Another one lost....

[Ali Wiseman]

[quote="Mad-Dan" post=12891]so does burning veg oil not create Co2?

to be fair, i'm not arsed about global warming, i'm going to buy a v8 jag in the hope next summer will be better than the last one.[/quote]

I have a mint Daimler Double Six going cheap, if You can afford the juice to run it, and fancy something older. No rot at all, better attention to detail and build quality than the XJS series, despite being based on the same platform.

[John Nicholson]

Yes, of course burning veg oil also produces CO2 in exactly the same way as does burning mineral (fossil) fuel.  However, as I explained before, the issue (for those of us who want to make a responsible choice on the way we use energy), is where this carbon material comes from.  i e all fossil carbon in coal, gas or oil is created by energy from the sun that was captured by plants and then stored below the earth's surface for many millions of years. If we suddenly release this energy by burning and let the carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide then we seriously displace the balance of the earths systems.  In terms of geological time two hundred years of the industrial revolution is a flash in time compared to the 400 million years since the carboniferous period.

By comparison, using energy that is collected from the sun by plants in the last few years does not cause such a disbalance in the earth's systems.

In my view this does not justify cutting down rainforests to grow palm oil for bio-fuels.  This is a counter productive business venture, thankfully the British Government is now stoppoing new oil from being used for bio-fuels.  

The work I do is to collect used cooking oil and other used or waste materials which can be blended to make fuels with as low a fossil derived content as possible within the law.  Sadly, the law in the UK prevents many of the materials I wish e could use, but I am constantly lobbying government for a better legal structure that could achieve real environmental change.

[Ian A]

[quote="timwatts" post=12874]
Plants love CO2.  [/quote]

This is quite possibly the single most important factor in the whole CO2 political debacle that I believe is either "missed" or obfiscated.

Not only do plants love the stuff, they NEED it. The more CO2 there is, the more "lush" the flora genus becomes. The more it thrives the more oxygen it produces and, inevitably, we have equilbrium.

Of course, all things are not equal and the planet has gone through a great many very significant changes in it's history and, oddly, appears to have survived them all.

Interesting isn't it  

Ian

[John Nicholson]

If it was as you suggest Ian, the trees and grass at the sides of roads would grow so much more strongly that they would encroach the roads.  The fact is that the actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is very low indeed.  Increasing it makes the earth absorb more heat from the sun and hold it inside the virtual greenhouse.  This warming makes deserts expand and ice caps reduce.

It is also true that there have been many periods when the earth has been through hot phases and cold phases.  The problem is that these changes last many millions of years.  Scientists are now looking at what are called 'tipping points' where slight warming sets of mechanisms which in turn instigate further warming, and so on so we end up with an inevitable and disastrous process of change that we are powerless to correct.  It may then take longer for the earth to revert to our current climate conditions than the time that mankind has existed - probably much longer.

One thing I can agree about is that the earth has been through many such swings as part of its 'natural' evolution, and one of the things I find especially awesome is when we meet a clear junction in the rocks when underground.  These show that an 'event' took place in the earth's history.  One such event can be clearly seen in the Rhyd Alun passageway, and there is a sticky clay in the joint between two distinctively different types of rock.  This clay is probably volcanic ash or ash from major landscape fires.

One of the most spectacular events was about 65 million years ago when a meteor the size of Anglesey hit Guatemala.  This set going a whole series of curst events that caused major extinctions.  It caused the difference between two periods of geological time, and there is a white clay like ash layer 2” thick where ever this sequence of rocks are exposed.  It also changed the genetic structure of life on the planet so that adaptability became the most important factor rather than speciality.  This resulted in the demise of the dinosaurs and the rise of ham - the ultimate in adaptable life existence.

[Danny Sutton]

[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12893]Yes, of course burning veg oil also produces CO2 in exactly the same way as does burning mineral (fossil) fuel.  However, as I explained before, the issue (for those of us who want to make a responsible choice on the way we use energy), is where this carbon material comes from.  i e all fossil carbon in coal, gas or oil is created by energy from the sun that was captured by plants and then stored below the earth's surface for many millions of years. If we suddenly release this energy by burning and let the carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide then we seriously displace the balance of the earths systems.  In terms of geological time two hundred years of the industrial revolution is a flash in time compared to the 400 million years since the carboniferous period.

By comparison, using energy that is collected from the sun by plants in the last few years does not cause such a disbalance in the earth's systems.

In my view this does not justify cutting down rainforests to grow palm oil for bio-fuels.  This is a counter productive business venture, thankfully the British Government is now stoppoing new oil from being used for bio-fuels.  

The work I do is to collect used cooking oil and other used or waste materials which can be blended to make fuels with as low a fossil derived content as possible within the law.  Sadly, the law in the UK prevents many of the materials I wish e could use, but I am constantly lobbying government for a better legal structure that could achieve real environmental change.[/quote]

So, using that logic, is it better to heat my house from a fire kept lit by burning conifers, cos they grow quickly, than it is to heat my house using gas?

Ali, which shape double six is, i've had a few of these, i'm a big fan of jags.

[John Nicholson]

What you say Dan is correct about burning conifers, but my guess is that you live in Manchester and there may be problems actually burning any house fire.  

An even better solution would be to burn the chippings created by people like John Crazy when they cut the brushwood along roadsides, but let it dry out well and then blend it with waste palm oil, and the solid crap I remove form UCO.  Doug has just built a fantastic stove which can burn both logs and chippings.  This provides hinm with heat, hot water and cooking.  It is a most impressive feat of engineering design and practical craftsmanship.

I would be very interested in experimenting with mixtures of veg oil waste and wood waste.  It would be a great project with the various skills present between UCET members.

[Robin Jones]

I love the idea of renewable fuel and fully appreciate the importance of looking after our fantastic planet for future generations.

However, during the tourist season, my stock run consists of Rhos on Sea - Edinburgh - Scarborough & back to Rhos on Sea (just shy of 700 miles).  Logistically it wouldn't be possible to do this using biofuel on the 60 litre fuel tank on my van.

Secondly, any environmental benefit is easily off set by the 4 gas guzzling lorries that now collect my rubbish / recycling that 1 lorry used to collect... (rant over)  :whistle:

[Doug Thompson]

[quote="Ian" post=12894][quote="timwatts" post=12874]
Plants love CO2.  [/quote]

This is quite possibly the single most important factor in the whole CO2 political debacle that I believe is either "missed" or obfiscated.

Not only do plants love the stuff, they NEED it. The more CO2 there is, the more "lush" the flora genus becomes. The more it thrives the more oxygen it produces and, inevitably, we have equilbrium.

Of course, all things are not equal and the planet has gone through a great many very significant changes in it's history and, oddly, appears to have survived them all.


Well, whilst I agree with what you say with regard to the gas exchange of plants I feel that I must point out that we are cutting down the trees,and concreting over the grass, at an ever increasing rate, plants cannot do thier work if they have been anhilated.
And can I put a word in for solar pannels which use the suns photons directly, thereby helping to cool the plannet.

[Ali Wiseman]

'94 HE 6.0L
I have a C plate XJS V12 as well.

If that's not to Your taste, I can turn up loads, I used to buy them to Trike the running gear, and still keep in touch with a lot of people.

[John Nicholson]

In reply to Mr Sweetie...
There are people making bio-fuels all over the UK.  When I do long trips I take extra fuel in 20 litre tubs in the back.  We must never let the stupid things Councils do ever put us off doing what we know is the right thing for the long term.  Many Councils are also running their service vehicles on 100% bio-fuel.  

I have been working with authorities in China where they remove the yellow fat that sticks to the roof of sewers as a fuel for the council vehicles that operate the tips.  This process uses ozone which is made by generators running on fat, so they get electricity, heat and feul from this stinking waste.  I cant get any help from the UK government to develop the concept here.

I am a bit confused about Dougs post - unless he only added the last paragraph, which does make sense.  I think the case that plants are needing more CO2 to grow better as a reason to justify the burning of fossil fuels was thrown out many years ago! As I have said before, Climate Change is caused by the Greenhouse Effect not by gassing us out with CO2.

[Robin Jones]

[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12901] We must never let the stupid things Councils do ever put us off doing what we know is the right thing for the long term.  Many Councils are also running their service vehicles on 100% bio-fuel.  

I cant get any help from the UK government to develop the concept here.[/quote]

I have friends who work in a variety of sectors all over the world and it would appear that as a country we are extremely out of date with many things John.

I really admire your work and enthusiasm towards bio-fuels, but as soon as anything like that catches on in a big way, they'll just tax the arse off it.

A classic example of this was when in 1984 the post office converted the whole of their fleet operating out of Shrewsbury to LPG, then the government wacked the tax on it, then they converted them all back.

[mike leahy]

[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12897]I would be very interested in experimenting with mixtures of veg oil waste and wood waste. [/quote]
these are already on sale as slugs or pellets. basically compressed wood waste and a flammible additive to keep it together, not sure what the ingredients are but im sure your waste product would create the same results. drop some waste produce off with doug and im sure he'll have it figured out in no time.

[John Nicholson]

I must be careful here.

I did drop some waste oil off on poor John Crazy - but that really was a horrible accident!

Before doing the same to Dougie I will come to a prior arrangement.

I must say again though that his new stove is a work of art.

I also learnt that Doug makes other wonderful things that could be used as a fuel.

[Ian A]

To address a few raised issues (mostly Johns oddly);

I did not say that the flora IS more lush, I suggested it would be if there were more CO2 (thusly, there would be an increase in oxygen and therefore equilibrium QED.) I also stated that “things are not equal” meaning there are other influences. None of what I stated was intended to defeat an argument for lower CO2 emissions although I do sincerely believe that the argument to reduce it is overstated and obfuscated.

John’s best friend, Jeremy Clarkson, took a vehicle expedition across the arctic to the North Pole (in a Totoya Hilux) and made it to the actual pole. His last remark was (about his trip to the North Pole) “The most surprising thing of all is, that it is still here” â€" said in the context that the “environmentalists” would all have us believe it was not. I am not suggesting that the poles are not receding (they are) but I am suggesting (again) that the position is being overstated and obfuscated.

It is also science fact that the planet produces some (I could say sizable but it is a moot point) CO2 emissions all by itself without humans doing anything all. In the past it produced gazillions of the stuff. Again, oddly, it seems to have sorted itself out. Moreover, it could be argued that human CO2 production is only an accelerant and not a cause. Not that this is a provocative statement  

And some food for thought ... Why do scientists need to reverse the effects? Why do we need to revert?  There is a basic law of science that prevents anything returning to its original state and has prevented the planet from returning to its former self on any previous occasion (and no matter what we do now will prove all attempts ultimately futile)

To quote Professor Brian Cox (who does know a thing or two);

Entropy.

 

[mike leahy]

[quote="JohnNicholson" post=12905]I must be careful here.

I must say again though that his new stove is a work of art.

[/quote]

hand made out of stainless steel