On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:44:03 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Pete C" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 22:48:09 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Get the big picture. The snotty uni one is saying that re-cycling is a
daft
idea to burning it and using the heat.

I know. And?

If you know then why re you prattling balls.

After a promising start, yet again IMM fails to be able to maintain a
sensible discussion.

I'll let IMM have the last word:

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

You can use old fryer oil to run a diesel engine for next to nothing as the
burger chains give it away and are glad to see you take it it off their
hands, and the burn is super clear compared to fossil diesel fuel. Here is
how you do it.

********, the burn is NOT super clear, it leaves varnish-like deposits
behind in the pump and injectors if you just bung used vegoil in the
tank.
There's a lot more to it than you know.
--

Dave

Nick Brooks wrote:

IMM wrote:

"Nick Brooks" wrote in message
...

Nick Brooks wrote:

IMM wrote:


snip
Biofuel is infinitely superior to fossil in emissions and any CO2
emitted is
neutralised by the growing process. For the USA to totally eliminate
fossil
fuels, only 105 square miles of land is required to grow this stuff.
This
is nothing to the total size of the USA.



This is the most astonishing 'fact' I've ever heard.

Nick Brooks


And despite the bad form of replying to my own post I've done some
calculations that suggest IMM may be mistaken

according to recent figures
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html

Total annual US fossil fuel consumption ammounts to 2.28 x 10^11 (ten to
the power of 11) Kw

105 square miles = 2.71 x 10^8 square meters

which means that each square meter would have to provide 84,000KW (yes
eighty four thousand kilowatts) annually

I don't think so



Article. It says 11,000 squ miles. That is approx 105 miles x 105
miles.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html




Yes but you said 105 square miles which is not the same at all



It is to IMM :-)


Nick Brooks

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:


You can use old fryer oil to run a diesel engine for next to nothing as the
burger chains give it away and are glad to see you take it it off their
hands, and the burn is super clear compared to fossil diesel fuel. Here is
how you do it.


********, the burn is NOT super clear, it leaves varnish-like deposits
behind in the pump and injectors if you just bung used vegoil in the
tank.
There's a lot more to it than you know.


Thers a lot more to it than he will ever ebven begin to understand. IMM
has not even plumbed teh true depths of his ignorance, let alone tried
to actually learn anything.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

You can use old fryer oil to run a diesel engine for next to nothing as
the
burger chains give it away and are glad to see you take it it off their
hands, and the burn is super clear compared to fossil diesel fuel. Here
is
how you do it.

********,

Do you mean that is not how you do it? I would advise you to contact the
people on that web site and tell them the right way. Who do they think they
are telling us that way, when you know another way.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:


You can use old fryer oil to run a diesel engine for next to nothing as
the
burger chains give it away and are glad to see you take it it off their
hands, and the burn is super clear compared to fossil diesel fuel. Here
is
how you do it.


********, the burn is NOT super clear, it leaves varnish-like deposits
behind in the pump and injectors if you just bung used vegoil in the
tank.
There's a lot more to it than you know.


Thers a lot more to it than he will ever ebven begin to understand. IMM
has not even plumbed teh true depths of his ignorance, let alone tried
to actually learn anything.

has you house sunk into the sea yet? If not why not.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:51:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Article. It says 11,000 squ miles. That is approx 105 miles x 105
miles.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

AND this article suggest replacing all "petroleum transportation fuels"
NOT to " totally eliminate fossil fuels" as you suggested.

That was my point, as I responded to a fuel transportation point.



So all it needs is for Paxo and that Kevin to run the land value tax
and the world's greenhouse pollution, energy consumption, hunger, AIDs
etc can be fixed and establishment of a new world order with leaders
on four legs and stability in the Middle East can be accomplished in a
trice.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:51:53 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Article. It says 11,000 squ miles. That is approx 105 miles x 105
miles.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

AND this article suggest replacing all "petroleum transportation fuels"
NOT to " totally eliminate fossil fuels" as you suggested.

That was my point, as I responded to a fuel transportation point.

So all it needs is for Paxo and that Kevin to run the land value tax
and the world's greenhouse pollution, energy consumption, hunger, AIDs
etc can be fixed and establishment of a new world order with leaders
on four legs and stability in the Middle East can be accomplished in a
trice.

My God! You have something.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:06:06 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

I'll let IMM have the last word:

Oh noooooooo!!!!!! We'll be here until Christmas!

PoP

---
If you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk. I'll
probably still ignore you but at least I'll get the
message.....

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

You can use old fryer oil to run a diesel engine for next to nothing as
the
burger chains give it away and are glad to see you take it it off their
hands, and the burn is super clear compared to fossil diesel fuel. Here
is
how you do it.

********,

Do you mean that is not how you do it? I would advise you to contact the
people on that web site and tell them the right way. Who do they think they
are telling us that way, when you know another way.

Oh; it's on the Interwebby thing, it must be true, then.

There are plenty of folk running around in fairly modern vehicles,
thinking they're saving a few quid by putting ****e old chipoil in the
fuel tank without doing anything else.

Otoh, there are some who have taken the time and trouble to fit a proper
fuel system that will deliver heated and filtered veg oil and are
careful about changeovers. These ones, funnily enough, tend to have
****eOldVolkswagens, so don't stand to lose a great deal financially if
it all goes pop.

What ones do you think are at greater risk of fuel pump / injector
failure?
--

Dave

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

Biofuel is infinitely superior to fossil in emissions and any CO2 emitted is
neutralised by the growing process. For the USA to totally eliminate fossil
fuels, only 105 square miles of land is required to grow this stuff. This
is nothing to the total size of the USA.

Bwahhahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh ****. You've outdone yourself this time.
--

Dave

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

You can use old fryer oil to run a diesel engine for next to nothing
as
the
burger chains give it away and are glad to see you take it it off
their
hands, and the burn is super clear compared to fossil diesel fuel.
Here
is
how you do it.

********,

Do you mean that is not how you do it? I would advise you to contact the
people on that web site and tell them the right way. Who do they think
they
are telling us that way, when you know another way.

Oh; it's on the Interwebby thing, it must be true, then.

There are plenty of folk running around in fairly modern vehicles,
thinking they're saving a few quid by putting ****e old chipoil in the
fuel tank without doing anything else.

Otoh, there are some who have taken the time and trouble to fit a proper
fuel system that will deliver heated and filtered veg oil and are
careful about changeovers. These ones, funnily enough, tend to have
****eOldVolkswagens, so don't stand to lose a great deal financially if
it all goes pop.

What ones do you think are at greater risk of fuel pump / injector
failure?

I don't know. I haven't put chip oil in my car. I don't go for chips, being
sauté potato man myself.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

Biofuel is infinitely superior to fossil in emissions and any CO2 emitted
is
neutralised by the growing process. For the USA to totally eliminate
fossil
fuels, only 105 square miles of land is required to grow this stuff.
This
is nothing to the total size of the USA.

Bwahhahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh ****. You've outdone yourself this time.

I know I am brilliant. Keep reading the thread... then your brainache might
go away.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:59:02 +0100, "Neil Jones"
wrote:


Doubt it, can you find anything on the web that backs this up?

cheers,
Pete.

I'm pretty sure it was this article:-

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=314732

which was actually from 2002, not last year as I had thought. But I'm
not going to pay The Independent to reread an article I originally read
in a paper I paid for, so I can't post the actual quote.

Here it is:

-----

I'm an 11 bag man myself...

and, frankly, that's rubbish. Simon O'Hagan is shocked to discover
just how much one man, his wife, two children and a cat can throw out

14 July 2002

I'm not proud of the fact that in only one week my family managed to
accumulate no fewer than 11 bags of rubbish – so many that the wheelie
bin was full to overflowing and the rest of them had to be sidestepped
on the way to our front door. And the three black bags' and eight
swing-bin liners' worth of refuse – all of it produced by just two
adults, two children and one cat – didn't include the stuff we put in
our recycling box. Disgraceful.

Shame is one thing. It would be quite another to have to pay £10 a
week, £500 a year, for the removal of this quantity of stuff. For that
is what the more profligate among us were threatened with last week in
a proposal to charge for the removal of excess amounts of rubbish.
What constitutes excess, you might ask. Well, anything over two black
bags per week per household, suggests the Performance and Innovation
Unit, which carried out the research for the Government. Every
additional bag would cost £1. Yikes! We O'Hagans, along with millions
of other people, are going to have to change our ways.

The Government has since distanced itself from the scheme. It won't
happen, says Gordon Brown. But it concentrated people's minds, and
left the question: how do we reduce the amount of rubbish we create?
The obvious answer is to acquire less stuff in the first place. But
assuming that people need everything that comes into their homes, how
does one minimise the amount that ends up contributing to the problem
of Britain's rapidly expanding refuse tips and landfill sites?

Rubbish is one of those areas where we Britons lag hopelessly behind
our Continental neighbours. We produce far more – 400kg per person
annually compared with, for example, 300kg in France, and it's growing
by 3 per cent a year.

We also recycle far less – a pathetic 11 per cent compared with, for
example, 52 per cent in Switzerland. The Germans recycle 48 per cent
of their rubbish, the Dutch 46 per cent, and the Norwegians 40 per
cent. All these countries, and many others, have higher targets still
for recycling. And while we might think of America as a shrine to the
consumer, we should also recognise that it recycles a commendable 31.5
per cent of what it chucks away.

Somewhat lost amid last week's warning of financial penalties was the
parallel recommendation that the policy would only work alongside a
much improved recycling collection service. At the moment only half of
British households are offered any kind of recycling service – and
what's more there's a limit to what can go into a recycling bin. Into
ours go glass bottles, newspapers and tins (labels removed), but
there's no provision for plastic containers or cardboard which, in
theory, are also recyclable. Food packaging remains a blight on the
environment, but in a society where the rise of the single-occupancy
household means ever more demand for convenience food, that's not a
problem that is going to go away. No wonder binmen are due to go on
strike.

I phoned our local authority – Brent – to find out what more I could
do. It recommended one of their compost bins, on special offer at £5.
But demand was outstripping supply, and I would have to wait at least
twice the 35-day delivery period that it said on the form.

There is still only a fraction of British households that uses compost
bins, and clearly they have no role to play if you don't have a
garden. But we do, and a compost bin would account for leftover food
and a lot of cardboard. Add that to all the other recyclable materials
and I could see how Friends of the Earth estimates that up to 80 per
cent of what we throw away could be recycled.

"This figure is based on a higher provision for home collections,"
Martin Williams, an FoE parliamentary campaigner, told me. "It's no
good if people have to drive to recycling centres, thereby cancelling
out the environmental benefits." The FoE is running a "doorstep
recycling campaign", with the support of 270 MPs. In agreeing that the
Government's proposals are a good idea only if there is a recycling
service to every home, Greenpeace warns that without one, "it could
become a fly-tipper's charter".

In defence of my family's recent rubbish record, I'd like to point out
that one bag had a couple of discarded pillows in it, and another
comprised an empty cardboard box. And I'm sure I could reduce the
number further by packing our rubbish more neatly. But that's not
really good enough, is it?

-----

Although it doesn't mention collected glass being landfilled it's
mostly okay, but could be a lot better.

I don't doubt that some collected glass was landfilled in the past
when the facilites for dealing with it weren't in place, but nowadays
I would have thought that it was a tiny minority of collected material
if at all.

cheers,
Pete.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 13:41:26 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I guess thats why swamills make a profit and recyclimng plants don;t then

From http://www.aylesford-newsprint.co.uk/ :

Aylesford Newsprint manufactures 100% recycled newsprint which is sold
under the Renaissance brand name and used by leading European
newspaper publishers. We recover half a million tonnes per annum of
used newspapers and magazines to produce some 400,000 tonnes of
recycled newsprint.

Looks profitable to me... they also raise money for charity in the
process, do sawmills do this?

Do your research and look at the costs of water trasportation versus
road. You will be surprised at how energy efficient a big fat container
ship is..

The above company is in Kent, nearer than Scandaknavia AFIAK.

If the majority of people bring it to recycling banks then it requires
very little transportation.

And how, pray, do they get it there without transporting it?

No matter how efficiently we'll ever be able to live, we ALL NEED
transportation to somewhere at some point, be it walking, cycling or
by car. So why not make extra use of it?

Burining it in the home requires no transportation at all.

Burning domestic rubbish in the home is not really a practical
solution, a binliner of rubbish wouldn't yield that many kWh.

I'd expect that using ground glass as a gardening material garden has
more safety risks than benefits!

Not if you grind it up enough. What is sand anyway except ground glass?

Ingesting ground glass is far more harmful than ingesting sand, so
it's not the same. I would prefer to have sand trodden in the house
than ground glass.

Oh my gawd. Yiou reakly are as thicvk as IMM aren't yiu.

A lot of your points are quite IMM-like.

The ONLY virtue is that the cost is borne by the consumer, not the glass
plant. YOU are paying for a useless activity that only serves to make a
knee jerk PC guilt assuaging effect.

Doesn't cost me a penny to recycle anything.

What is the MAJOR use of carbon based fuel.
Transport, overwemlingly.

In the UK? Have you got a reference?

I burn what - 1200 liters of fuel a year to
heat my house. Thats about 10,000 kilometers of travelling. 6,000 miles
a year. Who here does LESS than that? Personally.

Far less. Zero. Even when doing IT contracting.

THEN add in all the
trucks and so on to get the goods to where you buy them.

Still a very small proportion compared to car use.

If you want to save energy, stop using cars. Period. Use of cars to
transport rubbish is infnirely more wasteful of fuel and energy than
anything else, includng having a big tipper pick them up from your door.

The world is dyng from CO2 poisoning. Panic. Lets take bottles to the
bottle bank and feel better, burning anothert gallon of petrol as we go.

No need to make a special trip to the recycling bank, so no need to
burn extra fuel taking them there.

Chucking bottles in the sea is actully a very sane idea. Use tidal power
to reduce then to pebbles and sand, then sell it back a decorative path
material a year later...

A few bottles might not do any harm, but tens of millions would end up
everywhere, and pollute beaches in the process.

No, I think it is probably better economics to recycle LESS.

Pints to tackle

(i) sack most of the marketing men and tax advertisemnets. HUGE net
saving in waste paper.

(ii) Abolish paper forms. And most of petrty local givernment, and fire
the existing government. Huge net savings in white paper and hot air.

(iii) make it a criminal offence to drive under the speed limit. That
should speed the roads up a bit.

(iv) Make it a criminal offence to drive kids to school. Or to drive to
teh supermarket. Have home delivery instead.

(v) offer huge tax relief on people who work from home. That should get
40% of the cars off the road.

(vi) Offer free collection on a timely basis of all packaging material.
Burn it to power the grid and the local school central heating system.
Sell the resultant chemical soup of burnt gases dissolved in water to
chemical plants, or just dump it in tanks. Or grind it up and compost
it. Or macerate it and flush it down the sewers - free transport to the
local sewage plant. Let them deal with it - they do already to a large
extent anyway.

(vii) Stop making things out of metal almost entirely. This is, by and
large, happening.

(viii) Burn rubbish in the home?

(ix) Grind up glass to use in the garden or chuck it on the nearest
beach?

Not the most practical ideas.

Rather than trying to sepnd huge amounts of effort recycling stuff we
don't want, why not simply not have it in the first place?

90% of all my post ends up straight in the bin, and 5% more ends up
there after being read. All the useless packaging does as well. A simple
resuable brown cardboard box is all you really need for 99% of things,
and that makes excellent garden compost.

True, I've cancelled my Screwfix and Viking Direct and all other
catalogues. Why do they insist on sending a paper catalogue when you
have ordered online? And then make you phone up to cancel them when it
could be done though a web page...

BUT most people should NOT be making regular car trips for trivial
things like shopping for food.

So how many miles a year do you drive? Is all your driving vastly more
important by comparison?

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:59:02 +0100, "Neil Jones"
wrote:


Doubt it, can you find anything on the web that backs this up?

cheers,
Pete.

I'm pretty sure it was this article:-

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...p?story=314732


Although it doesn't mention collected glass being landfilled it's
mostly okay, but could be a lot better.

I don't doubt that some collected glass was landfilled in the past
when the facilites for dealing with it weren't in place, but nowadays
I would have thought that it was a tiny minority of collected material
if at all.

cheers,
Pete.

OK - this wasn;t the article I had in mind then. I'll carry on looking.
The one I recall mentioned there were a number of pilot projects looking
into reusing coloured glass but none of them had been shown to be
profitable when scaled up to a commercial venture.

Neil

In uk.d-i-y, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

hmm... fear and loathing in west surbiton? ;-)

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 10:22:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


So does iron if enough air is blasted in.

Yes I think cement kilns derive some of their heat from this when
firing tyres.

Aluminium and iron filings=thermite=incendiary bombs.

Isn't it aluminium powder and an iron oxide, a displacement of one
oxide for another plus heat?

AJH

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 10:43:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I din;t think that they do require more effort. There is little
difference between smashing up a tree and shredding waste paper.

It requires very similar effort.

Wrong

Most paper is grown from trees grown specifically for the purpose
harvested on very marginal land that is bugger all use for anything
else. E.g. Scandinavia.

In general wrong in the west. The fractions of the forest harvest were
largely obtained either from a thinning operation to establish a
sawlog crop or after the premium crop, sawlogs, was removed. Latterly
the premium part tended to subsidise the pulp fraction. Now, due in no
small part to recycling (largely imported) paper, more of the top is
abandoned in the wood than 30 years ago.

AJH

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 10:53:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I think diesels still win hands down on anything except combined cycle
systems, and they can also be enhanced by this. High speed diesels
will exceed 40% conversion of heat to electricity, low speed ones
(burning even cheaper fuel) nearly reach 50%.



I thnk you are optimistic there frankly.

For what reason?


It's scalability that's difficult with CHP. None of the current
generating technologies scale down well or have particularly good
performance when turned down. Small alternators are inherently less
efficient than larger once because of engineering tolerances and
magnetic losses.



I beg to differ. Its not the alternators that are the problem. I can
show you a 2 oz generator that is at least 80% efficient. Its the
engines that drive them.

I don't see what the prime mover has to do with it, if we restrict
ourselves to the ability of an alternator to convert rotary motion
into synchronous ac supply then there is a big difference between a
large alternator's efficiency than a small one of the same type. From
a brief perusal of specs there seems to be a point above 100kW where
the scale economies slow down, if we are still talking about self
generation for a home this is way above most requirements but fits
well with a district chp.

Also one needs to consider the cost of various alternator types, the
cheapest appears to be a capacitively excited induction generator, a
more efficient type would be a permanent magnet one. At the 2-5kW
level the efficiencies are 85% for one and 95% for the latter, the
cost/kW for one are GBP20 and GBP200 respectively. Producing
electricity to compete with current domestic rates would indicate a
return of 12% on the investment running 24/7. At the industrial level
with super cheap fuel it pays to run everything conservatively with
the lowest O+M costs.



"Good" chp systems seem to feature loads in the MW levels and minimum
loads approaching 1/3 of peak loads. They feature multiple engines
running in their peak efficiency regions, as loads increase more
engines are brought online, the price is the higher O+M costs of
reciprocating engines. They also make use of both the coolant and
exhaust heat, for heating and cooling via adsorption coolers. As
someone else said more electricity is used worldwide for cooling than
heating, intuitively this is because most heating is by non electrical
means.


I actually doubt the above, on nearly every point.

So what?

The reason that generating sets are usually in the MW capacity is that teh

capital cost per megawatt is lower for larger sets. Not efficiency per se.

Agreed, capital and O+M costs feature very strongly in generating
costs.


Building a big condensor takes about as many man hours as building a
little one. So costs do not scale lineraly with size.

Probably

When CHP in toto is looked at, if you can utilise the waste heat for
something that saves electricity, inefficiency in the thermo-electrical
conversion is not so serious. Water at 30C is almost useless for
extracting mechanical energy from, but makes fine underfloor or
undersoil heating for e.g. greenhouses.

Yes but there are not many opportunities for making use of this heat
at the multi MW level, hence the "community scale" chp dveices need to
stay in the low MW class best served by multiple IC engines, despite
their inherent higher O+M costs compared with GW scale steam turbines.

I also challenge the 'more electricity is used for cooling than heating'

Give us proof then.



At the MW(e) level you are buying your prime energy at industrial
rates, which will be half to a sixth what a small domestic user will
be charged.



I think not. I think the base cost of generating in the most efficient
sets is around 2p per Kw/h. Not far off domestic night rates.

Non sequitur, we have already established that the price of wholesale
electricity is built up from fuel cost, O+M cost and capital charges,
this is what the producer receives, what the consumer pays also
carries the distribution and sales costs. Thus baseload plant will
continue spinning at the night rate because there is a price in not
doing so, Other generating sets will choose to shut down when the
price is low. I previously provided figure, which I think you
disputed, on the cost of producing electricity when using fuel which
had bourn all the retail distribution costs, IIRC I used a figure of
1.4p/kWhr(t) the domestic gas rate (at any time of the day). Once you
start using gas at the MW(t) level you will be paying industrial rates
not available to a retail user.

AJH

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something
like:

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "IMM" saying
something like:

hmm... fear and loathing in west surbiton? ;-)

Precisely.
--

Dave

"IMM" wrote in message ...

I don't know.

Wow! Another quote for all your fans to print out and frame...

--
Andy

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in message ...

I don't know.

Wow! Another quote for all your fans to print out and frame...

I do have fans. My mailbox is full of them.

In uk.d-i-y, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

hmm... fear and loathing in west surbiton? ;-)

Precisely.

In which case, s/Barstow/Edgware/ - mayhap...