Slashdot Mirror
N.Y. Governor Pushing for Alternate Fuels
Aviran Mordo writes to tell us that the Governor of New York is pushing hard for the widespread availability of both ethanol and biodiesel on the New York State Thruway and 100 more locations around the state. From the article: "Costs and further details of the plan, which Pataki first sketched out in his State of the State address on Wednesday, will not be disclosed until he makes his budget proposal later this month. If the plan is approved by the Legislature, it will give New Yorkers one of the nation's most diverse ranges of fuel choices. Only Minnesota offers an ethanol-rich blend known as E85 at more than 100 stations. Likewise, biodiesel is offered at only a few hundred of the nation's roughly 180,000 stations."
The article speaks the true reasons:
Pataki has been criticized for promoting ethanol because it is made from corn grown in states that include Iowa, which he has been visiting recently to gauge support for a possible presidential run.
and:
Environmentalists have largely denounced making ethanol-capable vehicles, calling that a boondoggle intended for the agriculture lobby and Detroit. When automakers build cars and trucks that can use ethanol, called flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits that make it easier to meet fuel-economy regulations, in turn giving them leeway to build more gas-guzzlers.
Also, biodiesel will be a huge source of revenue for the political cronies (same people supported by both parties). Gas station ownership is heavily regulated and licensed. Biodiesel won't be just given tax breaks but direct taxpayer-funded subsidies! From TFA:
On Friday, a gallon of E85 was selling for $1.73--in part because of subsidies--at a station in Akron, Iowa, compared with $2.19 for a gallon of unleaded regular.
From a political standpoint, biodiesel subsidies also pay for numerous megacorp farming cronies.
If New York wants cheaper fuel, do two things:
1. Annul all gas taxes
2. Get rid of boutique fuel mixes making refineries wealthy
Hence recent trips to New Hampshire and, more to this story, Iowa, where Ethanol is king.
How about pushing for USING LESS FUEL?
... NY doesn't make corn like Indiana.
One of the distinct advantages to using ethanol as a fuel is having a local distillation/production facility. While we still have to truck in gas since NY isn't exactly rich in oil wells we still lack the excess starch production that can be used as feedstock to columns.
Given our rather poor winter heat (ie, freezing-ass cold) even MORE energy is going to be required for production.
Now, that said, I realize this only address the distribution points within the state. Having a couple of fuel stops, every other one say, that produce E85 would be great and I'd run it. But there's just no easy way to 'make' it yet because we're so energy poor- the key to cheap fuel is recycling as much waste heat as possible (solar capture to preheat stock, exchangers around the condenser, etc)
But hey, it's a step forward, right?
I'm unfamiliar as a whole with the topic, but is a special type of vehicle required to use ethanol-rich fuel or biodiesel?
E85 is offered in places here in Nebraska as well.
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
The Coporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard that deterimines average vehicle mileage in the USA has not changed in decades. It's about 27 MPG for cars, and 20 MPG for "light" trucks.
Whats worse, is that as "light" trucks (SUVs, minivans, pickups) have become popular and replaced cars as family vehicles, the 20 MPG standard applies instead of 27 MPG.
Increasing CAFE by 1 MPG (which is a very small change) would have an ENORMOUS effect in reducing pollution, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and all those other warm fuzzy ideas.
Unfortunately, Congress has been sitting on their ass for twenty years.
Here in the UK diesel and petrol are pushing about $6.60 a gallon (US). We cope by having more fuel efficient cars - 55mpg from my diesel at motorway speeds is the norm. Use less fuel - best way of saving money!
There's arguments that bio-gas costs more either economically or energetically than the contained fuel. Even if that were true it's not a good argument against it. Hydrogen fuels obviously "cost more" energetically too. They are chemical energy transport devices. But more to the point the source of that fuel might not neccessarily be oil but could be nuclear, wind (especially wind at night), solar, tidal, or waste by product heats. It could even come from the biosource itself. And that makes our fuel sources elastic and fungible. we are less dependent on the middle east, venuzuela, or pipelines.
That's a huge deal. oil prices are going up forever, and the cost of bio fuels can only go down as things like microbial conveversion become feasilble.
It makes a lot of sense to seed this now that it's close to break even and we are fighting wars for scarce oil.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
One person I spoke to told me that ethanol is incompatible with gasket materials on the interior of many engines in use at the moment. I can't find mention of this in TFA, though.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Pataki is a twit. He says he wants biodiesel to be made available, yet he has let the moronic authorities in his state make it IMPOSSIBLE TO PURCHASE A NEW DIESEL AUTOMOBILE THERE (as is the case in a growing number of other states as well). Talk about transparent lip service. What a doofus.
The entire rest of the world outside of North America is embracing diesel passenger car technology, as it dramatically improves fuel economy, lowering greenhouse gas production in the process - even before you consider biodiesel, which is an essentially neutral carbon cycle participant which produces no net CO2.
E85 is a scam. It gives less mileage than an equivalent volume of plain gasoline. Most stations don't acount for the reduced energy output in their pricing. Many even charge more for E85 than regular gas. If you do see E85 cheaper than regular, you can guarantee that that state is subsidizing the producers to attain that price.
This is really just a way to put money into the pockets of the corn lobby, particularly ADM corp. They cringe at all of the surplus corn and other grain we just give away though USAID and would love if they could divert this into a new revenue stream.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I was just reading about this the other day for some reason. The Wikipedia entry on the eight-hour workday is a good starting point.
While ethonal does reduce CO2 emissions by burning fuel more completely, (reducing air pollution) it also significantly lowers over fuel economy (upwards of 10% to 20% on most vehicles).
No one in the ethonal lobby ever wants to talk about the nitrogen/oxygen (NO2?) by-products that are increased, which are much worse greenhouse gasses than CO2 ever has or will be. (stays in the atmosphere much longer, and holds in magnitudes more heat than CO2. Coupled with the fact that it's very hard to extract from the atmosphere, unlike CO2)
Then there's the increased pesticide use, the fact that it takes more fuel to produce ethonal than you get back, and it's a giant pipe dream.
When you start mixing politics and science you get shitty science.
The "Big Three" US automakers already have the technology for E85. Ethanol is the primary automobile fuel in Brazil, and all the automakers mass produce cars for the Brazillian market which run very well on ethanol. There is not any need for expensive pie-in-the-sky research projects: the technology is here, and it works well.
What the government really needs to do crack down on the companies that are classifying non-truck-like vehicles as trucks. A "truck" should be limited to vehicles with frame rails, no unibodies allowed (but the Jeep Cherokee can be grandfathered in).
Examples of the eggregious abuse of CAFE include the PT Cruiser classified as a "truck" even though it's built on a Neon chassis.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Alternative fuels might be good for many reasons. But why not also change the engine at the same time? Turbine engines are used in trucks since a long time http://turbinetruckengines.com/index2.html and even Chrysler invested into turbine engines for cars http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine-photos.html . Turbine engines have many advantages. Combined with an electric motor-generator concept, like in the Toyota Prius (w/ old piston engine, sigh), things become really interesting. Adding fuel alternative is easy with turbine engines.
http://www.ptcruiserclub.org/galleries/pt-pickup/
The turned it into a truck
To be serious though, the PT Cruiser design was based on a 1930s~1940s panel delivery truck and if you look at what the design manager at DaimlerChrysler was saying at the time, they intended it to be usable as a light delivery truck.
Also, maybe you should consider reading what the CAFE standards consider a truck
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview
The PT Cruiser is
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Assuming that there is not some existing process going on underground, right now, that makes crude oil as fast as it is used, then the supply of underground crude oil must be limited.
That means that according to the simple "law of supply & demand" the price of what is left will go up until demand for it drops. Or do you not believe in simple economics?
Oil may or may not be scarece at the moment. That is a matter for debate but if it isn't now, and we keep using it, it will be one day...
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
No need to draw Bob Dyllan into this... ;)
Oh well, what the hell...
Biodiesel only works (from an energy yield standpoint) if it is recycled from used vegetable oils. Ethanol from corn is a net energy loser: takes more energy to create than you get back (not to mention that it also depletes soils that could have been used to grow food).
This site seems to debunk much of the hype over ethanol. It also has some choice things to say about the "hydrogen economy". I don't know how credible their analysis is, comment if you think it's crapola or not.
Seriously... a huge number of this nation's problems have arisen from it's need for Middle East oil. Biodiesel cuts the Middle East out of the equation and gives that business to US farmers and agriculture.
Biodiesel also is much better for the environment because it recycles carbon already in the atmosphere rather than releasing new carbon buried inside the earth.
How is NY making it difficult to buy a diesel vehicle?
A problem is an opportunity http://mrpogson.com
is WHAT? You can't leave us hanging!
By FSM's noodle, I can't stand the suspense!
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
If New York wants cheaper fuel, do two things:
1. Annul all gas taxes
2. Get rid of boutique fuel mixes making refineries wealthy
A low gas price is just one possible political goal. Another one is energy price stability.
Even if one focuses solely on the economical benefits of such a policy, it could make sense to:
* cut energy consumption where the net economic effect is positive
* raise energy taxes where the net economic effect is positive
* invest in very long term local energy production (think 100+ years or renewable: wind, solar, nuclear)
* invest in small scale local energy production (think straight vegetable oil instead of biodiesel)
* invest in the reliability of partners on which your rely as external energy sources
Modern turbines are not expensive. Capstone "microturbines" have very few moving parts, and were initially designed specifically for turbine hybrid-electric cars. Such engines will not be expensive in mass production.
The thermal and acoustic signatures of turbines are not extreme, and really can't be evaluated without comparing full-up, road-worthy turbine and piston hybrid designs.
Delayed throttle response and idle performance are irrelevant for hybrid-electric cars. Short-timescale responses will be handled by the electrical side; the hydrocarbon power plant will be run using optimal parameters only, and only when necessary.
As for "catastrophic" breakdowns, we're not talking about the turbopumps in the Space Shuttle Main Engines or in the Saturn V F-1 engines. Failures may often result in turbines freezing; they won't result in the front end of the car being blown off.
I've wanted a turbine hybrid-electric for years, and think a turbine is the best initial power source for something like GM's AUTOnomy concepts. I'd love to see it.
Caveat: I worked in the Biodiesel industry in its infancy, 10 years ago.
You do want your country to be in a position where we are making a choice between feeding the population, or fueling our vehicles.
One issue with bio-generated liquid fuels is meeting the need: The US does not have the agricultural capacity to replace petroleum liquid fuels with biofuels. I do not remember the exact production numbers, but the best we can hope for is to dent, not eliminate our current petroleum use through biofuel/petroleum blends without impacting our ability to produce food.
Fuel efficent vehicles, hybrids and ultimately, a vehicle poured by water (fuel cells) will do more to reduce petroleum dependency.
e85 might cost less but you get a lot less for it.
m l
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/FFV2000.sht
With ethanol, the part of corn not used in ethanol production can be used to make plastics (or some type of plastic, I have a coffee mug made of it).
Totally agreed. We'd be able to get more cars that are popular in Europe, especially cars from manufactures that can't keep up with the US's inane changes in safety and environmental requirements.
Look at the Lotus Elise. Okay, so it's not an especially economical car, but with its 1.8L engine, and weight just under a ton, it does get pretty good gas mileage--around 25MPG, which is incredible for a sports car. The only problem is that Lotus wasn't able to fully make the feds happy with the Elise, and so it's here on a sort of temporary exemption. The failings, as I understand it, were that it didn't have a traditional bumper, airbags, or ABS (which nobody being a Lotus would want anyway), the headlights somehow didn't comply, and they had a hell of a time with emissions, not because it's somehow singularly responsible for Global Warming, but instead because the entire fuel system needs to be certified by some asinine smog standard, which probably costs many millions of dollars to do and has miniscule effect, if any. So they essentially have to lift the entire engine and fuel from a Toyota MR2, just like Panoz does with Ford's Mustang parts. I'm sure the big boys like the setup--for a nominal cost, they all but eliminate any potential small players in the US market.
What any of that has to do with anything is beyond me, though. It seems like quite a lot of Federal bullshit. The Elise's nose is so low that even if it did have a bumper that fit well into the design, it would still manage to get under the rear end a standard, normal height sedan, let alone a truck! That's why it has good brakes! The structure is sound enough to protect the passengers pretty well in the event of a collision (probably better than every other car of similar size)... So what if the car gets bruised if it's bumped in the parking lot at 5 MPH?! You shouldn't have been run into! The headlamps are probably adequate--I'm sure that European Elise drivers don't feel compelled to go inside when the driving gets dark on account of this. ABS? So what? It's not like anyone is going to be driving this car in a snow storm, and outside of that remote possibility, this car will stop better than 99.5% of the cars out there, wet or dry, even if one is simply to jump on the brake.
I dunno, it seems to me that the US regulations are much more of a moving target than the Europeans', and in a way, that's not fair considering their casualty rate and car related pollution isn't any worse than ours.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
More ways to get cheaper fuels:
- Stop opposing drilling for oil on US soil and in US waters.
If you oppose drilling for oil in ANWR you ought to be forced to vacation there every year. It's a beautiful wilderness paradise, isn't it? Caribou are more important than people, aren't they? Go visit then.
- More nuclear power
I think NY has a power plant that's completely built, but they won't operate. Not 100% sure on that. Cheap electricity would allow people in the northeast to switch from heating oil to electric heat. Less oil for heating means more oil for your car.
- Build a port to allow liquid natural gas to be imported in NY. Greens are preventing this now.
Same deal. Natural gas heat vs heating oil.
Having a couple of fuel stops, every other one say, that produce E85 would be great and I'd run it.
First, the summary of this article is incorrect about E85. Minnesota is not the only state that offers E85. North and South Dakota, as well as Iowa, offer the alternative fuel.
Second, while I cannot link to any articles to back up my statements, it is only because the Fargo Forum charges for archived news articles. But much of what I write is passed on from an article written in the newspaper about the fuel and its overall cost.
Information about the prevalence of E85:
* E85 is a fuel which is 85% Ethanol, 15% gasoline (hence the name E85). It differs from normal (100%) unleaded fuel, as well as 85% gasoline / 15% ethanol fuel offered in North Dakota and Minnesota (and other places I'm sure, but am not positive about).
* To relate to the prior post in the thread, urban centers all along I-94 between Fargo and Minneapolis stock E85 (and I'm sure many other places as well, but I'm going by regional knowledge here). Fargo's metro area has at least nine stations that I know of that carry the fuel, spread all around the city.
* There's certainly a market for the fuel, with many car lots reporting that consumers are specifically requesting for cars that run the fuel. Many adverts in the paper have specifically included alternative-fuel capabilities as a highlighted feature for cars on their lot.
However, there are a few things that were highlighted in a Fargo Form article about two months ago that are worth mentioning:
* E85 is a subsidized fuel. Byron Dorgan has been pushing bill after bill through Congress supporting subsidies on corn grown for ethanol production as well as for ethanol fuel production in energy bills. Because of this, it is currently selling as cheap as $1.60 right now (about 25% less cost / gallon than gasoline, and is usually consistent like that). The further away from the freeway though, the higher the cost (50 miles away in Detroit Lakes, and it sells for $1.78 / gallon).
* Filling a tank with E85 will lead to lower horsepower and decreased fuel economy. In a local study done by the Fargo Forum with five different vehicles, they noticed anywhere from a 15% to a 25% decrease in miles / gallon. In addition, the article made mention that there is no current known long-term cost for increased maintenance that the fuel may cause.
* Ethanol still is a fuel which produces exhaust. While many will promote that you're only putting back into the air what the corn plants took from it to grow, this is incorrect. In the refinement process for producing ethanol, there is a lot of pollution generated from the refining process, though if I remember correctly, overall, ethanol still produces just slightly less pollution than gasoline.
* The only true advantage that Ethanol has is that it's produced in the United States, so the country does not depend foreign oil. At the same time, nobody has raised issue yet with the possibility that a bad harvest could send E85 prices through the roof.
Though New York may soon sell E85 at a gas station near you, there is currently not to much great reason to switch to it.
Pataki just wants to be prez. Watch him use this as a new initiative when he runs for office in '08.
The fact that the world currency is denomicated n dollars does give us some float, but the articel you cite has a feeble understanding of it.
First the current dollars in circulation outside are essentially sufficient for all transactions. We are not "printing new money" every year to meet that demand. Maybe a little to meet expanded use but not much compared to that in circualtion. What we do get is the float. that is anyone holding dollars is giving us an interest free loan on whatever was used to purchase those dollars. So you see it's not the actual dollar we make the profit on but rather the interest on that dollar we would have had to pay to get the goods on credit, which is much less. Eventually that dollar will be redeemed by the owner and at that point the loan ends, no more float.
Second, even that's a gross overstatement of the benefit we get from dollar denomination. People can easily denominate in dollars without actually having the dollars for the transaction. They can pay in gold, or euros or letters of credit. The total is figured in dollars but that does not make it the currency.
Third even if it were the currency, people can print their own dollars. Not really print them but buy and sell options on dollars. This way they can trade in dollars without actualy having to hold dollars.
The article is fundamentally mistaken.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So... where are the ZPE devices? Has anyone produced positive results that this is in fact a vast tappable energy source? How does it work?
it is impossible to exploit the zero point energy field, because it is COMPLETELY FLAT,
thats what zero-point means.
it is the averge background energy of the universe.
and because you cannot move it from a high-energy location, to a low energy location, there is no Anergy, or usefull energy to be gained anywhere.
You link to some prototypes and say they've been used in trucks a long time?
Turbines are simply not used in trucks. They aren't used in large numbers, aren't use in small numbers. They aren't used.
The big 3 all looked at turbines in the 70s, and the problems they have (variable torque instead of variable speed) led to serious issues that transmissions would have to solve.
They were not solved (yet) and turbines are not used in trucks.
Turbines aren't even used in locomotives right now (or perhaps just very very recently). And trust me when I say locomotives (with their electric power transmission) will have them before cars do.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Wrong. Zero-Point Energy is termed 'Zero-point' because of the energy interactions that occur at below zero temperatures. In modern physics, these interactions are not supposed to be occuring, but they do - which means, our modern physics is flawed and needs to be re-written. Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, does explain the Aether via the uncertainty principle....and coincidentally enough, it is the sole reason why String Theory is incorrect - because they did not include a Zero Point field in the equations. The only way to learn anything, young grasshopper, is to unlearn everything you've learned over the years...because it's all Illuminati propaganda that is meant to keep the mindless masses from ever learning the true nature of this 'holographic' universe, and ourselves.
Yes, but unfortunately we haven't yet found the Ancient outpost in Antarctica where the Zero Point Modules are.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Show us the working devices instead of pulling timecube educated-stupid crackpottery.
Everyone keeps forgetting about nuclear fusion, for some reason.
You know, what they really need to do is just make it simple: everything with a greater than 6000lb GVWR is a truck; everything less (including "trucks" like the Subaru Baja) is a car.
Or, better yet, they could use an equation. For example, it could be:
CAFE = (20MPG * 6000lbs) / (corporate average GVWR).
This would mean that if a company made 50% vehicles with GVWR of 6000 and 50% vehicles with GVWR of 2000 it should conform to a CAFE standard of 30mpg (because the average GVWR is 4000lbs).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Okay, then step high & step proud my friend >
http://www.newpath4.com/WorldwideClimateEngineMsg
All the power you want, 24/7, coming soon once the crude oil people stop brainwashing the American Public into thinking every fuel worth its salt has to burn... & once Americans realize that burning liquid fossil fuels OF ALL KINDS is little better than Piltdown Man & Lucy sitting next to a burning stick to stay warm.
Check the non-nuclear fusion engine links on that "Weather" page.
The answers you need to step forward into the Future you deserve is there.
The refineries that produce the biodiesel require energy to operate, more-so than a typical refinery. Of course, it's more economical to produce this power using coal or oil, than to use the biodiesel produced by the refinery, so that's how its done.
Don't get me wrong, there's still less net production of CO2 than with conventional oil, but it is far from carbon neutral.
> So to save money I need to buy a new car and move to a new house closer to work? That's a fantastic idea..
No, you need to move to someplace where a car isn't a necessity. If you need a car then you ought to have one that is fuel efficient. You should also consider whether it would be possible for you to homework two or three days a week.
The article on Cnet isn't right... I live in the Albany area, and I have gotten Ethanol gas around here... and I didn't have to go to Canada to get it! Oh well.
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
So, what? All the worlds physicists (me included!) are in on this great conspiracy? We're just devoting our lives to working on stuff that's entirely made up and pointless? In short: Bullshit.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
Taking a more educated approach you have to look at the modern scientific research
o ssible.html#vac
that has been done in regards to the Casimir Effect .
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6
Merely one of the modern day brilliant scientists looking into this efect is Puthoff .
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/putnasa.htm
Please read the references at bottom of the page, discredit one doubtful, all ludicrously so .
Excerpt of nasa study:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/p
Zero Point Energy (ZPE), or vacuum fluctuation energy are terms used to describe the random electromagnetic oscillations that are left in a vacuum after all other energy has been removed. If you remove all the energy from a space, take out all the matter, all the heat, all the light... everything -- you will find that there is still some energy left. One way to explain this is from the uncertainty principle from quantum physics that implies that it is impossible to have an absolutely zero energy condition.
Add up the energy for all those different frequencies of light and the amount of energy in a given space is enormous, even mind boggling, ranging from 10^36 to 10^70 Joules/m3.
If you choose to call the research scientists at NASA quacks, that is your prerogative.
Zero Point energy absolutley sounds like fairy tale science, but every once in a blue moon
something comes along that truly stuns the world .
Like Warp Drive research being funded with this concept at the root of it .
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006
At times like this, Technology does approach being indistinguishable from what some call magic, hehe .
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Just look at the numbers. Corn is so heavily subsidized that it sells for less than it costs to produce. Much of that cost is petroleum for fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and tractors. Making ethanol to burn is an energy loss - it's much more efficient to simply burn the damned petroleum in your car instead of spewing it all over the land, harvesting the stuff, processing it into ethanol, and then burning the ethanol.
Biodiesel comes from oil crops, again, heavily dependent on petroleum for big yields. Or you rip down rainforests in various parts of the world for oil-palm plantations, which yield for a couple of years, and then require huge inputs.
These "solutions" are simply not energetically viable.
As far as those of you who don't "believe in Peak Oil", you are free to believe what you want. But have a look at the production numbers, fer chrissake. I think we've already peaked, or at least plateaued, which amounts to the same thing. Per-capita production peaked years ago. Look at supply vs. demand. Look at oil company reports.
And no, oil fields do not refill after a couple of years. I can't believe some of the wishful thinking going on here.
- sgage
Not only that, but a mass growing of crops also probably involves super crops which will find their way outside of their environment no matter how much they try and control it, and it will also involve a lot of pesticides.
If we dropped the tariffs on ethanol imported from Brazil, then you would see E100 (pure ethanol) or E85 (85% ethanol) fuel costing $1.50 at your local gas station.
Why is this energy wonderland not happening? The answer is that American agribusiness's lobbyists have succeeded in putting a permanent tariff on imported ethanol. Worse, those same lobbyists have now forced corn-based ethanol down everyone's throats. Corn is a very poor source of ethanol; you consume more energy in harvesting ethanol from corn than the energy that corn-based ethanol provides.
Of course, there is also the possibility that a research lab at MIT will genetically engineer a non-edible plant that offers even better energy production than sugarcane. However, you can bet your buttocks that American agribusiness will suppress this non-edible plant as surely as agribusiness has suppressed ethanol from Brazil.
Simply not true. My 2003 Golf TDI has a catalytic converter, as do at least all TDIs built from 1999-2005, according to the service manual.
The short version is simply: CARB places severe restrictions on vehicle emissions that are met by current gasoline cars, but not current diesel cars. There's been endless debate over whether this is a good idea or not -- e.g., CO2 is completely unregulated, which gasoline cars are lousy at but biodiesel is excellent, and even petrodiesel is not as bad as gasoline. (It's as if the requirements were specifically tailored to gas-electric hybrids!)
The fuel is part of this problem. The CARB restrictions have become active in several states already, and yet Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) won't be here for a year in some places, and (assuming they don't grant any more extensions) 2010 everywhere. Would any gasoline cars pass, if they had to pass CARB restrictions but you could only buy leaded gasoline? Why doesn't CARB also require ULSD?
Once they know we can get ULSD everywhere in America, Volkswagen (and others) will be able to make the engines even cleaner -- a lot of things you can do to clean up emissions simply don't work when you're swimming in corrosive sulfur. Heck, the book says a TDI requires 49 cetane fuel, and even that's really hard to find; most places will post octane readings on every gasoline pump, but won't tell you cetane of their diesel even if you ask (45 is common).
It's kind of amazing there are as many diesels on the road as there are, considering how hard they are to buy, register, and fuel. (Look what it's taking hybrids -- they even get a tax break, and they're still burning fossil fuels.)
You do want your country to be in a position where we are making a choice between feeding the population, or fueling our vehicles.
I don't see that as the choice. When you consider that well over half (I've heard numbers as high as 90%) of our arable land is spent on growing plants to feed to livestock, it would be more accurate to say the question is fueling your vehicles, or eating meat every meal.
Of course, that's not really fair, either: if we don't have fuel for vehicles, you probably won't be able to get the meat from the farm to your plate, anyway.
I find it funny when people claim that biodiesel is unsustainable or unscalable. Eating McDonald's every day is unscalable. If China or India needed to consume as much meat per capita as America did, most of their population would be dead this time next month.
The argument against widespread biodiesel seems to assume that we can't cut back on our use of animals for food at all.
(And this is assuming that we can't find any more efficient way to create biodiesel, like algae, or...)
To which hallucinogen does society owe its gratitude for this wondrous prophecy?
When the day comes when every tractor and piece of machinery on the mega-corp biofuel 'farm' is first completely powered by Ethanol and NOT gasoline, and then WHAT'S LEFT OVER is sold to us, I'll believe its a real alternative.
i.e.- the bio-fuel production must be self-sustaining.
Until then, I suspect we are just using up more fossil fuels to produce this so-called 'green' fuel....
But that's OK- politicians and big agro-business need an agenda.
And besides, it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy to fill our gas tanks with this stuff, right?
.
- aqk
F U