Could it be?????

[bubba428]

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Independence from foreigner oil!!!!!
I really hope this is taken advantage of. Could you imagine gas getting back in the $1.xx area again?

[WildBillyT]

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Independence from foreigner oil!!!!!
I really hope this is taken advantage of. Could you imagine gas getting back in the $1.xx area again?

I hate to say it but I would bet that the government would drop oil prices by $.25 cents or so and use the rest of the money to pay off debt.

[firebirdcrazy]

This would really rock the world economy and get rid of those terrorist states using oil profits to finance them. I hope this is legit

[bubba428]

I hope the hell it is too...It would be killer to see gas prices drop but it would be better to tell opec to go eat their own smegma.

[edpontiac91]

I hope the hell it is too...It would be killer to see gas prices drop but it would be better to tell opec to go eat their own smegma.

I think a better term would be to eat what comes out of their own BUPA! :shock:

[V]

they've known about that reserve for years. There was a mini boom back in 79-83 then went bust. 200-300 billion barrels plus a ton of natural gas. the whole trick is how to access it and capture it all. There is no large system in place just yet

[firebirdcrazy]

Now with all the technology out they can drill pretty much anyway they want. So I think its possible now to get to it.

[V]

yes, horizontal drilling is opening up more opportunities and even finding more oil they didnt know about. so yes itll be a huge reserve but i dont think it will affect us too much, many people will still be about oil conservation, and not just meeting the demand with supply so we can pay less...

[firebirdcrazy]

I am sure the prices will come down but not by much. I just want them to send a big FU to the Middle east, Russia, and Venezuela once we dont need them. I would like the next President to do it formally on TV too lol.

[trashman01]

its sad to say this as i remember paying 1.20 a gallon, but if gas was 2.50 a gallon id be happy, gettin tired of paying 3.11-3.23 a gallon

[bubba428]

I've been paying 2.73-2.93 for Sunoco plus

[JL8Jeff]

I remember paying $.74 gallon for leaded regular! :shock: Those were the good old days. :nod:

[trashman01]

I've been paying 2.73-2.93 for Sunoco plus

yea well try living in CT, over taxed sate:evil: my buddy lives bout an hour from me, and he pays 3.62 for diesel, and 3.43 fo 87:lol:

[bubba428]

yea well try living in CT, over taxed sate:evil: my buddy lives bout an hour from me, and he pays 3.62 for diesel, and 3.43 fo 87:lol:

ouch...I wasn't complaining, Absecon/Galloway area has pretty good gas rates

[//<86TA>\\]

I hate to say it but I would bet that the government would drop oil prices by $.25 cents or so and use the rest of the money to pay off debt.

no, i think you are dreaming, they would probably RAISE the price $.25 and blow the rest on vacations for themselves and other useless BS and not put a dime towards the national dept.
F#$&ing politicians!:evil:
________
Bernadette (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Bernadette/)

[r0nin89]

Would that be the reserve that they are banking on when they say the US will have oil for 50more years after the rest of the world runs out?

We're really no that dependant on terrorists. The middle east is like a whopping 5% and venezuala is like 2%. Mexico is our main importer last time I checked.

[Knipps]

Would that be the reserve that they are banking on when they say the US will have oil for 50more years after the rest of the world runs out?

We're really no that dependant on terrorists. The middle east is like a whopping 5% and venezuala is like 2%. Mexico is our main importer last time I checked.

a TON of alaska is untapped.

[maroman88]

a TON of alaska is untapped.

holy tree huggers batman! thats why its untapped

[JohnG]

I remember paying $.74 gallon for leaded regular! :shock: Those were the good old days. :nod:

I can remember $0.89 per gallon...

ah, but that was when a Democrat was in the White House !
:-P

[BonzoHansen]

I remember paying $.74 gallon for leaded regular! :shock: Those were the good old days. :nod:

They stopped leaded fuel right about the time I started driving. The white Z I drove in high school had the filler neck modified so leaded fuel could be used (and no cat). Necks are skinner on unleaded nozzles. For years we had a tool that we had to use to check for filler neck tampering - even though leaded fuel was unavailable!

[Featherburner]

I remember paying $.74 gallon for leaded regular! :shock: Those were the good old days. :nod:Ah yes....I remember them fondly.

[BigAls87Z28]

I remember .89 cents.
This does nothing put but us back on the oil wagon. All that talk about gas friendly vehicles goes right into the ****ter now that we have a half a trillion barrels of oil. At least this could be a boost to our economy, and we dont have to drill into ANWAR.
We will now reroute all the money going into renewable, cleaner fuel sources like new ways to develop ethanol and biodiesel, and go into cutting up North Dakota.
This country is so oil hungry I bet you they would drill right though Mt.Rushmore to get oil.

[bubba428]

thats a good idea

[BigAls87Z28]

I like the idea of telling the Arab's to pound salt, but the use of oil does need to slow down. I think there are better ways to make fuel like ethanol to burn better, get better performance, and maintain the btu output of gasoline.
And all done cheaply and without too much energy or natural resources to be used up.

[bubba428]

BTU has nothing to do with power....its all about explosive expansion. The faster the molecules accelerate, the more is pressure created, the more force on the piston. I expect to see gobbs more torque from E85 and a slight bump in HP

[BigAls87Z28]

BTU has nothing to do with power....its all about explosive expansion. The faster the molecules accelerate, the more is pressure created, the more force on the piston. I expect to see gobbs more torque from E85 and a slight bump in HP


BTU is a unit of measurment for heat. Ethanol does not produce the same amount of heat (read: engergy) as gasoline. An engine running on Ethanol will get LESS gas milage because it takes MORE of it to run the engine. While its octane level is very high, something like 109, its power output is very low which is why you have to have more Ethanol fuel in the air mixture, which means less gas milage.
If we can produce a super ethanol that will yeild us the same power as gasoline, make it cheaper, cleaner, and more abundant, then the only thing we need to do with oil is change it every 4k miles or so.

BTW, Big Al is promoting the 4,000/4 Month oil change. Average car uses a gallon of oil every oil change. By moving from 3 to 4k miles, you save about a gallon of oil every year. If everyone in America went to 4k or more between oil changes, that would save 300 million gallons of oil.
Most new cars have oil life monitors, in which either a computer algorythm or by sensor can tell you when to change your oil. I know my Maxx was over 5k between oil changes. Some cars are said to do it every 10k.
Reduce oil use, which has to be disposed of somehow. At least gasoline is burned off. Oil has to be transported and all this other crap.

[WildBillyT]

BTU has nothing to do with power....its all about explosive expansion.




BTU/(unit time) is the unit used when talking about power. It can be converted to Watts, Joules, and other types of energy. BTUs with no unit time are talked about for HVAC stuff and heat.

Given proper conversions, 1 HP is a little over 2500 BTU/h. So I believe that if you have a test mule engine with all else being equal (displacement, RPM ramp during testing, duration of testing, etc) and you vary the fuel, whichever fuel generates less BTUs will generate less power.

[bubba428]

ok so your saying if a chemical expands 10x its size during combustion but makes less heat it will create less pressure than a chemical that expands 8x is size and creates more heat.

(not Accurate #, just examples)

[BigAls87Z28]

Its a measurement of energy. Just because it can compress and expand doesnt give it any more energy. The amount of energy ethanol fuel gives off when burned is less then when gas is burned in a combustion engine.
There are been improvements with direct injection and turbocharging where they can make much more power. Saab showed a 300-400hp turbocharged engine using E100.

[WildBillyT]

ok so your saying if a chemical expands 10x its size during combustion but makes less heat it will create less pressure than a chemical that expands 8x is size and creates more heat.

(not Accurate #, just examples)

Not completely sure I follow you. We are talking energy, not heat.

If fuel A combusts with force X and fuel B combusts with force .8X, fuel A will throw the pistons harder per unit time.

[DaSkinnyGuy]

We can all keep dreaming but its not going to happen. If it does it will be when it is already to late.

[bubba428]

Not completely sure I follow you. We are talking energy, not heat.

If fuel A combusts with force X and fuel B combusts with force .8X, fuel A will throw the pistons harder per unit time.

that exactly what i just said...there talking about heat...if fuel A combusts with force X and heat .8X and fuel B combusts with force .8x and heat X. Fuel A is more efficient right?

[BigAls87Z28]

heat = energy

[WildBillyT]

Let me try this again. It's been a while since I took Physics.

According to Physics and its Unit Conversions, ~2500 BTUs/hr equal one horsepower.

If you burn one gallon of ethanol and gasoline in an hour,

Gasoline = 114,100 BTU or 45 HP
E85 = 81,800 BTU or 32.72 HP

Therefore, to acheive the same performance you need to burn more ethanol.

[bubba428]

ok...your measuring power output of the actual burning...thats not how it works in an engine...cylinders and piston work off the explosive properties not the heat emissions. what if there was a fuel that could explode 50X its volume in a combustion cycle and only produce 1BTU/h. are you saying you would need more of that? heat is a byproduct of combustion, we all know that, internal combustion engines do not run off heat now do they, the run off the explosive expansion of a compressed vapor.

[WildBillyT]

ok...your measuring power output of the actual burning...thats not how it works in an engine...cylinders and piston work off the explosive properties not the heat emissions. what if there was a fuel that could explode 50X its volume in a combustion cycle and only produce 1BTU/h. are you saying you would need more of that? heat is a byproduct of combustion, we all know that, internal combustion engines do not run off heat now do they, the run off the explosive expansion of a compressed vapor.

Bubba,

I'm not basing this off of anything other than Physics. You can argue all you want but that's the way it is. You are confusing what factors are actually at work. I think you are confusing BTUs with BTUs/hr. This is a reason why people use Joules when talking about a unit of work instead of BTUs. They are easily confused. I'm not talking about heat. Or pressure. I'm talking about work done in a given unit time. In an engine that's the amount of force generated from combustion converted into rotational motion.

Like I said- It's been a while since I took my Physics courses. That fuel you are talking about can probably never exist, because it's BTU/h number would be based off of the amount of work it can do in a given time during combustion, which would be high due to the force of the explosion (50x as you said). So it wouldn't have a low BTU/hr number because it generates such force during combustion, and can do a lot of work.

[firebirdcrazy]

why did this thread become a physics lesson???? lol

[bubba428]

why did this thread become a physics lesson???? lol

i don't know...

[bubba428]

Bubba,

I'm not basing this off of anything other than Physics. You can argue all you want but that's the way it is. You are confusing what factors are actually at work. I think you are confusing BTUs with BTUs/hr. This is a reason why people use Joules when talking about a unit of work instead of BTUs. They are easily confused. I'm not talking about heat. Or pressure. I'm talking about work done in a given unit time. In an engine that's the amount of force generated from combustion converted into rotational motion.

Like I said- It's been a while since I took my Physics courses. That fuel you are talking about can probably never exist, because it's BTU/h number would be based off of the amount of work it can do in a given time during combustion, which would be high due to the force of the explosion (50x as you said). So it wouldn't have a low BTU/hr number because it generates such force during combustion, and can do a lot of work.

Right...BUT what I'm saying is BTU/h is calculated by using the amount of heat created, anybody remember the burning peanut in HS science. what I'm saying is, it would be more accurate to describe the power output in the same term that you would a stick of TNT.

[Knipps]

/thread

bubba, read up
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35388/story.htm
http://domesticfuel.com/2005/09/19/ethanol-fuel-economy-study/