I thought the assumption with bio fuels is that they do emit bad stuff about the same as dino fuel but the emmissions are balenced out from the bio fuel raw material of growing the plant. The fuel is carbon neutral.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Apr 23 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]428477[/snapback]</div>

That should be true. Any new plant material that is burned has taken the CO2 out of the atmosphere in the first place. So any bio-fuel vehicle has less an effect on the atmosphere than its gasoline or diesel counterpart. Of course, a biodiesel hybird would be even better. Petroleum products also took CO2 out the the atmosphere, but that happened many millions of years ago. We've been putting an amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere that took millions of years to put into the petroleum. And we've done that in less than 200 years.

Dave M.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Apr 23 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]428477[/snapback]</div>

Read the study's blurb to find out why that ain't really the case.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Apr 23 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]428477[/snapback]</div>

The article is a little weak on details, I'd like to see the original report, but I imagine that's for paying subscribers only. Carbon generated from burning the oil (assuming it's pure biodiesel) would be carbon neutral as you say, but you have to consider the petroleum used to plant, herbicide, harvest the crop, etc. But the article only mentions nitrous oxide (N20) emissions, apparently caused by the rapeseed plants growing. A little googling showed up this page : http://biopact.com/2007/04/nitrogen-fertil...s-up-48-of.html, which describes how rapeseed production is tied to nitrogen fertilizers (produced from natural gas). Perhaps another plant would be a good alternative - soybeans are legumes, so I believe they can fix their own nitrogen, perhaps that would be better. I assume animal production of ammonia (the nitrogen fertilizer) isn't sufficient for our purposes.

I still think cellulosic ethanol is the way to go, and the way we'll eventually end up. This uses cheaper inputs like native switchgrass, lawn clippings, sawdust, etc. Electric vehicles are great, but it's going to take time (and up-front petroleum usage) to make enough solar panels and windmills to power them with clean energy. In the meantime, google velomobiles.

As that short article summarizes, the problem with rapeseed is not the ultimate emission of CO2 (none of which is fossil derived) from engines, but of nitrous oxide emitted by the plants as they grow. It goes on to say, "nitrous oxide (N2O) [...] is 200-300x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2", but they do not state the residence time of N2O in the atmosphere. CO2 remains for roughly 400 years; if N2O were naturally removed in a few weeks then it could still be a net gain.

The overall point is that a little learning is a dangerous thing. Trying to convert all hydrocarbon fuel sources to, say, corn ethanol or rapeseed bioDiesel, would be bad, even perhaps resulting in a net increase in anthropogenic global warming.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Apr 23 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]428541[/snapback]</div>

Cellulosic ethanol could have a minor role to play but consider this. Ethanol vehicles pose a significant risk to human health, study finds Bad news for sure.

So ultra-capacitors and better batteries are really gonna have to be the cheese.

This is still progress because at least we can grow the rapeseed or whatever -- we can't make petro.

And I'd rather pay our farmers than people who hate us....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 23 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]428627[/snapback]</div>

You might be ready to throw out the baby with the bath water here. According to his study, which is rather speculative IMO, deaths could rise by 2% (he says 4%, but the numbers don't match, either case it's not a disaster). This is if we go with all E85 and no other changes. I think we'll be reducing miles driven and improving vehicle fuel economy over the next decade, one way or another (ie. voluntarily for AGW or involuntarily from peak oil). That will seriously outweigh the effect of switching to ethanol (fuel consumption in general is the real problem for ground-level pollution not ethanol vs. gasoline).

So do we not reduce AGW, trade imbalance and funding for terrorists because of slight possible rise in mortality? The Big-3 aren't interested in mortality rates currently, based on their efforts to block improvements to the CAFE (current emissions are estimated to cause 10,000 premature deaths annually, according to this article). You're saying we can meet all this with electric vehicles, and I like that idea, but I see it as taking decades before millions of vehicles are pure EVs, whereas E85-capable vehicles are already in the marketplace in large numbers. Cellulosic ethanol is not, that's an area we need to work on, alongside EV R&D - making ultra-caps and battery-based motors practical (and most likely a hybrid of the two, or maybe with high-pressure hydraulics, compressed air, flywheels, etc.). Also, there is the range issue, altho that is really a niche market - eventually people could own a BEV, and rent an ICE-hybrid for the occasional vacation or road trip (or take the train and rent once you get there, assuming you're going to a city).

If it turns out you're right, that's okay. Either way, I made a promise to myself in 2000, shortly after a new-car purchase - that was the last car I'd buy with a gas-only power-plant. Ethanol, biodiesel, electric, hybrid, whatever, I wasn't staying on the oil pipeline as much as possible. This car is halfway to the real goal.

Today I looked up at the low-flying helicopter that was laying down
a first run of spray against mosquito growth, and thought "hmm, you
aren't going to find batteries that can power *that* on par with
liquid fuels yet". Cars on a smooth road have a distinct advantage
in terms of sipping gently at an energy source, but think about some
other uses that chew it down much faster.
.
_H*

What about biodiesel from algae? There's a massive potential there.

If this becomes commercial then electricity will be the answer!

New solar cell technology is expected to enable New Zealanders to generate electricity from sunlight at a tenth of the cost of current silicon- based photo-electric solar cells.


Developed by Massey University's nanomaterials research centre, the innovation uses a range of coloured dyes in dye-sensitised solar cells.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4022546a9175.html

Previous studies of rape-seed oil show that it produces 3x as much energy as it takes to produce using traditional farming methods.

The problem indicated in this report is the nitrous oxide produced from farming, which is a different greenhouse gas to CO2.

As mentioned above, algae is the way forward (10,000 gallons per acre vs 100 gallons per acre for rape-seed oil).

Biodeiesel is going to become the fuel of choice for farmers, truckers, rail between cities, and heavy equipment. There is no doubtr in my mind.
Ethanol will be used in rural areas and the midwest. And the east coast, west coast, and major cities will resort to mass transit and electric cars (for those who can afford them).

EV's are the best option, but battery production will not be able to fill the demand fast enough (limited nickel, lithium, etc.). So I expect the cost to be prohibitive for most to own a car at all.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Apr 23 2007, 05:33 PM) [snapback]428669[/snapback]</div>

We can, actually; it just costs a lot. Nevertheless, one day liquid hydrocarbon vehicle fuel will be made artificially, because fossil-derived fuels will be illegal, and bio-derived fuels would require too much land.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 24 2007, 08:52 AM) [snapback]428948[/snapback]</div>

That sounds reasonable. I think battery-assisted bicycles and recumbent trikes, etc. will become more popular as an alternative to cars. For one thing, you don't need to run crash tests for a bicycle, so the entry barrier is much lower, and companies can quickly introduce innovative ideas. They just need a sufficient demand for it. Surprisingly, the number of bike riders has dropped over the last ten years. My workplace moved in March to a large office building, several hundred people here, and one bike rack. Until today, I was the only one who had parked a bike in the bike rack. But we do have a health/exercise facility on campus, where people can go to work out, like ride a stationary bicycle!?! :blink:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Apr 24 2007, 08:52 AM) [snapback]429025[/snapback]</div>

The classic disadvantage to commuting by bicycle (even though bicycles are amazingly efficient machines) is that it can take more effort than a lot of people like. Especially if they have to contend with wind and/or hills. Either the effort required is too much for them or they just don't like getting sweaty before work.

But now there is technology that can completely eliminate that problem and should open up bicycle commuting to a new group of people.

Namely, battery assisted bicycles kits like the Bionx could do so much good by getting more people out of their cars and onto a healthier lifestyle path.

I'm getting one soon and plan to commute about 35 km a day with it on a regular comfort hybrid bicycle.

I like the battery bicycle concept too. Or even a scooter.
Well I'd like it about 7-8 months out of the year anyways.
I'll be damned if I'll ride a bike in below 0 weather!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 24 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]429288[/snapback]</div>

Oh yeah, I sometimes forget what it is like for many North Americans in the winter. I can bike pretty much year round here in Victoria. Lucky Bum!

With regard to alternative fuels, the main importance of the carbon cycle is whether it is a closed or open cycle. Any fuel produced entirely from biomass would have a closed carbon cycle – since all of the carbon within the fuel came from the plants from which it was produced, and the carbon in the plants came from the atmosphere. If the plant decays, much of that carbon finds its way back into the atmosphere as CO2 or methane (CH4). If the oil is extracted from the plant, and turned into biodiesel (the alcohol used to make the biodiesel could come from alcohol also made from the plant), all of the carbon in the biodiesel had to come from CO2 in the air. So, when we burn biodiesel, even though it gives off CO2, there is no net addition to atmospheric carbon (CO2) levels, since that same carbon (and nitrogen) we are releasing was taken from the atmosphere by the plants when they were growing.
Contrast this to the carbon released when we burn any fossil fuels. The carbon in gasoline, for example, is from the petroleum we extract out of the ground. That carbon itself was likely in the atmosphere at one point – but billions of years ago, when the earth was much younger, and had much higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The bacteria that grew on the young earth took carbon out of the atmosphere, and over billions of years of dying, not fully decaying, “sequestered†that carbon within the earth.

It seems to me as though the folks doing this study are focused purely on atmospheric greenhouse gases and not anthropogenic carbon.

Transesterification RULES!

Patiently waiting for the BLUE tec jetta diesel - suffering in a Prius in the interim. :blink: