The Bio Bandwagon Bubble has well and truly Burst.

Dammit! I just typed a long response and the computer crashed!

Bugger it, I'll summarise in three points:

1) Fossil fuels are finite, so with supplies decreasing and demand increasing, fossil fuel prices will always trend upwards.

2) Biofuels can be made without fossil fuels. It just isn't at the moment because of the low cost of fossil fuels (see point 1)

3) The general media sucks when reporting science & technology, and so should not be used as a benchmark for the validity of any scientific concept or technological innovation.

Dave,

Well that soap box got a work out!

I well and truly agree with most of what you said, and yes I too am truly only intersted in Bio from a saving point of view. (having said that I really quite enjoy making the golden drop) I have been doing it for about 4 years now, and (touchwood) cant ever really see the day that I stop doing it.

After watching the people around me become interested in it, ask all sorts of questions, consider start making it and then never get around to it for a variety of reasons, I have now realised that the bio fuel / veg user group will always really be fringe dwellers. It will always have the same sorts of people in it, and for the most part will always have the same sorts of problems.

Unfortunately for the future of availability to home made bio and veg users, the less 'refined' and efficient that the group remains, the better chance we have of being able to teach it to our children. As we make the info more and more accessible and the technology improves for the backyarder, the more people will come on board and use the knowledge of old heads like yourself, the more and more authorities will stand up and take notice. lets face it, the last thing the government wants is a large group of well organised people able to produce high quality fuel without paying all the illegal taxes that they need to keep them in the lifes they are accustomed to.

The bigger it gets, the quicker it will die.

I agree with you Dave, lets keep it small. Like religion, those who truly want it will find it.

Having said that though, I am not the kind of person who wont answer a direct question to a person who is asking in good faith. I think we should still try to help each other along, I think this is essential, but I think that promotion of bio and veg is a mistake.

The only really big beef I have with Bio fuels, (be it ethanol or Bio) and SVO is the use of food to make fuel. I think that is criminal given the troubles over seas. The use of Bio and SVo should be limited to being made from waste product ie- WVO etc, and not seed that can be made into simple food for the starving.

I am not a person who advocates that people should spend their hard earned cash overseas on some people that they dont even know or care about (ie the starving children you see on TV), but limiting the use of seed to make food only, seems like good sense to me.

Well thats my turn on the soap box, who's next???

5 bucks says this gets bumbed into another forum........

__________________
Regards,

Cade.

2001 100 series Landcruiser
100% Bio, 108,000 Km and counting

It seems that the leaches who were flogging biodiesel kits to make a living are now flogging "BDG Soap" trying to keep the wolf at bay.

I do have some concern with using the concentrated Cr@p residue produced from a chemical reaction as a soap for human use, expecially with my family.
I make my soap from good old used tallow.

It is so entertaining over on the Infopop forum watching all of the leaches trying to grab market share from each other. Have a look at the soap forum, they are tearing each other apart.

I can't ignore this latest rant from the forum blowhard.

What exactly are your reasons for being into biofuel? Bragging rights? Giving you something to rant about on the forum?

If it is, as you claim, monetary, then it can be seen as nothing but selfish. Go ahead, rip out my tongue.

I started using biodiesel because I drive a lot of k's weekly and I can't help but be concerned about my use of fossil fuels. While you might paint me as some kind of blinkered greeny, I can assure you my eyes are open. At the moment the stuff I buy is B100 made from recycled cooking oil and while it's cheaper than diesel it hasn't really saved me much. But I still believe, when all is said and done, it is friendlier on the environment to use this fuel, however marginal the benefit is. There is no other option at the moment. I don't preach to others and have never even inspired anyone else to use biofuel.

While I realise that there is never gonna be enough to go round, I like to do my bit to test biodiesels viability in the real world. I actually enjoy tinkering with the car, checking consumption, annoying my wife with said tinkering and, best of all, avoiding servos and not lining big oil's pockets.

Sometimes if you got nothing good to say about people its better to keep it to yourself. Unfortunately, I can't follow my own advice today. So. Dave. Go back to to your climate change denyin' and vote for Abbott next time around. Your kids'll thank you for it.

Last piece of business: This forum was where I came to learn about how to successfully run a vehicle on biofuel. It had great info and friendly members who would offer advice freely and without judgement. You seem to think that it is now a secret cabal that repels anybody wishing to enter unless they share your questionable ideology.

Cheers

David,
While I disagree with much that you wrote, I will not add fuel to the fire.
Most members here know my motives and Ill leave it at that, I am too tired to compose a considered reply.

It looks like you did create some excitement for a few members.

Have fun,

Tony

__________________
Searching the Biofuels Forum using Google
Adding images and/or documents to your posts

The current environmental debate has become an emotionally charged pseudo scientific topic. you see the almost seemless mixing of science and politics. There are two highly polarised groups, each with a loud voice.

I believe this is essential for a political arena as one will bring moderation to the other, but I dont belive there is a place for emotional responses when it comes to science. nor should the non scientific politicians be entering to a scientific debate.

I have a belief, but it is just that - a belief. I dont expect that I am right as I have no particular way to prove it. Yes I am a global warming sceptic. I dont deny that the earth is entering into a period of change, as I think the earth is always in a state of flux, but I dont believe that the human race is mightier than mother nature.

But before the pro carbon policy group go and start getting all hot under the collar, just remember that as the masses have largely no understanding of the true nature of the science behind the debate, to take a side and vehemntly discount the other is folly. I seriously doubt that we will ever know defintiively (even in 200 years time) whether the changes that we are seeing are a result of mans intervention or not.

History is full of scientific theories being distorted or discounted totally due to the political nature of the debate. Lets not let this happen again.

The real problem with this debate is whichever side gets it wrong - the global warming sceptics like myself or the "pro carbon policy save the world folks", will have some anger pointed towards them. noone likes being on the pointy end of the stick.

The important thing here is that the earth is tough. really tough. it has seen some enormous changes in its time, well before any industrialisation or human intervention. species and entire populations have died out and then recovered. glaciers and ice poles have melted and rebuilt more times than you can count. sea levels have risen and fallen, heat waves and ice ages have all been and gone. The earth will survive anything that we throw at it and then some. however we may not.

it is foolish to think that we can stop the earth from changing, after all it has been changing now for how long? but the question is - is the changes we see the result of human kind?

Lets just remember it is a scientific debate, not a political one. The earth doesnt care whether tony abbot or kevin rudd are at the helm, and i dont beleive that we have any where near the political clout to make a change in india, china, russia or even the states. The best thing to do - I think - is to let the scientists do their thing (without political intervention) and see what they come up with. miss-quotes and warped data need to be left out of it.

This might be a rather idealistic view, that doesnt stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving, but just remember that someone is gunna be wrong. if you make a loud voice and its you who is wrong, well the whole world is gunna point their fingers and say "i told you so".

__________________
Regards,

Cade.

2001 100 series Landcruiser
100% Bio, 108,000 Km and counting

Will this graph convince you that human kind is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 300-400 years? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ide_400kyr.png

Like David I make bio for similar reasons, it's cheap, I have control over the quality of the fuel I put in the truck and I put to good use an otherwise waste product.

As for the current environmental debate, I had the opportunity to visit the CSIRO in Frankston a couple of years ago. For those who don't know the CSIRO labs in Frankston analyse the ice core samples collected from Antarctica. These guys have studied the earths environment and atmosphere over millions of years using the ice cores. They can tell you that the hole in the ozone has always been there and its size has always fluctuated. They can tell you that the earth heats and cools regularly and that the time between these heating and cooling phases in slowly increasing, not decreasing.

I specifically asked them about the ozone hole over the Antarctic and they said nothing out of the norm is happening there. So I asked them about the earth heating due to mans actions, they said the earth has heated quicker in the past, before man, than it is now.

I asked them why this information is not being made available, they said the CSIRO needs research money and they have been gagged, when they have tried to talk it doesn't fit the paradigm that will sell news papers and it doesn't fit the current govt's agenda.

So from my discussions with these CSIRO scientists at the Frankston labs I have formed a very strong opinion on this issue. The earth is going through a very normal cycle and we humans give ourselves far more credit than is due to believe we are influencing the earths environment.

I do hope though, that this hyp does help reduce the pollution we produce and the rain forests we destroy, not for the earths sake but for for the sake of our over all health and to save endangered species.

__________________
Maverick
Canberra

Andy,
Ill try to keep this breif as i am typing this from a mobile phone with crazy small keys. Please excuse any spelling errors.
Thanks for putting that graph on, i find it quite interesting. questions though - Its lacking a bit of context. Can you please tell me from where the data is compiled? Also it looks like we are due for another ice age...? I suspect its possibly compiled selectively from ice cores.? I bet the data for the last 50 years isnt though. Happy to talk further by all means, but i wouldnt trust wikipidiot to tell me how to feed my dog, let alone present scientific data . Run out of room. See next post.

__________________
Regards,

Cade.

2001 100 series Landcruiser
100% Bio, 108,000 Km and counting