Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

> 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

Denis F <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:09:24 +0100, in
> <[email protected]>, Steve
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Have we enough land ?
>
> unfortunately. I don't think so

However we could make a significant saving by using waste fats for fuel.
It doesn't need to be created by esterification either, that's just
stupid piddling about. Many diesel engines will run quite happily on
vegetable oil provided that the oil has been thinned with a small
proportion (about 5ml per litre) of kerosene.

What makes it uneconomic to do this in the UK is stupid government
policy which taxes vegetable oil used as fuel at the same level as
fossil fuel.

Vegetable oil can be obtained for about 24p/litre - around the same
price as central heating oil. Also it can be used twice, since your
engine really doesn't care if the oil has been used for frying first.
Hence there's less need to dedicate land to growing crops just for fuel.
And a 5% saving on fossil fuel use is worth making.

--
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 <1gdsfw0.h3p84wxhizeyN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Denis F <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:09:24 +0100, in
> > <[email protected]>, Steve
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Have we enough land ?
> >
> > unfortunately. I don't think so
>
> However we could make a significant saving by using waste fats for fuel.
> It doesn't need to be created by esterification either, that's just
> stupid piddling about. Many diesel engines will run quite happily on
> vegetable oil provided that the oil has been thinned with a small
> proportion (about 5ml per litre) of kerosene.

As with the earlier poster (maybe it was you, I can't easily check),
you just don't realize what a "piddling" (to use your own words) amount
of deep fryer fat and frying pan fat is available. Besides the issue
that most households use very little vegetable fat (that is
recoverable, as opposed to being eaten, thrown out with the dregs,
etc.), even restaurants and fast food places are using less today than
in earlier years.

A rough measure of this can be seen by noting the traffic of gas
tankers (a lot!) compared to the "waste vegetable oil tankers" (rare!).

If used vegetable oil totals up to even 2% of gas and diesel supplies,
I'll be very surprised.

In other words, inconsequential to even worry about.

Sure, a tiny percentage of people can figure out some source (probably
intermittent, requiring them to store on their sites) of used deep fat
fryer oil, and the local newspapers will run the usual bull****
articles like "Local man runs diesel tractor on restaurant grease!,"
but the impact is inconsequential.


--Tim May


>
> What makes it uneconomic to do this in the UK is stupid government
> policy which taxes vegetable oil used as fuel at the same level as
> fossil fuel.
>
> Vegetable oil can be obtained for about 24p/litre - around the same
> price as central heating oil. Also it can be used twice, since your
> engine really doesn't care if the oil has been used for frying first.
> Hence there's less need to dedicate land to growing crops just for fuel.
> And a 5% saving on fossil fuel use is worth making.

Austin Shackles said:

>On or around Wed, 12 May 2004 13:09:24 +0100, Steve
><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>>
>>I would like to know how much land it would take to grow biodiesel for,
>>say, my car which does 10-12,000 miles/year at 40-50 mpg. Then scale it
>>up. Have we enough land ?
>>
>
>According to some approximate figures I worked out a bit back, the fuel used
>in cars in the UK must come into the region of millions of gallons per day.
>
>However, I've no idea how much oilseed rape you have to grow to produce that
>much fuel, or indeed any given amount of fuel.

Apparently the current UK oilseed rape crop would meet around 5% of our
Diesel needs.
--
Simes
Return address ROT'd...

On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 13:10:29 -0400, default <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>> 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.

so are all fuels. What really makes sense is a hydrogen fusion-powered
watre-cracker making hydrogen... but that's a way off, too. Most commercial
H at the moment comes from methane.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice nella miseria"
- Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321) from Divina Commedia 'Inferno'

Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> On or around Wed, 12 May 2004 13:09:24 +0100, Steve
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >>
> >I would like to know how much land it would take to grow biodiesel for,
> >say, my car which does 10-12,000 miles/year at 40-50 mpg. Then scale it
> >up. Have we enough land ?
> >
>

Well according to the table that the Alternative fuel association and
the department of Ag put out, you can get 127 gallons of oil per acre
of Rape seed. (I suspect that this is under optimum conditions. For
planning purposes I would suspect that you can count on 50 gallons an
acre).

Lets use the lower number for planning purposes so 12,000 miles divided
by 40 miles per gallon. It comes out to 300 gallons per year. In the
making of biodiesel you can only esterize the triglycerides so you only
get about 50-55% recovery of biodiesel from rape seed oil. So you can
expect that to have 300 gallons of biodiesel you would have to raise
600 gallons of rape seed oil. This would mean that you would have to
have 12 acres of rapeseed.

Then you would have to have at least 60 gallons of ethanol made from
sugar beets (412 gal per acre), Potatoes (299 gal per acre) and
Corn (214 gal per acre). So I would say that an additional acre
of land for the raising of potatoes would give you the alcohol for
the conversion process. Then you would need about a 5 lbs of lye
which you can buy at the super market (RED Devil cleaning lye).

So I guess 13 acres would be all you need.

The Independent

Now I don't know what the conversion factor of ethanol to corn is but I
would probably put it at not more than
factor for
> According to some approximate figures I worked out a bit back, the fuel used
> in cars in the UK must come into the region of millions of gallons per day.
>
> However, I've no idea how much oilseed rape you have to grow to produce that
> much fuel, or indeed any given amount of fuel.
> --
> 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)

Tim May <[email protected]> wrote:

> As with the earlier poster (maybe it was you, I can't easily check),
> you just don't realize what a "piddling" (to use your own words) amount
> of deep fryer fat and frying pan fat is available.

<yawn> Perhaps you could turn your brain on before typing?

--
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.

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


"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 13:10:29 -0400, default
<[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >> 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.
>
> so are all fuels. What really makes sense is a hydrogen fusion-powered
> watre-cracker making hydrogen... but that's a way off, too. Most
commercial
> H at the moment comes from methane.
>
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> "Nessun maggior dolore che ricordarsi del tempo felice nella miseria"
> - Dante Alighieri (1265 - 1321) from Divina Commedia 'Inferno'

I made a bit mistake when I wrote a post about bio diesel. I said
that we could make 20,000,000 gallons of bio diesel with out a
substantial impact on our agriculture.

What I meant to say was that we could plant an additional 20,000,000
acres of rape seed with out substantial impact on our agriculture.

Now that I have done some additional research 20,000,000 acres would
probably cause some dislocation (higher prices) but the increase in the
price of crude to $41.18 a barrel will also cause even a larger market
dislocation in other agricultural goods.


An additional 20,000,000 dedicated to rape seed production and
an additional million acres of acres would be a much better solution.

If we increase our acreage of things that we go now and can use
the calce (solids left over for cattle feed or other uses), we
could increase the production of the following

Corn @ 18 gal per acre
Oats @ 23 gal per acre
cotton @ 35 gal per acre
hemp @ 39 gal per acre
soybean @ 48 gal per acre
Flax @ 51 gal per acre
Pumpkin Seed @ 57 gal per acre
Mustard Seed @ 61 gal per acre
Safflower @ 83 gal per acre
rice @ 88 gal per acre
sunflower @ 102 gal per acre
Peanuts @ 113 gal per acre
Rape seed @ 127 gal per acre
Olives @ 129 gal per acre
Caster beans @ 151 gal per acre
Jojoba seeds @ 202 gal per acre
Avocado @ 282 gal per acre

We could probably increase our production of vegetable
oils by 20 billion gallons

Also for those inclined to build there own still to make ethanol the
site

http://www.moonshine-still.com

has instructions to build two different type of still that can make
180 proof (95% pure) ethanol in one pass. The still can be build
for less than $100.00 with simple hand tools. It also has a lot of
information about government laws, and safety per cautions.

It also cover a lot about how to make sippin alcohol.

The nicest still is made from stainless steel beer kegs with the
upper reflex part made from copper plumbing tubing. When polished
they look really nice and they get about 2.5 to 3.0 gallons of alcohol
from a bushel of corn.

In any case, for the survivalist I urge you to go to

WWW.journeytoforever.com

for information on alternate fuel, solar power, small farms,
sustainable farming seeds, blacksmithing, water-powered water pumps,
small vermin traps, making hand tools, organic gardening, low-tech
radios, (sophisticated crystal radios that work), a 250 watt pico
turbine from producing electricity, (a mini pico turbine was built by a
bunch of 10 year olds that put out 1/3 watt of power,) and information
on just about anything you might be interested in. It is a site that is
primarily an index to link to other sites.

An very interesting subject topic is City Farms.

The Independent




Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:02:01 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] says...
> > >> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > You are delusional if you think diesel is "made", all diesel besides the
> > >> > stuff a dozen or so people are pilfering from the back of McDonald's
> > >> > comes from the same place as gasoline.
> > >>
> > >> Diesel IS made ! It certainly ain't pulled from the ground and put in
> > >> your tank !
> > >>
> > >> The refining process for Diesel is cheaper than that for gasoline, and
> > >> it uses a rougher grade of crude oil, not a high aromatic stock like
> > >> Arabian Light. Hence its cheaper to make.
> > >>
> > >> Steve
> > >>
> > >
> > > It comes from oil, not flowers and puppy dog farts, it is not made. And
> > > it doens't matter how cheap it is to refine, I have news for you,
> > > gasoline costs about 15 cents a liter to refine including extraction and
> > > transport, does that seem to be helping you at the pump lately?
> >
> > The destructive/fractional distillation of crude oil, plus the usual
> > hydrogenation of the results (to increase the yields) is sufficiently complex
> > to be referred to as "making". You do not pluck the diesel out of the crude
> > oil with a spoon.
> >
>
> I don't consider it "making" simply because you make a cake, you don't
> extract a cake from a big tanker full of cake mix. Making implies you
> are getting something greater than the sum of it's parts. It's the
> opposite with refining. Diesel wouldn't even be a viable product if it
> 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.
>
> > Far less complex processes are accurately referred to as "making".
> >
> > 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...
> >
> > The fact is, that there is NO substitute for petroleum, nor any combination
> > thereof: All will be significantly more expensive for the majority of the
> > people, and that affects the price of everything, of course.
> >
> > Fuel will be more expensive at the same time that more money is needed for
> > other things: And the middle-class shrinks.
> >
> > Our leaders are not idiots (well, not the ones that REALLY make the decisions)
> >
> >
> >
> > If this weren't true there wouldn't be the desperate violence being done to
>
> I think we all know that the only thing that will drive change is the
> dollar and we have a long time to wait before things get that bad. Back
> when we were going to run out of oil by 1989 people were talking just
> like this.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.

> >>
> >> The destructive/fractional distillation of crude oil, plus the usual
> >> hydrogenation of the results (to increase the yields) is sufficiently complex
> >> to be referred to as "making". You do not pluck the diesel out of the crude
> >> oil with a spoon.
> >>
> >
> > I don't consider it "making" simply because you make a cake, you don't
> > extract a cake from a big tanker full of cake mix. Making implies you
> > are getting something greater than the sum of it's parts. It's the
> > opposite with refining.
>
> You are using complex machinery, energy, and petroleum. That's
> making. That's what I think, and I don't care whether you agree with
> me or not.
>
> Go get yourself a barrel of crude oil and produce some diesel from it
> for us, and then tell us if you still think it isn't "making".
>
> ROTFL !!

You could burn crude oil for energy and even power an engine with it,
you can't take flour, eggs and milk and put birthday candles on it.
ROTFL, indeed.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

On or around Wed, 12 May 2004 14:42:19 +0100, Geoff
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:09:24 +0100, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>->Austin Shackles wrote:
>->> On or around Wed, 12 May 2004 00:48:23 -0300, Chris Phillipo
>->> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>->>
>->>
>->>>They already have and do, no one wants them. Europeans wouldn't want
>->>>them either if gas was $2 a gallon there too.
>->
>->Yes but diesel is much cheaper to make, so Diesel might be $1.50
>->/gallon, and still more efficient than "gas". Where is your argument then ?
>
>You are forgetting tax, because of the tax diesel in more expensive then petrol.

in the UK, currently, both have duty levied at around the same rate, about
45p/l, plus VAT (!) Low-sulphur fuels are slightly better, and bio-diesel
significantly better, but I know of no garages actually sellgin bio-diesel.
There is some bio-blend about, which is a mixture of bio and fossil.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (sieze today, and put
as little trust as you can in tomorrow) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Odes, I.xi.8

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.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

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.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <1gdsfw0.h3p84wxhizeyN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-urcx4
@malloc.co.uk says...
> However we could make a significant saving by using waste fats for fuel.
> It doesn't need to be created by esterification either, that's just
> stupid piddling about. Many diesel engines will run quite happily on
> vegetable oil provided that the oil has been thinned with a small
> proportion (about 5ml per litre) of kerosene.
>
> What makes it uneconomic to do this in the UK is stupid government
> policy which taxes vegetable oil used as fuel at the same level as
> fossil fuel.
>

Just what exactly do you find stupid about goverments taxing all road
users the same amount to drive?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> I made a bit mistake when I wrote a post about bio diesel. I said
> that we could make 20,000,000 gallons of bio diesel with out a
> substantial impact on our agriculture.
>
> What I meant to say was that we could plant an additional 20,000,000
> acres of rape seed with out substantial impact on our agriculture.
>
> Now that I have done some additional research 20,000,000 acres would
> probably cause some dislocation (higher prices) but the increase in the
> price of crude to $41.18 a barrel will also cause even a larger market
> dislocation in other agricultural goods.
>
>
> An additional 20,000,000 dedicated to rape seed production and
> an additional million acres of acres would be a much better solution.
>
> If we increase our acreage of things that we go now and can use
> the calce (solids left over for cattle feed or other uses), we
> could increase the production of the following
>
> Corn @ 18 gal per acre
> Oats @ 23 gal per acre
> cotton @ 35 gal per acre
> hemp @ 39 gal per acre
> soybean @ 48 gal per acre
> Flax @ 51 gal per acre
> Pumpkin Seed @ 57 gal per acre
> Mustard Seed @ 61 gal per acre
> Safflower @ 83 gal per acre
> rice @ 88 gal per acre
> sunflower @ 102 gal per acre
> Peanuts @ 113 gal per acre
> Rape seed @ 127 gal per acre
> Olives @ 129 gal per acre
> Caster beans @ 151 gal per acre
> Jojoba seeds @ 202 gal per acre
> Avocado @ 282 gal per acre
>
> We could probably increase our production of vegetable
> oils by 20 billion gallons
>


What idiot farmer is going to farm something that yeilds less than $90
per acre.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> 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...
>
I'm have not and have never said bio-diesel would replace petroleum oil
derived diesel fuel. We use 178 trillion gallons of petroleum products
per year in the United States today. The most we can hope to replace
with Bio-diesel under the most favorable conditions is about 2 to 5%.

May be with a crash program that would convert a large part of our
agricultural lands to the output ot bio diesel and ethanol we might make
it up to 10%. However that 10% would go a long way to wipe out our
balance of payments debt.


> 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.
>
> 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.
>

The main purpose for my comments on bio-diesel is to run a diesel gen
set and to make fuel for my C-120 in the case of a major disruption of
resource markets by war, or economic depression.

Of course if TEOTWAWKI comes then having bio-diesel and ethanol may be a
survival necessity.

The Independent

> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> 0123456789112345678921234567893123456789412345678951234567896123456789712345
> 1 weebl: What's this? | in recognition of the fun that is weebl and bob
> 2 bob: it a SigRuler! | check out the weebl and bob archive:
> 3 weebl: How Handy! | http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/archives.php

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

>
>
> Austin Shackles wrote:
>>
>> 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...
>>
> I'm have not and have never said bio-diesel would replace petroleum
> oil derived diesel fuel. We use 178 trillion gallons of petroleum
> products per year in the United States today. The most we can hope to
> replace with Bio-diesel under the most favorable conditions is about 2
> to 5%.
>
> May be with a crash program that would convert a large part of our
> agricultural lands to the output ot bio diesel and ethanol we might
> make it up to 10%. However that 10% would go a long way to wipe out
> our balance of payments debt.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> The main purpose for my comments on bio-diesel is to run a diesel gen
> set and to make fuel for my C-120 in the case of a major disruption of
> resource markets by war, or economic depression.
>
> Of course if TEOTWAWKI comes then having bio-diesel and ethanol may be
> a survival necessity.
>
> The Independent

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...

>
>> --
>> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
>> 0123456789112345678921234567893123456789412345678951234567896123456789
>> 712345 1 weebl: What's this? | in recognition of the fun that is
>> weebl and bob 2 bob: it a SigRuler! | check out the weebl and
>> bob archive: 3 weebl: How Handy! |
>> http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/archives.php

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...

fact is, most of the fractional distillation products of crude oil are now
being used, especially with a rise int he use of LPG (mostly Propane) for
vehicles, which is the stuff that used, in the old days, to be flamed off.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Austin Shackles wrote:
> > On or around Wed, 12 May 2004 00:48:23 -0300, Chris Phillipo
> > <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> >
> >>They already have and do, no one wants them. Europeans wouldn't want
> >>them either if gas was $2 a gallon there too.
>
> Yes but diesel is much cheaper to make, so Diesel might be $1.50
> /gallon, and still more efficient than "gas". Where is your argument then ?
>

You are delusional if you think diesel is "made", all diesel besides the
stuff a dozen or so people are pilfering from the back of McDonald's
comes from the same place as gasoline. You are equally delusional if
you think it would be any cheaper per gallon in the US if demand for it
was as high as it is for gasoline.

> > 'course, we really do need to look into biodiesel, since the fossil fuel
> > supply is being devoured at way more than a sustainable rate. We also need
> > to look at patterns of life and work, and stop having people commute to work
> > who could easily do their work from home.
> >
> I would like to know how much land it would take to grow biodiesel for,
> say, my car which does 10-12,000 miles/year at 40-50 mpg. Then scale it
> up. Have we enough land ?
>
> Steve
>

Not even for just the cars in London.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

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.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10