Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   You know how biofuels like ethanol were supposed to help the environment? About that   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line 87
    More: Interesting, palm oil, sunflowers, cultivation, biofuels, effects of global warming, biodiesel, sugar canes, agricultural land  
•       •       •

3344 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Mar 2014 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-29 01:00:40 PM  

StrangeQ: HMS_Blinkin: Ethanol was never a great solution.  Algae-based biofuels seem a lot more realistic in terms of actual logistics.

This.  The only people who ever thought it was a good idea to turn corn into fuel were the corn growers who benefited from the government subsidies.  Even using algae to create the ethanol still suffers from the same drawbacks of inferior energy density compared to regular gasoline and the problem with the fuel turning to sludge and deteriorating fuel lines.


Algae make diesel, not ethanol.  Fatty acids and tryglycerides make up a fair chunk of their dry weight, which can be turned into methyl esters (biodiesel).

http://www.explorecuriocity.org/Content.aspx?ContentID=2696
 
2014-03-29 01:04:20 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Hollie Maea: Environmentalists thought ethanol was a bad idea since day one.  It was nothing more than a handout from Bush to his Midwest supporters.

Which Bush?  I'm honestly wondering what your source is on this.

Don't get me wrong,  Dubya was the worst president in history.   Period, end of discussion on Bush.  But the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - the first legislation to start requiring blends of ethanol top be used in the U.S., and specify annual minimums -  was an overwhelmingly Democrat initiative and strongly opposed by the oil industry.  (Which Dubya supposedly was in bed with.)  And Obama has greatly expanded this initiative with legislation requiring E85, E50, and E30 pumps installed nationwide by 2015.


My main source is "I was alive at the time" but here's a start:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR20 07 012401869.html
 
2014-03-29 01:19:52 PM  

Hollie Maea: My main source is "I was alive at the time"


And you didn't know it was democrat crafted legislation?
 
2014-03-29 01:25:33 PM  

NFA: Ethanol is a terrible fuel.  It's corrosive to fuel systems.  It's destroys lawn equipment if it sits for 6 months or more.  A buddy of mine does small engine repair and ethanol damage alone has quadrupled his repair sales.

They're right, Ethanol pushes up food prices.  In Mexico, they've had riots because the price of corn flour (a food staple)  has skyrocketed because per bushel price of corn exploded.  Why? Because of the American Ethanol production efforts.  When you put a huge load on a fixed supply the price goes up.

Just before the US started using Ethanol in fuel, the price of corn was around $250 per ton.  A year later????? around $550 per ton.  In 2012 it jumped to $800 per ton.  This has caused a dramatic rise in meat prices and an increase in cost of corn products.


Yeah, and this is why renewable advocates were never big fans of corn ethanol. Unfortunately, US food production was already corn-focused, so the big agri-business guys pushed for subsidies to favor corn ethanol over more efficient bio-fuels(or non-fuel renewables, like solar and wind generation combined with electric cars), and they got their way.
 
2014-03-29 01:28:29 PM  

GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: GRCooper: Read a report in the Economist a few years back - it takes 26 or so gallons of water to create 1 gallon of ethanol (versus 1:1 for gasoline )

If true, it doesn't sound viable as a gas replacement - WW3 will be fought over water

When water is used, it is gone forever. This is why the oceans have dried up.

And that is *exactly* why the Ogallala aquifer has as much water now as it did 100 years ago, because it doesn't matter where the water goes, it's always there.

Smrt

So now we're qualifying the water.

WTF does that even mean?

Enjoy trying to irrigate the great plains with your runoff that's swirling through the Mississippi on the way to the gulf.


Not all water is from that aquifer. You qualified where the water was coming from. You should have done that in the first place in order to not look like someone who reasons as poorly as a creationist.

www.skepticmoney.com
 
2014-03-29 01:29:53 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The problem isn't biofuels, it's using stupid-ass crops like corn to make the fuel. Which, itself, is a problem with crooked politicians rigging the agricultural subsidies system for personal gain.


^^^ In the long run non or hybrid fuel personal transport is what we ought to be aiming for, but the problems with US biofuels are far more political than anything else.
 
2014-03-29 01:41:17 PM  
KeatingFive:
Just because everyone in farks thinks you're an idiot, you don't have to verify it.

Oh, look. More "nuance."
 
2014-03-29 01:41:44 PM  

GRCooper: Read a report in the Economist a few years back - it takes 26 or so gallons of water to create 1 gallon of ethanol (versus 1:1 for gasoline )

If true, it doesn't sound viable as a gas replacement - WW3 will be fought over water


Ethanol is for drinkin' and water is for fightin' over.
 
2014-03-29 01:46:18 PM  

OnlyM3: Remember when california liberals forced MTBE into the gas supply "for the environment"?


Close enough to this.
 
2014-03-29 01:49:40 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: Not all water is from that aquifer. You qualified where the water was coming from. You should have done that in the first place in order to not look like someone who reasons as poorly as a creationist.


So, in your reasoning, the fact that the USA produces between a third and half of the worlds corn, and that the vast majority of that corn is produced in an area irrigated using the aquifer system I mentioned, and that we're currently dropping water levels there around 2% per year or so, and that 100,000 years of natural rainfall would be required to replenish that system has NO bearing on the cost of using corn ethanol as a fuel?

Maybe it's just me, but I kinda see Fark threads as a conversation over beers at a bar.  I've been unable to picture a single scenario like that in which I don't see you sitting in the corner, drooling.
 
2014-03-29 01:55:33 PM  

GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: Not all water is from that aquifer. You qualified where the water was coming from. You should have done that in the first place in order to not look like someone who reasons as poorly as a creationist.

So, in your reasoning, the fact that the USA produces between a third and half of the worlds corn, and that the vast majority of that corn is produced in an area irrigated using the aquifer system I mentioned, and that we're currently dropping water levels there around 2% per year or so, and that 100,000 years of natural rainfall would be required to replenish that system has NO bearing on the cost of using corn ethanol as a fuel?

Maybe it's just me, but I kinda see Fark threads as a conversation over beers at a bar.  I've been unable to picture a single scenario like that in which I don't see you sitting in the corner, drooling.


I read the entire back and forth between you two.

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but you're the idiot.
 
2014-03-29 01:55:49 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: I can't remember the last time I thought ethanol was a good idea.


In sufficient quantities it can cause anterograde amnesia.
 
2014-03-29 02:33:18 PM  
Is this where most of you people who automatically hate everything from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck apologize to them for having the ethanol boondoggle correctly-called over a decade ago?

/Part of repairing the national discourse is admitting your own faults...
 
2014-03-29 02:35:21 PM  

fickenchucker: Is this where most of you people who automatically hate everything from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck apologize to them for having the ethanol boondoggle correctly-called over a decade ago?

/Part of repairing the national discourse is admitting your own faults...


You must be new here.
 
2014-03-29 02:44:24 PM  

TwistedFark: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: Not all water is from that aquifer. You qualified where the water was coming from. You should have done that in the first place in order to not look like someone who reasons as poorly as a creationist.

So, in your reasoning, the fact that the USA produces between a third and half of the worlds corn, and that the vast majority of that corn is produced in an area irrigated using the aquifer system I mentioned, and that we're currently dropping water levels there around 2% per year or so, and that 100,000 years of natural rainfall would be required to replenish that system has NO bearing on the cost of using corn ethanol as a fuel?

Maybe it's just me, but I kinda see Fark threads as a conversation over beers at a bar.  I've been unable to picture a single scenario like that in which I don't see you sitting in the corner, drooling.

I read the entire back and forth between you two.

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but you're the idiot.


So, you agree with him that since water is a closed system globally there's no reason to be concerned about the sustainability of its use regionally?

I'm not too sure I care what your opinion of me is, buddy
 
2014-03-29 03:33:35 PM  
Republicans warned about this, and no one listened. This is why they won't listen to you about the rest of it. Oh, and also because they are dicks.
 
2014-03-29 03:51:03 PM  

GRCooper: TwistedFark: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: Not all water is from that aquifer. You qualified where the water was coming from. You should have done that in the first place in order to not look like someone who reasons as poorly as a creationist.

So, in your reasoning, the fact that the USA produces between a third and half of the worlds corn, and that the vast majority of that corn is produced in an area irrigated using the aquifer system I mentioned, and that we're currently dropping water levels there around 2% per year or so, and that 100,000 years of natural rainfall would be required to replenish that system has NO bearing on the cost of using corn ethanol as a fuel?

Maybe it's just me, but I kinda see Fark threads as a conversation over beers at a bar.  I've been unable to picture a single scenario like that in which I don't see you sitting in the corner, drooling.

I read the entire back and forth between you two.

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but you're the idiot.

So, you agree with him that since water is a closed system globally there's no reason to be concerned about the sustainability of its use regionally?

I'm not too sure I care what your opinion of me is, buddy


I'm thinking the idiot term was from throwing around the ole "100,000 years of rainfall to replenish" BS.

It's very simple.  If man can perform actions that affect "THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT" in just 100 years that it has people running around with their hands in the air screaming about global warming/cooling/change, then he certainly can replenish one little aquifer in far far less time.
 
2014-03-29 04:23:26 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: It's very simple.  If man can perform actions that affect "THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT" in just 100 years that it has people running around with their hands in the air screaming about global warming/cooling/change, then he certainly can replenish one little aquifer in far far less time.


http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ogallala-Aquifer.html

"The Ogallala Aquifer occupies the High Plains of the United States, extending northward from western Texas to South Dakota. The Ogallala is the leading geologic formation in what is known as the High Plains Aquifer System. The entire system underlies about 450,000 square kilometers (174,000 square miles) of eight states."

'one little aquifer'.  Ok.

Sure, all of the water used to irrigate the great plains doesn't disappear, but how are you going to irrigate crops in Kansas when the water runs off to the gulf or evaporates and falls on the east coast?  The water is being used faster than the system is being replenished.  Will it take 100 years or 100,000 years to for the aquifer to be filled naturally?  For us, there really is no difference, if we keep trading it for corn faster than it can be replaced - and corn used for ethanol is trading at a rate of 26 gallons of water for one gallon of ethanol. (which, others have pointed out, have cost corn prices to rise and encourage even more corn planting, accelerating the problem).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ogallala-aquifer/

"And scientists say it will take natural processes 6,000 years to refill the reservoir. "

So, there you go, I'm a complete idiot.  It's only 6,000 years.  That completely invalidates my point.
 
2014-03-29 05:09:04 PM  

cirby: Doktor_Zhivago:
I don't think bioethanol is any worse than setting people's tap water on fire to get the sweet sweet natural gas under their front yard.

Except, of course, that all of the cases where they try to pretend that happened are in places where the water was like that before anyone started drilling for oil. That scene in Gasland? People have been lighting their water on fire for decades in that area. Natural gas deposits are really near the surface in a lot of places, and surface seepage has been one of the old-school ways to find natural gas fields.

...and about MTBE:

Yeah lead was way better

Actually, octane itself was way better, but the Powers That Be decided we needed "oxygenators" in gasoline, so the oil companies had to go a different route.


And the punch line is that oxygenators do fark all for the emissions of an engine with closed-loop feedback fuel injection.

Which is pretty much every vehicle built for the last thirty years.
 
2014-03-29 05:15:33 PM  

r1niceboy: All I know from my time living in Nebraska is that too many people see ethanol as a way to make the Great Plains into the new Arabia. They're close to being correct: It's full of religious nutjobs reliant on one commodity for their success.


Except that there already is an Arabia, Nebraska.
www.weather-forecast.com
 
2014-03-29 05:33:48 PM  

fickenchucker: Is this where most of you people who automatically hate everything from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck apologize to them for having the ethanol boondoggle correctly-called over a decade ago?

/Part of repairing the national discourse is admitting your own faults...


Why? Did Beck and Rush apologize for their mountains of BS? Are there a lot of pro corn ethanol people around here?
 
2014-03-29 05:38:42 PM  

Baryogenesis: fickenchucker: Is this where most of you people who automatically hate everything from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck apologize to them for having the ethanol boondoggle correctly-called over a decade ago?

/Part of repairing the national discourse is admitting your own faults...

Why? Did Beck and Rush apologize for their mountains of BS? Are there a lot of pro corn ethanol people around here?


Have I stumbled into a Politics thread? (I got here via the Geek tab - I never touch the P-word).

If this is political, I honestly have zero idea which side I've been arguing for.
 
2014-03-29 06:04:35 PM  
Using agricultural capacity to create fuel rather than food never seemed like a good tradeoff.
 
2014-03-29 06:45:54 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: I heard wind power kills birds.

Burning coal is way better


The only clean power source left is white power.
 
2014-03-29 08:39:31 PM  
If we can't zero out food waste, I wonder if we can efficiently gather up the waste carbs to ferment into ethanol or butanol, and the other pile rendered into oils and diesels.
 
2014-03-29 09:39:51 PM  

SpaceBison: r1niceboy: All I know from my time living in Nebraska is that too many people see ethanol as a way to make the Great Plains into the new Arabia. They're close to being correct: It's full of religious nutjobs reliant on one commodity for their success.

Except that there already is an Arabia, Nebraska.
[www.weather-forecast.com image 600x371]


Ah, Arabia, Nebraska: population - 2 (1 if the grain elevator falls over)
 
2014-03-29 09:58:26 PM  

GRCooper: Benjimin_Dover: It's very simple.  If man can perform actions that affect "THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT" in just 100 years that it has people running around with their hands in the air screaming about global warming/cooling/change, then he certainly can replenish one little aquifer in far far less time.

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Ogallala-Aquifer.html

"The Ogallala Aquifer occupies the High Plains of the United States, extending northward from western Texas to South Dakota. The Ogallala is the leading geologic formation in what is known as the High Plains Aquifer System. The entire system underlies about 450,000 square kilometers (174,000 square miles) of eight states."

'one little aquifer'.  Ok.

Sure, all of the water used to irrigate the great plains doesn't disappear, but how are you going to irrigate crops in Kansas when the water runs off to the gulf or evaporates and falls on the east coast?  The water is being used faster than the system is being replenished.  Will it take 100 years or 100,000 years to for the aquifer to be filled naturally?  For us, there really is no difference, if we keep trading it for corn faster than it can be replaced - and corn used for ethanol is trading at a rate of 26 gallons of water for one gallon of ethanol. (which, others have pointed out, have cost corn prices to rise and encourage even more corn planting, accelerating the problem).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ogallala-aquifer/

"And scientists say it will take natural processes 6,000 years to refill the reservoir. "

So, there you go, I'm a complete idiot.  It's only 6,000 years.  That completely invalidates my point.


But the real question is why would we want to wait for "natural processes" to replenish it when it would take 6000 years to complete? We aren't waiting for natural processes to fix man-made global climate change? It apparently has taken man less than a 100 years to take that water out. Man can put it back in at least the same amount if time. The pipes they use aren't equiped with one way valves.
 
2014-03-29 10:32:51 PM  

GRCooper: TwistedFark: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: Not all water is from that aquifer. You qualified where the water was coming from. You should have done that in the first place in order to not look like someone who reasons as poorly as a creationist.

So, in your reasoning, the fact that the USA produces between a third and half of the worlds corn, and that the vast majority of that corn is produced in an area irrigated using the aquifer system I mentioned, and that we're currently dropping water levels there around 2% per year or so, and that 100,000 years of natural rainfall would be required to replenish that system has NO bearing on the cost of using corn ethanol as a fuel?

Maybe it's just me, but I kinda see Fark threads as a conversation over beers at a bar.  I've been unable to picture a single scenario like that in which I don't see you sitting in the corner, drooling.

I read the entire back and forth between you two.

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but you're the idiot.

So, you agree with him that since water is a closed system globally there's no reason to be concerned about the sustainability of its use regionally?

I'm not too sure I care what your opinion of me is, buddy


...That wasn't even close to what I was saying. I was saying you have to specify otherwise throwing around blanket statements like water gets used up makes you sound like a creationist.
 
2014-03-29 10:45:48 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: GRCooper: TwistedFark: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: Not all water is from that aquifer. You qualified where the water was coming from. You should have done that in the first place in order to not look like someone who reasons as poorly as a creationist.

So, in your reasoning, the fact that the USA produces between a third and half of the worlds corn, and that the vast majority of that corn is produced in an area irrigated using the aquifer system I mentioned, and that we're currently dropping water levels there around 2% per year or so, and that 100,000 years of natural rainfall would be required to replenish that system has NO bearing on the cost of using corn ethanol as a fuel?

Maybe it's just me, but I kinda see Fark threads as a conversation over beers at a bar.  I've been unable to picture a single scenario like that in which I don't see you sitting in the corner, drooling.

I read the entire back and forth between you two.

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but you're the idiot.

So, you agree with him that since water is a closed system globally there's no reason to be concerned about the sustainability of its use regionally?

I'm not too sure I care what your opinion of me is, buddy

...That wasn't even close to what I was saying. I was saying you have to specify otherwise throwing around blanket statements like water gets used up makes you sound like a creationist.


We are taking out more wster from the Og. Aquifier than is being replenished.

If I have a 10 gallon tank and draw one gallon from it while only putting in a half gallon, Im going to run out.
 
2014-03-29 11:59:14 PM  

jso2897: What do you mean "biofuels like ethanol"?
As far as I know, the only biofuel that is "like ethanol" is ethanol.


The main difference is polarized molecules vs. non-polarized molecules.  Dino-fuels are symmetric, with a bunch of hydrocarbons in the middle and a hydrogen on each end.  They want nothing from no one.  Alcohols and other non-symmetric molecules have a positive end and a negative end.  The positive end wants to grab electrons from whatever it runs into - 'oxidation' - and this causes corrosion.

Biofuels are only helpful if you were otherwise going to throw that biomass away.  Once you have to grow biofuel sources on arable land, you've lost the game.  They're like rooftop solar panels - they may make for one or two great anecdotes but they're simply not scalable.  There are too many people.
 
2014-03-30 05:48:10 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: GRCooper: TwistedFark: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: Not all water is from that aquifer. You qualified where the water was coming from. You should have done that in the first place in order to not look like someone who reasons as poorly as a creationist.

So, in your reasoning, the fact that the USA produces between a third and half of the worlds corn, and that the vast majority of that corn is produced in an area irrigated using the aquifer system I mentioned, and that we're currently dropping water levels there around 2% per year or so, and that 100,000 years of natural rainfall would be required to replenish that system has NO bearing on the cost of using corn ethanol as a fuel?

Maybe it's just me, but I kinda see Fark threads as a conversation over beers at a bar.  I've been unable to picture a single scenario like that in which I don't see you sitting in the corner, drooling.

I read the entire back and forth between you two.

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but you're the idiot.

So, you agree with him that since water is a closed system globally there's no reason to be concerned about the sustainability of its use regionally?

I'm not too sure I care what your opinion of me is, buddy

...That wasn't even close to what I was saying. I was saying you have to specify otherwise throwing around blanket statements like water gets used up makes you sound like a creationist.


So, the next time I'm discussing the fact that it takes a lot of water to grow corn, I should specify that the water I'm talking about is the water used to grow corn?
 
2014-03-30 07:23:44 AM  

Benjimin_Dover: GRCooper: TwistedFark: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: Not all water is from that aquifer...

... blah ... blah ... blah ...

It's very simple.  If man can perform actions that affect "THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT" in just 100 years that it has people running around with their hands in the air screaming about global warming/cooling/change, then he certainly can replenish one little aquifer in far far less time.


Replenish?  The largest North American aquifer?  From what water source, and from where might one do that?  It's an underground river, you know.
 
2014-03-30 07:28:33 AM  

syrynxx: jso2897: What do you mean "biofuels like ethanol"?
As far as I know, the only biofuel that is "like ethanol" is ethanol.

The main difference is polarized molecules vs. non-polarized molecules.  Dino-fuels are symmetric, with a bunch of hydrocarbons in the middle and a hydrogen on each end.  They want nothing from no one.  Alcohols and other non-symmetric molecules have a positive end and a negative end.  The positive end wants to grab electrons from whatever it runs into - 'oxidation' - and this causes corrosion.


The terms you seek are "polar" and "non-polar" molecules (of solvents, in this case).
 
2014-03-30 12:16:18 PM  

SirHolo: Benjimin_Dover: GRCooper: TwistedFark: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: Not all water is from that aquifer...

... blah ... blah ... blah ...

It's very simple.  If man can perform actions that affect "THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT" in just 100 years that it has people running around with their hands in the air screaming about global warming/cooling/change, then he certainly can replenish one little aquifer in far far less time.

Replenish?  The largest North American aquifer?  From what water source, and from where might one do that?  It's an underground river, you know.


Man took it out. Man can put it back. If you are saying man can't even do something as simple as reverse the direction he is moving water, then how would you propose he be able to take out the carbon dioxide he has put into the atmosphere which a gazillion times larger?
 
2014-03-30 01:30:56 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: GRCooper: Shakin_Haitian: GRCooper: Read a report in the Economist a few years back - it takes 26 or so gallons of water to create 1 gallon of ethanol (versus 1:1 for gasoline )

If true, it doesn't sound viable as a gas replacement - WW3 will be fought over water

When water is used, it is gone forever. This is why the oceans have dried up.

And that is *exactly* why the Ogallala aquifer has as much water now as it did 100 years ago, because it doesn't matter where the water goes, it's always there.

Smrt

So now we're qualifying the water.

WTF does that even mean?

Enjoy trying to irrigate the great plains with your runoff that's swirling through the Mississippi on the way to the gulf.

Not all water is from that aquifer. You qualified where the water was coming from. You should have done that in the first place in order to not look like someone who reasons as poorly as a creationist.

[www.skepticmoney.com image 300x364]


Please tell me that's not a real thing. I mean, I knew that creationists are dumb, but damn, that's pretty far beyond stupid.
 
2014-03-30 07:05:11 PM  
Renewable things almost always use non renewable materials in their renewal process.

Carbon neutral is laughable when you factor in the energy needed to recycle just about anything, or get it to a place to be recycled.
 
2014-03-30 08:57:36 PM  

Valiente: NFA: Ethanol is a terrible fuel.  It's corrosive to fuel systems.  It's destroys lawn equipment if it sits for 6 months or more.  A buddy of mine does small engine repair and ethanol damage alone has quadrupled his repair sales.

They're right, Ethanol pushes up food prices.  In Mexico, they've had riots because the price of corn flour (a food staple)  has skyrocketed because per bushel price of corn exploded.  Why? Because of the American Ethanol production efforts.  When you put a huge load on a fixed supply the price goes up.

Just before the US started using Ethanol in fuel, the price of corn was around $250 per ton.  A year later????? around $550 per ton.  In 2012 it jumped to $800 per ton.  This has caused a dramatic rise in meat prices and an increase in cost of corn products.

It's rare on FARK to actually read accurate facts, but this must be a lucky day. Ethanol as an additive rots out the materials used to make gaskets in gas and diesel engines, and it's gotten to the point in the boating world (where engines might only run once a week) to trade "secrets" about where unadulterated diesel and gas might be obtained for outboards and auxiliaries.

Diesel from algae or cellulose, on the other hand, is very clean, and only has a few of the issues of incomplete esterization. The biggest current hassle is that glycerol in large amounts (about 10% of the process) is produced and there's only so much use for "Grandad's antifreeze", although as a non-toxic carb, it could be eaten by something.


Boats and their tanks, gas lines and engines etc are fine if they are new enough. It causes the problems you cure in older boats. For example, my 1973 boat was re-powered in 1999. It had new tanks, gas lines and motor, which are all just fine with ethanol being in the fuel. The first few tanks freed up a lot of varnish, but my filter grabbed it. What's funny is how few people realize that with 10% ethanol the gasoline/water separator is now a relic, since you now don't get free water until phase separation.
 
Displayed 37 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report