Whether it be alcohol, nuclear, coal, bio-mass, or what have you, I really don't care. Just so long as we have a plan and infrastructure in place. Regards, Ron