Minnesota passes Biodiesel law!!

by **A.M. Foxtrot** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:31 pm

Originally posted by RCglider

Let's get this right. Someone said they'll burn more fuel (petroleum) to drive a long distance to buy BioDiesel because it makes them feel good, even though what they're doing is actually using more energy and emitting more pollution? Now that makes sense.

If you were referring to my post about having to drive to get it, I said I would like to use it but it is too far away, so I don't. Perhaps I wasn't clear, Just wanted to clear this up.

by **Alofwar** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:11 pm

Hers what i dont understand these enviromentalists say: We want cleaner energy, windmills, dams etc... then they say: YOU CANT BUILD THOSE WINDMILLS THERE AND THAT DAM IN THAT RIVERIT SPOILS THE LANDSCAPE!!!! I mean come on, i'd wish they make u their minds!!

by **Alofwar** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:19 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4249962.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3569379.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2195732.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2122674.stm

by **[SYN] Qrazy** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:19 pm

Just so you know...The oil companies get plenty of money thrown at them too...Just take a look at the 2005 energy bill that just passed...Billions of dollars for big oil....Methanol/ethanol not good...Well, just so you know, in CT, EVERY gallon of gas they sell us has 10% of ethanol in it....Bottom line is if everyone poo-poos every effort to become less dependant on oil/fossil fuels then will will be burned out of them before you know it....Personally, I appreciate whatever efforts people put into at least trying. If it were affordable enough for me, my home would be passive and photovoltaic with solar.....Someday I can only hope....Oh well....Just remember, work together not against....

Peace....

by **cavalierlwt** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:27 pm

Yeah, a few percentage points here, a few percentage points there...it all starts to add up. As they say, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a few steps.

by **igloo17** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:09 pm

Originally posted by RCglider
Let's get this right. Someone said they'll burn more fuel (petroleum) to drive a long distance to buy BioDiesel because it makes them feel good, even though what they're doing is actually using more energy and emitting more pollution? Now that makes sense.

Ok, the first thing to get out in the open is to explode the myth that BioDiesel will decrease the dependancy on foreign oil. It will not, period, end of story. Just because you watched a news story or some TV show like West Wing, or a commercial....whatever, it doesn't change reality.

Anytime grants and subsidies are involved, the piglets come running and tripping over each other to suck on the teets of Mother Pig, the government. If research money were offered for perpetual motion gravity wheels, magnet motors, endless power generators etc., it would be no different. In fact, I'd bet it's already been done. Some of you guys would fit very well into the myriad of free energy forums out there. Always a conspiracy somewhere, always "that close" to making a working device, always sure someone has done it at some point in history.

So now in MinnesOHta the state government politicians passed another law. Yippee! Another government mandate. Finally, a governor with guts. Hogwash. It's a start you say? Better than nothing? Think again. First, the energy (from petroleum) used to create BioDiesel is higher than what the final product puts out. Secondly, even assuming it's economically viable (and it isn't) have you ever considered how many states the size of Iowa it would take to grow enough soy beans to equal the amount of energy needed to even make a dent?

Then we hear how Europe is 20% BioDiesel. Big deal. Ever check the latest prices of fuel over there? How about their tax rates? Hmm, wonder why it's so expensive. They don't use any less "fossil fuels" to produce BioDiesel. It's just politically correct to say BioDiesel is "environmentally friendly", and a good way to get taxpayers to foot the bill for the government subsidies.

In the 90's it was ethanol/methanol. Never mind it's extremely inefficient, not to mention the damage it causes to engines. Seems to me it takes somewhere around 30% more "fossil fuels" to grow the equivalent amount of corn. It's just another unrealistic impractical solution. Growing corn for fuel is a drain on resources.

The new buzz word is hydrogen. Saying NASA used it for the Apollo missions means nothing. We're talking milli-watts versus mega-watts. Sorry, isn't going to happen anytime soon to power cars with. Hydrogen is a whole other subject anyway.

As a side note, gasoline is a by-product (waste) of crude oil refineries. It will be produced even if it's consumption is eliminated for use in cars. Think about it. Medicine, building products, tires, steel, paint, clothes....virtually nearly everything in modern society relies on OIL, and gasoline is just a by-product.

And of course there's the environmental impact of using Bio Fuel. It won't be long before the same people pushing Bio Fuels will be complaining because of all the land (jungles) being stripped to grow soy beans etc. LOL, you guys just can't win.

We're not going to substantially decrease our consumption of petroleum by converting waste animal fat into diesel fuel, or putting a million gerbils on treadmills, or by capturing the air turbulence caused by migrating birds, or using the light from fireflies, or anything like that.

If nifty obscure new energy sources can't reasonably produce at least twice as much power as the Grand Coulee Dam, it isn't going to make any difference.

I really don't think most people, and obviously some in this forum, realize the magnitude of the energy needed to supply a growing economy. If you don't care about a thriving, growing economy and a high standard of living, no offense, but maybe it's to for you to pack your bags, move to Ethiopia and live the good life. I hear there aren't many factories in North Korea either.

Electrical generation plants:
Hoover Dam = 1.5 gigawatts
Grand Coulee Dam= 6.5 gigawatts
small coal or nuclear plant= 300 megawatts
large coal or nuclear plant= 1 gigawatt

Average US electrical power consumption= 400 gigawatts

Peak US electrical power consumption is probably above 1 TERAWATT

That's just electricity.

I'm all for alternative fuels and technology (have tried several devices and in fact am installing a hydrogen assist system as I write this), but only when it's logical and feasible from an engineering standpoint. Nuclear, geo-thermal (core tapping as well), coal, natural gas....quite feasible. However, our incompetent politicians have locked our energy exploration and we are now paying the price (literally) for their incompetence. Believe it or not, there is a LOT of oil left. The problem is demand has exceeded the capacity to A)retrieve and deliver it and B)refine it. You can fully expect prices to keep rising unless a worldwide recession or depression forces prices down, which may make some of you jump for joy, but it still won't solve any problems. Either that or allow BIG OIL and investors to go get the oil/coal/natural gas.

BTW, if anyone is interested in trying to make their own bio-diesel, try this:
http://www.dieselsecrets.com/index.htm Keep it quiet though.....if too many do it the cost used vegetable will skyrocket.

When I read posts like "America uses too much energy compared to the rest of the world", all I will say is:

Minnesota passes Biodiesel law!!

Who is online