Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

[email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote in
news:1gdwles.fe4ixjzxu0ihN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk:

> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <1gduj4q.1lgp2xrypppcdN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
>> @malloc.co.uk says...
>> > 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?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Why? 6 billion of us don't live in Saudi Arabia do they?
>
> So you reckon that either (a) Iceland has enough geothermal to supply
> six billion peoipel with hydrogen (unlikely) or (b) we have enough
> geothermal to generate that hydrogen locally.
>
> Guess what dullard, wrong on both counts.
>
> Six billion of us moving to Iceland is probably more feasible.
>

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

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

On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:12:57 +0100, Steve Firth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> not sure about chlorine, dunno as you'd get much of that unless you're using
>> seawater. But you'd have to desalinate the seawater anyway to be able to
>> electrolyse it, AFAIK.
>
> Err no, you have to salinate water in order to be able to electrolyse
> it.

A small amount of mineral salts are necessary, but if you electrolyse sea water
you get caustic soda (lye;sodium hydroxide) and chlorine gas, mostly.

Which makes hydrogen from water even a worse idea than it seemed at first glance.
Making fresh water from sea water is very costly and fresh water is becoming
scarce almost everywhere.

In fact, fresh water shortages are probably a more serious issue than petroleum
shortages. Only 1% of the water on the planet was fresh to begin with, and much
of that is in a handful of large lakes, like Lake Baykal in Siberia, Just north
of the Mongolian border. It is incredibly deep.

AC

|> > 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.
|
|However none of the "we can make huydrogen by electrolysis" nuts ever
|addresses the problems. The inefficiency and the potential for pollution
|in the form of chlorine and hydroxide. Neither of them trivial
|byproducts.

Look, they push for one type of technology. They know that it
has problems but that sets them up to have the next round of
protests. As long as the far left is made up of people with
bitterness in their souls, we will never have peace.

Alan Connor wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:12:57 +0100, Steve Firth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> not sure about chlorine, dunno as you'd get much of that unless you're using
> >> seawater. But you'd have to desalinate the seawater anyway to be able to
> >> electrolyse it, AFAIK.
> >
> > Err no, you have to salinate water in order to be able to electrolyse
> > it.
>
> A small amount of mineral salts are necessary, but if you electrolyse sea water
> you get caustic soda (lye;sodium hydroxide) and chlorine gas, mostly.
>

Now I am going back to my Engineering school chemistry here so:

It depends on the voltage and current used

In Salt (NaCl) the Chlorine atom is more electronegative than the Oxygen
atom in the water in that the Chlorine atom holds on to its electron
tighter than water.

It the electrolysis process.

Oxygen is stripped away from the Hydrogen forming Hydrogen gas and
Oxygen gas.

If the voltage and current are high enough the Chlorine is stripped away
form the sodium or the potassium (both are in salt water) and collecting
as a a gas on the negative electrode with the Oxygen. The Sodium on the
other hand now reacts with the water stripping the H2O molecule of a
Hydrogen atom to make Na(OH) plus a single Hydrogen atom. This atom
will migrate to the positive electrode to produce even more hydrogen
than the electrolysis of water. So the whole process becomes even more
efficient.

> Which makes hydrogen from water even a worse idea than it seemed at first glance.
> Making fresh water from sea water is very costly and fresh water is becoming
> scarce almost everywhere.
>
> In fact, fresh water shortages are probably a more serious issue than petroleum
> shortages. Only 1% of the water on the planet was fresh to begin with, and much

Not if you count the ice at the north and south poles as fresh water
which it is....

> of that is in a handful of large lakes, like Lake Baykal in Siberia, Just north
> of the Mongolian border. It is incredibly deep.
>
> AC

Like every thing else you post it is flat assed wrong....
But then " He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool"

The Independent


"When you play with the big dogs your going to get bit."

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.

--Tim May


>

In article <[email protected]>, R. David
Steele <[email protected]/OMEGA> wrote:

> |> |>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.

--Tim May
>

On Sun, 16 May 2004 17:52:48 GMT, R. David Steele
<[email protected]/OMEGA> wrote:

>
>
>|That's it!
>|
>|We should eat beans and capture it for our countries!
>|
>|Splendid idea, instead of taking a bubble bath with my reserve of methane
>|from eating beans tonight. I shall go to the convenience store, get a bottle
>|of soda, and harness both the anal and upper G.I. methanes and ship it to
>|whomever it may help.
>|
>|Refinish King
>
>One of the complaints that the Greens had about cows was that
>they produce too much methane. How can we harness this?

Greg, cows have nothing on you.

|> |> |>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.

"The Independent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


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

Yup; but heat the tanks to 145 deg F and it flows well/burns well .

"Steve Firth" <[email protected]>

> Six billion of us moving to Iceland is probably more feasible.

As if they'd go for that ....................

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."

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."

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.

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

"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

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
>

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

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