|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: Can we run our cars on chip fat? |
 |
|
Chips are the Commonwealth equivalent of french fries.
Fuelling debate
| Quote: |
Leeds city council is running it 1,200 -strong vehicle fleet on cooking oil. To be exact it's 95% diesel and 5% waste cooking oil - called biodiesel. Using just five per cent reduces net carbon dioxide emissions by around 32 tonnes a year says the council. So could we use our old chip fat to run our cars?
It is estimated that the total amount of readily collectible waste cooking oil in the EU may exceed one million tonnes. But in the UK, used cooking oil is not being recycled on a sufficiently large scale to meet demand. There are only a handful of organisations producing biofuel from cooking oil. Although they collect cooking oil from businesses, notably the catering industry, this service is usually only available to those producing it in enough quantities, such as restaurants, take-aways and crisp factories.
And only a few councils will accept individual households' waste cooking fat for recycling. As well as fuelling its fleet with 4m litres of biofuel, Leeds city council allows residents to recycle their waste cooking fat at any of its 11 household waste sorting sites. Reading borough council also collects cooking oil at its muncipal tip.
For those with no recycling facilities, small amounts of cooking oil can go in compost bins, if it is mixed with cardboard or paper. It can also be used to weatherproof wooden fences and sheds or even make bird feeders, by adding seeds and nuts to the fat and pouring the mixture into a plastic container such as an old mushroom tray.
But we're a long way from being able to use it to power our cars. Which is not good news because alternative forms of biofuel such as palm oil are destroying rain forests in South America and Asia at an alarming rate and there are fears that the switch from growing corn for food to ethanol will result in worldwide famine.
The EU has agreed that 5.8% of all fuel in vehicles should come from biofuels by 2010 and 10% by 2020. It is a target Friends of the Earth want scrapped along with a moratorium on financial subsidies and targets that encourage the development and production of large-scale biofuels.
They want higher priority given to fuels derived from waste products like cooking fat, as well as laws to make vehicles more efficient and reduce transport demand.
So if your council doesn't already have an oil collection point, shouldn't you be lobbying them to introduce one? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bio fuels come from plant matter. We are technically adding no new carbon to the atmosphere burning bio fuel as the plant matter has removed carbon from the atmosphere a little while ago. We're merely returning it. If we powered a car 100% on bio fuel it would be simply returning carbon previously removed. New plants are grown to make the oil to replace the burned fuel. Those plants remove the carbon you added the day before.
Question about this source:
You can't get oil from a plant like you can get it from the ground. Does it take more energy to get the oil from the plants than the oil produces? That's not so great. Bio fuel becomes an energy carrier not a source. In sum, can you make bio fuel and then use what you made to render even more oil from the plants? So for every gallon of plant oil you burn, can you produce 2 gallons of new plant oil? Only 1? Half? If you're getting a 1:1 ratio or worse, then you need another energy source to produce this energy source.
Of course, humans will produce cooking oil anyway, and it's better to use the waste as fuel. But unless bio fuel can be used to produce more bio fuel than consumed in creating it, it's not a solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
You can't get oil from a plant like you can get it from the ground. Does it take more energy to get the oil from the plants than the oil produces? That's not so great. Bio fuel becomes an energy carrier not a source. In sum, can you make bio fuel and then use what you made to render even more oil from the plants? So for every gallon of plant oil you burn, can you produce 2 gallons of new plant oil? Only 1? Half? If you're getting a 1:1 ratio or worse, then you need another energy source to produce this energy source.
|
That's actually a very good question. I know the agricultural industry is one of the major consumers of petro-chemicals. This may be one reason that environmentalists are opposing the plan to use bio-fuel. And there's also the issue of land being cleared for bio-fuel crops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
You can't get oil from a plant like you can get it from the ground. Does it take more energy to get the oil from the plants than the oil produces? That's not so great. Bio fuel becomes an energy carrier not a source. In sum, can you make bio fuel and then use what you made to render even more oil from the plants? So for every gallon of plant oil you burn, can you produce 2 gallons of new plant oil? Only 1? Half? If you're getting a 1:1 ratio or worse, then you need another energy source to produce this energy source.
|
That's actually a very good question. I know the agricultural industry is one of the major consumers of petro-chemicals. This may be one reason that environmentalists are opposing the plan to use bio-fuel. And there's also the issue of land being cleared for bio-fuel crops. |
At the core, we need a non polluting form of electricity. Hydro is built out already. No more rivers to dam. Wind is great, tidal power is great, but they can't alone replace hydrocarbons. We need way more nuclear plants. Unfortunately, the same environmentalists who argue against green house gases also argue against the single off the shelf technology that can solve the problem. Go figure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cangel
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: Jeonju, S. Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mythbusters did an episode focusing on alternative fuels and ways of increasing vehicle performance through internet engine devices. All were failures except when they poured used cooking oil (filtered) directly into the tank. Car started and ran like a champ with no noticable difference in performance. Now they did not test it long term, just for a few laps arouond a track but the possibilities look very interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As I understand it, the original idea behind the development of biodiesel was not to reduce carbon emissions, but to find an alternative means of disposing of cooking fat from restaurants. I think before the development of biodiesel, it was landfilled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| At the core, we need a non polluting form of electricity. Hydro is built out already. No more rivers to dam. Wind is great, tidal power is great, but they can't alone replace hydrocarbons. We need way more nuclear plants. Unfortunately, the same environmentalists who argue against green house gases also argue against the single off the shelf technology that can solve the problem. Go figure. |
Actually, that is not entirely correct.
In Ontario, after Ontario Hydro built its first nuclear power stations, it ripped out the generators and turbines of a large number of small to medium sized hydroelectric stations all across the province, in order to increase the province's dependency on nuclear power. The dams themselves are still there. Published engineering studies have shown that that if these dam sites were rehabilitated, they could generate enough electricity annually to power the city of Kingston.
And this would not involve building NEW dams. It would involve merely re-installing turbines and generators at dam sites that currently exist.
On the larger scale, other studies have shown that if electricity use in Canada was as efficient as it is in Japan, Canada could close ALL of its nuclear power stations, ALL of its thermal generating stations, and supply all of its electricity needs from its EXISTING hydroelectric stations.
That would mean no new dams. And zero greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector of the economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm all for crisp factories. I hate it when I touch a factory wall and it's all soggy and squishy. More should be done in this area to keep factories crisp, and crunchy for that matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
At the core, we need a non polluting form of electricity. Hydro is built out already. No more rivers to dam. Wind is great, tidal power is great, but they can't alone replace hydrocarbons. We need way more nuclear plants. Unfortunately, the same environmentalists who argue against green house gases also argue against the single off the shelf technology that can solve the problem. Go figure. |
Nuclear energy is not exactly problem free either. The more I look into it, the more uncomfortable I feel about it. How do we satisfactory deal with the waste and its long-lived radioactivity? Climate change is already taking hold, and scientists predict all sorts of things - environmental disasters, sea levels rising etc - so we'll need to think very carefully of where to situate these new plants. They need water to cool the reactors. Placing them by the sea, however, looks an increasingly hazardous option with the prediction of rising sea levels. There have been too many near misses and near melt downs with the power plants already in existence (something not commonly discussed). Creating more increases the risks of it happening. The costs of it happening even one time are horrendous. Also, if everyone switches to it, how long will the worlds uranium resources hold out? I've heard many of the arguments for nuclear energy, however, thus far, I haven't seen those issues (touched on above) satisfactorily addressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
In Ontario, after Ontario Hydro built its first nuclear power stations, it ripped out the generators and turbines of a large number of small to medium sized hydroelectric stations all across the province, in order to increase the province's dependency on nuclear power. The dams themselves are still there. Published engineering studies have shown that that if these dam sites were rehabilitated, they could generate enough electricity annually to power the city of Kingston. |
Wow. A whole city? Using mothballed dams isn't really going to address any need to make a major shift from oil burning cars to hydro burning cars. That's my point. There are not huge numbers of new rivers we can dam.
And this would not involve building NEW dams. It would involve merely re-installing turbines and generators at dam sites that currently exist.
[quote]On the larger scale, other studies have shown that if electricity use in Canada was as efficient as it is in Japan, Canada could close ALL of its nuclear power stations, ALL of its thermal generating stations, and supply all of its electricity needs from its EXISTING hydroelectric stations. /quote]
But again, not talking about current demand. If you want to get rid of fossil hydrocarbons, you're going to have to switch to electricity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Nuclear energy is not exactly problem free either. The more I look into it, the more uncomfortable I feel about it. How do we satisfactory deal with the waste and its long-lived radioactivity? |
How has France dealt with it? France gets a majority of its electricity from nuclear. So, more of the same. The fact is the petrochemical industry creates huge amounts of toxins and poisons that last forever. But no one much worries. Why?
| Quote: |
| There have been too many near misses and near melt downs with the power plants already in existence (something not commonly discussed). |
Really? Like what besides Three Mile (which showed the fail safes work) and Chernobyl which used a reactor no sane reactor maker in the west would touch (graphite reactor). More people have died from accidents and fires at refineries and coal mines than at nuclear plants. Refineries and coal cause far more health problems and death than a nuclear reactor. You need to get an objective POV regarding risk assessment.
Anyway, where do you suppose we can get a lot of energy in the relatively short period of time we have left? The solution seems rather obvious. Use the non polluting technology we have. Nuclear is a big part of the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US needs to make it law that every car in the US is a flex fuel and can run on bio fuel.
Anyone who opposes government support of alternative energy is a traitor.
Shame on Bush for not raising the gas tax and taxing imported oil.
and shame on Ron Paul for being against raising the gas tax and taxing imported oil and voting against funding for alternative energy.
Nuclear energy is a much better idea than importing oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How many nuclear plants would it take to replace oil consumption?
10,000.
10,000 x 1,500,000,000 (low estimate) = 15,000,000,000,000
Time? How many decades? About 7 - 15 years just to get the first ones up and running.
Not the answer. Certainly not in impoverished nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
At the core, we need a non polluting form of electricity. Hydro is built out already. No more rivers to dam. Wind is great, tidal power is great, but they can't alone replace hydrocarbons. We need way more nuclear plants. Unfortunately, the same environmentalists who argue against green house gases also argue against the single off the shelf technology that can solve the problem. Go figure. |
Nuclear energy is not exactly problem free either. |
Nuclear energy has never killed anyone in the West. Three Mile Island, the worst nuclear disaster in the West, killed nobody, injured nobody and gave nobody cancer.
| Quote: |
| The more I look into it, the more uncomfortable I feel about it. How do we satisfactory deal with the waste and its long-lived radioactivity? |
Nuclear waste spontaneously decays over a relatively short time. Waste is vitrified (cast in glass) for safe and permanent storage in deep geological sites.
Waste - the facts
| Quote: |
| Climate change is already taking hold, and scientists predict all sorts of things - environmental disasters, sea levels rising etc - so we'll need to think very carefully of where to situate these new plants. They need water to cool the reactors. Placing them by the sea, however, looks an increasingly hazardous option with the prediction of rising sea levels. |
You're right. That's the major problem with nuclear - it's too late. It should have been done 50 years ago. Current sea level rises and climate change are the result of c02 emissions up until the 1960s. We'll see the effects of emissions from then until now in the next 50 years when sea levels will rise by 49cm approx (IPCC) . What to do? Coastal defences, flood protection, plant design and improvements in technology protect sites from sea level rises. Sea defence strategies for nuclear power stations were developed as part of the original safety cases for operating the stations. The current defences in place are monitored on a regular basis to ensure they continue to offer protection. But yes, it is indeed far too late to be discussing all this. Had we done so from the start, sea level rises in the 21st century would have been much less of a problem.
| Quote: |
| There have been too many near misses and near melt downs with the power plants already in existence (something not commonly discussed). Creating more increases the risks of it happening. The costs of it happening even one time are horrendous. |
You don't get nuclear explosions with power stations. The worst case scenario is a Three Mile Island incident. Chernobyl was completely different.
| Quote: |
| Also, if everyone switches to it, how long will the worlds uranium resources hold out? I've heard many of the arguments for nuclear energy, however, thus far, I haven't seen those issues (touched on above) satisfactorily addressed. |
Uranium is practically inexhaustible. Also, reactors require tiny amounts and it is 97% renewable.
Uranium availability - the facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Anyone who opposes government support of alternative energy is a traitor.
|
Absolutely. It's at best unpatriotic and at worst treason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
