Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

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.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

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.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 08:24:08 GMT, Gunner <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>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.

true, but the high taxes predate the current regime.

and they've spent several billion on the war in Iraq so far, buggrem.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The breezy call of incense-breathing Morn, The swallow twittering
from the strawbuilt shed, The cock's shrill clarion, or the echoing
horn, No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed."
Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.

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

Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> However, my point stands - refining crude is probably equally to make diesel
> (and kerosene - all that AVTUR for the jest engines??) rather than all the
> other oils being "byproducts" of the process of refining gasoline.
>
> Commercial vehicles in most countries, buses in most countries, all run on
> diesel.
>
> I grant you that in the early days they may have been, however, I imagine
> that in the very early days, oil refining was presumably about refining lamp
> oil, it was only later that someone deiced to try and run engines on it.
>

John D Rockafeller became on of the wealthiest men in the world with his
Standard Oil Company selling coal oil. Before the big breakup of the
evil monopoly people were buying coal oil for 11-13 cents a gallon. For
the next decade after the break up people were buying coal oil for 17 to
20 cents a gallon.

The break of of Standard Oil Company cost the american consumer billions
of extra dollars

Gasoline did not become widely available until after World War I.
It wasn't until the early 1930's that farm equipment became gasoline
powered. Before the 1930's farm equipment motive force was a verity of
heavy oil engines. The switch to Diesel on the Farm began in the late
60's. It was the switch to Diesel on the farm is what forced the major
automobile manufactures to begin manufacturing light diesel trucks.

The Independent
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
> "If you cannot mould yourself as you would wish, how can you expect
> other people to be entirely to your liking?"
> Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xvi.

On or around Sun, 16 May 2004 12:31:59 +0100, Steve
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.

it's research form a supposedly reputable lot, although they're trying to
sell the unclear option, so the other figures might be augmented

the other point was that the 3000 sq mi of solar collectors was gonna cost
$4.8 trillion (albeit erroneous american trillions)
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The boys are dreaming wicked or of the bucking ranches of the night and
the jollyrodgered sea." Dylan Thomas (1914 - 1953) Under milk wood

On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:31:18 -0700, The Independent wrote:

>If I remember correctly there were some higher yielding plants, (palm
>oil was the highest if I remember right. Jojoba oil was up there too.
>However that stuff is worth its weight in gold. Jojoba oil has all the
>qualities of sperm whale oil (doesn't spoil or go rancid and doesn't gum
>up under heat and pressure). Almost all of that stuff goes into
>government contracts for the lubrication of precision ball bearings in
>guidance systems. Some of it goes into the cosmetic industry.

interesting...

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993464

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.

--
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 <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.

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.

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

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)

|> >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).

|>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.