Re: More Infor on BioDiesel

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.

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.

Roughly 5/13/04 23:32, Austin Shackles's monkeys randomly typed:

> 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...
>
> 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.

Which takes land, water, fertilizer, etc. Worst of the resources
needed is the water.
>
> 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.

Particularly without energy sources capable of converting junk water
or sea water to hydrogen.

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

Roughly 5/14/04 18:42, Chris Phillipo's monkeys randomly typed:

> 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.

Except of course for that nasty little prerequisite of electricity.
Or the water itself...

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

Roughly 5/15/04 11:18, Chris Phillipo's monkeys randomly typed:

> 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.

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.


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

Roughly 5/15/04 06:40, The Independent's monkeys randomly typed:

>
> 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.

Insufficient inbound solar radiation to perform this task. Worse
would be the lack of real estate where solar collectors could be
placed.

Easier to bypass the middleman energy-wise and get energy from
hydrogen in the same manner as the sun does.... and use that to
process waste water or such. Politically a bit on the unacceptable
side tho.... as it could also be done with fission derived energy.



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

Roughly 5/15/04 11:20, Chris Phillipo's monkeys randomly typed:

> 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.

Yeah, the smell of burnt french fries isn't that attractive, nor
as medically safe as is often presumed.

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

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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...
>

Show me all the large ships that burn Diesel fuel. Most are burning
Bunker C oil, along with power plants and other large industrial
burners. It is the leftovers after refining crude mixed with lighter oil
just to make it flow some.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Steve W." wrote:
>
> "Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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...
> >
>
> Show me all the large ships that burn Diesel fuel. Most are burning
> Bunker C oil, along with power plants and other large industrial
> burners. It is the leftovers after refining crude mixed with lighter oil
> just to make it flow some.
>

I understand that bunker C was one step above the stuff we put on the
roads.

The Independent



> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Get your head out of the **** pile greenie,

<snigger> Wrong person.

> 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,

<snigger> Wrong person.

> 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.

> Seems they droped the ball in the UK, luckily Canada is stil running with
> it.

Over the edge of the cliff if you're anything to go by moose boy.

--
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:

> 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?

--
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:

> > 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?

--
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 <1gdugv8.9ym2d0jcitl2N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Get your head out of the **** pile greenie,
>
> <snigger> Wrong person.

"Snigger"? Dat be racist! Honkie mofo, get your white honkie asss outta
hear!

--Rap Massah May, African-American Sage

In article <3Xupc.6751$gr.523470@attbi_s52>, L0nD0t.$t0we11
<"L0nD0t.$t0we11"@ComcastDot.Net> wrote:

> Roughly 5/13/04 23:32, Austin Shackles's monkeys randomly typed:
>
> > 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...
> >
> > 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.
>
> Which takes land, water, fertilizer, etc. Worst of the resources
> needed is the water.

I saw the table listing avocadoes as having the highest yield of oil
per acre.

As someone who has has 6 avocadoes (mostly young, planted within the
past several years...maturity takes 6-18 years, depending on variety,
other factors), I can assure everyone that gibberish about how
avocadoes can be used to more economically (than
gasoline/petrol/diesel) fuel vehicles has never priced an avocado in a
supermarket.

And, yes, I spent a fair amount of mine fertlizing them, watering them,
pruning them, and babying them. All so that I will have avocadoes to
eat, not avocado oil to somehow fuel a vehicle with.

And in the places where avocadoes grow best, land tends to be
expensive. An acre of land for avocadoes can never conceivably be paid
for with a mere 200 gallons of oil per year, even if the water and
fertilizer and prunng and harvesting were to be free. Do the math.


--Tim May

Tim May wrote:
>
>
> I saw the table listing avocadoes as having the highest yield of oil
> per acre.
>

The listing was just for their oil content not weather they were an
economical source of oil.

In all the post I have concentrated on Rape seed (a poisonous from of
canola oil) as the most economical to produce, in terms of water, land,
fertilization, pesticides etc.

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.

The Independent


> As someone who has has 6 avocadoes (mostly young, planted within the
> past several years...maturity takes 6-18 years, depending on variety,
> other factors), I can assure everyone that gibberish about how
> avocadoes can be used to more economically (than
> gasoline/petrol/diesel) fuel vehicles has never priced an avocado in a
> supermarket.
>
> And, yes, I spent a fair amount of mine fertlizing them, watering them,
> pruning them, and babying them. All so that I will have avocadoes to
> eat, not avocado oil to somehow fuel a vehicle with.
>
> And in the places where avocadoes grow best, land tends to be
> expensive. An acre of land for avocadoes can never conceivably be paid
> for with a mere 200 gallons of oil per year, even if the water and
> fertilizer and prunng and harvesting were to be free. Do the math.
>
> --Tim May

On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 16:47:52 -0400, "Steve W." <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>>
>
>Show me all the large ships that burn Diesel fuel. Most are burning
>Bunker C oil, along with power plants and other large industrial
>burners. It is the leftovers after refining crude mixed with lighter oil
>just to make it flow some.


well, aye. probably I should have said "boats".

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.

--
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 Sat, 15 May 2004 15:17:11 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.

some of us already do... :-(

however. if the oil supply does become limited, prices will go up.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)

On or around Sat, 15 May 2004 06:40:27 -0700, The Independent
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>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.

There was a website about it... ermmm...

"Energy demand growth is a global issue, but to get a feel for numbers,
let’s begin with the scale of energy use in the US alone. The US vehicle
fleet accumulated 2600 billion miles in 1997 [Ref 2]. Assuming success in
building a hydrogen-powered automobile fleet, we would need 0.013kg of
hydrogen for every mile driven to replace the gasoline and diesel fuel [Ref
3]. If we were to manufacture the hydrogen by electrolysis we would need 240
gigawatts of new electrical generating capacity. That is almost exactly one
half of the total electrical generating capacity of the US."

that's from

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2002/walters.htm

which addresses the possibility of using nuclear power to electrolyze water.
It also includes comparisons with other generating techniques including
renewable sources such as biomass, solar and wind.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Satisfying: Satisfy your inner child by eating ten tubes of Smarties
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.