Ideas for reducing dependence on gas and petroleum?

[GRDadof3]

Much of the natural gas burned in this country is now imported. Same issues as oil, and of course, the burning of natural gas releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

We don't have blackouts here in the SE and a lot of the power in this area is generated by hydro, nuclear, and coal. Hydro is renewable, nuclear does not release CO2 into the atmosphere, and coal is all mined in the USA. None of these are perfect, but using an AC to maintain a 10-25 degree difference, uses less energy than buring gas or something else to maintain a 50-70 degree or more difference in the winter. Many people here have heatpumps (a reversable AC) which are very efficient for cooling and heating.

My natural gas bill to heat this house in the winter is more than the total power bill I pay in the summer to cool the place. We rarely go below freezing here so I can't imagine how much it would cost in a more severe climate.

Our heating bill is usually about $80/month during December, January and February, and the natural gas comes from underground in Southwest Michigan. We lost our power for about 3 days last winter (I believe it was in January), and our house got down to around 55 degrees at the lowest, so actually it's only maintaining about a 15 degree difference in our situation (we have it programmed to stay at 70 when we're home and 66 when we're gone). We set our AC at about 76 during the months of June, July and August, just to keep the humidity out of the house, and it still pushes the electric bill up to over $100/month. I can't imagine what it would be if we set the AC at 72 like a lot of people we know.

I was mainly referring to automobile AC, so back to the topic at hand.

[Snowguy716]

We use natural gas for heating/cooking. I'll swear by gas stoves (I hate electric stoves.. you just can't cook on them)...

We used to use electricity for heating with a fire place and electric for cooking. This was more sustainable as our electricity comes from a mix of wind energy and coal. Unfortunately natural gas is convenient and at the time was cheap.

[FromCityToRural]

I wish automakers would stop wasting their time developing hybrid engines for cars that would probably get 30-40 mpg with just a diesel engine. The vehicles that need hybrid engines are big heavy vehicles like full size cars, full size trucks and full size SUVs. It's like fretting that your B grade child isn't making an A, but totally ignoring your F grade child, which would be great if they started making at least a C.

I like diesel engines, but if there's one myth that doesn't seem to want to die, and understandably, is that a diesel will make more torque than similar sized gasoline engine. That's just not the case. For one thing people are always comparing a turbocharged diesel against a naturally aspirated gas engine. Forced induction essentially makes an engine bigger. If a 350 ci engine is taking in as much air as it can normally it's pulling in 350 ci of air. If you were to raise that by 50% then your engine is essentially a 525 ci engine, with the torque ratings that you would expect from an engine of that size. Take a 400 ci diesel and a 400 ci gas and have them both turbocharged to 15 psi and I assure you the gas will rip the diesel's trucks rear end off if they were to engage in a tug of war.

Like I said I like diesel engines and the benefits over gas are

1-Better gas mileage

2-Better durability/ longer lasting

3-Essentially no limit to the amount of boost you can run. A diesel will eventually make more torque than a gas engine, but the boost has to be monstrous. What a gas engine could deliver in torque with about 20-25 psi the diesel would probably need about 40-50 psi or more. Remember that a Duramax with 520 ft lbs of torque is running about 15 psi from a 402 ci engine. I've seen a 327 with a turbo running about 9 psi and it was making 600 ft lbs.

You make a good point...but as true as what you say is, I'm talking about comparing diesels, stock for stock (since most people don't mod cars), against gassers in the same application. If you've ever driven an NA diesel, you'll know why they don't make anything but turbodiesels today. Thus, the diesel models of a given vehicle - which do happen to be turbodiesels - are out-torquing their gasser counterparts.

Snowguy, it's all electicity here in Texas. Surprisingly enough, natural gas is about double the cost of electricity here, so nearly nobody uses it. You should give a ceramic cooktop electric range a try, they work fantastically - much better than the old spiral element ranges (although I miss how cool they looked!).

[Mikejesmike]

What you said is true. I just don't want people to automatically have a knee jerk reaction that diesel equals greater torque than gas.

[intcvlcphlga]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't diesels cause more pollution than conventional combustion engines and certainly, considerably more pollution than hybrids?

[runawayjim]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't diesels cause more pollution than conventional combustion engines and certainly, considerably more pollution than hybrids?

i don't think that's true of diesel engines anymore. at least not the ones found in the newer cars (i can't say for the big rigs, but those are in a different class and reliance on those will never die).

i think what needs to be done is rather than raise taxes on gas, making it more expensive (which won't do anything to curb use of cars as we have seen), is to take the money that comes from the gas tax and put it towards public transit. one of the reasons a lot of people don't use public transit is because a lot of the systems just plain suck for various reasons. i had to go to boston yesterday for work, so i took the train (of course i drove halfway there and took the train from there because the schedules for the return trip weren't good for me because i would've been leaving earlier than rush hour). the car i was in had no air conditioning. it was disgusting. it was full, people were standing (they didn't want to sit 3 to a seat because it was so hot on the train). when the temp is near 90 and it's ridiculously humid out, no one wants to deal with those conditions. so why not drive when you have AC taht works? also, what bugs me about the MBTA trains is that they aren't running on electricity!

also, give people incentives on a scale basis to drive cars that have better gas mileage. even regular cars that run on regular gas and aren't hybrids can get nearly 40 mpg. give them a small tax break. hybrids get one a bigger one. diesel engines get one that's in between. and cars that get less then 20-30 get a really small one and under 20 get nothing. there's more incentive to drive a car that's more efficient this way. when cars get inspected by the state, they should test them for fuel economy and use that as the method for determining the tax break. it gets people to keep up with regular maintenance as well.

btw- monsoon... i love your new avatar.

[FromCityToRural]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't diesels cause more pollution than conventional combustion engines and certainly, considerably more pollution than hybrids?

I have heard that they produce more particulate pollution, but have never heard it explained to me if it's more polluting per gallon burned, or if it really does put out more pollutants per mile...Germany is clamping down (very unfairly, I might add) on diesels. They're going to start charging a much higher registration fee, I believe, on diesels. This is unfair because it's a complete 180* on their previous policy where they gave tax BREAKS for buying diesels and are now suddenly punishing these people, because they do claim more pollution. However, I wouldn't say that the hybrids' battery packs, which have to be replaced every so often, classifies them as environmental champs, either.

[runawayjim]

I have heard that they produce more particulate pollution, but have never heard it explained to me if it's more polluting per gallon burned, or if it really does put out more pollutants per mile...Germany is clamping down (very unfairly, I might add) on diesels. They're going to start charging a much higher registration fee, I believe, on diesels. This is unfair because it's a complete 180* on their previous policy where they gave tax BREAKS for buying diesels and are now suddenly punishing these people, because they do claim more pollution. However, I wouldn't say that the hybrids' battery packs, which have to be replaced every so often, classifies them as environmental champs, either.

i think i heard somewhere that they put out more particulates, but they also put out much less in other types of pollutants than regular gasoline. sounds like germany is becoming like california.

after doing a ton of driving this weekend, i thought i'd share my experiences as i tried something different. i set my cruise control to 65 when the speed limit was 65 and to 60 when it was 50 or 55. the needle on my fuel guage barely moved in the hour and 45 minute trip i made. i think the speed limits should be dropped back down to 55 in order to save gas, and i think the speed limit should be enforced (or at least seemingly enforced as people tend to slow down when they see cops anyways, maybe a few decoy cop cars on the side of the road, randomly placed and moved around?). for my car, the ideal rpm is about 2200-2500 in 5th gear. that puts me between 55 and 60 mph. the reason i did 65 in 65 zones and not slower was because it's downright dangerous where i live. heck, i had someone flashing their lights at me when i was diong the speed limit in the right lane because they coudln't pass me due to people passing them. what a jerk, huh?

i get about 32 mpg when i keep my speed like this as opposed to 25-28 when it's a mix of city driving and always doing 10 mph over the speed limit. this will save me money too, so i'm gonna stick wtih it.

[FromCityToRural]

Jim, you have just stumbled upon the holy grail of gas mileage which just about any car guy would tell you: the best modification you can do to your current vehicle for gas mileage is LIGHTENING THAT RIGHT FOOT!

I started doing that last year and have stuck with it ever since. If you like, since this is something of a study for myself, I can put together a whole list of my gas saving techniques.

As for the California smog nazis...they are why I always bought pre-smog cars when I lived there. It's a pain in the butt dealin with those guys.

[runawayjim]

Jim, you have just stumbled upon the holy grail of gas mileage which just about any car guy would tell you: the best modification you can do to your current vehicle for gas mileage is LIGHTENING THAT RIGHT FOOT!

I started doing that last year and have stuck with it ever since. If you like, since this is something of a study for myself, I can put together a whole list of my gas saving techniques.

As for the California smog nazis...they are why I always bought pre-smog cars when I lived there. It's a pain in the butt dealin with those guys.

i think you should put together that list for everyone's sake anyways.

[carolinadude9409]

This is not good news. Not only because of what has just happened, but also because it proves our addiction to oil: http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/07/news/inter...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[Snowguy716]

Natural gas released into the atmosphere without burning is 10 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That is why scientists are worried that if the planet warms enough to kill the peat moss in the massive peat bogs (many of which are in northern Minnesota), there would be a major release of methane and natural gas into the atmosphere which would cause sudden and severe warming of hte planet.

This is where scientists get their predictions of a 12*F warming of the planet by 2100.. these upper end models take into account a major clathrate release of methane and natural gas into the atmosphere. By burning it, we're reducing the potency of the gas.

This is by no means an excuse to burn natural gas at every chance we get. We'd just better hope we don't reach the tipping point. (Such events have been documented in the past and have been recorded in sediments, ice cores, and tree ring fossils.)

[Snowguy716]

If the planet were to warm 12*F in 100 years (which is very unlikely), the consequences would be devastating. Forests would die off because they couldn't adapt in time to the changes.

Minnesota's climate would look more like Oklahoma City, and 130*F probably wouldn't be uncommon in Death Valley (hell, we're almost there already). With a 12*F warming, the arctic ice cap would melt completely during the summer, and it could start a non-reversible melting of hte greenland ice cap which would drastically raise sea levels. Of course this would take 100s of years.

The reason the Greenland icecap wouldn't reverse and begin growing again is because its altitude is what keeps it there. Some of the icecap is as far south as 60*N latitude, or about the same as northern Scotland and southern Norway. Because the cap is so high up, temperatures up there are cool enough to keep the cap from melting more than it's growing up top. 12*F warming would reverse this trend and as the altitude decreased each year, it would only compound the problem and cause faster melting.

It's scary stuff.. but I think we can avoid it if we take action now.. and do what this thread is about.. reduce our dependency on oil/fossil fuels.

[Aporkalypse]

I don't know if any of you read this but Wal-Mart is seriously looking into stocking E85 at its stations in a cooperative move with automakers including Ford and GMC which are beginning to make cars that can run on either E85 or regular gasoline. E85 is a clean-burning mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The major oil companies aren't interested because they have nothing to gain by using ethanol-based fuels. However, Wal-Mart has a nationwide distribution network already in place and could easily add E85 to the pumps at its stores. The sheer power of Wal-Mart alone could push automakers to make even more vehicles that use E85.

The key right now is profitability - can ethanol be made cheaply enough to make this reasonable? The other issue is whether it is appropriate to use grains that could be used as foodstuffs and distributed overseas for fuel purposes.

Bizarrely enough, this may be a way for the "evil Empire" of Wal-Mart along with traditional gas-guzzler producers Ford and GMC to go green in a big way while boosting the sales of these American companies while simultaneously helping American farmers. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

[itk]

I don't know if any of you read this but Wal-Mart is seriously looking into stocking E85 at its stations in a cooperative move with automakers including Ford and GMC which are beginning to make cars that can run on either E85 or regular gasoline. E85 is a clean-burning mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The major oil companies aren't interested because they have nothing to gain by using ethanol-based fuels. However, Wal-Mart has a nationwide distribution network already in place and could easily add E85 to the pumps at its stores. The sheer power of Wal-Mart alone could push automakers to make even more vehicles that use E85.

The key right now is profitability - can ethanol be made cheaply enough to make this reasonable? The other issue is whether it is appropriate to use grains that could be used as foodstuffs and distributed overseas for fuel purposes.

Bizarrely enough, this may be a way for the "evil Empire" of Wal-Mart along with traditional gas-guzzler producers Ford and GMC to go green in a big way while boosting the sales of these American companies while simultaneously helping American farmers. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

I saw that article too and found that interesting. I would be interested in hearing what people who aren't fond of Wal-Mart yet are supportive of increasing ethanol use would say.

[suburban george3]

I saw that article too and found that interesting. I would be interested in hearing what people who aren't fond of Wal-Mart yet are supportive of increasing ethanol use would say.

I will give credit to WalMart if they equip EVERY fuel center with E85 capability. Anything short of that I will consider a marketing ploy. This is from a very ANTI WalMart consumer.

[Aporkalypse]

I will give credit to WalMart if they equip EVERY fuel center with E85 capability. Anything short of that I will consider a marketing ploy. This is from a very ANTI WalMart consumer.

Make no mistake, Wal-Mart is exploring this as an economic opportunity as opposed to as an environmental gesture. They feel they are uniquely positioned to make things happen when the oil companies won't and get a head start of several years on them. WM isn't going to do anything that will lose money, even if it's good for the environment.

I don't care what their motives are, though. If it works, it's good for everyone. The trick is going to be whether the ethanol can be produced cheaply enough and whether the government continues it's $0.51 a gallon subsidy of ethanol.

[Mith242]

Very true, even companies over in Europe that might be considered more 'green' are doing most of these things more out of economics. As far as Wal-mart is concerned, who knows maybe it is just a ploy. But I have to say I think the company is changing. I see it considering and even doing things I never thought they would have done just a few years ago. I'd say Wal-mart is concerned over it's image and really does plan to try to do some things to change that.

On another note isn't E85 mainly made from corn? I know they've always been looking for ways to use all the surplus of corn (just look at how corn syrup has made it's way into nearly all food products now) but I think we need to find a better crop to produce E85. Something that doesn't really need much maintenance and also grows back so that multple harvests are possible. I've seen one study being done in Arkansas on switchgrass. I'm sure other states are looking into other possilbilities as well.

[GaryP]

I don't know if any of you read this but Wal-Mart is seriously looking into stocking E85 at its stations in a cooperative move with automakers including Ford and GMC which are beginning to make cars that can run on either E85 or regular gasoline. E85 is a clean-burning mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The major oil companies aren't interested because they have nothing to gain by using ethanol-based fuels. However, Wal-Mart has a nationwide distribution network already in place and could easily add E85 to the pumps at its stores. The sheer power of Wal-Mart alone could push automakers to make even more vehicles that use E85.

The key right now is profitability - can ethanol be made cheaply enough to make this reasonable? The other issue is whether it is appropriate to use grains that could be used as foodstuffs and distributed overseas for fuel purposes.

Meijer is already doing this. For those of you outside of the Great Lakes region meijer is a superstore similar to walmart, but not nearly as bad.

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID...ESS01/604180331

[FromCityToRural]

I've heard that Cane Sugar is actually a much more efficient crop from which to produce ethanol, and I've heard some other plants tossed around too. There is not nearly enough land or water in the US to grow the kind of corn needed if E85 takes off.

[GaryP]

I've heard that Cane Sugar is actually a much more efficient crop from which to produce ethanol, and I've heard some other plants tossed around too. There is not nearly enough land or water in the US to grow the kind of corn needed if E85 takes off.

Sugar cane can't be grown in too many places in the US, but sugar beats can and they produce nearly the same amount of potential energy per acre as sugar cane. I think they'll be the crop if ethanol does become our future energy source.

[Aporkalypse]

Sugar cane can't be grown in too many places in the US, but sugar beats can and they produce nearly the same amount of potential energy per acre as sugar cane. I think they'll be the crop if ethanol does become our future energy source.

There's no reason you can't use sugar cane in Florida, Lousiana, and Hawaii and corn in the central U.S.

[FromCityToRural]

Hawaii, Florida, and Louisiana yes, as well as maybe the coastal areas of GA, SC, and AL, but I'm not so sure you could grow it in the central US (by that I presume you meant the midwest?)

Anyway, if it's sugar beets not sugar cane, then I stand corrected.

[Mith242]

Hawaii, Florida, and Louisiana yes, as well as maybe the coastal areas of GA, SC, and AL, but I'm not so sure you could grow it in the central US (by that I presume you meant the midwest?)

Anyway, if it's sugar beets not sugar cane, then I stand corrected.

No he said to use corn in the central US.

[FromCityToRural]

No he said to use corn in the central US.

Wow...somehow that went completely over my head. Thanks!