Bio Fuel

[WarlockNZ]

Global Warming ... blah blah.
Oil depletion policy .. blah blah.
more kiwis should use public transport..get bent! .. woops ... sorry .. blah blah.

What i want to know is will my bike, or any bike for that matter, run on bio fuel, gull are selling it at the pump, so what are the pro's and cons for bikers.

Anyone know the answers ??

[NighthawkNZ]

Global Warming ... blah blah.
Oil depletion policy .. blah blah.
more kiwis should use public transport..get bent! .. woops ... sorry .. blah blah.

What i want to know is will my bike, or any bike for that matter, run on bio fuel, gull are selling it at the pump, so what are the pro's and cons for bikers.

Anyone know the answers ??

Sad thing the biofuel isn't the answer...

It makes the same carbon emmissions isn't any cleaner than standard fuel.
It will put the price of grain up and therefore the price of food in general, as more farmers grow grain for fuel and less for food (supply and demand)
And since we are in the Kyoto protocol, growing grain for fuel to create the same emissions... hmmmm



Answering your question tho... most modern vehicles should be able run on Biofuels. However whether they are as efficient as standard fuel I can not answer

[doc]

Sad thing the biofuel isn't the answer...

It makes the same carbon emmissions isn't any cleaner.
It will put the price of grain up and therefore the price of food in general, as more farmers grow grain for fuel and less for food (supply and demand)
And since we are in the Kyoto protocol, growing grain for fuel to create the same emissions... hmmmm


Surely being organic it wil be fine for substance abuse at the rallies etc. Bring it on.

[Usarka]

i thought it was bad for bikes so just checked my manual.

he doesnt speak much engrish (hes from barcelona) but he say up to 10% ethanol is ok but dont store the bike for any length of time with this fuel in it.

and avoid methanol fuel.

gull is 10% so as they say, i speeeka da good engleesh.

[idleidolidyll]

Global Warming ... blah blah.
Oil depletion policy .. blah blah.
more kiwis should use public transport..get bent! .. woops ... sorry .. blah blah.

What i want to know is will my bike, or any bike for that matter, run on bio fuel, gull are selling it at the pump, so what are the pro's and cons for bikers.

Anyone know the answers ??

your bike will run fine on it, better even if the fuel has a better octane and/or cetane rating

[idleidolidyll]

i thought it was bad for bikes so just checked my manual.

he doesnt speak much engrish (hes from barcelona) but he say up to 10% ethanol is ok but dont store the bike for any length of time with this fuel in it.

and avoid methanol fuel.

gull is 10% so as they say, i speeeka da good engleesh.

yep, Gull is 10% and it's ethanol not methanol

[idleidolidyll]

Sad thing the biofuel isn't the answer...
It makes the same carbon emmissions isn't any cleaner than standard fuel.
It will put the price of grain up and therefore the price of food in general, as more farmers grow grain for fuel and less for food (supply and demand)
And since we are in the Kyoto protocol, growing grain for fuel to create the same emissions... hmmmm
Answering your question tho... most modern vehicles should be able run on Biofuels. However whether they are as efficient as standard fuel I can not answer

Oh dear.

Biofuel does emit the same carbon but since it is fist taken from the air by the plants then relesed back into the air by the vehicle; it's carbon neutral (depending on a few other factors to follow)

It WILL raise the price of grain if the wrong kinds of plants are used in the wrong regions to produce it. The best plants to grow for biofuels are not sugar can or corn in most places. Those are too reliant on machinery, fertilisers, pesticides and water.
The best crops are varied and depend on the place where they are to be grown. It's complicated and too big too explain here: read up.

Growing grain for fuel doesn't have to produce the same emmissions at all and that has what to do with Kyoto?

As for efficiency: biodiesel is MORE effieient. It has a better cetane rating and has MUCH better lubrication properties.
The usual figure quoted is 10% MORE power on biodiesel. I don't have the numbers for bioethanol but I'd suspect similar ideas.

[Usarka]

does biofuel go both ways?

[Shadows]

does biofuel go both ways?

The answer to that question will become clearer when we know what the cocktane rating is.

[xwhatsit]

They were talking about it on the television a while back, and said something to the effect of `cars with carburettors -- especially Japanese imports -- should not use it'.

Having a somewhat elderly bike, I think I might stay away from it for the moment.

[Aa7]

The front page of the NZ Herald today has an article on BioFuels and the increase of costs for the non-bio-fuel variants available. So my question is; who is going to be running their bikes on bio-fuel and who is going to use still standard fuels? will the 98 octane variant available from BP presently still be available after the mass introduction of bio-fuels?………thoughts? ideas?

[Ragingrob]

Here ya go.... go to gull.co.nz and it has a list of all the cars AND motorbikes that biofuel is ok or not ok for :).

[Aa7]

cheers for the link :niceone:

To bad if your a honda rider as it seems you all got forgotten from the list of motorbikes sold in this country:lol:

[Tank]

I put some in my cage the other day from Gull and car was shit until I flushed it out with some BP 98.

[WarlockNZ]

well shit ... LOL ... all hyosungs can't use it ...

[Ice_Monsta]

well, brand new suzuki road bikes are ticked on the list...so go me and the GN250, i don't trust the biofuel as yet though..

[Ragingrob]

Well I use it in my GN cause there's a gull just down the road, and it seems fine :)

[Usarka]

Here ya go.... go to gull.co.nz and it has a list of all the cars AND motorbikes that biofuel is ok or not ok for :).

My kwaka's manual says 10% ethanol is ok, but gull says no for my bike. surely no one will be surprised when i finally find my axe arrrraggghhh

[vifferman]

My worry is water.
Will this new! IMPROVED!! Now with added ethanol and baby whale juice! biofuel have a propensity to suck up and absorb water? I've had one rusting tank, and I don't want to go through that hassle again....

[Swoop]

To bad if your a honda rider as it seems you all got forgotten from the list of motorbikes sold in this country:lol:
I'm soooooo sad about that... <----note total sarcasm. :lol: :rofl:

I'll just have to continue polluting, just like the labour party does to the gene pool.

[SlashWylde]

The manual for my 2005 Kawa VN800 says up to 10% ethanol content is ok.

My 1994 Nissan Primera on the other hand.... have to talk to my mechanics 'bout that one.

[idleidolidyll]

Commercial Production Of Biodiesel In New Zealand

Thursday, 11 October 2007, 4:56 pm
Press Release: Ecodiesel<!--first blockquote gone!--> NEWS RELEASE
11 OCTOBER 2007Ecodiesel Pioneers Commercial Production Of
Biodiesel In New Zealand
New Zealand owned and Auckland-based Ecodiesel Limited, is successfully leading the charge in turning purified New Zealand tallow or animal fat, a by-product of meat processing, into a precious liquid ‘green fuel’ - biodiesel.
Ecodiesel announced today that it has secured sufficient equity from New Zealand investors to establish the first commercial scale biodiesel production facility in New Zealand. The plant will have the capacity to supply the Government’s biofuel obligation of a major oil company, with initial production of 20 million litres of biodiesel by the end of 2008, increasing to 40 million litres of biodiesel per annum by the end of 2009.

Ecodiesel’s production of bio diesel will support this week’s introduction by Government of the Biofuel Bill. The legislation requires oil companies to blend a percentage of biofuels with the conventional fossil fuels available at the pump, commencing in 2008.
Biodiesel made from tallow has the lowest environmental footprint or Sustainable Process Index (SPI) of any biodiesel (according to the Institute for Resource Efficient and Sustainable Systems, Graz, Austria, Process Evaluation Report). Ecodiesel is an environmentally sound biodiesel which meets the Green Party’s amendment to the Biofuel Bill. The amendment, through the introduction of a sustainability standard, requires biofuels to demonstrate that they do not impact on our food supply and/or the environment.
Dr Neil Domigan, Ecodiesel’s Commercial Director says, “After many years of research and development and having now secured sufficient investment we are able to progress to a commercial scale operation. It’s pleasing to be able to provide a cost competitive and
-2-
sustainable biodiesel, produced from local by-products, to New Zealand consumers. We’ve been successfully running our own diesel vehicles on Ecodiesel for some time.”
Ecodiesel’s conversion process has already been proven, with its current Auckland demonstration plant producing commercial quantities of biodiesel. This proven conversion process will be scaled up as the basis for the new commercial plant.
Ecodiesel’s patented conversion process has a plant capital cost that is up to 75% lower than publicly released capital costs of other biodiesel plants contemplated in NZ. Ecodiesel’s process requires less heat and less fossil fuel than other plants of similar scale. This translates into reduced operating costs, which makes Ecodiesel’s production of biodiesel cost competitive and environmentally sustainable, especially when compared to crop sourced biofuels.
Ecodiesel is managed by a New Zealand based team of global experts in chemical engineering and biotechnology. It is supported by URS – one of the world’s largest engineering, environmental management and planning companies - with considerable experience in developing biofuel facilities.
Biodiesel, a biodegradable and renewable biofuel, is successfully used internationally, particularly in Europe and the USA, to reduce the percentage of petroleum oil derived diesel used.
By using Ecodiesel product, both companies and individuals will reduce their carbon emissions and make their personal contribution to reducing climate change.
Fact Box
Production
Ecodiesel will initially produce 20 million litres of biodiesel per annum – its plant is modular and will be expanded at low cost to increase production to 40 million litres per annum as demand grows.
The Supply
As a by-product of the meat industry, New Zealand produces approximately 130,000 tonnes of tallow annually surplus to its domestic requirements. This volume of tallow converts to 127 million litres of biodiesel.
Biodiesel Use
Biodiesel can be used in a diesel engine without modification. It is simple to use, biodegradable, non toxic and typically has less than 15ppm sulphur and is free of other compounds which cause damage to the environment. It is fully compatible with present fuel and engine technology. Biodiesel reduces nearly all forms of air pollution compared to petrodiesel. Specifically, biodiesel use reduces sulphur, carbon monoxide and particulate contaminant emissions.
Better for engines
In addition to being a New Zealand produced, renewable alternative fuel for diesel engines, biodiesel has positive performance attributes such as increased cetane, high fuel lubricity, and high oxygen content. These characteristics make it an excellent blending stock with fossil derived diesel. Additionally biodiesel has a solvent effect and usage reduces deposits in diesel engines.
Fuels such as biodiesel that have a higher cetane number have a shorter ignition delay which provides more time for the fuel combustion process to be completed. This means that diesel engines operate more effectively with higher cetane number fuels.

[Yellow Streak]

I run my Hyosung on Force 10 and it loves it!
It's a good idea to make the first fill the biggest and replace the fuel filter after the first three to five fills.
Visit the site and click on "Important Tips". Then click the reccomendation pdf. It states that all Hyosungs are compatible.

www.gull.co.nz/

[Finn]

So how many hippies does it take to make a litre of Biofuel?

[Yellow Streak]

I heard that by the end of next year the Ethanol content will be a mandatory minium of 20% (E20) in all petrolium sold in this country.

[Yellow Streak]

Surely being organic it wil be fine for substance abuse at the rallies etc. Bring it on.

I myself would be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy the occasional sniff!:drinkup:

[borg]

I heard that by the end of next year the Ethanol content will be a mandatory minium of 20% (E20) in all petrolium sold in this country.

Anyone heard any more about this? Might be worth continuing this thread a bit more as the fuel mixes become all that is available.

[sunhuntin]

im not sure if its next year, but all petrol companies will have to provide a bio alternative eventually. i personally plan to be out of the industry by then... most joe-asswipes cant even tell the difference between 91 and 95, or why that keypad doesnt relate to the pump next door, never mind trying to get their heads around biofuels.

[vifferman]

Biofuels Drive Running Out of Gas (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=247&objectid=10500609)

[borg]

im not sure if its next year, but all petrol companies will have to provide a bio alternative eventually. i personally plan to be out of the industry by then... most joe-asswipes cant even tell the difference between 91 and 95, or why that keypad doesnt relate to the pump next door, never mind trying to get their heads around biofuels.

Good post. Made me smile. Couldn't agree more though... Why do you think bikers have to be so careful - There are too many braindead drivers driving on autopilot with their eyes half closed.

[sunhuntin]

trust me... i see a large number of blind drivers every shift, to the point its scary. hell, i get called "sir", "young man", "lad" etc by tons of em, and thats in a tshirt! :shit: (.)(.) <-- not exactly a bcup.

we have two pumps that are on the same stand. one side is 91, the other 95. they each have their own independant keypads, but so many type the amount on the 95 and then grab the 91 and then get shitty when they end up with more than they wanted. same with the prepay signs "what does prepay mean? do i have to pay first?" welllll.... DUH. or else they read the sign, lift it up, type the amount and then standing there pumping nothing, wondering why its "broken".

[Gubb]

im not sure if its next year, but all petrol companies will have to provide a bio alternative eventually. i personally plan to be out of the industry by then... most joe-asswipes cant even tell the difference between 91 and 95, or why that keypad doesnt relate to the pump next door, never mind trying to get their heads around biofuels.
This year. July 1 I think the regulation come into effect.

[Finn]

This year. July 1 I think the regulation come into effect.

Ahhh, but not so fast cookie boy...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10500609

[vifferman]

Ahhh, but not so fast cookie boy...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10500609
That looks strangely like post #29... :whistle:

[Finn]

That looks strangely like post #29... :whistle:

Pftttt, that was minutes ago.

[Gubb]

Ahhh, but not so fast cookie boy...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10500609

Cheers for the link, but 'cookie boy'?

[Finn]

Cheers for the link, but 'cookie boy'?

Someone just sent me a Benny Hill clip. Nothing to worry about you sirry iriot.

[borg]

Biofuels Drive Running Out of Gas (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=247&objectid=10500609)

This is the article that prompted me to post in this thread earlier today.

[motorbyclist]

Biofuel does emit the same carbon but since it is fist taken from the air by the plants then relesed back into the air by the vehicle; it's carbon neutral (depending on a few other factors to follow)


you ARE correct that the type of plant matters. also, biodiesel IS better than diesel, but i hear it forms a waxy solid at low temperatures.

but biofuel is not carbon neutral when made from plants. the carbon released in deforestation to clear more land to grow the plants, and carbon release in just growing the stuff (fertilizers, processing etc) cancel it all out and then some.

ethanol is a solvent, and will eat most rubbers/plastics in most vehicles, especially the older ones. it burns at a different rate to normal petrol, so spark timing should be altered. it has less energy per kg than normal petrol, but can be run at much higher compression, so only gives more power if your vehicle cannot run petrol.

in the states, to replace their oil imports with home-grown biofuel, they would have to import food instead. food prices are already rising as farmers can get more money from fuel than food. tequila production in mexico is falling for the same reason.

the solar to bioethanol (via plants) to wheel efficiency is something on the order of 0.01%
the solar to electricity (via solar panels) to wheel is about 35% at present
the area of fertile land required by biofuels would therefore be 3500 times the area of infertile land required by solar panels to power electric vehicles.

then of course there's nuclear power...

and recent developments using solar energy to convert CO2 in the atmosphere to CO, which can then be used as a fuel. (use that fuel to make electricity and you've got a claimed 35% efficiency, close to the current solar panel record of 42.8%)

electric vehicles are enjoying further improvements in battery technology to increase range, the motors are near zero maintenance, dead silent and ZERO emissions - and it is cleaner to burn coal to power electric cars than it is to run a car on petrol

so why isn't our government pushing for an electric car fleet instead of trying to fuel our unreasonably old combustion fleet on unsuitable fuels?



I heard that by the end of next year the Ethanol content will be a mandatory minium of 20% (E20) in all petrolium sold in this country.

i believe the figure was biofuel had to be 3.4% of all transport fuels by 2010


most joe-asswipes cant even tell the difference between 91 and 95, or why that keypad doesnt relate to the pump next door, never mind trying to get their heads around biofuels.

+1

i see NZ wood industry is spreadng biofuel propaganda

it's a shame grass gives a higher yield per hectare than wood, and you get regular harvests rather than one every 7 years

[motorbyclist]

electric bike manufacturer in the states (http://www.electricmotorsport.com)

electric sportscar (http://www.teslamotors.com/)

[bobbydazzler]

you should not put bio fuel in any modern injection engines especially diesels. when i say modern i mean from 2006 onwards. the tolerences of modern fuel injectors are getting smaller all the time, it causes sealing faces and rubber seals to shit themselves. in diesels it will lock up your high pressure pumps at blow your engine, its crap stuff dont touch it, or attleast untill the major bike/car manufacturers design their engines with bio fuel in mind. most petrol companies put biofuel mix into there fuels but it is a relatively small amount which shouldnt hurt. just get the lawyers ready when the make it more than 20% mix

[motorbyclist]

on that note i did hear some report about bioethanol being a serious fire hazard: once a pressurized rubber fuel line/seal splits due to the ethanol dissolving it, the result would be a spray of fuel onto/around the hot engine. under the bonnet of a car this would have an obviously undesirable effect:pinch:

[idleidolidyll]

you should not put bio fuel in any modern injection engines especially diesels. when i say modern i mean from 2006 onwards. the tolerences of modern fuel injectors are getting smaller all the time, it causes sealing faces and rubber seals to shit themselves. in diesels it will lock up your high pressure pumps at blow your engine, its crap stuff dont touch it, or attleast untill the major bike/car manufacturers design their engines with bio fuel in mind. most petrol companies put biofuel mix into there fuels but it is a relatively small amount which shouldnt hurt. just get the lawyers ready when the make it more than 20% mix

sorry to burst your bubble chicken little but two facts negate that warning: most well made commercial biodiesel (not SVO) is thinner (less viscous) than mineral diesel and injection system manufacturers also sell different injectors for those who make their own biodiesel or who use SVO (straight vege oil).
The germans and many other Euros have been doing this for decades.

the real issue from the start is that biodiesel will clean all the crap out of your fuel tank and block your diesel filters. It is vital to change those filters 3 or 4 times soon after changing to biodiesel to prevent problems in that area. Afterwards, the extra cleaning and lubrication qualities of commercial biodiesel should improve engine longevity.

Commercial biodiesel must meet certain standards but of course home made biodiesel often will never be tested. That doesn't mean it's always a problem. It just means that you should be very careful when making the stuff and don't take shortcuts. An extra insurance policy when using it is to route your fuel lines through the radiator in an internal coil to heat the fuel and reduce its viscosity. You can also buy inline heaters drawing about 10-20 amps that will heat the biodiesel to about 70 degrees just before it goes into the injector (thereby reducing the viscosity).

The upshot is to always use good fuel (and commercial mineral diesel is just as bad sometimes), be aware of the POTENTIAL problems and the means to overcome them and, if making your own fuel, don't take shortcuts (like the SVO systems that 'treat' the oil with mothballs etc).

[idleidolidyll]

i see NZ wood industry is spreadng biofuel propaganda

it's a shame grass gives a higher yield per hectare than wood, and you get regular harvests rather than one every 7 years

I read in New Scientist a while ago that the best plant 'crop' for US bioethanol would be prairie grasses from the Great Plains.
The use of grain crops is highly water and chemical intensive and is pushing up food prices. The solution is different for every continent/region/country due to different ecosystems but for the USA, prairie grass grows with little water, no chemicals and produces 2-3 'crops' a year.
It's ability to be used as fuel is about as good as the crops currently being used and the Great Plains areas are to a large extent, still untapped.

The one issue noted was a repeat of the dust bowl effects of the 1920's and 30's when farmers over-farmed the land and were then hit by droughts. The land turned to dust and blew away. However, with that knowledge in mind and careful management, it should be possible to use bio crops all over the world as long as we seek solutions specific to each ecosystem.

For sure though, we will need to augment this with wind power, waves and sunlight to reduce dependance on oil from mineral AND crop fuels if we are serious about air quality and global climate change.

[bobbydazzler]

i worked for BMW UK upto october 07, there was a technical bulletin on the BMW computer network (PUMA) not long before i left the uk, this is basically a system that allows the employees to be able to contact the technical head office in either GB or AG (germany) if there is a problem they should know about, or if they have a problem they can ask for help from tech department.
it went something like this. dear blah @ technical offfice, customer arrived today asking if he/she could put bio diesel in there car "", blah blah blah.
reply from technical office was something like this. under no circumstances should biofuel be used in any BMW vehicle as we cannot guarenty our parts will be compitable with said fuel. will void warrenty.
it may be them being over cautious but at the end of the day if its not known then best not chance it. if this is the case, it will most likely be the same for most other european major car manufacturers, they all use pretty much the same components made by bosch. i think the car companys are now giving customers an option for guarenteed biofuel compatible vehicles, but this could just be another way of making more money, would i buy a $100,000 car and put biofuel in. no i wouldnt want to take the risk. the following is a link to i presentation put together for the ministry of transport, this also states that compatibilty with all vehicles cannot be guaranteed. http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Vehicle-and-Engine-Risks-report-v3.1.pdf

[motorbyclist]

sorry to burst your bubble chicken little but two facts negate that warning: most well made commercial biodiesel (not SVO) is thinner (less viscous) than mineral diesel and injection system manufacturers also sell different injectors for those who make their own biodiesel or who use SVO (straight vege oil).
The germans and many other Euros have been doing this for decades.

i think his point was the very real and acknowledged risk that deposits in the fuel lines, and the lines/rubber seals themselves, (at points past the fuel filters) will break apart as they inevitably dissolve, sending particles down the lines to block the injectors.

and of course if one has a plastic mesh for a fuel filter as my bike does, one would wonder if leaving that critical part sitting in a solvent is best practice:pinch:

[idleidolidyll]

i think his point was the very real and acknowledged risk that deposits in the fuel lines, and the lines/rubber seals themselves, (at points past the fuel filters) will break apart as they inevitably dissolve, sending particles down the lines to block the injectors.

and of course if one has a plastic mesh for a fuel filter as my bike does, one would wonder if leaving that critical part sitting in a solvent is best practice:pinch:

And if someone using biofuel is aware of the POTENTIAL problems and takes steps to prevent them, his chicken little act falls to pieces

global climate change deniers use similar nonsensical arguments against changing the way mankind is abusing the environment

my comments stand as posted

[idleidolidyll]

bobbydazzler: you've identified part of the problem but not directly

many, even most of the car companies have large shares in the oil companies. the last thing they want is for those shares and the sales of currently hugely profitable oil based product go sliding away in the face of biofuel competition.

the fact is that diesel engines were invented to run on biofuels: rudolf himself ran his on peanut oil.

there is no real reason why car manufacturers cannot guarantee their vehiccles for use with biofuels other than commercial reasons and part of that is massive greed on their part

[vifferman]

... of course if one has a plastic mesh for a fuel filter as my bike does, one would wonder if leaving that critical part sitting in a solvent is best practice:pinch:
I'd imagine there are few fuels richer in nasty solvents than the current crap the oil companies sell us. Certainly ethanol is fairly benign in comparison.

[Waxxa]

Here's a different tact. Who says global warming is actually happening? (Oil companies?) If in fact global warming is occuring, who says its man-made and not the evolutionary cycle of the planet and cosmos? (planets naturally have ice ages and volcanic ages/meteor strikes over a range of hundreds of thousands of years). Is this heating (supposedly) of the planet already gone to far for humainty to bring back? (therefore the introduction of bio-fuels is to late). Is the creation of bio-fuels actually the answer as it takes away forests (apparently we need them for something) and food production? Is this global change a marketing ploy by the oil companies who for years have been buying up technologies (that dont need fossil fuels) but can now profit from these technologies?

[Steam]

Here's a different tact. Who says global warming is actually happening? (Oil companies?)
Oh god.

Actually go and educate yourself, don't just rely on what you heard at the pub or from your mates, or in magazines or websites that have agendas. Look up what .... oh crap, nevermind.

People like you are a lost cause.

[idleidolidyll]

Here's a different tact. Who says global warming is actually happening? (Oil companies?) If in fact global warming is occuring, who says its man-made and not the evolutionary cycle of the planet and cosmos? (planets naturally have ice ages and volcanic ages/meteor strikes over a range of hundreds of thousands of years). Is this heating (supposedly) of the planet already gone to far for humainty to bring back? (therefore the introduction of bio-fuels is to late). Is the creation of bio-fuels actually the answer as it takes away forests (apparently we need them for something) and food production? Is this global change a marketing ploy by the oil companies who for years have been buying up technologies (that dont need fossil fuels) but can now profit from these technologies?

the term I used was global climate change; see if you can work out the difference.

while you're at it, think of a closed container filled with solids at the base and gasses at the top. if you could turn the solids into gasses, does the gas content change?

now think of a closed container again, this time the gas supports oxygen and carbon dioxide breathing life forms. Bt converting some of the solids into gasses, will the atmosphere change the quality of life for any of the life forms?

this does make me think of the ignorant Chinese girl I met on a train in that country. Talking about cutting away the end of a closed valley to get rid of the pollution build up, she was convinced it would get 'so thin it'd cease to exist'

now tell me, do you really think mankinds 200 year burning spree has done nothing detrimental?

[Waxxa]

lol Steam. Just questions for debate. 'cause no one here on this forum or any citizen of the world could provide actual evidence for this. Geez, even the worlds scientists cant agree whether the 'warming' is natural or man-made.

As far as mankinds burning spree over the industrial age there is no doubt there has been damage around our planet ie. leachates in the lakes in Rotorua, but has it been enough in a short period (200 years say) of time to damage the planet?

If so, can we reverse the effects? is bio fuel the answer?

[bobbydazzler]

at the end of the day, its going to be just like the change over from mineral to fully synthetic engine oil. some vehicles could handle synthetic some couldnt. but now as the manufacture process has improved you can put in pretty much anything.

[idleidolidyll]

lol Steam. Just questions for debate. 'cause no one here on this forum or any citizen of the world could provide actual evidence for this. Geez, even the worlds scientists cant agree whether the 'warming' is natural or man-made.

actually they have finally agreed that it is man made. The reason it took so long is because politicians refused to allow it to be disseminated as fact; particularly 'creationist' idiots who hired their own 'scientists' to provide them with the answers they wanted rather than the facts.
I suggest you start by studying the UNFCCC

As far as mankinds burning spree over the industrial age there is no doubt there has been damage around our planet ie. leachates in the lakes in Rotorua, but has it been enough in a short period (200 years say) of time to damage the planet?

Yes, most scientists agree that we have already done massive damage that will be with us for centuries and that will only get worse unless we change our ways. Again, see UNFCCC

If so, can we reverse the effects? is bio fuel the answer?

Possibly but only if we accept responsibility and stop blaming 'nature' or some fictitious deity. We also need to understand that it must be a global solution and not just a few countries signing on.

[Waxxa]

Who is the UNFCCC? who sponsors their research? is this research that is funded (I'm sure) by several interested 'parties' impartial? or are these relevent bodies interpreting this research to their own means to benefit from global 'fear'?

I have done quite a bit of research of my own over recent years and I'm not totally convinced either way into climate change etc. Scientists do not agree!
Scientists on both sides of the argument are at this very moment exploring some extremely interesting theories and it is of no benefit that we displace these theories altogether and I wait in anticipation on the findings of all these theories. Bio fuels is already turning out to be a dud.

[motorbyclist]

And if someone using biofuel is aware of the POTENTIAL problems and takes steps to prevent them, his chicken little act falls to pieces

global climate change deniers use similar nonsensical arguments against changing the way mankind is abusing the environment

my comments stand as posted

you do realise 95% of the population don't even know how to do an oil change, let alone basic chemistry an how an engine even works. we're talking the idiots who drive off with the fuel pump nozzle in the tank (several thousand incidents per year in NZ), the ones who somehow put diesel in their petrol car (and vice versa) despite the lock contraption on the diesel handle, and the people who choose to deny that 200 years of emitting billions of tonnes of gas proven to cause warming, observed acceleration of warming far beyond the natural background trend coinciding with that 200 year period, and wide acceptance of these facts bar a few, very loud, deniers usually using dodgy or downright false numbers and later proven to be in the back pocket of some major company, do not add up to a very real possibility that perhaps there are consequences for our actions.


I'd imagine there are few fuels richer in nasty solvents than the current crap the oil companies sell us. Certainly ethanol is fairly benign in comparison.

those solvents are chosen due to them NOT damaging an engine. ethanol is not one of those

to be fair, most new cars nowadays are safe to run ethanol, but in NZ we such an old car fleet making it mandatory is just stupid.


l
If so, can we reverse the effects? is bio fuel the answer?

it'll take several hundred years, but yes we can reverse the effects.

bio fuels an answer? no, especially not if we want to eat and enjoy clean air

problem is, most of our western lifestyle is completely unsustainable. every year since the 80's we (globally speaking) have used more resources than the planet can naturally recycle. last year i beleive we hit that "limit" in october, and it gets worse every year. i remember in new scientist magazine a while ago they had a chart showing how many years worth of certain resources we had left at current global consumption, against if the whole world lived like americans. didn't look good at all.

[idleidolidyll]

Who is the UNFCCC? who sponsors their research? is this research that is funded (I'm sure) by several interested 'parties' impartial? or are these relevent bodies interpreting this research to their own means to benefit from global 'fear'?

I have done quite a bit of research of my own over recent years and I'm not totally convinced either way into climate change etc. Scientists do not agree!
Scientists on both sides of the argument are at this very moment exploring some extremely interesting theories and it is of no benefit that we displace these theories altogether and I wait in anticipation on the findings of all these theories. Bio fuels is already turning out to be a dud.

the UN part stands for UNITED NATIONS: do a google search and educate yourself.

Last year, after allowing politicians to water it down for years, the IPCC finally came out and said it: human activity is fucking the environment.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Now I don't know which christian fundie group or Bush controlled 'scientists' you're listening too but I would bet a large pile of cash they have sweet fa in credibility compared to the UN or IPCC.

The IPCC should have released the report years ago and has been condemned for its inaction. That inaction was due to right wing interference from governments and corporations who have a lot to lose if the world pays attention and stops supporting abusive companies.

If you really want to educate yourself, read the report synthesis and then go read the more detailed papers: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf


an excerpt:
[B]
Changes in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and aero­sols, land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system and are drivers of climate change. They affect the absorption, scattering and emission of radiation within the atmo­sphere and at the Earth’s surface. The resulting positive or negative changes in energy balance due to these factors are expressed as radiative forcing⁴, which is used to compare warming or cooling influences on global climate. {WGI TS.2} <o></o>

Human activities result in emissions of four long-lived GHGs: CO₂, methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine or bromine). Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs increase when emissions are larger than removal processes.

Global atmospheric concentrations of CO, CH and N O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values deter­mined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (Figure 2.3). The atmospheric concentrations of CO and CH in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH₄ concentration is predomi­nantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase in N₂O concentration is primarily due to agriculture.

If you desire to argue the terms "very likely" go read their explanation of it first because I've already seen folk make fools of themselves over that one.

[FilthyLuka]

Psh, whatever. Want a different fuel? Grind the cooling fins of your bike and run straight methanol :Punk: Wiseco High compression pistons may help.

[idleidolidyll]

I quite fancy a twin charged diesel

electrics would need their own sound system so you could preset whatever 'engine' sound you wanted.

a low pitched turbine for instance or the nicest vee twin

loud bikes save lives

[davereid]

Who is the UNFCCC? who sponsors their research? is this research that is funded (I'm sure) by several interested 'parties' impartial? or are these relevent bodies interpreting this research to their own means to benefit from global 'fear'? I have done quite a bit of research of my own over recent years and I'm not totally convinced either way into climate change etc. Scientists do not agree! Scientists on both sides of the argument are at this very moment exploring some extremely interesting theories and it is of no benefit that we displace these theories altogether and I wait in anticipation on the findings of all these theories. Bio fuels is already turning out to be a dud.

"Global warming".. of course its morphed into "climate change" as its simply not happening, so much easier to blame any weather event that didn't happen last year on petrol.

Scientists don't agree - of course they don't - the global average temperature is cooler than it been since 1936.

That biofuel ? Why is it supposed to be carbon neutral ?

When you burn ethanol you release exactly the same amount of carbon as if you burned diesel.

Yet, somehow, idiots like to tell you its a better option.

Here is why they are idiots.

You were growing rice. And eating it. And it was cheap. And you ran your car on an organic natural product called oil.

Then you were told that the world was warming, and it was your fault.

But if you grew the fuel you used it was "carbon neutral" and you were "sustainable" and sweet.

So, you still grow the rice.

But now you use a big tractor to gather it up.
And then you ferment it.
And then you use fuel to distill it. And then you burn it instead of oil.

What have you really done ?

Well you have put the price of food up, heaps.

You have absorbed no carbon, as you were growing rice anyway.

You have added a massive inefficiency by distilling it.

And then you burn it, carelessly as its carbon neutral.

Starving the third world, but fuck most of them are muslim anyway.

[bobbydazzler]

there are going o be arguments both ways forever more "yes we are damaging the planet and no its all natural". i have seen many documentaries and read loads of books/magazines about it. by what i have read or seen i have been turned the way of its all natural etc. examples starting with a simple one. last year in the the uk it was the warmest april since 1947, "it beat the average by less than half a degree" so was global warming an issue way back then, no of course not. TWO. wasnt an iceberg spotted off the cost of nz this year, "yet again blamed on global warming" but didnt the same thing happen in the early to mid 1900's.
scientists say that the sun goes through cycles of letting off heat, they say its at solar maximum or there abouts at the moment.
the earth has been going through cycles of warm and cold periods for thousands of years, science has proved this.
"global dimming" a scientists working for the usgs in california, was carrying out and creating climate models, taking atmospheric readings of solar radiation etc etc, he was doing this during 9/11 before during and after. he found that after the total stoppage of flights over american air space the mean temperature of the area he was researching climed by two degrees in just two days even though the output of the sun had remained the same. in noticing this he carried out analisys of the air samples he had collected, he found that in the period tested general pollutants gases and particlulates in the air had dropped a considerable amount, thus allowing more solar radiation to reach the planets surface. he and his colleagues then used the data to make a computer model, which showed cleaning up our air would actually warm the planet, due to the fact that the impurities in the air filter solar radiation. but then there is the argument that taking oil out of the ground is causin the planet the warm, not by burning it by products, but the earth is warming from the inside, the oil is a natural insulator of the earth's core keeping in the heat, without the oil the ground heats up causing more evaporation which inturn makes heat. so there will aways be arguments both ways we may never know the truth, but i say majority of it all is natural.

[kevfromcoro]

Whoow..that was a bit of a maize,,,,
Good post.. but u can push the enter button to start a new sentice
Starting with caps aint a bad idea either.
Cheers.............

[motorbyclist]

oil, a reasonably scarce/rare substance that is a semi-reasonable conductor of heat, insulating the earth's atmosphere from the heat below?


i think the heat released in burning the stuff would have a greater effect than that!
:rofl:

the best part about using the internet for research, is that it's far easier to find the sensationalist news articles/dodgy sources either making up, misinterpreting, or misrepresenting scientific literature than the original papers where you have to read a large amount to fully understand the scope, limits, and assumptions made by/during the study/experiments;)

[Ice_Monsta]

I thought bio fuel was just a temporary solution to drag out the use of fossil fuels so they last us longer? When did it become all about the environment?

[bobbydazzler]

motorbyclist, yeah the oil thing is a bit hard to believe, i was just adding it as an example of what the sciency people that think global warming is totally man made come up with, sounds like clutching at straws to me coz they cant prove there points. but the atmosphere one i mentioned was either a discovery or BBC documentary i see a couple of years ago, maybe able to find the show in the archive's.

[idleidolidyll]

motorbyclist, yeah the oil thing is a bit hard to believe, i was just adding it as an example of what the sciency people that think global warming is totally man made come up with, sounds like clutching at straws to me coz they cant prove there points. but the atmosphere one i mentioned was either a discovery or BBC documentary i see a couple of years ago, maybe able to find the show in the archive's.

there isn't a scientist on the planet who thinks global climate change is "totally man made". That's a bullshit fallacy propagated by the ignorant, fundamentalist religions and right wing corporate types who care more for profit now than quality of life for the next generations.

the scientific consensus is, is that mankind has tipped the scales and created an environment where our added atmospheric change through industry and farming, have unbalanced the natural cycles of change.

In effect, we have not specifically done anything that might not have happened without us (due to volcanism etc), but we HAVE made conditions rife for climate change that will more than likely mean mass extinction of plants, animals and marine life to the detriment of humanity.

We are likely to see rises in the height of the oceans that will make large areas of land uninhabitable and create storms in areas that never has killer storms before (in human experience).

I will see the effects of this before I die but worst affected will be my grandchildren.

To shove your head up your arse and deny that mankind has any responsibility, or can change what is likely to happen, is ignorance of the highest order and a crime that your children and grandchildren will condemn you for.

Most will blame someone else, that's what humans do. Fact is, it's all of our responsibility, particularly us in 'The West".

Yes, you can sit on your lazy arse and deny that the billions of tonnes of pollution humans pump into the air every year does anything. You personally will die before the worst happens.

However, future mankind will look back on the period from 1850 to the 21st century and blame you for having the facts but not the morality to do shit to protect the future.

We have always been the same, that's why superannuation and retirement income is of little relevance to most people: we don't care about the future, we care more for ourselves than those who will come after us.

You denyers sicken me.

[Mom]

Is there a web site you copy and paste from?

[idleidolidyll]

motorbyclist, yeah the oil thing is a bit hard to believe, i was just adding it as an example of what the sciency people that think global warming is totally man made come up with, sounds like clutching at straws to me coz they cant prove there points. but the atmosphere one i mentioned was either a discovery or BBC documentary i see a couple of years ago, maybe able to find the show in the archive's.


oooh! warning! warning! warning will robinson!

watch out for the wierd scientist' types .
Much better to rely on superstition and dogma than carefully researched and documented facts anyday.
Fuck it, only christians will go to heaven anyway; all those goddammit heretics deserve to burn in hell

.................................................. .......what a bunch of tossers, ignorance is such bliss eh!

[idleidolidyll]

Is there a web site you copy and paste from?

i did notice that none here have the cojones to tackle the references i posted; instead they fall back on childish superstition, dogma and religious fanaticism like uneducated morons have done for thousands of years

[Mom]

i did notice that none here have the cojones to tackle the references i posted; instead they fall back on childish superstition, dogma and religious fanaticism like uneducated morons have done for thousands of years


Huh?

You missed the p/t.

Dont bother to reply...LOL

[motorbyclist]

what i find interesting is the approach people take to the problem.

to ensure our best chances of survival/success, we should always assume a worst case scenario and prepare for it. engineers/designers do it, bikers who live more than 6 months do it, anyone with a valuable possesions does it.

yet here we are trying to disprove global warming? shouldn't we be trying to prove global warming? that way if it's true we find out about it, and if it's false we can never prove it.

so here we are with all this evidence for it, theories against it, we know our safety margins and what we can best hope to acheive and we know what has to be done to stop things getting worse provided it is really going to happen.
so i put this to you:

if it is true, and we do nothing, we're fucked.
if it's false and we do nothing, we're just going to extend our total oil dependance another 50 years till wars over the stuff or breakthrough new technologies change force us to change anyway

it it's true and we do something, we're much better off for having done something
if it's false and we do something, we end our oil dependancy and create a sustainable lifestyle with better air quality.

so please tell me why we would do nothing rather than something?

either way rising oil prices (among other things) are ruining the global economy:(

[davereid]

...to ensure our best chances of survival/success, we should always assume a worst case scenario and prepare for it. engineers/designers do it...

yet here we are trying to disprove global warming? shouldn't we be trying to prove global warming? that way if it's true we find out about it, and if it's false we can never prove it.

if it is true, and we do nothing, we're fucked.
if it's false and we do nothing, we're just going to extend our total oil dependance another 50 years till wars over the stuff or breakthrough new technologies change force us to change anyway

it it's true and we do something, we're much better off for having done something
if it's false and we do something, we end our oil dependancy and create a sustainable lifestyle with better air quality.

so please tell me why we would do nothing rather than something?

either way rising oil prices (among other things) are ruining the global economy:(

IMHO....

Regardless of the evidence regarding global warming, its a great idea that we consider our footprint on the world.

The trouble with Climate Change policy is that it is driven by politics, not engineers.

So, many of our "solutions" may be WORSE than doing nothing.

Example1 - Kyoto.
Carbon trading has to be a cruel joke.

Places like NZ that are keen to avoid Nuclear power, are being cautious about flooding more valleys for Hydro power, are avoiding coal, and have an economy dependant on carbon belching animals will be writing cheques for carbon.

We will be posting billions of dollars to Estonia or Russia, or somewhere that is entirely happy to build nukes without regard to the disposal of waste. Or countries that will cheerfully flood valleys for hydro power without any consideration of the environment.

(The alternative - Levy the tax on carbon at exactly the kyoto rate. But spend it domestically. Use it to improve rail and public transport. Use it to improve roads - flatten them and reduce delays thus saving fuel.)

Example 2 - The Hybrid.
All around the world we are buying Hybrid cars because we think they are better. Some towns only allow hybrids in the CBD because of their lower emissions. But in actuality, a hybrid has lower point-of-use emissions, but higher lifetime emissions. Of course it would ! its got a standard engine, plus an elecric engine, plus a dynamo, plus a massive rare-metal battery. Common sense tells us it cost more environmemtally to make. It will cost more environmentally to dispose of. It weighs more, so it needs more fuel overall just to accelerate its mass.

(The alternative - simply smaller cars, and better public transport.)

Example 3 - Public Transport.
Public Transport has the ability to be both part of the solution, and a massive part of the problem.

That because public transport can be very transport efficient. That when transport routes go everywhere. Thats when there is a bus every 3 minutes, and fares are cheap. But its not very fuel efficient. Because most of the time the bus is empty.

The alternaive is fuel efficient public transport. Thats where the bus waits at the bus stop until its full. Trouble is its not very transport efficient.

Real public tranport manages the worst of both, being neither transport efficient, or fuel efficient.

ie Public Transport = an expensive and fuel inefficient way of travelling slowly from not quite where you are, to not quite where you want to be, at an inconvenient time, in the company of people you may find offensive.

The Solution ?
Abandon social public transport. Concentrate on commuter transport. Move as many people as you can at peak times, in the most efficient manner possible, and abandon the rest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many more rants on this subject available !

I watch the climate change idiots wanting to ban my car, let my mum freeze to death in her pensioner flat, and return us to the dark ages, all so they can propose poorly planned ideeas that won't help !

[motorbyclist]

The trouble with Climate Change policy is that it is driven by politics, not engineers.

+1 (and for the rest too)

and even then there is still too much commercial interest involved

[bobbydazzler]

lol quite amusing really, the bigwigs could have released hydrogen power cars 10 years ago, but no, why money. so to you people that think we should all basically stop burning oil. are you gonna stop riding your bike and buying plastic crash helmets and pretty much stop living. we cant stop the inevitable, just slow it down. and why would the sea levels rise? go put an ice cube in a glass of water, then sit and watch it melt, you may notice something, the glass wont suddenly over flow, water just fills the gap left by the ice

[motorbyclist]

and why would the sea levels rise? go put an ice cube in a glass of water, then sit and watch it melt, you may notice something, the glass wont suddenly over flow, water just fills the gap left by the ice

antarctica is larger than australia

antarctica's land mass is 98% covered in ice

the average ice thickness over antarctica is over 1.6 KILOMETRES thick

that is all ice sitting above the water

do the maths and once that melts you get a sea level rise of 61 metres, then you can add all the ice on mountains and glaciers in the rest of the world, including greenland and you score a few metres again

the fact that the arctic ice had made record melting during it's last summer doesn't bode well either

[Patch]

:Pokey: Read this ya bunch of tree huggin greenies :Pokey:



Biofuels - things you weren't told

Ethanol - Better or worse?

The first step in training a mule, so it is written, is to bash it between the eyes with a 4x2. This is to get its attention. The world has been so conned by exaggerations, half-truths, and the gross deceptions in Al Gore's movie (a woman wrote in to one local paper bemoaning the fact that the melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice will raise the Pacific Ocean 20 feet within her daughter's lifetime), that it is necessary to produce strong counterpropaganda to try to get into people's minds that there is another viewpoint. It isn't finesse, yet at times the sledgehammer approach is required. Whatever it takes, politicians and populace alike need a wake-up call to prevent being conned by international hysteria merchants. Bio-fuels are supposed to be the latest answer to all our problems. When oil runs out we can grow our fuel, and clean corn does not put dirty exhausts into the air. Do we really believe that?
The arable land around our metropolitan areas is fully utilised now for our food. Where is the extra land going to come from to grow fuel, and whence would come manpower to harvest it? But the logic is out the window - why take perfectly edible food which could feed millions of starving people, and instead make something burnable to be utilized in an internal combustion engine? It defies reason when the end products of both of these fuels are identical – CO2 & H2O. In order to get from point A to point B the amount of energy that is required is a constant. One must burn an identical amount of hydrocarbons in order to do so which results in an identical release of CO2 and H2O. Other than raping the consumer with the exorbitant costs associated with the production of these biofuels, there is no difference in the output of the so-called greenhouse gases. "Saving the planet" from the hypothetical, theoretical, and fictional effects of human-induced greenhouse gases could be nothing but a subterfuge. There are quite want-to-be billionaires out there with friends in high places who may be causing the brouhaha in order to facilitate their lame-brain get-rich schemes.
The biofuel industry will create more problems, will require intensive agriculture and intensive farming with high-chemical input, and the large amounts of land needed will burden soil and groundwater and decrease biodiversity. Even regarding climate change, the benefits are uncertain and reduction costs high. Growing crops for fuel is like boiling water to get rain for dams. Biofuels get their actual energy gain from the sun, as do any other fossil fuel like wood, coal, gas or oil. They are all just bottled sunshine. They all let off gases when they burn. The only relative differences are the processing costs. Take away subsidies and tax incentives and the processing bills will double.
Increased demand raises prices, which is the reason we are continually told oil reserves are running out. And as bio-energy comes of age, the prices of oilseeds, including soybeans, rapeseeds, and sunflower seeds, are projected to rise, e.g. in the US by 26 percent by 2010 and 76 percent by 2020, and wheat prices by 11 percent by 2010 and 30 percent by 2020. As usual the poor will be affected most. For example, cassava, a tropical potato-like tuber also known as manioc, provides one-third of the caloric needs of those in sub-Saharan Africa making it the primary staple for Africa’s poorest. It is the food turned to when they cannot afford anything else. When other crops fail it serves as an important reserve because it can grow in poor soils and dry conditions and can be left in the ground to be harvested as needed. Thanks to its high-starch content, cassava is also an excellent source of ethanol. As the technology for converting it to fuel improves, many countries - including China, Nigeria, and Thailand - are considering processing it. If peasant farmers become suppliers, they would benefit from the increased income. But the history of demand suggests that large producers will be the main beneficiaries, and a boom in cassava-based ethanol production will mean more poor people struggling more to feed themselves. Even now where cassava is a staple in the poorest parts of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, its price is expected to increase by 33 percent by 2010 and 135 percent by 2020. The production of cassava-based ethanol may pose a grave threat to the food security of already poverty-stricken societies.



to be continued . . . .

[Patch]

continued . . . .




Less people to consume fossil fuels means less emissions affecting the environment, and an agenda of the Greens appears to be to reduce the world's population. Preventing development in third world countries and increasing poverty seems part of the plan. It might as well be because that will be the result. As ethanol production diverts corn from the nation's dinner table to its gas tank, the average Joe must be happy Al Gore has brought all this to the forefront of the attention of the power-elte. Gore’s alarmism has been causing food and energy prices to rise. Bio-fuel mania is adding to it. According to the Wall St Journal, high corn prices, bad weather and steep energy costs have combined to make food a bigger contributor to inflation this year than it has been at least since 2004, when a cutback in dairy production boosted dairy prices and beef prices rose as mad-cow disease disrupted trade. The US Agriculture Department projects that retail food prices may climb by 2.5% to 4.5% in 2007, fueled by strong demand for corn-derived ethanol. The best customers for U.S. corn farmers have traditionally been livestock producers, who buy half the corn produced as feed for cattle, pigs and poultry. Doubling corn prices over the last six months because of demand for ethanol has seen U.S. beef and pork producers at odds with their friends in the corn industry. To prevent agricultural products going through the roof, they are opposing tax and trade policies that offer incentives for corn-based ethanol production. Some farmers in Nebraska now can’t even purchase corn to feed their pigs this spring because corn producers have contracted their production at today’s high prices to go to ethanol plants.
Ethanol will not lead to energy independence. If all the corn produced in America was dedicated to ethanol production (in 2006 only 14% of it was), gasoline consumption would drop by only 12%. For corn ethanol to displace gasoline, all cropland would need to be appropriated and turned over to corn-ethanol production, and then 20% more land found on top of that for cultivation. The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes that the practical limit for domestic ethanol production is about 700,000 barrels a day - a figure they don’t think is realistic until 2030! Nor is ethanol economically competitive or capable of reducing greenhouse emissions, which was the much-touted reason for its introduction. According to a 2005 report by the U.S. Agriculture Department, corn ethanol costs several times more what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline. At the moment exactly a litre of other energy and fuel is required to produce a litre of corn fuel. Without the subsidies, costs would be far higher. If, in the US you lived in urban areas that used reformulated gasoline last summer - that’s the environmentally “clean” gasoline required for areas with air pollution problems - you would have paid 60 cents a gallon more for gasoline than you would have otherwise because the federal government required oil refineries to use 4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006 regardless of price. A similar requirement is in the latest budget for NZ.
Ethanol is not a renewable fuel. According to Science magazine, only 5 - 26 % of the energy content of ethanol is renewable. The balance of ethanol’s energy actually comes from the staggering amount of coal, natural gas and nuclear power necessary to produce corn and process it into ethanol. Then what about pollution? When evaporative emissions are taken into account, E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, the standard mix that constitutes the bulk of the ethanol available today) increases emissions of total hydrocarbons, non-methane organic compounds and air toxins compared to conventional gasoline. And the pollution is actually worse for E85. Oil is available now without research and development costs, it is cheap and cleaner. No one seems to have a problem with it except the green lobbyists. Alternatives simply won't work. Bicycles are fine for commuters in Christchurch and Ashburton, but not in the hilly suburbs of Wellington and Dunedin. Batteries in electric cars would run flat two hours into Auckland’s morning rush hour. The solar-powered car is ideal in the middle of Australia but would be useless in Southland. Trains? There aren't any on Auckland's North Shore, Waiheke, and most rural towns after the Lange government let tracks be ripped out in favour of trucks. Someone forgot that trains can also carry people but trucks can't. Besides, many of today’s car manufacturers already produce cars with reduced emissions, especially Japan and the US where the law requires it.
So why are oil companies spending so much time and energy on bio-fuel production? The short answer is that they qualify for tax-breaks. To court the green vote, western governments, including our own, feel they must appear to support research into fuel alternatives. The tax incentives for biofuel research are now so important that for some oil companies operating on wafer-thin profit margins, their annual profit is from government assistance. Fear of governments’ collapse if the greens pull their votes away means there is a readiness and a willingness to legislate to fund energy research. Perhaps the real looming world problem later down the track will be for the welfare of poor nations that depend on our excess food production to keep from starving. What about the forests and jungles that of necessity would have to be cut down to make way for the huge corn crops that would be needed? What happens to all the creatures that live in those forests and jungles? Don't they have a right to live, too? And how much more energy would be needed to actually create the ethanol from the corn?
My tax dollar goes to the government. They give it to some offshore oilman to enable the latter to play around with other fuels. The oil industry profits from the preferential treatment in tax laws and government support. While in the US the non-oil industries are taxed at a rate of 18 percent, the oil industry is taxed at a mere 11 percent. This reduced rate equates to $2 billion in federal corporate income tax benefits per year. They also benefit from low state and local sales tax rates on gasoline, an indirect subsidy exceeding $4 billion a year. Direct government funding of oil and motor vehicle infrastructure and services tops off at $45 billion a year. And taxpayers, not the oil industry, are left to pay the cleanup bill for oil-related health and environmental damage, which could be as high at an annual $232 billion. All oil industries have to do is claim they are researching the problem and investigating possible alternatives and the green bloc remains contented. The oilman’s research can be as basic as tipping a jar of marmite into an oil vat to see what happens. There is no transparency, and no expected outcome. There is no watchdog consumer agency to see that the tax dollar is wisely spent. The government has promised to "tackle climate change" and energy PR people have pledged to find "renewable resources" but both expressions are empty of meaning.
Somewhere in a varnished mahogany boardroom beneath a company logo, ethanol executives and politicians use first names and greet over drinks. Like the arms industry supplying both sides in the Middle East conflict, the energy supply industry has positioned itself so it cannot lose, peddling both oil and carbon-credit brokerage, enjoying tax concessions both ways. The consumer pays because governments are unwise not to comply. The potential to cream fuel-taxes on old and existing, as well as more and newer fuels, keeps treasury coffers full.
Climate has got nothing to do with it.

References
http://www.environmental-expert.com/resulteacharticle4.asp?cid=21293&codi=6668
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117667991954270669.html
http://factsaboutethanol.org/?p=156
http://factsaboutethanol.org/?p=151

[JimBob]

Economics 101
"why take perfectly edible food which could feed millions of starving people, and instead make something burnable to be utilized in an internal combustion engine?"
Because I will pay more for fuel for my leisure pursuits, bike, aeroplane, jetski, fishing boat etc etc etc than a starving person can pay for a bowl of maize.
Not my problem. I have a job. Why dont they get a job? Sit around waiting for handouts. Want everything for free.
And so it is with 99% of people in "developed" countries.

Do the farmers give a flying f**** about the starving millions?
Does the western public give a toss?
Do the oil companies give a toss about global warming?
We complain about crap goods coming in from China but we still buy them
It all comes down to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
People do what is economically advantageous to them.
If it goes tits up blame the government
Global warming and global terrorism, both full of overhyped BS sold to a gullible public (read western public) who are now so fat and lazy they dont want, cant be bothered, to think for themselves and will believe anything their governments tell them no matter how stupid it actually is because it is the easy thing to do.
As long as the starving millions stay on TV, as long as we have gas and money to buy it, there isnt a problem.
What a joke
I'm not really a cynic but I will be pissed off if we run out of gas.

[motorbyclist]

Patch, (and jimbob) very good post. global warming (whatever you think of it) really does have little to do with biofuel bar the incentives awarded


Batteries in electric cars would run flat two hours into Auckland’s morning rush hour.

well seeing as the electric motor in a car need not be running when stationary, plus regenerative braking is very handy in stop/start situations,even with a/c and the stereo going that isn't the case...

but if you want to go on a roadtrip without stopping for 20 minutes every 2 hours, electric is yet to meet the challenge:pinch:



bit OT here, but here goes...
i read that the states has quite large oil reserves, and isn't making any major work to increasing production, and hasn't been for some time now.... meanwhile they're un-stabilising the middle east and causing conflicts rather than encouraging unification. seems to me that while they drive oil prices up for the rest of the world including themselves, they're ensuring that they won't have their oil supply cut and can continue importing from the middle east. why? well what happens when the oil finally does become genuinely scarce? the rest of the world pays $200 a barrel while the states starts using their own little stash, gaining a huge economic advantage.

of course this would just be a backup plan incase technology doesn't come up with a viable alternative...which it has, just the car manufacturers are rather good at squashing the alternatives (http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/), pretending to be supporting the alternatives (basically preparing for oil shortages), and continuing the internal combustion engine - remember most the car major manufacturers are owned atleast in part by oil companies;)

[Ixion]

On this (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=273&objectid=10502844)subject

BRONZ has contacted Mr David Crawford and Mr Tony Frost (No, not *that* Tony Frost) of the MoT and requested that motorcycles be included in the test program. Mr Frost has agreed to include the matter with the testing dudes.

[JimBob]

Osama bin Laden is using the internet to spread global warming

[idleidolidyll]

antarctica is larger than australia

antarctica's land mass is 98% covered in ice

the average ice thickness over antarctica is over 1.6 KILOMETRES thick

that is all ice sitting above the water

do the maths and once that melts you get a sea level rise of 61 metres, then you can add all the ice on mountains and glaciers in the rest of the world, including greenland and you score a few metres again

the fact that the arctic ice had made record melting during it's last summer doesn't bode well either

good post motobycyclististi: so many people are so goddam ignorant when it comes to sensible science.

i'd rep you but it seems i don't have any bling left at present

scientific reality trumps propaganda once again

[idleidolidyll]

Osama bin Laden is using the internet to spread global warming

and George Bush is using the rich to spread death and misery while making global destructors wealthier: being effectively powerless in the face of arrogant wankers like mad king george the 2nd is fucking frustrating

[bobbydazzler]

not all the ice will melt anyway, alot of it could possibly melt maybe, but not all of it, read some more :)

[motorbyclist]

honestly i couldn't care less anymore

the carbon trading scheme that auntie helen wants is downright offensive

our measly fraction of a percentage of emmissions does NOT justify this sort of legislation

coinciding with a huge economic downturn doesn't help either

shafting the citizens THEN the business is a top notch way to ruin the economy

and get this - they aren't even too sure as to how much it will cost

[TimeOut]

honestly i couldn't care less anymore

the carbon trading scheme that auntie helen wants is downright offensive

our measly fraction of a percentage of emmissions does NOT justify this sort of legislation

coinciding with a huge economic downturn doesn't help either

shafting the citizens THEN the business is a top notch way to ruin the economy

and get this - they aren't even too sure as to how much it will cost

You're onto it, you've seen through the gubments bullshit.
Bling sent

[bobbydazzler]

thats the problem, saving the planet and saving us little peoples lively hoods dosnt go together at th moment.. people just have to face that making money, is more important to most people than trying to stop the enevitable demise of the earth, we are just as likely to get destroyed by a comet as hurting ourselves by speeding up the naturall global warming cycle.

[Pixie]

fuggin hippies.....

[wharfy]

NZ'ers (like most people) are greedy selfish bastards.

BUT we live in a paradise (if you don't think so visit Europe, and if you still don't think so stay there) - and we need to take a leading role in protecting it, the same way we took a leading role in many things in the past (8 hour day, womens sufferage, education, public health, ANTI - nuclear ship visits, removing the loop hole that allowed people to BEAT THE CRAP out of their children and claim some RIGHT to discipline as a defence )

Global warming is a FACT whether you choose to believe the evidence or not, you may be able to argue that humans are not responsible - but not convincingly.
Pollution is a FACT and humans ARE responsible for all of it

It takes more oil to manufacture a modern car than it will ever use in its entire life, private transport is fucked - Motor sport may have a future as long as the crowds take a bus or train to get there.

More than half of the population on the planet do not even have clean drinking water but Kiwi's, (led by Nationals Nick Smith) went APE SHIT about a RECOMMENDATION that we install shower heads that restrict the flow of water !!!

It is almost as embarrassing as our attitude to domestic violence.

No one likes being told what to do - but if you don't act like a arsehole no one will have to tell you how to behave.

IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

[vifferman]

NZ'ers (like most people) are greedy selfish bastards.
Yes.


BUT we live in a paradise (if you don't think so visit Europe, and if you still don't think so stay there)
I did visit it (some of it) and thought (some of it) was very nice. I was astounded by how green it was - it's not all paved over and built up at all. Like Holland - it's fairly small, but has huge parks, reserves and lots and lots of trees. Makes NZ look very scruffy and dirty.
Belgium was largely scruffy and dirty though...

.... we need to take a leading role in protecting it
Yes.


Global warming is a FACT
No. Global climate change is, but then it has been a fact since before yuman beans came along.

you may be able to argue that humans are not responsible - but not convincingly.
Ah... if anything, arguing for anthropogenic climate change isn't convincing. The overly-simplistic "cause and effect" hypotheses don't stand up well to rigorous examination via strict scientific methodology, and there's no way to PROVE any of the theories. That's what makes it easy for wildly extravagant claims either side of the truth to be made.

Pollution is a FACT and humans ARE responsible for all of it
Yes. No.
Humans are responsible for WAY too much pollution, and need to do summat about it. However, there is natural pollution, y'know. Take oil spills, f'rexample. The sediment records show that even the very worst oil tanker 'disaster' is just a very small and temporary blot on the landscape c.f. natural leakages. Luckily, this is one bit of pollution that is relatively short-lived: the volatile parts disperse within hours; the lighter oils are broken up and eventually broken down completely, and the heavier tarry components are incorporated into the sediments on the sea floor. Animal, fish and bird populations eventually spring back within an astonishingly short timeframe.


It takes more oil to manufacture a modern car than it will ever use in its entire life, private transport is fucked - Motor sport may have a future as long as the crowds take a bus or train to get there.
Yes.
And motorsports will become electric, if they survive.


More than half of the population on the planet do not even have clean drinking water but Kiwi's, (led by Nationals Nick Smith) went APE SHIT about a RECOMMENDATION that we install shower heads that restrict the flow of water !!!
So, what are you saying? Should we save water, and export it to other countries?


No one likes being told what to do - but if you don't act like a arsehole no one will have to tell you how to behave.
That's kinda true, but it cuts both ways. Change doesn't tend to be brought about by moderate, middle-of-the-road people: it takes radicals on BOTH sides of an issue to bring the true facts to light, somewhere in the middle. (It also means an awful lot of lies, exaggeration and propaganda have to be sifted through to get to the truth beneath all the layers of shit and the smokescreen.
Then it takes some bravery (and usually some sacrifice) to get things instituted to bring about change.

[wharfy]

And motorsports will become electric, if they survive.

Umm.. I suppose they will be called ElectricMotorsports :)



So, what are you saying? Should we save water, and export it to other countries?


We should save water because we waste a huge amount of energy and resources collecting, cleaning, delivering and heating it, cleaning it again and disposing of it. It is a finite resource (even in Wellington !!). There may be an export market, fleets of sailing tankers taking Clean NZ water to markets (even now bottled water sells for more than petrol in NZ !!!!)



That's kinda true, but it cuts both ways. Change doesn't tend to be brought about by moderate, middle-of-the-road people: it takes radicals on BOTH sides of an issue to bring the true facts to light, somewhere in the middle. (It also means an awful lot of lies, exaggeration and propaganda have to be sifted through to get to the truth beneath all the layers of shit and the smokescreen.
Then it takes some bravery (and usually some sacrifice) to get things instituted to bring about change.

Some one has to start the ball rolling. In my lifetime black Americans have gone from not being able to vote to being elected president. It took a LOT of people to move out of their comfort zones and some gave their lives. I am quite proud to live in a country that was first to given women the vote. I would like to think that NZ hasn't lost the balls that helped stand up to the US (and the other's) that put huge pressure on us over the nuke ship visits. It did cost us - but the world didn't end. We need to stand up and be counted as far as global environmental protection is concerned as well, and not just because there may be a positive spin off for us, but because it is the right thing to do. I am not proposing to die for the carbon trading scheme, but I am proposing to vote for a party that considers things other than corporate profit.

As far as the science behind the global warming debate is concerned I am not qualified to say. Luckily I work in a place chocker with scientists who specialize in the science of weather and climate and ARE qualified to say. All the ones I have asked seemed to think the science supporting global warming theory is satisfactory.

The media of course is responsible for a huge amount of bullshit and always report the most extravagant/worst-case scenario. e.g. a study predicting sea level increases by between 0.5 and 4 meters over the next 6 - 25 years will be reported as.

SCIENTISTS SAY SEA WILL RISE 4 METERS BY 2014.

(the above statistics like 75% of all statistics are made up) :)

Global warming like evolution is a fact - the theory of evolution AND the theory global warming are just theories to explain it and may or may not be correct. Humans may not be contributing to global warming - but we can't afford to sit around to find out, we have to do SOMETHING to try and reduce/mitigate our impact or we might end up as victims of Darwins theory - not fit enough to survive. If Global warming is caused by solar flares or something else beyond our control we are in the shit I guess. :)

NZ'ers willingness to have a crack at things, even if they are difficult is one of our more endearing traits. I hope we can apply it to the global environmental issues - just as soon as we fix the global economic fuck up produced by the free market - Are you busy this weekend ?

[mrchips]

The biofuel end is neigh ...

[davereid]

...Humans may not be contributing to global warming - but we can't afford to sit around to find out, we have to do SOMETHING to try and reduce/mitigate our impact or we might end up as victims of Darwins theory - not fit enough to survive...

The trouble is, that what we are doing is possibly worse than doing nothing. Not a single person has died from global warming. But the diversion of food crops to biofuels is already causing starvation.

Rich men don't have the right to take the poor mans food and burn it.

And carbon trading ? It will have exactly the same effect. It will ration carbon, where the ration card looks like a $10 note.

Some of us will have plenty of ration cards.

Others will just watch the cost of transport, food, electricity and heating consume more and more of their income.

The only ones to really benefit from carbon trading will be the traders.

If carbon trading is successful in lowing carbon emissions, you can be assured the pain of it will be carried by the poor.

[vifferman]

The biofuel end is neigh ...

Say wha...?
How did horses get into this? Are we making biofuel from horses ends now, or summat?7


And carbon trading ? ...
The only ones to really benefit from carbon trading will be the traders.

WTF IS carbon trading exactly? The amount of carbon in the world is a constant.
I understand the principle, but can't understand why it's been embraced, and got any further than just being a fucking stupid idea. As you say, only traders will benefit from this. And mebbe bureaucrats: they seem to LOVE new rules'n'regulations and ways of tying people up and/or pissing them off, so this will give them something to wank on about for years.

It's a wonder the carbon trading bureaucrats haven't come up with a similar scheme for silicon trading - that would be more lucrative, as there's much more silicon than carbon in the world. :rolleyes:

[jetboy]

Hi guys sorry to drag up an old thread, but I'm experiencing a significant lack of power in my CBR250RR and was about to go and balance my carbies before a mate of mine asked me what fuel I use. I use Bio Fuel from Gull and havent had problems up until now, but my mate reckons that using this Bio Fuel could foul up my jets etc in the carbies....

My question is: is there anything I should do now that I know I'm not supposed to use Bio Fuel? Have any of you experienced the same sort of problem?

Thanks in advance!

[slofox]

You need to be sure that the fuel lines etc are ethanol blend tolerant - check with the maker for that. If any of the lines are NOT tolerant you might well get spooge blocking stuff up.
If all is good there, the ethanol blend should be just fine. I have run my bike on Force 10 since day 1. No problems after 24,000km. But the bike is rated to take that blend.
In general, ethanol burns cleaner than petroleum - less carbon in the engine etc etc - there are gazillions of articles on it if you dredge the net...

[motorbyclist]

Hi guys sorry to drag up an old thread, but I'm experiencing a significant lack of power in my CBR250RR and was about to go and balance my carbies before a mate of mine asked me what fuel I use. I use Bio Fuel from Gull and havent had problems up until now, but my mate reckons that using this Bio Fuel could foul up my jets etc in the carbies....

My question is: is there anything I should do now that I know I'm not supposed to use Bio Fuel? Have any of you experienced the same sort of problem?

Thanks in advance!

ethanol is a solvent.

It will slowly eat the rubber in (asfaik) every japanese vehicle on the market more than 5 years old. This includes cars and many new models also.

It also dissolves any deposits that have been building up, which then may come loose and and block injectors/fuel jets further along the line.

Ethanol also draws water from air into the fuel. If you've let your bike sit for a long time (or just over the weekend what with all the rain lately) this may be the problem.

Either way, get the good clean/balance from a trustworthy mechanic and have him check the plaugs, clean the air filter and do an oil/filter change. It's called a service and many bikes go too long without:msn-wink:

[jetboy]

It's called a service and many bikes go too long without:msn-wink:

Cheers for the reply man.

So far I have:

- checked plugs. They are light coloured and sparking correctly
- replaced airfilter. Infact I made one up myself by cutting the old filter material away from the filter housing and replacing it with after market filter foam :Punk:
- changed oil and oil filter
- cleaned carbs
- got carb cleaner in my eye <_<
- cleaned chain and sprockets

...and still got the power loss! Next step for me tonight is to play with the air/fuel mixture screws on the carbs and get it running a bit richer. Clean carbs again and hope like hell the thing works!

[motorbyclist]

Next step for me tonight is to play with the air/fuel mixture screws on the carbs and get it running a bit richer.

if that is the 4 carb model, good luck!

before you do that, did you apply air filter lube to the foam? I also put a bit of grease around the edges to ensure no air skirts around it.

If you go into the city at all i could have a listen and tell you what i think.