Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 19:35:48 -0400
Reply-To: tmiller <tmiller@VCMAILS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: tmiller <tmiller@VCMAILS.COM>
Subject: Re: Diesels on NPR this morning
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.58.0405121406380.15025@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
check out these sites.
www.uidaho.edu/bae/biodiesel/
www.dancingrabbit.org/biodiesel/
www.biodieselnow.com/
There are many others.
Jonathan Farrugia wrote:
>i've done a bit of research on this topic recently. i have as of yet
>after pages and pages of reading not been able to find a reference that
>says that burning "cooking oil" has really bad emissions. i have found a fair
>amount of material that supports the claim that burning "raw plant oil" is
>not clean and is detrimental to equipment. from what i have read "raw
>plant oil" is considered to be the oil that comes directly from the first
>pressing process. cooking oil is refined past that in most parts of the
>world. if anyone has information in reguards to this i would be very
>interested to know about it.
>
>jonathan
>
>On Wed, 12 May 2004, Steven Dodson wrote:
>
>
>
>>If you read up on refining biodiesel, you'll find that the byproduct is
>>simply a biodegradable vegetable glycerin.
>>This glycerin can be composted and may serve as a fertilizer for the plants
>>grown to produce the next batch of fuel. The glycerin can also be used to
>>make soaps. As far as power plants burning biological material, "biological
>>material" or "renewable fuels" can mean anything. Raw vegetable oil is not
>>very clean when burned, contrary to the "greasels" out there. Same with
>>burning straight crude vs refined petroleum. Once the vegetable oil is
>>transesterified (refined), it is very clean burning and the byproduct is
>>inert. You won't get much better than that until we're electrolyzing
>>hydrogen from water using solar power. It's pretty expensive to run an
>>economy on subsidized agriculture. Biodiesel is a good start and much better
>>than the Bush plan to make hydrogen from petroleum. My goal is to not have
>>any gas consuming vehicles by this time next year.
>>
>>-Steven Dodson
>>Kneeland, CA
>>"Inga" the 87 Syncro
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 23:52:53 -0400
>>From: Joy Hecht <jhecht@ALUM.MIT.EDU>
>>Subject: Re: Diesels on NPR this morning
>>
>>There is a question, though, about what kind of biological material is used
>>to make the fuel. I don't know how auto fuel is made, but with power plants
>>that burn biological material, it's not clear that they are that much better
>>than petroleum. They put out GHG emissions, and if the fuel isn't grown
>>organically, its cultivation generates a lot of water pollution from ag
>>runoff. Is the biological matter used to make biodiesel the waste from some
>>other ag process or grown specifically for fuel? In the former case, what
>>is now done with that waste. If it's excess nutrients that we've found a
>>new use for, great. But if it was returned to the soil to enrich it for
>>future agriculture, then we'll have to replace it. If it was grown just for
>>making fuel, then how? Growing biofuels organically is pretty expensive.
>>
>>All of which isn't to say that they aren't a good idea, just that they may
>>not be financially viable, and they also may not be environmentally
>>preferable to the alternatives.
>>
>>Joy
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
|