-
Interesting report on biofuel
by
clbanman
on 12 Jun, 2009 15:37
-
-
#1
by
jtanguay
on 12 Jun, 2009 16:26
-
thats because of the product used to make the biodiesel. realistically speaking, algae is the only viable solution. it requires little to no maintenance, and grows pretty much anywhere.
in the distant future, it will most likely be totally electric. several hurdles with regards to batteries must first be overcome though.
-
#2
by
burn_your_money
on 13 Jun, 2009 07:00
-
in the distant future, it will most likely be totally nuclear. several hurdles with regards to batteries must first be overcome though.
Fixed it for ya
It's not like they need to use potable water to grow these plants. In fact, they could probably use grey water which would lessen the amount of water pollution that we are dumping into our lakes and rivers.
-
#3
by
jtanguay
on 13 Jun, 2009 07:26
-
in the distant future, it will most likely be totally nuclear. several hurdles with regards to batteries must first be overcome though.
Fixed it for ya
It's not like they need to use potable water to grow these plants. In fact, they could probably use grey water which would lessen the amount of water pollution that we are dumping into our lakes and rivers.
hehe if the new world order has their way... i hope all predictions are wrong about it
-
#4
by
turborabbit
on 13 Jun, 2009 11:27
-
Don't think I need to read it-biofuels are not the answer, but factor in the gallons of blood spent to secure fossil fuels of all kinds currently sequestered out of our envioronment and we certainly need new answers. We waste an un-believable amount of solar eac h day and though I really appreciate my turbo diesels for what they do, personal responsibilty has to become part of our basic quest for food, shelter, transportation and at my age-recreation. Gardens and electric vehicles are already here for most applications.
-
#5
by
fdnyguy
on 13 Jun, 2009 17:02
-
No doubt we are a spoiled society. And we must quench our thirst for oil. I met Josh Tickell (from the fryer to the fuel tank author) in 2005, when bio fuels were in their infancy. With his estimate (which IMO, were quite low), 11,000 square miles of desert contructed to grow algae, would sustain America's fuel usage. And what did surprise me was the fact that with all vehicles on America's roads, that only comprises 20% of our oil usage. The rest is used for heating and manufacturing.
No one more than me would love to tell OPEC where to shove their oil. So be it with offshore drilling, biofuels,solar, geothermal or all of it combined, we must also quench our thirst for petroleum. And this is coming from someone who owns a 7.3 PSD F250, a Mack fire engine,2 diesel vans (off road, looking to sell), 2 VW diesels, and marrying into a 99 5.7 Suburban.....lolol
Upon completion of the 89 getting repaired, the Suburban and the F250 will be sitting 99% of time. Unless it's a big family trip or a trip to Home Depot, the only things moving will be the 89 and 09 VW diesels. As of now its $40 to fill each one (has everyone else noticed how prices are creeping up?) and approx 600 miles plus a tank, I'll conserve best I can. And may just run the 89 on veggie oil and/or biodiesel.
Be safe,be well. Jimmy.
-
#6
by
maxfax
on 13 Jun, 2009 18:15
-
The amount of petrolium used in manufacturing is no surpise... Especially since it's a big ingredient in PLASTIC..
Been one of my many rants for years, especially when the powers that be start talking about "anti clunker" laws.. If only they'd think about how much energy and resources are consumed to recycle and old car that gets 20mpg and build a new one that gets 30mpg.. Hot Rod Magazine did an article on this about 15 years ago during the last anti clunker law rage... The figures were impressive..
Same goes with home building.. We tear down the ole and build new all the time.. Mostly because people want it their way and don;t want to deal with what's there.. My 200 year old stone house may not be as energy efficient as a brand new modular, but how many years of using that little bit less energy for heating is it going to take to break even with the amount of resorces consumed to build a new one?
-
#7
by
jtanguay
on 13 Jun, 2009 19:46
-
Same goes with home building.. We tear down the ole and build new all the time.. Mostly because people want it their way and don;t want to deal with what's there.. My 200 year old stone house may not be as energy efficient as a brand new modular, but how many years of using that little bit less energy for heating is it going to take to break even with the amount of resorces consumed to build a new one?
i just love when Mike Holmes tears stuff down and throws it all away. its a shame that he has to do that.
-
#8
by
fdnyguy
on 13 Jun, 2009 20:45
-
The amount of petrolium used in manufacturing is no surpise... Especially since it's a big ingredient in PLASTIC..
Been one of my many rants for years, especially when the powers that be start talking about "anti clunker" laws.. If only they'd think about how much energy and resources are consumed to recycle and old car that gets 20mpg and build a new one that gets 30mpg.. Hot Rod Magazine did an article on this about 15 years ago during the last anti clunker law rage... The figures were impressive..
Same goes with home building.. We tear down the ole and build new all the time.. Mostly because people want it their way and don;t want to deal with what's there.. My 200 year old stone house may not be as energy efficient as a brand new modular, but how many years of using that little bit less energy for heating is it going to take to break even with the amount of resorces consumed to build a new one?
Good point. Forgot where I read it, but the carbon footprint from a hybrid is many times more than a diesel. Cannot recall if they meant the new 'clean diesels' or any diesel car. Those hybrid batteries are nasty for the environment.
Stay safe,stay well. Jimmy.
-
#9
by
maxfax
on 14 Jun, 2009 00:01
-
the carbon footprint from a hybrid is many times more than a diesel.
This has been my feeling since they introduced them.. Heck remeber the GM EV1 electric car?? GM scrapped those buggers as soon as their environmental issues started to come to light.. When the leases were up they left no option to buy them.. From what I've been able to learn they now sit in a hazaradous waste disposal site in a New Mexico desert...
And once again if people had the abiity to think a little, they were not zero emission. THey just left theri carbon foot another geographical region.. Where did most of the electricity come from to charge the batteries?? Coal maybe?
AS cliche as this sounds, the big picture is constanly not looked at, or covered up..
People look at me funny when I say this, but I think our methods 100 years ago were more eco friendly.. Travel and shipping by train was efficient, just not as fast as a jet or a truck.. Somestimes we even walked ot pedaled a bike!
We heated with wood (carbon neutral and easily renewed), or city gas (waste product I think).. Houses were built with airflow in mind cause there wasn;t any a/c. Lesser used sections of the house were made to be closed off in the winter as heating was difficult.. We made things last, reused and made do with what we could..
-
#10
by
79rabbit4dr
on 18 Jun, 2009 00:54
-
love this thread, it's late and i'm lazy but there was an article I saw about plastic being made from corn so it's more biodegradable, anyone have more info on that?
X2 on the "zero emissions" cars being a stupid hippie pipe dream, the electricity comes from somewhere and battery acid is mass quantities can't be good... keep the ideas coming gas haters, until then, it's the best/most efficient thing we've got.
-
#11
by
jtanguay
on 18 Jun, 2009 08:21
-
the carbon footprint from a hybrid is many times more than a diesel.
This has been my feeling since they introduced them.. Heck remeber the GM EV1 electric car?? GM scrapped those buggers as soon as their environmental issues started to come to light.. When the leases were up they left no option to buy them.. From what I've been able to learn they now sit in a hazaradous waste disposal site in a New Mexico desert...
And once again if people had the abiity to think a little, they were not zero emission. THey just left theri carbon foot another geographical region.. Where did most of the electricity come from to charge the batteries?? Coal maybe?
AS cliche as this sounds, the big picture is constanly not looked at, or covered up..
People look at me funny when I say this, but I think our methods 100 years ago were more eco friendly.. Travel and shipping by train was efficient, just not as fast as a jet or a truck.. Somestimes we even walked ot pedaled a bike! We heated with wood (carbon neutral and easily renewed), or city gas (waste product I think).. Houses were built with airflow in mind cause there wasn;t any a/c. Lesser used sections of the house were made to be closed off in the winter as heating was difficult.. We made things last, reused and made do with what we could..
the problem with the EV1 was that the consumer could purchase solar panels, or a wind generator and not have to pay any fuel prices. in essence they are not 'controlled'. the lovely charging stations they also had for the EV1 meant that they were, for the most part, zero emissions. if you also look at the efficiency of an electric motor, the EV1 released wayyy less carbon than a regular gasoline powered car, or even diesel. true the batteries are the main thing holding everything up, but in the future i think newer technologies will be available. i've heard that the main reason the cars were scrapped was due to the batteries costing about $30,000?
i find that hard to believe, but i guess its possible.
as for 100 years ago being better... in some ways yes, but then again the population wasn't as high. there's no way we could all burn wood and regrow it fast enough to meet our demands. horse and buggy are probably the best zero emissions, but other than the amish or mennonite, nobody would give up their comfortable vehicles. now the train... you do remember how much black smoke comes out the stack right? i think they are about 5% efficient or even lower, but since they were transporting a large amount of people/cargo, it evens it out a little. and don't forget the building code back then... i used to live in a house from that era and it was VERY drafty! heating bill is nearly twice or three times as high as a similarly sized house built today, and yet is still colder!!
-
#12
by
maxfax
on 18 Jun, 2009 21:52
-
but then again the population wasn't as high.
True... Instead of this cash for clunkers joke, we need a case for castration bill..
i've heard that the main reason the cars were scrapped was due to the batteries costing about $30,000
I've heard that from several sources as well.. I could be persuaded to believe that.. The cost of some electric forklift batteries where darn close that back in the day.. Not to mention that GM had no supply or service chains available for these things.. Several states (Like Cali) mandate that a company has to "support" what they build for x number of years.. The cost of getting that set up would be astronomical for a car that wasn;t going to sell well at a time when SUV's were all the rage..
you do remember how much black smoke comes out the stack right? i think they are about 5% efficient or even lower
Yeah I guess they weren;t diesel yet...
i used to live in a house from that era and it was VERY drafty! heating bill is nearly twice or three times as high as a similarly sized house built today, and yet is still colder!!
It's all in the maintenance...
-
#13
by
Syncroincity
on 18 Jun, 2009 23:57
-
My employer (Continental Airlines) just ran a succesful test flight using a 50/50 blend of jet fuel and bio-fuel, itself a blend of algae and jatropha derived fuel. They even saw a 1.1% increase in fuel efficiency. The test was done partnered with Boeing, CFM Intl, GE, and Honeywell.
Airlines are really up against the wall, and will be sqeezed even further as oil prices climb again. I guess I should turn in my wrenches and study to be a horse doctor...
-
#14
by
maxfax
on 19 Jun, 2009 04:33
-
They even saw a 1.1% increase in fuel efficiency.
Albeit small, that is the first time ever I have heard of an efficiency INCREASE with a bio fuel.. Very interesting...