Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat

Upsetting the applecart #1 - carbon neutral biofuel

<< < (5/11) > >>

thermidorthelobster:
I was thinking more of the environmental benefits - ie how close to carbon-neutral it is.

Biodiesel-Bev:

--- Quote from: "thermidorthelobster" ---I was thinking more of the environmental benefits - ie how close to carbon-neutral it is.
--- End quote ---


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.

Eeyore:
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

L90OOK:

--- Quote from: "thermidorthelobster" ---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!
--- End quote ---


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:

Terranosaurus:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page