HVO is it available?

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Use fuels that are sustainable .

HVO from Palm oil obtained responsibly from waste materials as an example

Electricity generated from solar , wind or  nuclear are other examples

 

And how is that going to stop people cutting down rain forest? 

 

 

Remember, you said continuing cutting down rain forest was "not an option". 

 

[Momac]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And how is that going to stop people cutting down rain forest? 

 

 

Remember, you said continuing cutting down rain forest was "not an option". 

 

I said cutting down the rainforest to grow palm oil to make fuel is not an option. 

[peterboat]

31 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And how is that going to stop people cutting down rain forest? 

 

 

Remember, you said continuing cutting down rain forest was "not an option". 

 

In Brazil the change of president is stopping it happening, as time goes on it will happen or we will all die simples, the earth won't die of course it will evolve and eradicate us as the problem 

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I said cutting down the rainforest to grow palm oil to make fuel is not an option. 

So burning diesel is better -- yes or no?

[Momac]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

So burning diesel is better -- yes or no?

Yes

12 minutes ago, peterboat said:

In Brazil the change of president is stopping it happening, as time goes on it will happen or we will all die simples, the earth won't die of course it will evolve and eradicate us as the problem 

Ian D doesn't understand that concept .

[IanD]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

You are way off the mark palm trees are useless in comparison to the rain forest and alter the climate totally 

 

OK, unlike you I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong 🙂

 

Like I said, HVO from crops -- especailly thousands of miles away, palm oil included -- is not a good option for when you have no choice other than burning liquid fuel, HVO from local waste oil is much better. And "cutting down rainforests" to grow this is a bad idea.

 

But even given this (because it's not made from 100% rainforest palm oil) HVO is still better than burning fossil diesel. That's what all the studies show.

 

Going on about rainforests and HVO is like saying that wind turbines should be banned because they kill lots of birds, while ignoring the fact that cats kill about a thousand times more -- it's appealing to emotions, not the big picture and actual facts.

 

Even if palm oil locks up less CO2 than rainforests which is obviously a bad thing, the CO2 saved by burning HVO instead of diesel more than makes up for this.

 

So saying "this is bad for the climate totally" is simply scientific illiteracy... 😉

26 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Yes

Ian D doesn't understand that concept .

I understand that concept perfectly well, bacuase rising CO2 levels are the biggest single threat to life on earth, and CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel are by far the biggest cause of this.

 

Your first answer of "yes" shows that you don't.... 😞

Edited May 8, 2023 by IanD

[Momac]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I understand that concept perfectly well

Clearly you do not.

 

Once a rain forest is lost it is gone forever. Cutting  down rain forest simply to grow crops for fuel is not sustainable. 

In fact growing crops only to make fuel is not sustainable regardless of the location. We cant have energy crops competing  for land against food crops.

Using the otherwise waste or by products from crops to make HVO for example is however sustainable and acceptable.

 

The use of alternatives to fossil  fuels must progress but not at the expense of cutting down rain forests  to grow crops only to make HVO.

 

In the meantime it is better to keep using diesel until alternative sustainable energy sources take over .

You may have noticed that is what is happening , very slowly.

 

[peterboat]

26 minutes ago, IanD said:

OK, unlike you I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong 🙂

 

Like I said, HVO from crops -- especailly thousands of miles away, palm oil included -- is not a good option for when you have no choice other than burning liquid fuel, HVO from local waste oil is much better. And "cutting down rainforests" to grow this is a bad idea.

 

But even given this (because it's not made from 100% rainforest palm oil) HVO is still better than burning fossil diesel. That's what all the studies show.

 

Going on about rainforests and HVO is like saying that wind turbines should be banned because they kill lots of birds, while ignoring the fact that cats kill about a thousand times more -- it's appealing to emotions, not the big picture and actual facts.

 

Even if palm oil locks up less CO2 than rainforests which is obviously a bad thing, the CO2 saved by burning HVO instead of diesel more than makes up for this.

 

So saying "this is bad for the climate totally" is simply scientific illiteracy... 😉

I understand that concept perfectly well, bacuase rising CO2 levels are the biggest single threat to life on earth, and CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel are by far the biggest cause of this.

 

Your first answer of "yes" shows that you don't.... 😞

I said much earlier that HVO produced from waste oils was good, I also said it's best use is farming and building where it cant be electrified. For transport it's a none starter, we can't produce enough clearly froved by palm oils being used for it. In reality for the amount inland boaters use they should be able to cover our use. Of course gin palaces use our yearly supplies in one trip out! So maybe not them 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Clearly you do not.

 

Once a rain forest is lost it is gone forever. Cutting  down rain forest simply to grow crops for fuel is not sustainable. 

In fact growing crops only to make fuel is not sustainable regardless of the location. We cant have energy crops competing  for land against food crops.

Using the otherwise waste or by products from crops to make HVO for example is however sustainable and acceptable.

 

The use of alternatives to fossil  fuels must progress but not at the expense of cutting down rain forests  to grow crops only to make HVO.

 

In the meantime it is better to keep using diesel until alternative sustainable energy sources take over .

You may have noticed that is what is happening , very slowly.

 

I never said it was sustainable, I said it was bad -- but still less bad than burning diesel.

 

Having energy crops competing against food crops is bad -- but still less bad than burning diesel.

 

It's not better to keep using diesel.

 

Of all the things we can do, carrying on burning fossil fuels like diesel is the worst. Almost anything else is better, including HVO -- but some things are better than others.

 

Is the message getting through? 😉

 

(I suspect not...)

 

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I said much earlier that HVO produced from waste oils was good, I also said it's best use is farming and building where it cant be electrified. For transport it's a none starter, we can't produce enough clearly froved by palm oils being used for it. In reality for the amount inland boaters use they should be able to cover our use. Of course gin palaces use our yearly supplies in one trip out! So maybe not them 

All of which is exactly what I said, so I'm glad we agree... 🙂

Edited May 8, 2023 by IanD

[Momac]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

I never said it was sustainable, I said it was bad -- but still less bad than burning diesel.

 

Having energy crops competing against food crops is bad -- but still less bad than burning diesel.

 

It's not better to keep using diesel.

 

Of all the things we can do, carrying on burning fossil fuels like diesel is the worst. Almost anything else is better, including HVO -- but some things are better than others.

 

Is the message getting through? 😉

 

(I suspect not...)

 

Similarly my message is not getting through to you.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Similarly my message is not getting through to you.

Yeah -- but mine is based on facts, and yours is based on opinions. Sadly many people nowadays don't believe in facts/experts any more, and think their opinions trump facts... 😞

[rusty69]

Just now, IanD said:

Yeah -- but mine is based on facts, and yours is based on opinions. Sadly many people nowadays don't believe in facts/experts any more, and think their opinions trump facts... 😞

Is that a fact, or just your opinion?

[IanD]

51 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Is that a fact, or just your opinion?

My opinion, of course... 😉

 

But @MartynG is steadfastly ignoring the elephant in the room which is CO2 emissions and keeps playing the "think of the rainforests!" card -- which is of course true in itself, like the CMers "think of the children!", but being similarly economical with the truth as far as the real argument is concerned... 😞

 

All the reputable analyses show that biofuel from crops -- including palm oil -- is not great because of competition with food and rainforests, but that it's still better than burning fossil fuels.

 

HVO from waste (limited quantities) is much better, and renewables are much better still and where the big effort shopuld be concentrated -- but for several reasons this isn't a solution for niche cases like boats on the inland waterways, so here HVO is the least bad solution -- preferably made locally from waste oil.

 

Those are the facts, not my opinion... 😉

Edited May 8, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

Intersting article that Sweden are looking to reduce the 'bio' in Bio-fuel as it will reduce the cost by some 25%

 

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's minority coalition has agreed to lower the amount of biofuel mixed in diesel and gasoline, a move it says will cut prices for cash-strapped drivers, but which climate groups say will increase C02 emissions.

 

 

Like other Europeans, Swedes face a cost-of-living crisis amid soaring inflation but also have some of the highest diesel and petrol prices in the world*, mainly due to heavy taxes.

Diesel currently costs around 20.3 Swedish crowns ($2.00)per litre and petrol 18.8 crowns. The government said reducing the amount of biofuel will cut the cost of a litre of diesel by 5.5 Swedish crowns.

 

"The rules for the biofuel mix have not been an effective climate policy," the government and the Sweden Democrats said in the Dagens Nyheter newspaper on Sunday.

 

* 20 Krone equates to £1.56. - our local garage is still £1.669 ppl

(I'm guessing the author of the article doesn't include the UK  within the confines of 'the world'

 

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

49 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Once a rain forest is lost it is gone forever. Cutting  down rain forest simply to grow crops for fuel is not sustainable. 

 

 

But this is different from your earlier assertion that cutting down rain forests to grow HVO is "not an option".

 

Clearly it IS an option. Just not a very sensible one. 

 

But more sensible than continuing to burn dino juice indiscriminately. Probably. 

 

 

 

 

[peterboat]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

But this is different from your earlier assertion that cutting down rain forests to grow HVO is "not an option".

 

Clearly it IS an option. Just not a very sensible one. 

 

But more sensible than continuing to burn dino juice indiscriminately. Probably. 

 

 

 

 

No it's a total disaster! As I proved, it's an EU link and really a 80% loss of of the world's ability to convert carbon dioxide to air means we are finished rapidly, just so people can continue without change for a couple of years before they are extinct? Not the brightest of ideas is it?

[Mike Todd]

54 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Is that a fact, or just your opinion?

Science, properly, is about making an hypothesis, conducting and experiment to measure/verify the hypothesis and then reporting the process so that it can be independently replicated and peer reviewed.

 

The problem with matters such as climate change is that such an experiment is not feasible - we can't destroy the world and then see what happens!

 

Consequently we cannot really progress much beyond the hypothesis stage, however 'reasonable' the hypothesis may be and consistent with our established data. This is what scientists do not science.

 

Remember that in general, scientific experiment is based on a null hypothesis: experiments/observations/measurements can refute an hypothesis they cannot prove it. Remember Popper: no amount of white swans proves that all swans are white but a single black swan will disprove it.

 

 

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, peterboat said:

No it's a total disaster! As I proved, it's an EU link and really a 80% loss of of the world's ability to convert carbon dioxide to air means we are finished rapidly, just so people can continue without change for a couple of years before they are extinct? Not the brightest of ideas is it?

Peter, apart from your meaningless word salad in bold, you don't seem to understand how the carbon cycle works...

 

Trees take up CO2 from the atmosphere, keep the carbon locked away (until they die and rot...), and put the oxygen back into the atmosphere, so they act as a carbon sink. It's why they're a great idea, as well as the wildlife/ecosystem benefits.

 

So cutting them down looks stupid -- and is if done to farm beef -- but you need to look at what happens then when used for biofuel. Growing palm oil to make HVO is one of the highest-yielding energy crops, which is why it's done. The HVO yield from this -- if it replaces dino-diesel -- reduces net CO2 emissions by more than the rainforest did. So if you ignore the ecosystem/wildlife issue -- which I'm not saying we should, these are *really* important! -- then as far as the planet is concerned HVO is better than dino-diesel.

 

Of course not cutting down the rainforests or competing with food crops would be great -- but to avoid this, what's your proposed solution for end uses which can't make use of renewable energy?

 

Saying "ooh, this is really bad!" without either looking at the consequences of doing/not doing it or having any proposed alternative is not making an argument, it's just shouting into a megaphone to get attention.

 

Please don't come back and say "we should all drive/fly less/go vegan/eat less meat/have fewer children" because this isn't an either/or case -- of course we should do what we can to reduce resource use, but also try and reduce the harm done by what resources we do use.

 

And to put it simply, continuing to dig up and burn vast amounts of fossil fuel stored 300M years ago is pretty much the worst possible option, almost *anything* -- including HVO -- is better than this.

 

14 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Science, properly, is about making an hypothesis, conducting and experiment to measure/verify the hypothesis and then reporting the process so that it can be independently replicated and peer reviewed.

 

The problem with matters such as climate change is that such an experiment is not feasible - we can't destroy the world and then see what happens!

 

Consequently we cannot really progress much beyond the hypothesis stage, however 'reasonable' the hypothesis may be and consistent with our established data. This is what scientists do not science.

 

Remember that in general, scientific experiment is based on a null hypothesis: experiments/observations/measurements can refute an hypothesis they cannot prove it. Remember Popper: no amount of white swans proves that all swans are white but a single black swan will disprove it.

 

 

There are also many things in science which cannot be directly measured/reproduced/tested experimentally but that are (almost...) universally accepted as scientifically accurate.

 

Anthropogenic climate change is one of these; the evidence for it is overwhelming, and even the oil compnies have known about it (but hidden the evidence) for over 50 years.

Edited May 8, 2023 by IanD

[StephenA]

what we need is some way of turning duckweed and all the other things that clog canals into fuel..... At the moment CRT use alien weevils to eat it but......

 

Or even some way of taking nitrogen rich water, growing algae in it and converting that into fuel.

Edited May 8, 2023 by StephenA

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, StephenA said:

what we need is some way of turning duckweed and all the other things that clog canals into fuel..... At the moment CRT use alien weevils to eat it but......

How about the output from composting toilets? 😉

[StephenA]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

How about the output from composting toilets? 😉

 

Don't they produce CO2, amongst other things?

[Iain_S]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Replacing them with palm oil does destroy the ecosystem (boo!), but the palm oil trees abosrb more carbon (hooray!) which is then used instead of diesel.

 

So from the C02 point of view the net effect is positive -- but very negative for wild life.

Bit of double counting there! Burning palm oil is, at very best, carbon neutral, so net effect is negative, as the bit of rain forest that was felled is no longer absorbing CO2

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Bit of double counting there! Burning palm oil is, at very best, carbon neutral, so net effect is negative, as the bit of rain forest that was felled is no longer absorbing CO2

That's not how it works -- if the palm oil is used to make HVO which replaces diesel, this "saved CO2" dominates the calculation, even including the rainforest having gone (which is a Bad Thing). No double counting needed 🙂

Edited May 8, 2023 by IanD

[peterboat]

20 minutes ago, IanD said:

Peter, apart from your meaningless word salad in bold, you don't seem to understand how the carbon cycle works...

 

Trees take up CO2 from the atmosphere, keep the carbon locked away (until they die and rot...), and put the oxygen back into the atmosphere, so they act as a carbon sink. It's why they're a great idea, as well as the wildlife/ecosystem benefits.

 

So cutting them down looks stupid -- and is if done to farm beef -- but you need to look at what happens then when used for biofuel. Growing palm oil to make HVO is one of the highest-yielding energy crops, which is why it's done. The HVO yield from this -- if it replaces dino-diesel -- reduces net CO2 emissions by more than the rainforest did. So if you ignore the ecosystem/wildlife issue -- which I'm not saying we should, these are *really* important! -- then as far as the planet is concerned HVO is better than dino-diesel.

 

Of course not cutting down the rainforests or competing with food crops would be great -- but to avoid this, what's your proposed solution for end uses which can't make use of renewable energy?

 

Saying "ooh, this is really bad!" without either looking at the consequences of doing/not doing it or having any proposed alternative is not making an argument, it's just shouting into a megaphone to get attention.

 

Please don't come back and say "we should all drive/fly less/go vegan/eat less meat/have fewer children" because this isn't an either/or case -- of course we should do what we can to reduce resource use, but also try and reduce the harm done by what resources we do use.

 

And to put it simply, continuing to dig up and burn vast amounts of fossil fuel stored 300M years ago is pretty much the worst possible option, almost *anything* -- including HVO -- is better than this.

 

 

There are also many things in science which cannot be directly measured/reproduced/tested experimentally but that are (almost...) universally accepted as scientifically accurate.

 

Anthropogenic climate change is one of these; the evidence for it is overwhelming, and even the oil compnies have known about it (but hidden the evidence) for over 50 years.

As I pointed out palm trees are useless in comparison to the rainforest so why bother? The end results would be our early demise, the rainforest also help stabilise climate change palm trees do the opposite 

https://www.zsl.org/news-and-events/news/palm-oil-and-climate-change

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, StephenA said:

what we need is some way of turning duckweed and all the other things that clog canals into fuel..... At the moment CRT use alien weevils to eat it but......

 

Or even some way of taking nitrogen rich water, growing algae in it and converting that into fuel.

Algae being used as a biofuel feedstock is being heavily investigated, especially because it odesn't compete with crops or mean cutting down rainforests.

 

Does need an awful lot of water area and sun though, which kind or rules it out for the UK canals... 😉