Just read an interesting article on BioDiesel -
Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
The Most Carbon-Intensive Fuel On Earth
By George Monbiot
3-21-6
Over the past two years I have made an uncomfortable discovery. Like most environmentalists, I have been as blind to the constraints affecting our energy supply as my opponents have been to climate change. I now realise that I have entertained a belief in magic.
In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44x10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota."(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals.
The idea that we can simply replace this fossil legacy - and the extraordinary power densities it gives us - with ambient energy is the stuff of science fiction. There is simply no substitute for cutting back. But substitutes are being sought everywhere. They are being promoted today at the climate talks in Montreal, by states - such as ours - which seek to avoid the hard decisions climate change demands. And at least one of them is worse than the fossil fuel burning it replaces.
The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent by the supporters of the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon. I am now prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong. But they're not going to like it. I was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact.
Before I go any further, I should make it clear that turning used chip fat into motor fuel is a good thing. The people slithering around all day in vats of filth are perfoming a service to society. But there is enough waste cooking oil in the UK to meet one 380th of our demand for road transport fuel(2). Beyond that, the trouble begins.
When I wrote about it last year, I thought that the biggest problem caused by biodiesel was that it set up a competition for land(3). Arable land that would otherwise have been used to grow food would instead be used to grow fuel. But now I find that something even worse is happening. The biodiesel industry has accidentally invented the world's most carbon-intensive fuel.
In promoting biodiesel - as the European Union, the British and US governments and thousands of environmental campaigners do - you might imagine that you are creating a market for old chip fat, or rapeseed oil, or oil from algae grown in desert ponds. In reality you are creating a market for the most destructive crop on earth.
Last week, the chairman of Malaysia's Federal Land Development Authority announced that he was about to build a new biodiesel plant(4). His was the ninth such decision in four months. Four new refineries are being built in Peninsula Malaysia, one in Sarawak and two in Rotterdam(5). Two foreign consortia - one German, one American - are setting up rival plants in Singapore(6). All of them will be making biodiesel from the same source: oil from palm trees.
"The demand for biodiesel," the Malaysian Star reports, "will come from the European Community.... This fresh demand...would, at the very least, take up most of Malaysia's crude palm oil inventories"(7). Why? Because it's cheaper than biodiesel made from any other crop.
In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impacts of palm oil production. "Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia"(8). In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest has been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares is scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5m in Indonesia.
Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting National Park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters. The orang-utan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist(9). The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field.
Before oil palms, which are small and scrubby, are planted, vast forest trees, containing a much greater store of carbon, must be felled and burnt. Having used up the drier lands, the plantations are now moving into the swamp forests, which grow on peat. When they've cut the trees, the planters drain the ground. As the peat dries it oxidises, releasing even more carbon dioxide than the trees. In terms of its impact on both the local and global environments, palm biodiesel is more destructive than crude oil from Nigeria.
The British government understands this. In the report it published last month, when it announced that it will obey the European Union and ensure that 5.75% of our transport fuel comes from plants by 2010, it admitted that "the main environmental risks are likely to be those concerning any large expansion in biofuel feedstock production, and particularly in Brazil (for sugar cane) and South East Asia (for palm oil plantations)."(10) It suggested that the best means of dealing with the problem was to prevent environmentally destructive fuels from being imported. The government asked its consultants whether a ban would infringe world trade rules. The answer was yes: "mandatory environmental criteria...would greatly increase the risk of international legal challenge to the policy as a whole"(11). So it dropped the idea of banning imports, and called for "some form of voluntary scheme" instead(12). Knowing that the creation of this market will lead to a massive surge in imports of palm oil, knowing that there is nothing meaningful it can do to prevent them, and knowing that they will accelarate rather than ameliorate climate change, the government has decided to go ahead anyway.
At other times it happily defies the European Union. But what the EU wants and what the government wants are the same. "It is essential that we balance the increasing demand for travel," the government's report says, "with our goals for protecting the environment"(13). Until recently, we had a policy of reducing the demand for travel. Now, though no announcement has been made, that policy has gone. Like the Tories in the early 1990s, the Labour administration seeks to accommodate demand, however high it rises. Figures obtained last week by the campaigning group Road Block show that for the widening of the M1 alone the government will pay £3.6 billion - more than it is spending on its entire climate change programme(14). Instead of attempting to reduce demand, it is trying to alter supply. It is prepared to sacrifice the South East Asian rainforests in order to be seen to do something, and to allow motorists to feel better about themselves.
All this illustrates the futility of the technofixes now being pursued in Montreal. Trying to meet a rising demand for fuel is madness, wherever the fuel might come from. The hard decisions have been avoided, and another portion of the biosphere is going up in smoke.
www.monbiot.com
References
1. Jeffrey S. Dukes, 2003. Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption Of Ancient Solar Energy. Climatic Change 61: 31-44.
2. The British Association for Biofuels and Oils estimates the volume at 100,000 tonnes a year. BABFO , no date. Memorandum to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/press_release/ royal_commission_on_environmenta.htm
3. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11 ... ot-people/
4. Tamimi Omar, 1st December 2005. Felda to set up largest biodiesel plant. The Edge Daily. http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp? id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_e 5d7c0d9-cb73c03a-df4bfc00-d453633e
5. See e.g. Zaidi Isham Ismail, 7th November 2005. IOI to go it alone on first biodiesel plant. http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/B ... Frontpage/ 20051107000223/Art icle/; No author, 25th November 2005. GHope nine-month profit hits RM841mil. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.as ... /business/ 12693859& sec=business; No author, 26th November 2005. GHope to invest RM40mil for biodiesel plant in Netherlands. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.as ... /business/ 12704187& sec=business; No author, 23rd November 2005. Malaysia IOI Eyes Green Energy Expansion in Europe. http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory ... /story.htm
6. Loh Kim Chin, 26th October 2005. Singapore to host two biodiesel plants, investments total over S$80m. Channel NewsAsia.
7. C.S. Tan, 6th October 2005. All Plantation Stocks Rally. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.as ... /business/ 12243819&s ec=business
8. Friends of the Earth et al, September 2005. The Oil for Ape Scandal: how palm oil is threatening orang-utan survival. Research report. www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/oil_for_ape_full.pdf
9. ibid.
10. Department for Transport, November 2005. Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) feasibility report. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... ents/page/ dft_roads_610 329-01.hcsp#P18_263
11. E4Tech, ECCM and Imperial College, London, June 2005. Feasibility Study on Certification for a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. Final Report.
12. Department for Transport, ibid.
13. ibid.
Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
Moderator: scott
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
Trev...
Thanks for the article. I, too, believe that the emerging "bio fuel" industry is an environmental scam, at best. Assuming that we do make enough of these fuels to replace some of the fossil fuels modern life has become dependent on, then they will do absolutely nothing to reduce the levels of carbon that "civilized" man continues to dump into our planet's atmosphere 24/7.
We do not need new, high tech versions of dangerous old technologies. We need something brand new that will not wind up destroying our planet. The amount of sunshine that falls on Manhattan Island in a single day contains the energy content of about 240 Hiroshima sized A-bombs. That's enough to power a LOT of homes and businesses.
What we need is a revolutionary breakthrough in solar energy technology. Lately, I've been wondering if it might not be possible to somehow wire up a forest or jungle so that each plant within it would become a miniature solar energy receiver that would then contribute its small share of electrical power to the output lines coming out of the vegetation. Such a system would be cheap and, most important, self-repairing and self-renewing.
Several years ago, I looked into the whole issue of using nuclear power to supply our power needs in the future. This technology is, unfortunately, a dead end. Aside from the fact that it actually creates more dangerous radioactive material than one starts out with, someone did a calculation that showed that the electrical energy needed to refine the fuels for a typical nuclear power plant and to build the planet actually exceeds the total electrical energy that the plant will output during its life! Surprise!
Expect to see the "nuclear power option" heavily promoted by the power industry to the energy desperate masses in the coming years...
ken
Thanks for the article. I, too, believe that the emerging "bio fuel" industry is an environmental scam, at best. Assuming that we do make enough of these fuels to replace some of the fossil fuels modern life has become dependent on, then they will do absolutely nothing to reduce the levels of carbon that "civilized" man continues to dump into our planet's atmosphere 24/7.
We do not need new, high tech versions of dangerous old technologies. We need something brand new that will not wind up destroying our planet. The amount of sunshine that falls on Manhattan Island in a single day contains the energy content of about 240 Hiroshima sized A-bombs. That's enough to power a LOT of homes and businesses.
What we need is a revolutionary breakthrough in solar energy technology. Lately, I've been wondering if it might not be possible to somehow wire up a forest or jungle so that each plant within it would become a miniature solar energy receiver that would then contribute its small share of electrical power to the output lines coming out of the vegetation. Such a system would be cheap and, most important, self-repairing and self-renewing.
Several years ago, I looked into the whole issue of using nuclear power to supply our power needs in the future. This technology is, unfortunately, a dead end. Aside from the fact that it actually creates more dangerous radioactive material than one starts out with, someone did a calculation that showed that the electrical energy needed to refine the fuels for a typical nuclear power plant and to build the planet actually exceeds the total electrical energy that the plant will output during its life! Surprise!
Expect to see the "nuclear power option" heavily promoted by the power industry to the energy desperate masses in the coming years...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
There is a lot of discussion going on about energy supply (or shall we say possible interuptions thereof) here: http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=Forums
This is a very active forum where you can find just about anything from bio-fuel to nuclear to the final question of what happens when the world hits peak oil production within this decade. (The latter acting as a real 'Sensemann' as he is called in German.
This is a very active forum where you can find just about anything from bio-fuel to nuclear to the final question of what happens when the world hits peak oil production within this decade. (The latter acting as a real 'Sensemann' as he is called in German.
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
Does this mean we should not use old chip pan oil aswell or just manufactured veg oil direct from the palm trees?
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
I saw an interesting news segment on the production of ethanol from corn in the US the other day. Already questions being a practical alternative to or additive to gasoline (gasoline "helper") are being raised.
Yes, there are plants in the US that are producing significant quantities of 200 proof ethanol from corn, but they can only do it economically with the assistance of massive government subsidies. And, even more distressing, the production of the ethanol uses a LOT of oil and other fossil fuels in the process. For example, the final ethanol produced is highly corrosive and can not be pumped through conventional pipelines as can petroleum. It can only be moved, in quantity, by tank trucks and trains. That means getting it from the production facility to the end user is an expensive process.
Also, and sadly, switching to ethanol does nothing to slow the continue dumping of carbon into Earth's atmosphere which a growing consensus of scientists claim IS altering our global weather patterns and not for the better.
Sooner or later, someone is going to figure out a way to chop down an entire jungle or forest (maybe even along with its wildlife!) and convert it into biofuel for industry and automobiles. Personally, I'd rather use a bicycle and keep the trees and the animal life they harbor...
ken
Yes, there are plants in the US that are producing significant quantities of 200 proof ethanol from corn, but they can only do it economically with the assistance of massive government subsidies. And, even more distressing, the production of the ethanol uses a LOT of oil and other fossil fuels in the process. For example, the final ethanol produced is highly corrosive and can not be pumped through conventional pipelines as can petroleum. It can only be moved, in quantity, by tank trucks and trains. That means getting it from the production facility to the end user is an expensive process.
Also, and sadly, switching to ethanol does nothing to slow the continue dumping of carbon into Earth's atmosphere which a growing consensus of scientists claim IS altering our global weather patterns and not for the better.
Sooner or later, someone is going to figure out a way to chop down an entire jungle or forest (maybe even along with its wildlife!) and convert it into biofuel for industry and automobiles. Personally, I'd rather use a bicycle and keep the trees and the animal life they harbor...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
In every vehicle I have seen the percentage of alcohol added decreases the mileage by a greater percentage thus using MORE gasoline. We would use less gasoline if alcohol addition was banned.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
terry...
Apparently, federal law now mandates that ethanol be added to gasoline to make it run "cleaner".
I awoke today to be informed that there are now gasoline "shortages" in several of the US's eastern states...including my own of New Jersey. There is plenty of the $3 USD per gallon gasoline available, but it can not be sold because there is a shortage of the ethanol needed to add to it in order to meet government standards! Apparently, our refineries forgot to make enough of it.
Now I've heard everything!
ken
Apparently, federal law now mandates that ethanol be added to gasoline to make it run "cleaner".
I awoke today to be informed that there are now gasoline "shortages" in several of the US's eastern states...including my own of New Jersey. There is plenty of the $3 USD per gallon gasoline available, but it can not be sold because there is a shortage of the ethanol needed to add to it in order to meet government standards! Apparently, our refineries forgot to make enough of it.
Now I've heard everything!
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
I've burned 10% ethanol gasoline (Sunoco) for a long time now. Many years ago I checked my milage using ethanol and plain (Shell) gasoline. The ethanol has always given me better milage and and faster acceleration.
You heard wrong. The east coast shortage is caused by problems with transportation of the ethanol during the switch over. It's NOT because they "forgot to make enough of it."Ken wrote:our refineries forgot to make enough of it.
Now I've heard everything!
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
It is hard to imagine that the oil companies were caught looking out the window on this supply problem. They want to change legislation in their favor and certainly a "shortage" is one way of expediting the process. I had a service station in 1973 when the first "shortage" was experienced. Gasoline prices went from mid .30 to .80 quickly. The average citizen is pretty much at the mercy of the oil companies as they must commute to work etc. and the only way to do this in most cases is with a gasoline burning automobile.
Vic Hays
Ambassador MFG LLC
Ambassador MFG LLC
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
Jim wrote:
As soon as I tried the gasohol (which, I think, was actually about 30% ethanol by weight), my engine seemed to lose power and was pinging all over the place. Several times, when shutting the engine off, it would continue to run for a few seconds as it "dieseled". Aside from these annoyances, I immediately noticed a drop in mileage of about 20%! I guess this was only to be expected because a gallon of ethanol does not contain the same number of carbon to hydrogen and carbon to carbon chemical bonds as does a gallon of hexane. It is the breaking of these bonds and the formation of carbon to oxygen and hydrogen to oxygen bonds during combustion which releases the chemical energy of the fuel to drive the car.
Of course, I made no adjustments in my carburetor for the new fuel mixture. Maybe with the new engine technology and "Flexfuel" vehicles the problems (and low mileage per gallon) I experienced can be eliminated. But, at this point in time, I remain skeptical of these blended fuels.
ken
During the '70's a local gas station to me began offering "gasahol". It was a few cents per gallon cheaper than the gasoline so I decided to give it a try. At the time I was driving a Chrysler "New Yorker" and, with premium gasoline, I could get about 10 miles per gallon during highway driving.I've burned 10% ethanol gasoline (Sunoco) for a long time now. Many years ago I checked my milage using ethanol and plain (Shell) gasoline.
As soon as I tried the gasohol (which, I think, was actually about 30% ethanol by weight), my engine seemed to lose power and was pinging all over the place. Several times, when shutting the engine off, it would continue to run for a few seconds as it "dieseled". Aside from these annoyances, I immediately noticed a drop in mileage of about 20%! I guess this was only to be expected because a gallon of ethanol does not contain the same number of carbon to hydrogen and carbon to carbon chemical bonds as does a gallon of hexane. It is the breaking of these bonds and the formation of carbon to oxygen and hydrogen to oxygen bonds during combustion which releases the chemical energy of the fuel to drive the car.
Of course, I made no adjustments in my carburetor for the new fuel mixture. Maybe with the new engine technology and "Flexfuel" vehicles the problems (and low mileage per gallon) I experienced can be eliminated. But, at this point in time, I remain skeptical of these blended fuels.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
Hi Ken, You wouldn't be driving that monster around here, when I filled up my van today, it was €1.16 / Litre - that's $5.42 per US gallon, and that was the cheapest in town.
Trev.
Trev.
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
Ken, your Chrysler "New Yorker" was a high compresssion engine designed to burn premium high octane fuel. When you used regular octane fuel then you got pre-ignition. The fuel self ignited (like in a diesel engine) due to the high compression temperatures in the engine. This puts a backward torque on the engine as the fuel self-ignited too early. Any regular gasoline would have dropped your milage about the same. It wasn't the alcohol's fault. It was the fault of using regular octane fuel in a high compression engine.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
Jim...
That Chrysler "New Yorker" did have a high compression engine, but I found that, in general, I could run it on regular gasoline without pinging or dieseling. In fact, to save money, I only occasionally gave it a "treat" with a tank of premium gasoline and used "mid-grade" gas most of the time (octane rating of about 87).
I noticed a big drop off in performance with the gasohol. However, I think the stuff I was sold was about 30% ethanol and now I notice that the stuff being sold is only 10% ethanol. Someone said that, at only 10% ethanol, no change in engine setting is required, so maybe the New Yorker could have run smoothly on the 30% stuff if I had fiddled around with the carburetor settings. But, being a double barrel system, I tended to not want to mess with it unless doing a tune-up on the engine.
Well, I saw a news segment on ethanol production and the news seems a bit brighter.
They were telling how they have a new technique for converting any type of vegetable material into ethanol. The process requires an input of energy, but, apparently, there is a waste material called "lignin" that is produced during the process that can then be burned to provide the power for the conversion! This means that large amounts of the "cellulose ethanol" can be obtained without the input of extra energy. However, one still needs to have a supply of cellulose to start with and, at the moment, only plant life is capable of making this cellular structural material.
I just hope that, as the fossil fuel situation gets more desperate, we do not start plowing up whole forests and jungle in a desperate effort to produce enough ethanol to keep a trillion internal combustion engines running every day!
ken
That Chrysler "New Yorker" did have a high compression engine, but I found that, in general, I could run it on regular gasoline without pinging or dieseling. In fact, to save money, I only occasionally gave it a "treat" with a tank of premium gasoline and used "mid-grade" gas most of the time (octane rating of about 87).
I noticed a big drop off in performance with the gasohol. However, I think the stuff I was sold was about 30% ethanol and now I notice that the stuff being sold is only 10% ethanol. Someone said that, at only 10% ethanol, no change in engine setting is required, so maybe the New Yorker could have run smoothly on the 30% stuff if I had fiddled around with the carburetor settings. But, being a double barrel system, I tended to not want to mess with it unless doing a tune-up on the engine.
Well, I saw a news segment on ethanol production and the news seems a bit brighter.
They were telling how they have a new technique for converting any type of vegetable material into ethanol. The process requires an input of energy, but, apparently, there is a waste material called "lignin" that is produced during the process that can then be burned to provide the power for the conversion! This means that large amounts of the "cellulose ethanol" can be obtained without the input of extra energy. However, one still needs to have a supply of cellulose to start with and, at the moment, only plant life is capable of making this cellular structural material.
I just hope that, as the fossil fuel situation gets more desperate, we do not start plowing up whole forests and jungle in a desperate effort to produce enough ethanol to keep a trillion internal combustion engines running every day!
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
The lower the octane rating of fuel i.e. 87 octane, the more explosive the fuel.(More power) Premium grade fuel does not contain more power it is a more stable fuel that is less likely to ping.
A crop duster can run a 60 octane rating fuel because the big propeller keeps the engine cool.
ken, your car was a "lean burn engine"..... and the compression ratio was less than nine to one.
Extremely high combustion temperatures are what causes a motor to ping or knock,..... once a motor reaches 1800° of combustion temperature it also makes a nasty little chemical called nox...!
The automotive industry as a whole came up with a EGR are system, and all this does is recirculate burnt mixture back into the intake manifold to give it a crappy charge of air making the motor run cooler as far as combustion temperatures are concerned, in today's modern cars and less you engine is equipped with a knock sensor it makes no difference what feel you run because they're all low compression engines now.
But some high-end vehicles demand high octane ratings also want: a heavy load in the trailer you need a more stable fuel because you're creating much more work and much more heat in the engine.
I know this is a personal fact in my race car which has a 11 to one compression ratio I can get away with running a mixed fuel consisting of 87 octane at 80% by volume and mixing in a racing gasoline at 20% by volume, the racing gasoline is very expensive and has a octane rating of 114.
Ideally what you need to do is adjust your octane rating to fit your engine, in my case about 95 octane matches up perfect with a 11 the one compression motor. 99% of all racers just throw in the six dollar gallon raising gas, thinking they get the most performance the higher the octane rating. In truth this is just the opposite. A high octane number of 114 has a very slow burn time compared to a 92 octane fuel, so my engine, with the lower octane fuel could run to a higher rpm because of fuel burn faster...!
I outpolled people with cubic dollars to spend on their race car and fuel running down the straightaway's by more than two car lengths which is a lot on a 3/8 mile racetrack. Of course I was accused of cheating but it tear down they never found a thing wrong....... everybody thought I had a big secret in the secret was just knowledge of fuel.
So the moral of the story is the lower the octane the more explosive the fuel you just need you be able to keep your combustion temperatures under 1800° by adding a fuel/air ratio stronger than 14 to one.
Another misnomer is that too much advance in your timing will cause it to ping, when in actuality the more advanced you give a internal combustion engine the more cylinder wall is exposed to transfer the heat so it actually makes the motor run cooler the more advanced you can get the cooler the motor runs, except when you reach that extremely high combustion temperature of 1800° or nitrates of oxides are created......
I had a smog license in 1990, an old trick to get cars to pass smog was to retard the timing as much as possible because this made a hotter burn in the combustion chamber and you can get a vehicle to pass a smog test by regarding the timing, since then the powers to be caught on to that trick and you must keep your base timing at its manufactures specification.
And as far as gasoline these days, there is no more such thing.
it is all a blend of fules. There's no such thing as a winter or blend or summer blend .....!
its all bull shit...!
It's all the same from one station to another from regular to premium there is only 8 ounces of powdered supplement the changes Joe blow regular into high dollar premium and at 8 ounces in a 20,000 gallon delivery...... it's all a scam
as far as use of methanol, I've also had experience with running that in race cars you need literally twice as much fuel in your jetting to run a race car on methanol.... so it will have an impact on the leanness of an everyday driver power he and preignition even at just 10%...... by volume.
Gordy
A crop duster can run a 60 octane rating fuel because the big propeller keeps the engine cool.
ken, your car was a "lean burn engine"..... and the compression ratio was less than nine to one.
Extremely high combustion temperatures are what causes a motor to ping or knock,..... once a motor reaches 1800° of combustion temperature it also makes a nasty little chemical called nox...!
The automotive industry as a whole came up with a EGR are system, and all this does is recirculate burnt mixture back into the intake manifold to give it a crappy charge of air making the motor run cooler as far as combustion temperatures are concerned, in today's modern cars and less you engine is equipped with a knock sensor it makes no difference what feel you run because they're all low compression engines now.
But some high-end vehicles demand high octane ratings also want: a heavy load in the trailer you need a more stable fuel because you're creating much more work and much more heat in the engine.
I know this is a personal fact in my race car which has a 11 to one compression ratio I can get away with running a mixed fuel consisting of 87 octane at 80% by volume and mixing in a racing gasoline at 20% by volume, the racing gasoline is very expensive and has a octane rating of 114.
Ideally what you need to do is adjust your octane rating to fit your engine, in my case about 95 octane matches up perfect with a 11 the one compression motor. 99% of all racers just throw in the six dollar gallon raising gas, thinking they get the most performance the higher the octane rating. In truth this is just the opposite. A high octane number of 114 has a very slow burn time compared to a 92 octane fuel, so my engine, with the lower octane fuel could run to a higher rpm because of fuel burn faster...!
I outpolled people with cubic dollars to spend on their race car and fuel running down the straightaway's by more than two car lengths which is a lot on a 3/8 mile racetrack. Of course I was accused of cheating but it tear down they never found a thing wrong....... everybody thought I had a big secret in the secret was just knowledge of fuel.
So the moral of the story is the lower the octane the more explosive the fuel you just need you be able to keep your combustion temperatures under 1800° by adding a fuel/air ratio stronger than 14 to one.
Another misnomer is that too much advance in your timing will cause it to ping, when in actuality the more advanced you give a internal combustion engine the more cylinder wall is exposed to transfer the heat so it actually makes the motor run cooler the more advanced you can get the cooler the motor runs, except when you reach that extremely high combustion temperature of 1800° or nitrates of oxides are created......
I had a smog license in 1990, an old trick to get cars to pass smog was to retard the timing as much as possible because this made a hotter burn in the combustion chamber and you can get a vehicle to pass a smog test by regarding the timing, since then the powers to be caught on to that trick and you must keep your base timing at its manufactures specification.
And as far as gasoline these days, there is no more such thing.
it is all a blend of fules. There's no such thing as a winter or blend or summer blend .....!
its all bull shit...!
It's all the same from one station to another from regular to premium there is only 8 ounces of powdered supplement the changes Joe blow regular into high dollar premium and at 8 ounces in a 20,000 gallon delivery...... it's all a scam
as far as use of methanol, I've also had experience with running that in race cars you need literally twice as much fuel in your jetting to run a race car on methanol.... so it will have an impact on the leanness of an everyday driver power he and preignition even at just 10%...... by volume.
Gordy
re: Biodiesel - Worse Than Fossil Fuel
Borneo's palm oil politics
By Andrew Harding
BBC, Borneo
Increasing global demand for palm oil is big business for those countries that can provide it, such as Indonesia's Borneo, but the introduction of plantations on a large scale could have a devastating effect on the island's rich wildlife.
Tanjung Puting sits on a peninsula that juts out into the Java Sea
So there we were, up a creek, in the dark, attempting to navigate by firefly. Not an exact science.
I once tried navigating by radiation, driving round a nuclear waste site in the Urals with a drunk guide and a Geiger counter - but that is another story.
This time, we were in a speedboat, in a jungle in Borneo.
Luckily for us, the fireflies had obviously done this sort of thing before.
They lit up the riverbanks like gaudy casinos, steering us away from the impenetrable, crocodile-infested undergrowth and out towards the sea.
As the river twisted, we held up our mobile phones which glowed like little beacons to guide the boats behind us.
We were leaving Tanjung Puting National Park on the southern coast of Borneo.
Plantation plan
Hundreds of orangutans will die as their habitat vanishes and the poachers and chainsaws move in
Somewhere behind the twinkling fireflies - presumably dozing by now - were several thousand orangutans, scattered around the forest canopy in their giant tree-top nests.
And somewhere beyond the orangutans, lined up in abrupt, orderly columns, like an army advancing on the park, were Borneo's vast palm oil plantations.
Elaeis Guineensis (palm oil) was the reason we had come to the world's third-biggest island.
The palm is an amazing plant. Squat, spiky, and low-maintenance, each new tree starts producing within months.
All you have to do is chop off the big clumps of orange-brown, conker-sized fruit, squeeze the oil out of them, and you have one of the most versatile products imaginable. One which, in theory, has impeccably green credentials.
Palm oil is already in one in 10 supermarket items, such as crisps, bread, and lipstick.
Soon it will be in our petrol tanks too, as bio-diesel, a renewable, green alternative to fossil fuels.
No wonder Indonesia is busy planting Elaeis Guineensis at breakneck speed.
It wants to triple the size of its plantations in 15 years, which is where things start to get messy.
Land distribution
Palm oil is the second-most widely produced edible oil after soybean
Stephen Brend is tiptoeing gently through the undergrowth, backing away from a grunting orange carpet the size of a jukebox.
The carpet's name is Kosasih, and he is a dominant male orangutan with boundary issues.
A few years ago the Hollywood star Julia Roberts got a fraction too close to Kosasih and was grabbed and locked in a rigid embrace.
Stephen is trying not to make the same mistake. He is a former royal marine, now working in Borneo as a conservationist for the Orangutan Foundation.
For years now, Stephen and his colleagues have been battling against local timber and palm oil companies, which are steadily encroaching on the national park where Kosasih lives.
They use satellite imagery and armed patrols to document and police the park.
But things have suddenly got a lot worse.
The Indonesian government has just announced that 30,000 hectares of the park are to be given over to logging and palm oil companies.
That is 15% of the park's forests.
Hundreds of orangutans will die as their habitat vanishes and the poachers and chainsaws move in.
Selling to China
Further inland, in an area known as the "heart of Borneo", much larger areas are being quietly handed over.
Ancient jungles are being carved up to make way for palm oil. So much for being environmentally friendly.
Last year a monstrous scam was uncovered.
The type of rainforests found in Borneo include rare peat swamp forests and heath forest
It involved creating the world's largest single plantation - the size of four million football fields - right in the middle of a rainforest that has survived many millions of years.
Much of the land chosen turned out to be unsuitable for plantations. It was too steep and too elevated. But that was never the point of the exercise.
The real plan was to chop down as much valuable hardwood as possible and sell it to China.
After all, why put plantations on Borneo's vast swathes of empty land when you can carve up the forests and make a fortune before you have even started? And, in the process, destroy one of the world's last great biological treasure houses.
The Indonesian government says it is now changing its plans to protect the rainforests and the indigenous communities living in them.
But environmental campaigners are sceptical.
Me too. This is a remote region, in a famously corrupt country, with fortunes at stake.
Kosasih grunts, picks up some bananas and wanders off into the undergrowth.
I look down at the ground to find one of his many girlfriends holding my ankle.
It is a gentle grip, but no amount of tugging will set me free.
By Andrew Harding
BBC, Borneo
Increasing global demand for palm oil is big business for those countries that can provide it, such as Indonesia's Borneo, but the introduction of plantations on a large scale could have a devastating effect on the island's rich wildlife.
Tanjung Puting sits on a peninsula that juts out into the Java Sea
So there we were, up a creek, in the dark, attempting to navigate by firefly. Not an exact science.
I once tried navigating by radiation, driving round a nuclear waste site in the Urals with a drunk guide and a Geiger counter - but that is another story.
This time, we were in a speedboat, in a jungle in Borneo.
Luckily for us, the fireflies had obviously done this sort of thing before.
They lit up the riverbanks like gaudy casinos, steering us away from the impenetrable, crocodile-infested undergrowth and out towards the sea.
As the river twisted, we held up our mobile phones which glowed like little beacons to guide the boats behind us.
We were leaving Tanjung Puting National Park on the southern coast of Borneo.
Plantation plan
Hundreds of orangutans will die as their habitat vanishes and the poachers and chainsaws move in
Somewhere behind the twinkling fireflies - presumably dozing by now - were several thousand orangutans, scattered around the forest canopy in their giant tree-top nests.
And somewhere beyond the orangutans, lined up in abrupt, orderly columns, like an army advancing on the park, were Borneo's vast palm oil plantations.
Elaeis Guineensis (palm oil) was the reason we had come to the world's third-biggest island.
The palm is an amazing plant. Squat, spiky, and low-maintenance, each new tree starts producing within months.
All you have to do is chop off the big clumps of orange-brown, conker-sized fruit, squeeze the oil out of them, and you have one of the most versatile products imaginable. One which, in theory, has impeccably green credentials.
Palm oil is already in one in 10 supermarket items, such as crisps, bread, and lipstick.
Soon it will be in our petrol tanks too, as bio-diesel, a renewable, green alternative to fossil fuels.
No wonder Indonesia is busy planting Elaeis Guineensis at breakneck speed.
It wants to triple the size of its plantations in 15 years, which is where things start to get messy.
Land distribution
Palm oil is the second-most widely produced edible oil after soybean
Stephen Brend is tiptoeing gently through the undergrowth, backing away from a grunting orange carpet the size of a jukebox.
The carpet's name is Kosasih, and he is a dominant male orangutan with boundary issues.
A few years ago the Hollywood star Julia Roberts got a fraction too close to Kosasih and was grabbed and locked in a rigid embrace.
Stephen is trying not to make the same mistake. He is a former royal marine, now working in Borneo as a conservationist for the Orangutan Foundation.
For years now, Stephen and his colleagues have been battling against local timber and palm oil companies, which are steadily encroaching on the national park where Kosasih lives.
They use satellite imagery and armed patrols to document and police the park.
But things have suddenly got a lot worse.
The Indonesian government has just announced that 30,000 hectares of the park are to be given over to logging and palm oil companies.
That is 15% of the park's forests.
Hundreds of orangutans will die as their habitat vanishes and the poachers and chainsaws move in.
Selling to China
Further inland, in an area known as the "heart of Borneo", much larger areas are being quietly handed over.
Ancient jungles are being carved up to make way for palm oil. So much for being environmentally friendly.
Last year a monstrous scam was uncovered.
The type of rainforests found in Borneo include rare peat swamp forests and heath forest
It involved creating the world's largest single plantation - the size of four million football fields - right in the middle of a rainforest that has survived many millions of years.
Much of the land chosen turned out to be unsuitable for plantations. It was too steep and too elevated. But that was never the point of the exercise.
The real plan was to chop down as much valuable hardwood as possible and sell it to China.
After all, why put plantations on Borneo's vast swathes of empty land when you can carve up the forests and make a fortune before you have even started? And, in the process, destroy one of the world's last great biological treasure houses.
The Indonesian government says it is now changing its plans to protect the rainforests and the indigenous communities living in them.
But environmental campaigners are sceptical.
Me too. This is a remote region, in a famously corrupt country, with fortunes at stake.
Kosasih grunts, picks up some bananas and wanders off into the undergrowth.
I look down at the ground to find one of his many girlfriends holding my ankle.
It is a gentle grip, but no amount of tugging will set me free.