E10 fuel for ST1100 Pan European

Correct on that. I really didn't mean to imply that Texas was somehow deficient in not including de-icing features in their windmills. Just that it is the reason they had such issues when the freeze hit. A very uncommon and not expected circumstance for them to go through.

As to other generating facilities... those all still need electrical power to generate more power. They should have generators to self provide that power but the freeze could impact the operation of even those. At least I could imagine that to be the case.
 
rwthomas1 said:
Remember now that the world was once lit with whale oil lamps, and wind/sail power was the way to get around. It changed, what we have now will change too. I don't happen to think that renewables are the answer. They may be part of the answer, but totally renewable energy? Considering the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, coupled with the fact that the energy captured is difficult and expensive to store "large scale", it doesn't seem viable as a total replacement. If petroleum went away tomorrow, the world would be building conventional nuclear and probably thorium reactors, and in a large hurry.

RT
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that our civilization doesn´t just totally depend on oil for energy, but you need the hydrocarbons for other things that keep us going and that list is quite extensive, it´s only about 30% for transport and 10% for energy, the rest is industry, pharmacy, farming, aviation, etc. Without oil there is no medicine for instance. Where as a thorium reactor could in theory supply enough power in a "safer" way than a uranium nukeplant there is no way to build, install and maintain a thorium reactor without oil. We use one and a half thousand barrels each and every second, that is a supertanker on empty every 30 minutes, by now the major deposits are nearing depletion and there have been no new Gahwar sized discoveries in decades.
The age of oil is coming to an end, soon, when the cost of extraction and processing a barrel exceeds it´s net energy gain, oil will no longer be an energy source but an energy sink and from that point on the age of oil is over.
 
Last edited:
Slammer said:
The problem with that is that our civilization doesn´t just totally depend on oil for energy, but you need the hydrocarbons for other things that keep us going and that list is quite extensive, it´s only about 30% for transport and 10% for energy, the rest is industry, pharmacy, farming, aviation, etc. Without oil there is no medicine for instance. Where as a thorium reactor could in theory supply enough power in a "safer" way than a uranium nukeplant there is no way to build, install and maintain a thorium reactor without oil. We use one and a half thousand barrels each and every second, that is a supertanker on empty every 30 minutes, by now the major deposits are nearing depletion and there have been no new Gahwar sized discoveries in decades.
The age of oil is coming to an end, soon, when the cost of extraction and processing a barrel exceeds it´s net energy gain, oil will no longer be an energy source but an energy sink and from that point on the age of oil is over.
Click to expand...


I'm not disputing any of that. We will never run out of oil. It will simply be not economically viable to extract it on a large scale. And we will move to other alternatives and/or the price of oil derived products will increase. Yes it will change. Maybe it will be better, and maybe worse, but it's not like we can really do anything about it.

RT
 
rwthomas1 said:
I'm not disputing any of that. We will never run out of oil. It will simply be not economically viable to extract it on a large scale. And we will move to other alternatives and/or the price of oil derived products will increase. Yes it will change. Maybe it will be better, and maybe worse, but it's not like we can really do anything about it.

RT
Click to expand...
Actually I think civilization will be better, at least it will be slower; give us time to catch up. Perhaps even give the planet a chance to regenerate. But not for all of us, I would expect the population to drop to a level where some form of civilization can be sustained indefinitely. In the late seventies the Club of Rome postulated that there is a limit to our growth, it may look a tad simplistic to todays school of thought but the basics are correct: There is a limit to our civilization and that our civilization will live with a cheap and abundant source of energy and die without one.
 
I remember when you couldn't get leaded gasoline anymore, I was so upset, I just rebuilt my 396 with 11:1 [nothing too crazy,] and I thought, why me? Why is this happening to me? Well I was 17 and I just didn't get it, lead at the time was imagined as being essential as a lubricant, octane enhancer, and well I'm sure most on this site remember more accurately than I do, but the reality of it all is of course that, it was killing us, it was really horrible ____, and thank ___ that's all done, I'm trying to remember what point in the roman calendar it was or where I was when I embraced the notion that we share a collective interest, and thought...
Can you get a quiet bike with a catalytic converter?
 
Kaiser Swaghelm II said:
I remember when I first discovered the Fermi paradox as a High school kid.
My immediate thought process lead me to the theory, that perhaps, as one of the most abundant elements in our Universe.
Perhaps the second a Group of intelligent life forms grow to a civilized level.
They immediately burn all of the Carbon in their planet and destroy themselves.

It wasn't until years later that I discovered that this theory is actually already one of the main hypothesise of this Paradox.
But in recent years I have honestly started to feel optimistic for our survival as a civilisation.

I don't think that Human kind is looking at the next Bronze Carbon age collapse, but quite the opposite.
I think we, as a civilisation are very close to becoming one of the few intelligent life forms to survive the Fermi paradox, and come out the other side.
Click to expand...
Or we are the first, or the only one.
 
What is this Fermi thing? I'm just not gonna google it, but if you are you talking about a natural inclination toward carbon sequestration or carbon dioxide recovery, or even if you could incentivize the reversal of global warming, I hate to break it to you; reality is of the 9.5 [conservative real estimate by anyone with an even loose grip on reality] that are here already, most of them won't separate their plastic collateral from killing the ocean if it took more than walking across their kithchen and opening yet another separate plastic bag, it's just not going on. Their content to do the John Lennon and sit on their [somewhat] fatter assess and blame the previous generation...
Well, my hour must be up...
Same time next week?
Anyone up for a rip?
 
But look on the bright side after 40 years of planning its eradication, the last country (Algeria) just stopped selling leaded fuel. There were actually many more using leaded fuel until quite recently.
Whilst many "Western Leaders" pat themselves on the back and prepare for the next TV interview to promote their "Greenness" and acclaim the crops to be the saviour of the day; we are surely old enough and ugly enough to know it's all sentimental tosh.
They'll be telling us next that electric is the future, just think no oil threads just lots of battery and motor threads. And of course that's the way it started about 120 years ago before oil was hailed to be the future, the enlightenment. Funny innit.
Upt'North.
 
While we are on the doomsday train, I’ll jump on, what about the SF6 sulphur hexaflouride gas that is used in every wind turbine as some sort of anti electrical fire retardant (or something like that…..). This stuff is pure evil and it’s hardly ever mentioned in the MSM but I read that it‘true, its a big dirty secret that is inconvenient to the truth behind electrical everything. That’s my stop, I’m getting off….
 
Well, I don't see renewables as a reliable source of energy. They won't ever be simply because the sun isn't always out, and the wind doesn't always blow. Will they contribute? Sure, but how much is anyone's guess. It my State they have been installing solar. But they are filling fields with these panels. I fly around my State and am appalled at how much green has been replaced by silver panels. The ridiculous part is these panels could be installed on top of every roof, there's no need to fill what were once nice open spaces with them.

All that said, they will eventually come to the realization that nuclear, uranium or better yet thorium is the only answer that makes sense. There's a guy, Shellenburger I think, that does a great bit on this out there on the Net. Thorium is largely ignored for some reason. Successful reactors were run for years, research paid for with our taxes, and the scientists are still alive that did the work. Why this hasn't been capitalized on is beyond me. Small regional thorium reactors would revolutionize power generation. No need to have a massive grid. Make the power where you need it. Its scalable and very safe.

RT
 
On the plus side for 'green engineering/marketing'...our worldwide population is growing too fast. Our numbers are outstripping the ability of the most ambitious carbon reduction schemes to work for any period of time. Marketing for such questionable schemes will flourish.
and.....as our herd density grows, diseases will spread faster; likely to the point that trying to stop their spread, once started, will become completely ineffective.
Just my opinion.
 
Kaiser Swaghelm II said:
Irradiated Thorium is incredibly dangerous!
Anyone who told you Thorium reactors are very safe, is absolutely insane.

The Th-U cycle invariably produces U-232, which decays to Tl-208, which has a 2.6 MeV gamma ray decay mode.
Bi-212 also causes problems.
These gamma rays are very hard to shield, requiring more expensive spent fuel handling and/or reprocessing.

When thorium is irradiated, or exposed to radiation to prepare it for use as a fuel in nuclear reactions, the process forms small amounts of uranium-232. That highly radioactive isotope makes any handling of the fuel outside of a large reactor or reprocessing facility incredibly dangerous. The lethal gamma rays uranium-232 emits make any would-be bomb-maker think twice before trying to steal thorium.

All that being said... I am still all for the production and long term use of Thorium reactors!
I just wanted to debunk the "very safe" rumour!

And answer the question of "why hasn't it been done sooner seeing as how much work and money went into it's research?" at the same time.
Click to expand...

The information I have seen is that the thorium reactor designs are safe, as in, they are self extinguishing. Safe is relative. Maybe everything I've read is incorrect, and we're all doomed. Doomed I say! Hahaha. Whatever man. I'm old enough to remember when they told us we'd be out of oil in 10 years, about 30 years ago. And the next ice age was coming, and we'd run out of water, and 6 billion people was all the earth could possibly support. Etc, etc. I think I'm done with this thread.

RT
 
Bill Gates is all in $$ on nuclear and is in the process of developing plants in the upper western states. Hydrogen is the logical emerging fuel and is being adapted by nearly all civilized nations at a fairly rapid pace. Over the road trucking will be the first to capitalize, and refueling stations are being built on the major transportation routes. Big oil, the Saudis, Shell, Chevron etc. , are increasing there hydrogen production along with numerous independent companies, and becoming widely accepted as the clean solution for many local utilities. Yipper.
 
Roger. said:
Just had this land in my inbox... https://check-vehicle-compatibility-e10-petrol.service.gov.uk/manufacturer/Honda Motorcycles

'All Honda motorcycles and mopeds produced for the EU market since 1993 can use ethanol-blended gasoline up to 10% although carburettor-equipped models could experience poor driveability in cold weather conditions.'
Click to expand...

Sorry if I posted this already.
I've used E10 in a number of old bikes (4) with no issues gas related. Three 1978 GL1000 bikes and my 1991ST. No gastric or respiratory problems on either.
 
Oldbikefixr said:
Sorry if I posted this already.
I've used E10 in a number of old bikes (4) with no issues gas related. Three 1978 GL1000 bikes and my 1991ST. No gastric or respiratory problems on either.
Click to expand...
Really Bikefixr. I don't think Honda was thinkin about the folks in Ft. Worth, or Phoenix or Miami when they published that.:)
 
Roger. said:
Just had this land in my inbox... https://check-vehicle-compatibility-e10-petrol.service.gov.uk/manufacturer/Honda Motorcycles

'All Honda motorcycles and mopeds produced for the EU market since 1993 can use ethanol-blended gasoline up to 10% although carburettor-equipped models could experience poor driveability in cold weather conditions.'
Click to expand...

Yes I remember searching for this myself filled with fear that my new to me bike was doomed! So, as a stranger to all this technical talk, I have a question. I am wondering if it's okay to chuck in some REDEX for petrol engines, every now and then or is this a no no? Please share your thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom