News A flex-fuel pump in every gas station

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=45805

On the topic of alternative energy. Just to show that things are being done, although slowly and surely.

 

[brewnog]

There's a guy in Jerusalem who collects used vegetable oils from the falafel shops and processes it in a self-made contraption on the back of his ute. He'll trade a liter of oil for a liter of his biodiesel to raise awareness, there are enough people willing to give oil for no return, so he pretty much gets biodiesel for free.

Sure, but there's not nearly enough used vegetable oil going free to power even a tenth of the vehicles on the roads. Also, the resultant fuel is of such low quality that you won't find a manufacturer willing to warranty their cars using it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obviously you haven't been keeping up. In the state of Washington, for example, biodiesel is now mandated to replace sulfur additives. All diesel sold in Washington will be [or is] B2. Not only does this eliminate the sulfur, the bio has better lubricity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was wondering about the source of your information. Generally, except for slightly fewer BTUs/ gallon [about the same as gasoline, IIRC], bio is generally considered superior to petro-diesel. From everything that I've seen, it once had a bad reputation for two reason:

1). Causes fuel system failures

This was due to the fact that bio is a good solvent. The plugged filters and fuel injection equip resulted from petro-diesel sludge being cleaned out by the bio. Upon conversion, changes filters frequently until the sludge is removed.

2). Causes deterioration of seals

Allegedly this problem is resolved by the synthetic materials used in modern engines.

Even though bio has slightly less energy density than petro, the far superior lubricity results in approximately the same mileage. I recently confirmed this claim with one bio user in Sacramento. In fact he had expected more, but his mileage barely changed upon conversion.

 

[Yonoz]

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4526" : The Renewable Path to Energy Security."

Many of the new technologies that harness renewables are, or soon will be, economically competitive with fossil fuels. Dynamic growth rates are driving down costs and spurring rapid advances in technologies. Since 2000, global wind energy generation has more than tripled; solar cell production has risen six-fold; production of fuel ethanol from crops have more than doubled; and biodiesel production has expanded nearly four-fold. Annual global investment in "new" renewable energy has risen almost six-fold since 1995, with cumulative investment over this period nearly $180 billion.[/QUOTE]

 

[selfAdjoint]

Renewals are the wave of the future, and they always will be. Or at least your 6% figure has held steady for a decade or more. The mix shifts a little; hydroelectric is maybe down a bit while windmills are up, but the total stays right around 6%, and Worldwatch is not the most disinterested source to quote..

 

[Yonoz]

Worldwatch is not the most disinterested source to quote..

Please explain.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Please explain.

From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwatch_Institute

"...environmentally sustainable and socially just"?

It's an advocacy group.

 

[Yonoz]

From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwatch_Institute

"...environmentally sustainable and socially just"?

It's an advocacy group.

Why else would they publish a report?
I don't see how having a motive implies what one says is untrue.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Why else would they publish a report?

For scientifuc or scholarly reasons? Do you imagine that no-one does anything unless they have a political agenda?

I don't see how having a motive implies what one says is untrue.

Karl Rove has a lovely load of BS to sell you. Or if not him maybe al Qaida? Since motive doesn't call information into question?

 

[Yonoz]

For scientifuc or scholarly reasons?

No, for discussion reasons. It presents a certain view point and its publisher is quite clear about its agenda. We can tackle the article's specifics if you like.

Do you imagine that no-one does anything unless they have a political agenda?

Some agenda, yes. However Worldwatch's agenda is out in the open, not quite political, and I find it hard to criticize: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/24"

The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization that works for an environmentally sustainable and socially just society, in which the needs of all people are met without threatening the health of the natural environment or the well-being of future generations.

By providing compelling, accessible, and fact-based analysis of critical global issues, Worldwatch informs people around the world about the complex interactions between people, nature, and economies. Worldwatch focuses on the underlying causes of and practical solutions to the world's problems, in order to inspire people to demand new policies, investment patterns and lifestyle choices.

Karl Rove has a lovely load of BS to sell you. Or if not him maybe al Qaida? Since motive doesn't call information into question?

Of course it does. But when someone expresses their motives as openly as they do their viewpoints, I see no need to discredit them, quite the opposite.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The point, Yonoz, is that you find it hard to disagree with Worldwatch's stated agenda (expressed in very noble general terms to be sure), so you are insensitive to the fact that they may be slanting their interpretations toward what they hope to see. Farmers in Wisconsin devoutly believe that ethanol reduces dependence on foreign oil, though many critics believe it takes more oil to produce ethanol than you would burn if you used the oil to make gas for cars. The worlkdwatch people have been green enthusiasts for decades. If I am not mistaken they used to be into population catastrophe predictions, but I could be wrong.

 

[Yonoz]

I thought "an environmentally sustainable and socially just society, in which the needs of all people are met without threatening the health of the natural environment or the well-being of future generations" would be a consensus, apparently I was mistaken.
The Knesset - Israel's Parliament - has a body called "http://www.knesset.gov.il/sponsorship/future/data/About_E.asp"", is there an equivalent body in the US?