Bio-Diesel maybe not so good?

[TRLRTRSH]

Interesting reading



Rapeseed biofuel ‘produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol’



Rapeseed biofuel ‘produces more greenhouse gas than oil or petrol’ - Times Online





“Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to”

 

[TRLRTRSH]

72 views and not one thought on the study? Maybe Bio-diesel is not good for the environment afterall?

 

[MHagen]

72 views and not one thought on the study? Maybe Bio-diesel is not good for the environment afterall?

There are biased studys all over the internet one way or the other on the subject. The times online is not even reputable enough to make it worth arguing. Even if this study were true the positives far outweigh the negatives anyway. More greenhouse gases were released from a single eruption from mount st hellens than all the vehicles in history combined. The exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (a poisonous gas) from biodiesel were 50 percent lower than carbon monoxide emissions from diesel. Breathing particulate matter has been shown to be a human health hazard. The exhaust emissions of particulate matter from biodiesel were 30 percent lower than overall particulate matter emissions from diesel. The exhaust emissions of total hydrocarbons (a contributing factor in the localized formation of smog and ozone) were 93 percent lower for biodiesel than diesel fuel. Within 28 days, pure biodiesel degrades 85 to 88 percent in water. 100% Biodiesel is also less toxic than table salt. How about the fact that biodiesel is made in the usa. These all sound like pretty good things to me. If you want to stir the pot in favor of big oil go ahead an keep responding to your own posts.



:-{}

 

[tgordon]

Ok, you want thoughts.



1. They need to do some research and get the facts stright in the article. They are jumping around and using terms interchangeable. Along with the fact that biodiesel and ethanol have differant emmisions and they are being lumped into the same catagory, just like gasoline and diesel fuel.



2. Refer back to issue 53, page 7, or go to http://webpages.charter.net/lmarz/emissions.html



With the later of the two in mind I have a hard time beliveing anything said in an article where diesel and gasoline, or I mean ethanol and biodiesel are lumped together into one group.



Thought: Figure never lie, but liers always figure

 

[TRLRTRSH]

Social discourse

Mhagen ”If you want to stir the pot in favor of big oil go ahead an keep responding to your own posts. ”



Don’t get you panties in a bunch, I have no ties to big oil!:-laf:-laf



Stir the pot? Not at all, I do not use Bio because out here in the desert it's not available. My reason was to learn more about it. Figured you guys who do use would have some constructive words about the article. Guess I hit an exposed nerve on this subject. If you have no desire to hold an educated, adult social discourse on the article, so be it. I'll check back and see but if not we'll let this thread dieBut my questions are:

1. Are the environmentalists pushing Bio because it is less polluting the Dino? or

2. Making the existing petroleum base last longer?

 

[JoeBioDiesel]

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, which I am not, this is nothing more than a mouthpiece article for big oil, taking a shot at Biodiesel and Alternative Fuels. This is very old news and written in a way to make it sound like something that it's not. The emissions that they're referring to is NOx emissions (NO, NO2, NO3) that is formed under high combustion chamber temps. The tiny increases that you normally see with Biodiesel (from 100ppm to 102ppm on my car during cruise) can very easily be compensated for by increasing EGR gasses, or retarding injection timing by a degree (1. 5 degrees on my '99 VW TDI). For a long time these increases were disputed because they are small enough to be camouflaged by normal margins of error in dyno testing. The latest Diesels with NOx catalysts that virtually eliminate that gas emission from the tailpipe, so the 2% increase out of the combustion chamber doesn't mean anything. Tailpipe emissions between the 2 fuels on engines equipped with modern exhaust systems is identical, at least in terms of NOx. Soot is much lower with Biodiesel.



Joe

 

[cj hall]

1. Are the environmentalists pushing Bio because it is less polluting the Dino? or

2. Making the existing petroleum base last longer





ok heres what I think



the environmentalists only want to shut all engines down, its not just diesels

the govt wants the people to burn an alt fuel as long as the refinerys and big oil are in control. this gives them the power they need,and the money. big oil funds this. also they only want you to burn biodiesel or the corn based fuel. do you see the conection here you need the refinerys to make this stuff. any company pushing for biodiesel is in it for tax reasons.

less or more polluting they really dont care. . it only makes them feel good its not helping anything. take the new fuel its cleaner but the engine oil is so sooted up that it has to be changed more is this helping the enviroment?



i dont think the answer is biodiesel but it sure is not working the way it is unless you own a refinery .



i am not sure the answer is here yet. but getting out and trying new things this might lead to the answer.



if biodiesel is that good why is it so hard to find and why does it cost more you dont have to drill for it you grow it.

 

[MMcCallie]

Weren't results for rapeseed oil published years ago? Hopefully the majorty of the readers of this article are well informed enough to know that there are cleaner sources for biodiesel. Remember, this is media, only concerned with sales and as someone else commented already, biased.



I've been running 100% soybean oil. My complaints are that biodiesel it is too expensive, hard to find, and it smells funny, though better than old #2. So many independent variables, i'm sure we can expect many more controlled experiments in the future. Some of us will just stay ahead of the game by doing good now because we can.



I didn't read all of the comments but i didn't see anyone mentioning the reduction of NOx thanks to water injection. There is always a solution and another way. I think biofuel, in the immediate future, is that other, better way.

 

[TRLRTRSH]

Thanks guys, I admit I know nothing about Bio Diesel, the above is what I was looking for!

 

[RyanStewart]

I think a lot of it depends on what crop is used to make biodiesel. I know palm oil biodiesel is supposed to be terrible for the environment as thousands of acres of jungle have to be torched to make it. There was some controversy about this as a lot of the biodiesel in Europe was make from palm oil. I donno about any of the other crops though.