Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You can buy a bio-diesel convertor plant for £1,000.

As long as you produce under 2,500 litres a year you don't need to pay excise duty on it.

http://www.biobot.org.uk/?gclid=CKzo6ePG6ZsCFZgU4wodaUsh4Q

Obviously £1,000 is a bit more than most people probably have lying around to spend suddenly, even if it will save them money in the long run. (Diesel fuel currently costs at least £1 per litre in the UK.)

However, it's the sort of money where a few neighbours could club together to buy the kit.

What makes it very green is getting the raw oil from local chip shops, who otherwise have to pay to throw it away.

Still has to be converted to diesel though, vs. cheaper diesel ditillates from your standard issue hydrocarbon source.

Frazzled wrote:Still has to be converted to diesel though, vs. cheaper diesel ditillates from your standard issue hydrocarbon source.

Diesel costs about 2.50 a gallon. BioDiesel is about 1.40 a gallon; including energy, capital, and plant costs.

Dogma you punk I was about to reply how the fractionation costs were cheaper when decided to research. Its a shame we don't have CERA any more I'd get a definitive answer so anm forced to look at public stuff. Its all from biodiesel startups and not 3rd parties so can't rely on (frankly doesn't talk about costs). But there's enough uncertainty to withhold disagreeing as I cannot reasonably disagree without more informational support (sigh there goes my fun).

kind of cool article for deeper review.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Nuclear power owns all you bitchez.

Frazzled wrote:Both China and India have rejected carbon cuts while recommending the US do so. Love it.

So do I. Ahaha.

The point about a local biodiesel scheme is you get a fair bit of free labour and you get very cheap feedstock, but it will not scale up well. You can't run a whole country on discarded chip fat. There just aren't enough chip shops.

Conversely, ordinary diesel would become a lot more expensive if it wasn't mass produced.

I don't think there needs to be a sea change in lifestyles to achieve a lot of carbon savings.

Buy a smaller car when you need a new one. Get a diesel and start a local biodiesel scheme.
Make more local journeys on foot or bike.
Get one of those meters that displays your electricity consumption.
Switch off the lights when you go out of a room.
As they wear out, replace your appliances with energy efficient versions.
Install a solar panel array and a geothermal heat exchanger array.
Lag your loft and get cavity wall insulation.
Install triple glazing.
Recycle your rubbish.

Individual householders and small local societies can do these things. They do not require a major government initiative, new taxes, or international treaties to accomplish.

one small issue you have though is substitution, yellow grease is used in the manufacture of animal feed and alternatively lubricants or fertilizer.

I am for the other comments, if they are energy cost efficient and don;t themsleves pollute more in manufacture vs. KW hour saved.

Kilkrazy wrote:The point about a local biodiesel scheme is you get a fair bit of free labour and you get very cheap feedstock, but it will not scale up well. You can't run a whole country on discarded chip fat. There just aren't enough chip shops.

There is here in Britain

Well there is in Liverpool of course but that won't help the rest of Europe.

I wonder if you can make biodiesel from the waste products of a Belgian bun factory.

Frazzled wrote:Its all from biodiesel startups and not 3rd parties so can't rely on (frankly doesn't talk about costs).

I got my numbers from this place. Whether or not you trust the government is up to you, but it jives pretty well with what I've always heard about BioDiesel.

Er, um note the chart from your sorted report. Production costs for petroleum based diesel is substantially less than half that of yellow grease and even better against soybean.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/pdf/tbl3.pdf

I don't want to make an argument about it but the figures need to be considered with a bit of background in mind.

1. If we are at peak oil we can expect the cost of crude oil to rise rather than fall from now on. (Mineral oil is a finite resource.)

2. Diesel production costs don't take into account the huge military budget needed to protect foreign oil fields.

3. The costs of petro and bio diesel do not include any externalities.

Frazzled wrote:Er, um note the chart from your sorted report. Production costs for petroleum based diesel is substantially less than half that of yellow grease and even better against soybean.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/pdf/tbl3.pdf

That's odd, because the same site lists the commercial sale of petroleum diesel at twice the amount presented in that chart.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_dist_a_EPD2D_PTA_cpgal_m.htm

Unless by "price at the refinery gate" they mean "cost at the refinery gate".

not usually.

My chart reading skills are far from superb, but it looked to me like Frazzled's chart was the cost to manufacture a gallon, and Dogma's chart was the cost paid by the average consumer.

Frazzled wrote:And your direct tax on emissions would hammer the poor, absolutely hammer them. I, China, and India welcome Australia, and Europe applying as severe a cap and trade program as possible.

First up, I'll remember your concern for the poor when we end up discussing minimum wage or social security. Second up, no legislation should be introduced in isolation, with nothing done to mitigate negative consequences. It isn't rocket science to assess the impact on lower socio-economic groups and adjust taxes and benefits proportionately. Pretending that option doesn't exist is disingenuous.

Lastly, the countries that continue to emit carbon at the same rates will gain competitive advantage over countries that curb emissions. Which is exactly why this is being addressed as an international issue, with all nations playing their part. And the thing is, I can understand why negotiations on an international agreement can fall apart. There are a lot of issues and a lot of players and so even with the best of intentions it is a very fragile thing. The Indians and the Chinese point out that they have economies that are playing catch up to the rest of the world and capping their total emissions at current levels wouldn't be fair because they're currently emitting so much less per capita. The Australians argue that they've had environmental controls for a long time, and capping emissions at current levels would be penalising them for having curbed emissions in the past (and transferring production to countries with poorer controls). I understand why an agreement isn't automatic despite the urgency and clear need.

But I'm honestly left wondering at the block of people who seem to have nothing staked on the issue other than a desire to see it fail. Is it that they honestly believe there is no global warming... maybe, but if they're so badly informed why do they have an opinion at all? Is it because the 'other side' is seen as more environmental than their own... better to see the world burn than to lose a political argument? Don't know, but it is absurd.

Frazzled wrote:not usually.

I went back and read the fine print, and that is what they mean. Unless I'm misinterpreting "cost is assumed to be price at the refinery gate".

That said, the second link I posted seems to factor in distribution costs. So you're correct after all.

sebster wrote:
First up, I'll remember your concern for the poor when we end up discussing minimum wage or social security. Second up, no legislation should be introduced in isolation, with nothing done to mitigate negative consequences. It isn't rocket science to assess the impact on lower socio-economic groups and adjust taxes and benefits proportionately. Pretending that option doesn't exist is disingenuous.

Good to see your discussion style includes debating my intent. Thats lame.

India now rejecting the scientific underpinnings of global warming.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c2896b88-77bd-11de-9713-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1