diesel and Aus politics dont mix... apparently

[posscakes]

hmm it'd be nice if farmers had some incentives aka tax breaks if a percentage of there crops went towards bio fuel. but might be a bit far fetched for some folk in canberra... ripped the following from last link.

Adapted from Joshua Tickell, From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank: The Complete Guide to Using Vegetable Oil as an Alternative Fuel. 3rd Ed. 2000.
Plant Latin Name Gal Oil/ Acre
Oil Palm Elaeis guineensis 610
Macauba Palm Acrocomia aculeata 461
Pequi Caryocar brasiliense 383
Buriti Palm Mauritia flexuosa 335
Oiticia Licania rigida 307
Coconut Cocos nucifera 276
Avocado Persea americana 270
Brazil Nut Bertholletia excelsa 245
Macadamia Nut Macadamia terniflora 230
Jatropa Jatropha curcas 194
Babassu Palm Orbignya martiana 188
Jojoba Simmondsia chinensis 186
Pecan Carya illinoensis 183
Bacuri Platonia insignis 146
Castor Bean Ricinus communis 145
Gopher Plant Euphorbia lathyris 137
Piassava talea funifera 136
Olive Tree Olea europaea 124
Rapeseed Brassica napus 122
Opium Poppy Papaver somniferum 119
Peanut Ariachis hypogaea 109
Cocoa Theobroma cacao 105
Sunflower Helianthus annuus 98
Tung Oil Tree Aleurites fordii 96
Rice Oriza sativaL. 85
Buffalo Gourd Cucurbita foetidissima 81
Safflower Carthamus tinctorius 80
Crambe Crambe abyssinica 72
Sesame samum indicum 71
Camelina Camelina sativa 60
Mustard Brassica alba 59
Coriander Coriandrum sativum 55
Pumpkin Seed Cucurbita pepo 55
Euphorbia Euphorbia lagascae 54
Hazelnut Corylus avellana 49
Linseed Linum usitatissimum 49
Coffee Coffea arabica 47
Soybean Glycine max 46
Hemp Cannabis sativa 37
Cotton Gossypium hirsutum 33
Calendula Calendula officinalis 31
Kenaf Hibiscus cannabinus L. 28
Rubber Seed Hevea brasiliensis 26
Lupine Lupinus albus 24
Palm Erythea salvadorensis 23
Oat Avena sativa 22
Cashew Nut Anacardium occidentale 18
Corn Zea mays 18

[mollins]

I very much enjoyed this thread when it was active, so i thought i would revive it... and i know this isnt strictly diesel focused but on the topic of alternative fuels...

One of the research teams at work are working on a new fuel called "solar gas", which is energy enriched natural gas. They use a high concentration solar reactor to convert methane into a mixture of CO and H which has 26% more energy than than natural gas. This has many benefits as the gas can be used in a wide range of applications, including transport, as it can run an LPG fitted car.

This provides easily storable and transportable form of solar energy. Which are the major draw backs of solar energy.

more info here:
http://www.det.csiro.au/science/r_h/nsec.htm

http://www.det.csiro.au/science/r_h/...20Benefits.pdf

We should definitely be taking a page out of the european's book in their attitude towards diesel and other alternative fuels. Biodiesel is a great fuel, due to its low emmisions and short carbon cycle. It requires heavy investment to ever make it on a commercial scale, which includes research into cheaper and less land-hungry production.

In regards to solving the energy problems in Australia, i am convinced that there is no single solution. There needs to be a fast transition into a wide range of renewables (wind, solar, biomass), with more localised and integrated production to reduce transmission losses. Natural gas is much more efficient than coal, and should be used as a transitional fuel.

The major setback at the moment is the fact that the fossil fuel companies influence the governments energy policies (the 2006 energy white paper was mostly written by fossil fuel companies). The sooner we get rid of the howard government's coal addiction, the better.
The first step to change is a change in gorvernment.
thats what i think anyway

hehehe

cheers
mike

(as always this is my opinion and in no way am i imposing it on anyone else, or intending to cause offence)

[brackie]

I very much enjoyed this thread when it was active, so i thought i would revive it... and i know this isnt strictly diesel focused but on the topic of alternative fuels...

One of the research teams at work are working on a new fuel called "solar gas", which is energy enriched natural gas. They use a high concentration solar reactor to convert methane into a mixture of CO and H which has 26% more energy than than natural gas. This has many benefits as the gas can be used in a wide range of applications, including transport, as it can run an LPG fitted car.

This provides easily storable and transportable form of solar energy. Which are the major draw backs of solar energy.

more info here:
http://www.det.csiro.au/science/r_h/nsec.htm

http://www.det.csiro.au/science/r_h/...20Benefits.pdf

Exciting stuff! Not really a "use" of solar energy for transport, but a way of enhancing the use of an existing fuel. Biofuels are definitely worth further development even though we know that the Earth doesn't have the capacity to produce enough of them to satisfy demand for transport fuels. Methane can be produced from green waste and fossil natural gasses are plentiful. Any process that would extend the life of their reserves by using "free" solar power would be most welcome.

We should definitely be taking a page out of the european's book in their attitude towards diesel and other alternative fuels. Biodiesel is a great fuel, due to its low emmisions and short carbon cycle. It requires heavy investment to ever make it on a commercial scale, which includes research into cheaper and less land-hungry production.

I've run my Golfs on canola and biodiesel. It's great but not without problems and I think that most of them have been discussed here so I won't go into them again. I'm not happy that I can't use biodiesel in my TDI.

In regards to solving the energy problems in Australia, i am convinced that there is no single solution. There needs to be a fast transition into a wide range of renewables (wind, solar, biomass), with more localised and integrated production to reduce transmission losses. Natural gas is much more efficient than coal, and should be used as a transitional fuel.

The problem with CNG is that it must be compressed and the cylinders that store it must therefore be strong and heavy. Researchers must work on a way to solve this.

The major setback at the moment is the fact that the fossil fuel companies influence the governments energy policies (the 2006 energy white paper was mostly written by fossil fuel companies). The sooner we get rid of the howard government's coal addiction, the better.
The first step to change is a change in gorvernment.
thats what i think anyway

I don't think it really matters which of our two alternative governments is in. I reckon that even if the Greens won government the country's reliance on coal exports and excise from fuel would remain and nothing would change. At least the Feds recognise that "clean coal" technology is worth pursuing although if they think that geosequestration will work they are dreaming (sorry, my geology background coming out again ). What this is all about really is money and who pays?

hehehe

cheers
mike

(as always this is my opinion and in no way am i imposing it on anyone else, or intending to cause offence)

Just my opinion too.

[Seano]

If anyone would like to comment on the National Standards for diesel & biodiesel blends then I suggest you visit http://www.deh.gov.au/atmosphere/fue...ion-paper.html

It was released in November last year and is 130 pages long (but a very small download) and public submissions are due tomorrow 5th Jan 2007

[gldgti]

[QUOTE=brackie] Biofuels are definitely worth further development even though we know that the Earth doesn't have the capacity to produce enough of them to satisfy demand for transport fuels.


dont be so sure.... Sir Richard Branson has recently released a statement confirming that all of the profits for the next 10 years from Virgins transport related companies will be used in research into biofuels, with particular emphasis on air travel....


just something I thought was interesting

[brackie]

No. I'm not sure. And I don't think that anybody really is. Common sense would tell me that if fossil hydrocarbons are highly concentrated products of organic matter, heat and a hell of a lot of time, the one thing we don't have is the millions of years necessary to manufacture a product on the scale necessary to replace them by using biofuels. We just don't have the arable land.
Richard Branson is a shrewd businessman, to a degree a philanthropist and also an eccentric. I think we must look a little deeper behind the reasons for his commitment.

[gldgti]

No. I'm not sure. And I don't think that anybody really is. Common sense would tell me that if fossil hydrocarbons are highly concentrated products of organic matter, heat and a hell of a lot of time, the one thing we don't have is the millions of years necessary to manufacture a product on the scale necessary to replace them by using biofuels. We just don't have the arable land.
Richard Branson is a shrewd businessman, to a degree a philanthropist and also an eccentric. I think we must look a little deeper behind the reasons for his commitment.

certainly this is true for all the alternatives we've discussed..... but what about algae? im not suggesting any kind of miracle cure with algae, but there are pilot plants being set up in the US and plans to biuld literally square kilometres of algae ponds in thailand outside power stations to suck up CO2... theres gotta be something in it. my dad is convinced of it, and he's been looking into it for years. maybe millions of years of plant evolution can make up for the time we dont have...

[gldgti]

I don't think it really matters which of our two alternative governments is in. I reckon that even if the Greens won government the country's reliance on coal exports and excise from fuel would remain and nothing would change. At least the Feds recognise that "clean coal" technology is worth pursuing although if they think that geosequestration will work they are dreaming (sorry, my geology background coming out again ). What this is all about really is money and who pays?

I think if the Libs get in again I'll have to become a terrorist myself! i believe we need a change, and im not convinced we can avoid nuclear power if howard sees another term..... and we MUST AVOID NUCLEAR.... for my kids sake (who i havnt got yet) and theirs, and theirs etc.

[gldgti]

oh yeah, and i reckon geosequestration is a total crock too..... what idiots!

[brackie]

certainly this is true for all the alternatives we've discussed..... but what about algae? im not suggesting any kind of miracle cure with algae, but there are pilot plants being set up in the US and plans to biuld literally square kilometres of algae ponds in thailand outside power stations to suck up CO2... theres gotta be something in it. my dad is convinced of it, and he's been looking into it for years. maybe millions of years of plant evolution can make up for the time we dont have...

We wouldn't need to help evolution along too much. The plankton that was manufacturing and storing oil was doing it pretty well during the Mesozoic and before. Perhaps a little genetic engineering would help.

The key is money. Don't think that even if we could get plankton farms happening it would bring down the price of fuel. Governments and national economies are driven by profit, and corporations and tax gatherers would make damned sure that the price didn't go down. If anything, they would increase it saying, "If you really care about the environment then you'll pay the extra" (even if they could produce it more cheaply).

Resurrected thread