Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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 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

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

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/

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

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.