It is far more encompassing and complex than simply asking if we can do better! Aboslutely we can!! The real question is: do we have the WILL TO do better? Down the list is does the economics make sense.
To answer your question of ..."where do the diesel fuel reserves come from? Still all unfriendly nations?..." and to put it in some context, some of my prior posts have covered a few of the issues. One starting point might be the posting that lists whats in a barrel of crude? http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/crude_products.aspx
As far as I know, we do not buy diesel fuel from overseas but refine it here
That may be hard to tell. I think that is correct. It may not always be that way. Exxon is spending about 8 billion on a natural gas to diesel facility in Qatar. With the largest known gas reserve, this process will supply much needed super clean diesel. With no sulfur it will burn cleaner than gas vehicles. That will be a real winner for more efficient diesel cars to be imported. The idea of becoming oil independent is a total pipe dream. Unless we all decide to give up our vehicles. It is no different than we all give up wearing shoes because 99% are made in China.
Also to get some evidence of this, ethanol is/has ALREADY being/been blended up to 15% during some higher use seasons (like winter) and NO one has even mentioned that this 15% (less use of unleaded regular) has even made a minor dent in unleaded gas usage!!?? (ie, the 15% usage of ethanol as cut our crude oil importation by xxx,xxx,xxx barrels of oil)You would think this would be front page news in the war against oil consumption!!! YET you would think that a 15% OVERALL DECREASE (even if seasonal) in the use of unleaded regular would be at least one stardard deviation SIGNIFICANT !!!!!! The math is truly not adding up. Or if indeed I am wrong and it is adding up, they are keeping it a COMPLETE and utter secret !!!
I'm sorry if I was not clear. When I asked if we could do better, I meant can't YOU GUYS do better in your analysis of my simple question. [The question is NOT, "Can't we do better on energy conservation?"]
Giving up shoes? Ethanol? What the heck are you guys talking about?
My concern is that your "rush" to diesel doesn't help us all that much. Does it change our reliance on foreign oil? Not at all, though our average mpg would rise, which is certainly a good thing, especially for those folks who can buy a new diesel car.
As to biodiesel, just what the heck are you guys smoking? I have seen no article that suggests that biodiesel can play ANY real role in energy independence. It's nice that diesel vehicles can burn french fry oil. Fun. But that's about all that is.
The oil to Chinese shoes analogy is weak. One can easily buy shoes, today, that are not made by slave or child labor in China. And the U.S. could, if it wanted, simply start making its own shoes. That's a bit tougher wrt to oil.
I am not anti-diesel, but I just want us to be realistic about diesel. It is not going to sever our ties to the Arabs. It could have a positive effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
...""Giving up shoes? Ethanol? What the heck are you guys talking about?
My concern is that your "rush" to diesel doesn't help us all that much. Does it change our reliance on foreign oil? Not at all, though our average mpg would rise, which is certainly a good thing, especially for those folks who can buy a new diesel car.""...
Even if we did are you saying in effect it would be lost on you? (i.e. US at the consumer level)
So if you did read some of the prior posts perhaps you have not grasp the consequences of the numbers. First of all how can you call less than 3% of the passenger vehicle fleet (235.4M PVF) as RUSHING into diesel? (7.06 M vehicles. Now how do you resolve that with 97% of the passenger vehicle fleet or 228.34 M vehicles ALREADY consuming 15% less unleaded regular???? With absolutely no articles or acknowledgement that is is even a drop in the buck on the war on oil barrel consumption??
Again 3% or 7.06 million vehicles out of 235.4 million vehicles will hardly "solve the problem in total?" I see it in the context of solving MY problem ie I get 50 miles per gal vs a whole lot less and pay less for fuel relative to those who pay more per gal and use a lot more of it. So in that sense VERY VERY micro as opposed to macro.
Perhaps another wacky way of illustrating the point or drawing the comparison might be to ask; WHAT MPG AND miles per year would I need driving a diesel to EFFECT a 40-50% less demand in unleaded regular (acknowledged to be what is "imported oil" ) of say an example population of 4 cars, ie 3 gassers and one diesel?
This is really a serious question that can illustrate how "weird" your question might be. There are a hell of a lot of tricks, with no intent to provide trickery, so let me throw some facts out; 3 Honda Civics 38 mpg, 15,000 miles per year EACH, VW Jetta TDI mpg of...? It should become clear as to what factors are operative?!!
Absolutely, more so than ethanol. The misnomer is that biodiesel is all used french fry oil. That is a very small source of biodiesel. Biodiesel can be made from Soy, rape & any number of oil producing crops. It is a much less expensive process than ethanol from corn. More biodiesel is produced world wide than fuel ethanol. See biodiesel from palm oil.
Here is a biodiesel primer:
What is biodiesel? Biodiesel is the name of a clean burning alternative fuel, produced from domestic, renewable resources. Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend. It can be used in compression-ignition (diesel) engines with little or no modifications. Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics.
How is biodiesel made? Biodiesel is made through a chemical process called transesterification whereby the glycerin is separated from the fat or vegetable oil. The process leaves behind two products -- methyl esters (the chemical name for biodiesel) and glycerin (a valuable byproduct usually sold to be used in soaps and other products).
Is Biodiesel the same thing as raw vegetable oil? No! Fuel-grade biodiesel must be produced to strict industry specifications (ASTM D6751) in order to insure proper performance. Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Biodiesel that meets ASTM D6751 and is legally registered with the Environmental Protection Agency is a legal motor fuel for sale and distribution. Raw vegetable oil cannot meet biodiesel fuel specifications, it is not registered with the EPA, and it is not a legal motor fuel.
Might I also add that billions of dollars do not need to be used to build "regional centralized" refineries. For bio diesel, the investment is in millions of dollars. This of course CAN translate to less cost per gal.
r and g: good that we are using the more technical term "biodiesel" - I am 100% in support of biodiesel efforts, and not a big ethanol fan.
Of course, if ethanol was being produced at facilities that relied exclusively on non-greenhouse gas power plants, that would be a bnig plus (from a GHG perspective)
ruking: Is MY question the weird one? All I am trying to say is that buying a diesel car does not end our dependence on foreign oil. Even if we replaced 100% of the US car fleet tomorrow, we would still be significantly dependent on foreign oil, unless someone can tell me that most diesel comes from suppliers friendlier than OPEC. [I do hear you that if we increase our domestic production of biodiesel, we wouldhave less reason to depend on OPEC. Of course, then we'd have to evaluate if that - less connection to the OPEC countries - was a good thing.]
Well lets see, IF you did the math, YOU did answer your own question!!?? The answer in that case was a resounding NO!! WAS it NOT???? The truth is I want some one else to articulate the Impossibility, for at the end of the day the real truth is it is infinitely NOT impossible!! However as you probably would agree a lot of assumptions have to change.
To highlight an interesting anomoly Europe despite it being 45% and growing diesel is probably importing more oil % wise than EVER before.
if your 4-car fleet average 20 mpg, and you want your 4-car fleet to average 30 mpg, your new 4th car would need to average 60 mpg. [of course, this doesn't work if the car that is being retired and replaced is the vehicle that was pulling the fleet average up]
Correct that is the concept, but it is actually 4 vehicles.
So on the suv side of the house I only need 30 mpg from 15 mpg!!
So again if I were king ( I am not) I would not only make SUV's diesel but endeavor for the mpg to be 30. So I draw from the % of fuel that is being refined anyway to make unleaded regular!!
The point is as Gagrice covers, is IF you believe that the 15% ethanol use in fact decreased foreign oil by 15% it is NOT reflected in the total as well as foreign consumption figures.
It works because of the very high compression where as standard gas will ignite very easily. That is why diesel engines cost more becasue they are built stronger and can burn many many low grade materials(which will be reflected on it's lower price) and still give you better mileage than any gas or E85.
But also in the context of what is in a barrel of oil the four cars can also be converted thusly:
1 car (25%) diesel,
1 car 25% (alternative fuel, diesel from coal, etc, etc. )
1 car unleaded regular
1 car unleaded regular
and we can decrease barrel of oil importation by 50%!? Want less importation? turn another 25% of the demand into alternative fuels. See, hardly rocket science, but only proportional math. (stuff we all learned in grade school)
It actually requires a LOT of natural gas to make the number one nitrogen fertilizer. Natural gas is used to make hydrogen which is a key element. It is our biggest consumer of hydrogen in the USA. Alaska is the number one producer in the US. It is the only way they get the corn yield they need to make more ethanol. HMMMMM
ANHYDROUS AMMONIA PROPERTIES NH3 Anhydrous ammonia is a compound formed by the combination of two (2) gaseous elements, nitrogen and hydrogen.
Ammonia is one (1) part nitrogen to three (3) parts hydrogen. (NH3)
Ammonia by weight is fourteen (14) parts nitrogen to three (3) parts hydrogen that is approximately 82% nitrogen to 18% hydrogen.
It has been said that if 1/3 of the US domestic fleet of passenger cars and light truck were diesel, the US could reduce its daily importation of oil by the equivalent amount (don’t recall the figure) imported from Saudi Arabia. Wish I could remember the figure, but it was a huge amount.
This sounds about corrct AFAIR. If about 60% of our oil is imported and say 1/3 comes from SA, then ~20% of our oil comes from SA.
Diesel and hybbrid technologies will save us all about 30-40% of our fuel immediately with no special efforts ( once diesel is approved for use everywhere ).
So yes theoretically at that point we could say 'hasta la vista' to SA or Iran or hopefully both. However oil is fungible though, so even if we did cut our dino fuel usage by 35% say across the board then SA and Iran would still get some part of our money due to the world trade in oil. On that we have no control.
Question: If we did cut our dino fuel usage by 50% across the board would we care at all what SA, Iran and Iraq were up to?
Question: If we did get so involved in biodiesel that we became self-sufficient to the point of making the MidEast irrelevent, would our No 1 security issue be the protection of biodiesel production?
Question: To move biodiesel from producing areas to usage areas, would the current pipeline owners allow the use of their infrastructure to move a competing product?
Question: If we did cut our dino fuel usage by 50% across the board would we care at all what SA, Iran and Iraq were up to? Yes. If we were not importing oil from the Middle East we would not be a financial hostage and would not care in that respect, but we should always care what goes on just to maintain stability.
Question: If we did get so involved in biodiesel that we became self-sufficient to the point of making the MidEast irrelevent, would our No 1 security issue be the protection of biodiesel production? It would probably be as important as protecting our existing domestic oil production.
Question: To move biodiesel from producing areas to usage areas, would the current pipeline owners allow the use of their infrastructure to move a competing product? Because bio diesel can be produce almost anyplace, I don’t believe transportation is going to be as big a problem as with ethanol. Just recently ground was broken for 1 million gallon per year bio diesel plant in Grays Harbor on the Washington coast. When bio diesel becomes mainstream it may be that it will be pumped through oil pipelines. I guess that is something to be worked out in the future between the producer and the pipeline owner. Remember, not all pipelines are owned by the oil companies, many are privately operated.
Question: If we did cut our dino fuel usage by 50% across the board would we care at all what SA, Iran and Iraq were up to? Yes. If we were not importing oil from the Middle East we would not be a financial hostage and would not care in that respect, but we should always care what goes on just to maintain stability.
Or do we care about stability only to maintain supply. Do we care much what occurs in Uzbekistan?
..."Just recently ground was broken for 1 million gallon per year bio diesel plant in Grays Harbor on the Washington coast. When bio diesel becomes mainstream it may be that it will be pumped through oil pipelines. I guess that is something to be worked out in the future between the producer and the pipeline owner. Remember, not all pipelines are owned by the oil companies, many are privately operated. "...
Just a comment from the peanut gallery. If this one million gal per year bio diesel plant were a unleaded gas refinery, it would probably not have even passed the application process and even if it did it would have been tied up in the appeals and courts systems if not for years then decades. Also 1 million gals refinery of unleaded regular would make absolutely NO economic sense.
Score a huge advantage for bio diesel.
In some of my readings (no bookmarks proferred) unleaded regular AND #2 diesel is "sort of" fungible. So as a practical application, they are pipelined together and at the "endpoints" (pre distribution points are further processed to yield the more pure #2 diesel and unleaded regular. So I am thinking outloud that biodiesel producers would have to make the calculation if it is cost effective to use the established pipelines or use other means of distribution.
The biodiesel industry seems to be made up of many small companies that see the need and build a facility. They are not as organized as the Ethanol industry that is controlled by ADM. If the Prez can get the EPA to lighten up on their ridiculous zero emissions goals, I believe we can make real progress in cutting our dependence on foriegn oil.
Biodiesel and other green fuels have the power to revitalize the american farming industry. In SC more and more small farms are closing the doors This may not be applicable everwhere, but here i think it would be possible to have biodiesel, ethonal, and methane community based congeneration facilities. Local farmers would have a stable outlet for products as well as some regulation on local fuel prices. Excess fuel could be sold on the open market. I don't believe that it is exactly practical to make all biofuel strickly from food based products or that Iowa should switch over to making BD and Ethonal from small farm products. I just think that local production facilities would help keep with supply and demand and to keep the big boys honest.
I often thought it disingenuous that some of the very same forces that advocate "less foreign oil use and dependence" are some of the very same forces forcefully advocating ridding DOMESTIC production capacity!!! Might be interesting to see the likes of Edward Kennedy joining hands with LONG time farmers' advocates (like willy nelson) and singing a kum bye yah !!
What are you talking about? Who is "forcefully advocating ridding DOMESTIC production capacity"?? What does Senator Kennedy have to do with this? Find me a single quote where he (or anyone) advocates shutting down an existing producing oil field.
I'm not even sure who you are talking about when you say "forces that advocate 'less foreign oil use and dependence'" - there are MANY people who advocate less dependence on foreign oil, and they are of ALL stripes.
You seem to be confusing the "less dependence on foreign oil" folks with the "less dependence on oil" folks. They aren't always the same people.
did you mean "disingenous" or did you mean "hypocritical?" (I assume the latter.)
If you go back to manley's 3538 post, essentially it is one of the problems of talking about "non sound bite able" issue/s. Essentially the policy for a VERY long time has been to get the small farmers off their farms.(Nexus here is ethanol and biodiesel production) Domestic production and processing of oil is germane but incidental to answering Manley's post about the farm resurgence. If you are from a more urban area, like for example TAX assachusetts then you might not really care about what happens in the heartland. Coincidently there has been ala Ross Perot of the giant sucking sound of jobs being sucked to offshore locations, specifically in this case farming.
So if you are from the urban areas, even a leftist environmentalist had to fight against the left wing bent of the Berkeley City Council to put in a cooperative biodiesel filling station which processes waste streams from the local DUMP (50,000 gals of sale able biodiesel per year app). If they did not processes this waste stream they would have to processes it in a way more costly and incidently by way more wasteful hazardous chemical procedures.
Massachusettes is one of the 5 states that has the ban on the sale of new diesels .(ala TDI's). Curiously American made DCB, GM and FORD 325 hp and 600# foot of torque diesels are available in that fair state. If a 2x4 to the head doesn't get ones' attention.... well......
Also the state of NY also is one of the diesel banning states. Curiously the company that is on the cutting edge of diesel particulate filters is headquartered in Senator Clintons jurisdiction. I wonder how that is going to play out. :)ALA serious cash flow for Presidental campaigns?
So have you heard of a biodiesel or ethanol plant being built in MA?? Or NY for that matter?
so Mass. doesn't like diesels, therefore Senator Kennedy doesn't like farmers?
You are aware, I assume, that Massachusetts prohibition on diesels is a matter of STATE law, and Senator Kennedy is not a STATE Senator...so his dislike of farmers would be irrelevant, right? I am sure Senator Kennedy would appreciate that you think he is omnipotent, but given the REPUBLICAN Governor as well as the REPUBLIVAN Lt. Governor, I hardly think that Ted governs Mass.
Omnipotent NO!! But it is nice to have repubs to blame!!!?? Let us put it this way, IF Kennedy wanted to get the ban lifted, the ban would truly not be an obstacle.
when you have a highly-educated electorate, that's the kind of regulatory environment they insist on
Too bad our schools do not teach common sense. Using 30% more fossil fuel than needed to lower emissions by about ONE pound per year per car is not smart in my book. Plus gas cars contribute more to global warming and carbon monoxide than diesel cars. Many gas cars spew more SoX, HC & PM. Admit it MA & NY are just CA wannabes.
Comments
To answer your question of ..."where do the diesel fuel reserves come from? Still all unfriendly nations?..." and to put it in some context, some of my prior posts have covered a few of the issues. One starting point might be the posting that lists whats in a barrel of crude? http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/crude_products.aspx
That may be hard to tell. I think that is correct. It may not always be that way. Exxon is spending about 8 billion on a natural gas to diesel facility in Qatar. With the largest known gas reserve, this process will supply much needed super clean diesel. With no sulfur it will burn cleaner than gas vehicles. That will be a real winner for more efficient diesel cars to be imported. The idea of becoming oil independent is a total pipe dream. Unless we all decide to give up our vehicles. It is no different than we all give up wearing shoes because 99% are made in China.
Giving up shoes? Ethanol? What the heck are you guys talking about?
My concern is that your "rush" to diesel doesn't help us all that much. Does it change our reliance on foreign oil? Not at all, though our average mpg would rise, which is certainly a good thing, especially for those folks who can buy a new diesel car.
As to biodiesel, just what the heck are you guys smoking? I have seen no article that suggests that biodiesel can play ANY real role in energy independence. It's nice that diesel vehicles can burn french fry oil. Fun. But that's about all that is.
The oil to Chinese shoes analogy is weak. One can easily buy shoes, today, that are not made by slave or child labor in China. And the U.S. could, if it wanted, simply start making its own shoes. That's a bit tougher wrt to oil.
I am not anti-diesel, but I just want us to be realistic about diesel. It is not going to sever our ties to the Arabs. It could have a positive effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
My concern is that your "rush" to diesel doesn't help us all that much. Does it change our reliance on foreign oil? Not at all, though our average mpg would rise, which is certainly a good thing, especially for those folks who can buy a new diesel car.""...
Even if we did are you saying in effect it would be lost on you? (i.e. US at the consumer level)
So if you did read some of the prior posts perhaps you have not grasp the consequences of the numbers. First of all how can you call less than 3% of the passenger vehicle fleet (235.4M PVF) as RUSHING into diesel? (7.06 M vehicles. Now how do you resolve that with 97% of the passenger vehicle fleet or 228.34 M vehicles ALREADY consuming 15% less unleaded regular???? With absolutely no articles or acknowledgement that is is even a drop in the buck on the war on oil barrel consumption??
I am not saying that the market is rushing to diesel. Just that so many folks here are rushing to diesel, like it will solve all our problems.
This is really a serious question that can illustrate how "weird" your question might be. There are a hell of a lot of tricks, with no intent to provide trickery, so let me throw some facts out; 3 Honda Civics 38 mpg, 15,000 miles per year EACH, VW Jetta TDI mpg of...? It should become clear as to what factors are operative?!!
Absolutely, more so than ethanol. The misnomer is that biodiesel is all used french fry oil. That is a very small source of biodiesel. Biodiesel can be made from Soy, rape & any number of oil producing crops. It is a much less expensive process than ethanol from corn. More biodiesel is produced world wide than fuel ethanol. See biodiesel from palm oil.
Here is a biodiesel primer:
What is biodiesel?
Biodiesel is the name of a clean burning alternative fuel, produced from domestic, renewable resources. Biodiesel contains no petroleum, but it can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a biodiesel blend. It can be used in compression-ignition (diesel) engines with little or no modifications. Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics.
How is biodiesel made?
Biodiesel is made through a chemical process called transesterification whereby the glycerin is separated from the fat or vegetable oil. The process leaves behind two products -- methyl esters (the chemical name for biodiesel) and glycerin (a valuable byproduct usually sold to be used in soaps and other products).
Is Biodiesel the same thing as raw vegetable oil?
No! Fuel-grade biodiesel must be produced to strict industry specifications (ASTM D6751) in order to insure proper performance. Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Biodiesel that meets ASTM D6751 and is legally registered with the Environmental Protection Agency is a legal motor fuel for sale and distribution. Raw vegetable oil cannot meet biodiesel fuel specifications, it is not registered with the EPA, and it is not a legal motor fuel.
Of course, if ethanol was being produced at facilities that relied exclusively on non-greenhouse gas power plants, that would be a bnig plus (from a GHG perspective)
ruking: Is MY question the weird one? All I am trying to say is that buying a diesel car does not end our dependence on foreign oil. Even if we replaced 100% of the US car fleet tomorrow, we would still be significantly dependent on foreign oil, unless someone can tell me that most diesel comes from suppliers friendlier than OPEC. [I do hear you that if we increase our domestic production of biodiesel, we wouldhave less reason to depend on OPEC. Of course, then we'd have to evaluate if that - less connection to the OPEC countries - was a good thing.]
To highlight an interesting anomoly Europe despite it being 45% and growing diesel is probably importing more oil % wise than EVER before.
It doesn't matter how many drivers "convert" to diesel, if you add a larger number new drivers every year
I assume Europe has way more drivers today than yesterday, etc.
What would the MPG as a min have to be to effect a 40/50% decrease in oil consumption??
Given 38 mpg, 15,000 miles 395 gals yearly consumption with a target of 50% or -198 gals=.....
if you are trying to say that "if you have 4 vehicles that each get X mpg, what MPG would your 4th vehicle have to get to create a fleet MPG of .5X,"
but I'm not sure if that is your question
I TOLD you I didn't understand your point.
:-)
So on the suv side of the house I only need 30 mpg from 15 mpg!!
So again if I were king ( I am not) I would not only make SUV's diesel but endeavor for the mpg to be 30. So I draw from the % of fuel that is being refined anyway to make unleaded regular!!
http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/crude_products.aspx
This would of course get better mpg, have the capacity to be an alternative fuel, import less barrels of oil and be cheaper to boot.
It works because of the very high compression where as standard gas will ignite very easily. That is why diesel engines cost more becasue they are built stronger and can burn many many low grade materials(which will be reflected on it's lower price) and still give you better mileage than any gas or E85.
My bad, I knew he was one of the dolf's.
I guess, I was thinking of the Furer and not the raindeer
1 car (25%) diesel,
1 car 25% (alternative fuel, diesel from coal, etc, etc. )
1 car unleaded regular
1 car unleaded regular
and we can decrease barrel of oil importation by 50%!? Want less importation? turn another 25% of the demand into alternative fuels. See, hardly rocket science, but only proportional math. (stuff we all learned in grade school)
why is the hybrid camfy rated so much lower than the prius?
i know the engine is larger, but that large a difference?
ANHYDROUS AMMONIA PROPERTIES NH3
Anhydrous ammonia is a compound formed by the combination of two (2) gaseous elements, nitrogen and hydrogen.
Ammonia is one (1) part nitrogen to three (3) parts hydrogen. (NH3)
Ammonia by weight is fourteen (14) parts nitrogen to three (3) parts hydrogen that is approximately 82% nitrogen to 18% hydrogen.
Diesel and hybbrid technologies will save us all about 30-40% of our fuel immediately with no special efforts ( once diesel is approved for use everywhere ).
So yes theoretically at that point we could say 'hasta la vista' to SA or Iran or hopefully both. However oil is fungible though, so even if we did cut our dino fuel usage by 35% say across the board then SA and Iran would still get some part of our money due to the world trade in oil. On that we have no control.
Question: If we did cut our dino fuel usage by 50% across the board would we care at all what SA, Iran and Iraq were up to?
Question: If we did get so involved in biodiesel that we became self-sufficient to the point of making the MidEast irrelevent, would our No 1 security issue be the protection of biodiesel production?
Question: To move biodiesel from producing areas to usage areas, would the current pipeline owners allow the use of their infrastructure to move a competing product?
Yes. If we were not importing oil from the Middle East we would not be a financial hostage and would not care in that respect, but we should always care what goes on just to maintain stability.
Question: If we did get so involved in biodiesel that we became self-sufficient to the point of making the MidEast irrelevent, would our No 1 security issue be the protection of biodiesel production?
It would probably be as important as protecting our existing domestic oil production.
Question: To move biodiesel from producing areas to usage areas, would the current pipeline owners allow the use of their infrastructure to move a competing product?
Because bio diesel can be produce almost anyplace, I don’t believe transportation is going to be as big a problem as with ethanol. Just recently ground was broken for 1 million gallon per year bio diesel plant in Grays Harbor on the Washington coast. When bio diesel becomes mainstream it may be that it will be pumped through oil pipelines. I guess that is something to be worked out in the future between the producer and the pipeline owner. Remember, not all pipelines are owned by the oil companies, many are privately operated.
Yes. If we were not importing oil from the Middle East we would not be a financial hostage and would not care in that respect, but we should always care what goes on just to maintain stability.
Or do we care about stability only to maintain supply. Do we care much what occurs in Uzbekistan?
Just a comment from the peanut gallery. If this one million gal per year bio diesel plant were a unleaded gas refinery, it would probably not have even passed the application process and even if it did it would have been tied up in the appeals and courts systems if not for years then decades. Also 1 million gals refinery of unleaded regular would make absolutely NO economic sense.
Score a huge advantage for bio diesel.
In some of my readings (no bookmarks proferred) unleaded regular AND #2 diesel is "sort of" fungible. So as a practical application, they are pipelined together and at the "endpoints" (pre distribution points are further processed to yield the more pure #2 diesel and unleaded regular. So I am thinking outloud that biodiesel producers would have to make the calculation if it is cost effective to use the established pipelines or use other means of distribution.
The biodiesel industry seems to be made up of many small companies that see the need and build a facility. They are not as organized as the Ethanol industry that is controlled by ADM. If the Prez can get the EPA to lighten up on their ridiculous zero emissions goals, I believe we can make real progress in cutting our dependence on foriegn oil.
I'm not even sure who you are talking about when you say "forces that advocate 'less foreign oil use and dependence'" - there are MANY people who advocate less dependence on foreign oil, and they are of ALL stripes.
You seem to be confusing the "less dependence on foreign oil" folks with the "less dependence on oil" folks. They aren't always the same people.
did you mean "disingenous" or did you mean "hypocritical?" (I assume the latter.)
So if you are from the urban areas, even a leftist environmentalist had to fight against the left wing bent of the Berkeley City Council to put in a cooperative biodiesel filling station which processes waste streams from the local DUMP (50,000 gals of sale able biodiesel per year app). If they did not processes this waste stream they would have to processes it in a way more costly and incidently by way more wasteful hazardous chemical procedures.
now you are saying Senator Kennedy is bad to farmers?
Occasionally you have thoughtful posts, but......
Maybe YOU should call Willie Nelson and ask if he thinks Senator Kennedy doesn't care what happens in the heartland.
Also the state of NY also is one of the diesel banning states. Curiously the company that is on the cutting edge of diesel particulate filters is headquartered in Senator Clintons jurisdiction. I wonder how that is going to play out.
So have you heard of a biodiesel or ethanol plant being built in MA?? Or NY for that matter?
You are aware, I assume, that Massachusetts prohibition on diesels is a matter of STATE law, and Senator Kennedy is not a STATE Senator...so his dislike of farmers would be irrelevant, right? I am sure Senator Kennedy would appreciate that you think he is omnipotent, but given the REPUBLICAN Governor as well as the REPUBLIVAN Lt. Governor, I hardly think that Ted governs Mass.
the people in Mass. expect their health to be protected
when you have a highly-educated electorate, that's the kind of regulatory environment they insist on
even Mit understands that
Too bad our schools do not teach common sense. Using 30% more fossil fuel than needed to lower emissions by about ONE pound per year per car is not smart in my book. Plus gas cars contribute more to global warming and carbon monoxide than diesel cars. Many gas cars spew more SoX, HC & PM. Admit it MA & NY are just CA wannabes.