Yes, it's closer to 7:1 for bigger breweries. The small craft breweries often get closer to 3:1, which is another reason I drink my local brew. I use all low-water appliances and never water my lawn, so I try to make the savings where I can!
.
Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change
- Thread starter Sea Save Foundation
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Yes, it's closer to 7:1 for bigger breweries. The small craft breweries often get closer to 3:1, which is another reason I drink my local brew. I use all low-water appliances and never water my lawn, so I try to make the savings where I can!
.
- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,745
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,745
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
drrich2
Contributor
It really is of course, but passing out is begnign compated to the mess one could imagine might happen if all those flatulent cows and pigs that one keeps reading about contributing to "the warming" with their methane emmissions had a way to hold those back for longer than healthy.
Nope, no data, no science, just yapping...
cheers...
chrisch
Contributor
Look beyond just automotive. Biofuel is a good start point as it utilises the existing technology of engines that have already been made. Too much emphasis is given to electric vehicles when the electricity they run on is as bad as fossil fuel. The European requirements are currently that 10% of fuel is from vegetable origin, so gas and diesel at the pump is 10% biofuel. This has not been successful (ecologically) as a lot of the biodiesel is derived from palm oil which is responsible for cutting down forests in Brazil. Meantime European farmers are paid a subsidy. Moving that payment to oil crops (canola, linseed etc) would improve the situation and cut down on the imports, improving the economy. You will have to ask the politicians why they don't do the obvious.
As to practicality there are a number of engines that run on vegetable oil without modification. Mercedes is a leader in this technology. (See this discussion on the Merc forum SVO, which car which engine.) So if you can run a luxury automobile like an E class on vegetable oil I don't think there is an excuse... This leaves the availability of vegetable oil and the cost. In the UK vegetable oil is cheaper than automotive diesel, about the same price as agricultural diesel (agric has lower tax burden). It is "illegal" to run your car on veg oil because of the tax (you can pay the tax in theory but it is difficult).
So really the practicality has more to do with legislation and tax than whether the vehicle will cope with the actual fuel. Even if only the "suitable" vehicles switched over the fossil CO2 saving would be considerable. Without this switch over why would engine manufacturers make vegetable oil compliant engines (like the Merc)? So there are not "enough" compliant so the fossil addicts claim that we are not "ready". Classic stalling techniques.
Even this misses the easy target though. Consumer resistance on private cars being what it is the easy target is trucks. Just imagine all the fuel for trucks were to be moved to renewable sources. Why not electric based trucks as well? The new self driving technologies are ideal for convoys of trucks on the freeways. At key distribution points the trailer can be allocated a driver and a conventional tractor for the last part of the delivery. Big diesels are a source of soot (PM pollution) and poor air quality. Its a win-win. here in Europe there is a shortage of truck drivers too so not even an issue for employment.
You have to conclude that there is political pressure not to do what is obvious, profitable and sensible. Kinda like some big lobby group is funding some sort of contrarian argument maybe?
- Messages
- 17,334
- Reaction score
- 13,745
- # of dives
- 100 - 199
Look beyond just automotive. Biofuel is a good start point as it utilises the existing technology of engines that have already been made. Too much emphasis is given to electric vehicles when the electricity they run on is as bad as fossil fuel. The European requirements are currently that 10% of fuel is from vegetable origin, so gas and diesel at the pump is 10% biofuel. This has not been successful (ecologically) as a lot of the biodiesel is derived from palm oil which is responsible for cutting down forests in Brazil. Meantime European farmers are paid a subsidy. Moving that payment to oil crops (canola, linseed etc) would improve the situation and cut down on the imports, improving the economy. You will have to ask the politicians why they don't do the obvious.
As to practicality there are a number of engines that run on vegetable oil without modification. Mercedes is a leader in this technology. (See this discussion on the Merc forum SVO, which car which engine.) So if you can run a luxury automobile like an E class on vegetable oil I don't think there is an excuse... This leaves the availability of vegetable oil and the cost. In the UK vegetable oil is cheaper than automotive diesel, about the same price as agricultural diesel (agric has lower tax burden). It is "illegal" to run your car on veg oil because of the tax (you can pay the tax in theory but it is difficult).
So really the practicality has more to do with legislation and tax than whether the vehicle will cope with the actual fuel. Even if only the "suitable" vehicles switched over the fossil CO2 saving would be considerable. Without this switch over why would engine manufacturers make vegetable oil compliant engines (like the Merc)? So there are not "enough" compliant so the fossil addicts claim that we are not "ready". Classic stalling techniques.
Even this misses the easy target though. Consumer resistance on private cars being what it is the easy target is trucks. Just imagine all the fuel for trucks were to be moved to renewable sources. Why not electric based trucks as well? The new self driving technologies are ideal for convoys of trucks on the freeways. At key distribution points the trailer can be allocated a driver and a conventional tractor for the last part of the delivery. Big diesels are a source of soot (PM pollution) and poor air quality. Its a win-win. here in Europe there is a shortage of truck drivers too so not even an issue for employment.
You have to conclude that there is political pressure not to do what is obvious, profitable and sensible. Kinda like some big lobby group is funding some sort of contrarian argument maybe?
Electricity is the future. From hydro or nuclear sources.
If humanity ever survives itself, steam turbine engines running on mini nuclear reactors will power the vehicle engines and generators of the future. Like submarines.
If governments want to take more of my money for climate change, they'll have little resistance if it's to build nuclear reactors or batteries.
Just burning another type of oil seems hokey.
7 billion and counting, but no one wants to talk about that.
chrisch
Contributor
Yes, this is one of the issues - biofuels tend to solidify at cold temperatures. The debate over straight vegetable oil clearly needs to take account of this whereas manufactured biodiesel will include anti-freeze (as does mineral diesel).
Other problems exist (as I am sure you know given your interest) such as diesel bug - or biological contamination.
However there are many applications for biofuel where the tank temperature can be artificially enhanced - for example marine diesel. Running the coolant through the tank is easy with that type of application and the engines tend to be in operation continuously so the tank temperature can be held at optimum.
I am not suggesting it the answer to everything and a solution in itself. However it could be and should be a major contribution in a wide range of measures. Millions of tonnes of fossil CO2 could be replaced with CO2 that is recycled as part of the natural carbon cycle. For every tonne that we replace with this technology it is a tonne less to worry about from other sources. If you need to use mineral diesel to power the ice road trucks well I guess you do. It's a matter of getting things into perspective and understanding where the easy options are.
Similar threads
