Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

In article <1gduh08.smo931ullc5lN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
@malloc.co.uk says...
> 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?
>
>

You just don't get it do you? Do you work for big oil or something?
Why in hell would you do that when you can produce hydrogen locally from
renewable sources.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

>
> > 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.
>

There is no fossil fuels invovled in GEOTHERMAL ENERY. Iceland is
moving towards a 100% hydrogen powered society and will soon be able to
EXPORT hydrogen to short cited idiots like you. Here in Canada we have
hydro electric dams already producing hydrogen. Ballard, the leading
comany in the Hydrogen fuel cell game is not a UK company. Your
ignorance precees you.

--
____________________
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.

In article <1gdvpot.1uygjwf1rp6dy6N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-urcx4
@malloc.co.uk says...
> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
>

I think you mean fictional byproducts.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <X%upc.98696$Ik.7710789@attbi_s53>, "L0nD0t.$t0we11"
<"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> says...
> 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.
>
>
>


Are you a complete idiot? Try 300,000 people and 150,000 cars boats and
trains all running on 100% inported oil because they did not have a way
to store their massive energy reserves in a transportable way, until
now. Iceland has heated streets, do you have enough excess free energy
in your town to HEAT THE STREETS? I can not believe the ignorance about
the outside world that is being exposed in this thread. When Iceland
stars exporting Hydrogen from their 100% renewable energy source powered
stations, and the good oil USA is left holding their dick again
importing 80% of their energy needs will the army be trading in their
desert camo for white and black?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, austin@ddol-
las.fsnet.co.uk says...
> 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.
>
>

Wind farms in the ocean, tidal force hydroelectric, and geo thermal are
all more economically viable. Hawaii has the potential to be the USA's
new Texas. Of course the Texan's that run the goverment won't let that
happen in your lifetime.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 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
>
>

When the oil is gone they won't be using the desert for much else. And
if the middle eastern countires again corner the market on energy
production, well...
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

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

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.

On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 11:08:40 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Wind farms in the ocean, tidal force hydroelectric, and geo thermal are
>all more economically viable. Hawaii has the potential to be the USA's
>new Texas. Of course the Texan's that run the goverment won't let that
>happen in your lifetime.

Tidal power has a lot of potential but there are relatively few sites where
it can easily be exploited. geothermal is very good in places like Iceland
where it's easily tapped. NZ is another such, as well as Hawaii as you say.

however, the people doing the research I quoted address other possibilities
like wind power, and conclude that you'd need a couple of decent-sized
states covered in windmills.
--
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

On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 12:37:58 +0100, [email protected]
(Steve Firth) enlightened us thusly:

>Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>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.

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.



--
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

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.

On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 10:52:09 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>You just don't get it do you? Do you work for big oil or something?
>Why in hell would you do that when you can produce hydrogen locally from
>renewable sources.

I grant the truth of what you're saying, but I doubt that there are readily
available renewable resources in sufficient quantity.

I started trying to work out how much fuel is used in passenger cars per day
in the UK, and it's a hell of a lot. Even if by running fuel cell cars you
can double the efficiency of current cars, you still want a hell of a lot of
fuel.



figures...

UK population about 60 million.
assume 1 car per 3 people: 20 million cars
assume car usage as follows:
10% of cars in use on average 24/7
cars do 20 mph on average.
cars do 20 mpg on average.

so:

2,000,000 * 20 * 24 / 20 gallons of fuel per day, the 2 20s cancel out and
you get 48 million gallons per day.

OK, they're guesses. maybe the usage isn't as high as 10%. Maybe it's only
5%, and maybe the cars average 30 mpg. even so, you'd still have 16M
gallons per day.

and that's without counting trucks, buses, trains or planes.

OK, taking the lower figure, 16M gallons or 72.6M litres of fuel. now
assume that you can have hydrogen fuel cell cars and they're twice as
efficient, so you'll want about 37 million litres of hydrogen per day.

Just found this:
--------------------------
(a) 1 kWh (kilowatt-hour) equals 1,000 J/sec x 3,600 sec = 3.6 million
joules;

(b) 237.13 kJ/mole ÷ 3.6 MJ/kWh = 0.06587 kWh/mole;

(c) 1 kilogram of H2 is approximately equal to 1 gallon of gasoline in its
available energy content, given a conversion efficiency of 100% [for a
comprehensive and well-done Hydrogen Energy Equivalence table, ref.:
www.hionsolar.com/n-heq1.html];

(d) since 1 mole of H2 weighs 2 grams, 1 gallon of gasoline is therefore
equivalent to 500 moles of H2;

(e) thus, the electric power required to electrolyze the hydrogen
equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline is equal to (500 moles) x (0.06587
kWh/mole) = 32.935 kWh, and the approximate cost of that power = (32.935
kWh) x (12.2¢/kWh) = $4.02 per "gallon equivalent" [using the cost/kWh from
our power bill!].
--------------------------

--
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 <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.

|> >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.

By law (2003 Ag bill) we are now required to have 20% of our
diesel supply in the US be soy diesel.
|
|> 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.

What you might think of is how to run a generator on steam. It
is not that hard to build a good steam engine that would power a
small generator (under 20KW).

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.

|>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.

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

|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?

In article <[email protected]>, austin@ddol-
las.fsnet.co.uk says...
> Subject: Re: More Infor on BioDiesel
> From: Austin Shackles <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism, alt.fan.landrover, rec.autos.4x4, uk.rec.cars.4x4
>
> On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 11:08:40 -0300, Chris Phillipo
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >Wind farms in the ocean, tidal force hydroelectric, and geo thermal are
> >all more economically viable. Hawaii has the potential to be the USA's
> >new Texas. Of course the Texan's that run the goverment won't let that
> >happen in your lifetime.
>
> Tidal power has a lot of potential but there are relatively few sites where
> it can easily be exploited. geothermal is very good in places like Iceland
> where it's easily tapped. NZ is another such, as well as Hawaii as you say.
>
> however, the people doing the research I quoted address other possibilities
> like wind power, and conclude that you'd need a couple of decent-sized
> states covered in windmills.
>


The key is and always has been to diversify, use all these methods where
they are appropriate. Right now the major investors in these technoligy
are the members of OPEC, they see the future and the USA will be screwed
once again.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.