Author Topic: Must See! (Read 10502 times)

James Buchan · « **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2007, 10:41:57 AM »

This is taken from http://www.biodiesel.org/ Have a read of the website there is some interesting stuff.

Quote

Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing
requirements of the US Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine
results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. In addition, the exhaust
emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid rain) from biodiesel
are essentially eliminated compared to diesel.

Of the major exhaust pollutants, both unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are
ozone or smog forming precursors. The use of biodiesel results in a substantial reduction
of unburned hydrocarbons. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are either slightly reduced or
slightly increased depending on the duty cycle of the engine and testing methods
used. Based on engine testing, using the most stringent emissions testing protocols
required by EPA for certification of fuels or fuel additives in the U.S., the overall ozone
(smog) forming potential of the hydrocarbon exhaust emissions from biodiesel is nearly
50 percent less than that measured for diesel fuel.

Bruce · « **Reply #31 on:** February 14, 2007, 05:30:30 PM »

James, you are confusing polutants with greenhouse gasses. Two totally different animals. When you burn fossil fuels (and Biodiesel), the natural byproducts of combustion are CO2 and H2O. The H2O eventually condenses out as rain, typically harmless. The CO2 is called a greenhouse gas. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce the mass of fuel being burned. Converting a vehicle to use biodiesel does NOTHING to reduce CO2.

If you truely want to reduce CO2, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you burn. A small 4 cyl car (like a Beetle!) will emit less CO2 than a big-ass SUV.

I find it very odd that back in the 60s, a Beetle was considered a great car for a mom and kids to run around in. However, today, if you suggest any small car to all the SUV driving soccor-moms, they think you're nuts. I have a buddy who's mom's car back in the 60s was a Nash Metropolitin. He remembers it was fine for him, his 2 siblings and mom to drive around in.

Bruce · « **Reply #32 on:** February 14, 2007, 05:35:19 PM »

Quote

I think the whole Global Warming thing has become a political football. Parties are latching on to it, because it's the popular topic of the moment.

I wonder if the whole global warming thing will become the second largest non-event of the century. Remember the largest non-event of the century, Y2K?

James Buchan · « **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2007, 06:08:53 PM »

Good point Bruce, but considering our business and the amount of fuel we burn any reduction of any toxin is a good thing. Not to mention that bio-d is made from a renewable resource.... granted for some apps it may need to be cut with the current diesel we use...

Chris · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2007, 06:11:19 PM »

IIRC diesel is already B-5 which means that %5 of diesel is bio-diesel, and they are asking to go to B-20, and I think VW is the only manufacturer that has completed testing of B-20 diesel at this point.

Bruce · « **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2007, 06:24:24 PM »

It is easy for any lay-person to make the mistake of not understanding the distinction between greenhouse gasses and the polutants emitted by cars.
Did anyone see the thing on the news a couple nights ago where Gordon Campbell announced that BC will get California type emissions standards. What a moron he is. For someone in power making the decisions, he should know what he's talking about.
First, Cali emissions do nothing to reduce greenhouse gasses. Only smaller cars that burn less fuel will. Secondly, Cali emissions are not lower than BC emissions. In fact, they allow more deadly CO gas than our emissions allow, as a tradeoff for lower HC emissions. The reason they do that for Cali is that HC reacts with UV light to form SMOG. HELLO!!!, we don't have any UV light for MOST of the year. Here's what his stupid decision will do for us, higher prices for new cars with no reduction in pollution.
Moe Sihota announced this back in the 90s. Thankfully he was voted out before it came into effect. When's the next provincial election?

James Buchan · « **Reply #36 on:** February 14, 2007, 07:44:31 PM »

We'll have a federal one soon I am sure...

Brent · « **Reply #37 on:** February 14, 2007, 10:14:10 PM »

Your awesome Bruce! Every time I read one of your posts I'm sure to learn something...Thanks

Cameron · « **Reply #38 on:** February 15, 2007, 10:01:03 AM »

James,
I think it's great that you a trying to reduce your fleet's output of toxic gases. But as Bruce pointed out, burning bio-D will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Bruce,
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. And water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. In fact, water vapour is a more prominent greenhouse gas, than carbon dioxide.

We can't control how much water evaporates into the atmosphere. But the government thinks it can control how much carbon dioxide we produce. Other greenhouse gases that are toxic, and controlled by pollution laws.

Canada has one of the highest per capita uses of carbon based fuels. What Canadians fail to realize is;

1) We live in a really large country. It is not uncommon to travel great distances to carry people and products, to their destinations.

2) We live in a really cold country. At winter time, when the temperatures get down to -30 and -40, it is not uncommon for people to heat their homes.

People don't want to commute to work, especially in a Winnipeg winter, on their bicycles.

Canadians want something done about Global Warming, and governments love to cater to the masses. With all these new \"green\" laws coming, no matter which political party is in power, I predict very high taxes on hydrocarbon fuels. One thing Europeans have discovered about keeping fuel prices artificially high, is that it is good for the environment. Heating your home, or filling your car, get ready to pay more!

ehos · « **Reply #39 on:** February 15, 2007, 11:07:13 AM »

Quote

If you truely want to reduce CO2, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you burn. A small 4 cyl car (like a Beetle!) will emit less CO2 than a big-ass SUV.

Only if the Beetle is well tuned up. Some of the ones I've seen are much worse than any SUV on the road. EFI and modern technology ] carbs any day of the week.

You have some sort of testing in BC, but here in Alberta you should see the horrible state of tune of some of these cars.

If you really want to help the enviroment, ride a motorbike (better yet, a bike!). Take into consideration all the materials that go into making these monsters, and all the non-recyclable junk that's left over. If I lived in BC, I'd be on a bike 99% of the time.

egspot · « **Reply #40 on:** February 15, 2007, 01:56:34 PM »

Wow!

This is a lot of information. I am still digesting it all.

Does anyone know anything about the ice age or whatever else scientific evidence is there about the cycles of that stuff?

Cameron · « **Reply #41 on:** February 15, 2007, 02:16:29 PM »

Quote

Does anyone know anything about the ice age or whatever else scientific evidence is there about the cycles of that stuff?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbonif...us_climate.html

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Here are web addresses of two geological sites, that cover prehistoric climate.

It's important that we learn as much as possible about these subjects, before our governments subject us to any \"knee jerk\" reactions.

Anybody remember the gun registry, and how it stopped gun related crimes and violence? How much did that cost tax payers? How effective was it?

Bruce · « **Reply #42 on:** February 15, 2007, 02:19:15 PM »

Quote

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. And water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. In fact, water vapour is a more prominent greenhouse gas, than carbon dioxide.

True, but eventually it falls to the earth and is not a greenhouse gas anymore. CO2 requires lots of plants to get rid of it.

Bruce · « **Reply #43 on:** February 15, 2007, 02:25:15 PM »

Quote

Quote
If you truely want to reduce CO2, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you burn. A small 4 cyl car (like a Beetle!) will emit less CO2 than a big-ass SUV.

Only if the Beetle is well tuned up. Some of the ones I've seen are much worse than any SUV on the road. EFI and modern technology > carbs any day of the week.

Even if badly tuned, a stock Beetle usually gets at least 20-25mpg. I don't know of any of the giant SUVs that get mileage that good.

If our PM really wants to reduce GH gasses by making the fleet of public cars more fuel efficient, he has to do something to encourage people to buy smaller cars. The only way they can do that is high taxes on the big gas consumers. Get ready for that.

silas · « **Reply #44 on:** February 15, 2007, 07:02:52 PM »

Quote

If I lived in BC, I'd be on a bike 99% of the time.

you obviously havent spent alot of time in a rainforest. B)

i heard on the news that they are considering charging $5/hour to park downtown in an effort to make people drive less.

do you think it'll work, or do you think that it'll just be a whole lot more money that the city makes that mysteriously vanishes into the pockets of the politicians?

i'm going for the latter.

Bug Maniac · « **Reply #45 on:** February 15, 2007, 07:10:41 PM »

In London they charge people around $10 for the pleasure of driving through the city, it works too, as soon as it was introduced the traffic was reduced by a 1/3rd or more. Interesting debate though.

Chris · « **Reply #46 on:** February 15, 2007, 07:36:58 PM »

One of my goals for this year is to start riding to work, luckily im only 10km from my work and have suitable storage for a bike and related gear at work, im quite looking forward to it. With the right clothing and gear riding in Vancouver and areas is fine even in the rain.

On another note I still say transit fares should be lower, and routes to out lying areas such as Surrey/Langley need to improve, and the Skytrain should have come right down hwy 1, its the route travelled by so many people in rush hour, how could you miss the logic of taking the train when it is passing you every 4 minutes?

Maybe Bug Maniac could give more detail but I do believe that transit in the UK is much cheaper for the user and they have routes that work, Courteney has been a couple times and chooses public tranist to get around every where she went.

ehos · « **Reply #47 on:** February 15, 2007, 08:13:29 PM »

Quote

you obviously havent spent alot of time in a rainforest. B)

I would be 2 wheel drifting Rossi style around every corner! Riding in the rain is the absolute best (really!). You hardly ever get wet, the water goes around you as long as you're moving. The only bad part about rain is that no one can see you (er, see you less).

Hell, I might even try it in the snow!

Back on topic...

North Americans aren't Europeans (duh), we won't stand higher gas tax or higher tax on fat cars (which is a shame). We should tax the shit out of SUV's (which, legally aren't even road worthy vehicles! they get so many exemptions it's not even funny or safe).

kirin · « **Reply #48 on:** February 15, 2007, 08:16:44 PM »

Transit as a whole in europe is a helluva lot better. They have been working on it for decades and grew it as cities grew. None of this catch up stuff like the north americans are trying to do...

Bruce · « **Reply #49 on:** February 15, 2007, 09:16:49 PM »

Quote

Transit as a whole in europe is a helluva lot better. They have been working on it for decades and grew it as cities grew. None of this catch up stuff like the north americans are trying to do...

Not hard to achieve when you have 25 times as many people as in Canada.

kirin · « **Reply #50 on:** February 15, 2007, 09:26:38 PM »

That may very well be true. But tell me this... Do you know what the automakers did in the 30's/40's to cause LA to be what it is today?

Chris · « **Reply #51 on:** February 15, 2007, 09:27:01 PM »

they all smoked.

moni · « **Reply #52 on:** February 15, 2007, 10:53:34 PM »

Quote

they all smoked.

wrong thread, chris.

they all believed in god.

silas · « **Reply #53 on:** February 15, 2007, 11:02:21 PM »

Quote

wrong thread, chris.

they all believed in god.

you guys crack me up. :lol:

thrasherbill · « **Reply #54 on:** February 15, 2007, 11:05:50 PM »

Moni is my hero.

Hey Matt, I'm sorry to inform you as i know you've already checked once, but I just checked again and could find no evidence of this being a Volkswagen forum.

Chris · « **Reply #55 on:** February 16, 2007, 06:44:11 AM »

You know what this is all James' fault.

Matt · « **Reply #56 on:** February 16, 2007, 06:50:33 AM »

Quote

Hey Matt, I'm sorry to inform you as i know you've already checked once, but I just checked again and could find no evidence of this being a Volkswagen forum.

I just figured that out. It's a shame, this USED to be a decent VW forum. now it's just another crying post for the bleeding heart and the fanatically religious. I'm driving my gas guzzling SUV straight to hell!!!

James Buchan · « **Reply #57 on:** February 16, 2007, 07:29:19 AM »

HA B)

G-dog · « **Reply #58 on:** February 16, 2007, 04:32:15 PM »

Global warming needs A KICK IN THE JUNK!! :lol:

thrasherbill · « **Reply #59 on:** February 16, 2007, 06:43:24 PM »

Quote

Global warming needs A KICK IN THE JUNK!! :lol:

Amen Brother!

Quote

If you truely want to reduce CO2, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you burn. A small 4 cyl car (like a Beetle!) will emit less CO2 than a big-ass SUV.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of car did you drive to work today?