American Oil

[NelKel 0]

Just wanted to present a list of gas stations that we as Americans could choose to use to keep our US Dollars out of Mideast hands.

Sunco
Conoco
Sinclair
BP/Phillips
Hess
ARCO
Maverick
Flying J
Valero
Murphy Oil USA (Wal-Mart)

I'm going to start paying attention to this list of gas stations. I think we could send a strong message if we all cooperate.
Does anyone else know of any other American oil/gas companies? Please post them. If I'm mistakenly posted an incorrect name please let us know.

_________________________________________

Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan

[tetra316 0]

Where did you get this info, just curious?

By the way I try to only use ARCO, just because its the cheapest.

[millertime24 8]

AAFES
Good luck getting gas there without a military id though.

Muff #5048

[billvon 3,076]

>I think we could send a strong message if we all cooperate.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the way capitalism works, the message they will hear is "hey, we can charge more for 'made in america' gas!"

[SpeedRacer 1]

how will this keep US dollars out of mideast hands?

don't these companies all buy from the mideast? Isn't the price of gas set by the commodities markets?

there's only one way to do it: use less gasoline (& other petroleum products) overall.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Gas stations don't buy exclusively from their own label's refineries, in fact quite the opposite is true.

These targetting boycotts have limited effect as a result. You hurt the gas station owners more than anything. Maybe that has some point to it, but US dollars will continue to flow to the ME as long as we have millions of cars getting < 15mpg.

[Gawain 0]

Great idea, but not how it works. Those companies all get oil from North American, South American and Middle East sources.

Oh, and BP stands for "British Petroleum".

Thanks for playing.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Just wanted to present a list of gas stations that we as Americans could choose to use to keep our US Dollars out of Mideast hands.

Quote

Great idea, but not how it works. Those companies all get oil from North American, South American and Middle East sources.

Oh, and BP stands for "British Petroleum".

Thanks for playing.

Is Britain in the Mideast now? I had no idea

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

.
Sunco
Conoco
Sinclair
BP/Phillips

Conoco and Phillips merged 6 years ago. BP is on its own.

[billvon 3,076]

>Oh, and BP stands for "British Petroleum".

And Pennzoil stands for "Pennsylvania Oil" but it's been a while since Pennsylvania supplied a lot of oil.

[ElJosh 0]

FYI
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/saudigas.asp

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Oh, and BP stands for "British Petroleum".

And Pennzoil stands for "Pennsylvania Oil" but it's been a while since Pennsylvania supplied a lot of oil.

Criminy people...the thread title says: "American Oil"

Then the poster goes on about buying gas at stations that are franchised with a list of companies, in an effort to keep the money out of the middle-east, then asking about "...any other American oil/gas companies..."

BP, is not an American company. ARCO is a subsidiary of BP. Murphy Oil, being a Wal-Mart company sends more money to China.

While the list is missing Exxon and Mobil franchises as well as Chevron....

You want to keep money out of the middle eastern sources? Call your Congressman and tell him/her to revise the energy bill of 2007, allowing shale oil exploration (benefiting Canada) and authorize exploration into the ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico while reinforcing investment in Mexico and points south. Fast track development of non-corn based ethanol production, natural gas exploration, clean coal and coal to gas/diesel conversion.

A manhattan style project investment in this hemisphere could have us in better footing in as little as 6 years, and off the middle-eastern syringe in less than 15.

If we don't want to piss everyone off, a comprehensive 25 year near-term, 50-70 year long-term solution is the ticket.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,076]

>A manhattan style project investment in this hemisphere could have us
>in better footing in as little as 6 years, and off the middle-eastern syringe
>in less than 15.

>If we don't want to piss everyone off, a comprehensive 25 year
>near-term, 50-70 year long-term solution is the ticket.

I agree. However, exchanging one fossil fuel dependency for another isn't the best plan, IMO. We'd be much better off getting away from fossil fuels to more sustainable forms of energy.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>A manhattan style project investment in this hemisphere could have us
>in better footing in as little as 6 years, and off the middle-eastern syringe
>in less than 15.

>If we don't want to piss everyone off, a comprehensive 25 year
>near-term, 50-70 year long-term solution is the ticket.

I agree. However, exchanging one fossil fuel dependency for another isn't the best plan, IMO. We'd be much better off getting away from fossil fuels to more sustainable forms of energy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not seeking a "substitute", I'm seeking a "supplement". Looking at all these "alternatives" as replacements is not feasible. My combining the technologies, consumption can be slowed to a point that has a benefit for every part of the issue, from the economy to the environment to consumer to industry.

For example: Ethanol as a replacement fuel is not feasible for many reasons. But as a supplement "booster" to a gasoline powered engine it is a perfect mate. Ethanol boosting cools the combustion chamber, increasing the quality of the combustion, requires less gas. Medium sized four cylinder "boosted" engines provide as much torque and power as larger V6 and small V8s.

Big rig diesels are a prime target for real hybrid technology. Electric motors make their most torque at 0 rpm. 16000cc diesel engines consume enormous amounts of fuel at rest, during start-up and from a stop. Electric motors can supplement that power, reducing consumption further. The best part is that this technology already exists on the railroads.

Solar is a prudent supplement in the Southwest. Wind is a prudent supplement in the plains. Clean coal and nuclear can complete the picture from a power standpoint.

We don't have to replace oil. Supplement in the near term and market will take care of itself.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,076]

>I'm not seeking a "substitute", I'm seeking a "supplement".

Well, that's sorta semantic. Is heating oil a "substitute" or a "supplement" for gas heat, electric heat or a heat pump? Nope - they are all just alternatives.

My goal would be to have a large number of alternatives, none of which is a primary source. That way we are not dependent on it. A good 'end goal' might be (in terms of energy sources for transportation)

ethanol 10%
gasoline 30%
biodiesel 10%
electric/PHEV 30%
pure electric 10%
natural gas 10%

That way you get the maximum insulation from supply disruptions and maximum competition. Oil expensive this week? Drive your natural gas car. Oil expensive this decade? Buy a diesel PHEV hybrid, and use the expensive diesel only when you have to travel over 60 miles.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Solar is a prudent supplement in the Southwest. Wind is a prudent supplement in the plains. Clean coal and nuclear can complete the picture from a power standpoint.

We don't have to replace oil. Supplement in the near term and market will take care of itself.

I flew my plane from Las Cruces NM to Chicago on Tuesday (OK, it uses gas, but it gets about the same mpg as my car and better than your typical SUV) and I was amazed by two things: (1) just how many windmills there are, and (2) how many of them were NOT turning despite a pretty good wind.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Solar is a prudent supplement in the Southwest. Wind is a prudent supplement in the plains. Clean coal and nuclear can complete the picture from a power standpoint.

We don't have to replace oil. Supplement in the near term and market will take care of itself.

I flew my plane from Las Cruces NM to Chicago on Tuesday (OK, it uses gas, but it gets about the same mpg as my car and better than your typical SUV) and I was amazed by two things: (1) just how many windmills there are, and (2) how many of them were NOT turning despite a pretty good wind.

Wind power is extremely high maintenance. If a turbine is broken, the wind mill won't turn. That's why I see it as a supplement, and not as a "complete" source.

Make no rationalization for flying a plane you bought, maintain and can fly. In my opinion, you owe no justification for having any measure of personal possessions.

Hydro is another great source as well, super clean and all natural.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mnealtx 0]

If the turbines are being used for supplements for peak loading (as I *think* the ones in West Texas are), they wouldn't run full time, would they?

^^^ honest question - it makes sense (to me) to run them full time to reduce the load, but I don't know the operational theory behind their use. Perhaps they're not designed for full-time use?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[marcandalysse 0]

Quote

exchanging one fossil fuel dependency for another isn't the best plan, IMO. We'd be much better off getting away from fossil fuels to more sustainable forms of energy.

I'd like to run my car using the spent cooking oil from the chinese restaurant across the street....or the fast food joint next to it....

"Hey I smell eggrolls....must be marc coming down the street...."

"The reason angels can fly is that they take themselves so lightly." --GK Chesterton

[LongWayToFall 0]

You are totally talking out your ass about alcohol. The stoichiometric ratio of ethanol/methanol is about half that of gasoline. Thus, you require twice as much fuel. The specific energy of alcohol is about 75% that of gasoline, so if you were burning the same amount, you get less energy. But, since the stoich is half, and you are putting in twice as much fuel, you see a power increase of about %50. Half the mileage though! Not more!
An engine running on alcohol has a much higher resistance to detonation than gasoline. This allows you to increase the compression ratio, and increase efficiency compared to running it on an engine designed for gasoline (but you won't ever get past the crap mileage) So if you want to run E85, you should only run E85, and have an engine that has a much higher compression ratio.

Your term of "boosted" is not correct. An engine that has boost means that the air coming into the engine is compressed, and is not at outside pressure. This is done by using a turbocharger or supercharger. Forced induction does increase the efficiency of the engine, some. Turbos are very useful however in allowing you to get the most efficiency out of the fuel you are using, the example above with the alcohol is a good one, you can leave the boost low while on gasoline and turn it up for alcohol. But how often do you need to go from 150hp to 400? To see an advantage while at highway cruising speeds (low load) you would need to have all of the cylinders shut down except for 1, and keep running that one at high boost.

Also, you say that cooling the combustion increases efficiency. This is exactly opposite of the truth. The higher the combustion temperature, the more it will burn the fuel, extracting every last bit of energy it can. This is why diesels are much more efficient, they inject the fuel when the air in the combustion chamber is so hot, that it is literally white hot, and when the fuel hits it, it instantly ignites.

Alcohol/water injection can be used in a gasoline burning engine to aid in anti detonation, maybe this is what you referred to when saying "alcohol boosted" however for your engine to be on the verge of detonating, you need to be under maximum load, or have your fuel leaned out to the point of detonating. The alcohol is only used to aid the water in evaporating in the intake system. A combination of alcohol/water injection and leaner fuel ratio will certainly see a decrease in fuel consumption, because it is giving the same output with less fuel, however every car on the road already uses a method similar to this. It is called an exhaust gas recirculator, or EGR. The combustion process is such that the exhaust leaving the engine has a higher water content than that of the incoming air, and when introduced back into the intake, allows a leaner fuel ratio to be used.
There are other technologies being developed that will allow for much leaner fuel ratio to be used. The one that stands out the most in my mind, is the use of the intake valves to control the throttle, instead of the throttle butterfly valve. At low engine loads, the valves open a very small amount, and cause the intake charge to reach incredibly high speeds. This makes the air/fuel mixture atomize so good, that less fuel is needed and hence you can lean it out without detonating. BMW is doing lots of work on this type of engine. Direct injection gasoline engines are also seeing much higher efficiency.
But the be all, end all of reciprocating engines is the diesel. The fact that the fuel being injected is what starts the combustion process rather than a spark, allows you to lean the engine out with no limit, because you will never have the mixture pre-igniting in the cylinder. The air/fuel ratio in a gasoline burning engine is 12-13.5:1 at all loads, but in a diesel at idle, it can be upwards of 100:1. Even when you see a diesel puking out black smoke, it is still not even hitting stoichiometric, so if you added more fuel, it would make more power. So no, diesel engines do not use huge amounts of fuel at idle.
Your idea of a hybrid 18 wheeler is crazy, unless it was used in stop and go city type driving. But 99% of big trucks spend their lives on the highway, cruising at the same speed. Therefor, the electric motor/battery is not going to be doing a damn thing, except adding weight. The reason trains use diesel electrics, is as you stated, because electric motors produce 100% torque at zero rpm. If they used just a straight diesel with no electric, no clutch on the planet is going to last more than a few pulls. This is the only reason they are used. They are actually hurting efficiency, because you loose energy with the generation/driving the motors through heat. If a train only had to get moving one time, and its whole life was just cruising at one speed and it never had to stop, you can bet that it would be using a diesel engine directly attached to the wheels.
The future of automotive engines that get insane mileage, will be light diesel engines, that can shut down cylinders and have them not even spinning when not needed. When you hit the gas from a stop, all the cylinders will fire, but when you cruise on the highway it will only run on one or 2 cylinders. Those one or 2 cylinders will have their own small turbocharger, operating at high boost continuously. In a regular car, we should be able to see mileage easily exceeding 150mpg at cruising speeds.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

AAFES
Good luck getting gas there without a military id though.

Unfortunatly every AAFES I have been to uses CITGO gas. Here is to the military supporting Hugo Chavez!!!

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,076]

>The stoichiometric ratio of ethanol/methanol is about half that of gasoline.

Approximately. 9 to 1 vs. 14 to 1. E85 is about 10 to 1.

>So if you want to run E85, you should only run E85, and have an engine
>that has a much higher compression ratio.

What you really want is a variable compression engine, like the Prius Atkinson cycle engine. On E85 it gets set to very high compression and you get the increase in fuel economy and power. On gasoline it backs off and you get less power, but still decent economy.

You can also use such a system to regulate power through RPM instead of throttle opening. Use the hybrid system to set the RPM of the engine to the desired point on the power curve assuming wide open throttle. Combined with an overexpansion engine you get fuel economy similar to that of a diesel.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

You are totally talking out your ass about alcohol.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/engine.html

Why don't you read my post again and do some research before you try to shit all over an idea.

Trucks are plenty efficient on the highway, they need to be more efficient at the beginning and end of delivery routes, which are not on a highway...they are at ports, depots and cities. Supplemental motors can assist with this. If a trucker could cut his consumption of diesel by 20% while driving through West Virginia or western Maryland...you think that might make a difference?

Quote

Also, you say that cooling the combustion increases efficiency.

I did say that, and I misspoke. The alcohol "boost" cools the mixture, which then reduces "knock" increasing usable power under load.

None of these ideas I was speaking of were meant as a total replacement. Combining the technologies reduces consumption overall across the spectrum.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[LongWayToFall 0]

That is a cool design, I have seen diagrams of those engines but did not know they were using them. I think though that even in the atkinson engine, when it is set to a higher compression ratio, will get worse mileage on alcohol. There is just less specific energy per unit of fuel, something is whack if it is doing more with less.
The ability to change the power with the rpm is super cool, it eliminates pumping losses. The hybrid engine certainly has neat aspects to it, but you still loose efficiency generating the electricity, and then using it in the motors. Maybe the rpm throttle gets it to almost break even?
The best variable compression engine though is a turbocharged motor, I would think that a turbodiesel overexpansion engine would be the ideal, not necessarily the atkinson, there is another design that has 2 pistons that I have heard promising things about. One piston is the intake and compression, the other power and exhaust.

[LongWayToFall 0]

I still don't like referring to alcohol injection as boost, in the method that the article talks about, it is just switching fuels. The alcohol doesn't prevent ping by cooling the mixture (ok a small amount) but by the fact that the alcohol has a much higher octane rating. (or whatever type of rating they use for alcohol) Reducing knock only increases power by keeping the engine in one piece, its something that you don't want to have happening period. You act like this is some crazy new technology, all it is, is 2 injection systems trading off depending on engine load. Set the compression high enough, and you are definitely going to need a fuel other than gasoline at some point in the load range. This type of setup would be best used in a turbocharged application, low boost on gasoline, high boost on alcohol. I still think though, that if you want to run on gasoline, you should stick to it, and have a turbo engine that can shut down cylinders independently, all the while keeping the boost as high as possible for the cylinders that are still running. This way you can keep the engine as close as possible to ideal volumetric efficiency (rpm).
I agree with you on the truck part, hybrids would help them get rolling. But the energy for the motors has to come from somewhere, and that is the engine. When a truck is taking off from a stop, he has to shift into a new gear every second or so, keeping the engine in a very narrow power range. This range happens to be very efficient, you don't loose allot of efficiency like a car which has a huge rpm band. The hybrid setup is going to be hard pressed to see gains over the current one. Also the size of battery needed to drive the motors would be outrageous, and way way expensive. That kind of setup is years away from becoming feasible. Trucks are cool though, in that they pretty much had the first regenerative braking system. The jake brake they use fills a tank which is used to start the truck and operate the regular air actuated brakes. I could definitely see an electric regenerative brake setup being used sooner than a full on hybrid one.