And starting last October, 80% of all US Diesel will be sold as "Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel" Containing 97% less acid rain forming sulfur.
Not to mention, Diesel cars get 20% to 40% better mileage than gasoline. And about 20% less Global warming emmisions. And thats just talking about products coming from Petroluem Oil
Combine the those three technologies, and Petro-Diesel is Cleaner than Gasoline. And things only get cleaner and greener when you start looking at "BioDiesel"
"Beginning June 1, 2005 all U.S. Navy and Marine non-tactical diesel vehicles will be required to operate on a B20 (20 percent) biodiesel blend"
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor y?id=24024
Also, in a reversal of a 2002 USDA study
National Renewable Energy Labs finds B20 BioDiesel does NOT increase NOx (Smog) emmisions.
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/news.htm l
B20 BioDiesel can be used in any Diesel vehicle, with no modification.
With equal or greater performance.
And much less air pollution.
For the same energy input as Ethanol, BioDiesel produces 55% more energy.
BioDiesel gives you far better Mileage than Gasoline, increase of 20-40%
Ethanol gives you far worse Mileage than Gasoline, decrease of 20-30%
Protecting America from disaster
Protecting the World from disaster
BioDiesel
Note:
BioDiesel greatly reduces particulates
BioDiesel greatly reduces sulfur
The only thing worse is that it raises Smog when used in concentrations higher than 20%
And only ups Smog like 8% when completely pure.
Not to mention
There are particulate filters which reduce it by 90%
(Featured on everyone's favorite dancing robot car, the citroen C4)
And there's a low tech resivour sprayer on the market, Now, in new 2007 Diesels which cuts the Smog levels by 90%
Hell, since PetroDiesel being made up to the new-since October 2006 "Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel" standards is expensive.
BioDiesel could likely be made much cheaper than PetroDiesel.
With equal or better peformance and emmisions.
Quote: "Until someone produces an economical biofuel grown in salt water in the desert, biofuel production is about the worst thing we could do to our environment. "
Algae doesn't need farmland. It grows just fine in deserts.
And the water it'd use could easily be of the lowest quality, and could recapture most of it when drying the algae for production.
Hell, in the deserts, you could even take advantage of high heat solar drying:P
The quality levels of "used cooking oil" are variable.
Unreliable.
Thats just unacceptable to businesses and governments.
Not to mention, if there really is a good market for it, then that would dry up really fast anyways.
BioDiesel from Algae is really the answer.
If you can produce 62x more BioFuel per acre than even the best switchgrass ethanol.
1. Sugar cane is grown bountifully in the tropics. It may very well be that rainforests are the only worthwhile places to have forests as carbon sinks. More sugar grown in the tropics, more rainforest gets cut down. Even if it's only planted *near* to the rainforests, since it forces other food crops out into the jungle areas.
2. Synthetic fertilizers contain Nitrous Oxide, aka Laughing Gas (aka N2O) Agriculture accounts for most of it. (Especially when you include making plants to feed to animals) Nitrous Oxide is 310x worse for global warming than carbon dioxide, and lasts for twice as long, 120 years. Using a bunch of fertilizer to grow Sugar crops is stupid.
Whats the better solution? Algae BioDiesel.
Not only does it not need nitrogen fertilizer, you can actually use power plant emmisions to feed it. Which dramatically reduces Nitrogen and Carbon emmisions.
BioDiesel is better than Ethanol.
BioDiesel and Ethanol take roughly the same ammount of energy inputs. However, BioDiesel has 55% more energy per gallon than ethanol. E85 cars get 20-30% worse mileage than gasoline cars. Diesel cars get 20%-40% better mileage than gasoline cars. Do the math.
If you compare the best Switch Grass, and use it's theoretical yeild if cellulosic ethanol were possible. And then divide it by that difference in energy content. You get:
500gallons/acre/year / 1.55x = 323gal/acre/year BioDiesel feedstock equivalent. A relatively poor BioDiesel feedstock: 282 gal/acre/year : Avocados A relatively good BioDiesel feedstock: 700 gal/acre/year : Chinese Tallow Tree A relatively uber BioDiesel feedstock: 5,000-20,000 gal/acre/year : Algae
Cellulosic Ethanol is a joke.
About the only downsides to BioDiesel is: 1. It burns hotter, so it produces slightly more NOx, that forms Ozone and Smog However a new federal study finds 20% BioDiesel does not increase NOx levels. Right now, European Car manufacturers have a low tech NOx cleaner that reduces NOx by 90%. Legal in 45 US states. And in early 2008 they will market their high tech NOx filter, which also reduces NOx by 90%. Legal in 50 US states. As long as all NEW Diesels require the NOX filter, that flimsy 10-8% increase in NOx from Diesel in older vehicles would be fine. [Note: This isn't an issue with BioDiesel 20%]
2. It cleans the engine, and is far superior at maintaining the fuel injectors. This is a "problem" since it tends to clean out any gunk accumulated in an old dirty engine. Meaning you might need to clean out your fuel filter. (Or replace it, if it's a cheap low-tech one) If you don't clean your fuel filter, in a catastrophic case, it could send the gunk into the fuel injectors. Or cause fuel to burst all over the hot engine. Causing expensive damages. On the flip side, if you do clean out the fuel filter, you stand to save a hell of a lot more money on maintenence. Which is a huge plus side when you got a very expensive big rig truck, or a boiler which takes years for a company to pay off. [Note: This isn't an issue with BioDiesel 20%]
3. Like normal Diesel, it tends to gum up in sub freezing weather. (6 below freezing Untreated when it's 100% pure) This is usually mitigated by treating it with kerosene, (Gets it down to about 64 below freezing) or storing tanks underground. (Where it's relatively toasty at 18 above freezing year round.) [Note: This isn't an issue with BioDiesel 20%]
BioDiesel 20% could just be dropped in virtually any diesel engine, And not only give superior performance, and have far less wear and tear on the engine. But practically all Diesel air pollutants would be equal or far less than before. Including the virtual elimination of Sulfur. (A currently expensive process for PetroDiesel due to new federal Ultra Low Sulfur standards that went into effect October 2006)
_
I really don't think Sugar based fuels are the way to go. Algae Vegetable Oil fuel is c
I work for a Fortune 500 company. I am not allowed to post any information anywhere that would be related to the company or its policy. Period. End of Story. So for the Head of the Executive Branch to take the same position for any of his employees does not seem all that earth shattering. Thats all good and nice. However thats for the explicit purpose of spinning facts, and distorting them such that they are in the companies best interest. By the same right, I'm entirely certain your Fortune 500 company doesn't have to pass Scientific Peer Review, to post any 'Facts' you might have. Thats exactly why companies can't claim stats that they made up themselves. They need a highly unbiased third party source to validate it. And what you have right here, is the killing off of that unbiase.
Well, Biofuels are about 300x less effecient per acre than solar;D
(And thats assuming 10% effecient solar, newer solar tech can get 42% in lab conditions)
Anyways though,
Why in the world would you need Hydrogen when you have beefy car batteries that can charge in five minutes flat. (As opposed to 5-6 hours)
http://www.altairnano.com/markets_amps.html
And soon enough, ones that can offer 20x the storage of conventional batteries, with the same phenominal charge time.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disrupt ors_eestor.biz2/index.htm
Hydrogen is bunk given these new Battery Technologies.
This is why the Stirling solar project done by SDG&E is so ground breaking.
They do solar concentrators, but use an external thermal engine, linked to generator.
And the generator spits out AC, not DC.
No need for an inverter there.
And farms of these generate Megawatts of power. Hell, if the SDG&E went to their full contract limit, they would have nearly the capacity of a nuclear power plant.
Well, coming from the former SuperIntendant of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Donald E. Osborn,
(i.e. The guy who started the residential solar that had half the residential solar in the country at one point.) Guy was kind enough to speak at my solar applications class last week.
The main thing he was finding is that industrial purchasers can, do more, with less money.
He mentioned that the transaction cost of installing a 2KW system as a residential retrofit,
Would cost about the same as a 250KW commericial system.
This is because of the difference in financing, and near custom installs.
However, one way which he mentioned would be the BEST to get Solar onto residential buildings, is not to sell it to home owners. But to sell them to home builders.
With a solid enough supply chain of solar panels, home builders who design standardadized tract home could leverage bulk buying power, bulk installation, decide how the building roof is designed, do everything needed to cut costs dramatically (by about half), finacing is built directly into the mortgage, and there's practically zero hassle to the consumer.
Also this makes it easy to tie in with a plethora of other energy saving approaches.
For instance, merely point the house south, and a few other passive solar design structures, and you could save 30% of the house's needed energy.
Not to mention, with solar all build up and ready to go. It greatly increases both the value, and rate at which the houses sell out.
Only new construction has such leverage, at almost no cost. (Point the building that way, design the roads this way)
And by his stats "By 2035, ¾ of the built environment in US will be newly built or remodeled"
Either New construction, OR New industrial solar managed by utilities is the way to go.
Relying on retrofits hikes up the cost of solar, and should be our last choice, not our first.
Before it was only booted up in trial account creation mode the first run.
I just changed it so that it boots in the trial account creation mode for all the shortcuts.
Since they could just make a trial account, then upgrade it to paying 2 seconds later.
Good catch.
Slashdot Mirror
Starting in 2008_ news/article_1906.shtml
p ress_releases_details_d1.php?id=268
3 major car manufacturers will release BlueTec (type 2)
It's a close loop regenerating filter technology that reduces Smog emmisions by 90%
http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/volkswagen
There's already a similar tech for filtering out Smoke and Dust thats been around for years.
Which cuts that by 90%
Featured on everyone elses favorite dancing car, the Citroen C4
http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/en/psa_espace/
And starting last October, 80% of all US Diesel will be sold as "Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel"
Containing 97% less acid rain forming sulfur.
Not to mention, Diesel cars get 20% to 40% better mileage than gasoline.
And about 20% less Global warming emmisions.
And thats just talking about products coming from Petroluem Oil
Combine the those three technologies, and Petro-Diesel is Cleaner than Gasoline.
And things only get cleaner and greener when you start looking at "BioDiesel"
"Beginning June 1, 2005 all U.S. Navy and Marine non-tactical diesel vehicles will be required to operate on a B20 (20 percent) biodiesel blend" http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor y?id=24024
Also, in a reversal of a 2002 USDA study
National Renewable Energy Labs finds B20 BioDiesel does NOT increase NOx (Smog) emmisions.
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/news.htm l
B20 BioDiesel can be used in any Diesel vehicle, with no modification.
With equal or greater performance.
And much less air pollution.
For the same energy input as Ethanol, BioDiesel produces 55% more energy.
BioDiesel gives you far better Mileage than Gasoline, increase of 20-40%
Ethanol gives you far worse Mileage than Gasoline, decrease of 20-30%
Protecting America from disaster
Protecting the World from disaster
BioDiesel
Note: BioDiesel greatly reduces particulates BioDiesel greatly reduces sulfur The only thing worse is that it raises Smog when used in concentrations higher than 20% And only ups Smog like 8% when completely pure. Not to mention There are particulate filters which reduce it by 90% (Featured on everyone's favorite dancing robot car, the citroen C4) And there's a low tech resivour sprayer on the market, Now, in new 2007 Diesels which cuts the Smog levels by 90% Hell, since PetroDiesel being made up to the new-since October 2006 "Ultra Low Sulfer Diesel" standards is expensive. BioDiesel could likely be made much cheaper than PetroDiesel. With equal or better peformance and emmisions.
Quote: "Until someone produces an economical biofuel grown in salt water in the desert, biofuel production is about the worst thing we could do to our environment. " Algae doesn't need farmland. It grows just fine in deserts. And the water it'd use could easily be of the lowest quality, and could recapture most of it when drying the algae for production. Hell, in the deserts, you could even take advantage of high heat solar drying :P
The quality levels of "used cooking oil" are variable. Unreliable. Thats just unacceptable to businesses and governments. Not to mention, if there really is a good market for it, then that would dry up really fast anyways. BioDiesel from Algae is really the answer. If you can produce 62x more BioFuel per acre than even the best switchgrass ethanol.
1. Sugar cane is grown bountifully in the tropics.
It may very well be that rainforests are the only worthwhile places to have forests as carbon sinks.
More sugar grown in the tropics, more rainforest gets cut down.
Even if it's only planted *near* to the rainforests, since it forces other food crops out into the jungle areas.
2. Synthetic fertilizers contain Nitrous Oxide, aka Laughing Gas (aka N2O)
Agriculture accounts for most of it. (Especially when you include making plants to feed to animals)
Nitrous Oxide is 310x worse for global warming than carbon dioxide, and lasts for twice as long, 120 years.
Using a bunch of fertilizer to grow Sugar crops is stupid.
Whats the better solution?
Algae BioDiesel.
Not only does it not need nitrogen fertilizer, you can actually use power plant emmisions to feed it. Which dramatically reduces Nitrogen and Carbon emmisions.
BioDiesel is better than Ethanol.
BioDiesel and Ethanol take roughly the same ammount of energy inputs.
However, BioDiesel has 55% more energy per gallon than ethanol.
E85 cars get 20-30% worse mileage than gasoline cars.
Diesel cars get 20%-40% better mileage than gasoline cars.
Do the math.
If you compare the best Switch Grass, and use it's theoretical yeild if cellulosic ethanol were possible.
And then divide it by that difference in energy content. You get:
500gallons/acre/year / 1.55x = 323gal/acre/year BioDiesel feedstock equivalent.
A relatively poor BioDiesel feedstock: 282 gal/acre/year : Avocados
A relatively good BioDiesel feedstock: 700 gal/acre/year : Chinese Tallow Tree
A relatively uber BioDiesel feedstock: 5,000-20,000 gal/acre/year : Algae
Cellulosic Ethanol is a joke.
About the only downsides to BioDiesel is:
1. It burns hotter, so it produces slightly more NOx, that forms Ozone and Smog
However a new federal study finds 20% BioDiesel does not increase NOx levels.
Right now, European Car manufacturers have a low tech NOx cleaner that reduces NOx by 90%. Legal in 45 US states.
And in early 2008 they will market their high tech NOx filter, which also reduces NOx by 90%. Legal in 50 US states.
As long as all NEW Diesels require the NOX filter, that flimsy 10-8% increase in NOx from Diesel in older vehicles would be fine.
[Note: This isn't an issue with BioDiesel 20%]
2. It cleans the engine, and is far superior at maintaining the fuel injectors.
This is a "problem" since it tends to clean out any gunk accumulated in an old dirty engine.
Meaning you might need to clean out your fuel filter. (Or replace it, if it's a cheap low-tech one)
If you don't clean your fuel filter, in a catastrophic case, it could send the gunk into the fuel injectors.
Or cause fuel to burst all over the hot engine. Causing expensive damages.
On the flip side, if you do clean out the fuel filter, you stand to save a hell of a lot more money on maintenence.
Which is a huge plus side when you got a very expensive big rig truck, or a boiler which takes years for a company to pay off.
[Note: This isn't an issue with BioDiesel 20%]
3. Like normal Diesel, it tends to gum up in sub freezing weather. (6 below freezing Untreated when it's 100% pure)
This is usually mitigated by treating it with kerosene, (Gets it down to about 64 below freezing)
or storing tanks underground. (Where it's relatively toasty at 18 above freezing year round.)
[Note: This isn't an issue with BioDiesel 20%]
BioDiesel 20% could just be dropped in virtually any diesel engine,
And not only give superior performance, and have far less wear and tear on the engine.
But practically all Diesel air pollutants would be equal or far less than before.
Including the virtual elimination of Sulfur.
(A currently expensive process for PetroDiesel due to new federal Ultra Low Sulfur standards that went into effect October 2006)
_
I really don't think Sugar based fuels are the way to go.
Algae Vegetable Oil fuel is c
I'm opposed to this simply because I view it as an arguement to essentially dismantle peer review by flooding it with disinformation.
As the article mentions, there are many organizations that don't like scientific information having consensus and respect.
This is very clear by:
1. The Forced ShutDown of EPA Libraries
2. Scrapping the funding of the NASA earth program
3. Censoring of the US Geological Survey
_
Whats more,
The article mentions this guy is from an Exxon PR firm.
A group which stands the most to gain from disinformation.
So basically he has nothing to back his arguement.
"I found this trend on the period of ice ages"
That's reasonable.
"And it's caused by something I have absolutely no data for. I'm just guessing"
That's stupid.
He might as well blame it on Santa Claus,
and it'd have the same scientific validity.
When you could have one of these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rh2tka0P6M
Well, Biofuels are about 300x less effecient per acre than solar ;D
(And thats assuming 10% effecient solar, newer solar tech can get 42% in lab conditions)
Anyways though,
Why in the world would you need Hydrogen when you have beefy car batteries that can charge in five minutes flat. (As opposed to 5-6 hours)
http://www.altairnano.com/markets_amps.html
And soon enough, ones that can offer 20x the storage of conventional batteries, with the same phenominal charge time.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disrupt ors_eestor.biz2/index.htm
Hydrogen is bunk given these new Battery Technologies.
Different type of nuclear. The nuclear we use is Fission (Destroying atoms) The nuclear the sun uses is Fusion (Merging atoms)
Saw a bumper sticker the other day "When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died."
This is why the Stirling solar project done by SDG&E is so ground breaking. They do solar concentrators, but use an external thermal engine, linked to generator. And the generator spits out AC, not DC. No need for an inverter there. And farms of these generate Megawatts of power. Hell, if the SDG&E went to their full contract limit, they would have nearly the capacity of a nuclear power plant.
Well, coming from the former SuperIntendant of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Donald E. Osborn, (i.e. The guy who started the residential solar that had half the residential solar in the country at one point.) Guy was kind enough to speak at my solar applications class last week. The main thing he was finding is that industrial purchasers can, do more, with less money. He mentioned that the transaction cost of installing a 2KW system as a residential retrofit, Would cost about the same as a 250KW commericial system. This is because of the difference in financing, and near custom installs. However, one way which he mentioned would be the BEST to get Solar onto residential buildings, is not to sell it to home owners. But to sell them to home builders. With a solid enough supply chain of solar panels, home builders who design standardadized tract home could leverage bulk buying power, bulk installation, decide how the building roof is designed, do everything needed to cut costs dramatically (by about half), finacing is built directly into the mortgage, and there's practically zero hassle to the consumer. Also this makes it easy to tie in with a plethora of other energy saving approaches. For instance, merely point the house south, and a few other passive solar design structures, and you could save 30% of the house's needed energy. Not to mention, with solar all build up and ready to go. It greatly increases both the value, and rate at which the houses sell out. Only new construction has such leverage, at almost no cost. (Point the building that way, design the roads this way) And by his stats "By 2035, ¾ of the built environment in US will be newly built or remodeled" Either New construction, OR New industrial solar managed by utilities is the way to go. Relying on retrofits hikes up the cost of solar, and should be our last choice, not our first.
Kind of.
You don't get access to the vehicles and weapons from the caves.
But you do get access to the caves themselves.
Before it was only booted up in trial account creation mode the first run. I just changed it so that it boots in the trial account creation mode for all the shortcuts. Since they could just make a trial account, then upgrade it to paying 2 seconds later. Good catch.
Doh!
Click link:
http://www.greyfalcon.net/psinstall.zip
Well, I've done my best to polish up my installer over the weekend.
:)
/ 1713229
:)
Put in about every detail I can think of for the trial.
It's a 1MB web installer.
Completely simple, compatable, and just about perfect in every way
http://www.greyfalcon.net/psinstall.zip
I'm also the guy who ran the installer last year when we had only 7 day trial keys.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/05
Got about 7,000 downloads off that marketing push
As for the Devs, we've got a new Producer, really capable guy.
Last two patches have been fantastic.
And the next one looks pretty sweet as well.
Join the Fight
Well, I've done my best to polish up my installer over the weekend.
:)
/ 1713229
:)
Put in about every detail I can think of for the trial.
It's a 1MB web installer.
Completely simple, compatable, and just about perfect in every way
http://www.greyfalcon.net/psinstall.zip
I'm also the guy who ran the installer last year when we had only 7 day trial keys.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/05
Got about 7,000 downloads off that marketing push
As for the Devs, we've got a new Producer, really capable guy.
Last two patches have been fantastic.
And the next one looks pretty sweet as well.
Join the Fight