Date:         Sat, 15 May 2004 17:51:02 -0700
Reply-To:     Mad and Ed <MadEd@GTE.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Mad and Ed <MadEd@GTE.NET>
Subject:      Re: Diesels on NPR this morning
Comments: To: Al Knoll <al_knoll@PACBELL.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <000601c43a76$516d8360$6700a8c0@pacbell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

> E. Lowe mentioned:
>
> The ability to use renewable  bio
> fuels and thus contribute zero to global warming tips the balance.
> Biofuels don't have to come from subsidized soybeans.
>
> So I tossed in my tinke-tinke:
>
> Seems to me the global war-ming is caused by excess greenhouse gases,
> CO2
> being the most significant.  Diesel cycle engines produce CO2 as an
> exhaust
> component in approximately the same quantity per stroke regardless of
> the
> fuel source D1,D2, McDooDoo or Chik-fil-a or soybean oil.  I fail to
> understand (my usual excuse) how using "organic" "free range" "home
> grown"
> oil sources would significantly affect the CO2 fraction of the exhaust
> gas.
>
> pensioner

This is because the CO2 is recycled.  It was not previously sequestered
and released by burning.   The plant or soybeans or other biological
sources (algae, bacteria, pork rinds) remove carbon from the air, it
becomes fuel, goes back out to the air-- its' a wash.   Fossil fuels
burning releases CO2 from millions of years ago, back when global
warming was the fashion.    Also, diesels do produce less CO2 "per
stroke" (than comparable gasoline engines)  because they are seriously
oversupplied with air on a "per stroke" basis.  So, yes-- diesels do
make CO2 out the tailpipe-- but if it is from biodiesel, "home grown"
as you say,  it does not contribute to global warming in the way that
petro diesel does.

Also hoping to one day be a "pensioner"

Edward Lowe
Seattle, WA
82 Westy Diesel upgraded to 1.9lt. Turbo
85 Golf Diesel 1.6lt NA
92 Cabrio 1.8lt gas
97 Passat Tdi