Posted on 02/22/2007 7:16:14 AM PST by Reeses
About a year ago, Paul McNees chose to change his life by changing his fuel.
...
"I just couldn't justify filling up that tank with gasoline anymore for a multitude of reasons," said McNees, 43, citing global warming and the war in Iraq. "This has been great. It's totally cleaned out the engine. It runs great, has a lot more power. It sort of smells like french fries -- it doesn't have that noxious diesel smell."
...
Nationally, biodiesel consumption is up sharply -- from 500,000 gallons in 1999 to more than 75 million gallons in 2005. In the Bay Area, the number of customers filling up at Berkeley's Biofuel Oasis -- one of the region's few public biodiesel stations -- has climbed from about 200 three years ago to about 1,800 today.
...
Much of biodiesel's appeal stems from the fuel's ability to perform as well as petroleum diesel while emitting fewer exhaust materials that cause smog, particulate pollution and global warming. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pure biodiesel emits 67 percent fewer unburned hydrocarbons, 48 percent less carbon monoxide and 47 percent fewer particulates but 10 percent more nitrogen oxides.
Yet, despite its benefits and growing popularity, biodiesel might not be the fuel of the future because, as demand grows, the amount of land needed to produce the oils could become untenable, experts say.
...
Researchers are looking for more productive, and sustainable, sources of biofuel -- including algae. They're focusing primarily on four types of high-oil algae -- diatoms, green algae, blue-green algae and golden algae -- that could be cultivated in farms or ponds. Oils could be extracted using chemical solvents, enzymes, expeller presses, osmotic shock or ultrasonic shock waves.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
You can use straight vegetable oil (aka SVO) in a diesel engine. It requires installing a separate tank for the SVO and some "switches". You start the engine using regular diesel and after the SVO tank is hot enough, switch over to that and then switch back over to diesel just before shutting off engine. Some companies made the "switching" process more automatic. You can go to www.greasecar.com to get more info.
"Hydrogen and ethanol for transportation use isn't as practical."
The best way to transport hydrogen is in - a hydrocarbon like gasoline. Safer, higher density, liquid so low pressure. The energy balance on ethanol is horrible.
CA does not allow the sale of any new diesel autos..so I guess this is only available to the select few who illegaly import them or buy used cars out of state.
CA blocks diesels due to the soot causing cancer.
Until that issue is cleared up..no more new diesels for CA.
Is Biodiesel not a hydrocarbon? The typical petroleum product would have a C(n)H(2n+2) structure. Is the stoichiometry that different for Biodiesel that there can be a resultant 48% reduction in CO2?
Doesn't the concept that fuels which are 'grown' are 'carbon neutral' require one to conclude that the earth's plant life can soak up any additional CO2 produced by any means? Isn't that CO2 soaked up in additional plant life regardless of whether or not we then convert that plant life back into a fuel?
LOL
The country would be a much better place if we could persuade more liberals to do the same.
I assume it's not anywhere near cost-effective at this time, because searching the Internet I see no interest in it.
Those are your words, so, in light of the facts in the article, to wit:
Yet, despite its benefits and growing popularity, biodiesel might not be the fuel of the future because, as demand grows, the amount of land needed to produce the oils could become untenable, experts say.
and,
They're focusing primarily on four types of high-oil algae.....that could be cultivated in farms or ponds. Oils could be extracted using chemical solvents, enzymes, expeller presses, osmotic shock or ultrasonic shock waves.
The terms "might not" and all the coulda, woulda, shouldas, together with those coulda, woulda, shouldas being as yet unproven economically do not make this report identify a "likely" alternative, at this point.
Too much theoretical at this point, in spite of your hype and spin with "likely"; so do you have an investment in some firm you hope will profit from the idea?
California has hundreds of miles of Pacific Ocean coast, practically unlimited farmland, water, and sunshine for fuel algae production. And it's close to where the fuel is needed.
You don't really know California do you? I grew up there.
It does not have "unlimited farmland". In fact, since almost every naturally great acre of farmland in California is presently farmed (or in the path of development), other farmers seeking land have flooded the desert between Arizona and the urban areas of Southern California with Colorado river water. But, since it is not a natural process, with 100% irrigated farming on a totally flat plain, the land becomes poorer and more toxic every year (salt simply builds up).
Except for the Pacific Ocean water, usable water, is hotly contested across the state. Southern California has none. It gets all its usable water from far east at the Colorado River and from a canal that runs all the way from the Sacramento Valley to just north of San Diego. Of course the Northern half of the State thinks the Southern half is stealing more water than it is due, and Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico all think California gets more Colorado river water than it is due. Its not plentiful, its precious, every drop; and between the current landowners and water authorities every drop is allocated and accounted for. Anyone wanting to add to the "productive" use of water for farms in California is going to have to compete and contend with everyone else who already has their water rights established. So, water is not going to be cheap, and if this new idea expects to use more of the deserts of California for its farms, that water that is available will become even more expensive.
Now the lovely liberal "greens" in Massachusettes won't let anyone put wind farms off their pristine coast, so do you really think the Hollywierd crowd is going to let anyone force them to sail their sail boats and yuaghts through algae farms?? I don't think so, and they are certainly not going to let those farms anywhere near the beaches.
As they say: California Dreamin.
What we need are high-rise greenhouses where 100 acres of corn, etc. could be raised on a foot print as small as a baseball field.
Good news--Big Oil is investing in biodiesel. Looks like a winner and unwholesome profits forever.
No, they're lower. But fuel mileage suffers a bit, and some engines have problems with rubber seals swelling and the like.
Did you know that California has been below the national average for all cancer deaths for fifty years?
http://cancercontrolplanet.cancer.gov/atlas/timeall.jsp?ac=1
Click on above link and enter California in the box; try your own state.
You are behind the curve, modern thinking is that old oil from the ground is new CO2 and bad, but new oil from current crops doesn't have to be counted because it is from the CO2 presently in the air and emissions are a net zero.
I guess the actual measurements will have to be adjusted for this if they don't show a true reduction over time.
Thus, my tagline.
True, oil from the ground contains CO2 long ago 'sequestered.' What is the difference between that 'old' CO2 becoming new plant life vs having 'new' CO2 becoming new plant life? I agree that in the former case there is an aggregate increase in surface CO2 (as opposed to the Carbon being sequestered in the earth) compared with the latter case where the surface CO2 is constant. My question is, that if in the latter case the burning of current plant life will result in future plant life (surface sequestering of carbon) why is it such a stretch to not presume that the former case (where 'old' carbon is pulled out of the ground) will not follow the same carbon cycle and result in more plant life (surface sequestering)? If the 'Carbon' we pull out of the ground is 0.3% of the whole natural carbon cycle, we will have 0.3% more plant life. Much of this additional plant life will return the the soil. Is it really relevant that it is not deeper in the ground?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.