No B100 in '09s ...does it matter?

[rodneyh1]

Why would anyone in their right mind buy a diesel that would not run on 100% biodiesel.

Diesel cars, despite the mpg, are the nastiest polluting vehicles out there.

Diesel fuel emmissions suck even with the new diesel and cars.

I do not understand. Well, I guess I do, some people do not care about the environment one bit.

I strongly disagree with your statement that diesel cars are the nastiest polluting cars out there. Even using EPA numbers (which greatly underpredict diesel mileage), the carbon footprint for VW diesels is amazingly low. Any year diesel Jetta has about 1/2 the carbon footprint of a brand new SUV. Looking from '86 to '09, VW jettas have a carbon footprint of 6.1 - 6.4 tons of CO2 per year. '09 Chevy Tahoe, Toyota Landcruiser, Ford Explorer, Chrysler Aspen (and a whole slew of others) have carbon footprints at or above 12.2 tons/year. Getting diesel owners to switch to BD is insignificant compared with getting the idiots out of their monster trucks.

I own a '86 Jetta that I've always run B100 (maybe down to B60 in winter). I've just bought a '09 Jetta that I'm also running B100. I've got 2,500 miles with no issues thus far. I'll let you know if this will "not run on 100% biodiesel". Even if I have to switch to petrol diesel, I'm still extremely content with my positive environmental and energy independence impact.

 

[markeckley@yahoo.com]

Of course you can make biodiesel from things that aren't edible-you can make FAME's from any fatty acid source.
That includes toxic wastewater from paper mills. Is that source going away soon? discuss

 

[BKmetz]

How about decriminalize hemp, have a fast growing, non nutrient depleating (compared to corn or soy) crop that is not human consumable, that makes both clothing and fuel, and use higher percentages with petroleum product to overcome cold flow?

You folks seem to think fuel can only come from things we eat. It can come from weeds, literally.

It's impossible to grow enough whatever source of oil crop to displace any significant amount of petrol diesel.

I never limited my statement to a food crop. About the only 'crop' that I see that has any potential would be algae.

 

[donDavide]

I strongly disagree with your statement that diesel cars are the nastiest polluting cars out there. Even using EPA numbers (which greatly underpredict diesel mileage), the carbon footprint for VW diesels is amazingly low. Any year diesel Jetta has about 1/2 the carbon footprint of a brand new SUV. Looking from '86 to '09, VW jettas have a carbon footprint of 6.1 - 6.4 tons of CO2 per year. '09 Chevy Tahoe, Toyota Landcruiser, Ford Explorer, Chrysler Aspen (and a whole slew of others) have carbon footprints at or above 12.2 tons/year. Getting diesel owners to switch to BD is insignificant compared with getting the idiots out of their monster trucks..

Youz guyz and your carbon footprints. CO2 in not a pollutant. I don't care what those 5 idiots that wear black robes say. They are just Lawyers with an agenda. NOX is a real pollutant but there questions on hum much effect it really has. Just because YOU don't like monster truckes doesn't make them idiots. To steal an analogy from the left if you do not like them do not buy one ( they love to say that about a certain "medical" procedure). But don't be hate'n because YOU have fallen for the biggest scam/hoax hook, line and sinker.
There are some good reasons to bio-dee but CO2 in not the one. I like to use because it helps reduce the CARBON build up in my intake. Plus the B20 I get from NEX-Annapolis is good fuel and I do not lose MPG like I have on some others. I am going get some B99 from accross the bay when I come back from the Valley Forge GTG and blend my own to about 20% give or take because NEX has not dropped like the rest. It was normally within a nickel or so and at times during the Spring run up it was cheaper.

 

[donDavide]

Because I do not have biodiesel readily available in my area (no co-ops or anything else around here). Even with the large commercial operations there are still issues with quality control and cold weather.

Have you ever looked on Algore's amazing internet For BioD?

TRY this
http://www.biodiesel.org/

 

[donDavide]

Why would anyone in their right mind buy a diesel that would not run on 100% biodiesel.

COLD WEATHER for one. Emmision equipment #2

 

[donDavide]

Why would anyone in their right mind buy a diesel that would not run on 100% biodiesel.

I do not understand. Well, I guess I do, some people do not care about the environment one bit.

WOW!!!! I care but I just have a very common sense approch about it and it is not religion for me.
Just wait for another huge vocanic erruption in southeast Asia /southwest Pacific and see how much stuff gets put in the air. More that man has put in his entire existance.

 

[BKmetz]

Have you ever looked on Algore's amazing internet For BioD?

TRY this
http://www.biodiesel.org/

Nearest places listed are 30 miles away from me and both are way out of my way from my commute to work, plus they only sell B11.

 

[kcfoxie]

I never limited my statement to a food crop. About the only 'crop' that I see that has any potential would be algae.

I think if we looked at all the available waste streams and used even 40% of them for biodiesel we'd be amazed at what we can displace. We might be able to push B10 as a standard fuel easily. Add in more biodiesel sources, up that percentage.

I like B100 but it has its pitfalls. If we could get to a 70%+ standing, we'd be in good shape "year round."

WOW!!!! I care but I just have a very common sense approch about it and it is not religion for me.
Just wait for another huge vocanic erruption in southeast Asia /southwest Pacific and see how much stuff gets put in the air. More that man has put in his entire existance.

Can you provide some data to back that up? Eruptions per year, average discharge into the atmosphere, then compare that to 1950 - 1995 vehicle's average emission output.

Plot it on a graph and post it up. Somehow, I just don't see it being the way you cite, I see man being marginally ahead in the game.

Regardless nature never intended for this much polluting to go on, she had it under control before we invented gasoline.

 

[PWN]

Another reason to use biod is that you would be supporting local farmers and local businesses and not sending money to foreign countries and ultimately terrorists.

No one died for my fuel except Georgia chickens. No American troops died securing the long term viability of biodiesel.

I hope that biodiesel can be used in the 09's. I really do.

 

[kcfoxie]

Another reason to use biod is that you would be supporting local farmers and local businesses and not sending money to foreign countries and ultimately terrorists.

No one died for my fuel except Georgia chickens. No American troops died securing the long term viability of biodiesel.

I hope that biodiesel can be used in the 09's. I really do.

Technically over 4000 have died so far to ensure the long term viability of biodiesel. That's if you supported the war at any time.

I never did.

 

[PWN]

Technically over 4000 have died so far to ensure the long term viability of biodiesel. That's if you supported the war at any time.

I never did.

Hows that work?

 

[kcfoxie]

They're fighting to keep america safe and secure. Remember it's a war on terrorism, not oil.

I'm just saying, that's what most people (and some still) bought.

(I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying that according to several high ranking officials your comment is wrong and the deaths of those abroad can be tracked back to ensuring the free markets of america can do as they please without disruption from terrorists.)

 

[T'sTDI]

Sure America is fighting to keep us safe from more terrorist attacks but the terrorists have won the war. Just look at our economy... Sure no more planes flew into buildings but our dollar is losing its value, can't even begin to fathom how much debt we are in and our economy is tanking. All we do is borrow borrow borrow, eventually we need to pay some money back. Fuel costs are at an all time high and prices at the supermarket have gone up. Every American has suffered because of this war on Iraq.

At this point we need to cut our losses and leave. Why we must be the worlds watch dog I'll never understand, but we got enough problems to keep our own country busy, rather than meddling with anothers to suit what we want.

This war was a war on terrorism back when we blew the s*** out of Afganistan. Iraq came into the picture when there was the threat of WMD's, that was totally false so *** are we still over there. Trying to shape a government that suits Americas needs.....

Like I said, we got plenty of problems over here to be worrying about the middle east.

 

[donDavide]

I think if we looked at all the available waste streams and used even 40% of them for biodiesel we'd be amazed at what we can displace. We might be able to push B10 as a standard fuel easily. Add in more biodiesel sources, up that percentage.

I like B100 but it has its pitfalls. If we could get to a 70%+ standing, we'd be in good shape "year round."



Can you provide some data to back that up? Eruptions per year, average discharge into the atmosphere, then compare that to 1950 - 1995 vehicle's average emission output.

Plot it on a graph and post it up. Somehow, I just don't see it being the way you cite, I see man being marginally ahead in the game.

Regardless nature never intended for this much polluting to go on, she had it under control before we invented gasoline.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Subglacial_volcano_melting_Antarctic_ice_sheet.htm

http://www.iceagenow.com/31000_scientists_dispute_global_warming_claims.htm

Not what your looking for and i hat to use the next one but there is some useful info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/

 

[donDavide]

As I have posted before we have had problems in the middle east for over 200 years. Read about the Barbry Pirates.

 

[donDavide]

I hope that biodiesel can be used in the 09's. I really do.

It can't. I believe it was talked about at TDifest and in some posts on these forums.

 

[donDavide]

Another reason to use biod is that you would be supporting local farmers and local businesses and not sending money to foreign countries and ultimately terrorists.

No one died for my fuel except Georgia chickens. No American troops died securing the long term viability of biodiesel.

I hope that biodiesel can be used in the 09's. I really do.

We have to import soybeans from South America. We can't produce enough.

 

[T'sTDI]

200 years is not relevant to todays world. Lots of things have changed since then....For instance a proficient economy that needs help. More reliance on a non sustainable fuel source and gloablization to name a few.

 

[T'sTDI]

It can't. I believe it was talked about at TDifest and in some posts on these forums.

Not true...

Nothing is impossible, theres threads going on about it right now. They said the same for TDI's burning VO.

The 09 TDI burning biodiesel would be a great thing for diesel market share and diesels in particular.

Its interesting the way you talk. Your not for any change at all, stick to conservative ideas. Do you work for an oil company by any chance

Theres nothing wrong with promotion of alternative fuels. Cars burning biodiesel or cars running on electricity will not be the end of the world. In fact it could be the beginning of a new one thats not relied on oil. I see that as a goal we should all shoot for.

 

[ikendu]

CO2 in not a pollutant. I don't care what those 5 idiots that wear black robes say.

Well, I will grant you this, CO2 is invisible.

So... the large increase in CO2 since 1957 (higher now than at anytime in the last 650,000 years based on bubbles trapped in deep ice) is impossible to see for the average person.

Water, is not usually considered a pollutant either and... it is transparent too. But I can tell you, Iowans learned in 1993 (100 year flood) and this summer (500 year flood) that too much of anything, including clear, transparent water is a problem.

There's been a lot of volcano eruptions in the last 650,000 years only now, in the last 200 years since we've been liberating the carbon sequested millions of years ago, the CO2 levels are higher than ever in that 650,000 year time.

 

[donDavide]

Water, is not usually considered a pollutant either

Not yet. Niether was CO2 before Algore. But if you want to talk about what the number one greenhouse gas is it is watervapor. By the way, Honda is advertising the hydrogen car as putting out only water vapor so what would that bring if all cars were powered by hydrogen?? The BMW H7 say water so what will that bring? global flooding?

 

[donDavide]

Not true...

[Nothing is impossible, theres threads going on about it right now. They said the same for TDI's burning VO.]


The 09 TDI burning biodiesel would be a great thing for diesel market share and diesels in particular.

Its interesting the way you talk. Your not for any change at all, stick to conservative ideas. Do you work for an oil company by any chance



Theres nothing wrong with promotion of alternative fuels. Cars burning biodiesel or cars running on electricity will not be the end of the world. In fact it could be the beginning of a new one thats not relied on oil. I see that as a goal we should all shoot for.

Where I have said I am against them?? Reread my posts. It is the hoax of Global warming/climate change that I am against. I just don't see them as the total answer at this point in time. As I have said I like the B20 I was using for reducing the carbon build up in my car's intake mainifold. I do beleive in the market place. Government manuplation and regulation for the most part is what makes a mess of everything. Alternatives just can't make it w/o subsides. Yes I am conservative and always have been.True Conservatism works. There is whole lot of things I would like to see changed. But not for the main reasons stated in this thread. Oil is not evil. We are put in a difficult spot by not producing more of our own. I want to more drilling, more nuclear more CNG for urban fleet vehicles more coal. If ethanol can be produced much more cheaply along with bioD then that works for me. I like the IDEA of using CO2 as a byproduct (not a pollutant) to grow algae to convert to BioD, but only if it can be done economically. I generally like recycling and I only have enough trash to put out once every 2/12 weeks, most stuff goes torwards recyling.

I do not work for an oil company . I work in foodservice sales and drive 100 miles a day.

I have seen it somewhere that there is something in the BioD that will ruin the pollution controls. and not just in this thread.

 

[wolfskin]

Well, I will grant you this, CO2 is invisible.

There's been a lot of volcano eruptions in the last 650,000 years only now, in the last 200 years since we've been liberating the carbon sequested millions of years ago, the CO2 levels are higher than ever in that 650,000 year time.

The above are scientifically substantiated HARD FACTS, Don.

So you might as well take your religion of ignorance somewhere else.
Every once in a while there comes one like you to this forum, preaching how man-made climate change just don't compute in their little minds. We can't enlighten you, you sure as hell won't convince anyone to give up scientific knowledge for dogma, so please, spare us the endless repeating of your beliefs, wherever they come from.

Really thanks if you can do that!!

 

[ikendu]

I do beleive in the market place. Government manuplation and regulation for the most part is what makes a mess of everything.

I too believe in the market place. It's just not my only belief. Market forces have been used to rapidly and inexpensively lower sulfur emissions. It has worked great! But... it is the regulation that made it possible. On its own, the market would never reduce emissions or pollution of any kind. Why would it? Market forces are all about forcing the cheapest solution. What is cheapest is not always what is best for us individually or as a society.

Think that enforcing clean water on production processes is the cheapest? It is way cheaper to put chromium plating wastes into the river. It is not what is best for us as a society.

Alternatives just can't make it w/o subsides.

That is often true of any new thing. Think the transcontinental railroad could have been built totally private with no subsidy? It wasn't. No private individual would take the risk. It was huge government land grants that made it feasible economically. Think the transcontinental railroad benefitted business and society? I do. Were the government subsidies wrong? I don't think so.

The oil industry recently testified about their need for tax subsidies. Guess what? The industry that has posted consistent profits bigger than any other in any time in history still thinks that THEY need subsidies. If oil that sells between $100-$140/barrel can't survive without subsidies, then I don't know what could.

Yes I am conservative and always have been.True Conservatism works.

Well, that might be right.

It seems to me that the experience of watching conservatives in action is that they struggle and fight change. What is the one thing you can count on in this world?

Things change.

Fighting change is like spitting into the wind.

We have a powerful lobby of the fossil fuel industry; oil, gas and coal. Think the oil companies want us to change? It clearly is a national security threat for us to be dependent on a commodity for which we import 70% of that commodity. Think the "patriots" that run the oil industry care about that?

Honestly, I don't. They care to maintain the status quo. They are fighting the inevitable. As Americans, we need to wake up and do what we can to eliminate our over dependence on fossil fuels.

I agree that "oil (as a substance) is not evil". What is evil is to over throw a democracy in order to secure a better price and access to oil. That is that our government did in 1953 to the people of Iran.

For decades, the people of Iran lived under the dictatorship of the Shah of Iran; whom we installed into power. He kept an iron control of the country with the use of the Savak (secret police) that used torture, abduction and imprisonment as a means of control.

If you'd like to read all about it, read "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror". Ever wonder why Iranians captured our embassy in 1979 and hated us so much? I did. It eventually led me to read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179

So, yes, oil is not evil. Just like gold, money and power are not necessarily evil. It was we do for those things that can be evil.

I am happy to see your support for recycling and new ideas like capturing CO2 to create biofuels from algae. It is that new, progressive thinking that we need to face the change which is inevitable. The sooner we face it, the sooner we can increase the security of our nation.

We don't have to live in an "either or" world. We can have sensible regulation to protect our society and still have a powerful, vibrant economy. It is not easy to achieve this balance. It requires a lot of attention and understanding. I'm afraid that "just trusting our elected leaders" will never quite "cut it" in a democracy (or representative republic... which is what we have).

 

[rodneyh1]

It can't. I believe it was talked about at TDifest and in some posts on these forums.

Wrong on yet another point. B100 can be run in the '09 Jetta. I know because I'm doing it and have been since I bought the car 2,700 miles ago.

Also, regarding your view that man's carbon emisions are not causing global warming. Could you please supply references for any peer reviewed journal articles that state this. For those of us in the scientific community, peer review is essential for validating any findings / conclusions. Without this, it's really just opinion and not highly regarded.

 

[MethylEster]

The above are scientifically substantiated HARD FACTS, Don.

So you might as well take your religion of ignorance somewhere else.
Every once in a while there comes one like you to this forum, preaching how man-made climate change just don't compute in their little minds. We can't enlighten you, you sure as hell won't convince anyone to give up scientific knowledge for dogma, so please, spare us the endless repeating of your beliefs, wherever they come from.

Really thanks if you can do that!!

Wolfskin and rodneyh1,

Regarding my views as to why man's carbon emissions are not causing global warming I ask both of you the following questions.

1) Can you explain why the Martian polar ice caps are shrinking at the same time the Earths ice caps are shrinking ?? Last time I checked we didn't have anyone stationed on Mars.

2) Why has Pluto's atmospheric pressure increased three fold during the last 14 years !!!

But of course the CO2 heretics don't want you to know about these facts do they.

 

[T'sTDI]

Wolfskin and rodneyh1,

Regarding my views as to why man's carbon emissions are not causing global warming I ask both of you the following questions.

1) Can you explain why the Martian polar ice caps are shrinking at the same time the Earths ice caps are shrinking ?? Last time I checked we didn't have anyone stationed on Mars.

2) Why has Pluto's atmospheric pressure increased three fold during the last 14 years !!!

But of course the CO2 heretics don't want you to know about these facts do they.

Whether global warming is true or not, it doesn't justify being wasteful. Can't say this on this forum because I think all of us have made a hell of a car decision, but I wish people would have a conscience when it comes to vehicle choices. An 11 mpg hummer to transport one person is not one of them. Auto manufactures investing in V8 SUV junk is also not one of them.

Theres nothing wrong with pursuing bio fuels or electric vehicles.

As for your evidence. Is that enough for you to lay the fate of our world in jeporady?? Are you 100% sure that global warming is a totally natural cause and not man inflicted??

 

[wolfskin]

What on earth (or mars) has the earth's climate got to do with mars' polar ice caps??

But no, I can't explain. And I also can't explain whatever's going on in earth's atmosphere in any satisfactory detail. That's because I am not a climate scientist.
However, I CAN explain in very good detail the science behind my field of work. And just 'cos my grandma desn't quite grasp that, it doesn't mean that science is invalid.

Likewise, I dont't see how you or me or anyone who can't even understand the difference between the terms 'weather' and 'climate' can dispute, no, not even dispute, just plain deny, the decades' long work of hundreds of climate scientists around the world.

Now, if any of you armchair climatologists can actually bring up compelling evidence that all the science done so far is flawed, I'm sure any of the reputed science journals are ready to publish your well documented paper, and most of the scientists will be prepared to admit to their mistakes and start over.

Until then, it is just childish and offensive to anyone working in any scientific or even technical field, to just deny all this science on account of you not being able to grasp it, or on account that you don't see the climate predictions materializing in the tiny weather patterns around your town in any particular year.

If you really want to understand any of it, a couple months of reading scientific papers from the proper sources (and I do NOT mean your preferred tabloid!) will surely give you at least the hint of how much work is behind all this science and how seriously this work is taken by (most of) those involved.

Having said that, it still is possible, as with any yet-incomplete scientific study, that they ARE wrong about it. So, if you strongly believe they are, do the proper effort of substantiating it, publish your results, defend them against global review (as they have with their work!) and put them out of their misery.
Hell, you'll save us all this trouble of searching for carbon-free energy, we'll be fine for another 2 centuries on fossil fuels, if we can freely burn coal and peat deposits around the world.

HUMANITY will thank you if you can prove that all this CO2 causing global warming story is BS!

 

[donDavide]

you guys crack me up

Wrong on yet another point. B100 can be run in the '09 Jetta. I know because I'm doing it and have been since I bought the car 2,700 miles ago.

Also, regarding your view that man's carbon emisions are not causing global warming. Could you please supply references for any peer reviewed journal articles that state this. For those of us in the scientific community, peer review is essential for validating any findings / conclusions. Without this, it's really just opinion and not highly regarded.

Really you do, one of the above links has info about 31000 scientist that disagree but here is a link from another one

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm