Quote:
You do realise that biodiesel is made with :gasp: deisel fule, don't you?
The city transit company has a biodiesel bus project in my city, and the biodiesl they use was originaly made with less-than-1% biological sources (flax and canola oils, actualy). They've since upped it to 5%... but still, that means that it's 95% petrolium-based. Yeah... way to put a dent in those Kytoto targets, bus company.
There's a really good emoticon for my reaction to this:
Why do I find it funny? Because don't understand what biodiesel
really is, and just because a bus company uses a drop of real biodisel in their buses you think it's a big joke. I mean really, your going off on a rant about McDonalds and saying your point is buried under a heap of tar sands while showing a
complete lack of understanding about biodiesel was priceless. What alternative fuels do
you run on? Molten DVDs of Bowling for Columbine, Farenheit 9/11 and Supersize Me?
In reality, the bus company you cite is just using petrodiesel with a small mixture of biodiesel in it. You will find varying mixtures of the two. Wikipedia sez:
Quote:
Biodiesel is a clear amber-yellow liquid with a viscosity similar to petrodiesel, the industry term for diesel produced from petroleum. It can be used as an additive in formulations of diesel to increase the lubricity of pure ultra-low sulfur petrodiesel (ULSD) fuel. Much of the world uses a system known as the "B" factor to state the amount of biodiesel in any fuel mix, in contrast to the "BA" system used for bioalcohol mixes. For example, 20% biodiesel is labeled B20. Pure biodiesel, 100%, is referred to as B100.
Newer cars (since 1992) can make a switch to pure biodiesel and run great. In fact, pure biodiesel can
clean the engine of a car. It'll dissolve residues and other junk in the internals. The U.S. military tested this on diesel generators at a base (I forget which) and found that it really cleaned things up--all the mess and junk from running petrodiesel was scrubbed out.
Running on pure biodiesel reduces emissions of CO by 50% and CO2 by almost 79%. While it still emits carbon, it's carbon was already present in the Earth's atmosphere (and therefore recycled carbon), so it's not more carbon introduced into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
Biodiesel doesn't release sulfur into the atmosphere like petrodiesel does because it contains no sulfur in the first place.
Not to mention that since it's made from things like animal fat and vegtable oil, it's biodegradable and non toxic. It's LESS toxic than table salt, even! If you were brazen enough you could probably drink from a hypothetical biodiesel gas station. Not recommended though.
Biodiesel would be a big boost to farmers (as I've said) because vegtable oil--including soybeans (is there nothing the soy bean can't do?)--are a primary source to make biodisel from. It seems algae is the leader in that sector, though.
But, the meat industry can also benefit from offloading waste animal fats from processing meat through this--selling the fat to biodisel companies to convert into fuel. Making use of all parts of what we take from the environment, letting nothing be wasted--that's a Native American concept, ain't it?
As more biodiesel is produced, I think more companies will use greater mixtures of bio and petrodiesel in their fuels, until eventually biodisel is the dominant product.
Moving onwardly:
Quote:
Did you know that every five years GM, Ford and Chrysler say that they'll have an emsions-free car in... five years?
Did you know the EV1 had
less mileage than the Hummer H2? And everyone knows how terrible the gas mileage is on an H2. This is likely why the pure electric cars just weren't aggressively sold, and only available on lease. EV1 could go only 130 miles on a full charge, but an H2 can go twice as far (300+). That's quite embarrasing.
Even more embarrasing: A Volkswagen Jetta using diesel fuel--even biodeisel--can go 769 miles on a full tank, I believe. And in all cases, while it doesn't take much time to fill up a car's tank of gas (and would be environmentally sound if it ran on biodiesel--remember that!), it would take somewhere around 8 hours to charge the EV1 to get it to go another 130 miles.
This is likely why the EV1 was strangled in its sleep by GM. There was a demand for it, but in the long run it probably would have failed.
Electric car development is still going, but for right now I think it's restricted to hybrids. 2005 models of the Prius and Escape are the latest among electric/hybrid cars. However, Mitsubishi is trying its hand in zero-emission cars and is mass-prodicing its MIEV. Test fleets arrive in 2006, and will be available two years from now.
Until those cars can run at least as well as an H2 (this may already be close to achieving, I hear some lithium-ion battery tests are getting 300 miles), they won't have the endurance to justify such long charge times for most people.
Quote:
Bush did the same alternitive-fuel tap-dance a few years back, don't you remember? There was gonna be hydrogen filling stations all across america, and we'd all be driving hydrogen fuel-cell cars. He promised all sorts of stuff like that, none of which materialised. You have to remember that Bush & Friends are oil men. They have a vested interest in oil remaining the preminent fuel in america. None of the promised goddies in this speach will arive, they'll all myseriously disapear down the memory hole.
And
you have to remember that the hydrogen vehicle and hydrogen economy models are emergent. It takes time and money to develop and build the infrastructure for this! You possibly couldn't have expected that they would zap-poof an entire hydrogen economy by now, would you? Not when they've been working on fusion power since 1970 and still haven't gotten a self-sustained reaction, much less one we can get energy from!
Right now there are 16 Hydrogen fueling stations in California, and they're working to up that to 31. It's servicing all of 95 vehicles thus far. There's a full devoted refueling station in Detroit, one of three across the globe.
Oh, and by the way--did you know oil companies are spearheading the hydrogen economy? That's right! Major partners in California's quest to build a hydrogen infrastructure is BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell. Shell itself has an entire division devoted to hydrogen economy development.
Tell me, if oil companies have everything to lose by not spreading out and trying to diversify in the face of a clearly obvious end to oil supplies across the globe, WHY would they instead be obstructionist and prevent the proliferation of alternative fuels? I'll answer that one for you--they're not! So much for the "Evil Idiotic Moronic Bush And The Fat Oil Men Conspiracy."
Common sense, dude! Corporations do what it takes to make a profit. They can clearly see the cliff coming. They know that when oil runs out, their corporations are going to crash and burn, simple as that--
unless they diversify, explore new forms of fuel, and take the lead. But! Are they still going to produce oil? Oh, you bet. We're not off the black milk by any means, and shutting off oil production right now would accomplish no good. It's going to be a gradual change.
And now, to address StrongRad:
Quote:
Of course, now is the point where someone says "but Bush and his Oil Buddies are keeping alternative energy down!" and I get to laugh at them.
Let's do it together!
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
