I don't know what bio-diesel is, but I think we're still using fossil fuels kuz it's the cheapest form of energy currently available to us. I assume ya were asking a question in the title of this thread.
Diesel engines polute too much. It's a technology problem - doesn't matter what kind of fuel. What's wrong with nuclear?
Here, try this website: www.changingworldtech.com. Read up on Thermal Depolymerization. It's the answer, I believe . . . .
In the US, we are using fossil fuels largely because the people in power in this country have financial ties to the petroleum industry, and hence a vested interest in perpetuating their consumption. Another reason is simply inertia: we've been using them for a long time now and they work reasonably well, so we'll continue to use them until there is a compelling reason not to. But the technology for the use of alternative fuel sources is there. Sun, wind, water, hydrogen, and plant-derived ethanol can all be exploited for power using currently available technology. We just need politicians motivated enough to allocate some money to R&D so we can make these alternative sources cheap and ubiquitous enough to compete with fossil fuels.
yea but biodeisel is already available. you can make it in a blender at your house and burn it in a convential diesel engine (they were built for it). The cost is considerably less and the emissions are cleaner. i was just wondering if anybody knows if its effect on the engine itself?
Takes a hell of a lot of work. (as opposed to 5 minutes of your time every week plus $20) Not to mention that I would have to find a deisel car and someone who knows how to maintain one. Crude oil, on the other hand, is literally just sitting there for the taking. Why grow grain if your silo is still stocked? it just isn't economical.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.html Not to mention the bad that can be done with nuclear power if it falls in the wrong hands. It would be much safer and practical to go with something like hydrogen fuel cells for motor vehicles and a combination of wind and solar for metropolitan areas.
It's actually not that hard or time consuming if you have the capacity to learn. that and its like 50% cheaper. and you'd have to "find" a diesel car. c'mon now is that really so hard, and then someone to service it? get this, its easier than a gas engine to service so i'd say your local mechanic would do, y'know the one you use now. Crude oil isn't "literally" just sitting there. it is very costly, hence the higher price of gasoline. I think BioDiesel is just too economical.
is global warming not a good enough reason for them, they are destroying the planet, even if it doesnt flood them, it will still flood low lying countries whcih provide them with essential resources
What a nonsense! Why China is using fossil fuel? Whose fault is this? We are using fossil fuels, because they are the best and cheapest available. es
Cheap is best! You are blindly repeating anti American communist slogans. 1 pct of increase in vegetation is equivalent reduction of emission by 40 pct. e Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! s
What if we like "blindly repeating anti American communist slogans", just as much as you like blindly reacting to them?
To replace fossil fuels with bio-diesel would require so much biomass that there would NONE left for eating. All wildlife would have to go as well. You can read some more in here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/67047
I attended a lecture by this guy who started The land Institute. It turns out that biodiesel, at best, has a 1.6% return on the energy we put into it (For every 100 dollars of biodiesel we manufacture, we get 101.6 dollars back), but most likely, biodiesel has a negative return. That means it takes more energy to grow and manufacture biodiesel than we get out of it. We could lessen our environmental impact (and energy requirements) by recycling more. For instance, waste products from fisheries could be turned into fertilizer, or organic waste from farms could be converted to alcohol or biodiesel to run farm machinery.
These analyses are typically full of debateable assumptions, missing factors, and deliberate bias. Unless you can supply an analysis that turns out to stand up to scrutiny (few do), that figure has to be open to doubt. Turning WVO into biodiesel take very little work or resources, but there isnt anything like enough WVO (waste vegetable oil) to make a serious contribution to a nationwide transport fleet. On a personal level you can get plenty of fuel that way, but not nationwide. That leaves growing plants to extract the oil to make biodiesel, which is indeed not an efficient process at present. There might, or might not, be ways to change that. Possibly. One of the reasons we dont recycle more is that it isnt always cost effective or energy effective to do so. It is an area that needs more input. Of course its not the only reason. TDP looks like a very promising recycling tool. Thermal depolymerisation turns all sorts of unsorted waste crap into fuel oil and other usefuls, and has a net energy output as well. Lava
