On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:59:17 -0800, MooseFET wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:09 pm, Joe Kappus wrote:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:39:50 +0000, JosephKK wrote:
MooseFET wrote:
"JosephKK" wrote in message
.net...
Bill Bowden wrote:
On Feb 28, 3:22 pm, James Arthur wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:48 pm, Bill Bowden wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:25 pm, James Arthur
wrote:
[...]
The problem not previously considered is that any food not
grown here has to be replaced. That means it has to be grown
somewhere else, generally under more primitive conditions (e.g.
slash & burn (shudder) or just otherwise less efficiently).
Since the planting-for-biofuel barely yields more than it
consumes in tractor fuel, etc., to start with, any overall loss
in efficiency results in net increased emissions. So say the
paper's authors, anyhow.
Cheers,
James Arthur
What about using kelp (seaweed) for bio-fuel? The ocean is cheap
real estate and you don't have irrigation problems, mostly just
transport problems. All you have to do is harvest the kelp and
turn it into methane gas.
-Bill
Hi Bill !
1. Trashes marine habitat
2. Seaweed *is* food. Good, too.
3. Can't speak to the energy content or growth rate, but it's
underwater, gets a lot less sun, so I'd not expect these to be
attractive.
4. Is it easily fermented to methane? Most things aren't.
Hey, here's an idea--why not just get *smaller* cars, and drive
them *less!* That works with zero technical risk, current
technology, saves money and saves the planet. ;-)
Cheers,
James- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Japaneese are working on the problem. Apparently, they can get
about 20 milliliters of gas from a ton of seeweed.
Here's a link:
http://web-japan.org/trends/science/sci060824.html
As for smaller cars, we could just ride motorcycles that get 100
MPG. But I was thinking the other day, it would be nice if the
busses ran every 10 minutes along all the major roads. Probably
reduce the traffic 80 percent, and we can always use a car if
there's a lot to carry, or in a hurry, or afraid of motorcycles.
-Bill
So, do you ride a motorcycle? Or use buses or trains? How often?
Don't warn him, let him get hurt and let him find the truth the hard
way. I already checked with the motorcyclists. They said they're
getting 28-30MPG on highway. There is no such thing 100MPG
motorcycle.
America loves to jump to conclusion on everything from Economy to
WDM's. This time you're going to get hurt badly.
You have not talked with a sufficient quantity of motorcyclists.
Over time i have rode units giving anywhere from 22 mpg to 85 mpg.
My current ride gives about 32 to 35 mpg commuting, but it is
overpowered and very quick and fun to ride. (110 HP on 800 Lbs curb,
full tank.)
I drive a Jetta TDI, it gets over 50mpg on average driving. Since it
runs diesel and prices have been so absurd, I have been in the process
of building a small biodiesel refinery. It's a pretty simple solution
and as I'm calculating it, parts should pay for themselves in about 6
months, after which I should be able to produce BD well under $2.00/gal
easily.
I live in the US (go figure) where really only two manufacturers
produce cars using this technology (no domestic producers). The
country has made serious mistakes on their alternative fuel planning:
1. For instance, tax credits are given to those who drive hybrid cars
WHICH still burn gas (or at best 85% ethanol), and are hardly as
efficient on highways as their diesel competitors (which can run 100%
biodiesel). No tax credits are given to those who drive TDI's which
are more efficient outside of cities and can run on pure biodiesel.
For a great many drivers highway milage doesn't matter. Stop and go
driving milage matters a lot for them since that is how the car is
operated nearly 100% of the time.
For many people a plugin hybrid would be the best answer.
People who live in cities will benefit. But why have a car in the first
place if you live in a major city? Why not use mass transit? I can tell
you most of my driving is not constant stop and go, and I still live in
the most densely populated state.
2. Biodiesel is shown to produce cleaner emissions, with the exception
of more NOx production (which by the way can be controlled due to the
lack of sulfur in BD).
You can control NOx in with sulfur in the fuel. It isn't easy and it
isn't cheap.
Yeah, which is why the government went hellbent on mandating ULSD so
cheaper systems could be implemented.
Unlike ULSD diesel, BD protects the engine better. It
also benefits farmers in the country and slows the the bleed that
continues (and will continue) in the US economy due to its reliance on
foreign exports. The only real downside with BD is that it does not
have a high tolerance for extreme cold, but most of the country could
still be shifted to it (the rest could have smaller amounts blended
in).
As soon as you start planting crops just to make biodiesel, its
advantage is lost. Biodiesel from waste products adds value to the
economy. Biodiesel from crops doesn't because it is all from seed oils
which takes a lot of energy inputs to make.
It keeps the money in the country and benefits farmers, the negative side
is it increases some crop prices. I don't see how planting more crops
for biodiesel spells a loss, I think if anything it would create a new
industry in the US. The country has plenty of farmland, it might even be
able to export if it can build the facilities.
3. Ethanol on the other hand has been shown to have a short shelf life,
is extremely corrosive to many materials,
Biodiesel also attacks many materials.
True about that, I forgot it myself :P