Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

Just shows that we have been lied to, its perfectly possible to alternative fuel ourselves.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

[Pebble]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Just shows that we have been lied to, its perfectly possible to alternative fuel ourselves.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

I don't really see your point...it's always been possible...

[GTTofAK]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Just shows that we have been lied to, its perfectly possible to alternative fuel ourselves.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

Biodesil is nothing new. The question is, is it cost effective and more importantly is it engergy efficient. There is an energy production cost for any product. New evidence suggust that biofuels require more energy to make them then you get from burning them.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

The fact that farming is a very petrol intensive product is lost on most people. It is almost like people not realizing that their hamburger was once a cow.

Going biodesil could well have the same effect as a power plant trying to support more load that it can supply. The frequency would just keep dropping and dropping until the whole thing trips.

[poweRob]

GTTofAK wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Just shows that we have been lied to, its perfectly possible to alternative fuel ourselves.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

Biodesil is nothing new. The question is, is it cost effective and more importantly is it engergy efficient. There is an energy production cost for any product. New evidence suggust that biofuels require more energy to make them then you get from burning them.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

The fact that farming is a very petrol intensive product is lost on most people. It is almost like people not realizing that their hamburger was once a cow.

Going biodesil could well have the same effect as a power plant trying to support more load that it can supply. The frequency would just keep dropping and dropping until the whole thing trips.

Quote: "Read the biodiesel lifecycle summary from the National Biodiesel Board @ http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/LifeCycle_Summary.PDF. In it you will see the fossil fuel conversion ratio, which shows that for every gallon of fossil fuel used for the production, manufacturing, transportation and distribution process, 3.2 gallons of biodiesel is produced vs. .83 gallons of petroleum diesel. Thus it could be shown in this evaluation that biodiesel is 280% more energy efficient than petroleum fuel

linkypoo...


Such studies as Cornell seem to forget many other costs and efficiencies. I wrote about this on my blog. It sure would seem that it would be much more efficient when comparing farming it to building loads of these:



Then shipping them in fleets of thousands of these:



I don't think the studies ever include the inefficiencies of building these tools as well as the entire process of searching, drilling, transporting and refining when it comes to petro.

Not to mention the emmissions benefits in comparison which can be worked in financially when considering the healthcare costs difference that would definitely differ.

I'd like to see a cradle to grave comparison rather than the selective comparisons.

[poweRob]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Just shows that we have been lied to, its perfectly possible to alternative fuel ourselves.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

Biodiesel goes LeMans

[GTTofAK]

Rob wrote: "Read the biodiesel lifecycle summary from the National Biodiesel Board @ http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/LifeCycle_Summary.PDF. In it you will see the fossil fuel conversion ratio, which shows that for every gallon of fossil fuel used for the production, manufacturing, transportation and distribution process, 3.2 gallons of biodiesel is produced vs. .83 gallons of petroleum diesel. Thus it could be shown in this evaluation that biodiesel is 280% more energy efficient than petroleum fuel.

Dead link. And please tell me that this isn't the same link you posted months ago that assumed x% runnable with no justification to do so.


Rob wrote: Such studies as Cornell seem to forget many other costs and efficiencies. I wrote about this on my blog. It sure would seem that it would be much more efficient when comparing farming it to building loads of these:



Then shipping them in fleets of thousands of these:



I don't think the studies ever include the inefficiencies of building these tools as well as the entire process of searching, drilling, transporting and refining when it comes to petro.

Not to mention the emissions benefits in comparison which can be worked in financially when considering the healthcare costs difference that would definitely differ.

I'd like to see a cradle to grave comparison rather than the selective comparisons.

Speaking practicaly I can say unequivocaly that petrol is a net energy gain. You know why? Because the lights are on, my home is heated, and I was able to drive to work today.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sadly that may not be true tomorrow. It may be more efficient to refine oil at the moment (though i have my doubts), and to spend a hundred billion invading a nation to make sure it keeps flowing. But it's not gonna last.

[poweRob]

GTTofAK wrote: Rob wrote: "Read the biodiesel lifecycle summary from the National Biodiesel Board @ http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/LifeCycle_Summary.PDF. In it you will see the fossil fuel conversion ratio, which shows that for every gallon of fossil fuel used for the production, manufacturing, transportation and distribution process, 3.2 gallons of biodiesel is produced vs. .83 gallons of petroleum diesel. Thus it could be shown in this evaluation that biodiesel is 280% more energy efficient than petroleum fuel.

Dead link. And please tell me that this isn't the same link you posted months ago that assumed x% runnable with no justification to do so.


Rob wrote: Such studies as Cornell seem to forget many other costs and efficiencies. I wrote about this on my blog. It sure would seem that it would be much more efficient when comparing farming it to building loads of these:



Then shipping them in fleets of thousands of these:



I don't think the studies ever include the inefficiencies of building these tools as well as the entire process of searching, drilling, transporting and refining when it comes to petro.

Not to mention the emissions benefits in comparison which can be worked in financially when considering the healthcare costs difference that would definitely differ.

I'd like to see a cradle to grave comparison rather than the selective comparisons.

Speaking practicaly I can say unequivocaly that petrol is a net energy gain. You know why? Because the lights are on, my home is heated, and I was able to drive to work today.

Why are you so damn argumentative?

BTW your last point only states that you are a fan of status quo or you have a general disbelief in technological advances.

[GTTofAK]

Rob wrote: GTTofAK wrote: Rob wrote: "Read the biodiesel lifecycle summary from the National Biodiesel Board @ http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/LifeCycle_Summary.PDF. In it you will see the fossil fuel conversion ratio, which shows that for every gallon of fossil fuel used for the production, manufacturing, transportation and distribution process, 3.2 gallons of biodiesel is produced vs. .83 gallons of petroleum diesel. Thus it could be shown in this evaluation that biodiesel is 280% more energy efficient than petroleum fuel.

Dead link. And please tell me that this isn't the same link you posted months ago that assumed x% runnable with no justification to do so.


Rob wrote: Such studies as Cornell seem to forget many other costs and efficiencies. I wrote about this on my blog. It sure would seem that it would be much more efficient when comparing farming it to building loads of these:



Then shipping them in fleets of thousands of these:



I don't think the studies ever include the inefficiencies of building these tools as well as the entire process of searching, drilling, transporting and refining when it comes to petro.

Not to mention the emissions benefits in comparison which can be worked in financially when considering the healthcare costs difference that would definitely differ.

I'd like to see a cradle to grave comparison rather than the selective comparisons.

Speaking practicaly I can say unequivocaly that petrol is a net energy gain. You know why? Because the lights are on, my home is heated, and I was able to drive to work today.

Why are you so damn argumentative?

BTW your last point only states that you are a fan of status quo or you have a general disbelief in technological advances.

I'm sorry I didn't know that being argumentative was agaisnt the rules on POLITICAL CROSSFIRE.

[poweRob]

GTTofAK wrote: Rob wrote: GTTofAK wrote: Rob wrote: "Read the biodiesel lifecycle summary from the National Biodiesel Board @ http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/LifeCycle_Summary.PDF. In it you will see the fossil fuel conversion ratio, which shows that for every gallon of fossil fuel used for the production, manufacturing, transportation and distribution process, 3.2 gallons of biodiesel is produced vs. .83 gallons of petroleum diesel. Thus it could be shown in this evaluation that biodiesel is 280% more energy efficient than petroleum fuel.

Dead link. And please tell me that this isn't the same link you posted months ago that assumed x% runnable with no justification to do so.


Rob wrote: Such studies as Cornell seem to forget many other costs and efficiencies. I wrote about this on my blog. It sure would seem that it would be much more efficient when comparing farming it to building loads of these:



Then shipping them in fleets of thousands of these:



I don't think the studies ever include the inefficiencies of building these tools as well as the entire process of searching, drilling, transporting and refining when it comes to petro.

Not to mention the emissions benefits in comparison which can be worked in financially when considering the healthcare costs difference that would definitely differ.

I'd like to see a cradle to grave comparison rather than the selective comparisons.

Speaking practicaly I can say unequivocaly that petrol is a net energy gain. You know why? Because the lights are on, my home is heated, and I was able to drive to work today.

Why are you so damn argumentative?

BTW your last point only states that you are a fan of status quo or you have a general disbelief in technological advances.

I'm sorry I didn't know that being argumentative was agaisnt the rules on POLITICAL CROSSFIRE.

You turned a cordially discussion into a gripefest as if you were in Politics & Government.

Don't know where the whole "is that against the rules" quip came from but I suggest that if you have a problem with Political Crossfire rules take it up with the Administrative Staff who are the ones who form those rules.

[Canada_Rocks]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Just shows that we have been lied to, its perfectly possible to alternative fuel ourselves.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

Awsome. Where do I invest in these kids?

[GTTofAK]

I only made 2 statements

Quote: Dead link. And please tell me that this isn't the same link you posted months ago that assumed x% renuable with no justification to do so.

and

Quote: Speaking practicaly I can say unequivocaly that petrol is a net energy gain. You know why? Because the lights are on, my home is heated, and I was able to drive to work today.

Could you please point out how any of these equate to a "gripefest"?

[poweRob]

GTTofAK wrote: I only made 2 statements

Quote: Dead link. And please tell me that this isn't the same link you posted months ago that assumed x% renuable with no justification to do so.

and

Quote: Speaking practicaly I can say unequivocaly that petrol is a net energy gain. You know why? Because the lights are on, my home is heated, and I was able to drive to work today.

Could you please point out how any of these equate to a "gripefest"?

In context it sure seemed like your were smart-assin' me but... maybe I should just take some pamprin.

[mathurin]

ive heard it many times, yet nobody has given me any real proof, if you have a link the please do it

also make sure the energy measure is proper, BTUs have no place in this unless you are burning the fuel in a steam engine, our engines use the amount of expansion of the burning fuel and the heat is waste

[GTTofAK]

mathurin wrote: ive heard it many times, yet nobody has given me any real proof, if you have a link the please do it

also make sure the energy measure is proper, BTUs have no place in this unless you are burning the fuel in a steam engine, our engines use the amount of expansion of the burning fuel and the heat is waste

Someone never paid attention in class. An internal combustion engine is still a heat engine.

The energy output of an engine, in the form of mechanical work, shall equal the difference between the energies absorbed and rejected in the form of heat.

dW=dQc - (-dQh)

or

The change in internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added minus the mechanical work done.
ΔU=Q-W

[mathurin]

i paid attention in shop, and i know enough about internal combustion engines to know that the BTU of a fuel is not what drives the work

it gets its power from the expanding gases caused by burning, heat is a waste product, why? because your car has a radiator, we dont want anymore heat than 160-220 degrees to develop in the engine, so BTUs are irrelevant as to the fuels viability

and through your own definition you have proved me correct
The energy output of an engine, in the form of mechanical work, shall equal the DIFFERENCE between the energies absorbed and REJECTED in the form of HEAT.

heat is waste in our engines

the heating ability of the fuel only somewhat indicates the amount of energy we can get from it


i have seen in many places alcohol being touted as viable through BTU figures, then i do some looking of my own and find out they are lying bastards

in order to make veg fuels long term viable we need to find a more energy conservative way to plant and harvest them
good luck

[poweRob]

mathurin wrote: i paid attention in shop, and i know enough about internal combustion engines to know that the BTU of a fuel is not what drives the work

it gets its power from the expanding gases caused by burning, heat is a waste product, why? because your car has a radiator, we dont want anymore heat than 160-220 degrees to develop in the engine, so BTUs are irrelevant as to the fuels viability

and through your own definition you have proved me correct
The energy output of an engine, in the form of mechanical work, shall equal the DIFFERENCE between the energies absorbed and REJECTED in the form of HEAT.

heat is waste in our engines

the heating ability of the fuel only somewhat indicates the amount of energy we can get from it


i have seen in many places alcohol being touted as viable through BTU figures, then i do some looking of my own and find out they are lying bastards

in order to make veg fuels long term viable we need to find a more energy conservative way to plant and harvest them
good luck

Check out Palm oil production. It is the most productive oil creation per acre by far and it it comes from tree groves rather than regularly planted crops.

It's getting big in Malaysia and South American countries.

Only problem is that these plantations are infringing hard on the rainforests which are being cleared to plant them.

[GTTofAK]

mathurin wrote: i paid attention in shop, and i know enough about internal combustion engines to know that the BTU of a fuel is not what drives the work

it gets its power from the expanding gases caused by burning, heat is a waste product, why? because your car has a radiator, we dont want anymore heat than 160-220 degrees to develop in the engine, so BTUs are irrelevant as to the fuels viability
A BTU is the amount of energy required to raise 1lb of water from39.1 -41.1F(or in other words 1 degree from when water is at its maximum density). Energy is Energy is Energy. The maximum amount of energy a combustible liquid can exert on a pistion when burned is equal to it BTUs. It called conservation of energy.

mathurin wrote: and through your own definition you have proved me correct
The energy output of an engine, in the form of mechanical work, shall equal the DIFFERENCE between the energies absorbed and REJECTED in the form of HEAT.
You missread. It is heat in minus heat out.
dW=dQc - (-dQh)
Q is the variable used to represent heat in physics and thermo.

For for a combustion engine work(also energy) is BTUs realeased when gas combusts - BTUs rejected.

[mathurin]

no, you read it wrong, it is energy in - heat out, which is exactly what you said

energy may be energy and therefore indestructible, but the question is not about how much energy a fuel has, the question is how much can we use, since burning the fuel obviously raises the heat it is obviously a factor, BUT, the heat released is mostly irrelevant, it is wasted past a certain point and the relevant factor is the expansion of gases, which is indeed influenced by the heat because they expand when hot, but not as much as by actual combustion, its like firing a gun, sure it makes heat, but the heat is not what sends the bullet down range

heat is not what presses the piston down, pressure from burning fuel is




rob, their productivity is only relevant if it shows a viable alternative, being the most productive is useless if it takes 2000 acres to keep a truck on the road for a year, im sure you have a good link somewhere, i know its a good fuel, but it doesnt matter if we cant make enough, like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound

[GTTofAK]

mathurin wrote: no, you read it wrong, it is energy in - heat out, which is exactly what you said

energy may be energy and therefore indestructible, but the question is not about how much energy a fuel has, the question is how much can we use, since burning the fuel obviously raises the heat it is obviously a factor, BUT, the heat released is mostly irrelevant, it is wasted past a certain point and the relevant factor is the expansion of gases, which is indeed influenced by the heat because they expand when hot, but not as much as by actual combustion, its like firing a gun, sure it makes heat, but the heat is not what sends the bullet down range

heat is not what presses the piston down, pressure from burning fuel is




rob, their productivity is only relevant if it shows a viable alternative, being the most productive is useless if it takes 2000 acres to keep a truck on the road for a year, im sure you have a good link somewhere, i know its a good fuel, but it doesnt matter if we cant make enough, like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound

Heat and energy are the same thing. Arrrghhhh.

Just a pound and a kilo are the same intrinsic measurement.

Or foot and a meter are the same intrinsic measurement.

1 BTU = 1055.05 joules