Not 100% sure about true biodiesel, but 'greasel' doesn't produce any smog-forming components (unless it's badly out of tune.)sub3marathonman said:The one drawback that I understood was that the biodiesel, or any diesel, generates a lot of NOx, and that is what causes smog. So therefore the California people don't like that. I suppose out in Kansas that isn't as big a problem.
Now I don't know how clean biodiesel is. While burning used cooking grease probably does reduce our dependence on foreign oil (while increasing our dependence on McDonalds and KFC), and it is hard to imagine that the combustion products are that much cleaner than gas (though they may smell better - I can just see it now: "Today's air quality, good, with a hint of curley fries and chicken fried steak"), I'm willing to concede it may be clean.That's why some Hollywood hipsters are trading in their hybrids for an
old Mercedes and fueling up with biodiesel, which doesn't cause
greenhouse gases and is a renewable energy source.
Oh my... where to begin here.cwerdna said:Using B5, isn't going to reduce our dependence on oil given that from everything I've read about fractional distillation, a barrel of crude produces 2x the amount of gasoline as it does diesel (it produces both, but results in 2x the amount of gasoline). So, a 50 mpg diesel car powered by diesel refined from crude oil isn't really using any less (mostly foreign) crude oil than a 25 mpg gasoline car.
Yes, it will produce CO2, but it doesn't ADD to the greenhouse gas problem. It was produced from a plant that removed CO2 from the air, and now you're just putting that back.DSA said:But I do know this: no matter how clean it is, it's still a hydrocarbon, which means it's going to produce good old CO2. And that's definitely a greenhouse gas.
Yes, it does release CO2 in the combustion process. But where do you think the CH came from? It was removed from the air as the plants grew and did their thing. Plants make their food from CO2.DSA said:But I do know this: no matter how clean it is, it's still a hydrocarbon, which means it's going to produce good old CO2. And that's definitely a greenhouse gas.
I agree. And you can power quite a few vehicles with it, maybe a lot of vehicles. It may make a lot of sense to convert more fleets of large vehicles so they can use that waste oil. Still, you have to consider the costs, including the fuel-driven transportation costs, of collecting all that waste oil.Tideland Prius said:Biodiesel is probably a good way to go too. I mean, it makes sense to me since what are you gonna do with all that waste oil anyway? Might as well use it as fuel.
And what happens when the next health food craze makes fried food obsolete? Just like how Atkins led to Krispy Kreme's stock dive. WHAT HAPPENS THEN???!!!highroute said:But the economics, and overall energy efficiency, really turn to the worse when you convert so many vehicles that you drive that waste oil into scarcity.
They are *WORSE* than dino-diesel, making it poor solution.ehurtley said:Not 100% sure about true biodiesel, but 'greasel' doesn't produce any smog-forming components (unless it's badly out of tune.)
How about that new Jetta TDI with the DSG Auto, which actually only gets one less MPG in the city, and one more MPG on the highway, than the manual.john1701a said:Of course, a non-hybrid automatic diesels get disappointing real-world (mixed driving) MPG anyway. So the support for biodiesel is difficult to justify.
Since the real-world data for the manual reveals lower MPG than Prius in *mixed* driving, I fail to see the benefit of DSG.Jonnycat26 said:How about that new Jetta TDI with the DSG Auto, which actually only gets one less MPG in the city, and one more MPG on the highway, than the manual.