Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Uncledave
Some of the emerging algae-based biofuels processes seem encouraging to me, but growing corn or palm oil for this purpose is a path I think we'll regret.

Is there a coherent reason for your aversion? Why is burning crops for fuel bizarre? The diesel engine was originally designed to run on peanut and corn oil, so its certainly not something new.

The only objections in this article are the usual enviro-wacko BS; killing rainforests, starving the poor, CO2 causing global warming.

Diesel engines running biodiesel is one of the only workable energy solution to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and when Honda releases their diesels in the US, I'll be first in line to get one. They're more efficient, faster, and can run on fuel that doesn't come from terrorist countries.

Honda Diesel Sets New World Records

8 posted on 03/30/2007 6:37:03 AM PDT by GunRunner (Rudy 2008, because conservatives can't win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: GunRunner
Diesel engines running biodiesel is one of the only workable energy solution to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and when Honda releases their diesels in the US, I'll be first in line to get one. They're more efficient, faster, and can run on fuel that doesn't come from terrorist countries.

Biodiesel has the same problems as ethanol; we don't have enough arable land to grow enough crops for it.

We're better off throwing our R&D into electric powered cars and accordingly upgrade the power grid to support that (difficult, but physically possible, whereas biomass fuel from crops isn't).
12 posted on 03/30/2007 6:41:26 AM PDT by JamesP81 (Eph 6:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: GunRunner
Diesel engines running biodiesel is one of the only workable energy solution to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and when Honda releases their diesels in the US, I'll be first in line to get one. They're more efficient, faster, and can run on fuel that doesn't come from terrorist countries.

Just plain ain't so. It takes fossil energy to produce biofuels. Fertilizer (Haber process - natural gas) Tractors (diesel) harvesters (diesel) transportation (diesel) pressing (electricity coal 50+% rest hydro, nuc) distillation (fuel oil or natural gas). What is critical is the energy balance in these processes. If they use as much energy (on according to some studies more) fossil energy than they produce, then they INCREASE dependence on foreign oil.

They're a fraud all right, but not for the reasons given in the article. They're a fraud because they're designed to transfer wealth (mandatory ethanol usage) from the general public to the ethanol producers and farmers at an increased dependence on foreign oil.

19 posted on 03/30/2007 6:45:56 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: GunRunner
Is there a coherent reason for your aversion? Why is burning crops for fuel bizarre? The diesel engine was originally designed to run on peanut and corn oil, so its certainly not something new.

Original peanut oil engine designs did not envision the requirements of the worldwide market for transportation fuels.

I'm averted to the idea of burning food for fuel because I don't like the idea of food pricing competing with other uses. The factors of food demand and costs (costs of farming and processing/distribution) generate food prices. But I have an ethical problem bidding up the price of food based on demand that does not involve *eating* the food, when it's on this kind of scale.

I've always been taught to not waste food and burning it in a Honda is a waste to me. Let's drill for more oil for that purpose until there's better options available.

26 posted on 03/30/2007 6:52:52 AM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: GunRunner

The only objections in this article are the usual enviro-wacko BS; killing rainforests, starving the poor,

If you think starving the poor so you can feel good about driving your car is a good idea then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.


35 posted on 03/30/2007 7:03:42 AM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: GunRunner
Does that Accord come with one of Honda's self-destructing transmissions or a decent one? If its decent, sign me up.

But it should be noted that the fuel economy ratings they give are in UK gallons, not US. Silly unit conversions. Still better efficiency than my Taurus, which gets around 645,120 rods to the hogshead on the highway.

I do think this looks better, though, and gets better mileage yet, IF they would put it into production...

59 posted on 03/30/2007 7:24:53 AM PDT by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: GunRunner

Actually, the diesel engine was originally meant to run on coal dust, according to my engineering texts


148 posted on 03/30/2007 9:58:03 AM PDT by Don W ("Well Done" is far better to hear than "Well Said". (Samuel Clemens))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson