Photos
Blog
NewslettersHow to reduce gas prices immediately
No tax cuts, no smoke and mirrors.
We sell the SAME gasoline in California as they sell in Montana or New York. And we sell 100% unadulterated gasoline, no ethanol, methanol, mtbe or anything else in it.
This way, when there is a shortage of gas in Cleveland, they can send it over from New york or from Atlanta. Everyone has a different blend, a cocktail of ingredients to satisfy the local environmentalists. Yet, burning ethanol blends reduces gas mileage which increases the amount of fuel burned, increases the global warming gas emissions, and increases the cost.
The justification is that it reduces air pollution per unit burned, however, no one seems to understand that it takes MORE units to do the same work when you have fewer btu's being produced by blending the fuel with something else - thus - you ultimately produce more emissions since you need to burn 1.1 gallons to go 20 miles since you only 18mpg on the ethanol blend. If you get 20mpg and do a 20 mile roundtrip - it costs you about $3.47 when you get non-blended gasoline. However, when you use the blend, it costs you $3.82 in fuel to travel the 20 miles. Since ethanol costs more than gasoline per gallon, well, guess what, the cost goes up. Yet another tax imposed by the environmentalists.
- joefarrell's blog
- Login to post comments
- 509 reads
Joe,
Your argument makes sense but is probably too complicated for our legislators to grasp. And the oil companies probably won't support it either for obvious reasons. I doubt though that fuell from California would be acceptably transferable during winter months. For 15 or so years, California has required the sale of oxygenated gasoline during winter months. I believe the uderlying thought is that by infusing gasoline with oxygen that the resulting mix will be leaner in the thinner air of cooler months. While still there I didn't notice a difference in the two fuels, but the process of infusion is costly so the price rises during those months. I don't think folks in other states would want the price increase.
Personally I think more focus should be placed on methane. It is a totally renewable and currently wasted resource. It can be harvested from sewer systems and treatment plants, garbage dumps, landfills, cattle barns, chicken coops, and many other lucrative sources. There probably needs to be a lot of streamlining of the various harvesting methods, but it can be done. And, keeping much of the naturally occuring methane from entering the atmosphere would elminate a tremendous amount of air pollution. It would effectively kill two birds with one stone.
Topgun, think back to airplanes - hotter air is less dense since it holds more water for one. Also, NH4 is a terribly effective greenhouse gas.
As for the oxygenated fuels, there are other alternatives. I would think that the oxy'd fuel evolved before the days of effective smog controls on cars. Run a car leaner and it produces a more stochiometric burn which reduces hydrocarbon smog but emits more nitrogen oxides - which is what the Cat 'burns' to reduce smog.
The problem is that ATL, the northeast states and the bluer parts of red states insist on the same gas in winter- which does little to prevent smog anymore, but its still there because no one want to be an easy target for the claim that they are 'endangering' the environment by nixing oxygenated gas. Why, oxygen is a good thing right? The environmentalists caused a tremendous problem with the MTBE that they INSISTED go into gasoline since it was so poisonous to every life form known to man, including man. No, they price of gas stays higher because of something that really is not needed any longer, 'oxygenation,' and because everyone want their own gas blend. So Calif. gas is only sold in a few parts of the nation, Illinois has a different blend, and the northeast yet another. Thus, there is no longer a national gas market but a bunch of smaller ones which affect the price.
And given a perfect system of distribution it has merit. But take a look at this:
http://e85prices.com/
The folks in the Midwest are way out in front on this. Some are realizing a net 15%-20% savings while reducing dependence on foreign oil and helping the environment.
As far as the energy requirements to make etoh, well that's really a non-issue, however I agree with TGS that we need to shy away from food crops and continue to develop cellulosic technology which will enable us to use a variety of fuel sources. Methane is a good fuel source. We seem to have all but forgot about natural gas and coal gasification. Hydrogen still holds promise.
I read an interesting quote once that said " I can't wait for the day when we have faster than light travel, I'm just not looking forward to the long wait in the dark once I arrive". When it comes to alternative fuel we seem to still be waiting in the dark.
Good topic Joe and great idea.
ethanol is fine as a fuel, once you realize that to go the same distance you need more of it, and that you will produce MORE CO2 to travel the same distance that using gasoline. So if Carbon emissions are a problem for you, then you need to be concerned about ethanol and other alcohol based fuels.
H2 and similar gas technology makes alot of sense, until you resolve the storage questions. I like the idea of Hydrogen since the waste product is water, which you can drop off at the station when you get more fuel and they can then make more fuel right at the fueling station. Nitrogen oxides will also be produced in small quantities by the reaction but those can be dealt with using technical means of converting them.
I see the future of Hydrogen as making the fuel right at the same place as the waste product is returned. The science of cracking water has been known, the issue is one of engineering, not science.
The higher octane etoh does produce more co2 when burned but much of this is offset by the co2 the plant consumed while growing. Hydrogen is also my favorite.
Ethanol requires almost as much CO2 producing energy to make it through crop production, fermentation and distillation as it provides as a fuel. It actually is a net negative in my opinion as to global warning. But an environmentalists wet dream? Nah. It's subsidies, man. $.52/gallon or so to the farmers.
The tert butyl ether prohibition was a disaster. This material provided in a rather effective manner the octane improvement necessary for today's engines. There has been a 35 year struggle to find the best solution to fuel octane since tetraethyllead went out in 1972(3?).
Remember, folks, that as much as we love hydrogen, it must be produced using some CO2 producing chemistry (other than wind, solar, hydro) and that unyielding thermochemistry guarantees the continuous flow of CO2. Actually it would be better to do it at central locations so as to capture and sequester the CO2 produced.
The one interesting point is that it is fairly efficient to crack water into H2 using solar - solar cells produce enough energy to crack H2 fairly efficiently. A few hundred acres in a place like Arizona could likely produce enough H2 for the entire nation - the problem is moving it - it does not take much to set it off. . .
Write then calculate or calculate then write.
The energy density of the sun is 1.4kW/meter2. I will let you determine the necessary area to supply the energy needs of an H2 economy.
You can look up all the conversion factors, make an estimate of the efficiencies, determine the Joules of energy we consume as fossil fuels, make the H2 conversion and then come back with a number. Tis called science and engineering and it works better if you do it BEFORE the claims.
1.4 kilowatts per meter per second? Per hour? whats the time period?
I'm all for math- and science - but you see - I am a liberal environmentalist - I can violate the second and third laws of thermodynamics because is makes me feel good about my lifestyle and about me.
My friend Blue says to write in JOE on the Presidential Ballot in Nov!! If he wins it seems like he has the noggin to set things right. Also, I have a friend who wants to be AG and I think AdRacer should be the Sec of Interior (Ironic that the Sec of the Interior is in charge of everything Outside), Blust should be the Federal Spellchecker, Scooter Sec of Leather & Defense and of course UCB would be in charge of the Chicken sfor Oil Program since the Pork of oil program has internal flaws. Good luck JOE!!!