Letter of the week, 11/26/07

[David]

Foreign oil: Just ducky?
Editor:
Would someone please explain something to me? One of the highest priorities in our nation today is to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. This dependency is destroying our economy, and the pollutants from gasoline-powered engines are allegedly having dire consequences with respect to our environment. In response to this, the automakers are responding responsibly with the offering of “flex fuel” powered vehicles that are capable of using E85 (up to 85 percent ethanol, mixed with gasoline) fuels. Certainly, common use of this fuel would substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In addition, the use of this fuel allows for use in higher compression engines, which in turn reduces pollutants and reduce greenhouse gases; Government tests have shown that E85 vehicles reduce harmful hydrocarbon and benzene emissions when compared to vehicles running on gasoline. E85 can also reduce carbon dioxide, a harmful greenhouse gas and a major contributor to global warming.
So there we have it. E85 can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help clean up our environment. The automakers are making vehicles capable of using this fuel available to the buyer. But there is not a single filling station in Connecticut that offers this fuel to the consumer! Now, a casual observer might suggest that the oil companies do not want the American consumers to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, thus protecting their obscene profits. And that same observer might observe that government seems to be going along with this charade, due to the inordinate influence of the oil industry on the various capitals of our nation. Perhaps this view is overly cynical; but I have always believed that if it looks like and duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, the smart money will bet that it’s a duck.
JIM KRUPP, WALLINGFORD

[Fit 2 Print]

Will it take "an Act of Congress" to finally turn the ship of energy consumption and supply around in this country?

[collie]

Congress as it exists is comprised of Democratic and Republican politicians who sold their souls a long time ago, for the most part, and don't make waves for the sake of their party. They deliberately leave a few oddballs in there; eccentrics, if you will who try to do progressive things but never get the support such a measure would need to proceed forward. And right now, even if such a needed act of congress was passed, I think President Bush would veto it and Congress would fail to override the veto.

[rapuda]

It's been proven time and time again that congress does what is in ITS best interest not AMERICA. Most politicians vote in a manner that rewards them with money, favors, or votes. Politicians don't do the right thing because usually the right thing doesn't give them anything in return. The drug companies, oil companies and big business control this country. Our political system is broken. If 7 years of Bush hasn't shown you that, I don't know what will.
If Bush were a true leader he would've used 9/11 as a rallying point to convince our country to get off our dependence for oil. Our reliance on oil has created so many problems for this country. The technology exists today to create energy from other sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydrogen. Although E85 would help, it's not the answer.
We should heavily invest in alternative energy to get ourselves away from the Middle Eastern oil. It may seem expensive to do but in the long run it'll save money, and lives. (Iraq)

[eds]

Personally I don't care what fuel I use. Whether its bio or oil or hydrogen.

I need a vehicle that will meet my needs without compromise. I'll give you an example. I looked at an electric Ford Ranger. It could carry a payload of only 750 pounds including people. Totally useless for me.

I don't want to be told "Why do I need a truck". Because that line of thinking does nothing to solve the problem. I do not care how much gas costs, I will never drive a Prius or anything like that. BTW, I need the truck because I am "recycling" an old house instead of cutting down more lumber and building a new one. :)

I saw a program involving AHnold and he was looking at a car that was modified to run on 100% bio based fuels having about 450HP. It was a zero emission vehicle and did not use petrol but too costly for production. I would buy that vehicle.

Why should I have to compromise my lifestyle when the scientists and engineers should be researching how to meet my needs efficiently without petrol?

Until they make a vehicle I like, that meets my needs without compromise, I will continue to consume gasoline as always. Fill 'er up!

[eds]

As for the location of E85 in Connecticut as of 2003 DOT was pumping only for the state DOT vehicles:

http://www.e85fuel.com/news/2003/071003_ct_e85_release.htm

There is also one in Danbury for DOT as of 2005.

But there are no "consumer" available sites. But at least state DOT is using it as of 2003/2005.

Alas for me none of my vehicles can take E85, a 98, an 04 and an 07 vehicle. Oh well...fill 'er up!

[Fit 2 Print]

Does anyone like the idea of turning to America's abundant supply of coal for heating and energy production?

[collie]

No, exploitation of coal workers remain a problem and to burn another carbon based fuel is ecologically stupid given the melting polar ice caps etc.

[eds]

We already use coal quite extensively for electric power production.

All workers today are "exploited". Workers today are prostitutes to their corporate pimps. If I didn't like my job I'd quit. Or I'd suck it up and do the job I'm being paid to do. Bottom line is the coal workers and all workers are being paid to perform a job. How is that "exploited"? I'm being "exploited" at work all the time. We all are. Even nurses. Do any of us really get paid for what we are worth? Is it that coal mining is dangerous? Does that mean we should stop? There are a lot of jobs out there that are dangerous. Perhaps more dangerous.

Anyway, no one can solve this issue of foreign oil or global warming. The problems are not solvable.

I recently switched all my outside lighting fixtures to fluorescents. I have about a dozen fixtures which light up my house and grounds at night. I like the look. I have another dozen or so 12V low-voltage electric lights mounted in the stairs and pathways which burn about 100W total. I like my house lit up from all angles and the grounds to be lit as well so its not pitch black outside. Before the switch I was burning about 600W of power for 12 hours straight each night during the winter and summer for about 9 hours each night. I estimated that it cost about $40 a month just for the lighting. The switch to fluorescents reduced the wattage by 65% to about 200W total. Now that's about $13 a month.

But I didn't switch to save money. It would mean accepting an inferior product at the time. Just to save $30 a month? That's a buck a day really. I did not switch until I could find a bulb that did not look like a spiral. The look was all wrong for me. I wanted the bulb to look like the same shape and give off the same color. The harsh white color of the first fluorescents to come to market were just awful. They also had to work in the cold outdoors. The older ones flickered in the cold. The ones I found look like regular bulbs, have the same color cast and are rated to start down to -27F.

That was a solution I could live with. The lighting looks the same so my style is not compromised and I can do all the nice environmental things everyone seems so intent on these days.

I am still waiting for other similar solutions for transportation. To me mass transit sucks. I like big cars with V8 engines. That will never change for me.

[eds]

BTW I saw on the Channel 3 news that CT now has one filling station selling 20% biodiesel. Its called B-20.

[Fit 2 Print]

I agree with Collie about coal workers and environmental concerns, but if coal is not part of the solution, at least short-term, what IS going to be the alternate to oil/gas over, say, the next 10 years?

[eds]

If I had to guess I would say it won't be one single alternate. Not enough corn in the world can be grown to fuel demand enough to make it 100% the solution. Hydrogen looks promising but expensive. Biodiesel is again limited to farm space and waste oil availability which will dry up as more use it.

It will be a combination all of these solutions plus more efficient vehicles that meet consumer needs as well as environmental needs.

[Tino3]

Just wanted to change the subject