Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Which renewable resources? Biodiesel?

Or do you mean your clever plan to have 6 billion people move to
Iceland?

--
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:

> 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?

--
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:

> In article <1gduj4q.1lgp2xrypppcdN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%
> @malloc.co.uk says...
> > Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > and where, pray, do you get the electricity?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well in iceland they get it from geothermal and produce hydrogen right
> > > at the gas station.
> >
> > Right, so all 6 billion of us should live in Iceland right?
> >
> >
>
> Why? 6 billion of us don't live in Saudi Arabia do they?

So you reckon that either (a) Iceland has enough geothermal to supply
six billion peoipel with hydrogen (unlikely) or (b) we have enough
geothermal to generate that hydrogen locally.

Guess what dullard, wrong on both counts.

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

--
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:

> There is no fossil fuels invovled in GEOTHERMAL ENERY.

There are (sic) no (significant) geothermal energy available in most
coutnries in the world.

> Iceland is moving towards a 100% hydrogen powered society and will soon be
> able to EXPORT hydrogen to short cited idiots like you.

My cites generally tend to be long and detailed.

> 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.

Uh huh, how much hydrogen? Answer a gnat's fart. Hydrogen is produced on
a commercial scale by reducing methane.

--
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.

Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> not sure about chlorine, dunno as you'd get much of that unless you're using
> seawater. But you'd have to desalinate the seawater anyway to be able to
> electrolyse it, AFAIK.

Err no, you have to salinate water in order to be able to electrolyse
it.

--
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:

> I think you mean fictional byproducts.

Your ignorance of basic chemistry is noted.

--
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 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.

In any case while you think you are getting the energy from the hydrogen
you are really using solar energy that has been stored for use later.

The Independent

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

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

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

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

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> 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.
> --

That is why we are not doing it now.

The Independent

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

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

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

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

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

AC

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

What the hell does that have to do with the fact that it's a by product
of gasoline refining? Large equipment runs on it because it's cheaper,
it's cheaper because it's a byproduct of gasoline production, GET IT?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

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

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

It depends on the voltage and current used

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

It the electrolysis process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Independent


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

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

It would yield less than that unless you are suggesting that the world
will be willing to pay double the current price of gasoline for it.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

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

> Soy producers want it. I have family members on the soy board.
> They were the ones who turned me on to diesel cars! The soy
> producers want the protection of the government so that they can
> create new markets. The law is doing that.

Post their names and addresses. They need killing for trying to get Big
Brother to support their interests.

--Tim May


>

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

> |> |>If it does come to that sort of situation , you may do well to look at
> |> |>powering a perol power genset from woodgas .
> |> |>Not a whole comunity as alan carries on about , but a small producer unit
> |> |>big enought to run a small engine.
> |> |>They burn anything that will burn , literaly , coal ,wood ,old tyres ...
> |> |>if things get realy desperate , it may not always be real easy to locate
> |> |>vege oil or fat to turn into bio- diesel , but we always got crap laying
> |> |>around what will burn...
> |> |
> |> |Some things running on anything that will burn...
> |> |
> |> |http://highforest.tripod.com/woodgas/woodfired.html
> |> |http://www.pritchardpower.com/
> |> |http://www.trainweb.org/tusp/
> |>
> |> Would point out that ethanol is not an efficient fuel. It takes
> |> as much energy to produce it as it gives back. Bio diesel is
> |> more energy effective. Steam even more so. Water power is the
> |> best, if you have a source.
> |
> |You are probably right about the energy to produce ethanol but if you
> |use the sludge from the fermenting process, (put it through a oil press,
> |(They work pretty neat for this application too)), the sludge will come
> |out as a solid round cake like rod that can be broken up in to pellets,
> |then dryad and then fed into the still as fuel.
> |I have a pelletizer for converting alfalfa into feed pellets and it
> |looks like it works on the same principal as a oil press, except their
> |is no strainer and the water/oil removing chamber has much larger holes.
> |
> |Remember the conversion factor for potatoes to alcohol is only 20% so
> |you 80% of the original spud left. This can be used as fuel or for
> |cattle feed.
> |
> |I suspect that the commercial ethanol manufactures that use corn (big
> |thing in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois) first press the corn to remove
> |the oil and syrups. Remove the corn oil from the liquid, wash out the
> |sweeteners, and then ferment the starch into ethanol which is distilled
> |out. Then what remains is used as cattle feed. So the economics are
> |not just from ethanol but from corn syrup, Corn Oil, ethanol, and cattle
> |feed.
> |
> |Back on the farm we used to go to the Sugar beet processing plant and by
> |sugar beet pulp, (stuff left over after the sugar has been processed
> |out) for cattle feed. The stuff stank like high heaven but the dammed
> |cows had an orgasm over it.
> |
> |The Independent
>
> By steam, I mean a small boiler on your property that runs a
> piston or two thus powering a generator of about 20 KW. Enough
> to power a typical house. Could be wood fired or fueled by
> whatever.

You think your small-scale generator is somehow more efficient than the
big generating plant nearby?

Have you calculated the Carnot efficiency of a small steam boiler?

Have you calculated how many cords of wood per month it will take to
generate your 20 KW? Or even 10 KW?

Have you calculated the costs to deliver these cords of wood, for you
to then feed your firebox, and maintenance on a sooty system?

I didn't think so, for any of these points.

Why do you think it is that utilities are not burning wood, if you
think this is a cost-saving measure for home users?

Duh. If you were in fact a senior military officer, as you seem to
imply at times, this explains a _lot_ about where we are today.

--Tim May
>

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.

>
> 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.
>

No ****.

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

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

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

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

Greg, cows have nothing on you.

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

That would depend on where you are. Options are geothermal, wind,
hydroelectric, solar. That's the whole point of decentralization, you
don't need one giant power plant, you want many smaller sources.

>
> 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.
>
> In any case while you think you are getting the energy from the hydrogen
> you are really using solar energy that has been stored for use later.
>
> The Independent
>

Obviously. And the only reason we don't do that now with batteries is
that batteries are highly inefficient in storing energy where as
hydrogen is nearly 100% efficient.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

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.