Senate Blocks Alaska Refuge Drilling

These same senators will be the ones complaining about oil and gas prices when their terms end.

 

I am glad this measure has failed. Not because I am "tree hugging" person, but because I don't think this was the answer.

We need to focus on something that will help decrease our dependence now, not 10 years from now.

We also need to focus on matters that will be more likely to improve our system rather than find something that will add a million barrerls to the market for an undetermined time. There are tons of ways to decrease our dependenceny.

I agree that we should focus on decreaseing our dependence on oil, but we shouldn't be so short-sighted, we should have an honest discussion on how to help our country, vers a policital one.

Jamie

 

I carpool to work.

I am spending less on gas now than I was when I was driving solo and paying $1.50 per gallon.

Not much cold weather here, so I don't run the heater often at all.

I still think they should have passed the bill to drill there.

I also think they ought to be releasing more of the reserves.

 

Luk 11:42 --- these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.


Suppose the drilling HAD been done 10 YEARS ago!?

What are the comments going to be 10 years from now?

 

I think one thing that the oil companies don't want us to know is that they have not followed through on their oil drilling rights which are just outside the refuge! I thought this refusal was just a tree-hugger tactic, too, until I started researching the matter.

http://www.ecoworld.org/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=360 -- this is at least an unhysterical article against drilling, but not the one I was looking for...

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/AlaskaNorthSlopeDrilling.cfm -- a little more information, but still not what I was looking for...

SOMEWHERE there are a series of newspaper articles from a few years ago -- newpapers based in Alaska and Washington, I think -- which talk about the areas which the oil companies have options on which they have not yet used. Until these are checked, at least, there is no reason other than future profits and control of the land for the same to open the Reserve to the oil companies.

 

Encourage your politicians to mandate that fuel has to contain 10% Ethanol which is sourced from farms across the U.S. Fossil Fuel imports would then end overnight, and you can support your own farmers rather than the Saudis.

 

I will never support the use of Ethanol for use as an admix for gasoline. It greatly reduces efficiency, and is harmfull to some of the older cars fuel systems. Arco stations in our area market their fuel with 10% Ethanol and it lowered my mileage by 6% and reduced acceleration and noticably idled rougher. It has the effect of leaning out the fuel mixture. Arco sells for a few cents less but it is absolutely not worth it as the recuction in efficiency will consume more fuel. Tuning cars for the mixture would help but the available BTU's per unit of fuel is still less.

 

I am against drilling in the Artic. It offers no solution to the energy problem and is like putting a bandaid on a bleeding artery. It would take years to see any benefits plus we need to look for other energy sources other than fossil fuel. Gasoline engines will soon be going the way of the horse and buggy and we need a greater vision than more drilling.

 

There are a few errors in your post. Technically, unless you have something wrong with your car, it should run no different with regular gasoline than it does with 10% alcohol/gasoline mixture.

If you were to look at BTUs alone (which would not be a very accurate method, but could give us a place to start comparing), the alcohol would require approximately 1.5 gallons to equal one gallon of pure gasoline (which varies depending on the ratio of the 100 compounds found in gasoline). With only 10% ethanol in the mixture--ten gallons of gas would have one gallon of ethanol. If you are loosing 6 miles to the gallon there is something else wrong because the numbers do not add up. ...plus, I'm not taking into consideration the increased effeciency of the ethanol. (Your statement about decreased effeciency is just wrong--ethanol expends its energy in an internal combustion vehicle with greater effeciency than gasoline.)

E10 shows an experimented average of 1.5% less effeciency than pure gasoline. This means that you would be running at 400 MPG on pure gasoline. If this is truly the case, then you have more to share with us.

Unless the engine is redesigned (or modified) you certainly would not want to use a higher percentage; with the major problem being caused by friction from stripping off the oil from moving component surfaces.

There is another possible answer to your problem of reduced acceleration and rough-idling. Alcohol can act as a form of dessicant (to be simple about the process) and if you gas tank has water in it, will often cause more of it to enter the fuel system. This is usually a positive quality when moisture gets into a fuel tank. The moisture will be burned up instead of collecting in quantity in the tank.

You do see a leaner burning situation, but you also obtain a higher effeciency.

I would say that what you are saying has validity, but not for a 10% ethanol mixture.

 

Besides, ethanol works wonders in keeping your fuel injection system clean.

 

A gallon of alcohol contains less usable energy than a gallon of gasoline. Gasohol cuts my mpg by 10%.

 

I have no idea where my numbers came from about the efficiency, but I had used the Arco fuel for nearly a year (cheaper) and hadn't associated the roughness and loss of mileage with the gas because I didn't know it had alcohol in it. As soon as I was told I switched to Chevron and my mileage climbed 6% and smoothness returned, with added power. No tune ups during that period of time at all. The ethanol is a good cleaner but one tank is sufficient for that. I do that about once a year in each vehicle. I'm actually way overdo.

 

adding ethanol does lean out the mixture. We modified our dirt bikes many years ago with an eye to running ethanol, and hopefully gaining power. we ended up with huge jets (actually drilled out old ones) in the carb and had about 45 minutes of run time (just a considered guess because we cut short for fear of hurting something) instead of a couple hrs. with straight gas. Plus we were told it hurt our rubber carb parts and hoses.

 

Ethanol takes more energy to produce and costs more to produce than gasoline. It can only be produced and marketed at a reasonable cost with government subsidies.

My car specifically says to not use ethanol mixes.

Ethanol doesn't work well when it's really hot out.

It lowers gas mileage.

It does, however, clean out gas lines and injectors.

 

Be cautious as to where you are getting your information on Ethanol from, Oil Companies put out alot of material that condemns the idea, Farmers federations put out alot of material in support of the idea.

Three countries in the world, Brazil, Argentina and somewhere else use a mix of E85 Ethanol 85% and it seems to have had no ill effects after 8 years. All modern Toyota's. Honda's and interestingly Chryslers can run on E85. Yet it is the E10 that is popular in Australia. Ethanol has no Government subsidy here.

Where you have to be cautious with Ethanol is that your fuel storage and fuel lines have to be non corrosive as Ethanol can carry a water content, miniscule, yet enough to corrode fuel systems. Yet the manufacters above have used stainless steel for many years.

If you take the Gallons needed to keep the U.S in fuel for one year, and take 10% away to be filled by Ethanol mix, your imports of fuel are gone overnight. even with a subsidy, this can make a huge difference to foreign debt, and removes OPEC from deciding what you will pay for fuel. Worth thinking about!

 

I got most of my sources from the... well, from the sources of ethanol, except for the reduced mileage, which is from personal experience. The vehicle needs to be tuned to that particular fuel to take advantage of it.

For instance, my old, old Toyota that had a carb instead of FI, got better gas mileage with the ethanol. My FI cars got worse mileage.

If your car is designed to run on 87 octane, putting higher octane fuel will not help you. However, if your car is designed for 93, 87 will cause you problems. (When I raced, I saw some bikes run on the dyno that actually lost HP when they put in racing fuel without the modifications that necessitated the racing fuel.)

The heat warnings were labelled on the pumps. I don't remember the temps involved, however, as I haven't been anywhere that warm in several years.

The subsidy info comes directly from those who are benefitting from the subsidies.

But, I see that you're from Australia. If your gas prices are anything like those in Ireland and Japan (the places with which I have personal experience), then you wouldn't need subsidies, but there are probably tax breaks involved.

 

Let me also add, that if I took the Toyota Camry that I drive here in Australia over to Brazil and filled it with E85 at the pump, the onboard computer in the car automatically is able to readjust the timing for the different octane mix, hence any Toyota and various other modern cars can run on a number of variety's of gasoline.

 

My Toyota Supra specifically says what fuels to run and what fuels not to run, and it's the one that lose mileage, as well as peppiness when I run ethanol.

I accidentally ran some ethanol in my Honda motorcycle once, and I ended up draining the tank to get rid of it. No power.

My Toyota 4Runner, though, like I said, did fine on it (except for the reduced mileage), as did my Toyota SR5 pickup (which had a carb and increased mileage).

Your Camry is obviously made to run on different fuels. Not all cars are.

There are some old WWII Army vehicles that could run on practically anything that was combustible and liquid. That doesn't mean that I can pour a bottle of liquor into my RV and go anywhere on it.