Bio Fuel

[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

[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

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

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-re...yr/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}

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 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