Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.

|> |> |>If it does come to that sort of situation , you may do well to look at
|> |> |>powering a perol power genset from woodgas .
|> |> |>Not a whole comunity as alan carries on about , but a small producer unit
|> |> |>big enought to run a small engine.
|> |> |>They burn anything that will burn , literaly , coal ,wood ,old tyres ...
|> |> |>if things get realy desperate , it may not always be real easy to locate
|> |> |>vege oil or fat to turn into bio- diesel , but we always got crap laying
|> |> |>around what will burn...
|> |> |
|> |> |Some things running on anything that will burn...
|> |> |
|> |> |http://highforest.tripod.com/woodgas/woodfired.html
|> |> |http://www.pritchardpower.com/
|> |> |http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/
|> |>
|> |> Would point out that ethanol is not an efficient fuel. It takes
|> |> as much energy to produce it as it gives back. Bio diesel is
|> |> more energy effective. Steam even more so. Water power is the
|> |> best, if you have a source.
|> |
|> |You are probably right about the energy to produce ethanol but if you
|> |use the sludge from the fermenting process, (put it through a oil press,
|> |(They work pretty neat for this application too)), the sludge will come
|> |out as a solid round cake like rod that can be broken up in to pellets,
|> |then dryad and then fed into the still as fuel.
|> |I have a pelletizer for converting alfalfa into feed pellets and it
|> |looks like it works on the same principal as a oil press, except their
|> |is no strainer and the water/oil removing chamber has much larger holes.
|> |
|> |Remember the conversion factor for potatoes to alcohol is only 20% so
|> |you 80% of the original spud left. This can be used as fuel or for
|> |cattle feed.
|> |
|> |I suspect that the commercial ethanol manufactures that use corn (big
|> |thing in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois) first press the corn to remove
|> |the oil and syrups. Remove the corn oil from the liquid, wash out the
|> |sweeteners, and then ferment the starch into ethanol which is distilled
|> |out. Then what remains is used as cattle feed. So the economics are
|> |not just from ethanol but from corn syrup, Corn Oil, ethanol, and cattle
|> |feed.
|> |
|> |Back on the farm we used to go to the Sugar beet processing plant and by
|> |sugar beet pulp, (stuff left over after the sugar has been processed
|> |out) for cattle feed. The stuff stank like high heaven but the dammed
|> |cows had an orgasm over it.
|> |
|> |The Independent
|>
|> By steam, I mean a small boiler on your property that runs a
|> piston or two thus powering a generator of about 20 KW. Enough
|> to power a typical house. Could be wood fired or fueled by
|> whatever.
|
|You think your small-scale generator is somehow more efficient than the
|big generating plant nearby?
|
|Have you calculated the Carnot efficiency of a small steam boiler?
|
|Have you calculated how many cords of wood per month it will take to
|generate your 20 KW? Or even 10 KW?
|
|Have you calculated the costs to deliver these cords of wood, for you
|to then feed your firebox, and maintenance on a sooty system?
|
|I didn't think so, for any of these points.
|
|Why do you think it is that utilities are not burning wood, if you
|think this is a cost-saving measure for home users?
|
|Duh. If you were in fact a senior military officer, as you seem to
|imply at times, this explains a _lot_ about where we are today.

The topic was the use of bio diesel for emergency purposes or to
survive if the grid went down. Bio diesel would work but for
long term, off the grid usage, steam or water would be a better
way to make power. We are talking survive here, not our current
culture.

Think out of the box.


 
On Sun, 16 May 2004 18:33:40 -0700, Tim May
<[email protected]> wrote:

|In article <[email protected]>, R. David
|Steele <[email protected]/OMEGA> wrote:
|
|> Soy producers want it. I have family members on the soy board.
|> They were the ones who turned me on to diesel cars! The soy
|> producers want the protection of the government so that they can
|> create new markets. The law is doing that.
|
|Post their names and addresses. They need killing for trying to get Big
|Brother to support their interests.

http://www.biodiesel.org/

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html

http://energy.cas.psu.edu/soydiesel.html

http://www.bagelhole.org/article.php/Transportation/44/

http://ww2.green-trust.org:8383/biodiesel.htm

http://www.biodiesel.com/why_biodiesel.htm

http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/biodiesel.pdf


 
Skipping school, I decide to respond to what The Independent
<[email protected]> fosted Sun, 16 May 2004 12:04:45 -0700 in
misc.survivalism , viz:
>
>Another place that could be exploited for Geo Thermal energy is Yellow
>Stone National Park. Magma is only 5000 feet under the surface. 5000
>feet is nothing to drill these days. Drill down to the magma (it is not
>under pressure at this time as it would have broken through to the
>surface) pipe down water and pipe back up steam to run through your
>turbines.


Minor problem with most geo thermal sites is that the water coming back
"up" usually has a lot of dissolved solids in it. So flashing that into steam
is a "bad" idea. (Unless you have a need for those dissolved solids. but
keeping them out of the piping is a problem.) But those are a engineering
problems, not a conceptual ones.

>
>Of course the tree huggers will never let that happen.


--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."
 
Roughly 5/13/04 23:32, Austin Shackles's monkeys randomly typed:

> On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 02:42:56 GMT, Alan Connor <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>But you are certainly right about "bio-diesel" not being a reasonable substitute
>>for petroleum. It's a laughable idea: The fellow here who offered the idea is
>>not real fond of arithmetic or careful research. He just skims a couple of
>>web pages and goes off the deep end...

>
> in what way? are you saying it's not viable due to the number involved?
> 'cos if so, I expect you're right. Technically, it can be done - you can
> also do ethanol for spark-ignition engines.


Which takes land, water, fertilizer, etc. Worst of the resources
needed is the water.
>
> however, we *will* deplete the oil supply if we carry on as we are, so we
> need some sort of alternative. And the much in-vogue hydrogen is a long way
> from practical too.


Particularly without energy sources capable of converting junk water
or sea water to hydrogen.

--
Me human. You Computer. Me have BFH. You have fragile parts. You behave.

 
Roughly 5/14/04 18:42, Chris Phillipo's monkeys randomly typed:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> > however, we *will* deplete the oil supply if we carry on as we are, so we
>> > need some sort of alternative. And the much in-vogue hydrogen is a long way
>> > from practical too.

>>
>> Hydrogen is not an energy source.. It's an energy storage medium.
>> The only advantage to hydrogen is that it lets you combine your
>> energy generation plants to a few central places where it's easier
>> to blow them up... er... easier to control the polution, because it's
>> a point-source.
>>
>> --Goedjn
>>
>>

>
> Actually it's the opposite, Hydrogen can be produced on site anywhere
> there is water and electricity, it allows for the very thing we need,
> decentralization of both the energy and the monopolies controlling it.


Except of course for that nasty little prerequisite of electricity.
Or the water itself...

--
Me human. You Computer. Me have BFH. You have fragile parts. You behave.

 
Skipping school, I decide to respond to what The Independent
<[email protected]> fosted Sun, 16 May 2004 02:43:46 -0700 in
misc.survivalism , viz:
>
>Gasoline did not become widely available until after World War I.
>It wasn't until the early 1930's that farm equipment became gasoline
>powered. Before the 1930's farm equipment motive force was a verity of
>heavy oil engines.


As I understand it, prior to the 19030s, "farm equipment motive force" was
equine (horses). There were tractors, but mostly steam powered -which meant
coal or wood. IT wasn't until IC engines got reliable (and relatively cheap)
that the farmers traded in their horses for gas tractors.

My great uncle still had a team in the barn in the late 50s. I don't know
if he still farmed with them, I was only 4 years old myself.

>The switch to Diesel on the Farm began in the late
>60's. It was the switch to Diesel on the farm is what forced the major
>automobile manufactures to begin manufacturing light diesel trucks.


"force" or provided a user base to make it worth while?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."
 
Roughly 5/15/04 11:18, Chris Phillipo's monkeys randomly typed:

> In article <[email protected]>, austin@ddol-
> las.fsnet.co.uk says...
>> On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:42:28 -0300, Chris Phillipo
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>> >Actually it's the opposite, Hydrogen can be produced on site anywhere
>> >there is water and electricity, it allows for the very thing we need,
>> >decentralization of both the energy and the monopolies controlling it.

>>
>> and where, pray, do you get the electricity?
>>

>
> Well in iceland they get it from geothermal and produce hydrogen right
> at the gas station.


For what, all three dozen vehicles in the entire country? And what
sort of highly volcanic geology does Iceland have that allows this
geothermal energy to be extracted? This might possibly scale to
allow enough hydrogen to power a few snowmobiles in Yellowstone,
but it ain't gonna scale to even power New York City.


--
Me human. You Computer. Me have BFH. You have fragile parts. You behave.

 
Roughly 5/15/04 06:40, The Independent's monkeys randomly typed:

>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>
>> <snipped trash >
>>
>> Actually it's the opposite, Hydrogen can be produced on site anywhere
>> there is water and electricity, it allows for the very thing we need,
>> decentralization of both the energy and the monopolies controlling it.
>> --
>> ____________________
>> Remove "X" from email address to reply.

>
> Actually that brings up an interesting question. How is the electricity
> made for the production of hydrogen. Seems to me that not only do you
> have to produce the hydrogen but you must have a way of collecting it
> and then storing it.
>
> The only thing I can think of is you need to have sufficient solar
> cell capacity to run electrolysis of water and a small electric driven
> compressor to compress the hydrogen into a tank of some sort.


Insufficient inbound solar radiation to perform this task. Worse
would be the lack of real estate where solar collectors could be
placed.

Easier to bypass the middleman energy-wise and get energy from
hydrogen in the same manner as the sun does.... and use that to
process waste water or such. Politically a bit on the unacceptable
side tho.... as it could also be done with fission derived energy.



--
Me human. You Computer. Me have BFH. You have fragile parts. You behave.

 
On or around Mon, 17 May 2004 05:28:26 GMT, pyotr filipivich
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

> As I understand it, prior to the 19030s, "farm equipment motive force" was
>equine (horses). There were tractors, but mostly steam powered -which meant
>coal or wood. IT wasn't until IC engines got reliable (and relatively cheap)
>that the farmers traded in their horses for gas tractors.



any of you with the National Geographic for last month, (I think) there's an
article about the great plains and the corn belt. There's a little picture
of them ploughing in the 20s, using a sod-off steam tractor pulling a
14-furrow plough...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
Roughly 5/15/04 11:20, Chris Phillipo's monkeys randomly typed:

> In article <1gdty49.18rg8xjb4uodqN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-urcx4
> @malloc.co.uk says...
>> Subject: Re: More Infor on BioDiesel
>> From: [email protected] (Steve Firth)
>> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism, alt.fan.landrover, rec.autos.4x4, uk.rec.cars.4x4
>>
>> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Just what exactly do you find stupid about goverments taxing all road
>> > users the same amount to drive?

>>
>> That they make using environmentally unfriendly fuels as attractive or
>> indeed more attractive to the motorist than renewable energy.
>>
>> Perhaps you should stop carrying your brain around in a bucket? Just a
>> suggestion like.
>>
>>

>
> Sorry chucklehead but you argument doens't fly. There's nothing more
> environmentally friendly about burning home brewed fuel in a home
> modified car.


Yeah, the smell of burnt french fries isn't that attractive, nor
as medically safe as is often presumed.

--
Me human. You Computer. Me have BFH. You have fragile parts. You behave.

 
On or around Mon, 17 May 2004 00:02:54 GMT, Myal <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>
>I would have thought the bodyheat generated by 6 billion people crammed so
>close together would melt the place .


you could use that energy to make even more hydrogen...

>Then there is a sanitation problem , where are six billion people going to
>poop ?


have a big digester and get methane...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 21:45:35 GMT, "L0nD0t.$t0we11"
<"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> enlightened us thusly:

> Plus unless you use the hydrogen in a fuel cell, you still get
> nitrogen-oxygen compounds... e.g. from burning hydrogen in
> ordinary air.


fuel cell is much better than IC anyway - more efficient. It's quite likely
that in 30-40 years all vehicles will be hyfrogen-fuel cell. They've
already made credible prototypes, which like any prototype cost far too much
money to be viable.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16
 
"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:40:58 -0300, Chris Phillipo
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >> > wasn't for the fact that it's a byproduct of refining oil to get
> >> > gasoline and kerosene. Imagine if oil was refined only to get

diesel,
> >> > more than half the energy and 80% of the dollar value would just

go down
> >> > the drain.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's hardly relevant.
> >>

> >
> >Hardly relevant!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?
> >
> >
> >?!??
> >
> >
> >FACT IS there would be no cheap diesel available were it not for
> >gasoline production.

>
> sorry, but that's crap. There's far more diesel (fuel oil) produced

and
> used in the world than there is gasoline. all the trucks run on it, a

hello
> f a lot of trains run on it, all the motor ships, half the central
> heating...
>


Show me all the large ships that burn Diesel fuel. Most are burning
Bunker C oil, along with power plants and other large industrial
burners. It is the leftovers after refining crude mixed with lighter oil
just to make it flow some.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 


"R. David Steele" wrote:
> <snipped>
>
> The topic was the use of bio diesel for emergency purposes or to
> survive if the grid went down. Bio diesel would work but for
> long term, off the grid usage, steam or water would be a better
> way to make power. We are talking survive here, not our current
> culture.
>
> Think out of the box.


I like the water Idea. The thing that North built looks pretty good and
might be able to scale up to get more power.

The steam engine thing is not doable though. First of all Steam engines
are a maintenance nightmare. The firebox burn out, (burning wood and
coal forms acids with attack the metal) the descaling of the boiler
tubes. (The have to undergo periodic replacement) Just the plain lubing
and greasing all the moving parts, the man hours of labor for the
monitoring the dammed thing. The replacing of packings around the
pistons and shafts.

You are talking work and a lot of it.

I think it would be simpler to build a simple steam turbine and power
the generator that way. But the boiler thing whoooeee. Why do you
think the railroads went to diesel electric locomotives.


The Independent
 


"Steve W." wrote:
>
> "Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:40:58 -0300, Chris Phillipo
> > <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> > >In article <[email protected]>,
> > >[email protected] says...
> > >> > wasn't for the fact that it's a byproduct of refining oil to get
> > >> > gasoline and kerosene. Imagine if oil was refined only to get

> diesel,
> > >> > more than half the energy and 80% of the dollar value would just

> go down
> > >> > the drain.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> That's hardly relevant.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Hardly relevant!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?
> > >
> > >
> > >?!??
> > >
> > >
> > >FACT IS there would be no cheap diesel available were it not for
> > >gasoline production.

> >
> > sorry, but that's crap. There's far more diesel (fuel oil) produced

> and
> > used in the world than there is gasoline. all the trucks run on it, a

> hello
> > f a lot of trains run on it, all the motor ships, half the central
> > heating...
> >

>
> Show me all the large ships that burn Diesel fuel. Most are burning
> Bunker C oil, along with power plants and other large industrial
> burners. It is the leftovers after refining crude mixed with lighter oil
> just to make it flow some.
>


I understand that bunker C was one step above the stuff we put on the
roads.

The Independent



> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Get your head out of the **** pile greenie,


<snigger> Wrong person.

> you don't know what you are talking about. While you dream of a magical
> future world where everything is made of hemp and you can sit on your ass
> and toke up all day long,


<snigger> Wrong person.

> there are actually hydrogen filling stations producing hydrogen ON SITE,
> RIGHT NOW.


Yes, have you bothered to think about the energetics of those stations?
Burning fossil fuel to turn it into hydrogen by electrolysis is umm
dumb. Very, very dumb.

> Seems they droped the ball in the UK, luckily Canada is stil running with
> it.


Over the edge of the cliff if you're anything to go by moose boy.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
 
The Independent <[email protected]> wrote in news:40A85D2D.B15B2ED4@web-
ster.com:

>
>
> "R. David Steele" wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>
>> The topic was the use of bio diesel for emergency purposes or to
>> survive if the grid went down. Bio diesel would work but for
>> long term, off the grid usage, steam or water would be a better
>> way to make power. We are talking survive here, not our current
>> culture.
>>
>> Think out of the box.

>
> I like the water Idea. The thing that North built looks pretty good and
> might be able to scale up to get more power.
>
> The steam engine thing is not doable though. First of all Steam engines
> are a maintenance nightmare. The firebox burn out, (burning wood and
> coal forms acids with attack the metal) the descaling of the boiler
> tubes. (The have to undergo periodic replacement) Just the plain lubing
> and greasing all the moving parts, the man hours of labor for the
> monitoring the dammed thing. The replacing of packings around the
> pistons and shafts.


Most of that could be got around it the thing was buitl out of stainless
steel , the real stuff , marine grade stainless .
Onlt the firebox , boiler and cylender / piston need be stainless , cos
thats about all that corodes during use .
OK , cost a fortune to build , but it would last forever .
Just an idea....

>
> You are talking work and a lot of it.
>
> I think it would be simpler to build a simple steam turbine and power
> the generator that way. But the boiler thing whoooeee. Why do you
> think the railroads went to diesel electric locomotives.
>
>
> The Independent
>


 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sorry chucklehead but you argument doens't fly. There's nothing more
> environmentally friendly about burning home brewed fuel in a home
> modified car.


<sigh> Of course not. Much better to burn the fuel in a power station at
45% efficiency then transport it long distances on overhead pwoerline
losign another 10% or so then to turn it into hydrogen using an
inefficient and polluting process.

Do dweebs like you ever engage their brains?

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
 
In article <[email protected]>, R. David
Steele <[email protected]/OMEGA> wrote:

> The topic was the use of bio diesel for emergency purposes or to
> survive if the grid went down. Bio diesel would work but for
> long term, off the grid usage, steam or water would be a better
> way to make power. We are talking survive here, not our current
> culture.
>
> Think out of the box.


I guarantee neither you nor anyone here is going to set up a wood-fired
boiler for a "20 KW household needs," which is precisely what you
yammered about.

A couple of the illiterati here have described feeble efforts to take
an automobile generator and fan and put it in a stream.

I ask again: where are you going to get the wood to generate 20 KW?

And I won't even _bother_ to ask why you think a household would be
wise in lighting itself up like a Christmas tree by dissipating 20 KW
in a situation where the overall grid has, as posited, gone down.

My plans are to keep a low profile, to use propane lanterns and stoves,
LED lights with solar battery chargers, to use limited lead acid
batteries charged from either solar panels or judicious use of a small
Honda 2.2 KW generator (with el cheapo Generac 5 KW as a backup), and
to generally avoid calling attention to my location on top of a hill.

Having put a watt-meter on some of the things I think are very
important to have, I figure I can do OK on 2 KW for 1 hour, 1 KW for 2
hours, and 0.1 KW for 5 hours, or about 2.5 kilowatt-hours per day. And
if I did without access to pumped water or central heat (which is
doable here in coastal California), I could get by on much less.

And I have about 1.5 acres of heavily wooded land, of oak and madrone,
and am adjacent on three sides to about 50 acres of wooded land I could
scrounge on, probably. However, it's still better to keep a low
profile.

Cutting and haulng the wood to generate 20 KW of electricity, as you
described, seems silly, unneeded, and dangerous.

Doing it with the boiler you hypothesize, but certainly will never
have, is just an idle fantasy.

--Tim May
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

> > and where, pray, do you get the electricity?
> >

>
> Well in iceland they get it from geothermal and produce hydrogen right
> at the gas station.


Right, so all 6 billion of us should live in Iceland right?

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
 
Back
Top