BioDiesel TDi emissions vs comparable Gas Engines

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
BioDiesel said:
What does emissions have to do with anything?
Gas isn't renewable, biodiesel is.
You won't care about emissions once we start to run out of gas and the price skyrockets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll cut and paste something for you though.

Are We Running Out of Oil?

The Growing Endowment of Oil.
*In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
Additional Petroleum Resources.
*Worldwide, the oil-shale resource base could easily be as large as 14,000 billion barrels — more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates
Unconventional oil resources are more expensive to extract and produce, but we can expect production costs to drop with time as improved technologies increase efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------


I used to think the Hubberts prediction was correct.

I don't anymore and not from just this one article.

The oil companies are not going to sit around and let their profits slip away in the future.
Good or bad, big oil is here to stay for a long time.

Ever wonder why in todays dollars the price of gas is cheaper today than even in 1985?

 

[genau]

HOLY FRIGGIN CRAP /images/graemlins/frown.gif. I go away for three days and all hell breaks loose. I have to say that I got a lot of usefull info out of this thread but at the same time there was a lot of total piss to sift through. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif Not that anybody cares (i mean i'm relatively new to the tdi scene) but can't you guys suck up your pride and come together on the cars? Just FYI if this is the way that TDIClub is (and so far its all i've seen) then I'm gone - I'm too busy to deal with so much trash - I get enought junk email as it is. One last piece of advice (*I'm leavin on a jet plane - don't know when I'll be back again*) Autodiesel: Contribute, don't start fights - they just hose the thread and the site - express your opinion but don't steal threads that clearly have nothing to do with your ego or personal agenda.

Thanx anyway everybody and adios

 

[wxman]

[ QUOTE ]
DrStink said:
Conversely, TDIs emit *far* more smog forming chemicals than a comparable gasser.


[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a logical conclusion based on the implications of the EPA's "Green Vehicle Guide" (which, in my opinion, is very misleading). However, photochemical (ground-level) ozone production is much more complicated than just adding "ozone precursor" emissions together. If diesels in general emit *far* more "smog forming chemicals" than comparable gassers, why do the ozone levels in Southern California increase significantly on weekends relative to weekdays even though diesel truck traffic decreases by as much as 80% on weekends?

Source: http://www.trucks.doe.gov/research/environment/ozone.html

Furthermore, if NOx emissions are reduced relatively more than NMOG emissions in locations like Southern California and many other U.S. urban locations, the "weekend ozone effect" will occur seven days a week!:


"...NOx controls in Southern California (and other urban U.S. locations) are counterproductive for reducing ambient ozone, and they actually increase ambient ozone levels. Were it not for large concurrent HC emission reductions on weekends, weekend ozone would be even higher than it is, and the weekend/ weekday ozone difference would be even larger.

...Gasoline exhaust and gasoline vapor account for ~80 percent of ambient NMHC in on-road samples and at regional air monitoring locations suggesting that gasoline emissions are responsible for the majority of ozone found in the SoCAB...." (emphasis added)


Source:
DOE’s Studies of Weekday/Weekend Ozone Pollution in Southern California

Douglas R. Lawson
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

DEER Conference
August 2002

"...The undisputed magnitudes of the increased weekend ozone concentrations within the San Francisco Bay Area, South Coast Air Basin, San Diego Air Basin, and some urban locations within the Central Valley indicate that control strategies in which NOx emission reductions exceed VOC emission reductions are likely to aggravate ozone concentrations in those areas. The weekend effect provides a clear test case...." (emphasis added)

Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/weekendeffect/envair_wspa_com.pdf


Also, the EPA guide doesn't take into account the fugitive/evaporative (HC) emissions of gasoline refueling and fuel transfer.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
If diesels in general emit *far* more "smog forming chemicals" than comparable gassers, why do the ozone levels in Southern California increase significantly on weekends relative to weekdays even though diesel truck traffic decreases by as much as 80% on weekends?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not proven yet.
That is a very simplified view, that reduced NOx causes increased ozone. The facts are no one know why it happens.

And from one of the latest reports.....
5 Conclusions May 30, 2003 Draft

Conclusion #1: The ozone weekend effect is real

Careful statistical analyses of the available data demonstrate that the ozone weekend effect is a persistent reality and not just a transient condition or false impression.
Ozone measurements in some locations, primarily large metropolitan areas, are typically higher on weekends, particularly on Sunday, compared to weekdays. On the other hand, ambient concentrations of VOCs and NOX, the major smog-forming pollutants, are typically lower on weekends almost everywhere , based on available air quality data and source-activity data, such as traffic counts. Lower concentrations of ozone precursors on weekends seems reasonable because these emissions come from sources, such as cars, trucks, power plants, refineries, and factories, that intuition may expect to be less active overall on weekends compared to weekdays. Although it is likely that the major sources decrease in activity, some other activities, such as home maintenance, recreation, and shopping trips, may increase on weekends. On Saturday in some locations, for example, the total volume of mid-day traffic on freeways can be greater than on weekdays.
------------------------------------------------------------

NOx and VOC's are both lower on the weekends.

And then there is the "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" reasoning also.

------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion #6: A combination of VOC and NOX reductions has been highly successful at reducing ambient ozone levels on all days of the week everywhere in the basin for more than 20 years in the South Coast Air Basin. Nevertheless, the ozone weekend effect occurs throughout the SoCAB.

Conclusion #7: The ozone weekend effect does not invalidate NOX reductions as an important ozone control strategy. In addition, NOX reductions are almost certainly beneficial in reducing concentrations of some other pollutants, such as, nitrogen dioxide and PM-nitrates.
------------------------------------------------------------


The overall picture is that the overall ozone levels are falling.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
Autodiesel: Contribute, don't start fights -

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the facts.
Because facts and reality doesn't match some people's beliefs around here and causes them to get their panties all twisted they automatically believe I'm picking on them and their "Utopian" beliefs.
Diverisity is good sometimes.
You don't have to believe in it.
Just don't get offended by it either.

 

[wxman]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:

NOx and VOC's are both lower on the weekends.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, but according to a paper published in July 2003 in the Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association entitled "Weekday versus Weekend Activity Patterns for Ozone Precursor Emissions in Southern California's South Coast Air Basin", NOx decreases MORE than ROGs (VOCs) on weekends - 12-18% decrease in ROGs and 35 - 41% decrease in NOx emissions. The most notable conclusion reached in the paper is: "...This suggests the possibility that weekday O3 [levels] in 2010 could be comparable to weekend O3 [levels] in 2000...." I personally don't think that bodes well for SoCAB coming into compliance with the ozone NAAQS, especially since EPA lowered the ozone NAAQS levels recently.

[ QUOTE ]
And then there is the "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" reasoning also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not suggesting that NOx not be controlled. However, lowering ambient NOx levels without a relatively larger reduction in NMOGs/VOCs won't help the ground-level ozone problem much in SoCAB and other U.S. urban locations based on these most recent studies.

Actually, the "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" reasoning would be my main argument for not excluding light-duty diesels on a "high NOx emission" basis.

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion #6: A combination of VOC and NOX reductions has been highly successful at reducing ambient ozone levels on all days of the week everywhere in the basin for more than 20 years in the South Coast Air Basin. Nevertheless, the ozone weekend effect occurs throughout the SoCAB.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Nevertheless, the ozone weekend effect occurs throughout the SoCAB". Why is that?

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion #7: The ozone weekend effect does not invalidate NOX reductions as an important ozone control strategy. In addition, NOX reductions are almost certainly beneficial in reducing concentrations of some other pollutants, such as, nitrogen dioxide and PM-nitrates.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I think that controlling NOx emissions is necessary. However, even more rigorous controls need to be placed on NMOG/VOC emissions.


[ QUOTE ]
The overall picture is that the overall ozone levels are falling.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the conclusion to the paper cited above materializes, and the O3 management strategy remains the same (i.e., that "smog forming" NOx is the main problem for ozone generation), that trend will reverse!

 

[wxman]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:

Just the facts.
Because facts and reality doesn't match some people's beliefs around here and causes them to get their panties all twisted they automatically believe I'm picking on them and their "Utopian" beliefs.
Diverisity is good sometimes.
You don't have to believe in it.
Just don't get offended by it either.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, I personally welcome your views, and hope you continue to post here. I welcome a challenge to my opinions!

 

[BioDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
The Growing Endowment of Oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah.
Grind up and steam 2 tons of sand and shale for 1 barrel of crude oil. Plus use the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil and vast quantities of water to process it in an area already squeezed for water suplies.

Native American's in Canada have already begun suing the operators of a small oil sand processing facility in Canada.
They've created a few lakes of water/crude mix already.

Here are some studies:
Oil sands studies in Canada
Of course, it may not matter to those who don't live over oil sands or shale oil. It's nice when someone else "endowes" you with their natural resources.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
However, lowering ambient NOx levels without a relatively larger reduction in NMOGs/VOCs .....

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct.

How that will happen, since the southern CA region they are talking about is a "VOC limited" area, will remain to be seen.

 

[MITBeta]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think someone is magically going to come up with billions of dollars to develope a separate pipeline system for biodiesel alone? Or SunFuel?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't. Which is EXACTLY my point. Pay close attention here, for once:

You said:
[ QUOTE ]
They aren't going to ship it in railcars.
They are going to use the same pipeline system as petroleum.
Something that cannot be done with biodiesel.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said:
[ QUOTE ]
It's quite a stretch to think that infrastructure necessarily means pipelines. But let's assume that it does. Are we going to build a parallel pipeline system to transport Sunfuel, or are we going to simply pick a day and stop the flow of diesel fuel altogether in favor of Sunfuel?

Whatever your answer is, the same can be said for biodiesel.


[/ QUOTE ]

You said:
[ QUOTE ]
Unless you are going to replace a specific pipeline system or build one for only biodiesel the current system will not transport biodiesel through the pipeline system.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said:
[ QUOTE ]
Right, this is my point EXACTLY about SunFuel as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now here we are. SunFuel IS NOT going to use "the same pipeline system as petroleum" as you claimed in the first quote above.

So now we're back to shipping it in rail cars and tanker trucks... the SAME THING we do with biodiesel, yet you claimed SunFuel had an advantage over biodiesel in terms of infrastructure.

 

[Reidler]

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to jump in here.

We have a pipeline that goes across Canada and they actually do ship any type of liquid through it. Anything from natural gas to propane to gasoline to diesel and even oil. (I was talking to a rep about it one day) the pipelines are laid out in such a way that they have what is called a "PIG" that they send through the line when they change substances. It has a seal that seals on the pipeline as it moves through. Therefore, when they want to push an new kind of substance through the pipeline, they just insert the "pig" and then push it through with the new substance, and then remove the "pig" at the other end.

Apparently it works without a hitch! So yes they could pump your sunfuel through the existing pipelines.

Gary

 

[Geordi]

Like in the James Bond movie, "Living Daylights"

Cool, very cool. Wondered what the real use of those was.

--Jim

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
SunFuel IS NOT going to use "the same pipeline system as petroleum" as you claimed in the first quote above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe what you want.

SunFuel.de
Infrastructure
As a first step SunFuel® will be offered as a diesel fuel. This SunFuel® uses the same infrastructure as conventional mineral oil fuels. It can be used as an alternative to diesel fossil fuel without having to tune the engine.
Using SunFuel® immediately provides a major contribution to reducing CO2 levels pollutant emissions (in particular particles) at the same time.
------------------------------------------------------------


The last time I checked the pipelines were part of the "infastructure" system. And Germany has already gone to a 10ppm or less sulfur content for diesel fuel as of Jan. 1, 03. So there won't the problem of cross-contamination like we would have here in the states.

But if you are correct and they don't use the current infastructure then all that will do will ensure that the cost of the product will remain high - just like biodiesel.
One of the main reasons B100 costs $3.00 a gallon here on the west cost is because of transportation costs and the special handling needs.

Reidler,
Using "pig's" to separate fuels in pipelines only goes so far.

http://www.cwpma.org/Newsletter7-15-01.html
DOE Says Pipelines Will Likely Contaminate Ultra Low-Sulfur Diesel
The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency (EIA) issued a report warning that the new 15 parts per million (ppm) ultra-low sulfur on-road diesel fuel mandated by the EPA will likely become contaminated by fuels with higher sulfur content moving through the same pipeline. The warning came in a new report just issued by the EIA entitled The Transition to Ultra Low Diesel Fuel: Effects on Price and Supply. As a result, petroleum marketers may be forced to conduct extensive testing of the new diesel fuel to avoid liability for selling off-specification blends. The EIA said that the contamination problem could be reduced by producing a 10 ppm sulfur content to off-set any sulfur contamination picked up through pipelines. However, the lower sulfur content will not be easy to achieve and cannot guarantee that contamination will not occur during transport, according to the agency. The Association of Oil Pipelines agrees with the EIA assessment and added that it is likely the ultra-low diesel fuel will have to be re-refined after it is sent through the pipelines but before it is sold to the ultimate consumer. The major reason for the contamination is that pipelines are made of carbon steel, which absorbs sulfur from other fuels with higher sulfur content. Since jet fuel has 133 times the sulfur content of ultra-low sulfur diesel and heating oil has 200-300 times the amount of sulfur, the risk of cross contamination is high. Another concern is cross contamination from cargo tank transports as well as storage tanks. Petroleum marketers will have to clean and segregate equipment to ensure that contamination does occur outside the terminal gate. The EIA report concluded that cross contamination will have a significant impact of supplies and distribution of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel which could lead to regional shortages and price spikes.
------------------------------------------------------------


A couple of reports I read concluded there could be up to a 10% contamination of product. Which would make a clean diesel product into a lower quality product.

And if you notice, there's that <10ppm sulfur limit that is mentioned again. Just what all of the engine manufactures say they will need in the future.

 

[TheLongshot]

[ QUOTE ]
genau said:
HOLY FRIGGIN CRAP /images/graemlins/frown.gif. I go away for three days and all hell breaks loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to the Biodiesel forum. /images/graemlins/eek.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Not that anybody cares (i mean i'm relatively new to the tdi scene) but can't you guys suck up your pride and come together on the cars? Just FYI if this is the way that TDIClub is (and so far its all i've seen) then I'm gone

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, most of us here are fans of the car. That's why we are here. It doesn't mean we can't argue things. (Tho we seem to go over the same territory over and over again...) Just remember, it is the vocal minority that is posting here. Most of the time, reading these threads is just for entertainment value for me. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Jason

 

[Wally]

I Think I gotta go with MIT on this one. I beleive the pipeline question to be a side issue. My take on infrastructure , as it is presented, is such that it means the already in use fuel delivery system, (pipeline inlcuded) to the fuel pumps we all know and, ahem, love.

In other words Unlike Hydrogen which will require an entirely new infrastructure .

You can say biodiesel can't use this infrastructure but it makes no sense. The thermal argument was the only one that held water. The contamination argument completely falls apart considering B100 has ZERO ppm of sulfur and no other possible contaminents (heavy metals, impure distilates, etc.). If anything, the concern would be of petro lousing up perfectly good, domestic made, soy/canola-biodiesel and someone would unwarliy end up burning petro when they want to burn the bean. The opposite mixing (bio in petro) can only help the situation.

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
The contamination argument completely falls apart considering B100 has ZERO ppm of sulfur and no other possible contaminents (heavy metals, impure distilates, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

It is what will happen to the biodiesel that will cause problems.

Pump some nice batch of zero sulfur biodiesel in the middle of some nice 2000 to 3000 jet fuel and then a batch of 500ppm D2 and then check it to see how much will be contaminated and at what levels of sulfur.

It's going to be hard enough to keep ULSD at managable levels.

Costs/Impacts of Distributing Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel]

Disparity of Sulfur in Adjacent Batches
l Wide disparity of sulfur specs in adjacent pipeline
batches will make ULSD prone to contamination
– 5,000 ppm S: Heating oil/off-road diesel (HSD)
– 3,000 ppm S: Kero jet
– 500 ppm S: Current LSD
– 15 ppm S: EPA required ULSD
------------------------------------------------------------

If want them to ship your biodiesel next to 2000ppm jet fuel go right ahead. Just don't think it will be very clean and the other end of the pipe.

 

[bean boy]

One of the things I like about biodiesel is that it could be produced more locally. Then we don't have to worry as much about transportation costs and the infrastrucure

[ QUOTE ]
Believe what you want.

SunFuel.de
Infrastructure
As a first step SunFuel® will be offered as a diesel fuel. This SunFuel® uses the same infrastructure as conventional mineral oil fuels. It can be used as an alternative to diesel fossil fuel without having to tune the engine.
Using SunFuel® immediately provides a major contribution to reducing CO2 levels pollutant emissions (in particular particles) at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe what you want since Sunfuel is actually derived from fossil fuel (CNG at this time per Shell). Since they are only exploring the feasability of producing it from bio sources, I think its a little premature to talk about it as if it is already in production as a biofuel.

[ QUOTE ]
Shell and Volkswagen launch trial of synthetic natural gas fuel
Berlin, Germany - A fleet of 25 Volkswagen Golf cars will be driving around Berlin over the next five months, fuelled by "Shell Gas to Liquids", a unique synthetic fuel derived from natural gas. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder launched the trial by filling up the cars at the Royal Dutch/Shell Group's (Shell's) service station Hohenzollerndamm in Berlin.

"Shell Gas to Liquids" fuel offers a similar emissions performance to compressed natural gas (CNG) at a lower cost. It can be used in today's car engines with the existing storage and fuel distribution system, and can be mixed with regular diesel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Canadian Car & Driver

And since there is plenty of fossel fuel resources..
[ QUOTE ]
I'll cut and paste something for you though.

Are We Running Out of Oil?

The Growing Endowment of Oil.
*In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
Additional Petroleum Resources.
*Worldwide, the oil-shale resource base could easily be as large as 14,000 billion barrels — more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates

[/ QUOTE ]

..then we don't have to worry about this at all right?
[ QUOTE ]
World Energy Outlook 2002 sees China
set to be a strategic buyer on world energy markets,
while enormous investment on energy infrastructure is needed

Robert Priddle, executive director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, released as a separate publication today in Beijing the "China Energy Outlook". "Between now and 2030, China will account for a fifth of the growth in world energy demand," Mr. Priddle said. This China Energy Outlook explores the country's emerging strategic role as an energy giant." & " China will become a major importer of oil and gas. By 2030, Chinese oil imports will equal the imports of the United States today, while imports will meet 30% of the country's gas demand. "These trends will make China a strategic buyer on world energy markets," Mr. Priddle remarked.

[/ QUOTE ]

IEA press

And I found this piece interesting although I suspect some will claim it isn't proven and therefore must be fiction

[ QUOTE ]
World oil experts fall into two camps, bulls and bears. Both agree we've used 800 billion barrels (6). The bears think there's 1 trillion left and that production may peak by 2010. Bulls think there's 1.8 trillion left and that the peak won't come until 2020. If ten years is the only difference between them, it is time to prepare. Americans see no sinister shadow on the horizon, but unless governments and industry support alternative sources for their crucial energy needs, dark days are coming. The only question is how soon (7).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we have more serious concerns than a little contamination from sulfer in the pipeline. /images/graemlins/eek.gif

 

[MITBeta]

[ QUOTE ]
If want them to ship your biodiesel next to 2000ppm jet fuel go right ahead. Just don't think it will be very clean and the other end of the pipe.


[/ QUOTE ]

But I suppose that SunFuel will stay "clean" when shipped next to high sulfur jet fuel?

Once again, you're arguing in circles. Either pipelines can be used to ship SunFuel AND Biodiesel, or they can't be used to ship either.

In any case, the "infrastructure" advantange of SunFuel over Biodiesel is non-existant.

 

[ikendu]

Yup. Local production of biodiesel is an important benefit.

The U.S. has been "on the edge" of refinery capacity for quite a while. No new refineries have been built in 20-25 years. If we were to lose one of our refineries, it would cause real disruption to our petroleum economy.

One of the beauties of biodiesel is how simple it is to produce; no super expensive or complicated facility is required. This leads to local production in smaller facilities (way less vulnerable to terror attacks).

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
Pump some nice batch of zero sulfur biodiesel in the middle of some nice 2000 to 3000 jet fuel and then a batch of 500ppm D2 and then check it to see how much will be contaminated and at what levels of sulfur.

It's going to be hard enough to keep ULSD at managable levels.

Costs/Impacts of Distributing Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel]

Disparity of Sulfur in Adjacent Batches
l Wide disparity of sulfur specs in adjacent pipeline
batches will make ULSD prone to contamination
– 5,000 ppm S: Heating oil/off-road diesel (HSD)
– 3,000 ppm S: Kero jet
– 500 ppm S: Current LSD
– 15 ppm S: EPA required ULSD
------------------------------------------------------------

If want them to ship your biodiesel next to 2000ppm jet fuel go right ahead. Just don't think it will be very clean and the other end of the pipe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize sulfur in liquids was able to leap out of the liquid, through the container, and into another container to contaminate that liquid. Wow, the things I missed out on learning by not having the time to stop by this site. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

The fact is, biodiesel is the best option for getting off of petroleum. Right now, current diesel vehicles running biodiesel are not going to be cleaner than a Toyota Prius running ULSG. Why? They can't use any NOx adsorber technology on current diesels, because ULSD is not yet mandated, and other technologies that decrease PM also cannot be used until ULSD is mandated. Does that mean we shouldn't use biodiesel? Of course not. By using it, we're still emitting FAR less net CO2 per mile than ANY other vehicle out there, emitting less CO per mile, and completely eliminating our personal dependence on foreign source of oil. Perhaps more importantly, we're helping the biodiesel industry grow - and as it grows, it's our best option for completely getting off of petroleum for transportation. In 2006, when carmakers can start selling diesels with better NOx and PM absortption technology, then the biodiesel vehicles will be cleaner on essentially everything than any other vehicle out there (except of course for electric cars powered by solar panels, but that's not anywhere close to feasible for the entire country, while biodiesel is).

Make sense?

So no, my biodiesel powered cars aren't cleaner than a TOyota Prius on EVERYTHING. They emit more NOx. I'm far less concerned about that though, than I am about petroleum dependence, net CO2 emissions, CO emissions, and our country sending our economy deep into the crapper by spending over $100 billion every year buying petroleum from other countries (many of whom HATE us), when we could instead spend that money here in our own country. No, I'm not an isolationist, but no country can survive with a massive trade deficit. Our trade deficit right now is around $100 billion. Eliminate our purchasing of oil, and we're breaking even with other countries. That's the only way for a country to protect itself from seeing its economy plummet.

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
BioDiesel said:
What does emissions have to do with anything?
Gas isn't renewable, biodiesel is.
You won't care about emissions once we start to run out of gas and the price skyrockets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll cut and paste something for you though.

Are We Running Out of Oil?

The Growing Endowment of Oil.
*In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.
Additional Petroleum Resources.
*Worldwide, the oil-shale resource base could easily be as large as 14,000 billion barrels — more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates
Unconventional oil resources are more expensive to extract and produce, but we can expect production costs to drop with time as improved technologies increase efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]
LMFAO. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif This is too much. Do you know who you're quoting here? The NCPA, which is essentially a political action committee for oil companies and the conservative-right. The board of directors of the NCPA is made up of several executives from various oil companies. Gee, how shocking that their "studies" claim that there's no need to worry about running out of oil and explore alternatives. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

The problem with these claims of "we have plenty of oil left" is that they are always based on oil reserves that are EXTREMELY difficult and expensive to get and process. The Canadian oil sands are a prime example. Sure, there are hundreds of billions of barrels of oil in those oil sands - the problem is, only a small portion of that oil is remotely reachable, and it's incredibly expensive/energy intensive to process. To get one barrel of poor-quality oil out, you end up burning through at least 4 barrels of oil. It's nice how they always ignore things like that.

Sure, there's plenty of oil left in the world - but it's far too difficult to turn into usable fuel to make it worth the effort, particularly when there are much better options.
[ QUOTE ]
I used to think the Hubberts prediction was correct.

I don't anymore and not from just this one article.

The oil companies are not going to sit around and let their profits slip away in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not, they're using their massive wealth to create these political action committees, making them appear as unbiased groups of "concerned citizens", to dupe the public into thinking there's nothing wrong with continuing to rely on oil, and drive around in a Hummer.

[ QUOTE ]
Good or bad, big oil is here to stay for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only so long as people like you fall for their advertisements in the form of "studies", and try to convince other people it's true.

[ QUOTE ]
Ever wonder why in todays dollars the price of gas is cheaper today than even in 1985?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because we've made large increases in the scale of production, and the technology used. Not because there's "plenty of oil", as these silly "studies" claim. THe world's demand is currently just barely under it's peak production. Conquering Iraq to let the Cheney company develop all of their fields will get us a few more years before demand exceeds production capacity, but it won't last forever. Eventually we'll run out of countries that we can conquer to develop new oil fields. When the oil companies convince the government they need to start switching to oil sands and other such incredibly poor reserves, either the price of oil will skyrocket, or we'll be spending massive amounts of tax dollars to keep the price where it is, so people won't get sticker shock when gassing up their Excursion.

 

[nh mike]

Incidentally, here's a nice article discussing the NCPA's "views" and their reasons for them.

 

[Davin]

[ QUOTE ]
nh mike said:
LMFAO. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif This is too much. Do you know who you're quoting here? The NCPA, which is essentially a political action committee for oil companies and the conservative-right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey mike, earlier in this thread he posted a study from these people:

http://www.eco.freedom.org/whoweare.html

Not totally ragging on you AutoDiesel, but I just can't get over those pictures on that page. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[VWannabe]

Those people look like the same people who make up the Right Use Conservancy, a radical right-wing group who is all for pillaging and raping any natural resource in the USA! I would believe them, allright! You know, there is probably something anti-American about Biodiesel! You would be taking money right out of the Bush & Cheney oil company and putting it back into the consumer's pocket! Treason! The administration would not get much support for invading and taking over a country to gain access to it's oil-seed crops, so where's the fun in that? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
Davin said:
[ QUOTE ]
nh mike said:
LMFAO. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif This is too much. Do you know who you're quoting here? The NCPA, which is essentially a political action committee for oil companies and the conservative-right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey mike, earlier in this thread he posted a study from these people:

http://www.eco.freedom.org/whoweare.html

Not totally ragging on you AutoDiesel, but I just can't get over those pictures on that page. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahahahahaa!!!!!!! Thanks Davin, that's entertaining. I wonder if it's a requirement that you wear a cowboy hat to join that group. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Personally, my favorite oil-PACs (political action committees) are the ones that give themselves environmental names, so that when people reference their "studies" it will sound completely unbiased, or even as if it's coming from an environmentalist group.

I think my favorite one is the "Greening Earth Society". What's surprising to me about them is that even though they gave themselves a deceptive name like that, on their webpage they clearly state:
"Greening Earth Society is a not-for-profit membership organization comprised of rural electric cooperatives and municipal electric utilities, their fuel suppliers, and thousands of individuals."
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/about.html
Gee, it's composed of FUEL SUPPLIERS - that couldn't have anything to do with their belief that CO2 emissions are good for the planet, could it? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Damn, now I want a cowboy hat.....

 

[nh mike]

[ QUOTE ]
VWannabe said:
Those people look like the same people who make up the Right Use Conservancy, a radical right-wing group who is all for pillaging and raping any natural resource in the USA!

[/ QUOTE ]
And the most important part is raping and pillaging without the company paying the country anything for using public resources. They're doing us a favor by strip mining. And they shouldn't have to share any of the profits they get from public lands! No way!

[ QUOTE ]
You know, there is probably something anti-American about Biodiesel! You would be taking money right out of the Bush & Cheney oil company and putting it back into the consumer's pocket! Treason!

[/ QUOTE ]
Even worse, you'd be CREATING JOBS for normal Americans with all that money that the Bush & Cheney oil company (and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuala, etc.) wasn't getting! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/about.html
Gee, it's composed of FUEL SUPPLIERS - that couldn't have anything to do with their belief that CO2 emissions are good for the planet, could it?

Damn, now I want a cowboy hat.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I already have one!

Considering that CO2 is used in green houses to spur plant growth, considering that the CO2 concentrations are going up in response to temperature increases (not the other way around), considering that we are on a rebound from the little ice age of 16th and 17th centuries, considering that there is more and more real science (not political science) coming out saying the CO2 effect is minimal....
laugh all you want.


http://www.co2science.org/edit/editor.htm
Is the Global Warming Bubble About to Burst?
In a recent discussion published in the Russian journal Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya (Vol. 43, pp. 132-135), two scientists from the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences challenge the politically-correct global warming dogma that vexes the entire world. Bashkirtsev and Mashnich (2003) say that "a number of publications report that the anthropogenic impact on the Earth's climate is an obvious and proven fact," when in actuality, in their opinion, "none of the investigations dealing with the anthropogenic impact on climate convincingly argues for such an impact."

or maybe you want......

http://www.nature.com/nsu/001207/001207-6.html
Solar blow to low cloud could be warming planet
Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Marsh of the Danish Space Research Institute in Copenhagen have focused on cosmic rays.......
They argue that the imprint of the solar magnetic field in the solar wind has increased over the past century. So the shielding from cosmic rays will have increased, decreasing the formation and cooling influence of low clouds and providing a possible contribution to the observed global warming of the past 100 years.
------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing new. That article was from year 2000.

It's not just the oil men saying it.

 

[AutoDiesel]

If you want to read something really wild about oil, read Dr. Thomas Gold's The Deep Hot Biosphere.

If it is true that would upset the apple cart a little. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
...... but I just can't get over those pictures on that page.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thems some real salt-of-the earth people son. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[AutoDiesel]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize sulfur in liquids was able to leap out of the liquid, through the container, and into another container to contaminate that liquid.

[/ QUOTE ]

The discussion was about shipping biodiesel through the existing pipeline system. Run some biodiesel in between some 500ppm regular diesel and some 2000ppm jet fuel and then see what percentage the biodiesel is "contaminated" with sulfur.

Yep, keep shipping that biodiesel by rail and truck thus keeping the prices high.