|
Please either turn this thread so that it is motoring related, or let the discussion die.
|
Heard a rumour that something called global "warming" was being used by anti-motoring types to kill off the motor car.
Anyone know anything about this global "warming" thing: what is the engine that drives it, if it does exist, and what relevance does it have to the petrol combustion engine commonly used in motors?
And if it has any relevance, does it have any more relavance to anything else, information that could well be used by motorists in defence of the motor car, motoring, and motorists?
|
|
|
|
A few thoughts in response to what's been said so far -
Exhaust emissions of water from hydrogen cars could be trapped and used for clean drinking water, for windscreen wash, whatever - therefore not necessarily a pollutant. That said, until an energy efficient way is found to give us hydrogen in the first place, ain't no point. Maybe if it was done using wind power - but for greatest energy efficiency from that you'd be better off with a fuel cell car. Where I live, a wind power company runs a fleet of Berlingo Electric vans powered only by their own turbines - interesting to see them drive but hear nothing.
For a pretty well researched piece on various fuel sources, have a look at www.biofuels.fsnet.co.uk/sustain.htm - it concludes that at current technology levels, vegoil-based fuels in diesel cars is the easiest alternative fuel to implement. That aside, I'd be interested in finding out more about this air car that has been in the news recently - much cheaper and cleaner than hydrogen or fuel cells, less high cost technology to implement.
|
Anyway, last year I looked into the biodiesel not just from a cleaner air point of view, but also from the point of view of whether it is good for your car, given the wide variations you can get in diesel fuel quality at the pump. I thought long & hard, did a fair bit of research (and I mean that - went as far as reading up on research done by the University of Idaho!) and decided to have a go at making the switch to run on commercially produced biodiesel. After 15k miles in one car and 8k in the other, I wouldn't consider anything else. Biodiesel is very lubricating, so reduces wear on your engine. Engines purr, no black smoke, no choking smell, slightly cheaper per litre, better torque and fuel economy (although lower in energy, biodiesel has higher oxygen content than derv so burns more efficiently). No engine mods like with LPG, easy to mix in any proportion with derv, or to just use derv if you run dry. Also, a fuel we can produce domestically and not rely on Saudi, Iraqi or West African imports - not keen on supporting any of those regimes or being subject to their whims on fuel price. Conservative estimates are that we could replace at least 10% of our current fuel consumption with biodiesel if the govt got its finger out - that figure seems to stand up as well, since other independent sources reckon the same thing. Any thoughts?
|
We are paying farmers to set aside land i.e. grow weeds, when it could produce biodiesel.
Why?
|
Why?
Because farmers are much better than almost all other groups at
getting money and deals (e.g. "do nothing and we will pay you") from you and me.
If you don't like it:-
a) Change the system
b) become a farmer & jump on the gravy train.
May I invite all readers to point me to where I may hear or read a farmer saying "thank you" to the good old British (or European) tax payer for all the money he gets from us??
|
|
I see this as a problem of the CAP, which was established in the post-war era to ensure that Europe was able to feed itself. Obviously, it is long out of date. However, I think that while French farmers are receiving subsidies for growing rapeseed crops for fuel (all diesel sold in France now has a small blend of biodiesel in it), the UK government could do the same and invest in its own economy. Speaking of which (and bringing this back to motoring), there has recently been a 20p reduction in the fuel duty on biodiesel, which effectively builds in a limitation to produce the fuel competitively from waste oil only, not fresh oil - unless you import it. Yet LPG/CNG are zero-rated for fuel duty, based on their lower CO2 emissions (whether you believe in any greenhouse effect or not, I'm not debating that). Unlike the fossil fuels LPG/CNG, biodiesel is virtually CO2-neutral, due to the crops absorbing the same CO2 from the air while growing as is released by burning the fuel. So - why didn't the government apply the same principle and zero-rate biodiesel for fuel duty? This could have helped to establish an indigenous fuel-producing industry, whose prices could significantly undercut those of the fuel-importing companies - one of the most important benefits as I see it. We have the capacity to be less subject to the whims of giant oil companies and oil-producing countries, but it is not being exploited.
|
Good points, andymc.
To sum up, LPG and CNG are fossil fuels with low carbon emissions.
Biodiesel has higher emissions but is a closed carbon cycle.
So: from a global warming point of fuel biodiesel should be zero rated.
However, the tax system charges on emissions at the tailpipe: basically the system does not take account of the source of the fuel.
Not-joined-up government thinking, IMHO.
|
|
|
"..why didn't the government apply the same principle and zero-rate biodiesel for fuel duty?"
The ratchet principle, plus the fact that no government can see beyond the next election. The one useful outcome of the fuel protests was the knowledge that we are utterly dependent on the stuff, and can last about 3 days without it...
|
|
|
|
|
"..vegoil-based fuels in diesel cars is the easiest alternative fuel to implement".
Easier than alcohol (admixed with petrol)? I'm sure the lack of uptake of this is to do with Customs & Excise - does anyone know?
Alternative fuels may creep up the political agenda if Dubya starts throwing his weight about in the Middle East...
|
|
France has plenty of industrial alcohol available, having just turned thirteen million bottles of unsaleable Beaujolais into either alcohol or vinegar.
|
|
So that's how to defeat the C&E at the ferry ports! Just fill your tank with Beaujolais and decant what's left when you get home...
|
If only it was that easy! Thing is, the diesel engine was designed to run on vegetable oil originally, before the black stuff was being sucked out of the ground. This is why it is possible to put pure vegoil into diesel engined cars to this day - indirect injection is the most suitable system for this, apparently. The only adaptation required is to preheat the oil before ignition, as low temperatures make it too viscous to go through. That said, a lot of people in the US and Europe run their Mercedes 300 cars on vegoil with no adaptations whatsoever. Wouldn't risk it in our climate, though!
As far as alcohol is concerned, it is perfectly feasible to dilute petrol (but not diesel) with alcohol in relatively high proportions, I think up to 35%. There are a few conditions here, though:
The alcohol must be more than 99% free of any water (very hard and costly to get truly pure alcohol), so pity about all that Beaujolais.
Pure ethanol (the fun, recreational stuff that my, ahem, acquaintance makes from spud skins a few hills away) is prohibitively expensive, too costly to introduce as a substitute fuel even if it was zero-rated for VAT and fuel duty combined. And as I'd be very tempted to siphon out the fuel tank if my party ran out of booze, I'm sure that Tony and Gordon are unlikely to give any tax concessions in any case ...
The alternative to ethanol is pure methanol (wood alcohol), which is much cheaper than pure ethanol, but also incredibly toxic - your body will absorb it through your skin if you splash it or through your lungs if you inhale the fumes. Your body can get rid of ethanol fairly quickly, although the higher the dose, the more unpleasant this is - in other words, the more you drink, the worse your hangover. Methanol cannot be processed anywhere near as quickly, makes formaldehyde in your liver (nice) and the hangover will last for weeks. Methanol will give you such a severe chemical burn that it can go through your skin without you even noticing, because your nerve endings have been fried (even nicer). It gives off highly toxic and explosive fumes.
For these reasons, cheap, stable, non-toxic and non-mood enhancing vegoil-based fuels are easier to implement.
Last thought - a lot of what I just wrote about how dangerous methanol is also applies to petrol ... I love the smell of napalm in the morning!
|
|
andymc: is that right about methanol? When I was a model aircraft fanatic 40 years back it was the main constituent of the engine fuel we used to make up. Always had a 5 gal drum in the garage. Used to but it from some chemical works and have it delivered. That plus Castrol M and a bit of nitromethane to enhance the oomph. I must have had virtual baths in methanol over the years if what you say is correct and I never knew that.
|
|
Yup, fraid so Growler. Try to buy any pure methanol from a reputable supplier today and you'll be asked all about storage, safety, etc. The dangers of methanol came to my attention when I started looking into biodiesel, as methanol is used as a reactant to convert vegetable oil to biodiesel. I had been considering the possibility of making my own fuel, but once I read about the problems with methanol I decided not to put myself to the trouble and just buy it instead. If you have a look at the biodiesel discussion forum at biodiesel.infopop.net and run a search on "methanol", you'll see a post called "Methanol is Nasty" from 6/6/02 and another called "methanol combustion" from 27/8/02 - much of what I've said is reiterated in those. I recently read about a guy who was making biodiesel in his garage. He poured the methanol very carefully and slowly to ensure it didn't splash, then switched on his drill, which he had adapted to mix the oil and alcohol. He went to get something and whoomph - the spark from his drill ignited the built-up methanol fumes and blew the side out of his mixing tank. As he was several feet away, he got away with singed hair, instead of the serious burns he would have had if he'd been standing next to the tank when it blew. Charmed or what?
|
|
|
|
Yup, fraid so Growler. Try to buy any pure methanol from a reputable supplier today and you'll be asked all about storage, safety, etc. The dangers of methanol came to my attention when I started looking into biodiesel, as methanol is used as a reactant to convert vegetable oil to biodiesel. I had been considering the possibility of making my own fuel, but once I read about the problems with methanol I decided not to put myself to the trouble and just buy it instead. If you have a look at the biodiesel discussion forum at biodiesel.infopop.net and run a search on "methanol", you'll see a post called "Methanol is Nasty" from 6/6/02 and another called "methanol combustion" from 27/8/02 - much of what I've said is reiterated in those. I recently read about a guy who was making biodiesel in his garage. He poured the methanol very carefully and slowly to ensure it didn't splash, then switched on his drill, which he had adapted to mix the oil and alcohol. He went to get something and whoomph - the spark from his drill ignited the built-up methanol fumes and blew the side out of his mixing tank. As he was several feet away, he got away with singed hair, instead of the serious burns he would have had if he'd been standing next to the tank when it blew. Charmed or what?
|
|
sorry, first link is dated 1/6/02, not 6/6/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
