Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

In article <1gdu35m.118m8hb14o2xmrN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-urcx4
@malloc.co.uk says...
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hydrogen can be produced on site anywhere
> > there is water and electricity,
>
> Christ on a bike do people as stupid as you get let near a computer
> without an adult to look after you?
>
>

Get your head out of the **** pile greenie, 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, there are actually hydrogen filling stations producing
hydrogen ON SITE, RIGHT NOW. Seems they droped the ball in the UK,
luckily Canada is stil running with it.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > > /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.
> >
>
> Chris
> Bio Diesel can be made from any plant oil. I posted the types of
> plants and the yeilds per acre of the various oil producing plants some
> time back. Right now Rape seed oil is probably the most economical to
> grow. The USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) estimates that the
> yield of rapeseed oil is about 179 gallons an acre. With a viable bio
> diesel market we could probably raise 20 million gallons of the stuff
> with out much impact on the commercial markets of other agricultural
> products.
>
>

Great, that should last about a week. Then what? It may have a place
in the diversification of energy sources but it's not a final solution.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

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

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.

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
keep control of the world's dwindling supplies of petroleum.

Keeping the M.E. reserves out of the hands of the Chinese (only about 200 miles
from Afghanistan and needing more and more oil everyday....) is one of the
main reasons the U.S. is in the M.E. right now.

AC

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.

Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> 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

probably not, if the US intends to supports it's consumeristic and
wasteful practices.

I forsee a VERY different lifestyle in the US once the fossil fuel dry
up. While plastics can be made from vegetable oil... the use of
plastics will much much more rare.

The use of locally grown plant fibers will come back into use,
displacing artifical fibers. Hemp, linen,and raime will be grown
locally, with some cotton in the south, but less cotton than is now
being produced.

The US will become more agricultural, and more ppl will live on farms
and will grow food and other renewable farm products.

Will would have to begin using more animal power. Houses would have to
be built of natural available materials. These residences would be
passively heated and cooled.

Only when we learned to live much more earth friendly methods can
expect to be able to grow enuf oil to power those sections of our
lives that require a boost.

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.

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.

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.

Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.

How much land is dependent on the crop, and how rich is the land. Some
oil crops produce more oil than others.

Of the crops grown for oil, coconut palms produce the most oil/acre.
Naturally, coconuts don't grow everywhere, so ppl have to figure out
what oil bearing crop grows best in their area.

The next most oil productive land plant is Canola, followed by
Safflower and Sunflowers.

Oil can come from many sources: hemp seed, corn, and a variety of
other things. There is even an oil bearing algae that grows in salt
water! This algae bears up to 10X as much oil as an equivalent amount
of coconut pulp.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:12:09 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> 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.

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 !!

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.
>

That's hardly relevant.


>> 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.

You are very glib, but there's little substance to your arguments.

Oil is *obviously* going to run out. Just because someone missed the date
where it becomes a critical issue, doesn't change that fact at all.

It doesn't have to be even CLOSE to running out to become too expensive
because of increasing demand from developing countries like China and India.

And for the military costs of controlling the world's *relatively* AND
absolutely, dwindling supplies to exceed the monetary advantages of
using it over alternatives. All of which are far more costly than oil
for the majority.

AC

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 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.

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.

--
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

"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! =-----

"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.

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.

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.

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