Slashdot Mirror

It's also worth noting that diesel requires less refining, and can be made from things other than petroleum.

There's a big difference between "biodiesel" and "waste vegetable oil" systems. Biodiesel is probably not what your TDI is rated for; rather they do not want you running WVO in it.

I have a 1996 Jetta TDI with a Greasecar conversion kit in it, and true 'nuff it does smell like french fries when going down the street running on veggie. However, another poster (an AC) was talking about running it on Chinese restaurant oil. To him/her I say "Nay!" Do not use that stuff. Use the oils from an Italian pizzeria. The oil that comes from there is barely used before being discarded.

With the proper filtration, preferably a centrifuge, you can get the WVO practically particulate free. However, do not try this on a vehicle under warranty; I take no responsibility. I just know that mine runs fine on WVO.

And why electricity instead of fossil fuels?

While I agree with your rant pitting electricity against fossil fuels, there are other compression ignition- and spark ignition- compatible fuels that are made from plant-based (hence renewable) resources.

I don't advocate using food crops for fuel, but cellulosic ethanol would be better than gasoline.

My hope is for nuclear energy based on integral fast breeder reactors. Clean, efficient, and the waste is 'hot' for a tiny fraction of our current wasteful once-through designs.

False. Gasoline Jetta versus Diesel Jetta (or Golf, or Passat, or Beetle) == ~60% better MPG.

False yourself. Let's first make sure to compare equivalents. Automatics sell better than manuals, so let's go with automatics in both cases. For the diesel, that leaves one choice: the 4cyl, 2l turbocharged 3MODE CLKUP. There are two possible gasoline competitors: the 4cyl, 2l premium gasoline turbocharged 3MODE CLKUP, and the 5cl, 2.5L regular gasoline 3MODE CLKUP. The diesel makes 140 horsepower. The 5cl makes 170 horsepower; I can't locate the hp for the 4cl. So let's go with the 5cl, regular gasoline one. That's a combined mileage of 33 versus a combined mileage of 25. This means that the diesel engine is 32% more fuel efficient on a per-gallon basis than the gasoline engine. But the diesel engine also has only 82% as much horsepower. Subtracting for the horsepower difference, 25% is about right.

>>>half of which is simply due to the denser fuel.

Jeez. False again. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO USE GOOGLE???

Geez, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT A CURSORY SEARCH ISN'T THE SAME AS KNOWING WHAT THE F*** YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? Diesel doesn't have a single energy density. There are different blends sold in different places and even variation at different times of year. Hence my use of a (somewhat generous) "about half" term.

The US has the production capacity of over 2.5Billion gallons a year of BioDiesel with another half billion gallons a year coming online in the next year.

So, if you pay attention, you are frustrated, because it doesn't seem to be coming fast enough, and if you go away for a few years and come back, you don't notice the differences, because they are baked into the system by then.

An African grey parrot, we're probably going to be adopting another one. He's between 15 and 17 in age.

First up you're wrong regarding it takes more to refine diesel, par the DOE: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html#How%20used
Based on this you can't get a single product from a barrel, while your logic is semi-correct in that if we only refined diesel we'd need to import more oil, we can easily offset that by using any number of renewable crops -- several of which have no human consumption traits, or are not frequently used as food oil -- soy and RME come to mind, followed by Jathropa and Hemp.

Secondly, the Biodiesel Board has something to say regarding emissions with just a 20% blend of renewable fuel in the mainstream: http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.PDF

I don't really care how you slice it, when you look at a 2.0L Gasoline VW beetle that gets 28/32 and the 1.9L Diesel Beetle that gets 44/51, it's hard to say that the lightly higher NOx content is going to be critical given that the Diesel goes 220mi farther *on the same number of gallons* as the gasoline vehicle.

I'd love to take a look at your papers. You also dismiss condo/townhome owners, Home Owner's Associations that can regulate such things as solar panels or other electrical modifications to your home (such extremes do exist), and the fact that no builder is going to start incorporating it into the home building process as "main stream." On the one hand, I liked the idea of converting our old 89 Golf into an EV, but then I realized that I'd have to throw a 50ft cord from the balcony to the parking spot in front of the building -- assuming I could land that spot every time I come home -- to charge it, and likely deal with vandalism/stolen power in the process (happened before when I was charging the battery on the same car). The end result was, it's just not worth the effort and the savings aren't worthwhile with a midsized sedan getting 41+ economy on a regular basis off more to less vegetable oil.

In 50 years, I fully expect us to be on something electric. For the next 10-15 I would like to see us moving towards diesel powered technologies to drop the number of gallons of oil we use, for the average person a diesel option is $2k more a Hybrid is $4k extra and a pure EV is around $15k more as an option. If You can get a 4x4 SUV with 30 to 40MPG economy with a clean exhaust for $22k, why get the electric for $35k? The problem is neither are truly available right now. I drive more highway than city, and until EVs make sense in that kind of environment (and that applies to about 90% of southern car owners), they won't be popular.

One last thought, your concept is that you "never have to go" to the "inconvenience" of the gas station could hurt those small store owners. Fuel has never been profitable, the soda pop and candy bar were. While I have my own issues with such foods, I think that it's a bad idea to keep isolating society (the iPod's done enough damage) by never forcing social interaction with rituals like refueling your vehicle or grocery shopping.

Biodiesel has reduced emissions (warning: PDF) compared to dino-diesel for every category of pollutant except NOx (oxides of nitrogen).

So... cleaner than the current standard. But certainly not cleaner than, say, hydro-electricity.

Folks... if you're burning a hydrocarbon, no matter where you get it from it ain't clean unless you manage to sequester ALL THE EMISSIONS. (Let me know when you pull that off.)

Disclosure: I drive a standard vehicle and heat with natural gas. I just get tired of people repeating tired old nonsense. Burning hydro-carbons is NOT CLEAN.

Biodiesel has reduced emissions (warning: PDF) compared to dino-diesel for every category of pollutant except NOx (oxides of nitrogen).

I was going to just reply to this and point out the inaccuracy, but the more I read the more I started to wonder if you were just pulling all of this out of your ass.

The loss in fuel economy is more likely a difference in LSD versus ULSD. LSD has 140,000 BTUs, and the ULSD that the US changed to last year is 130,000 BTUs. I was sure that I had read that Bio was 138,000, but the article linked below says 130,000, the same as ULSD. The numbers that I have heard is about .5 to 1 mpg loss for OTR trucks running ULSD compared to LSD. Which is pretty significant when you are starting at 7 mpg.

I got my energy information from here PDF warning.

Are the fuel system bushings next to the muffler bearings? Biodiesel attacks natural rubber. It will cause it to swell and start to leak. Nobody has used natural rubber in fuel systems since the mid 90s, and it's a reasonably inexpensive one time fix.

Sure it is an easy one time fix, but something that needs to be addressed. There are plenty of Diesel cars produced from before the mid 90's that are still on the road. VW made some very competent Diesel powered cars starting quite a bit earlier then that. But leaking diesel has a few other problems then splashing onto the exhaust. Diesel on the road is almost like oil on the road. It can reduce traction significantly and resurface after a rain to cause a potential risk that could be life threatening. You need to check and change the seals well before someone's life could be in danger.

Pure bio is a good medium for growing algae. If you've been running a marine diesel you are familiar with biocides. If your car sits for long periods, it should be treated. (just like with gasoline) Diesel has always had moisture and algae concerns. Condensation in the fuel tank is a concern if the vehicle sits for long periods, and with water comes algae. It's no more of a concern, or hassle, than putting a fuel stabilizer in gasoline that is going to sit for several months.

Yep, I'm aware of biocides. But unfortunately, it is very difficult to remove or neutralize water mixed in with bio compared to normal diesel. It is almost impossible to use chemical additives with biodiesel for some reason. It seems that the best way to remove excess moisture is to actually heat it to 90 degrees and let the moisture evaporate. Most trucks have fuel heaters in them that sort of do this with the return fuel but I'm not sure cars do.

You should check again, most are allowing B5 now in older engines now. Although the 2007 emission changes threw a wrench in that. 2007/2008 engines are NOT certified to run Bio due to the new emission equipment. I haven't researched it in depth, but I believe it is related to the new particulate traps.

Actually, I think most of them are standing by B20 Now. But lets put things into perspective, we aren't talking about a small amount mixed with petrol diesel in relation to my post, we are talking about replacing petrol diesel completely which makes your 5% claim outside the scope of this point. If you goto Biodeisel.comm they have some guides concerning warranties and biodiesel. And yes, they are in support of using biodiesel.

You have a reference for this? OTR firms are not using Biodiesel because of availability and quality control issues. If Flying J and Pilot would start carrying it, the OTR companies would start using it. They're just looking for a guarantee of consistency. They don't want to buy Bio that Bubba has brewed in his garage, they have a $100k plus asset that needs to roll everyday to hit it's 100-150k miles per year.

No, I don't have a reference. All I can do is offer what I have heard with discussio

I was going to just reply to this and point out the inaccuracy, but the more I read the more I started to wonder if you were just pulling all of this out of your ass.

The loss in fuel economy is more likely a difference in LSD versus ULSD. LSD has 140,000 BTUs, and the ULSD that the US changed to last year is 130,000 BTUs. I was sure that I had read that Bio was 138,000, but the article linked below says 130,000, the same as ULSD. The numbers that I have heard is about .5 to 1 mpg loss for OTR trucks running ULSD compared to LSD. Which is pretty significant when you are starting at 7 mpg.

I got my energy information from here PDF warning.

Are the fuel system bushings next to the muffler bearings? Biodiesel attacks natural rubber. It will cause it to swell and start to leak. Nobody has used natural rubber in fuel systems since the mid 90s, and it's a reasonably inexpensive one time fix.

Sure it is an easy one time fix, but something that needs to be addressed. There are plenty of Diesel cars produced from before the mid 90's that are still on the road. VW made some very competent Diesel powered cars starting quite a bit earlier then that. But leaking diesel has a few other problems then splashing onto the exhaust. Diesel on the road is almost like oil on the road. It can reduce traction significantly and resurface after a rain to cause a potential risk that could be life threatening. You need to check and change the seals well before someone's life could be in danger.

Pure bio is a good medium for growing algae. If you've been running a marine diesel you are familiar with biocides. If your car sits for long periods, it should be treated. (just like with gasoline) Diesel has always had moisture and algae concerns. Condensation in the fuel tank is a concern if the vehicle sits for long periods, and with water comes algae. It's no more of a concern, or hassle, than putting a fuel stabilizer in gasoline that is going to sit for several months.

Yep, I'm aware of biocides. But unfortunately, it is very difficult to remove or neutralize water mixed in with bio compared to normal diesel. It is almost impossible to use chemical additives with biodiesel for some reason. It seems that the best way to remove excess moisture is to actually heat it to 90 degrees and let the moisture evaporate. Most trucks have fuel heaters in them that sort of do this with the return fuel but I'm not sure cars do.

You should check again, most are allowing B5 now in older engines now. Although the 2007 emission changes threw a wrench in that. 2007/2008 engines are NOT certified to run Bio due to the new emission equipment. I haven't researched it in depth, but I believe it is related to the new particulate traps.

Actually, I think most of them are standing by B20 Now. But lets put things into perspective, we aren't talking about a small amount mixed with petrol diesel in relation to my post, we are talking about replacing petrol diesel completely which makes your 5% claim outside the scope of this point. If you goto Biodeisel.comm they have some guides concerning warranties and biodiesel. And yes, they are in support of using biodiesel.

You have a reference for this? OTR firms are not using Biodiesel because of availability and quality control issues. If Flying J and Pilot would start carrying it, the OTR companies would start using it. They're just looking for a guarantee of consistency. They don't want to buy Bio that Bubba has brewed in his garage, they have a $100k plus asset that needs to roll everyday to hit it's 100-150k miles per year.

No, I don't have a reference. All I can do is offer what I have heard with discussio

It appears that our sources for efficiency are in a difference of opinion. My source is here

I already took into account the differences in low sulfur content and such when I averaged that out. It is difficult to find a consumer grade fuel that doesn't already have the upper cylinder lubricants added (which is sometimes a 5% biodiesel additive at the pump). When taking commercial grade fuels into consideration, the low sulfur content makes more of a difference but the scale of the fuel system often makes chemical additives more efficient the a biodiesel. I'm talking about class 8 trucks that hold 200 or more gallons of fuel and get 5-7 miles per gallon compared to the 20-40 a consumer truck or car might get. I suppose that 2 MPG difference on 40 MPG wouldn't be as noticeable as 6MPH averaging 3000 to 3500 miles a week for 48 weeks a year (roughly 28,000 gallons a year). This is especially true when I just notices that 2 percent of 40 isn't close to 2. It is more like 8 tenths of a gallon which is a lot less noticeable. But back to the large scale operations, a 2% reduction at 6MPG is around .12 miles per gallon. Take that at an average of 3500 miles a week and there is around 570 gallons a year. At $5.00/gallon, that comes around to almost $2,850 a year. Now consider that times 50 or 500 trucks ($142,500-$1,425,000 difference a year). Sure, I exaggerated to a worst case scenario with the 3500 miles per week but team trucks run 6000-7000/week which would keep that average up. Most trucking operations I have heard of are attempting to steer clear of it unless they are getting a government kick back or something.

There are fuel filters that can handle bio-diesel. You just have to make sure that you have one or risk the problems I mentioned. The pump problems are actually more to do with the filter breaking down and getting jammed in the pump then it is the pump itself breaking. It might be very well that the VW already has a filter capable of handling biodieselm I don't know. If it doesn't, it is something to look out for.

I suggest keeping track of millage and how much fuel is put in to get a real mpg average and then watch for deviations from that. It isn't hard to keep a small note book and just jot down the 4 digits of the mileage with the amount of fuel added and maybe a date. It would be nice if there was a real record of before to compare it with but I doubt the differences will make anything noticeable on a consumer car unless there are fuel filter problems which can be caught by paying attention like that.

That is quite simply not true for all (or even most) biofuel production. My knowledge is specifically with making biodiesel from Canola and Algae in the NW United States. There are several farms that are able to produce significantly more than the amount of biodiesel fuel they use on the entire farm (enough to run all of their equipment), by growing Canola on a small portion of their land. In many areas the Canola will grow without any petroleum fertilizer, and without water and the biodiesel plants use very little electricity (generating all of the power for the plant by burning a small amount of the fuel produced in a generator is possible). So where is all this petroleum that is supposedly being used to make biofuels (which cost less to make then petroleum fuels) coming from, and who is paying for it?
There were several scientifically flawed studies Pimentel and Patzek that I think are the sources you are basing your statements on. If you search you will find several sources pointing out the flaws in these articles. Here is one: http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/pressreleases/gen/20050721_pimentel_response.pdf

Pimentel and Patzek are well respected? Maybe in the petro and bug worlds, but in the biofuel world? Hardly. They are well known for self-referential justification of their "facts" and citing old data (again, usually their own papers from long ago). All you have to do is read this paper http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/etha nol/08_22_01b.htm by Michael Graboski: Research Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, Colorado School of Mines. And that's a kind review of Pimentel/Patzek. It's #1 if you google 'Pimentel ethanol'

Keep googling and you can find more about their dislike of biodiesel and any other non-biomass biofuel. Like this one http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/pressreleases/g en/20050721_pimentel_response.pdf about biodiesel. Is the source of the rebuttal (the National Biodiesel Board) biased? Read the reasoning behind the disagreement with Pimentel/Patzek and make up your own mind.

Where do you get the idea that running on soybean oil (or biodiesel) in general produces "zero net pollution"? Running on that still produces pollution and even the guys at http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/ emissions.pdf acknowledge there's still pollution, just a reduction compared w/regular diesel in most cases.

VW's also have terrible long term reliability and your warranty is only valid if you run on no more than 5% biodiesel (B5). See http://media.vw.com/article_display.cfm?article_id =9561. Unfortunately the FAQ that went into more detail on vw.com is gone now.

In case you don't *trust me on this*...

Here's the info straight from the source...

http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/definitions/def ault.shtm/

Single quote from that page... Biodiesel is not the same thing as raw vegetable oil.

I had no idea of this prior to reading a bunch of sites concerning biodiesel...that while the government has licensed biodiesel as a 'legal' fuel for an automobile....vegetable oil is not. So they are free to make whatever laws to prohibit use...which are always fines. Blah.

"Raw vegetable oil cannot meet biodiesel fuel specifications, it is not registered with the EPA, and it is not a legal motor fuel." - National Biodiesel Board

I agree with those that have said that this shouldn't matter and people should be allowed to use it. But since it doesn't put any cash into the hands of big industry...that won't happen.

Biodiesel: [...] it only works well in moderate or tropical climates. Not only is a diesel engine difficult to start in the winter because batteries don't operate efficiently in the cold, diesel fuel has a tendency to 'gell', or solidify. I haven't had enough experience with biodiesel to know how it reacts to the cold, but here in Minnesota, there was talk about it 5 years ago and nobody's heard about it since. My guess is that it gells at a much warmer temperature than fossil diesel due to the lack of sulphur, or the abundance of wax, or both.

While perhaps not an "expert", I have talked to quite a few people [informally] about the particular problem of cold weather use of biodiesel, and I suspect a couple things:

1. Sufficient research to solve the cold weather problem has not yet been done in - or at least not in an organized fashion by a mega-corp.
2. The problem is tractable to the same methods that are used with petro-diesel currently: additives of lighter [more highly refined] fuels [or fuel-derived substances.
3. There is a potential - give some research funding and some time - for a general solution that involves blends of bio-based alcohols and oils
4. It is possible to blend bio-diesel with petro products - this is particularly useful using e.g. bio-diesel in a big truck engine in MN in January.

In general, the temperature based problems of bio-diesel are identical with the temperature-based problems of petro-diesel - it's just that with bio-diesel the problems occur at higher temps. These problems are well-understood, and quite tractable, I believe. A quick Google search shows that a number of people are already thinking about / working on it, including e.g. biodiesel.org

A Look Back at the US Department of Energy's Aquatic Species Program (See also USDOE Renewable Diesel Fuel and National Biodiesel Board Reports Search)

It's surprising that this works, but it does. More here -> http://www.biodiesel.org/ .

If your car is sufficiently old, the rubber parts that come into contact with the diesel fuel will degrade when they come in contact with vegetable oil (or a methyl ester like biodiesel). Newer diesels with synthetic rubber parts don't generally have this problem.

You also need to worry about starting in cold weather, as biodiesel becomes a solid at a higher temperature than traditional diesel fuel. There are a number of ways to deal with this (insulated/heated fuel lines, "glow plug" spark plugs, etc.).

first off I think BD is really cool and is definitely a better alternative than ethanol.

As far as fewer emissions, that is a simplification although it's mostly true. B100-burning engines generally produce more NOx than petro-diesel engines. This may be improved by some of the new diesel engine tech coming up but I don't know for sure. The best NOx decreases come with the BD blends (like B20) or B100+additives, but that isn't quite as cool as 100% BD. After all it's really 80% petro. Overall BD emissions are better but not universally better. Here's a nice chart (warning: PDF).

Also, ethanol technically can come from other sources than corn, it just isn't being made that way in the US. Brazil makes most (all) of theirs from sugar cane. Politics and lobbying are the only things keeping corn up front. Witness the recent sugar squabbles between the US and Mexico.

The biggest pain using BD here in MN is the low cloud point on the stuff. I'd have to hook up some kind of greasecar-style heater deal to be able to burn b100 here when it's around or below freezing (i.e. october-april). It would be great right now, though, with our 100 degree afternoons.

ASTM already has standards for a 20% blend.

Go to Biodiesel.org's Fact sheets and have look for yourself. If you were to use 100% biodiesel, some of your quoted concerns would need to be addressed. Not that big a deal- just need to replace pure rubber for fuel lines, check and replace fuel filters for diesels that have already been in service, and preheat/keep warm any diesel driven vehicles if it gets really cold outside.

What's really spiffy is the possibility that small kits of these could be used right on the farm to make more self-sufficient farming possible for remote areas of the world. A tractor might run for 20 years, but bringing in diesel is a yearly event.

From BioDiesel.org's FAQ:

Does biodiesel take more energy to make than it gives back?

No. Biodiesel actually has the highest "energy balance" of any transportation fuel. The
DOE/USDA lifecycle analysis shows for every unit of fossil energy it takes to make
biodiesel, 3.2 units of energy are gained. This takes into account the planting,
harvesting, fuel production and fuel transportation to the end user.

Can I use biodiesel in my existing diesel engine?

Biodiesel works in any diesel engine with few or no modifications to the engine or the
fuel system.

For example, a San Francisco tour cmpany uses BioDiesel. And they are not the only ones. Google is your friend.

Peace!

Not for me, give me a Diesel/Hybrid and watch it go Bio-Diesel. Diesel/Hybrids(the clean kind of Diesel that's supposed to his US markets in the next few years) get about 70-80mpg already, then switch it to Bio-Diesel(which normally gives another 5 to 10mpg depending on the type, or none at all). Suddendly you're paying 10c/gallon for 70+ mpg.

Even at 60mpg @ 10c(est cost of making it at home) you're doing pretty damn good.

Dio Diesel/Hybrids and Retail Fueling Sites are good places to look too, but it's probably better to make it yourself.

So what about considering bio diesel? http://www.biodiesel.org/

Not only does it reduce emissions but you don't have to replace your core transportation infrastructure and you increase your need for farmers.

I thought the same thing -- interesting concept, but cooking oil would either have to be changed every few days or so, or it would get stinky. Of course, they included a plug at the bottom of the case to make draining the oil easier.

Ah, and the solution presents itself! Run vegetable oil in my computer, and then drain it out and put it in my car. Added bonus: it's pre-warmed, so in winter I might not have to worry as much about the higher CFPP.

If I'm going through a couple gallons of vegetable oil a week, anyway, this would just get me a quiet computer for free! Well, plus a little bit more work.

They didn't mention bio-diesel that I could see. Though I have to admit, that's not really a technology I'm rooting for. I'm not sure if I could stomach a $50,000 mercedes that smells like french fries.

Check it out yourself.

http://www.biodiesel.org/

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/

http://www.ethanol.org/

http://www.e85fuel.com/

Sounds like good questions. I would point out, when you answer them, that the other methods you have above are not mutually exclusive. Biodiesel can only be expanded as far as the biomass producing farmland will go. A backup is needed, be it some form of battery or reserve generation capacity in the instances of a cloudy day.

WARNING: Linked PDF
http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/Economics.pdf
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.htm l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiese l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel

The battery is the real kicker. I've wanted to see for some time where the grid was only tapped for part of the energy needed for a home (or car, given Honda's home refueling idea) where the rest came from built in power generation and utilization ability. But without a battery solution to store excess energy, the grid must be overbuilt to handle a day when little ambient energy is available and more energy is required from remote generation.

Put available farmland to use generating biomass for Biodiesel and Ethanol, put solar panels on roofs and solar windows in standard. Converting good, arable farmland into fields full of solar panels ... well, I'll have to keep looking for numbers that would support that decision.

the hemp plant can be farmed in cracks in rocks and 50% of it's mass can be refined into combustible fuel.

Aha -- now I understand why them young folks wear buttons with hemp leaves on them. Hemp power! Yay!

vegetable oil is already being used in existing engines by enterprising brits, as a side benefit their cars smell like delicious fish and chips. in all seriousness though, alcohol and plant oils are renewable and far less damaging to the environment than refining metals.

Processed vegetable oil is used by more than the Brits. The technical term is biodiesel.

What happens when a couple major oil fields dry up? We are going to have real badthings happening.

Which is why I'd rather the government support alternative and renewable sources of energy rather than more oil drilling. That is if it's going to support anything, however I'd rather the federal government stop doing a lot of what it does do. Now, I do like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's million roofs campaign and would like to see other state pick up on it. In Florida for instance it can be very successful. I also like his, Schwarzenegger's, Hydrogen Economy. The US could be a world leader in it however Iceland is the leader. As an interium I support Biodiesel, especially as made from hemp.

But more specifically about money going poof- when the banks closed up, people's savings just disappeared. Mostly it was just money disappearing.

Again, the money didn't disappear, There isn't a black hole the money disappears into never to be seen again. It just ends up in someone else's hands. Or it's wasted but even then it still doesn't disappear.

First, thanks for responding.

oh please.. that's a straw man and you know it. A monopoly is defined as the absence of a free market. Control of 80% or more of a market can be considered legally and functionally a monopoly, even if not pure.

If someone has a monopoly on troll dolls, who is harmed? Who cares? Monopoly is only, only, only important for necessary markets.

That's like responding to complaints regarding the business practices of standard oil by saying "go drill your own well, it's a free market".

Absolutely not the same. There is a finite amount of oil. There is not a finite amount of music. You can create your own out of thin air. Do that with oil and you would be a quadrillion dollars richer. Every Day. The other side of this is that you can absolutely live a life without ever buying a gallon of petroleum. Perhaps you should. As a point of fact, I buy biodiesel, which runs in my unmodified diesel-fueled car. Perhaps if an abusive monopolist controlled the oil, we would already have better alternative fuels, perhaps not. But you don't need oil to live, nobody is directly harmed by being denied oil.

I see, so a nihilist 3rd world lifestyle can be considered "living"? If you honestly believe that why don't you save yourself some money and live out of a refrigerator box with a single pillow and blanket and no clothes. after all, all you need is shelter, food, and water. None of that fancy meat stuff either, only functionally nutritiious dog food, after all you don't need good taste for food to be useful.

The amish live without computers, software, cars, recorded music, or films. They sing for each other and perform plays for each other. Now it is /you/ who are pusuing a straw man, for I did not say that I did not personally value these things. In fact, I pay for them by working fairly hard. It is a tradeoff I make. However, if TimeWarnerDisneyFOX music was only offered on DRM DVD at $50 a song, likely I would simply stop buying /their/ music as it is no longer worth it to me. I would not be harmed by their decision to offer /their/ music at these terms. Likewise, if Volkswagen merged with DaimlerChrysler as well as GM, and all of a sudden they were all offering cars starting at $100K, then I would not buy a car from them. I could move to Boston or New York or London and have a pretty normal, modern life without a car or owning a computer.

I call bs, and anyone with a modicum of economic sense would call the same.

I simply disagree that you are harmed by being denied "my fair price" music, "my fair price" films, "my fair price" computers, or "my fair price" cars. If you think you are being harmed by being denied access to any of these at some terms that you decide are "fair", then I simply disgree. You are not entitled to any thing that someone else produces with their own labor. Just as I do not work for free, or for whatever abstract terms my employer might deem to be their idea of "more fair".

If you like the idea of compulsory licensing, I hope you like the idea of compulsory labor. Are you a COBOL badass? Guess what, ACMESoft can compel you to write COBOL code for them at $15/hr, no matter what other companies may be willing to pay you. Do you like this idea? If not, then you should re-think any kind of attachment to compulsory licensing. Let's imagine that 2000 persons in the United States are very, very good at COBOL. Guess what, you are now a collective "monopoly", how DARE you charge $100/hr for fixing and maintaining COBOL code!? What, "anybody" can learn COBOL? Just like "anybody" can pick up a $50 pawn shop guitar and start playing?

Yup. I wish someone would make a hybrid diesel that focused tightly on aerodynamics and other efficiency factors. I drive about 50 miles per day, averaging 70mph. I'm running biodiesel in a New Beetle TDI, getting > 40 miles per gallon. Lately the biodiesel is cheaper than regular diesel (since its cost has stayed about the same over the last couple years), and it's better for the environment than regular diesel.

To find biodiesel locations near you:
http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfue lingsites/

It has much cleaner emissions, it keeps your fuel system cleaner, and it supports local economies! It requirs no changes to diesel-powered vehicles made after 1995 (generally). My VW Golf TDI gets 45mpg! It's starting to get big in Portland, OR.

http://www.gobiodiesel.org/
http://www.biodiesel.org/
http://www.biodieselnow.com/
http://www.sqbiofuels.com/

Biodiesel hopefully:
http://biodiesel.org/
Also, keep in mind that a computer controlled vehicle will get much better mileage. Almost no one gets the mileage listed in the window on purchase. Heavy feet on the accelerator and brakes take a toll on fuel efficiency.

Or at least, not any time soon.

One of the most feasible design for a solar car that I've seen was the TNE III, from Team New England. The folks who run Sunrayce (GM) specifically changed the rules after 1995, to make sure that the design, or anything resembling it, wasn't allowed again.

What was different about their design? They didn't keep the solar panels in a charging configuration while the vehicle was in motion. They would charge up, pack up the array, then race for the finish line. If they ran out of power, they'd have to stop, unpack the array, then sit and charge for a while.

Besides that their car was one of the only ones with trunk space (although, it was filled with the solar array), their design gave more space to the driver compartment. Provided it's used for simple commuting (office, home, charge, repeat), their design makes perfect sense.

Now ... why won't solar cars ever come into real use? They're not strong enough to pass crash safety tests. They draw at most 2kW. That results in major weight stripping -- they weigh at most 700lbs with a driver in them. They also reduce the cross section ... maybe 0.5 to 1 m^2 ... which means it has about the visibility of a motorcycle (worse, as they're so low to the ground).

Combined with a Suburban or a semi, whose driver isn't paying attention, and it's a death trap on wheels.

The only way that I see fully electric vehicles really coming into their own is in a controled environment where they're not mixing with larger vehicles. (planned cities, golf courses, etc.)

I'm personally for planned cities -- visit a town like Venice, and you'll see that it's perfectly possible to get around without owning a vehicle, so long as they're a little bit of public transit Think about how much cleaner New York could be if people couldn't bring vehicles in from outside, and there were only delivery vehicles, mass transit, and taxis.

I would actually expect alternative fuels, most likely oil, but not necessarily petroleum based, to be the most likely candidate for the next generation -- biodiesel, or byproducts from trash digestion or biomass recycling.

I'd say that the car companies realize that people are willing to pay a premium for more environmentally friendly cars (just like they used to be able to sell 'agressive' looking cars, more comfortable rides, 'luxury', or carrying capacity), but they have to weigh that against making sure it's reliable. They could go bankrupt from lemon laws if they don't make sure they're rock solid, and aren't hazardous to their passengers.

why don't we have cars that run on some energy source other than gasoline?

There have been vehicles that run on fuels other than gasoline designed and built. why don't we have cars that run on some energy source other than gasoline? Rudolph Diesel designed his diesel engine to run on vegetable oil and diesel engines can run on Biodiesel without modification. In the 1930s Henry Ford designed and built a vehicle that ran on methanol made from hemp he grew on his Iron Mountain estate. Hemp can be used to make either vegetable oil or methanol.

your idea about solar panels on buildings is good too. other ideas might include removing all conventional lighting and replacing it with lower wattage lights. i saw a house that replaced the light bulbs with fluorescent lights, and the bill shrunk by more than half.

Compact Fluorescent lights use much less power than regular lights. CFLs can put out as much light as incandescent lights yet use a quarter or less power. I've got 12 and 15 watt bulbs that puts out as much light as regular 60 and 75 watt light bulbs. LED lights use even less power.

Wouldn't it be smarter to cover the buildings with solar panels, use that to power half the building and cut down of the amount of smog created by the power plants instead? Your car puts out NOTHING compared to a 250Mw coal plant.

Actually from what I read, I think one place might of been in HomePower mag and/or Solar Today mag , was that vehicles are the single biggest contributers to manmade greenhouse gases. A simple remedy for this though is Biodiesel . Without modification diesel engines can run on biodiesel. Actually Rudolph Diesel the designer of the diesel engine designed it to run on most any vegetable oil. And because the plants used to make the oil soak up carbon dioxide they are carbon neutral. It's not so much how much one vehicle puts out as it is the total of all vehicles.

However more building should include solar power in their design, active and passive. One way as you've stated is pv panels. Another way is a thin film that's being developed that can be applied to windows and the sides of building to generate solar power. Another method of power generation are wind genies, wind generators.

I'd like to add that the reason Biodiesel is mixed the way it is is because of costs. Biodiesel is presently very expensive to produce -- the costs can be passed on to customers easier if they purchase mixed product.

See the National Biodiesel Board's homepage; with whom I have no affiliation.

Disclaimer: I do however do computer support for the Oil Inudstry.

hat about biodiesel? That is what Willie uses.

When the Federal regulations for Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel go in to effect in the US in 2006, it will make diesel powered vehicles much more attractive to the general public, especially as most diesel powered passenger cars get very good milage. Without sulfur in the fuel, the black smoke problem pretty much goes away.

Biodiesel has some advantages over other fuels as it can be distributed through the current distribution infrastructure, and it can be made out of just about any biomass product; used vegetable oils being the current choice for the home brewers.

Once cleaner diesel fuel starts rolling in look out!

you mean like biodiesel?

Yeah, its already available it is called biodiesel and you may be more on target than you think.

I agree with much of what you say. There's just a couple of things I want to comment on.

The trick we need to find is how to tap bigger forces. Tidal forces with tethered floating generators which rise and fall with the tides and capture that motion as energy would be good.

This suggestion isn't really viable. The problem is that electric power needs to be continuous, and electric energy can't really be stored in the quantities needed for widespread use. Because of this, the large surges of power and subsequent falloffs that we would get with tidal generation make it kind of undesirable as a power source. A much more promising idea that's been talked about for some time is to put turbines in the path of a major ocean current such as the Gulf Stream. After all, the oceans are the world's biggest solar collector, and a significant portion of that energy goes into generating these currents. It's a huge untapped source of energy.

More near term, we need to find or engineer a crop which is ideally suited to concentrating sunlight into a hydrocarbon or sugar that can be stored, transported without sigificant loss, then burned.

They have this. It's biodiesel made with canola. read about it here.

Ultimately, we just need to get off burning fossil fuels. After all, when you consider that energy on earth comes from two places, the planet's core, and, moreso, the sun, fossil fuels are solar energy stored by plants and animals millions of years ago. It's a finite supply, and frankly, we shouldn't be nearly as reliant on it as we are.

Let's get on with diesel. Why?

1) Better efficiency than gasoline

2) Longer engine life

3) Diesel fuel can be produced from non-fossil sources such as soy and corn (even hogfat!)

But aren't diesel engines dirty, you might ask? Not inherently. The problem is the quality of the fuel, specifically the level of sulfur. Here in the States, in less than a year the standard will reduce that nasty impurity by huge amount.

A whole lot of goodness, no? Plus, it is a way for our struggling farmers to increase demand for their products.

For more info:
http://www.biodiesel.org/

Aye, Biodiesel is sold at Most major cities and can be used in any diesel (a 10$ fuel line upgrade may be required) I get 45mpg in my 97 Jetta TDI that I picked up for $9k a few months ago. If you've got a garage you can build or buy (~$3000) a biodiesel refinery to convert recycled vegetable oil into biodiesel for about 50 cents a gallon. The stuff is burned, the pollution is absorbed by next year's crop, and the cycle is practically neutral year to year. Biodiesel is the best fuel for transportation on Earth. Going into space, hydrogen fuel makes alot more sense.

Sorry, but you're mistaken on America's commitment to Biodiesel. Your comment on Biodiesel giving American farms a reason to exist again is well heeded by the powers that be, who are sick of providing subsidies to farmers so they'll stop growing. For more info, go here.

That's a good question. I live in Bellingham, WA and know several people who make biodiesel. The reason it's cheaper is because the raw materials are cheaper. Instead of digging for crude oil, R&D, etc, you go to your local Teriyaki place and ask them for their old vegetable oil. Take it home, make some Sodium Methoxide -- and you're ready to go.

The quality of biodiesel is actually quite good if produced and filtered properly. We were going to analyze some by GC/MS in my analytical chem class, but the prof yanked the lab because it was too boring -- not much to see.

See the National Biodiesel Board if you want more info

Seriously, though, Big Oil will try to squash this like a bug, and the U.S. government will follow suit.

Do you really think "Big Oil" wants to be in the oil business anymore? They're businessmen. Businessmen are very averse to risk. Oil and the Middle East are not a safe combination. The current world oil market is full of risky exploration, shady cartels, unpredictable pricing, capricious tyrants, and a helluva lots of explosives and guns. That's not good for business.

Businessmen also like to diversify, so that temporary setbacks in one market do not affect the whole enterprise. Alternative energy sources would seem to be a good way to diversify, if they ever prove cost-effective.

I think big oil companies will jump on the very first viable non-oil energy source they can. It's just that there's no current energy thechnology that meets all the same needs as oil-derived fuels (easy portability, high energy density, wide array of uses, etc.) Biodiesel is a start in the right direction, and sure enough they're lots of big companies and government agencies involved in the effort. Big Oil companies (which are really just oil transport companies) will almost certainly come aboard as soon as it's clear the technology can provide a stable, high-volume, cost-comparable source for diesel fuel.

B100 fuel (100% vegetable oil)

No it isn't. B100 is 100% Biodiesel. Biodiesel is NOT the same as vegtable oil. Biodiesel is manufactured from plant oils.

1. The National Biodiesel Board explicitly says that its production capacity is only 150 million gallons per year, with another 200 million potential. At the limit this is less than 1% of road-diesel consumption and about 0.6% of total distillate fuel consumption.

2. US production of soybeans in 2004 was 3.15 billion bushels. At a yield of 11.5 pounds per bushel and a guesstimated 7 pounds/gallon, the entire US soybean crop would produce 5.18 billion gallons of soybean oil. You would need roughly 7 times as much production to replace all over-the-road diesel and 12 times as much to replace all distillate fuel oil consumption; I'm not going to waste the time to calculate what it would take to replace motor gasoline (that's your homework, and you're flunking).

   Total US acreage of soybeans harvested in 2004 was roughly 74 million acres, or 116,000 square miles. 12 times this is about 1.4 million square miles. Total area of the USA is 3.5 million square miles, so you are talking about planting another 40% of the land area of the USA in soybeans (over and above the area already used for other crops) just to replace distillate fuel oil use.