Fox News reported a few minutes ago that the wacko-greenies are against a

bio-diesel plant in San Francisco. What isthis all about? All they do is complain, whine and say they are against carbon based fuels, but yet the city, in order to save money, wants to build this plant these people are against it. They are like a 3 or 4 year old whining they want something, get it and it is the wrong color or wrong flavor. Even when there are efforts to do what they want , they still complain. What is it they want?

I am firmly convinced that bio-diesel does not and will not work. At the moment, the only reason it gets any funding at all is because it's a good way to secure votes in the midwest. If this country ever really wanted to get serious about biofuels, we'd drop the tariff on foreign biofuels and the good stuff from Brazil that's made with sugar (which works a whole lot better than the corn-based biodiesel).

 

I'm still looking for my electric car.

I also heard Rush Limbaugh say today that the Rain Forests are growing back faster than they are being destroyed. Talk about wacko

I also heard Rush Limbaugh say today that the Rain Forests are growing back faster than they are being destroyed. Talk about wacko

 

Why? Did you see the article in the NY Times earlier this year that referred to this?

Bio diesel will never work. It costs so much more to manufacture and the actual energy it creates vs what you put in is only a fraction of what actual diesel can produce.

I am firmly convinced that bio-diesel does not and will not work. At the moment, the only reason it gets any funding at all is because it's a good way to secure votes in the midwest. If this country ever really wanted to get serious about biofuels, we'd drop the tariff on foreign biofuels and the good stuff from Brazil that's made with sugar (which works a whole lot better than the corn-based biodiesel).

 

I'm still looking for my electric car.

 

 

I think you are confusing biodiesel with ethanol... Biodiesel is typically not made from corn, ethanol is. Sugar cane and switchgrass ethanol are also way too much input for little output.

 

Biodiesel feedstock is usually made from soybean oil, rapeseed oil (canola), or animal fats.

Shouldn't they just be called Environmentalists Against Humans?

^ I sure am. Copious apologies.

^ I sure am. Copious apologies.

 

:thumb:

 

No worries. I agree with you if you are referring to ethanol not being the bridge though.

Why? Did you see the article in the NY Times earlier this year that referred to this?

 

I would like to...do you have a link?

I didn't see the Fox News report on this. Are we sure it was "environmentalists" and not just garden variety liberal protesters? I ask this because I haven't read a lot of environmental complaints, but I have heard a lot of economic complaints about its effect on the poor. Like ethanol, as production increases, it drives up the price of food since it's reducing availability. Besides, does anyone know of the environmental downside to biodiesel? Is it just not green enough?

I would like to...do you have a link?

 

No but it was back around the time Obama took office.

Bio diesel will never work. It costs so much more to manufacture and the actual energy it creates vs what you put in is only a fraction of what actual diesel can produce.

 

Again, I think you are referring to ethanol as well...

 

It already does actually work. The military has been using biodiesel blended with petro diesel for years.

 

Biodiesel actually uses less fossil fuel in production for the output yields it produces.

 

The fuel equivalent of the energy required for processing, the yield of fuel from raw oil, the return on cultivating food, and the relative cost of biodiesel versus petrodiesel. A 1998 joint study by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) traced many of the various costs involved in the production of biodiesel and found that overall, it yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil fuel energy consumed. That measure is referred to as the energy yield. A comparison to petroleum diesel, petroleum gasoline and bioethanol using the USDA numbers can be found at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture website In the comparison petroleum diesel fuel is found to have a 0.843 energy yield, along with 0.805 for petroleum gasoline, and 1.34 for bioethanol. The 1998 study used soybean oil primarily as the base oil to calculate the energy yields. It is conceivable that higher oil yielding crops could increase the energy yield of biodiesel.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703360.html

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17406/

I didn't see the Fox News report on this. Are we sure it was "environmentalists" and not just garden variety liberal protesters? I ask this because I haven't read a lot of environmental complaints, but I have heard a lot of economic complaints about its effect on the poor. Like ethanol, as production increases, it drives up the price of food since it's reducing availability. Besides, does anyone know of the environmental downside to biodiesel? Is it just not green enough?

 

One of the environmental downsides is a slight increase in NOx production, which can be a factor in increased smog.

 

EPA tests show that using B100 instead of conventional diesel results in 10 percent higher emissions of oxides of nitrogen. It's important to note that more NOx doesn't always result in more smog: smog formation is also affected by the amount of sunlight as well as the presence of other pollutants including reactive organic compounds. But as more cities struggle with air quality issues, they have increasingly focused on lowering NOx as a way to combat higher levels of smog. Future diesel engine emission controls may address the NOx problem, but there's no way around it: biodiesel contributes disproportionately to the NOx problem and, under some conditions, to more smog.

 

 

However the many environmental positives far outweigh that small downside. Burning biodiesel instead of petro diesel, per the EPA, reduces CO output by 40+%, Hydrocarbons reduced by more than 60%, Particulates by more than 40%. DOE says CO2 output is reduced by nearly 80%.

 

One other downside is the gel point of Biodiesel. It will begin to gel at about 34 degrees F.

One of the environmental downsides is a slight increase in NOx production, which can be a factor in increased smog. However the many environmental positives far outweigh that small downside. Burning biodiesel instead of petro diesel, per the EPA, reduces CO output by 40+%, Hydrocarbons reduced by more than 60%, Particulates by more than 40%. DOE says CO2 output is reduced by nearly 80%.

 

One other downside is the gel point of Biodiesel. It will begin to gel at about 34 degrees F.

 

So the problem does seem to be that it isn't green enough. The far left wants near elimination of greenhouse gases... this only cuts it by 80%. There are a lot of people out there who believe a RADICAL shift in energy policy is necessary. I guess Fox News found them.