Kirk I loved your absurd thought for the day. Kirk McLoren escreveu: > (actually they don't fart methane, they belch it). > > LOL > strange picture. > equipped with a pilot light they would be dragon cows. > My absurd thought for the day. > :) > Kirk > > Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ken and all > > >> On Sep 28, 2007, at 6:15 AM, Joe Street wrote: >> >> >>> And what if good organic and biodynamic tecniques are used and the >>> health of the soil and microorganisms is considered so that >>> nitrogen is >>> fixed through natural processes? Is this not a nitrogen sink rather >>> than a source? >>> >> I think "nitrogen fixing" typically takes molecular nitrogen (N2) out of >> the air -- not sure if nitrogen oxides can be fixed in the same way. >> If NOx is really a bad GHG, and if it can't be utilized by nitrogen- >> fixing bacteria, then methods must be employed to reduce its >> emissions from biodiesel burning.... >> >> -K >> > > This report, like so many others, fails to distinguish between > biofuels and Agrofuels, and fails to take the full life-cycle > approach, which is the only one that tells any truths. > > Some things probably have to be offset against other things. > Agrofuels won't ever be carbon-neutral, but biofuels (small-scale, > local) can be carbon-neutral, and in such a context any extra NOx > that comes with biodiesel is probably a worthwhile tradeoff compared > with fossil-diesel. > > Gasoline motors are still cleaner-burning than diesels, but diesels > use much less fuel, and when they use local biodiesel the carbon > reduction makes any extra NOx an even smaller issue. > > Klaus Elsbett told me this four years ago, in a comment on Tokyo's > buffoon of a mayor's ridiculous "DieselNo!" campaign: > > "One has to distinguish between local pollution and global pollution: > > "The use of renewable energy is of greatest importance to reduce > global pollution, especially that of greenhouse gases. But it cannot > solve the problem of overpollution in overpopulated and overmotorised > areas such as Greater Tokyo, Los Angeles, Mexico City and the like. > While in city traffic and stop-and-go driving condition the diesel > (i.e. compression ignition) system is by far the most fuel-efficient > engine system, the exhaust gas emissions (whether with diesel or with > veggie oil) in terms of nitrogen oxid, hydrocarbons and blacksmoke > are less good than those of lpg or gasoline (i.e. spark ignition) > engines. That is due to the fact that the exhaust gas aftertreatment > and -aftercleaning of spark ignition engines is much more advanced, > even though that costs you double the fuel consumption. > > "So in my opinion the DieselNo! campaign falls short as it is just > trying to solve the problem of local pollution at the cost of higher > global pollution. That is quite typical for local populistic > politicians. In my opinion, the real solution was to ban every > vehicle with a combustion engine and replace it with a perfect public > transportation system and goods distribution logistic at least in > those urban areas." > > Quite so. > > One reason exhaust gas treatment of spark ignition engines is more > advanced than with diesels is the old high-sulphur petrodiesel fuel, > because the sulphur poisons the catalyst in catalytic converters. But > biodiesel contains no sulphur, so diesels using 100% biodiesel can > use catalytic converters. > > So can diesels using the newer ULSD (Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel) fuels, > but the problem with that is that it's only the newer, more advanced > diesel engines that can use those fuels, because it's the sulphur > content of the fuel that provides the required engine lubricity. But > biodiesel has very high lubricity even without sulphur, and when > biodiesel is used as a lubricity additive to ULSD (2%), older diesels > can burn the new fuel without a major retrofit and can also use > after-treatment technologies. > > That's important because diesel motors last such a long time, and > replacing them before their use-by date only for emissions reasons > comes with very high eco-manufacturing costs (including extra > emissions). > > If you visit DieselNet you'll find a lot of progress being made on > improving diesel emissions, on all fronts. There are also fuel > additives that reduce NOx emissions well below petro-diesel levels. > > A report like this that doesn't take all this into account is both > biased and ignorant, IMHO. Real junk science. > > Ken, I don't know if N-fixing bacteria can deal with NOx or not, but > I think it'd be asking rather a lot of them to handle this problem > for us. A bit like asking cows not to fart so we can all go on > guzzling gas like there's no tomorrow (actually they don't fart > methane, they belch it). I think we can handle it ourselves. > Publish-or-perish scientists don't help much though. > > All best > > Keith > > > > --------------------------------- > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070929/6da34a74/attachment.html > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > >
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
