98rammer

http://www.biodiesel.com/emissions.ppt<br><br>ok, i'm doing a report on diesel smoke and stuff...anyways, look near the bottom of the page at the CO2 cycles. Fossil CO2 released into the air, but biodiesel allows for renewable CO2 to be released into the air. from the looks of it, they're *really* saying that regular petroleum emits black smoke (aka particulates), yet trying to cover it up by saying that it's unrenewable CO2.. ??? am i missing something here or have i got a good point?<br><br>Tom

98rammer

anyone?

athompson

Try this link: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analy...dsl/p02001.pdf<br><br>The problem I have with the biodiesel.com link is that they appear to be providing misleading information. CO[sub]2[/sub] is CO[sub]2[/sub] regardless of the fuel source. All plants use CO[sub]2[/sub] and release O[sub]2[/sub]. It doesn't matter where the CO[sub]2[/sub] comes from. It could be from burning wood, paper, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, or just from animal respiration (you're breathing right now is assume). <br><br>Remember, just because you find information on the internet, it isn't necessarily correct. In fact, you don't know me so you should probably verify what I said.

AlpineRAM

About CO2 emissions: You can look at it that way:
December next year you drive your truck from your home to aunt Polly.

Version A: You use fossile diesel, so you put some CO2 into the air that wasn't there for several million years.

Version B: You use biodiesel, so this spring a farmer grows whatever your biodiesel will be made of, these plants will take xx pounds of CO2 from the atmosphere, use sunlight and water ( very important) and grow. Then you'll drive and reemit the same xx pounds of CO2 back into the atmosphere.

So, assuming that everybody drove biodiesel all year long, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays constant.

OK I know that this is rather criminally abbreviated...

One fact is,that the CO2 molecules look the same whether they were produced by burning diesel or biodiesel.

Some potentialyy interesting trivia: Over here there is a law that in conventional diesel there must be at least 3% biodiesel.
If you want to sell a product called biodiesel it must contain less than 3% mineral oil based components.
AFAIK the term biodiesel in the US describes a fuel made of 80% conventional and 20% bio.

And as athompson said- check it against other sources.
One of the problems of biodiesel is the fact that no engine burns the fuel ideally. So there are some other things coming out of the pipe than CO2 and water. But over here we have a whole lot of biodiesel and veggie oil converted vehicles.

If you are interested in some of that stuff pm me

AlpineRAM

Stamey

Stumbled across this to contribute:
http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...lean-green.pdf

Let me edit and add this:
http://www.biodieselnow.com

Chris

athompson

Interesting comments and links. If you buy into the whole &quot;greenhouse gas&quot; bit, which I don't, I can see the reason for a distinction on how old the carbon in the fuel is.<br><br>While every study I've seen on biodiesel shows a reduction in the &quot;greenhouse gases&quot;, they also show an increase in Nitrogen oxides, the precursers to SMOG. I would be more concerned about those. Don't misinterpret this as me saying that I am against renewable fuels, which I am not. It's also interesting that the biodiesel supporters can claim better fuel economy when the actual BTU content is lower that #2.<br><br>As for this whole &quot;greenhouse gas&quot; bit, why is the ozone hole about half the size it was a few years ago?

DuaneWKKC

Another benni of the Bio is that soy oil is an excellent lubricant! That is good news for us 24 valvers with the vp44. Im running schaeffer's deisel treat 2000 with winterizer right now but come summertime im going to try their soy based additive, i believe its called SoySheild.<br><br>Duane

HC

[quote author=athompson link=board=8;threadid=8533;start=0#83442 date=1040551001]
Interesting comments and links. If you buy into the whole &quot;greenhouse gas&quot; bit, which I don't, I can see the reason for a distinction on how old the carbon in the fuel is.

As for this whole &quot;greenhouse gas&quot; bit, why is the ozone hole about half the size it was a few years ago?
[/quote]

Maybe because some people did believe there was a problem, changed the laws, banned flurocarbons, and it turns out they were right and it did make a difference? But hey, what do I know?

Technically, &quot;greenhouse gases&quot; and &quot;ozone layer depletion&quot; are different issues. One of the biggest differences is that the world community admitted there was a problem and agreed to doing something about the ozone layer issue first. Now, the changes that were made more than a decade ago are now really paying off, while the arguments about &quot;greenhouse gases&quot; continue. Also, the changes are harder to implement because they go to the core of energy production and use, which is a harder problem to resolve than simply banning a few propellants or refrigerants.

You could study some of the latest findings at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/execsumm-saod2002.pdf
unless you want to automatically assume it's all lies just because the EPA is involved. But then again, which set of scientists do you really want to believe, the ones hired by big business to protect their profit-making activities, or those poor misguided souls who have devoted their lives to protecting the environment? Yes, there have been some cases where they've gone the wrong direction (like some of our &quot;anti-diesel&quot; issues), but don't be too quick to assume everything they have done is wrong, or that big business really cares about your environment and wouldn't mislead you.

athompson

Interesting article. Even the EPA understands that volcanic activity has a major impact on the ozone layer. They also seem to understand the seasonal impact on the ozone layer.<br><br>The problem I have is with statements like &quot;the ozone hole is the largest ever&quot;. How does anyone know that? Our measuring of the ozone layer just started. We only have a few decades of data. How does anyone know that we aren't just experiencing a natural cycle in the ozone layer.<br><br>Don't misunderstand, I am not advocating that we shouldn't do what we can to protect our environment.