MTV's pimp my ride, Impala with a 800hp Duramax Diesel...lol
the point of biodiesel isn't so much about lower emissions, it is more about staying inside the annual carbon cylce and not pulling ancient carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. Texas seems to be the only state complaining about biodiesel not being clean enough.
reading this just about made me gag. i am into biodiesel and fuel economy and the fact that these mtv idiots are promoting an 800hp impala as being "earth friendly" just because it can burn biodiesel is more damaging to the alternative fuels movement than helpful. The stupidity and hypocrisy are so obvious that most even partly intelligent people are going to just roll their eyes and stop paying attention altogether.
We're supposed to celebrate "break the addicition" by powering a heavy full size american car with a giant over-powered V8? We are soo doomed!
reading this just about made me gag. i am into biodiesel and fuel economy and the fact that these mtv idiots are promoting an 800hp impala as being "earth friendly" just because it can burn biodiesel is more damaging to the alternative fuels movement than helpful. The stupidity and hypocrisy are so obvious that most even partly intelligent people are going to just roll their eyes and stop paying attention altogether.
We're supposed to celebrate "break the addicition" by powering a heavy full size american car with a giant over-powered V8? We are soo doomed!

While I agree with part of this post, I also have to say, "C'mon: it's MTV. How serious could this really be taken?" They hardly show music anymore, much less anything remotely considered true substance by anyone I know.
Biodiesel has lower net carbon emissions, as previously stated, and zero sulphur issues. It does discharge higher nitrogen oxides, so some smog issues are slightly worse. Lubricity is also better than dinodiesel, while power equivalence is sort of case by case basis. Some seedstock has better energy content that others for diesel, usually offset by higher cloud points and wax. Soot and particulates are reportedly lower, hence less smoke, and I have never heard if the biodiesel soot has ever been tested for carcinogenic properties.
well, I don't really take it that seriously... and I haven't had TV in my home since 1989, so I wouldn't even know what MTV is up to if I hadn't read it here...
I did like the VW "umpimp your ride" GTI ads, but I watched those on youtube.
I did like the VW "umpimp your ride" GTI ads, but I watched those on youtube.
Well, for one it is more expensive to extract. Vegetable oil comes from the seed of the plant. Even with today's genetic modifications, the seeds make up a very small portion of the plant. I want to say 5% or so of the plant, but I kinda forgot. So anyway, if you take into account the amount of water, fertilizer, man power, machinery, refining, etc. that would go into making one gallon of biodiesel, it would cost a lot more than a gallon of #2. Imagine how much of this we would need to grow in order to completely replace #2. 
Now the second part to this is the environmental part. In order to meet the demands of today's diesel consumption, we would have to clear more natural land for agriculture. Agriculture (and grazing) is one of the most environmentally damaging things that could be done (according to environmentalists). Remember that "conserving the environment" doesn't only consider air pollution. However, deforestation (as a result of agriculture or other things) is the worst air pollutant, because trees suck up a lot of CO2.
So in conclusion, to use biodiesel in place of diesel would not only cost a lot, it would actually lead to more pollution as a result of deforestation (plus inflict the other side effects of agriculture).

Now the second part to this is the environmental part. In order to meet the demands of today's diesel consumption, we would have to clear more natural land for agriculture. Agriculture (and grazing) is one of the most environmentally damaging things that could be done (according to environmentalists). Remember that "conserving the environment" doesn't only consider air pollution. However, deforestation (as a result of agriculture or other things) is the worst air pollutant, because trees suck up a lot of CO2.
So in conclusion, to use biodiesel in place of diesel would not only cost a lot, it would actually lead to more pollution as a result of deforestation (plus inflict the other side effects of agriculture).
Well, for one it is more expensive to extract. Vegetable oil comes from the seed of the plant. Even with today's genetic modifications, the seeds make up a very small portion of the plant. I want to say 5% or so of the plant, but I kinda forgot. So anyway, if you take into account the amount of water, fertilizer, man power, machinery, refining, etc. that would go into making one gallon of biodiesel, it would cost a lot more than a gallon of #2. Imagine how much of this we would need to grow in order to completely replace #2. 
Now the second part to this is the environmental part. In order to meet the demands of today's diesel consumption, we would have to clear more natural land for agriculture. Agriculture (and grazing) is one of the most environmentally damaging things that could be done (according to environmentalists). Remember that "conserving the environment" doesn't only consider air pollution. However, deforestation (as a result of agriculture or other things) is the worst air pollutant, because trees suck up a lot of CO2.
So in conclusion, to use biodiesel in place of diesel would not only cost a lot, it would actually lead to more pollution as a result of deforestation (plus inflict the other side effects of agriculture).


Now the second part to this is the environmental part. In order to meet the demands of today's diesel consumption, we would have to clear more natural land for agriculture. Agriculture (and grazing) is one of the most environmentally damaging things that could be done (according to environmentalists). Remember that "conserving the environment" doesn't only consider air pollution. However, deforestation (as a result of agriculture or other things) is the worst air pollutant, because trees suck up a lot of CO2.
So in conclusion, to use biodiesel in place of diesel would not only cost a lot, it would actually lead to more pollution as a result of deforestation (plus inflict the other side effects of agriculture).

I hadn't heard the disadvantges to bio-diesel but I did hear one time how much ethonal an acer could be proudced and it is not econicmal either.
Bio-Diesel can also be produced from waste, so please explain all that would be a bad thing! From what I have been reading, just the slauter houses alone could supply enough waste to produce 10-15% of todays need for diesel fuel. And the way I look at it, every little bit helps. And by doing this, it would not hurt the enviroment, in fact it would help.
Well, for one it is more expensive to extract. Vegetable oil comes from the seed of the plant. Even with today's genetic modifications, the seeds make up a very small portion of the plant. I want to say 5% or so of the plant, but I kinda forgot. So anyway, if you take into account the amount of water, fertilizer, man power, machinery, refining, etc. that would go into making one gallon of biodiesel, it would cost a lot more than a gallon of #2. Imagine how much of this we would need to grow in order to completely replace #2. 
Now the second part to this is the environmental part. In order to meet the demands of today's diesel consumption, we would have to clear more natural land for agriculture. Agriculture (and grazing) is one of the most environmentally damaging things that could be done (according to environmentalists). Remember that "conserving the environment" doesn't only consider air pollution. However, deforestation (as a result of agriculture or other things) is the worst air pollutant, because trees suck up a lot of CO2.
So in conclusion, to use biodiesel in place of diesel would not only cost a lot, it would actually lead to more pollution as a result of deforestation (plus inflict the other side effects of agriculture).


Now the second part to this is the environmental part. In order to meet the demands of today's diesel consumption, we would have to clear more natural land for agriculture. Agriculture (and grazing) is one of the most environmentally damaging things that could be done (according to environmentalists). Remember that "conserving the environment" doesn't only consider air pollution. However, deforestation (as a result of agriculture or other things) is the worst air pollutant, because trees suck up a lot of CO2.
So in conclusion, to use biodiesel in place of diesel would not only cost a lot, it would actually lead to more pollution as a result of deforestation (plus inflict the other side effects of agriculture).

There was just an article in our local paper about ethanol. They said the plant they are building will use 500 million bushels of corn to make 100 million gallons of fuel a year. Im not shure if thats good or bad. But to me it looks like a low ratio.
It's actually quite depressing when I think about it. So I try not to.

Source (google):
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006...roleum_co.html
Sorry for the off-topic. Anyway, yes I still wanna see that Impala!
lol! but an 800 horse Dmax in an impala? Lemme guess, its banks built? who on pimp my ride knows diesels?
i have a hunch its the same one that they used on the suburban gorilla on Xtreme 4x4
Rick

And while I think it's kinda retarded that they are doing this (as a matter of fact I think the show should be canned and all of the people on it beaten for being retarded) it will be kinda neat to see.



