I just bought an '01 VW Jetta TDi and plan on installing a Greasecar kit (Greasecar Vegetable Fuel Systems) and making my own biodiesel (using Girl Mark's work as a guide).

I'm throwing this post open to anyone with any thoughts, opinions, and/or advice.

Does the biodiesel system work for you? I have been interested to know about all these alternative energy stuff but have not got the chance to try it myself.

All I can say is GOOD LUCK! I would LOVE to do something like that.

I used to favour the use of biodiesel, and spent some time researching it. Creating your own is quite easy, but you need to be meticulous while you go about it. The issues are things like removing bids of food if it is second hand oil, and removing water, and safe use of caustic chemicals.

My reasons for changing from using biodiesel are as follows:

Sure it's a renewable source of energy, but at what cost to the planet and its people - rip out tropical rainforests to plant palm oil plantations does not seem the right way to go otherwise it's a case of using cropland and using it for the self-indulgent purposes of rich westerners versus food for the starving millions.

Bio-diesel would possibly be ok in super frugal internal combustion engines, but to using it to run humvees, or SVUs or as here in Australia 4WD (4 wheel drives) is in my opinion, self-indulgent greediness.

I think biodiesel should only be sourced from waste products such as fat for deep frying food, should be reserved for use of public transport and emergency services. Everybody else should walk or ride a bike.

Another reason for not using biodiesel, is ultra-fine particulate matter. This is caused by all internal combustion engines (ice), and the particles are so fine they go directly through the lung walls into the blood stream, can interrupt the heart beat and affect neural transmission.

In terms of things like rising obesity levels, I think a major disruption to the ownership and use of personal use vehicles would be for the good of all. Various bits of research show that we need to walk a minimum of 5 kilometres (3 miles) a day to maintain a healthy weight and even more if we want to be slim. Rather than going to the gym or setting aside time for jogging a public health policy is better served by changing transport infrastructure that incorporates this level of activity into normal daily life. A combination of walking to the bus or train stop and using public transport to and from work would be one way to do this.

It would be tempting to say use electric cars. At this stage of global warming issues this is folly. Even retro fitting existing vehicles would emit tons of carbon dioxide from the manufacture of the electric engines and storage batteries alone, and if electricity from coal gas or nuclear is used to recharge those batteries the whole exercise is pointless.

Best answer - get a bike and lobby for good public transport and better transport policies.

i'm using public transportation and my feet but i heard something about biodiesel... i'm sorry i'm just dealing with nuclear reactors in my country now

close them all!

I'm all for nuclear power.

Carbon-free, cheap, and the waste can be handled properly...

I don't understand why the typical environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power, it has more potential to save the environment then just about anything else

You are completely wrong on the first two,

An awful lot of CO2 (and other pollutants) are produced building nuclear power stations.

The energy from nuclear power is only cheap because it is heavily government subsidised and the clean-up is not included in costings.

As for the last point would you trust big businesses and governments to handle things properly when they could save money by not.

Aside from all that, Uranium mining is very environmentally damaging and it will run out eventually... not all that long if you run the whole world on nuclear.

Also if you 'go nuclear' to solve the world's environmental problems you would have to let every country have nuclear technology, and I'm not naive enough to assume that no one will try to misuse that technology.

no not nuclear no way isn't iran teaching you that it is far too dagerous in the hands of crack pots, and it can easily get out of hand it only needs one accident a year (quite likely in 10-20 years to come and a world full of nuclear power stations) to ruin the world in 10 years or rather just nuke us

Biodiesel is quite common in Indonesia

Biodiesel from waste oil is an excellent technology, reducing our usage of mineral oil and dealing with a waste product. Biodiesel from virgin oil is a dead-end, using large areas of food-producing land to produce small quantities of fuel.

Also you don't necessarily have to convert to biodiesel - my old Peugeot ran quite happily on up to 10% filtered waste veg oil during the summer months in the UK (low winter temperatures make the mix too thick, so storage for summer use is better). Whether running SVO/WVO or biodiesel, check carefully that the pipework in YOUR vehicle is suitable, as certain tubing can be attacked by VO and biodiesel.

Of course the number 1 tip for environmentally friendly transportation is reduction - support your local farmers and buy local, walk where you can, phone meetings rather than physical meetings and so on. Simple, boring but effective.

Off topic, in reply to previous posts:
Comparing known reserves of natural gas, oil and uranium, at the current (low) rates of usage uranium has around 65 years reserves, compared with 62 years for natural gas (which is HEAVILY used at the moment). If you want to expand nuclear power a little bit, say doubling it (note, this small amount isn't going to save the environment!), then the 35-40 years reserves of uranium at that level compares with the 42 years known reserves (current usage rates) for oil.

Nuclear power isn't renewable, nor is it capable of meeting our expanding energy needs. Even its proponents only make claims for its potential as a bridging technology, until real renewable generation can take over. The time and energy invested in the nuclear industry would be better spent on developing properly renewable energy sources.

Moving on to disposal, techniques for dealing with the smallish levels of high-grade waste have improved hugely over the years, and with vitrification and synroc, there IS a realistic option for long-term safe(ish) disposal. The volumes of MEDIUM and LOW grade waste, however, dwarf the high grade waste, and for these there is no long-term solution, just bar-talk ideas such as reincorporating within uranium mine waste and reburial or injection in subduction zones.

Nuclear energy CAN appear to be low-carbon looking just at production, but whole lifecycle analysis, including storage, disposal, research, monitoring and decommissioning significantly changes this picture.

Fusion technology, though, is certainly worth further research.

Haha! This thread is going in exactly the direction I expected: OFF-TOPIC Keep it up.

I run E-85 ethanol in my car. Does it pollute as bad as gas? Sure, of course it does. Why wouldn't it? The difference is, the money for ethanol goes back into my local economy. The corn is grown here, the fuel is processed and sold here, locally. It doesn't go to these oil oligarchs.

And for those who whine, "but the price of corn", remember, the price of corn hasn't gone up in 40 or more years. Don't you think you local farmers need the price of corn to go up? Do you want to work for 40 years without a raise, without even keeping up with inflation?

Oh man, where should I start on this?
First off, 'global warming' has been going on since the last ice age! It is NOT caused by Man, at it as most been fractionally sped up by Man.
As far as Nuclear goes, the waste issue is the problem. All the nuclear waste in the world comes to the USA for safe storage. The USA also helped dispose of substantial nuclear devices from the former Soviet Union, recycling the weapons into fuel for nuclear plants. Nobody's sure what to do with all the nuclear waste, current plans are deep underground storage.
On BioDiesel: It is renewable and sustainable indefinately. Vast amounts of farmland are under US government subsidy to NOT be used for anything every year! Corn keeps being touted, anybody that thinks corn will bet he primary source for BioDiesel or Ethanol (for E85) obviously doesn't know WTF they're talking about. There are a lot of much more efficient oil products than corn, there are better ethanol base products (brazil uses sugar beets for example).
Then there are the oil algae, this is rapidly-growing algae that have a high percentage of suitable oil AND the algae are fantastic at treating sewage to the point that it is nearly pure enough to be consumed by humans at the final stages! win-win!
Please educate yourself fully and don't believe just propaganda from one side or the other. I am far from a Green Party type yet I generally know environmental issues than many environmental activists do. I am actually a right-leaning ethical capitalist that tries to made educated decisions and educate others.

Eli

FYI

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - earth - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment


The same to you.

Not quite the ethanol component is, apart from the energy used to grow and transport it, carbon neutral - it absorbs as much CO2 while growing as if gives out while being burnt.

516 years ago the consensus among educated, enlightened scientists had proven the world was flat.
If mankind is warming the earth, it isn't the CO2 it's the direct heat. Your computer generates heat that gets dissipated into the atmosphere, hell the electricity generates heat on the wires as it goes down the line. Your car generates huge amounts of heat, concrete and stone streets, sidewalks, and buildings absorb heat and dissipate it into the atmosphere rather than converting it into green life like the plants used to. Industry generates huge amounts of heat that gets dumped into the atmosphere. It has little to do with CO2!!!
And if the greenhouse garbage were true, why did Kioto only apply to Japan an western countries? China and India, two of hte worst offenders, were exempt!

Eli

There is debate over whether that was in fact the case.

Also would you really call 'scientists' of that time enlightened (not is a religious sense of the word).

Oh, and also not that long ago not many people believed in climate change, by your argument that means that it must be true.

On the issue of China and India international politics does not follow common sense (or any other kind of sense)