Bio Diesel

Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Ooh Oh! - have I found a fun article here!

One of last months New Scientist issues (25/11/05) runs an article on the damage to rain forests the new EU directive on the use of bio diesel is having.

It seems that the rainforests of South East Asia are being destroyed by our demand for Palm Oil. I quote:-

"Palm oil is one of the most enviromentaly damaging commodities on the planet" - Simon Coulson, Dir. of the UK based Rain Forest Foundation.

Apparently an alternative is Soya bean oil but it is, according to the article "the largest single cause of rainforest destruction in the Brazillian Amazon".

So I hope all you diesel-heads out there are proud of yourselves!

I would have liked to have put LOL at this point -

but if true -

this really is not funny.
 
Mar 16, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
Clive, why should we be proud,

or for that matter ashamed.

what is the piont you are trying to make? share it with us.

i see because we drive diesels its our fault that in some

far away place, the locals grow what they can sell for food,and

even though we don't use it, its our fault.

really clive get a grip.wasn't it you who mentioned how cheap

lpg was? as a point for converting to it, well thats why these people distroy there rain forests, because we want everything cheap.
 
Nov 1, 2005
1,001
0
0
Visit site
clive,ive long thought the days of diesel were numbered.theyve always had their good and bad points but lately the good points are starting to dwindle.the cost is out of control for such a raw fuel,modern multivalve petrols give almost as good economy,and diesel fumes it now seems are more polluting than petrol.ive always believed stongly in petrol engines,and in the case of large heavy cars,lpg is far more cost effective than diesel.and you still get the power,smoothness,quiteness of the petrol engine.i think the way forward is hydrogen though.
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Some good points Craig - I personally do not care what fuel people choose we all have to live with our conscience - I choose NOT to use diesel because most of the medics that specialise in respiratory medicine believe that the particulate hydrocarbons spewed out by oil burners antagonise lung sensitivity and if not actually cause asthma certainly antagonise it.

Modern diesels are very much better than they were - but I choose not to use one because I believe a better fuel is available both on pollution and cost grounds.

Trouble is here - we have people who take any deviance from their view as a personal attack and react emotionally for daring to suggest that what they have chosen isn't the best and the envy of us all.

Gio - I simply do not understand your post - the only explanation for what you say is either you haven't actually read the NS article or if you did you could not or would not understand it.

Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh but what it says and the synopsis I reiterated earlier can hardly be described as "silly" :-

EU directive states that to reduce pollution and adverse affects on the environment, use of bio diesel is to increase and set a quota that cannot be satisfied by our own production of oilseed rape.

Result - demand and price of Soya and Palm oil goes up which results in the further decimation of the rainforests in both the Amazon basin and in south east Asia.

So we become a bit greener but destroy a vital part of the planet in the process.

Now that is not just silly - it is total bl**dy madness.
 
G

Guest

There are several types of organic diesels around. Some are made from palm oil or rape seed oil, some are derived from old cooking oils. Unfortunately, our dear Chancellor has taken the fun out of some of them by removing the tax breaks, and making them more expensive to produce than the good old petroleum diesel.

I feel that we are splitting a few hairs by discussing whether we burn a fossil or a vegetable based fuel in our motors. Really the issue is the number of motors in total. All produce unwelcome gases and if we really wish to lower that production, then we need to control the numbers. With the biggest developed country in the world unwilling to accept any change in that, we are probably all blowing in the wind. Once Aspen stops getting snow they may begin to think there is a problem.
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,157
0
0
Visit site
Thanks Clive, I'll just add that to the list;

1. Diesel, planet killer.

2. 4X4, people killer.

3. Windbreak erector, social outcast.

4. Twin axle, big ponce.

5. TV watcher on site, social outcast (again).

6. Adult only site user, child hater.

7. BBQ user, meat eater and destroyer of worlds.

Ok, that's enough to be going on with but can anyone tell me if brandy and coke is to be withdrawn because of its disabling aspects?

And is it still ok to leave the engine running in the morning to create some of this global warming? It's getting colder out there..
 

354

Mar 14, 2005
323
0
0
Visit site
What a lot of spin Clive V. This seems to me to be a case of posting arrticles which suport your personel views and ignore one which dont. I am sure there are many other studies and papers out there in support of diesels. All use of fosil fuel is bad, do you want us to abandon our cars and revert to the horse and cart?
 
Aug 28, 2005
603
0
0
Visit site
Did anyone listen to the lunch time debate on radio 2 re effects or global warming, I found it fascinating particular the point about the effects of tourism and the effects of growth economy (in Europe) on the world if they grow unchecked.

Moreover about three years ago I was playing golf with a guy from Syngenta the bio-crop group. I was I must admit; pretty sceptical after all at the time there was a daily articles in the press suggesting Frankenstein foods etc however by the fourth hole (par5 )he had convinced me the future for company's like his and their products wasn't in food but Bio-diesel.

Earlier this year when we where out in the states MacDonald's' were making a big play on the point that their entire fleet of trucks was being fuelled with recycled chip oil. All this debate on another post re which fuel is better and the fact is that the one with probably the most potential is one that we can grow!!

Monkey's Husband

(Wishing to camp in a windbreak free zone)
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,157
0
0
Visit site
Did anyone listen to the lunch time debate on radio 2 re effects or global warming, I found it fascinating particular the point about the effects of tourism and the effects of growth economy (in Europe) on the world if they grow unchecked.

Moreover about three years ago I was playing golf with a guy from Syngenta the bio-crop group. I was I must admit; pretty sceptical after all at the time there was a daily articles in the press suggesting Frankenstein foods etc however by the fourth hole (par5 )he had convinced me the future for company's like his and their products wasn't in food but Bio-diesel.

Earlier this year when we where out in the states MacDonald's' were making a big play on the point that their entire fleet of trucks was being fuelled with recycled chip oil. All this debate on another post re which fuel is better and the fact is that the one with probably the most potential is one that we can grow!!

Monkey's Husband

(Wishing to camp in a windbreak free zone)
No chance, windbreaks are here to stay.
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Hi Del

I was researching the octane rating of fuels when I found this NS article - the fact is I haven't found one article or reference that says what Rob has said that LPG is 90 octane.

Literally EVERY article/reference I have found states that it is 100 octane or there abouts. So much as I respect Rob's viewpoint - I have found nothing at all that supports what he says. And this is important because when you re-tune an engine for LPG, the higher octane rating offsets the lower calorific value. So as emmerson stated in his post - If you drive a well set up vehicle you will find no difference - apart from lumpy running on petrol.

I was as surprised as anyone when I read the article in NS - and in fact knowing that in the scientific community NS is roughly the equivalent of the Daily Mail - I do view the facts with a degree of scepticism. Hence the :-

"I would have liked to have put LOL at this point -

but if true -

this really is not funny."

of my initial post.

I agree with Monkeys husband on this - I always thought the way forward was to grow our fuel. In particular fermentation can produce alcohols and it is relatively easy to knock of an 0H and substitute it with an H - so that's me OK running on butane/propane.

So - no spin intended but if, as is your right, you do not agree with what I am suggesting it is an easy comment to make. All I would say is look at the pollution levels - look at the costs - and have an open mind.
 

LMH

Mar 14, 2005
5,684
0
0
Visit site
Thanks Clive, I'll just add that to the list;

1. Diesel, planet killer.

2. 4X4, people killer.

3. Windbreak erector, social outcast.

4. Twin axle, big ponce.

5. TV watcher on site, social outcast (again).

6. Adult only site user, child hater.

7. BBQ user, meat eater and destroyer of worlds.

Ok, that's enough to be going on with but can anyone tell me if brandy and coke is to be withdrawn because of its disabling aspects?

And is it still ok to leave the engine running in the morning to create some of this global warming? It's getting colder out there..
You forgot supporter of travellers, a person with no morals.

Lisa
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,157
0
0
Visit site
Thanks Clive, I'll just add that to the list;

1. Diesel, planet killer.

2. 4X4, people killer.

3. Windbreak erector, social outcast.

4. Twin axle, big ponce.

5. TV watcher on site, social outcast (again).

6. Adult only site user, child hater.

7. BBQ user, meat eater and destroyer of worlds.

Ok, that's enough to be going on with but can anyone tell me if brandy and coke is to be withdrawn because of its disabling aspects?

And is it still ok to leave the engine running in the morning to create some of this global warming? It's getting colder out there..
Forgot dogs too. I don't have one anymore, but while were in "snub mode", may as well get another and complete the package. As for Travellers Lisa, I haven't been abroad recently so the good old Visa is enough.
 

LMH

Mar 14, 2005
5,684
0
0
Visit site
Forgot dogs too. I don't have one anymore, but while were in "snub mode", may as well get another and complete the package. As for Travellers Lisa, I haven't been abroad recently so the good old Visa is enough.
Just thought of another couple:

1. large tv ariel, ugly eyesore

2. generators,noisy, pollute the atmosphere and keep small children and babies awake all night.

Lisa.
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,157
0
0
Visit site
Just thought of another couple:

1. large tv ariel, ugly eyesore

2. generators,noisy, pollute the atmosphere and keep small children and babies awake all night.

Lisa.
I'm not sure about the generator being the one that polutes the atmosphere, noisey and keeps the kids awake, that's the kids themselves!
 
Aug 28, 2005
603
0
0
Visit site
Hi Del

I was researching the octane rating of fuels when I found this NS article - the fact is I haven't found one article or reference that says what Rob has said that LPG is 90 octane.

Literally EVERY article/reference I have found states that it is 100 octane or there abouts. So much as I respect Rob's viewpoint - I have found nothing at all that supports what he says. And this is important because when you re-tune an engine for LPG, the higher octane rating offsets the lower calorific value. So as emmerson stated in his post - If you drive a well set up vehicle you will find no difference - apart from lumpy running on petrol.

I was as surprised as anyone when I read the article in NS - and in fact knowing that in the scientific community NS is roughly the equivalent of the Daily Mail - I do view the facts with a degree of scepticism. Hence the :-

"I would have liked to have put LOL at this point -

but if true -

this really is not funny."

of my initial post.

I agree with Monkeys husband on this - I always thought the way forward was to grow our fuel. In particular fermentation can produce alcohols and it is relatively easy to knock of an 0H and substitute it with an H - so that's me OK running on butane/propane.

So - no spin intended but if, as is your right, you do not agree with what I am suggesting it is an easy comment to make. All I would say is look at the pollution levels - look at the costs - and have an open mind.
Clive may be a fact finding trip to the Palm Oil Research Institute of Malaysia (PORIM), is called for, you'll get nice weather this time of year.

Somewhere it rings a bell that it is used in margarine and other foods.
 
Mar 28, 2005
831
0
18,880
Visit site
Until recently I worked for one of the worlds largest soya bean processors (Cargill PLC) and plans where in place to build a small "trial" Bio Diesel plant at the Seaforth plant where I worked.

The plans where postponed when the government removed the tax breaks.

However just because our government will not subsidize its production doesn't mean other countries governments won't.

Most of the soya beans imported into this country come from either North America or Brazil and recently two new soya processing plants have been built in Brazil and these plants can process and ship refined soya oil over here cheaper than we can buy the raw material.

So if the demand is there and there is a country willing to produce it, the future for the rain forests is in the balance.
 
Jul 12, 2005
1,896
0
0
Visit site
LOL, answers below

1. Diesel, planet killer. - yep me

2. 4X4, people killer. - Yep me

3. Windbreak erector, social outcast. - yep me

4. Twin axle, big ponce. Oi PONCE! you wait, you have to sleep some time!! ;-)

5. TV watcher on site, social outcast (again). - Yep me

6. Adult only site user, child hater. NO, I got one!!!!!

7. BBQ user, meat eater and destroyer of worlds. - Yep me, well maybe not the worlds bit

CliveV

As for the diesel argument. Car use of this is a fraction of overall requirement as it allows an engine to produce more tractive power per unit than petrol, this means lorries, ships etc will continue to use it. Many people who tow choose them for the power output and the fact that by selecting a diesel, the car usually weighs more.

Me, I will continue to live life the way I am as I only have one real motto left

ONE LIFE, LIVE IT

Steve
 
Mar 14, 2005
3,004
0
0
Visit site
Hi Steve

Please do not think I am against diesel engines and there use - how can I be? - most tractors and Horse lorries are oil burners etc. so I use them on a regular basis.

I am just very pro LPG having had 100K miles worth of experience (hang on - I'll just check my CPD log - Yep! a total of 102,378 miles to be precise) without problems and cheaper than anything else.

As a regular driver, my main dislike of diesels is the clouds of blue smoke - and yes I know a well tuned engine should not do this and modern ones least of all, but is it only me that hates to be stuck behind one when it changes gear and my car gets full of it if I am not quick enough to switch to "re-cycle"?

And my mates 200tdi - well - on start up its best to wear goggles and a mask if you are within 15 yrds.

Still whatever the polution of any fuel - it pails into insignificance compared to what will land on us as a consequence of the w/e disaster.

Thank God it was a Sunday and few people were there!
 
Mar 16, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
this thread is meaningless, as usual its just a dig.

so the facts are this.

the main manufacturers of diesel engines, are not anywhere near

to a point where biodiesel diesel could be used in a stronger ratio of more than 10% on a regular basis, without damage being done to todays modern diesel.

at the moment,there are serious concerns as to engine or injectors,long term lifespan.no doubt these will be addressed,

but its not something thats going to happen that quickley,so

i am amazed this topic has been raised,well i am not actually

its about the environment,and i too share clive v's concerns.

but my concerns do differ,as no matter what fuel you decide to

use, i have found that some are trying to blind the issues,with

which fuel is greener. this is totaly wrong. the issue is to

use modern technology to use LESS fuels, fullstop.

not wait a decade or two for someone to start claiming that this fuel or that fuel is now considered to be an hazard to our

health or environment,when enough people are using it that it

actually makes a difference,insome way to our environment.

no the big picture is to burn less co and less co2,and the only

way to do that,is to get more mpgs.

yes i am having a dig at the larger engined cars, why well somewhere i read about a 4plus litre having 200bhp and 10% difference in power being something you could not miss,but that

misses the piont of how ineffiecent the engine is,and what a gas

guzzler it is.

clive makes the piont that he has proudly run 100k on lpg,yes well done, what is the mileage showing now 150 or 200k if so then already in your cars lifetime,and you are still using it.

it has pulluted/used over 3 times the amount of fossil fuels my

two cars have,and mine are by no means as effiecent as someothers.so whats my piont,well its CCs the bigger the car or/

and engine the more fuel it uses,how on earth can that be/claimed, environmenttally friendly.
 
Mar 14, 2005
2,422
1
0
Visit site
Giovanni, You missed the point of my post re 4.2 litres and 200 bhp, and also Clive v's post as well. We've both done over 100,000 miles on LPG.Therefore virtually ZERO pollution! Check out www.lpgboost.My 200bhp saves me
 
Mar 14, 2005
2,422
1
0
Visit site
no,no, no.

yes it does save you money, and i am all for that.

i am also all for anyone driving any vehicle that they like,

be it 7.5 litres and 800 bhp and 6 mpg,hey doesn't matter as

long as you like what you drive. but and i say it again there

is noway on earth you can make claims as to environment helpfull

ness when the average car can do in excess of 35 mpg, and you

drive a car which is 50% worse.your claims of great savings on

co and co2, only apply when compared to petrol engines, these

do not apply when compared to diesels, and please do not preach

the pro lpg sites, as i have as of yet not taken the trouble to

preach the prodiesel sites.

and again you disregard the main issue of USE [mpg]like i said

if your actions were based on environment issues first, rather than your pocket, you would not be driving a large,4x4. instead

i find that some try to justify what the drive by going down

this same track over and over again.yet there is no need,but

when i see/hear the same thing over and over again,from people

trying to justify what they drive,i feel it is so insulting to

those people out there that REALLY are trying there utmost to

do there bit,by either being carefull of ALL their needs,or buying hybrid cars, or settling for the smallest vehicle size car

that still is capable of doing its job.

so please tell me where on earth does a large engined 4x4 fit in

to that equation of being the very least someone can have to do

the job and the owner can claim to be an environmentally aware.

me i make no such claim for myself,or my cars,and yet they DO

produce less co and co2 then your claimed environmental friendly

cars, they do 3 times the mpg, and one of them also has 200bhp.
I need a large 4x4 cos it suits my lifestyle. I pay the money, I make the choice.That, for me is the end of the story.
 
Mar 16, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
Giovanni, sorry, the website is www.boostlpg
i think you will find that on an earlier thread, i gave clive

the cambridge site address, where they prove the co and co2

argument,so now the best scientific site in england ,which by the way was not commissioned by anyone with an interest in any

specific fuel,is not good enough.

so what do you do, quote an lpg site... bravo...why am i not

surprised..... but then why is the government not pushing as

strong as it used to to promote lpg? do they know something

you don't.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts