Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:52:18 -0700, Tim May
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Probably so, mr. may, but I suspect they enjoy thinking and planning
the whole thing out. What a spoil sport you are.
Sue - from mr. may's killfile

>
>--Tim May

In article <1gdugv8.9ym2d0jcitl2N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Get your head out of the **** pile greenie,
>
> <snigger> Wrong person.

"Snigger"? Dat be racist! Honkie mofo, get your white honkie asss outta
hear!

--Rap Massah May, African-American Sage

In article <3Xupc.6751$gr.523470@attbi_s52>, L0nD0t.$t0we11
<"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> wrote:

> 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.

I saw the table listing avocadoes as having the highest yield of oil
per acre.

As someone who has has 6 avocadoes (mostly young, planted within the
past several years...maturity takes 6-18 years, depending on variety,
other factors), I can assure everyone that gibberish about how
avocadoes can be used to more economically (than
gasoline/petrol/diesel) fuel vehicles has never priced an avocado in a
supermarket.

And, yes, I spent a fair amount of mine fertlizing them, watering them,
pruning them, and babying them. All so that I will have avocadoes to
eat, not avocado oil to somehow fuel a vehicle with.

And in the places where avocadoes grow best, land tends to be
expensive. An acre of land for avocadoes can never conceivably be paid
for with a mere 200 gallons of oil per year, even if the water and
fertilizer and prunng and harvesting were to be free. Do the math.


--Tim May

pyotr filipivich wrote:
>
> 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

My father in law left the Family farm in Minot North Dakota in the early
1930, because his dad wouldn't switch to tractors. Most of the tractors
of the 1920's were oil pulls which were heavy oil (kerosene) mainly.

First Fordson (Henry Ford couldn't use Ford as a tractor name as is was
already in use in England) came of the assembly line in 1917. Many other
tractors were built in the 1920's and they primarily used distillate or
tractor fuel as it was called. Tractor fuel was a form of kerosene.
Gasoline started making inroads into farm equipment just before world
war two. I think the John Deere model L was the first gasoline John
Deere and was a fairly small tractor. I was first sold in 1938.

The Independent


> 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."

Tim May wrote:
>
>
> I saw the table listing avocadoes as having the highest yield of oil
> per acre.
>

The listing was just for their oil content not weather they were an
economical source of oil.

In all the post I have concentrated on Rape seed (a poisonous from of
canola oil) as the most economical to produce, in terms of water, land,
fertilization, pesticides etc.

If I remember correctly there were some higher yielding plants, (palm
oil was the highest if I remember right. Jojoba oil was up there too.
However that stuff is worth its weight in gold. Jojoba oil has all the
qualities of sperm whale oil (doesn't spoil or go rancid and doesn't gum
up under heat and pressure). Almost all of that stuff goes into
government contracts for the lubrication of precision ball bearings in
guidance systems. Some of it goes into the cosmetic industry.

The Independent


> As someone who has has 6 avocadoes (mostly young, planted within the
> past several years...maturity takes 6-18 years, depending on variety,
> other factors), I can assure everyone that gibberish about how
> avocadoes can be used to more economically (than
> gasoline/petrol/diesel) fuel vehicles has never priced an avocado in a
> supermarket.
>
> And, yes, I spent a fair amount of mine fertlizing them, watering them,
> pruning them, and babying them. All so that I will have avocadoes to
> eat, not avocado oil to somehow fuel a vehicle with.
>
> And in the places where avocadoes grow best, land tends to be
> expensive. An acre of land for avocadoes can never conceivably be paid
> for with a mere 200 gallons of oil per year, even if the water and
> fertilizer and prunng and harvesting were to be free. Do the math.
>
> --Tim May

Tim May <[email protected]> wrote in
news:160520042352189062%[email protected]:

> 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

Tim , youre getting old , well ,youre mellowing at least .
Not one " They need killing" or send them up the chimneies glorious burn
off etc
Keep it up , youre nearly becoming human

On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 16:47:52 -0400, "Steve W." <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>>
>
>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.


well, aye. probably I should have said "boats".

However, my point stands - refining crude is probably equally to make diesel
(and kerosene - all that AVTUR for the jest engines??) rather than all the
other oils being "byproducts" of the process of refining gasoline.

Commercial vehicles in most countries, buses in most countries, all run on
diesel.

I grant you that in the early days they may have been, however, I imagine
that in the very early days, oil refining was presumably about refining lamp
oil, it was only later that someone deiced to try and run engines on it.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect
other people to be entirely to your liking?"
Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xvi.

On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 15:17:11 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In article <[email protected]>, austin@ddol-
>las.fsnet.co.uk says...
>> On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:47:29 -0300, Chris Phillipo
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>> >What idiot farmer is going to farm something that yeilds less than $90
>> >per acre.
>>
>> I venture to suggest that it'd yield more than that if it was used in the
>> production of vehicle fuel in a fossil-fuel-depleted world.
>>
>>
>
>It would yield less than that unless you are suggesting that the world
>will be willing to pay double the current price of gasoline for it.

some of us already do... :-(

however. if the oil supply does become limited, prices will go up.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:35:25 -0700, The Independent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>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.

But...it took them over a hundred years to do the change over. Steam
worked well enough for all that time to justify its issues.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 06:40:27 -0700, The Independent
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.
>
>In any case while you think you are getting the energy from the hydrogen
>you are really using solar energy that has been stored for use later.

There was a website about it... ermmm...

"Energy demand growth is a global issue, but to get a feel for numbers,
let’s begin with the scale of energy use in the US alone. The US vehicle
fleet accumulated 2600 billion miles in 1997 [Ref 2]. Assuming success in
building a hydrogen-powered automobile fleet, we would need 0.013kg of
hydrogen for every mile driven to replace the gasoline and diesel fuel [Ref
3]. If we were to manufacture the hydrogen by electrolysis we would need 240
gigawatts of new electrical generating capacity. That is almost exactly one
half of the total electrical generating capacity of the US."

that's from

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2002/walters.htm

which addresses the possibility of using nuclear power to electrolyze water.
It also includes comparisons with other generating techniques including
renewable sources such as biomass, solar and wind.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Satisfying: Satisfy your inner child by eating ten tubes of Smarties
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:52:18 -0700, Tim May
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

http://www.ecozen.com/steam1.htm
http://solar1.mech.unsw.edu.au/glm/papers/saad-ANZSES98s2.pdf
http://www.nrel.gov/clean_energy/concentratingsolar.html

Think outside the box

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 20:26:43 GMT, "L0nD0t.$t0we11"
<"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> enlightened us thusly:

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

see my other post nearby for a link which says you'd need 3000 sq. miles of
solar collectors to supply current US vehicle fule requirements.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 20:22:07 GMT, "L0nD0t.$t0we11"
<"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> enlightened us thusly:

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

the water is reusable though, once the hydrogen has been used in the car it
goes back to being water.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 08:24:08 GMT, Gunner <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>On Sat, 15 May 2004 07:42:05 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>nothing, or rather, nothing unusual anyway. In the UK we have one of the
>>highest fuel tax rates in the world, and it shows no sign of restricting car
>>use as a result, which is one (minor) stated aim. Of course the major aim
>>is to raise lots of money so we can go and bomb Iraq.
>
>Actually its necessary to pay for the Socialist entity called the
>United Kingdom.

true, but the high taxes predate the current regime.

and they've spent several billion on the war in Iraq so far, buggrem.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 23:35:25 -0700, The Independent
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.

Oil lobby...

electric locos with fixed generating plant make sense.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Robert Frost (1874-1963)

Austin Shackles wrote:

> see my other post nearby for a link which says you'd need 3000 sq. miles of
> solar collectors to supply current US vehicle fule requirements.

That wouldn't be a big chunk of New Mexico or Arizona - or Saudi Arabia
come to think of it. 55 miles x 55 miles. I have me doubts though.

Steve

Austin Shackles wrote:

> 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...
>
Conversion of farming to tractors started early in the 20th century, but did
not make much progress until Ford started to make tractors in 1917.
Although tractors were readily available, and making inroads into
agriculture, the big change took place during WW2 with the shortage of
manpower in the combatant countries, especially US, UK, Canada, Australia.
The re-equipping of farming from horses to tractors in these countries was
essentially completed by around 1950. Tractors were usually petrol or
kerosene powered until around 1950 although there have been diesel or
semi-diesel tractors available since before WW1, and by 1960 almost all
tractors sold were diesel.
Although requiring less cash outlay, horses need a lot more manpower than
tractors, so the cost and availability of labour was the deciding factor.
JD

Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> However, my point stands - refining crude is probably equally to make diesel
> (and kerosene - all that AVTUR for the jest engines??) rather than all the
> other oils being "byproducts" of the process of refining gasoline.
>
> Commercial vehicles in most countries, buses in most countries, all run on
> diesel.
>
> I grant you that in the early days they may have been, however, I imagine
> that in the very early days, oil refining was presumably about refining lamp
> oil, it was only later that someone deiced to try and run engines on it.
>

John D Rockafeller became on of the wealthiest men in the world with his
Standard Oil Company selling coal oil. Before the big breakup of the
evil monopoly people were buying coal oil for 11-13 cents a gallon. For
the next decade after the break up people were buying coal oil for 17 to
20 cents a gallon.

The break of of Standard Oil Company cost the american consumer billions
of extra dollars

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. 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.

The Independent
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> "If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect
> other people to be entirely to your liking?"
> Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xvi.

Skipping school, I decide to respond to what The Independent
<[email protected]> fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 00:02:12 -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
>
>My father in law left the Family farm in Minot North Dakota in the early
>1930, because his dad wouldn't switch to tractors. Most of the tractors
>of the 1920's were oil pulls which were heavy oil (kerosene) mainly.

And a cousin of mine left the city and moved back home, borrowed a team and
put a crop in the ground, this in ~1929. They ate, even if i tended o be the
same thing (My Dad describes it as "Peas and Potatoes for breakfast, Potatoes &
Peas for lunch, and Peas, Potatoes and Ham for supper." Of course, I also get
the "...and we ate rocks and we were glad to have them!" kind of stories as
well.)

tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."

On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 12:31:59 +0100, Steve
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> see my other post nearby for a link which says you'd need 3000 sq. miles of
>> solar collectors to supply current US vehicle fule requirements.
>
>That wouldn't be a big chunk of New Mexico or Arizona - or Saudi Arabia
>come to think of it. 55 miles x 55 miles. I have me doubts though.

it's research form a supposedly reputable lot, although they're trying to
sell the unclear option, so the other figures might be augmented

the other point was that the 3000 sq mi of solar collectors was gonna cost
$4.8 trillion (albeit erroneous american trillions)
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The boys are dreaming wicked or of the bucking ranches of the night and
the jollyrodgered sea." Dylan Thomas (1914 - 1953) Under milk wood