• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

An opportunity for bio diesel


wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,933
The argument against increasing the use of ethanol is that it is imported and made from food crops. Bio diesel can be made from rapeseed and other crops which can be grown in Ireland.
At present, motor sales are non existant so tax revenue from selling or registering new cars is negligible.
My suggestion is that the govt. cut taxes on diesel cars sufficiently to make them more attractive than petrol engines. Eventually when people start to buy cars, they will choose diesel which have better fuel consumption than petrol.
Simultaneously, encourage the construction of several biodiesel plants which would setup contracts with tillage farmers to supply suitable feedstock for a period of years - much as the brewers and distillers contract with farmers to grow barley.
We can switch to diesel quite easily, electric cars are a way off and once the recession in the U.S. eases, fuel costs will start to rise again.
 

Seos

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Messages
153
Electric cars aren't way off they're just still small and not pretty. Bio-fuel that is actually useful is about 5-10 years off, same with really good electric.(Already invented just has to be made cheaper)
Current biodiesel has limited usefulness. It causes more non-CO2 pollution than normal diesel and if fertiliser is used and diesel run farm vehicles and diesel delivery trucks are used can end up with more oil being used than if it had just been directly used, which also means more CO2.
However the next generation of biofuels will use the parts of plants that we don't eat which means it will be much more viable.
The electric technology that I'm talking about that just needs to get cheaper is the stuff used by Tesla Motors.

Also any policy that promotes the buying of new cars causes more pollution then it saves since many models of cars cause more pollution in their production than they "save" in their lifetime.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,860
Electric cars aren't way off they're just still small and not pretty. Bio-fuel that is actually useful is about 5-10 years off, same with really good electric.(Already invented just has to be made cheaper)
Current biodiesel has limited usefulness. It causes more non-CO2 pollution than normal diesel and if fertiliser is used and diesel run farm vehicles and diesel delivery trucks are used can end up with more oil being used than if it had just been directly used, which also means more CO2.
However the next generation of biofuels will use the parts of plants that we don't eat which means it will be much more viable.
All new cars will be small. Where is the point in wasting energy carrying unnecessary weight around?

Current Biodiesel and SVO (straight vegetable oil) has plenty usefulness. I have been using SVO in my car for years.

It causes LESS CO2 pollution than mineral diesel because the CO2 it emits was taken up by last years crop, and next years crop will take it back up. It creates a CO2 cycle instead of emitting new CO2 into the athmosphere.

The next generation of biofuels will use the parts of the plants which we currently return to the soil as fertiliser - meaning we will need to make fertilisers out of fossil fuels instead.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,933
My point about bio diesel is that it is a quick fix - create jobs, cut imports of oil - which eventually we won't be able to afford and have some impact on the environment - you can argue about the extent of the environmental gain. A tax cut on diesel cars at present will not be noticed by the govt. so it is an opportunity to make a switch - one man's difficulty is another's opportunity.
 

Seos

Active member
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Messages
153
All new cars will be small. Where is the point in wasting energy carrying unnecessary weight around?

Current Biodiesel and SVO (straight vegetable oil) has plenty usefulness. I have been using SVO in my car for years.

It causes LESS CO2 pollution than mineral diesel because the CO2 it emits was taken up by last years crop, and next years crop will take it back up. It creates a CO2 cycle instead of emitting new CO2 into the athmosphere.

The next generation of biofuels will use the parts of the plants which we currently return to the soil as fertiliser - meaning we will need to make fertilisers out of fossil fuels instead.
Not all new cars will be small since not everyone wants a small car, the total amount of small cars will be greater and the energy efficiency of all cars will increase but not all new cars will be small (unless the government forces it)
My point was it can lead to more CO2 being produced. What I mean by limited usefulness is that it cuts down only a little on the total amount of oil used and the amount of CO2 released. Electric cars are a better (but of course not perfect either) alternative, especially where a household has two or more cars.

The next generation of bio-fuels as you point out isn't perfect either but needing to replace fertiliser is much easier then trying to replace food.


My point about bio diesel is that it is a quick fix - create jobs, cut imports of oil - which eventually we won't be able to afford and have some impact on the environment - you can argue about the extent of the environmental gain. A tax cut on diesel cars at present will not be noticed by the govt. so it is an opportunity to make a switch - one man's difficulty is another's opportunity.
If you want to incentivise diesel then raise petrol a bit and cut diesel a bit instead of just cutting diesel. I agree with encouraging biodiesel plants.
But the point I'm making is that bio-diesel might not be the best way forward and that we should examine what is before going for the wrong quick fix.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,860
My point about bio diesel is that it is a quick fix - create jobs, cut imports of oil - which eventually we won't be able to afford and have some impact on the environment - you can argue about the extent of the environmental gain. A tax cut on diesel cars at present will not be noticed by the govt. so it is an opportunity to make a switch - one man's difficulty is another's opportunity.
Nope!

Refineries are designed to optimise production of either petrol or diesel. We are now up against the global capacity for diesel optimisation - hence the reason that diesel prices went higher than petrol prices in recent years.

The Government already put an extra 8c on petrol in the last budget, and there is excise remission on both SVO and Biodiesel. The new VRT rates are also heavily weighted in favour of compression ignition (diesel) engines.

There isn't much point in doing more at the moment.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,860
Not all new cars will be small since not everyone wants a small car, the total amount of small cars will be greater and the energy efficiency of all cars will increase but not all new cars will be small (unless the government forces it)
Why will people want to waste expensive energy dragging unnecessary dead weight around? Manufacturers will not be inclined to waste meagre development budgets on niche vehicles when they can use the money to develop mass market light weight vehicles.


My point was it can lead to more CO2 being produced. What I mean by limited usefulness is that it cuts down only a little on the total amount of oil used and the amount of CO2 released. Electric cars are a better (but of course not perfect either) alternative, especially where a household has two or more cars.
A hectare of Rape yields 1.2 tonnes of SVO. The growing, harvesting, processing and delivery of the SVO consume 0.2 tonnes, leaving a net 1 tonne available to replace mineral oil in other applications.



The next generation of bio-fuels as you point out isn't perfect either but needing to replace fertiliser is much easier then trying to replace food.
So then you create shortages of fertiliser, driving up the price, which causes food producers to use less, reducing the amount of food being produced.

2nd generation biofuels are vapourware. They are hype. They get great exposure in the media due to massive PR budgets, but they will not deliver.



If you want to incentivise diesel then raise petrol a bit and cut diesel a bit instead of just cutting diesel. I agree with encouraging biodiesel plants.
But the point I'm making is that bio-diesel might not be the best way forward and that we should examine what is before going for the wrong quick fix.
SVO is the right option.

Biodiesel requires the use of Methanol to remove the glycerine. Methanol is toxic as f*ck.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,933
What exactly is SVO? how does it differ from biodiesel? I'm more interested in reducing our dependence on imported fuel, current low prices will not last beyond the current U.S. recession
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,860
What exactly is SVO? how does it differ from biodiesel? I'm more interested in reducing our dependence on imported fuel, current low prices will not last beyond the current U.S. recession
As explained above, SVO is Straight Vegetable Oil. Biodiesel is SVO with the Glycerine removed. Methanol is one of the catalysts used in the process.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,933
As explained above, SVO is Straight Vegetable Oil. Biodiesel is SVO with the Glycerine removed. Methanol is one of the catalysts used in the process.
Can SVO be blended with conventional diesel? My idea would be to sell a blend as I can't see us producing enough to completely displace diesel. Again, I'm talking short term, quick fix. The reason for cutting tax on diesel cars is to increase the market for them, at present, they're uneconomical unless you do high mileage.
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,497
Why will people want to waste expensive energy dragging unnecessary dead weight around? Manufacturers will not be inclined to waste meagre development budgets on niche vehicles when they can use the money to develop mass market light weight vehicles.



A hectare of Rape yields 1.2 tonnes of SVO. The growing, harvesting, processing and delivery of the SVO consume 0.2 tonnes, leaving a net 1 tonne available to replace mineral oil in other applications.




So then you create shortages of fertiliser, driving up the price, which causes food producers to use less, reducing the amount of food being produced.

2nd generation biofuels are vapourware. They are hype. They get great exposure in the media due to massive PR budgets, but they will not deliver.




SVO is the right option.

Biodiesel requires the use of Methanol to remove the glycerine. Methanol is toxic as f*ck.
Indeed it is and ive frequently worked with it . The methanol will also need to be reclaimed following the process, which is again a dirty job and indeed highly dangerous . Personally Im also dubious about any scheme which has the potential to pit the human stomach and the internal combustion engine in competetion for food produce . Encouraging people to take the bus would provide jobs for Bus drivers and maintenance crews and save people a lot of money , except theyre currently sacking them in large numbers .
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,546
Why will people want to waste expensive energy dragging unnecessary dead weight around? Manufacturers will not be inclined to waste meagre development budgets on niche vehicles when they can use the money to develop mass market light weight vehicles.



A hectare of Rape yields 1.2 tonnes of SVO. The growing, harvesting, processing and delivery of the SVO consume 0.2 tonnes, leaving a net 1 tonne available to replace mineral oil in other applications.




So then you create shortages of fertiliser, driving up the price, which causes food producers to use less, reducing the amount of food being produced.

2nd generation biofuels are vapourware. They are hype. They get great exposure in the media due to massive PR budgets, but they will not deliver.




SVO is the right option.

Biodiesel requires the use of Methanol to remove the glycerine. Methanol is toxic as f*ck.
That's true but is, as you posted later, a catalyst to remove glycerine. That mix can be cracked via distillation and the methanol re-used, the glycerine used in other processes.
The processed bio-diesel needs no conversion systems for the engine and has about 5% more calorific value over SVO. SVO needs an engine conversion kit or a specifically designed engine, such as the Elsbeth engine. Engines with a particular injector system cannot be converted to run SVO.

Biodiesel also has a lower exhaust particulate rate.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
The real problem with biofuels is that some are not carbon-negative or neutral.

Biofuel crops might increase carbon emissions
The conversion of forests and grasslands into fields for the plants offsets the benefit of using the fuel, researchers find. Greenhouse-gas output overall would rise instead of fall.
February 08, 2008
The rush to grow biofuel crops – widely embraced as part of the solution to global warming – is actually increasing greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them, according to two studies published Thursday in the journal Science.
One analysis found that clearing forests and grasslands to grow the crops releases vast amounts of carbon into the air – far more than the carbon spared from the atmosphere by burning biofuels instead of gasoline.
“We’re rushing into biofuels, and we need to be very careful,” said Jason Hill, an economist and ecologist at the University of Minnesota who co-authored the study. “It’s a little frightening to think that something this well intentioned might be very damaging.”
Even converting existing farmland from food to biofuel crops increases greenhouse gas emissions as food production is shifted to other parts of the world, resulting in the destruction of more forests and grasslands to make way for farmland, the second study found.
The analysis calculated that a U.S. cornfield devoted to producing ethanol would have to be farmed for 167 years before it would begin to achieve a net reduction in emissions.
“Any biofuel that uses productive land is going to create more greenhouse gas emissions than it saves,” said Timothy Searchinger, a researcher at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the study’s lead author...
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,546
The real problem with biofuels is that some are not carbon-negative or neutral.
Alcohol based, correct to a point. Vegtable oil based is actually carbon negative as the stalks are ploughed back into the ground.

You also get around the 'deforestation' problem by using a crop rotation system on existing farmland.
 
Last edited:

eskerman

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
64
There are some interesting facts on the Irish Bioenergy Website Irish Bioenergy Association - Home
Mind you the Irish Bioenergy's last meeting in Horse & Jockey (full house) was to be attended by Mr Eamonn Ryan....guess what, he cancelled..!!!
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,497
That's true but is, as you posted later, a catalyst to remove glycerine. That mix can be cracked via distillation and the methanol re-used, the glycerine used in other processes.
.
this is both dangerous and dirty . The quantities we are talking about here to make this process economically effective would require a quite massive plant that nobody in their right minds would want to live within 10 miles of . One spark and kaboom , oxygen sucked out of the atmosphere over a very wide radius . I dont believe the processes involved make it any cleaner than existing fossil feuls when everythings taken into account .
 

eskerman

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
64
And this was the second meeting Mr Ryan was to attend where he cancelled...must be that old simple ESB problem he has on his desk to sort..Shane Ross made a very good stab at it in the business section of the Indo today...
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,860
Can SVO be blended with conventional diesel? My idea would be to sell a blend as I can't see us producing enough to completely displace diesel. Again, I'm talking short term, quick fix. The reason for cutting tax on diesel cars is to increase the market for them, at present, they're uneconomical unless you do high mileage.
Yes. My car can run on any blend from 100% SVo to 100% Diesel.

Why bother blending it? I buy it in bulk. I can do a tank mix in very cold weather if necessary.

If we devoted the maximum possible acreage to producing Rape (it needs a one in four rotation) we would just about meet our annual requirements for agricultural use. Alternatively, it would be sufficient to power our public transport fleet for a year.

The VRT and road tax changes already made diesel engined cars more competitive, as did the 8c increase in duty on petrol. On the other hand, during 2008 we maxxed out refinery capacity to produce diesel because so many people are now buying diesel vehicles - make that WERE.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,933
The VRT and road tax changes already made diesel engined cars more competitive, as did the 8c increase in duty on petrol. On the other hand, during 2008 we maxxed out refinery capacity to produce diesel because so many people are now buying diesel vehicles - make that WERE.
The problem with diesel refining capacity had more to do with Chinese power plants - a lot of their smaller ones use diesel. Diesel cars are virtually unknown in the U.S. which is where most cars are. My interest is mainly economic rather than environmental - we have an opportunity to replace imported oil with home grown. I do not agree with the U.S. & Brazilian policy of replacing food crops with fuel crops, I'm quite parochial, thinking of a replacement for sugar beet, which is why I don't favour ethanol. I drive quite a bit and it would take several years to recover the cost differential between a petrol and diesel engine, it certainly makes no sense for the average motorist. Diesel engines are more expensive to build so without a tax incentive, most people will stick with petrol.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,860
The problem with diesel refining capacity had more to do with Chinese power plants - a lot of their smaller ones use diesel. Diesel cars are virtually unknown in the U.S. which is where most cars are. My interest is mainly economic rather than environmental - we have an opportunity to replace imported oil with home grown. I do not agree with the U.S. & Brazilian policy of replacing food crops with fuel crops, I'm quite parochial, thinking of a replacement for sugar beet, which is why I don't favour ethanol. I drive quite a bit and it would take several years to recover the cost differential between a petrol and diesel engine, it certainly makes no sense for the average motorist. Diesel engines are more expensive to build so without a tax incentive, most people will stick with petrol.
Most people I know drive diesel, and have done so for years. Most diesels give 50% economy improvement on their petrol equivalents, and are sweeter to drive.

Rapeseed is a perfect replacement for sugar beet in the typical Irish tillage rotation, although it isn't as lucrative as sugar beet. I know farmers who used to grow three years of cereals just to use the land until they could grow another crop of sugar beet.
 
Top