On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:42:28 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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 <MPG.1b0cc54e4eb162c198987c@news.eastlink.ca>, Chris
Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> In article <40a213f4$0$28302$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
> steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk says...
> > Austin Shackles wrote:
> > > On or around Wed, 12 May 2004 00:48:23 -0300, Chris Phillipo
> > > <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> enlightened us thusly:
> > >
> > >
> > >>They already have and do, no one wants them. Europeans wouldn't want
> > >>them either if gas was $2 a gallon there too.
> >
> > Yes but diesel is much cheaper to make, so Diesel might be $1.50
> > /gallon, and still more efficient than "gas". Where is your argument then ?
> >
>
> You are delusional if you think diesel is "made", all diesel besides the
> stuff a dozen or so people are pilfering from the back of McDonald's
> comes from the same place as gasoline. You are equally delusional if
> you think it would be any cheaper per gallon in the US if demand for it
> was as high as it is for gasoline.

And diesel is _more_ expensive here in California than any of the main
varieties of gasoline.

The reason is obvious: the long-distance trucks _have_ to run on
diesel, whereas a lot of gasoline users are cutting way back on
travel. The result is that diesel is being bid up, with the consumers
of vegetables and milk and other goods paying.

Riding on the coat tails of diesel is sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Right now, it's real bad.

--Tim May
 
On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:44:19 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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.
 


Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <40a213f4$0$28302$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
> steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk says...
> > Austin Shackles wrote:
> > > On or around Wed, 12 May 2004 00:48:23 -0300, Chris Phillipo
> > > <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> enlightened us thusly:
> > >
> > >
> > >>They already have and do, no one wants them. Europeans wouldn't want
> > >>them either if gas was $2 a gallon there too.
> >
> > Yes but diesel is much cheaper to make, so Diesel might be $1.50
> > /gallon, and still more efficient than "gas". Where is your argument then ?
> >
>
> You are delusional if you think diesel is "made", all diesel besides the
> stuff a dozen or so people are pilfering from the back of McDonald's
> comes from the same place as gasoline. You are equally delusional if
> you think it would be any cheaper per gallon in the US if demand for it
> was as high as it is for gasoline.
>

Chris
Bio Diesel can be made from any plant oil. I posted the types of
plants and the yeilds per acre of the various oil producing plants some
time back. Right now Rape seed oil is probably the most economical to
grow. The USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) estimates that the
yield of rapeseed oil is about 179 gallons an acre. With a viable bio
diesel market we could probably raise 20 million gallons of the stuff
with out much impact on the commercial markets of other agricultural
products.

> > > 'course, we really do need to look into biodiesel, since the fossil fuel
> > > supply is being devoured at way more than a sustainable rate. We also need
> > > to look at patterns of life and work, and stop having people commute to work
> > > who could easily do their work from home.
> > >
> > I would like to know how much land it would take to grow biodiesel for,
> > say, my car which does 10-12,000 miles/year at 40-50 mpg. Then scale it
> > up. Have we enough land ?
> >
> > Steve
> >

With the creation of BioDiesel and ethanol to fuel gasoline engines
(Modern cars with computer controlled fuel injection could burn ethanol
with just reprogramming the computer) The United STates could cut its
oil imports by %30 or more. The added benefit would also be less
pollution as both ethanol and biodiesel burn cleaner than fossil
fuels.

After looking at some alternate fuel web sites and looking at the
yield tables published by the USDA. (299 gallons of ethanol per
acre from potatoes) with all the surplus potato land in Idaho, Oregon,
Washington we could make one hell of a lot of ethanol. The heat for
the distillation process can come from the burning of the left over
waste of the fermentation process.

The only thing that keeps biodiesel and ethanol from becoming major
players in the fuel markets is the relative low price of crude oil.
If crude oil stays below $35.00 a barrel then there is no economic
incentive for bio fuels. But with crude hitting $40.00 yesterday
it now becomes possible for bio fuels to become players in the fuel
markets.

The Independent


>
> Not even for just the cars in London.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
On Sat, 15 May 2004 07:37:36 +0100, Austin Shackles <austin@ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:47:29 -0300, Chris Phillipo
><Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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
<austin@ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk> 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 <dumaree@hotmail.net> 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
> <austin@ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:47:29 -0300, Chris Phillipo
>><Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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
 
The Independent <jamesed@web-ster.com> wrote in
news:40A31A15.1F29A9CC@web-ster.com:

>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>
>> In article <40a213f4$0$28302$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>> steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk says...
>> > Austin Shackles wrote:
>> > > On or around Wed, 12 May 2004 00:48:23 -0300, Chris Phillipo
>> > > <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> enlightened us thusly:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>They already have and do, no one wants them. Europeans wouldn't
>> > >>want them either if gas was $2 a gallon there too.
>> >
>> > Yes but diesel is much cheaper to make, so Diesel might be $1.50
>> > /gallon, and still more efficient than "gas". Where is your
>> > argument then ?
>> >
>>
>> You are delusional if you think diesel is "made", all diesel besides
>> the stuff a dozen or so people are pilfering from the back of
>> McDonald's comes from the same place as gasoline. You are equally
>> delusional if you think it would be any cheaper per gallon in the US
>> if demand for it was as high as it is for gasoline.
>>
>
> Chris
> Bio Diesel can be made from any plant oil. I posted the types of
> plants and the yeilds per acre of the various oil producing plants
> some time back. Right now Rape seed oil is probably the most
> economical to grow. The USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture)
> estimates that the yield of rapeseed oil is about 179 gallons an acre.
> With a viable bio diesel market we could probably raise 20 million
> gallons of the stuff with out much impact on the commercial markets of
> other agricultural products.
>

Can be made from animal fat too , the gylcerine content is way higher
though . Smells like hamburger vs corn chips when your running on it .


>> > > 'course, we really do need to look into biodiesel, since the
>> > > fossil fuel supply is being devoured at way more than a
>> > > sustainable rate. We also need to look at patterns of life and
>> > > work, and stop having people commute to work who could easily do
>> > > their work from home.
>> > >
>> > I would like to know how much land it would take to grow biodiesel
>> > for, say, my car which does 10-12,000 miles/year at 40-50 mpg. Then
>> > scale it up. Have we enough land ?
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>
> With the creation of BioDiesel and ethanol to fuel gasoline engines
> (Modern cars with computer controlled fuel injection could burn
> ethanol with just reprogramming the computer) The United STates could
> cut its oil imports by %30 or more. The added benefit would also be
> less pollution as both ethanol and biodiesel burn cleaner than fossil
> fuels.
>
> After looking at some alternate fuel web sites and looking at the
> yield tables published by the USDA. (299 gallons of ethanol per
> acre from potatoes) with all the surplus potato land in Idaho, Oregon,
> Washington we could make one hell of a lot of ethanol. The heat for
> the distillation process can come from the burning of the left over
> waste of the fermentation process.
>
> The only thing that keeps biodiesel and ethanol from becoming major
> players in the fuel markets is the relative low price of crude oil.
> If crude oil stays below $35.00 a barrel then there is no economic
> incentive for bio fuels. But with crude hitting $40.00 yesterday
> it now becomes possible for bio fuels to become players in the fuel
> markets.
>
> The Independent
>
>
>>
>> Not even for just the cars in London.
>> --
>> ____________________
>> Remove "X" from email address to reply.
>

 
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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 <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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 <40A56DA4.54150F8A@web-ster.com>, jamesed@web-ster.com
> 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 <hidba096adq86dvuilsvv09vm9q74fu8r5@4ax.com>, 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 <ujeba0pn1vjvoj9hi30lhdagl2786mal64@4ax.com>, austin@ddol-
las.fsnet.co.uk says...
> On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:47:29 -0300, Chris Phillipo
> <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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.
 
Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> You are delusional if you think diesel is "made", all diesel besides the
> stuff a dozen or so people are pilfering from the back of McDonald's
> comes from the same place as gasoline.

Diesel IS made ! It certainly ain't pulled from the ground and put in
your tank !

The refining process for Diesel is cheaper than that for gasoline, and
it uses a rougher grade of crude oil, not a high aromatic stock like
Arabian Light. Hence its cheaper to make.

Steve
 
In article <mmeba0d5bm1ou799hm4itmaftdm86t3upe@4ax.com>, austin@ddol-
las.fsnet.co.uk says...
> On or around Fri, 14 May 2004 22:42:28 -0300, Chris Phillipo
> <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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: usenet-urcx4@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> Newsgroups: misc.survivalism, alt.fan.landrover, rec.autos.4x4, uk.rec.cars.4x4
>
> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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 Wed, 12 May 2004 13:09:24 +0100, in
<40a213f4$0$28302$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Steve
<steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> wrote:

>Have we enough land ?

unfortunately. I don't think so

( I asked a similar question on uk.business.agriculture a while ago)
--
denis

"I teleported home one night, With Ron and Sid and Meg,
Ron stole Meggie's heart away, And I got Sidney's leg. "
 
In article <40A61DCB.ED1D5A98@web-ster.com>, jamesed@web-ster.com
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
L322 L322 2004 RR diesel TD6 no start. FUEL INJECT. SYSTEM message. Air in fuel line.
Replies
16
Views
1K
Dr Veg
D
M
Upgrade 2008 FL2 3.2 i6 to 2014 FL2 SD4 2.2?
Replies
15
Views
943
Hippo
Hippo
D
Defender 300tdi Lost Power and Died .
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
dogdog1
D
B
Restored 1972 Series 2 Diesel not starting
Replies
16
Views
2K
Shedload
S
S
Cocked up fuel filter change. Help!
Replies
2
Views
612
Silentsinger
S