Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 09-22-2007, 12:05 AM
aurgathor aurgathor is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 2,886
aurgathor is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
more greenhouse gases from biofuels

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece

I could've posted this in the ethanol thread since it actually supports some people's opinion, but that thread is already 10+ pages long, so I think we need a fresh start.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-22-2007, 02:33 PM
EPNCSU2006's Avatar
EPNCSU2006 EPNCSU2006 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Concord, NC
Posts: 9,233
EPNCSU2006 has a very good reputation on FTE.EPNCSU2006 has a very good reputation on FTE.EPNCSU2006 has a very good reputation on FTE.EPNCSU2006 has a very good reputation on FTE.
Again, I don't think we are getting the whole picture of the situation. If someone were to produce a link stating otherwise, I'd feel that both were biased towards their cause. It's such a touchy subject, everyone wants their research to agree with their opinion on the matter.
__________________
Eric

'87 F150 302 ZF 5 speed 4x2
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-22-2007, 02:45 PM
stormyrider stormyrider is offline
Elder User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: northern Michigan
Posts: 699
stormyrider is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurgathor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece

I could've posted this in the ethanol thread since it actually supports some people's opinion, but that thread is already 10+ pages long, so I think we need a fresh start.
According to S. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences global warming is occuring, but as far as man made pollutants being the cause has yet to be proven and according to initial testing and NASA scientist probably is a natural occurance based upon all of the Planets in our solar system warming by the same amount over the same time period. It would appear that possible an increase in the suns output that occurs every 1000 years or so may be the cause. The meeting at the U.N that started us down the path that led to the Kyoto treaty. Global warming by manmade pollutants was not supported by any of the American meteorological society scientist who were barred from speaking at the U.N. IPCC meeting, only about a dozen governing board members(many of which have no credentials in this area) who supported Al Gores view were invited to voice support for the man made cause. On top of this many feel that a moderate warming would be helpful in reducing pollutants in the northern climates from heating and would increase the growing season which increase harvest quantity and removes more pollutants from the atmosphere. It would appear that the U.N and the Clinton administration attempted to sell us a bill of goods that in the long run will impact adversely our standard of living and hurt our economy for no reason. While overall I support decreasing polution it needs to be balanced against cost versus gain unless it is proven that major reductions are necessry by qualified scientist that have done the testing to prove the theory. So far all we have are computer models and those are subject to garbage in garbage out issues and do not supply the proof needed to support the man made theory.
__________________
2000 F250 4 x 4 88,000 miles as of 05/11/2009, conventional cab, longbed,Reese rail system gooseneck hitch
synthetic motor oil
six speed manual transmission.
AIS intake, 4" turbo back Magnaflow S/S exhaust
inlet & outlet pyrometers & boost gauge
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-22-2007, 11:19 PM
fellro86's Avatar
fellro86 fellro86 is offline
Iowa Benevolent Dictator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Marengo, Iowa
Posts: 11,620
fellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud of
It looks like they are focusing on nitrous oxides, which as far as I knew anyway, wasn't really a greenhouse gas, but is a contributor to smog. The blanket statement greenhouse gas doesn't hold much weight, since water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas...
__________________
the workhorse:86 F250 4x4 6.9 Diesel 4-spd, 4.10 axles
the other workhorse 92 F350 2wd crew cab,3.55 rear axle, 92 6bt Cummins, NV4500
the project: 78 F150 4x4 shortbed 351 auto
Iowa Chapter leader, ASE certified parts specialist
Come on down and join us in the Iowa chapter, or your own local chapter!! Thanks, Roger
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-22-2007, 11:38 PM
aurgathor aurgathor is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 2,886
aurgathor is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EPNCSU2006
Again, I don't think we are getting the whole picture of the situation. If someone were to produce a link stating otherwise, I'd feel that both were biased towards their cause. It's such a touchy subject, everyone wants their research to agree with their opinion on the matter.
Usually, what happens is that after someone comes out with a study, other scientists will verify the results -- they may agree and validate them, but they may find an error.

Here's the original research article, BTW:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf
(sorry about not posting it earlier)

This research takes a previously more or less overlooked gas, N2O (laughing gas, not to be confused with NO2 or NOx) into account, and this does make perfect sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-22-2007, 11:49 PM
aurgathor aurgathor is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 2,886
aurgathor is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormyrider
According to S. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences global warming is occuring, but as far as man made pollutants being the cause has yet to be proven [...]
There's plenty of evidence that global warming is happening, and humans, at least partially, are reponsible for that. And I won't argue about this in this particular thread.

As to answer fellro86, while water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, it's concentration in the air doesn't really depend on human activity, except on a very local scale. And I think this has already been discussed here before. If there's too much water vapor in the air, it will simply precipitate out. On the other hand, CO2, CH4, N2O, etc., stay in the atmosphere a lot longer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-23-2007, 01:49 AM
christcorp's Avatar
christcorp christcorp is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 194
christcorp is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
This will be a no win argument for years to come. Those who support ethanol and other bio fuels want to believe that it is such a great thing. They want to believe this so badly that they will rationalize it.

They will say that it's cheaper. It's not! Especially if you include the subsidies which our tax dollars pay for.

They will say that it reduces are dependancy on fossil fuels. It doesn't! Especially when you take into consideration the very small amount of ethanol that is used. Primarily in automobiles and no where else. As wll as the fossile fuels required to produce the ethanol and the lower efficiency level.

They will even say that it's better for the environment. Even though more and more is showing that that isn't exactly correct.

They also will have you believe that it's great for our economy and "The Farmer". It isn't! The majority of the farms that grow corn and produce ethanol are large corporations like Archer Daniels Midland. Plus, many more people have jobs related to the petroleum industry than can ever be compared to the ethanol industry. A lot more money goes to the average worker via patroleum.

The main point is that while petroleum isn't the greatest thing on the planet, we know what it can do for us and we know how to work with it's side affects. That can't be said for ethanol. Ethanol has been in use for approximately 30 years or more, yet they don't know any more about it now than they did when they first started using it. That's not even counting how alcohol based fuel was what was originally used when the automobile was invented, yet they saw the inefficiency of it and migrated towards petroleum based fuels. Then there's also all of the plastics, oils, and other byproducts that are produced via fossile fuels.

Nope, there is no winning this one. Neither side will budge for the common good of all people. I am all for finding an alternative energy source other than petroleum. Even if it's just a replacement for the transportation industry such as cars, trucks, trains, planes, etc... I just don't think that ethanol is the answer and that it is wasting a lot of valuable resources that could be targeted towards finding a real solution. IMO, ethanol is pushed solely for political reasons. Later... Mike....
__________________
The Ford Family:
2000 Ford Focus - 143,000 miles
1994 Ford Explorer (4.0l V6) - 114.000 miles
1994 Ford F250 (460 V8) - 65,100 miles
1966 Ford Mustang (289 V8) - 141,200 miles

"Born Wild; Raised Proud"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-23-2007, 09:19 AM
fellro86's Avatar
fellro86 fellro86 is offline
Iowa Benevolent Dictator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Marengo, Iowa
Posts: 11,620
fellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud of
That study wasn't talking just ethanol though, it also was talking biodiesel as well.

Quote:
Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels.
I still stand by the statement "greenhouse gases" is a very general term, and carbon dioxide is usually the main target, not nitrogen. According to this study, it would seem now nitrogen is suspect as well. That is what the majority of our atmosphere is already, so if it was detrimental in that form, it should already be a problem. It is regularly ignored that the fact the earth warms and cools in cycles may have a little something to do with it, at least in the media, which makes it sound more like man is the only cause. You will find there is resistance to ALL alternatives, being in Wyoming, I'm sure you likely have heard all the flap about how wind power for electricity is a bad thing... Other than a few pinwheels on a ridge, they have no visual troubles, but that is the complaint. Then the risk to birds. No matter the source, there will be opponents.
__________________
the workhorse:86 F250 4x4 6.9 Diesel 4-spd, 4.10 axles
the other workhorse 92 F350 2wd crew cab,3.55 rear axle, 92 6bt Cummins, NV4500
the project: 78 F150 4x4 shortbed 351 auto
Iowa Chapter leader, ASE certified parts specialist
Come on down and join us in the Iowa chapter, or your own local chapter!! Thanks, Roger
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-24-2007, 02:34 AM
aurgathor aurgathor is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 2,886
aurgathor is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fellro86
I still stand by the statement "greenhouse gases" is a very general term, and carbon dioxide is usually the main target, not nitrogen. According to this study, it would seem now nitrogen is suspect as well.
That is what the majority of our atmosphere is already, so if it was detrimental in that form, it should already be a problem.
Are you in the same page?!? It is N2O (nitrous-oxide), not nitrogen.

And in my previous post. I specifcally noted that we're talking about N2O to make sure it won't get mixed up. Duh!!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-24-2007, 08:09 AM
fellro86's Avatar
fellro86 fellro86 is offline
Iowa Benevolent Dictator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Marengo, Iowa
Posts: 11,620
fellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud offellro86 has much to be proud of
Nitrogen is part of it, correct? It has 2 parts nitrogen, 1 part oxygen.
__________________
the workhorse:86 F250 4x4 6.9 Diesel 4-spd, 4.10 axles
the other workhorse 92 F350 2wd crew cab,3.55 rear axle, 92 6bt Cummins, NV4500
the project: 78 F150 4x4 shortbed 351 auto
Iowa Chapter leader, ASE certified parts specialist
Come on down and join us in the Iowa chapter, or your own local chapter!! Thanks, Roger
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-24-2007, 03:03 PM
weeds weeds is offline
Senior User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 457
weeds is starting off with a positive reputation.
Ok, Nitrogen and N2O are two different animals. We've gone over chemistry before, but it looks like we have to do it again. Nitrogen in the atmosphere is N2...that's it, nothing else-N2O is, well, N2O. Reacts differently. You breathe it in, it takes the place of where oxygen would go in your blood, and you get loopy, sick, or dead.
As another example of how chemistry works in weird ways...take Sodium (Na) and Chlorine (Cl). Pure Sodium explodes when you put it into water, Chlorine is a poisonus gas, combine the two (NaCl) and (whalah!) you get SALT!
__________________
I won't make a signature until you realize the irony...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-24-2007, 03:32 PM
76supercab2's Avatar
76supercab2 76supercab2 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,043
76supercab2 has a good reputation on FTE.76supercab2 has a good reputation on FTE.76supercab2 has a good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fellro86
Nitrogen is part of it, correct? It has 2 parts nitrogen, 1 part oxygen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeds
Ok, Nitrogen and N2O are two different animals. We've gone over chemistry before, but it looks like we have to do it again. Nitrogen in the atmosphere is N2...that's it, nothing else-N2O is, well, N2O. Reacts differently. You breathe it in, it takes the place of where oxygen would go in your blood, and you get loopy, sick, or dead.
As another example of how chemistry works in weird ways...take Sodium (Na) and Chlorine (Cl). Pure Sodium explodes when you put it into water, Chlorine is a poisonus gas, combine the two (NaCl) and (whalah!) you get SALT!
Not really guys. N2O is Nitrous Oxide, known as laughing gas and an anaesthetic.

What we are talking about as a byproduct of combustion is NOx - NO and NO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide

And as you point out Weeds, one small change in the chemical formula makes a big change in what the material is and how it behaves.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-24-2007, 04:07 PM
aurgathor aurgathor is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 2,886
aurgathor is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 76supercab2
What we are talking about as a byproduct of combustion is NOx - NO and NO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide
No, this is not about NOx or NO2 -- the title of the research article (the .pdf) is:
"N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels"
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-24-2007, 04:35 PM
aurgathor aurgathor is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 2,886
aurgathor is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fellro86
Nitrogen is part of it, correct? It has 2 parts nitrogen, 1 part oxygen.
For starters, this argument shows you total lack of understanding the relevant physics and chemistry. This will most certainly add lots of weight to your posts in alternative fuels.

Additionally, if this was your intended way to weasel out -- you should've known it better. Often, it's much simpler to admit a mistake -- be it carelessness or misunderstanding than trying to come with some backdoor excuse built on quicksand.

As for the shemistry, just because N2O and N2 both have 2 N, that doesn't say much about how they behave. They're very different gases in most respects. N2O is also different from the other nitrogen oxides (often just collectively called NOx) that it cannot be made directly from nitrogen and oxygen; instead, it is normally made from some other compound such as NH4NO3. (ammonium nitrate)

Last edited by aurgathor; 09-24-2007 at 04:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-24-2007, 06:36 PM
76supercab2's Avatar
76supercab2 76supercab2 is offline
Postmaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,043
76supercab2 has a good reputation on FTE.76supercab2 has a good reputation on FTE.76supercab2 has a good reputation on FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurgathor
No, this is not about NOx or NO2 -- the title of the research article (the .pdf) is:
"N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels"
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf
Well then collect it and sell it to the ricers. They're always looking for the NAWZ. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2007, 06:36 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BII in the UK for sale Millsrocks Bronco II 0 01-11-2013 06:23 PM
Coolant Filter Build Sheet & Custom Bracket ... 98SurplusExpy 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel 11 05-21-2010 08:56 PM
Roush 600RE BigF350 General Automotive Discussion 5 08-13-2007 05:25 PM
OK I don't get it alabbasi Ranger & B-Series 23 04-19-2007 01:55 AM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Misc. > Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


Participate In The Forums

Create new posts and participate in discussions. It's free!

Sign Up »





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.

vbulletin Admin Backup