Somebody help me out here. Why would adding an inert substance like Nitrogen improve gas?
Quote from: 64duc on July 13, 2009, 03:35:17 PM
Somebody help me out here. Why would adding an inert substance like Nitrogen improve gas?
The same way adding tcp would.
I do not get it either. ???
adding cleansing detergents is not new just because they came up with a new name for it.......
but it is a good way to deflect interest in the fact that shell has suspended all of its "alternative fuel" research now that the price of fuel has become more palatable to the consumer.
Quote from: herm on July 13, 2009, 06:55:15 PM
adding cleansing detergents is not new just because they came up with a new name for it.......
but it is a good way to deflect interest in the fact that shell has suspended all of its "alternative fuel" research now that the price of fuel has become more palatable to the consumer.
I had heard that too, bahstads.
yup,.....turns out, when they are not making money hand over fist with high pump prices, that revenues are not high enough to be eco minded AND profitable
Yes, but I believe nitrogen, by itself, is not a detergent. It is generally an inert gas. When combined with oxygen, can either make you laugh (N20), or deplete atmospheric ozone (N0 and N02). Why would you introduce a compound into the combustion that can take oxygen away from the reaction?
N20 should be unstable in the combustion chamber, NO and NO2 are clearly not wanted. I guess they are saying the free nitrogen will bond more easily to carbon than to oxygen.
It must be that the extra free nitrogen bonds with the carbon and that compound becomes soluble in the water vapor combustion product.
To be fair American oil companies (Shell, Exxon, Velero, Getty, et al) have little or nothing to do with setting prices. If I recall correctly, they represent 2 or 3% of world oil production. Price is soley the perview of a cartel called OPEC.
I agree that "alternative" research is a cynical p.r. display by the oil companies who were making record profits while people suffered.
Again, to be fair, they are actually "oil" companies, not necessarily "energy" companies and have no obligation to develop anything other than the oil based products that they sell for profit. Of course BP does now claims to be an "energy" company but they are not an evil "American" oil company (British Petroleum).
I also agree that a nitrogen additive seems gimmicky.
The last time I checked my engine was inhaling about 78% nitrogen for every gulp of air it took in. Maybe bumping that up to 78.0000001% helps it run better.
I thought ozone= O3?
:edit: n'mind... he's talking about depleting ozone. it's too early to read.
Quote from: herm on July 14, 2009, 03:48:44 AM
yup,.....turns out, when they are not making money hand over fist with high pump prices, that revenues are not high enough to be eco minded AND profitable
That is how the free market works. Green fuel will cost more, at least in the near term, and maybe forever. Many would argue, myself included, that we don't pay the full cost of the dino fuel we use now. To fix the problem, fuel prices will have to increase - that is not conjecture, but fact. For whatever hot air American consumers spew about wanting green fuel, the reality is that they are currently unwilling to pay for it.
It is always tempting/fun to throw darts at "big oil" but the fact of the matter is the American consumer needs to step up and put their money where their mouth is......
ya first time i saw the commercial is was like [laugh]. i dont use shell gas anyways and will continue not using it.
I was talking to my wife a few weeks ago about the same thing. "Why the make the beast with two backs are they putting an inert gas into the fuel for an internal combustion engine?"
Nitrogen enriched [thumbsup]
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Guinness.jpg/180px-Guinness.jpg)
Shell is just trying to make sure you get a good head on your fill-up.
Quote from: Special K on July 14, 2009, 05:40:43 AM
To be fair American oil companies (Shell, Exxon, Velero, Getty, et al) have little or nothing to do with setting prices. If I recall correctly, they represent 2 or 3% of world oil production. Price is soley the perview of a cartel called OPEC.
I agree that "alternative" research is a cynical p.r. display by the oil companies who were making record profits while people suffered.
Again, to be fair, they are actually "oil" companies, not necessarily "energy" companies and have no obligation to develop anything other than the oil based products that they sell for profit. Of course BP does now claims to be an "energy" company but they are not an evil "American" oil company (British Petroleum).
I also agree that a nitrogen additive seems gimmicky.
opec merely sets the ground floor price for a barrel of oil, for their members. neither they or anyone else mind if it goes higher than that. market speculation, and local pricing (this is where the american oil companies get us) takes care of the rest.
also, BP recently canceled funding for its "other than oil" based energies
Quote from: angler on July 14, 2009, 08:36:31 AM
That is how the free market works. Green fuel will cost more, at least in the near term, and maybe forever. Many would argue, myself included, that we don't pay the full cost of the dino fuel we use now. To fix the problem, fuel prices will have to increase - that is not conjecture, but fact. For whatever hot air American consumers spew about wanting green fuel, the reality is that they are currently unwilling to pay for it.
It is always tempting/fun to throw darts at "big oil" but the fact of the matter is the American consumer needs to step up and put their money where their mouth is......
i understand free market, and the "problem" of fossil fuel reliance. my cynicism is entirely aimed at the oil companies attempts to increase positive PR by researching alternative energies.........until the low cost at the pump got consumer opinion off their backs
Quote from: herm on July 14, 2009, 11:07:38 AM
i understand free market, and the "problem" of fossil fuel reliance. my cynicism is entirely aimed at the oil companies attempts to increase positive PR by researching alternative energies.........until the low cost at the pump got consumer opinion off their backs
I think this may be a bit chicken vs egg. I would argue that they began to research alternative fuels not because public sentiment made them want to, but because oil prices got so high researching alternatives became attractive. Attractive from the standpoint that they could make more profit off alternatives than the rising cost of dino. All the alternative fuels I have seen cost more than the current price of gasoline and/or diesel. I don't know what the dino price point is where bio sources for fuel become cheaper, but we crossed that threshold and that, IMHO, is why energy companies began looking for alternatives. They quit looking in to alternatives when prices dropped below that threshold again. Let's face it, big oil is not going to do anything unless it gives them higher returns.
Also, most of what we consider to be big oil are definitely "energy" companies. Who do you think owns the majority of capacity in LNG receiving and transmission?
Quote from: elyk on July 14, 2009, 09:16:45 AM
ya first time i saw the commercial is was like [laugh]. i dont use shell gas anyways and will continue not using it.
Uh, sometimes they supply other gas stations-it won't be obvious you're using Shell gas.
Quote from: angler on July 14, 2009, 11:24:35 AM
. . . Let's face it, big oil ANY for profit business is not going to do anything unless it gives them higher returns. . . .
People keep complaining about gas prices, and of course I'd like to see them lower, but look over the pond. Those guys are getting RAPED for fuel. I mean, come on, close to $8 a gallon?
Quote from: NAKID on July 14, 2009, 02:35:04 PM
People keep complaining about gas prices, and of course I'd like to see them lower, but look over the pond. Those guys are getting RAPED for fuel. I mean, come on, close to $8 a gallon?
That's their own fault for buying in Liters (or litres). You have to buy in bulk (Gallons) to get a deal. Go price out four quarts of milk vs. one gallon and you'll see just what I mean. ;D
^ [laugh]
Quote from: NAKID on July 14, 2009, 02:35:04 PM
People keep complaining about gas prices, and of course I'd like to see them lower, but look over the pond. Those guys are getting RAPED for fuel. I mean, come on, close to $8 a gallon?
i want to be clear on three things
1) i am a cynic
2) i think we should be paying at least $4.00 per gallon. that seems to be the price at which people start to consider their fuel consumption
3) despite #2, i will continue to pregnant dog about fuel prices above $2.50
It wasn't directed at you. Like I said, I pregnant dog about gas prices took. I have a 35 gallon tank in the truck and get 12mpg in the city...
Quote from: NAKID on July 14, 2009, 06:37:39 PM
It wasn't directed at you. Like I said, I pregnant dog about gas prices took. I have a 35 gallon tank in the truck and get 12mpg in the city...
hahaha........
i have a 36 gallon tank. i get 12mpg when towing a 10k trailer. the rest of the time i average about 17mpg.
yes, its diesel. but much bigger than yours as well.
look, people and everyone are supposed to complain about hte status quo. according to everyone, the person who has more money is a jerk, if you arent' paying less than someone else you are getting taken, if you arent' getting something cheaper than what you want, then you are being taken, nothing is ever good enough.. that is life.
that being said, oil companies can do the pr thing about being all goodfor the environtment and such, and how much they 'donate' to good causes, but come one they are there to make a buck plain and simple , i think what people don't like is when people aren't honest about what and who they are..
oil companies=rape the customer for as much money as possible
private companies= rape the customer for as much money as possible so that they keep coming back.
public services=rape the customer for as much money as they have and have them coming back.
see a trend? everyone is out to get something from everyone, that is the true free market.
Uh - I'm going to get trashed for this but my fuel light was on & I stopped by a shell station that happened to be there. My bike ran better on the shell gas than on the gas from my regular station. Not to say the nitrogen did anything because it was better as soon as the new gas hit the injectors. One thing the shell station did have was separate hoses for premium so I didn't have to put regular in until the hose was purged. Maybe that's the difference I noticed.
QuoteLet's face it, big oil is not going to do anything unless it gives them higher returns.
The dip in prices is temporary and Big Oil would get higher returns in the long run if they stayed with their alternate research programs. The problem as I see it is our U.S system of needing to maximize very short term profits and on paper they'd have to sacrifice some short term profit to bring in the long term profit - so they cancel the programs. Don't know how to fix this situation and it's been going on for a long time and is the cause of a lot of issues in US industry in general, not just the energy companies. Look how the car companies jumped back into making big cars the minute gas prices drop. You can say it's our fault because we bought them, but to some extent the constant battery of ads conditions us to buy them, like conditioning dogs to a crate.
But, end of the day, I'm still a capitalist and a fan of the free enterprise system.
Quote from: NAKID on July 14, 2009, 02:35:04 PM
People keep complaining about gas prices, and of course I'd like to see them lower, but look over the pond. Those guys are getting RAPED for fuel. I mean, come on, close to $8 a gallon?
It's due to their taxes. A barrel of oil costs the same for them as it does for us.
Yeah, they get raped by taxes...
QuoteIt's due to their taxes. A barrel of oil costs the same for them as it does for us.
In Turkey, at least as of this time last year, gas was $12 per gallon due to taxes. Turkey is completely rebuilding their transportation infrastructure with the tax money, I think in order to make progress towards EU membership. I suppose it's a good purpose but the gas price really cramps the style of the average Turk. Out on the "interstates" in Turkey, the newly renovated highways are wide and beautiful, with numerous lanes, but only an occasional BMW or Mercedes and a few large trucks - no traffic at all by our standards.
The nitrogen has to be a gimmick. LIke silentbob said, N comprises around 78% of the air getting sucked into the combustion chamber anyway so unless they think the extra nigrogen in the fuel is going to clean the intake valves as it blasts through, it's not going to do shit.
I have no doubt that Shell sells decent gas. I only fill up at BP, Shell, Phillips, etc and anytime I go to a no name station the bike definitely suffers, but using Shell just becasue it's "nitrogen enriched" makes you about as informed as the average motorist that couldn't tell the difference between an alternator and a Terminator (maybe the average motorist could tell the difference between the two, I just thought it was fun that it rhymed).
or as informed as those who insist on the highest octane possible.........because, it has more octane.
<ducks the shoes and runs screaming from the room>
Nitrogen does lots of things:
N2 = air, for the most part
CN = cyanide, kills you
NH4OH = ammonia, cleans your floors
NH4NO3 = ammonium nitrate, fertilizer, or with fuel oil added becomes ANFO explosive
Rx-N = amine, an organic compound, found in some gasolines
HNO3 = nitric acid, very nasty stuff
KNO3 = potassium nitrate,the oxidizer in black/gunpowder, and libido-eliminator of WWII fame
N3- = nitride, crazy stuff that combines with some metals like Ti and makes great fork slider coatings
So I don't know what Shell is adding nor what it's alleged to do, but organic chemistry (gasoline and such) is complicated stuff. Could be straight PR, could be something better than the next guy's got.
As far as oil company profits, maybe some arithmetic is in order. Remember when gas was $4 a gallon? Oil at that time was bringing about $140 a barrel, if memory serves. There are 42 gallons in a barrel of crude. So if that barrel of crude consisted of nothing but gasoline, the bad oil companies would be getting $168. But refinement yields only about 19 gallons of gasoline from every barrel of crude. The rest yields products of incrementally lower value, like fuel oil, tar, and asphalt. And remember, refinement costs money. Their profit on gasoline is typically about 8-9%, less on the lower-end products. When the price is high and volume is high, the dollar value of profit is high, but the percentage profit doesn't change much.
Pricing of commodities is a function of supply and demand. When demand is high, prices rise until the demand diminishes, then prices drop. OPEC is a cartel, and cartels historically don't work very well. OPEC's no exception. The gas crisis of the '70s taught OPEC a lesson about fixing prices, and many of its members cheat and sell oil below the agreed-upon price. That's in many cases how OPEC's price fixing gets beaten.
Oil companies are corporations, with boards of directors and many, many stockholders. The responsibility of the corporation (the board) is to maximize return on invested dollars or stock. That stock is held by 401k plans and other retirement funds and trade unions, as well as by individuals and banks and even other corporations. If the stock performs poorly it becomes undesirable and is sold off, lowering the price and the value of the corporation.
Spending money on alternative fuel R&D is a no-profit exercise. When gasoline profits are large, it's economically feasible and a worthwhile investment. When profits shrink - like when the gas price drops - there are less disposable funds to throw around. Naturally R&D suffers at that circumstance. It's a business decision.
It's immaterial what the actual profit per barrel is. Here is an article from May of this year regarding a fall in profits for Chevron in the first quarter.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/01/BUU017D17A.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/01/BUU017D17A.DTL)
Yes, you read that right. Their profits dropped to $1.84 BILLION. That's profit, after costs such as refinement and paying employee wages...
Quote from: NAKID on July 17, 2009, 08:04:29 PM
It's immaterial what the actual profit per barrel is. Here is an article from May of this year regarding a fall in profits for Chevron in the first quarter.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/01/BUU017D17A.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/01/BUU017D17A.DTL)
Yes, you read that right. Their profits dropped to $1.84 BILLION. That's profit, after costs such as refinement and paying employee wages...
thank you.
and to anyone who feels like they need to defend the poor oil companies.......
save it.
Quote from: Jarvicious on July 17, 2009, 03:25:43 PM
I have no doubt that Shell sells decent gas. I only fill up at BP, Shell, Phillips, etc and anytime I go to a no name station the bike definitely suffers, but using Shell just becasue it's "nitrogen enriched" makes you about as informed as the average motorist that couldn't tell the difference between an alternator and a Terminator (maybe the average motorist could tell the difference between the two, I just thought it was fun that it rhymed).
You do know most of those stations just get it from whichever major supplier is cheapest, right?
There is no "no name" company out there, that buys crude, refines it to gas, and then sells it specifically to no-name gas stations.
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 18, 2009, 09:10:02 AM
You do know most of those stations just get it from whichever major supplier is cheapest, right?
There is no "no name" company out there, that buys crude, refines it to gas, and then sells it specifically to no-name gas stations.
They all start with the same crude, but some vendors add different additives/detergents. There can be a difference. My 1st job ever was at the tank farm in Las Vegas. I worked for Saveway Distributing and several different gas stations purchased gas from us (refined in LA area and delivered via a pipeline). Texaco had their own tanks though.
Also, my 2nd car ('84 Dodge Charger) wouldn't run for shit on Arco gas. It would just lose power for no reason. Dodge couldn't find anything wrong...so they suggested I try using something other than Arco. I never had the problem again.
Quote from: Mr Earl on July 17, 2009, 07:42:50 PM
Nitrogen does lots of things:
N2 = air, for the most part
CN = cyanide, kills you
NH4OH = ammonia, cleans your floors
NH4NO3 = ammonium nitrate, fertilizer, or with fuel oil added becomes ANFO explosive
Rx-N = amine, an organic compound, found in some gasolines
HNO3 = nitric acid, very nasty stuff
KNO3 = potassium nitrate,the oxidizer in black/gunpowder, and libido-eliminator of WWII fame
N3- = nitride, crazy stuff that combines with some metals like Ti and makes great fork slider coatings
You forgot my favorite:
TNT - Tri Nitrogen Toluene. Ok, not it's chemical formula but I think we all know what it is. Nitrogen can make all kinds of different things.
So I spent 30 seconds looking around and found this article:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1610443/shells_nitrogen_enriched_gasoline_pump.html?cat=27 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1610443/shells_nitrogen_enriched_gasoline_pump.html?cat=27)
Though it's very short here are some points it makes:
1) The reason Nitrogen detergents are supposed too be better is that they are more stable at higher temperatures.
2) The nearly complete lack of any substantive information from Shell seems to indicate that this is just some new form of detergent and the campaign is more hype than fact.
3) Though all the industry gasoline detergents help remove engine deposits they can leave their own deposits.
4) A self proclaimed PhD says that to get the best cleaning you need to change your gasoline brand every 5000 miles.
While there seems to be little factual support for anything in the article it's more than I can find from Shell and points 2 & 4 seem to make sense to me, though I have no support for them either.
Scott
Quote from: Special K on July 14, 2009, 05:40:43 AM
To be fair American oil companies (Shell, Exxon, Velero, Getty, et al) have little or nothing to do with setting prices.
While what you say is true, Shell isn't a US company
QuoteContact us
Shell headquarters
Carel van Bylandtlaan 16, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands
Postal address:
PO box 162, 2501 AN The Hague, The Netherlands
Tel. +31 70 377 9111
.