Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

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)

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Another interesting fact is that as of the year 2004 80% of the mineral
rights to minerals under the United States. Mineral rights also include
petroleum deposits as well as coal. The United States has the largest
total of BTU's of fossil fuel on the planet earth. Most of it is in
coal, oil shales, and tar sands. In fact I read somewhere that the
United States has something like 38% of the world know deposits of
fossil fuel deposits.

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.

Of course the tree huggers will never let that happen.

The Independent

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

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

> |> >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.

First off, the "balance of payments debt" is one of those silly
fictions. _Specific_ companies buy _specific_ shipments of crude or
refined oil: they don't incur any long-term debt.

Second, it's a fiction anyway.


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

Another one of those silly, uneforceable (watch) laws. Unless the U.S.
government sets up its own soy diesel company and undercuts the normal
diesel market, people will buy what is available and cheapest.

Governments can't issue edicts to markets and actually enforce such
edicts.

But Bush probably thinks he can. This is what comes of getting a
"gentleman's C" at Yale in his economics class.


--Tim May

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

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?


remember, if you want to do a serious job of replacing gasoline with
hydrogen, you're talking about having to process millions of gallons per
day.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself.
If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

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 conflating energy storage (ethanol, for example) with energy
production (hydropower, for example). And if by steam you mean energy
production, this is available in literally only a few hot spots in the
world, including Iceland, parts of Northern California (Geysers, CA),
etc. If by steam you mean steam-powered vehicles, this is
doubly-conflating, as the steam does not _power_ a vehicle, nor is it a
_storage_ mechanism...rather, steam is only the _working_ energy
transfer method.

And hydropower has enormous environmental costs, which even the
greenheads are starting to understand. Far greater costs than, say,
nuclear power. For starters, damming of rivers disrupts fisheries, even
affecting ocean ecologies. Also, the cycle of river cleaning, marsh
cleaning, etc. is affected. The Aswan High Dam is a good example of
this disruption. An even greater disruption has been the Three Rivers
Dam in China, a train wreck in the making.

This whole thread is filled with so much bad physics, bad economics,
and bad engineering that it's laughable.


--Tim May

On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:44:19 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Just what exactly do you find stupid about goverments taxing all road
>users the same amount to drive?

nothing, or rather, nothing unusual anyway. In the UK we have one of the
highest fuel tax rates in the world, and it shows no sign of restricting car
use as a result, which is one (minor) stated aim. Of course the major aim
is to raise lots of money so we can go and bomb Iraq.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself.
If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:52:09 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

What renewable resources are those? You can run electricity through fresh or
salt water (the latter limiting you to the coasts, and the former being in short
supply everwhere) but first you have to generate the electricity....

Make more sense to use the electricity directly.
Or you can run super-heated steam over red-hot carbon, which takes water and
carbon and fuel to heat both.

Be much more efficient to use the carbon source (coal/oil/wood) directly.

"Renewable resources" are only renewable if used responsibly. Trees are a
"renewable resource", but at the rate you are going, there won't be any
left in 50 years...


AC

--
"The greatest fine art of the future will be the making of a
comfortable living from a small piece of land." -Abraham Lincoln

On Sat, 15 May 2004 07:37:36 +0100, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

Well, at about 179 gallons per acre, that would be 280,000,000 acres to
supply that much for every person in America a year (rapeseed/canola)...

There are about 1,920,000,000 acres in the Lower 48. That's about 1/6 of the
land planted in rapeseed to supply only a fraction of the fuel needed
to run the country.

That's ALL the arable land remaining in the Lower 48. There was originally
twice that, but it has been destroyed by roads, parking lots, buildings, dams,
overgrazing, pollution from cities/factories/mines/refineries, and industrial
agriculture...

AC

"R. David Steele" 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

On Sat, 15 May 2004 07:42:05 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>nothing, or rather, nothing unusual anyway. In the UK we have one of the
>highest fuel tax rates in the world, and it shows no sign of restricting car
>use as a result, which is one (minor) stated aim. Of course the major aim
>is to raise lots of money so we can go and bomb Iraq.

Actually its necessary to pay for the Socialist entity called the
United Kingdom.

Gunner

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

|> |>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.

As for hydro, I am thinking of a small stream, much like we used
to see for powering grist mills. There are catalogs out for
people who want to run their own generators off of a local
stream. You just divert a little off (if you have a steep enough
drop) so that you can power your generator.

Again this was not for large scale but for local usage.

On Sat, 15 May 2004 03:31:39 GMT, Myal <[email protected]> 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/

|> |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.
|
|First off, the "balance of payments debt" is one of those silly
|fictions. _Specific_ companies buy _specific_ shipments of crude or
|refined oil: they don't incur any long-term debt.
|
|Second, it's a fiction anyway.
|
|
|>
|> By law (2003 Ag bill) we are now required to have 20% of our
|> diesel supply in the US be soy diesel.
|
|Another one of those silly, uneforceable (watch) laws. Unless the U.S.
|government sets up its own soy diesel company and undercuts the normal
|diesel market, people will buy what is available and cheapest.
|
|Governments can't issue edicts to markets and actually enforce such
|edicts.
|
|But Bush probably thinks he can. This is what comes of getting a
|"gentleman's C" at Yale in his economics class.

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.

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

> 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.

How do you get the power to the user?

Run the numbers. It won't work.

Alan Connor wrote:

> On Sat, 15 May 2004 07:37:36 +0100, Austin Shackles
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Well, at about 179 gallons per acre, that would be 280,000,000 acres to
> supply that much for every person in America a year (rapeseed/canola)...
>
> There are about 1,920,000,000 acres in the Lower 48. That's about 1/6 of
> the land planted in rapeseed to supply only a fraction of the fuel needed
> to run the country.
>
> That's ALL the arable land remaining in the Lower 48. There was originally
> twice that, but it has been destroyed by roads, parking lots, buildings,
> dams, overgrazing, pollution from cities/factories/mines/refineries, and
> industrial agriculture...
>
> AC
Actually its worse - for all production of biodiesel, you need to account
for the diesel used in preparing the ground, planting, harvesting and
transport of the crop. Plus the oil equivalent of the fertiliser,
herbicides and pesticides used in the production of the crop. The actual
amounts involved will depend on where the crop is grown.Taking this into
account for any biofuel makes them look a lot less attractive from the
ecological point of view, and if you are relying on a high oil price to
make the biofuel economically attractive this has to be taken into allowed
for; the cost of production rises nearly as fast as the oil price since
fuel is a major input to modern agriculture.
JD

Roughly 5/16/04 04:37, Steve Firth's monkeys randomly typed:


> 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.
>

Plus unless you use the hydrogen in a fuel cell, you still get
nitrogen-oxygen compounds... e.g. from burning hydrogen in
ordinary air.

--
Me human. You Computer. Me have BFH. You have fragile parts. You behave.

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.

--
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.

"R. David Steele" wrote:
>
> < I snipped it because I wrote it<
>
> By law (2003 Ag bill) we are now required to have 20% of our
> diesel supply in the US be soy diesel.
> |


I don't really see how that is possible because according to the
tables at journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html the yield of oil
from soy beans is 48 gallons an acre.

According to the US Department of Energy the United States
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...y_annual/psa_volume1/current/pdf/table_03.pdf

consumed 4.430 million barrels a day of Diesel fuel in 2002. Lets assume
that half of the 4.420 million barrels were for heating fuel that leaves
2.21 million barrels a day for transport diesel fuel.

So a barrel of oil is 42 gallons
so now we have 9.28 million gallons a day of Diesel fuel used in 2002

So 9.28 million * 365 is 33.879 billion gallons of diesel fuel
at 20% we would have to produce 6.7775 billion gallons of biodiesel

(Still working with 2002 stats)
At 48 gallons an acre of soy oil we would have to allocate 141.163
million acres to the cultivation of Soy Beans
That would be 220,568 sq miles to soy beans.
That is a plot of land 469.6 miles by 469.6 miles which ain't going to
happen.

Now if we included bio diesel from other sources like rape seed which
has much higher oil output per acre we could just possible do it.


BTW the web site http://www.eia.doe.gov/fueloverview.html
Has all kinds of information about energy issues

The Independent


> |> 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).