Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: thermidorthelobster on August 26, 2007, 11:17:42
-
I've seen a couple of people comment that they're happy to be carbon-neutral because they use biofuel. It's a nice idea; all the carbon dioxide that you burn when you use the fuel is locked away again when you grow the next generation of plants for the fuel.
However, it's also a fallacy. Firstly, biofuel crops are produced using intensive farming methods and agricultural-scale use of fertilisers. The tractors that are trolling up and down the fields are burning mostly diesel; and the fertilisers are produced using highly energy-intensive production lines which rely on grid-generated electricity, which in turn comes mainly from coal-fired and oil-fired power stations in this country.
You also have to put plenty of energy into transporting and refining the fuel. (For example, soya oil requires 3-4 times as much energy to produce as you actually get out of the fuel.)
The concensus (not that there is much of one) seems to be that biofuels, on balance, generate about 90% of the greenhouse gas loading of fossil fuels - not 0%. (New Scientist recently had a good article on this but their website's down today - I'll post it when the site comes back up.)
In the global picture there's also the issue that the majority of biofuel crops in South America, for example, rely on bulldozing rainforest to clear the agricultural land, which releases a huge amount of CO2. Not so relevant if you're buying vegetable oil from Sainsbury's, but it's a major factor if you look at worldwide use of biofuels.
I'm not knocking biofuels and I can see there's a real future in them. I'm also glad to see so many people here and elsewhere trying them out. But it's worth bearing in mind that they are not carbon-neutral.
-
This is all very true but conversely how much CO2 is produced getting fossil fuels from under ground to the pumps, my bet would be that gallon for gallon fossil fuels would produce more CO2 in their production that bio-fuels do, so whilst bio-fuels might not be carbon neutral they are at least carbon reducing - as always theres 2 ways of looking at any point.
-
I totally agree with you. My point was that there's a difference between carbon-neutral and carbon-reducing, like there's a difference between being a virgin and nearly-a-virgin.
-
i would be impossible to have a carbon neutral car, because has to be produced in the first place. and factories use a massive amount of elecricty, and a massive amount of chemical processes and refining fossel fuels to make the plastic parts. so you will infact have a huge carbon foot print before youve even filled the tank.
i will say however, that the humble primative series LR have a small carbon foot print, due to the primative way in which they were built, and note the lack of plastic in a series LR compared to the defender/disco of today.
another carbon plus point for the series, is the avarage car has a life span of 8-10 years, so my series is over 30 years old, if i had 'a normal car', i would have bought 3 of them to my one series LR. this is a massive carbon saving in the fact that the car plant has had to make 3 less cars.
thought for the day, if every body drove series LR's, the world would be a greener place :wink:
-
i would be impossible to have a carbon neutral car, because has to be produced in the first place. and factories use a massive amount of elecricty, and a massive amount of chemical processes and refining fossel fuels to make the plastic parts. so you will infact have a huge carbon foot print before youve even filled the tank.
Well spotted, Mark.
As a tongue in cheek remark, my stock answer to the green arguement is that my diesel comes from animals that roamed the world and absorbed CO2, therefore, diesel is carbon neutral and all we're arguing about is the time frame! :lol:
Not one to be tried in serious debate, I feel!
Cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
Here's one such article. (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12496-forget-biofuels--burn-oil-and-plant-forests-instead.html)
And this one (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12283-corn-biofuel-dangerously-oversold-as-green-energy.html) suggests a figure of only 18-28% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by using corn ethanol.
-
Ethanol being worse doesn't surprise me as it has to be heated for production compared to using an SVO.
I take it its out of the question just to use less energy?
-
another carbon plus point for the series, is the avarage car has a life span of 8-10 years
An interesting point, but is that due to failure of the car or just a lack of demand for 10+ year old cars being the reason for most of them being scraped? After all what % of the population would want an old car if they can so easily have a newer model.
-
I take it its out of the question just to use less energy?
Oddly enough it's apparently not as simple as that. There's an argument that the economics of the situation are that if you save money by reducing energy expenditure, you tend to spend the money you saved on other things, for example luxury products, that consume energy in their manufacture. It's an odd argument and I'm not sure I agree... but it appears it's not as straightforward as it seems at first glance.
In other words, if I saved money by buying a nice little energy-efficient car, I'd probably spend the money I saved every year on a bigger telly, or a holiday abroad, etc etc, and use energy in ever more devious and abstract ways.
-
Another vaguely interesting point: somebody published the area of crop you needed to grow to get x amount of biofuel. I can't remember the exact figures, but I worked out that if I wanted to plant my own crops to run the Disco on biofuel, at 25,000 miles a year I'd need 20 acres of a good efficient biofuel crop, assuming 1 crop per year (ie in UK). That doesn't factor in the amount extra I'd need to grow to support the energy I'd need to grow the crop in the first place, etc etc.
-
another carbon plus point for the series, is the avarage car has a life span of 8-10 years
An interesting point, but is that due to failure of the car or just a lack of demand for 10+ year old cars being the reason for most of them being scraped? After all what % of the population would want an old car if they can so easily have a newer model.
cars can be repaired, but whats the point when a new car is affordable.
-
I think most biofuel producers would agree that biofuel is not the definitive answer, only part of the solution in helping people to reduce their CO2 emissions.
We make biodiesel from used cooking oil; oil that has been used in restaurants etc, and if not recycled would probably go down the drain or in landfills. We collect the oil, filter it and process it into quality biodiesel. Using biodiesel produced from used cooking oil will give a smaller carbon footprint/CO2 emissions than quoted above.
The overal figures are, using 100% biodiesel reduces new emissions of carbon dioxide by 60-80%.
I completely agree that cutting down rain forests to plant palm is not the answer, but as fuel prices continue to rise (they sure as hell ain't going to fall much) people will look for alternative fuel sources. So why not utilise vegetable oil such as rapeseed, soya, sunflower etc. Many will argue that using these is using food for fuel. There are some oil producing plants that can grow where food based plants can't. In India, millions of hectares of wasteland are growing Jatropha which is used for the biofuel industry. It is growing where food crops will not grow. Jatropha also has a higher oil yield than rapeseed, it produces 1500 litres of oil per hectare compared to 1000 litres per hectare of rapeseed. It also takes in more CO2 than rapeseed, for the energy it supplies from the oil part of it.
There are many people who do not believe the news, articles, pictures, documentaries and scientific reports about global warming, but the Government and the EU does. The UK has to reduce its CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 50% by 2050, and as part of the Governments Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation many of the UK oil companies are already blending their fossil diesel with 5% biodiesel. Continuing to use fossil-diesel will not reduce CO2 emissions. The government will have to give drivers more incentive to lower their CO2 emissions by using alternative fuels, and this is already happening.
So, if biofuel isn't the answer, what is? Using public transport is fine if you live and work in London, but try getting 30 miles to work if you live in a rural area and start work at 7am. People will not give up their vehicles.
"The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become, in the course of time, as important as petroleum and the coal tar products of the present time" Rudolph Diesel (1858 - 1913)
.
-
I couldn't give ahoot about my carbon footprint!
-
I couldn't give ahoot about my carbon footprint!
And we wonder why 4x4 owners get bad press from the environmentalists?
-
I'm glad I read this - My new (to me) RR won't run on Biofuel - I feel I'm not missing out so much now and relatively less of a climate criminal than I felt before you bought this to my attention.
I've also spent the weekend driving behind a disco running on 50 - 50 diesel - veg oil and can say the stink of BBQ had me battening down the air vents on the 110
Cheers Dave!
-
I've also spent the weekend driving behind a disco running on 50 - 50 diesel - veg oil and can say the stink of BBQ had me battening down the air vents on the 110
Cheers Dave!
Have to say I much prefer the smell of veg oil/biodiesel that carbon monoxide. :wink:
-
Given I'm worried about upsetting my somewhat finicky TD5 with anything other than 100% pure full-fat dino juice, I've taken the alternative route, which is to use the bike instead for local runs, and Abby's nice economical Rover for longer trips when I have a choice... Might chuck some sunflower oil in at some point though and see what breaks!
-
Have to say I much prefer the smell of veg oil/biodiesel that carbon monoxide. :-&
<pedant>
Carbon monoxide's odourless... and it's produced by burning veg oil just as much as fossil fuels - burning any carbon-based fuel without sufficient oxygen will produce it :wink:
</pedant>
Please don't think I'm having a dig though - I don't have any better suggestions than biofuel at the moment and it will only get better as the technology matures.
-
Have to say I much prefer the smell of veg oil/biodiesel that carbon monoxide. :-&
<pedant>
Carbon monoxide's odourless... and it's produced by burning veg oil just as much as fossil fuels - burning any carbon-based fuel without sufficient oxygen will produce it :wink:
</pedant>
I was being ironic, but fair enough. The point I was making is that the smell of veg oil/biodiesel is far less offensive than fossil diesel. Not that I make a point of sniffing exhaust pipes, but if stuck behind a diesel I know which smells better. :wink:
-
Have to say I much prefer the smell of veg oil/biodiesel that carbon monoxide. :-&
Please don't think I'm having a dig though - I don't have any better suggestions than biofuel at the moment and it will only get better as the technology matures.
The technology is already there. We have hundreds of different makes, models and ages of vehicles that use our biodiesel. Some new common rail vehicles don't like to run on 100% biodiesel, but will happily run on, say, a 50-50 or 75-25 mix.
-
I was thinking more of the environmental benefits - ie how close to carbon-neutral it is.
-
I was thinking more of the environmental benefits - ie how close to carbon-neutral it is.
Whether it will ever be carbon neutral, I don't know, but with a CO2 reduction of 60-80%, it's got to be better than fossil diesel. As you rightly pointed out earlier, maybe technology will make it even more beneficial in reducing CO2.
-
So, if you're still burning a gallon every, say 28 miles, how does changing to a biofuel reduce your CO2 by 60%, unless there's a doubling of the thermal efficiency in the engine used (which isn't the case)? Burning a kilo of fuel releases X amount of CO2 regardless of how it's burnt. :?
If you really want a flipside to the arguement, many years ago acid rain was mans worst enemy. The American world was looking for a plan to reduce that type of emmision. Now bear in mind the nitrous products from the exhuast make up a small percentage of the total e-flux.
Now, a company called Johnson Mattey explained to the US Govt and the legislators that catalytic convertors were the way forward as they convert most of the acid rain producing output to less harmfull products. It was the only solution. The fact that catalytic convertors used precious metals in which JM had a considerable stake (i.e. the own, or are agents for, most of the worlds platinum and rhodium). Their arguements seemed compelling and the legislators agreed that all new cars must have a cat fitted.
Here's the catch. Cat convertors require a lot of fuel to get up to temperature - under temperature they don't work and will be damaged, so engines had to be built that threw more fuel than necessary into the block to get hotter exhuast temperatures. But, fair do's, they do reduce acid rain causing by products.
At about the same time, most companies were throwing a lot of dollars at lean burn technology. Lean burn means lower exhuast temperatures and less fuel burnt per mile. Even back in them days the car companies could see rising oil prices. This reduces nitrous outputs in the e-flux AND reduces CO2, but the engine wouldn't be compatible with a cat convertor. Imagine a petrol Mondeo that did 70 to the gallon. That was the possibility facing the auto-industry, but in one fell swoop, JM and the legislators rendered that technology redundant. And for Ford alone it negated a billion dollars of development.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
Given I'm worried about upsetting my somewhat finicky TD5 with anything other than 100% pure full-fat dino juice, I've taken the alternative route, which is to use the bike instead for local runs, and Abby's nice economical Rover for longer trips when I have a choice... Might chuck some sunflower oil in at some point though and see what breaks!
Don't do it...you were moaning about the Disco breaking all the time anyway, what with a pending new head gasket too :roll:
P.S. Now running the 110 on rapeseed oil...should have done it in Norway, would have had everyone craving for fish & chips :lol:
-
It doesn't reduce the output by the vehicle by 60% but by th whole cycle it does because the CO2 was absorbed to produce the fuel in the first place, but then as was pointed out above it was for fossil fuels too, it's just that was a long time ago.
Not sure where you read that lean burn engines run cooler cylinder temperature, they don't they run hotter. Also manufacturers do not map the engines to put extra fuel in when cold to get the cat up to temp, this would kill the cat in no time at all, cats cannot tolerate unburnt fuel.
-
So, if you're still burning a gallon every, say 28 miles, how does changing to a biofuel reduce your CO2 by 60%, unless there's a doubling of the thermal efficiency in the engine used (which isn't the case)? Burning a kilo of fuel releases X amount of CO2 regardless of how it's burnt. :?
Yes, but in an ideal world, GROWING a kilo of biofuel locks away the same amount of CO2, so it's carbon neutral. The point I made originally is that this unfortunately isn't the case, as you have to burn a bunch more fuel (and generate CO2 in the process) to make the kilo of biofuel.
Fossil fuels don't work in the same way, because whilst we can regrow biofuels at the rate we use them (thus locking away CO2 at the same time we're releasing it), we can't do that with fossil fuels, because it takes millions of years to create them.
I think the 60% figure is the net result of the saving made by locking away the CO2 by growing the next batch of biofuel crop, minus the extra CO2 you have to generate to produce it.
Or am I missing the point? :?
-
ah, okay yes, see the point now. Thanks.
As regards the exhaust gas temp, I may have got the number wiorng, so I'll go back a review and amend the above post to suit, again, ta to Sptb for pointing it out!
However, just imagine what a better place the world would be if it wasn't for cat convertors!
So, bearing in mind the 'return on investment' for biofuels, in terms of land use, and the actual requirment for fossil fuels, where are we gonna grow all these oil producing plants, becuase looking at the numbers of gallons per acre and what have you, it doesn't add up.
Besides, one good volcano and the arguments nullified anyway! :wink:
Cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
In terms of CO2 output, annual worldwide volcanic activity is balanced by annual sub-duction of tectonic plate that includes CO2 absorbed into the ocean bed.
So 'one good volcano' is irrelevant in the world, although if you live near it you might think somewhat different.
-
As may be so, but the immediate output is a huge imbalance caused by a sudden release of oodles of CO2 and other gaseous contaminents.
Gets back to what I was saying, my fossil fuel is carbon neutral, we're just debating the time-frame of it all. :wink:
But good point, none the less.
cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
where are we gonna grow all these oil producing plants, becuase looking at the numbers of gallons per acre and what have you, it doesn't add up.
Therein lies another problem, because in the developing world there's a lot of burning down of nice CO2-sequestering forests to clear land for biofuel agriculture. It's not a panacea; using less fuel in the first place still has to be the ultimate goal. But still, it's better than dino juice.
-
where are we gonna grow all these oil producing plants, becuase looking at the numbers of gallons per acre and what have you, it doesn't add up.
Therein lies another problem, because in the developing world there's a lot of burning down of nice CO2-sequestering forests to clear land for biofuel agriculture. It's not a panacea; using less fuel in the first place still has to be the ultimate goal. But still, it's better than dino juice.
As I said earlier, Biodiesel isn't the 'Holy Grail', but it certainly has more positive benefits to using it instead of dino-diesel. Oh, and it's cheaper....I'd certainly rather pay 79ppl for biodiesel than 95-99.9ppl for dino-diesel! :wink:
-
As may be so, but the immediate output is a huge imbalance caused by a sudden release of oodles of CO2 and other gaseous contaminents.
Gets back to what I was saying, my fossil fuel is carbon neutral, we're just debating the time-frame of it all. :wink:
But good point, none the less.
The point is, the absorbed CO2 from subduction balances the volcanic output over the course of a year, and the figures for the area we're looking at here for this gaseous exchange of carbon amounts to just 2% of total gaseous exchange of CO2 during the year.
My second point is this, the CO2 has to be absorbed by subduction before release, so if there was a CO2 imbalance (a minor local one in the great scheme of the planet), then the local imbalance before eruption is a loss of CO2 for many years between eruptions.
Just thought I should...er, point this out.
-
Anyway, the real point is this, us humans are interfering with the natural balance of the Carbon Cycle, which as has been pointed out, is the time frame of gaseous exchange of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The imbalance has caused a steady increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years, any 'Climate Change' is just the planet reacting to the imbalance and changes in weather systems, glaciation, precipitation patterns, and average temperatures on the planet are the result.
There's nothing we can do about the next 3 degrees or so of global warming, thats going to happen anyway, even if we stopped pushing out any more CO2 today for good, but all this crap about using the 'one life, live it' slogan as a genuine reason for ignoring or ridiculing the situation is just stupid.
Millions are going to die, or migrate, looking for land and water, and fighting wars over it, possibly for the next 1,000 years, before the World gets over what we've done to it and re-dresses the imbalance.
I'm just glad I live on a hill overlooking a river valley in a developed country, at least my grand kids have got a chance of owning beach front property when the sea level rises 70 metres.
The situation isn't funny, it's sad, and it's going to get worse before it gets better, and people best wake up to realise this before it's too late.
In the meantime, I'll run (and enjoy) my 11 year old V8 on LPG and save 15% CO2 emissions, and my pocket.
-
Anyway, the real point is this, us humans are interfering with the natural balance of the Carbon Cycle, which as has been pointed out, is the time frame of gaseous exchange of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The imbalance has caused a steady increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years, any 'Climate Change' is just the planet reacting to the imbalance and changes in weather systems, glaciation, precipitation patterns, and average temperatures on the planet are the result.
There's nothing we can do about the next 3 degrees or so of global warming, thats going to happen anyway, even if we stopped pushing out any more CO2 today for good, but all this crap about using the 'one life, live it' slogan as a genuine reason for ignoring or ridiculing the situation is just stupid.
Millions are going to die, or migrate, looking for land and water, and fighting wars over it, possibly for the next 1,000 years, before the World gets over what we've done to it and re-dresses the imbalance.
I'm just glad I live on a hill overlooking a river valley in a developed country, at least my grand kids have got a chance of owning beach front property when the sea level rises 70 metres.
The situation isn't funny, it's sad, and it's going to get worse before it gets better, and people best wake up to realise this before it's too late.
In the meantime, I'll run (and enjoy) my 11 year old V8 on LPG and save 15% CO2 emissions, and my pocket.
Well said. =D>
Unfortunately, the world is full of folk who bury their heads in the sand and deny that the world is changing.
Comments like "I couldn't give a hoot about my carbon footprint", as written by a member earlier in this topic, don't help. And we wonder why 4x4 owners/drivers get a bad name with attitudes like that!?! :shock:
-
Maybe so, but at a local level, the v8 is still producing no less CO2 running LPG than it was, fact is it's probably usuing more due to a lower calorific value and a lower thermal effieciency in the engine. :wink:
The LPG was still pulled out the ground and still processed so I really doubt if the CO2 savings are as real as made out.
Yes, it's a serious issue, but if you want to take it really seriously, a smaller car will burn less lpg per mile and would be even better for enviroment. And if it's an older car it's already been built. :wink:
Be carefull what you argue, there's always a smartypants about :wink:
But at least if we can get the arguements straight in here, we can make a better statement in the bigger world. Which has gotta be a bonus.
Cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
Maybe so, but at a local level, the v8 is still producing no less CO2 running LPG than it was, fact is it's probably usuing more due to a lower calorific value and a lower thermal effieciency in the engine. :wink:
The LPG was still pulled out the ground and still processed so I really doubt if the CO2 savings are as real as made out.
Ahem...read this http://www.fuelture.com/About-LPG/
Yes, it's a serious issue, but if you want to take it really seriously, a smaller car will burn less lpg per mile and would be even better for enviroment.
If the smaller car isn't fit for my purpose then obviously I'll use a larger car or 4x4 that is fit for purpose, whether Petrol or LPG, so your point is mute depending on my intended use for a vehicle.
And if it's an older car it's already been built. :wink:
I believe I did point out that my V8 is 11 years old.
Be carefull what you argue, there's always a smartypants about :wink:
People in glass houses shouldn't go <edit> (http://forums.mud-club.com/viewtopic.php?t=42831) on their own doorstep, no maybe thats not right...oh you get the gist!
But at least if we can get the arguements straight in here, we can make a better statement in the bigger world. Which has gotta be a bonus.
True...and I reckon I'm gonna win this one.
-
Sadly the webiste opens with a big ol' wrong 'un. :(
How does burning LPG produce 60% less CO2?
What does it reduce to when it combusts? LPG is a hydrocarbon fuel, kilo for kilo its combustion byproduct in terms of CO2 isn't a great deal different from petrol. Try here (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s05.pdf)
Sadly, the folk that develop powertrains will argue the 60% figure very strongly and I doubt whoever wrote the report has ever actually seen an emissions test. Personally, I beleive these guys more than an LPG promotional site.
Maybe they're talking about the complete 'carbon balance' when they talk about 60%, but if that is the case they don't make it clear. And as I've said, my dino-diesel comes ulitmately from dead plants blah blah blah. LPG is a hydrocarbon fuel, kilo for kilo its combustion byproduct in terms of CO2 isn't a great deal different.
This is our big problem. There is a lot of info floating about, but sadly, a lot of it is somewhat biased by the folks who want to look better. Just lifting info a website is fine, but it rarely, if anything, tells the whole story.
Regarding the car arguement, we could argue that a McClaren F1, or a Dodge Ram 3500 suits our need as a daily driver if we wanted to. I think the whole point with saving the enviroment is that sacrifices have to be made and lifestyles need to change. Our needs have to change otherwise alternatives to fossil fuels don't stand a chance. :wink:
This isn't about simple victories, is about making sure your arguements are watertight, and bluntly, many of the arguements put forward globally aren't. But as long as I'm making you think, I reakon that kinda puts me on top :wink: (Joking!)
If you think I'm harsh, wait till you face a real greenie :wink:
Oh, and watch they words, now. :wink:
Cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
Lets face it, most of us run Bio/veg cos it saves money on the gas guzzling monsters we drive.
The fact that its a bit greener is a bonus.
Veg/bio produces less sulphur based emissions, and carcinogens from what Ive read, and smells so much nicer.
Thats good enough for me.
-
The reduction in CO2 emissions between petrol and LPG is one based on energy released and combustion efficiency, the burning of LPG releasing, to move the same vehicle, overall, 10 to 15% less CO2.
Many different websites claim up to 75% less CO2 is released, but I haven't quoted them, because they do not take into account the differences in comparing these alternative fuels in real vehicles designed primarily to use petrol most efficiently.
It is you that have quoted the 60% figure here, I merely draw your attention to the fact that the consensus across the majority of different sources on the web quote a figure approaching a 15% saving on CO2 emissions, in using LPG instead of petrol, after all factors are taken into account.
The 60% to 75% figures relates to mass differences in the chemical reactions, which I don't doubt might be correct, but the exothermic energy levels between these reactions is also different, and to produce the same amount of energy requires use of more LPG fuel.
From the URL you provide; obviously LPG is more efficient in combining with atmospheric oxygen within internal combustion engines, than heavier fuels, since CO is virtually absent from the exhaust gases, and the majority of emissions are CO2 and water.
I concede that the difference between the CO2 emissions of LPG & diesel are similar, although slightly in favour of LPG, but then I know which vehicle I'd rather be following behind, and which I'd rather drive.
My argument is based on the fact that whatever vehicle you wish to own as a daily driver, even if it's a McClaren F1 or Dodge Ram 3500, you'll produce an average of 15% less CO2 emissions if you run it on LPG rather than petrol, and slightly better than if you ran it on a diesel lump.
Agreed, everyone should consider a vehicle best suited to their needs, and economy is a factor. Unless government or industry produces viable alternatives that are all better for the environment, then LPG is the only solution that presents itself as a viable option to offset my carbon footprint for the vehicle I own.
I'd rather sit on the side of informed scientific consensus rather than ensuring my position is watertight, but should you produce evidence to the contrary I'll consider it on it's merits.
In the meantime, I'll follow the advice of scientists, as shown here
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/environment/guidance/vehicle.html
and continue to run my V8 on LPG.
-
Lets face it, most of us run Bio/veg cos it saves money on the gas guzzling monsters we drive.
The fact that its a bit greener is a bonus.
Veg/bio produces less sulphur based emissions, and carcinogens from what Ive read, and smells so much nicer.
Thats good enough for me.
You're right. :wink:
When new customers phone us enquiring about our biodiesel, one of the first questions is "How much is it a litre?" The fact that it's greener is a bonus, and that it's made from recycled used cooking oil is an even bigger bonus.
-
Given I'm worried about upsetting my somewhat finicky TD5 with anything other than 100% pure full-fat dino juice, I've taken the alternative route, which is to use the bike instead for local runs, and Abby's nice economical Rover for longer trips when I have a choice... Might chuck some sunflower oil in at some point though and see what breaks!
you do know that when they developed the TD5 engine they ran it on the kerosenefor 50.000miles so they could see what the effect of using crap fuel would be.
-
Well I'm feeling really smug and superior today 'cos I've just filled me 1986 RRC with biodiesel for the first time (2.8 Diahatsu TD powered in case anyone thinks I'm a complete idiot) There's a place just across from where I work started making it so I thought I should go have a chat with the man. Knew what he was talking about so I'm now officially 'GREEN'
Just hope it starts t'morrow ...
-
sorry, but......
The presented CO2 reduction figure is doubtful.
Your burning more fuel per mile and the difference in CO2 as a combustion by-product is insignifcant, kilo for kilo, between petrol and LPG.
Whether an individual chooses to belive this or not, is mostly their concern.
Whilst thwy can be quite happy with the views they've accpeted, I feel it's worth giving everybody else the altenrative view on the discussion.
I quoted 60% becuase, oddly, thats what the presented reference pointed me at. :wink:
Cheers
8)
Eeyore
-
Lets face it, most of us run Bio/veg cos it saves money on the gas guzzling monsters we drive.
The fact that its a bit greener is a bonus.
Veg/bio produces less sulphur based emissions, and carcinogens from what Ive read, and smells so much nicer.
Thats good enough for me.
You're right. :wink:
When new customers phone us enquiring about our biodiesel, one of the first questions is "How much is it a litre?" The fact that it's greener is a bonus, and that it's made from recycled used cooking oil is an even bigger bonus.
The cost of a gallon of Bio is recently being advertised on Real Radio ( by uk bio-fuels I think) They claim you can save 25p per GALLON .... just when I have got used to litres they start advertising gallons again !
A clever advertising plot mefinks :evil:
25p off per gallon is roughly 5p a litre ... hardly a massive saving compared to the 40.9 per litre I am paying for LPG (a 56p saving against unleaded)
Is it me, or are certain people pushing bio as a way of making a massive profit for themselves ?
The Govt tax is less, but the apparent profit margins for commercial outlets and manufacturers seems to negate any tax bonus.
Welcome to Rip Off Britain.
One day, when we all have the acreage to grow our own fuel we will not only save the planet, but also save our wallets.
-
Lets face it, most of us run Bio/veg cos it saves money on the gas guzzling monsters we drive.
The fact that its a bit greener is a bonus.
Veg/bio produces less sulphur based emissions, and carcinogens from what Ive read, and smells so much nicer.
Thats good enough for me.
You're right. :wink:
When new customers phone us enquiring about our biodiesel, one of the first questions is "How much is it a litre?" The fact that it's greener is a bonus, and that it's made from recycled used cooking oil is an even bigger bonus.
The cost of a gallon of Bio is recently being advertised on Real Radio ( by uk bio-fuels I think) They claim you can save 25p per GALLON .... just when I have got used to litres they start advertising gallons again !
A clever advertising plot mefinks :evil:
25p off per gallon is roughly 5p a litre ... hardly a massive saving compared to the 40.9 per litre I am paying for LPG (a 56p saving against unleaded)
Is it me, or are certain people pushing bio as a way of making a massive profit for themselves ?
The Govt tax is less, but the apparent profit margins for commercial outlets and manufacturers seems to negate any tax bonus.
Welcome to Rip Off Britain.
One day, when we all have the acreage to grow our own fuel we will not only save the planet, but also save our wallets.
We sell Biodiesel for 79ppl, which comparitively amongst other biodiesel producers/sellers is amongst the lowest prices.
As for a "massive profit" - I WISH! Take the following production costs into account:
- cost of the oil (Rapeseed oil 32p per litre) ,
- Road fuel duty (28.8p per litre)
- Chemicals & filters (10p per litre)
Thats 68.8p per litre to make, and thats without adding on the cost of business premises, tax, loans, wages, vehicles, VAT, etc.
If thats massive profit, then you're easily pleased. That's why some producers have to sell their biodiesel for 88p-92p per litre. The less things a producer has to fork out for, then the cheaper the fuel.
-
The reduction in CO2 emissions between petrol and LPG is one based on energy released and combustion efficiency, the burning of LPG releasing, to move the same vehicle, overall, 10 to 15% less CO2.
But isn't fuel economy, whilst running on LPG, 10-15% worse than on petrol...therefore overall CO2 emissions for that vehicle are the same whether running Petrol or LPG? :-s :-k
-
I think one of the main "benefits" that people try to point out about LPG is that it's one of the gasses that tends to get burnt off during distillation so collecting it and using it in a car is considered a bonus.
Now, that's pretty open to debate, but I think you'll find that most of these things are. No vehicle or method of transport is actually the answer, nor is any particular type of fuel.
This is what annoys me most about the entire debate, people are looking for quick and easy answers but there aren't any. Lifestyles will have to be altered, people will have to be encouraged to recycle more and waste less.
The trouble is that you end up with human nature declaring that "they" (the individual) isn't the problem and that someone else is.
We all have our parts to play, and using "green" fuels helps, but so does keeping your car in good working order, leaving earlier to avoid traffic, turning lights off, not gluing bits of paper to people's windscreens etc...
-
The reduction in CO2 emissions between petrol and LPG is one based on energy released and combustion efficiency, the burning of LPG releasing, to move the same vehicle, overall, 10 to 15% less CO2.
But isn't fuel economy, whilst running on LPG, 10-15% worse than on petrol...therefore overall CO2 emissions for that vehicle are the same whether running Petrol or LPG? :-s :-k
Yes LPG is slightly down on petrol mpg, but does burn cleaner.
MPG around town is about 14-16 (rush hour traffic) and on a nice run is about 24-26... thats US gal, so add 10% for imperial .
So it all adds up to about the same on my reckoning. ... and yes its costing me a lot less on LPG than petrol, so I am one happy bunny
Using Bio-diesel is a step in the right direction, but I still think that it's too pricey for the average motorist to risk trying in his precious car in order to save just 5p a litre.... The real answer is to change the habits of a lifetime.
If these bio companies really think that they have my sympathy about costs etc, all I can say is they must think a lot more than I do about saving the planet... nobody starts a company that is doomed to be a loss maker.
They would be better off starting a fleet of minibuses and offering cheap rides !
-
[quote="CaptainColourful]
Using Bio-diesel is a step in the right direction, but I still think that it's too pricey for the average motorist to risk trying in his precious car in order to save just 5p a litre.... The real answer is to change the habits of a lifetime.
If these bio companies really think that they have my sympathy about costs etc, all I can say is they must think a lot more than I do about saving the planet... nobody starts a company that is doomed to be a loss maker.
They would be better off starting a fleet of minibuses and offering cheap rides ![/quote]
Some of the biodiesel producers do it on a non-profit bases, so yes, maybe they do care more about the planet than you. :-s
Using your example of a 5ppl saving, in a 50 litre tank that's a £2.50 saving, it may not seem that much but think about how much people complain when dino-diesel goes up a penny at the pumps! And £2.50 per fill up soon adds up over the year. If the saving is 10ppl (£5 per tank saving) or 15ppl etc.... well I'll let you do the maths. If folk would rather pay 95ppl+ for dino-diesel, then fine, but many prefer to make a saving. :wink:
As for people like me 'pushing' biodiesel' for my own benefit, that only applies if someone buys it from me, and most forum members, i would guess, don't live near me for me to benefit from their custom. As many 4x4 are 'gas-guzzlers' surely people would like to know about a cheaper/greener alternative to dino-diesel. You, as an LPG user, must be bothered about the pennies to have gone to the trouble and cost of having your vehicle converted to run on LPG. :-k :wink:
-
OK, I've found on this site references to mass of CO2 produced by burning gasoline (petrol), and converted the US Gallons to Imperial Gallons.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05004.htm#step1
The figure for Petrol is 10.53 kg CO2 per gallon
I've also used the URL previously posted for the mass of CO2 produced by burning LPG, and converted this figure to Imperial Gallons.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s05.pdf
The figure for LPG is 6.82 kg CO2 per gallon
I get 18 mpg on petrol and 17 mpg on LPG.
So per mile I push out 585g of CO2 on petrol, and 401g of CO2 on LPG.
So, based on US EPA figures for CO2 production, and my own fuel consumption figures, I push out over 31% less CO2 into the atmosphere by running on LPG. I'll have to compare this figure to other cars.
I'm sure someone will be running a 300 TDi Disco and will trawl the net for figures to find out their own CO2 grammes per mile whilst running on diesel, but I'm afraid I can't be bothered to do it.
-
Using your example of a 5ppl saving, in a 50 litre tank that's a £2.50 saving, it may not seem that much but think about how much people complain when dino-diesel goes up a penny at the pumps! And £2.50 per fill up soon adds up over the year. If the saving is 10ppl (£5 per tank saving) or 15ppl etc.... well I'll let you do the maths.
L.P.G. = 41 ppl
Petrol = 97 ppl
A saving 56p per litre ..... = £28 per 50 litres top up !
I admit the conversion wasn't cheap, but the way I look at it is the conversion cost is within the total price of the car on the road and was budgeted for when I bought the vehicle.
I am not knocking anyone using Biofuels, but merely pointing out that the immediate savings both emmisions wise and pocket wise are more obvious with LPG than a 5ppl saving over dino-diesel by buying a blended biofuel.
I will now step down from my soapbox before I upset those who are doing their bit to save the planet. :wink:
-
I admit the conversion wasn't cheap, but the way I look at it is the conversion cost is within the total price of the car on the road and was budgeted for when I bought the vehicle.
I know what you mean, when I was looking at buying the V8 or a TDi back in 1999 I noted that the same model year V8 was £3000 cheaper than the TDi, and then had the LPG conversion done for £1200.
LPG was 35p a litre back then.
I've since put another 81,000 mile on the V8, so I reckon it's paid for the conversion a few times over since then.
-
Using your example of a 5ppl saving, in a 50 litre tank that's a £2.50 saving, it may not seem that much but think about how much people complain when dino-diesel goes up a penny at the pumps! And £2.50 per fill up soon adds up over the year. If the saving is 10ppl (£5 per tank saving) or 15ppl etc.... well I'll let you do the maths.
L.P.G. = 41 ppl
Petrol = 97 ppl
A saving 56p per litre ..... = £28 per 50 litres top up !
I admit the conversion wasn't cheap, but the way I look at it is the conversion cost is within the total price of the car on the road and was budgeted for when I bought the vehicle.
I am not knocking anyone using Biofuels, but merely pointing out that the immediate savings both emmisions wise and pocket wise are more obvious with LPG than a 5ppl saving over dino-diesel by buying a blended biofuel.
I will now step down from my soapbox before I upset those who are doing their bit to save the planet. :wink:
Just out of interest, is there road fuel duty on LPG? If it's bought for domestic heating, then obviously there isn't, but if it's bought as road fuel surely there is road fuel duty? :?
-
The most recent figures I can find are :
2006 fuel duty (as of September 2006) in the United Kingdom is:
48.35 pence per litre for ultra-low sulphur unleaded petrol/diesel
48.35 pence per litre for conventional unleaded petrol
48.35 pence per litre for conventional diesel
28.35 pence per litre for bio-diesel and bio ethanol - low tax to encourage consumer conversion
12.21 pence per kg for gas other than natural gas (LPG)
10.81 pence per kg for natural gas used as road fuel.
7.69 pence per litre for rebated gas oil (red diesel)
7.29 pence per litre for rebated fuel oil
The March 2007 Budget announced that from October 2007 there will be a 2 pence increase in fuel duty rates.
http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html
-
I couldn't give a hoot about the environmentalists!
I couldn't give a hoot about my carbon footprint!
And we wonder why 4x4 owners get bad press from the environmentalists?