Bulk red diesel delivery & storage tanks

[jupiter1124]

4 minutes ago, dmr said:

Has anybody actually said HVO is carbon neutral?

Yes, me. HVO is carbon neutral.

 

Anyway you can see why I avoided mentioning HVO at the start of this thread as i knew where the conversation would go 😅

[Momac]

6 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

Has anybody actually said HVO is carbon neutral? 

Yes. See earlier post from Jupiter1124 .

 

Really I do think HVO is potentially an ideal boat fuel but not acceptable if it involves cutting down rainforest to grow palm oil. Cut out the rain forest destruction and use  otherwise waste vegetable matter to make HVO and that would be great.

 

Equally hauling wood from Canada to fire a power station  in the UK is not carbon neutral. Better than burning coal but not carbon neutral.

 

[dmr]

6 minutes ago, jupiter1124 said:

Yes, me. HVO is carbon neutral.

 

Anyway you can see why I avoided mentioning HVO at the start of this thread as i knew where the conversation would go 😅

 

I suspect that there are two main sources of opposition to HVO

 

1, many boaters are tight fisted and resent paying an extra 20p/litre to save the planet (though rather more if forced to use 100% white HVO), and rather than admit to this like to find some other excuse.

 

2 The eco warrior purists/electric advocates who will accept nothing less than 100% electrification and 100% abolition of all liquid fuels.

 

Its a liitle bit Like CAMRA who maintain 100% opposition to any keg/pressure dispensed beer and so have totally missed out on the revolution in excellent quality "craft" keg beers that is happening all around us.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I find the idea of cutting down rain forests to feed our machines most disturbing. 
 

Me swopping to a biofuel will make not one jot of difference in the grand scheme of things. 
 

 

 

 

 

Neither would 35,000 boaters. 
 

 

[dmr]

Just now, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I find the idea of cutting down rain forests to feed our machines most disturbing. 
 

Me swopping to a biofuel will make not one jot of difference in the grand scheme of things. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

But thats the problem and thats why our government is copping out on their carbon neutral plans, claiming that the UK makes only a tiny contribution to the worlds CO2 total. The world is in big boi trouble and we all need to do our bit to help. Just maybe if Europe makes a big effort then China and the USA just might feel pressured to fall in line, though China is actually doing pretty well in some ways.

 

Like us, you already lead a fairly low impact lifestyle, but if you make just a little improvement and tell somebody else about you might just nudge them into action.....go on, buy that extra solar panel  😀

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

But thats the problem and thats why our government is copping out on their carbon neutral plans, claiming that the UK makes only a tiny contribution to the worlds CO2 total. The world is in big boi trouble and we all need to do our bit to help. Just maybe if Europe makes a big effort then China and the USA just might feel pressured to fall in line, though China is actually doing pretty well in some ways.

 

Like us, you already lead a fairly low impact lifestyle, but if you make just a little improvement and tell somebody else about you might just nudge them into action.....go on, buy that extra solar panel  😀

Yes, I very much agree,

and all us tiny fish can make a big collective impact. 

 

But I bet there’s a local plane just took off for Spain that’ll burn more fuel (and at some sort of a tax free price to encourage airlines) than collectively as boaters we’ll burn in 🤷‍♀️a day. 
 

 

[MtB]

3 hours ago, dmr said:

 

But thats the problem and thats why our government is copping out on their carbon neutral plans, claiming that the UK makes only a tiny contribution to the worlds CO2 total. The world is in big boi trouble and we all need to do our bit to help. Just maybe if Europe makes a big effort then China and the USA just might feel pressured to fall in line, though China is actually doing pretty well in some ways.

 

Like us, you already lead a fairly low impact lifestyle, but if you make just a little improvement and tell somebody else about you might just nudge them into action.....go on, buy that extra solar panel  😀

 

AND....

 

Someone has to go first and show what can be done. 

 

Just as electric cars were viewed as something only nut-jobs thought worth driving until Musk came along, its the same with low-carbon economy. Yes there will be stuff we do that is a waste of money and effort but other stuff we try will be successful beyond all expectation and the rest of the world will copy the wins.

 

Also I suspect the world does not need to totally cease burning fossil fuel. Just big reduction might suffice and the carbon cycle soak up a bit of extra load. But I know very little about it.

 

 

[JungleJames]

On 22/04/2024 at 21:32, dmr said:

 

Has anybody actually said HVO is carbon neutral? Most www sites that I have looked say it reduces CO2 by up to 90% (I think).

I suspect 90% is still optimistic as I believe the production process is quite energy intensive, and I really don't know if all the transport "costs" are also factored in.

 

To me there seams little point in producing HVO by cutting down the rainforest as this must give an actual increase in CO2, but then everyday I watch a diesel hauled train go past full of wood pulp that I believe has come from Canada and this counts as green energy. 😀

This whole argument started from Mr Jupiter claiming over and over that it is carbon neutral. 

When he was pulled up on this, it was all taken out of proportion.

 

HVO will see, as most of us accept, about a 90% reduction in net CO2.

 

I'm not sure if that takes into account the reduction in trees caused by any HVO produced via deforestation. 

 

On 22/04/2024 at 21:38, jupiter1124 said:

Yes, me. HVO is carbon neutral.

 

Anyway you can see why I avoided mentioning HVO at the start of this thread as i knew where the conversation would go 😅

Yes, it has ended up with you either:

1- inventing your own meaning of carbon neutral

Or

2- telling blatant fibs.

On 22/04/2024 at 21:47, Momac said:

Yes. See earlier post from Jupiter1124 .

 

Really I do think HVO is potentially an ideal boat fuel but not acceptable if it involves cutting down rainforest to grow palm oil. Cut out the rain forest destruction and use  otherwise waste vegetable matter to make HVO and that would be great.

 

Equally hauling wood from Canada to fire a power station  in the UK is not carbon neutral. Better than burning coal but not carbon neutral.

 

It is debatable if it is better than coal.

These wood chips are leading to unnecessary deforestation in places like Canada.

So not only are we emitting the carbon stored in the trees, but we now have less trees and so no ability to absorb the CO2 produced by the wood chips.

 

You are probably better off keeping the Welsh coal mines open, and keeping the Canadian forests to help offset it.

[MtB]

3 hours ago, JungleJames said:

You are probably better off keeping the Welsh coal mines open, and keeping the Canadian forests to help offset it.

 

So if keeping a coal mine open means a forest big enough to absorb the whole of its carbon output of the mine is not cut down, does that make the coal mine 'carbon neutral'? 

 

Just playing Devil's advocate. This seems to be the sort of stupidity underpinning the term. 

[Momac]

4 hours ago, JungleJames said:

 

These wood chips are leading to unnecessary deforestation in places like Canada.

So not only are we emitting the carbon stored in the trees, but we now have less trees and so no ability to absorb the CO2 produced by the wood chips.

 

You are probably better off keeping the Welsh coal mines open, and keeping the Canadian forests to help offset it.

Its sustainable if they plant new trees to replace the removed tress.

The trees were planted in the first place for paper pulp but books and newspapers are much less used these days so there is reduced demand. Therefore  the use of the same fast growing trees for fuel instead of paper pulp isn't such a bad idea.

Transporting the wood pellets from Canada to the UK however does seem bonkers

 

Edited April 24 by Momac

[JungleJames]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

So if keeping a coal mine open means a forest big enough to absorb the whole of its carbon output of the mine is not cut down, does that make the coal mine 'carbon neutral'? 

 

Just playing Devil's advocate. This seems to be the sort of stupidity underpinning the term. 

Haha.

No, I don't believe it would!! I think you would need to grow a completely new forest the same size.

 

I think, although could be wrong, they may claim these pellets are nearly carbon neutral (shows how silly the term can be) because the pellets themselves only release carbon the trees have themselves helped remove from the atmosphere.

 

Perhaps if the forests were regrown, they may have an argument.

Although it would take many many years to look like it did.

3 minutes ago, Momac said:

Its sustainable if they plant new trees to replace the removed tress.

The trees were planted in the first place for paper pulp but books and newspapers are much less used these days so there is reduced demand. There for the use of the same fast growing trees for fuel instead of paper pulp isn't such a bad idea.

Transporting the wood pellets from Canada to the UK however does seem bonkers

 

Well that already shows these claims are probably false, as the initial claim was these trees were too diseased to be used as intended. 

Then during, was it the Panorama program looking into Drax, something else entirely was claimed.

 

I think it was also found a lot of these forested areas were mature areas that had taken many years to come about.

 

Fast growing, I wouldn't be so sure about. 

Anyways, the main point being, nothing is carbon neutral. Nothing is perfectly green.

 

Not your electric boat or HVO.

 

Some are better than others, with HVO having the possibility to be one of the better ones. Depending on how it is sourced.

[Momac]

20 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

Anyways, the main point being, nothing is carbon neutral. Nothing is perfectly green.

This is generally  correct.

 

The CO2 breathed out by humans is not counted in carbon calculations

So things you do physically with hand tools can be the closest thing to carbon neutral and could be carbon negative eg planting a a tree or growing vegetables.

 

HVO , if made from vegetable bi products like the unwanted stalks of vegetable plants or from spent cooking oil, would be a great fuel. But I believe a lot of energy is required to make it so it can never be carbon neutral.  

 

The cutting down of rain forest to grow palms for HVO production is clearly not sustainable but this is my main worry against HVO as the fuel retailers cannot be certain of the source of the fuel on a world market. Rain forests cannot be reinstated. They are the lungs of the earth. If we remove them will will die. The suppliers must prove there is no rain forest destruction involved but I am not sure this is possible.

 

But really HVO if it could be proven to be truly sustainably sourced is a perfect replacement for diesel and instantly reduces emissions and thought to be  not prone to bug.

[JungleJames]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

This is generally  correct.

 

The CO2 breathed out by humans is not counted in carbon calculations

So things you do physically with hand tools can be the closest thing to carbon neutral and could be carbon negative eg planting a a tree or growing vegetables.

 

HVO , if made from vegetable bi products like the unwanted stalks of vegetable plants or from spent cooking oil, would be a great fuel. But I believe a lot of energy is required to make it so it can never be carbon neutral.  

 

The cutting down of rain forest to grow palms for HVO production is clearly not sustainable but this is my main worry against HVO as the fuel retailers cannot be certain of the source of the fuel on a world market. Rain forests cannot be reinstated. They are the lungs of the earth. If we remove them will will die. The suppliers must prove there is no rain forest destruction involved but I am not sure this is possible.

 

But really HVO if it could be proven to be truly sustainably sourced is a perfect replacement for diesel and instantly reduces emissions and thought to be  not prone to bug.

Agree entirely. 

I wasn't of course thinking of the CO2 we breath out!!

You can have your carbon neutral for that!! 

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

This is generally  correct.

 

The CO2 breathed out by humans is not counted in carbon calculations

So things you do physically with hand tools can be the closest thing to carbon neutral and could be carbon negative eg planting a a tree or growing vegetables.

 

HVO , if made from vegetable bi products like the unwanted stalks of vegetable plants or from spent cooking oil, would be a great fuel. But I believe a lot of energy is required to make it so it can never be carbon neutral.  

 

The cutting down of rain forest to grow palms for HVO production is clearly not sustainable but this is my main worry against HVO as the fuel retailers cannot be certain of the source of the fuel on a world market. Rain forests cannot be reinstated. They are the lungs of the earth. If we remove them will will die. The suppliers must prove there is no rain forest destruction involved but I am not sure this is possible.

 

But really HVO if it could be proven to be truly sustainably sourced is a perfect replacement for diesel and instantly reduces emissions and thought to be  not prone to bug.

 

Nobody is saying that cutting down rainforests to grow palm oil trees is a great idea, assuming this is indeed the source used for HVO.

 

But you always have to look at what the alternative is -- and if that's burning fossil fuel diesel, HVO palm oil is very likely a less bad solution when everything is taken into account.

 

(palm oil trees are green trees, just like rainforest trees, and do a similar job of carbon sequestration -- probably a better one given how fast they grow)

 

Of course truly renewable energy (wind, solar...) is a much better solution than HVO, but if you can't use this for propelling a boat (or whatever) that doesn't matter.

 

2 hours ago, Momac said:

Its sustainable if they plant new trees to replace the removed tress.

The trees were planted in the first place for paper pulp but books and newspapers are much less used these days so there is reduced demand. Therefore  the use of the same fast growing trees for fuel instead of paper pulp isn't such a bad idea.

Transporting the wood pellets from Canada to the UK however does seem bonkers

 

 

Again, it's a case of what's the least bad solution -- is it still better than any usable alternatives for this case? (baseload power generation when there's no wind or sun)

 

Transport costs -- money and CO2 emissions -- for moving stuff round the world on ships are quite small, IIRC this adds something like 10%-20% to the carbon budget for those woodchips. That still makes them far better than burning fossil fuel, if that's the alternative to providing baseload power (since people don't want nuclear power plants in their back yard).

 

It's all fine saying "palm oil and woodchips are terrible!", but that ignores the fact that the energy has to come from *somewhere*, and if that's not renewables then they're still better solutions than burning fossil fuels...

[JungleJames]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Nobody is saying that cutting down rainforests to grow palm oil trees is a great idea, assuming this is indeed the source used for HVO.

 

But you always have to look at what the alternative is -- and if that's burning fossil fuel diesel, HVO palm oil is very likely a less bad solution when everything is taken into account.

 

(palm oil trees are green trees, just like rainforest trees, and do a similar job of carbon sequestration -- probably a better one given how fast they grow)

 

Of course truly renewable energy (wind, solar...) is a much better solution than HVO, but if you can't use this for propelling a boat (or whatever) that doesn't matter.

 

 

Again, it's a case of what's the least bad solution -- is it still better than any usable alternatives for this case? (baseload power generation when there's no wind or sun)

 

Transport costs -- money and CO2 emissions -- for moving stuff round the world on ships are quite small, IIRC this adds something like 10%-20% to the carbon budget for those woodchips. That still makes them far better than burning fossil fuel, if that's the alternative to providing baseload power (since people don't want nuclear power plants in their back yard).

 

It's all fine saying "palm oil and woodchips are terrible!", but that ignores the fact that the energy has to come from *somewhere*, and if that's not renewables then they're still better solutions than burning fossil fuels...

I want nuclear plants in my back yard. Used to have 2 within half hour. Unfortunately don't have any working ones now.

Nuclear all the way. Scrap the woodchips. The forests are needed for other stuff, and once you've added more nuclear, you don't need the woodchips.

 

The least bad solution you say- Nuclear.

[sigsegv]

A small array of RTGs in your back garden (or in the engine room in lieu of an engine) would probably do pretty well as a carbon neutral power source. 3 of them on Voyager 1 provided a constant 470W, decreasing only 13% in 23 years. Not bad. Of course this could be scaled up depending on your requirements 

[IanD]

56 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

I want nuclear plants in my back yard. Used to have 2 within half hour. Unfortunately don't have any working ones now.

Nuclear all the way. Scrap the woodchips. The forests are needed for other stuff, and once you've added more nuclear, you don't need the woodchips.

 

The least bad solution you say- Nuclear.

I agree, but unfortunately most people (and governments) don't -- and the costs and timescales to build nuclear are enormous... 😞 

 

Yes there are all sorts of proposals for things like SMRs but these are completely unproven and their proponents ignore their disadvantages -- and there's still the waste to deal with, which people are terrified of even though there's not very much of it, and it (and nuclear power) have killed *far* fewer people than fossil fuels -- or even hydro power... 😞 

[jupiter1124]

On 24/04/2024 at 02:58, JungleJames said:

1- inventing your own meaning of carbon neutral

I guess you can call it this. I would call it fossil fuel companies promoting a misleading use of the term.

 

Perhaps you'll find it more agreeable if I talk about carbon that's part of the carbon cycle, and carbon that's not (mineral carbon).

 

I'm trying to shift a perspective that is common and unhelpful.

 

On 24/04/2024 at 07:01, MtB said:

So if keeping a coal mine open means a forest big enough to absorb the whole of its carbon output of the mine is not cut down, does that make the coal mine 'carbon neutral'? 

No, because a forest is part of the carbon cycle and always will be, the mine is not and never will be. We should stop entertaining the idea of "offsetting" ancient carbon with carbon that's part of the carbon cycle, because it's just not realistic. The quantities are just too great and the land required is just too huge. Plus it involves trusting that the forest will remain in perpetuity.

 

Cutting a forest down is not a neutral activity, but I would call that land use change. Burning the wood (or letting it decompose) is part of the carbon cycle. If you replant the wood continuously to replace the chopped down wood, there is no land use change, and this is a carbon neutral activity.

 

On 24/04/2024 at 08:09, Momac said:

The CO2 breathed out by humans is not counted in carbon calculations

As it shouldn't be, because we're just releasing the same carbon that we removed from the atmosphere by growing our biofuel (food).

 

It's carbon cycle carbon.

 

Of course if you count the agricultural machinery, the transport, etc, then no it wasn't carbon neutral, but it's unhelpful to call food carbon emitting when it's not the food's "fault", but the fossil fuel's "fault". You're pointing the finger at the wrong things. Food itself can't be anything other than carbon neutral because humans are fueled by the very same energy chemical carbon bonds that were created by the sun converting carbon dioxide into food.

 

On 24/04/2024 at 07:23, Momac said:

Transporting the wood pellets from Canada to the UK however does seem bonkers

It does, but in theory, if you were to fuel the ships with those wood chips, then it would be carbon neutral.

 

On 24/04/2024 at 07:26, JungleJames said:

Anyways, the main point being, nothing is carbon neutral. Nothing is perfectly green.

In the context of an extremely integrated carbon based energy economy, I guess not, but the point of the term (for me at least) is to separate out those things that would be carbon neutral if not supported by a whole bunch of peripheral carbon releasing activities. Otherwise the term isn't helpful.

 

If I grow a broccoli in my garden, eat it, then breathe out carbon dioxide, this is a carbon neutral activity. You could of course argue that because I drove to the shop in my ICE car to get the seeds, that it isn't, and while you're technically correct, it's not helpful because it's the DRIVING THE ICE CAR that's the issue, not the growing of the broccoli.

 

Fossil fuel companies know that conflating the two helps their case, if you can't even grow a broccoli without carbon, then what's the point in even trying to reduce carbon emissions. Heck we even breathe out carbon (!)

 

22 hours ago, JungleJames said:

The least bad solution you say- Nuclear.

I couldn't agree more, but that's beyond the scope of what we can do personally.

Edited April 25 by jupiter1124

[JungleJames]

3 hours ago, jupiter1124 said:

I guess you can call it this. I would call it fossil fuel companies promoting a misleading use of the term.

 

Perhaps you'll find it more agreeable if I talk about carbon that's part of the carbon cycle, and carbon that's not (mineral carbon).

 

I'm trying to shift a perspective that is common and unhelpful.

 

No, because a forest is part of the carbon cycle and always will be, the mine is not and never will be. We should stop entertaining the idea of "offsetting" ancient carbon with carbon that's part of the carbon cycle, because it's just not realistic. The quantities are just too great and the land required is just too huge. Plus it involves trusting that the forest will remain in perpetuity.

 

Cutting a forest down is not a neutral activity, but I would call that land use change. Burning the wood (or letting it decompose) is part of the carbon cycle. If you replant the wood continuously to replace the chopped down wood, there is no land use change, and this is a carbon neutral activity.

 

As it shouldn't be, because we're just releasing the same carbon that we removed from the atmosphere by growing our biofuel (food).

 

It's carbon cycle carbon.

 

Of course if you count the agricultural machinery, the transport, etc, then no it wasn't carbon neutral, but it's unhelpful to call food carbon emitting when it's not the food's "fault", but the fossil fuel's "fault". You're pointing the finger at the wrong things. Food itself can't be anything other than carbon neutral because humans are fueled by the very same energy chemical carbon bonds that were created by the sun converting carbon dioxide into food.

 

It does, but in theory, if you were to fuel the ships with those wood chips, then it would be carbon neutral.

 

In the context of an extremely integrated carbon based energy economy, I guess not, but the point of the term (for me at least) is to separate out those things that would be carbon neutral if not supported by a whole bunch of peripheral carbon releasing activities. Otherwise the term isn't helpful.

 

If I grow a broccoli in my garden, eat it, then breathe out carbon dioxide, this is a carbon neutral activity. You could of course argue that because I drove to the shop in my ICE car to get the seeds, that it isn't, and while you're technically correct, it's not helpful because it's the DRIVING THE ICE CAR that's the issue, not the growing of the broccoli.

 

Fossil fuel companies know that conflating the two helps their case, if you can't even grow a broccoli without carbon, then what's the point in even trying to reduce carbon emissions. Heck we even breathe out carbon (!)

 

I couldn't agree more, but that's beyond the scope of what we can do personally.

And equally, your use of the term is what full on greenies would use when describing batteries. See, it can go both ways.

 

The whole point of the term, is so you can see the whole life cycle.

 

Let's say I produced enough CO2 to kill the world, just to produce enough 'green' fuel to propel me a few miles.

Woohoo, carbon neutral journey.

 

[jupiter1124]

  

On 24/04/2024 at 08:09, Momac said:

a lot of energy is required to make it so it can never be carbon neutral

It doesn't require net energy to make it. The production of biofuels such as HVO is still energy positive. If carbon neutral energy is used to make it, then it is indeed carbon neutral.

 

Let's say a factory produces 1000 kJ of biofuel, and it uses 100 kJ of dirty energy to make it. The factory produced 900 kJ of net energy, 90% carbon neutral. If the factory uses 100 kJ of that biofuel's energy to make the next batch of 1000 kJ of biofuel, it has now made carbon-neutral biofuel. (If you want to be extremely technical, you can say it's now 99% carbon neutral, and the next batch will be 99.9%... so you can mathematically say it tends towards carbon neutrality. But, I think, this is pedantry rather than a helpful classification of the fuel by carbon impact).

 

1 hour ago, JungleJames said:

And equally, your use of the term is what full on greenies would use when describing batteries. See, it can go both ways.

I'm feeling confused by how you think my use of the term carbon neutral would be used to describe batteries. Would you be willing to explain what you mean so that my need to understand can be met?

 

1 hour ago, JungleJames said:

The whole point of the term, is so you can see the whole life cycle.

I can understand this point of view, and there's definitely a practical aspect to this as we make the necessary changes - for now, most lorries use dirty diesel, and so transporting biodiesel by lorry means the practical usage of biodiesel isn't really carbon neutral. However, it is more helpful and more accurate to point out that while the biodiesel itself is in fact carbon neutral, it's the transportation that is the problem in this case. All the carbon sequestered in it was captured from the atmosphere, not extracted from the ground - and releasing it back to the atmosphere should not be considered a failure or a tragedy. The releasing of carbon captured recently should be considered a neutral activity.

 

There are lots of reasons why biodiesel isn't the complete answer (land use change, expense, local pollution) but carbon emissions aren't one of them. The carbon emitted during production and transportation applies to dinodiesel too.

[JungleJames]

2 minutes ago, jupiter1124 said:

  

It doesn't require net energy to make it. The production of biofuels such as HVO is still energy positive. If carbon neutral energy is used to make it, then it is indeed carbon neutral.

 

Let's say a factory produces 1000 kJ of biofuel, and it uses 100 kJ of dirty energy to make it. The factory produced 900 kJ of net energy, 90% carbon neutral. If the factory uses 100 kJ of that biofuel's energy to make the next batch of 1000 kJ of biofuel, it has now made carbon-neutral biofuel. (If you want to be extremely technical, you can say it's now 99% carbon neutral, and the next batch will be 99.9%... so you can mathematically say it tends towards carbon neutrality. But, I think, this is pedantry rather than a helpful classification of the fuel by carbon impact).

 

I'm feeling confused by how you think my use of the term carbon neutral would be used to describe batteries. Would you be willing to explain what you mean so that my need to understand can be met?

 

I can understand this point of view, and there's definitely a practical aspect to this as we make the necessary changes - for now, most lorries use dirty diesel, and so transporting biodiesel by lorry means the practical usage of biodiesel isn't really carbon neutral. However, it is more helpful and more accurate to point out that while the biodiesel itself is in fact carbon neutral, it's the transportation that is the problem in this case. All the carbon sequestered in it was captured from the atmosphere, not extracted from the ground - and releasing it back to the atmosphere should not be considered a failure or a tragedy. The releasing of carbon captured recently should be considered a neutral activity.

 

There are lots of reasons why biodiesel isn't the complete answer (land use change, expense, local pollution) but carbon emissions aren't one of them. The carbon emitted during production and transportation applies to dinodiesel too.

Ok. Last post of mine here.

 

Hard line greenies luv anything that has electricity or batteries in the name.

If you say you have a car with batteries in it, Greta gets all excited.

 

But we all know batteries produce CO2 during production. Well, everything does.

But Greta and her disciples won't want to admit this. So, your form of carbon neutral (ignore the carbon used to produce stuff) is exactly what the greenies would use, so as to make their favourite items look better than they are.

 

I suppose we are all guilty of it in some form or another. Ignore the bad bits of things that you like.

Like Michael Jackson fans ignoring his bad side, greenies ignore the bad side of batteries! 

 

So in that regard, the true term of carbon neutral is the fairest of the 2!!

Let us see the whole picture. 

 

 

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

Ok. Last post of mine here.

 

Hard line greenies luv anything that has electricity or batteries in the name.

If you say you have a car with batteries in it, Greta gets all excited.

 

But we all know batteries produce CO2 during production. Well, everything does.

But Greta and her disciples won't want to admit this. So, your form of carbon neutral (ignore the carbon used to produce stuff) is exactly what the greenies would use, so as to make their favourite items look better than they are.

 

I suppose we are all guilty of it in some form or another. Ignore the bad bits of things that you like.

Like Michael Jackson fans ignoring his bad side, greenies ignore the bad side of batteries! 

 

So in that regard, the true term of carbon neutral is the fairest of the 2!!

Let us see the whole picture. 

 

 

Utter BS -- anyone green or not analysing ICE vs. EVs is perfectly well aware of the carbon debt involved in battery manufacture, and also that reduced emissions when driving mean this is paid back in not many years, which means that over the lifetime of the EV total CO2 emissions including manufacture and disposal are around 3x-5x lower than ICE depending on the assumptions made (e.g. renewable energy mix). That is "the whole picture".

 

Loads of analysis from loads of sources on the web explaining this, I suggest you go and do some reading... 😉 

Edited April 25 by IanD

[jupiter1124]

2 hours ago, JungleJames said:

your form of carbon neutral (ignore the carbon used to produce stuff)

Thanks for explaining, I understand what you mean now.

 

I think there is quite a big difference between the two, though. Batteries don't themselves generate energy, so their production will always be energy negative, regardless of whether it's green energy to produce them or not. Whereas the production of fuels is always energy positive (i.e. you get out more energy than you put in). If it isn't, then it's not an economic investment!

 

If I have 100 kJ of dirty energy and I use it to produce 1000 kJ of biofuel, that's a tenfold multiplication in the amount of energy I have, without increasing my carbon output. If I use it to produce 1000 kJ of dirty energy, that's a tenfold multiplication in the amount of energy I have, AND a tenfold increase in the carbon output. So yes I do in fact think that it is "worth it" to use dirty energy to produce clean energy from the carbon perspective, assuming of course there is more clean energy out than dirty energy in (which, unless you don't like money, will always be the case). That's why this wouldn't ever happen:

 

4 hours ago, JungleJames said:

Let's say I produced enough CO2 to kill the world, just to produce enough 'green' fuel to propel me a few miles.

 

One would never burn 1000 kJ of dinodiesel to produce 500 kJ of biodiesel. One might burn 500 kJ of dinodiesel to produce 1000 kJ of biodiesel, but that is still a net positive because it's 500 kJ of net clean energy!

 

Better still of course would be use clean energy to produce fuel, as well as batteries, power the grid, and fill those batteries. We're a way off away from that but moving in that direction, and batteries are DEFINITELY part of that solution, even if we do need to bootstrap their production with some carbon emissions.

 

ETA: I'm actually going to call myself up on this. It actually is sometimes economic to produce fuels in an energy negative scheme, either to produce niche fuels, more convenient fuels, and sometimes yes politically expedient fuels (like greenwashed ones). Hydrogen springs to mind. Biodiesel is quite possibly in that category at least in some cases.

Edited April 25 by jupiter1124

[JungleJames]

11 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Utter BS -- anyone green or not analysing ICE vs. EVs is perfectly well aware of the carbon debt involved in battery manufacture, and also that reduced emissions when driving mean this is paid back in not many years, which means that over the lifetime of the EV total CO2 emissions including manufacture and disposal are around 3x-5x lower than ICE depending on the assumptions made (e.g. renewable energy mix). That is "the whole picture".

 

Loads of analysis from loads of sources on the web explaining this, I suggest you go and do some reading... 😉 

Hold on.

Where in my post did I query any figures?

I never once argued the merits of either power source. I specifically didn't.

I only said one thing. 

Greta and her disciples will only want to tell you the good side.

I even pointed out how most of us are guilty of it in other forms.

 

I also never mentioned whether everybody does know the full story or not. I only said that certain people won't divulge it. Well, why would they.

 

Batteries may or may not be the answer to the meaning of life, I never argued that. 

 

So what have I said is BS? Nothing.

You were reading far too much into what I said. Nothing has suggested what I do or do not believe in. Nothing has suggested how much people know or don't know. You just thought it did. 

 

It is a bit like greenies and nuclear. They hate it, so they only tell you the bad points. 

Politicians and any policy they come up with- They will only tell you the good points.

Opposition- will only tell you the bad points.

 

Look back. All I have done is pointed out why Greta would love Mr Jupiter and his way of looking at carbon neutral when it came to the buzz words of electricity and batteries.

 

 

10 hours ago, jupiter1124 said:

Thanks for explaining, I understand what you mean now.

 

I think there is quite a big difference between the two, though. Batteries don't themselves generate energy, so their production will always be energy negative, regardless of whether it's green energy to produce them or not. Whereas the production of fuels is always energy positive (i.e. you get out more energy than you put in). If it isn't, then it's not an economic investment!

 

If I have 100 kJ of dirty energy and I use it to produce 1000 kJ of biofuel, that's a tenfold multiplication in the amount of energy I have, without increasing my carbon output. If I use it to produce 1000 kJ of dirty energy, that's a tenfold multiplication in the amount of energy I have, AND a tenfold increase in the carbon output. So yes I do in fact think that it is "worth it" to use dirty energy to produce clean energy from the carbon perspective, assuming of course there is more clean energy out than dirty energy in (which, unless you don't like money, will always be the case). That's why this wouldn't ever happen:

 

 

One would never burn 1000 kJ of dinodiesel to produce 500 kJ of biodiesel. One might burn 500 kJ of dinodiesel to produce 1000 kJ of biodiesel, but that is still a net positive because it's 500 kJ of net clean energy!

 

Better still of course would be use clean energy to produce fuel, as well as batteries, power the grid, and fill those batteries. We're a way off away from that but moving in that direction, and batteries are DEFINITELY part of that solution, even if we do need to bootstrap their production with some carbon emissions.

 

ETA: I'm actually going to call myself up on this. It actually is sometimes economic to produce fuels in an energy negative scheme, either to produce niche fuels, more convenient fuels, and sometimes yes politically expedient fuels (like greenwashed ones). Hydrogen springs to mind. Biodiesel is quite possibly in that category at least in some cases.

Whether you would or wouldn't do something wasn't initially part of your argument though.

Hence I took it to an extreme to point out the error in how you looked at carbon neutrality. Or basically, how you ignored the lifecycle costs of fuels.

 

Hence why HVO is deemed to reduce net CO2 by 90%, not 100% as you claim.

[IanD]

8 hours ago, JungleJames said:

Hold on.

Where in my post did I query any figures?

I never once argued the merits of either power source. I specifically didn't.

I only said one thing. 

Greta and her disciples will only want to tell you the good side.

I even pointed out how most of us are guilty of it in other forms.

 

I also never mentioned whether everybody does know the full story or not. I only said that certain people won't divulge it. Well, why would they.

 

Batteries may or may not be the answer to the meaning of life, I never argued that. 

 

So what have I said is BS? Nothing.

You were reading far too much into what I said. Nothing has suggested what I do or do not believe in. Nothing has suggested how much people know or don't know. You just thought it did. 

 

It is a bit like greenies and nuclear. They hate it, so they only tell you the bad points. 

Politicians and any policy they come up with- They will only tell you the good points.

Opposition- will only tell you the bad points.

 

Look back. All I have done is pointed out why Greta would love Mr Jupiter and his way of looking at carbon neutral when it came to the buzz words of electricity and batteries.

 

 

Whether you would or wouldn't do something wasn't initially part of your argument though.

Hence I took it to an extreme to point out the error in how you looked at carbon neutrality. Or basically, how you ignored the lifecycle costs of fuels.

 

Hence why HVO is deemed to reduce net CO2 by 90%, not 100% as you claim.

Like most people who respect and understand science, "Greta and her disciples" -- whoever they are -- understand the concept of total C02 burden, and how this applies to EVs. You claiming they don't is simply not true.