four pages...who'd have thought?

10/4/2005 6:26:53 PM

you dont need to input energy to get the hydrogen out of water when you use a catalyst. ive said it a million times. buy hey, im sure the entire physics community is wrong and you are the only one who is right.

the catalyst wears out, and the water gets burned, thats why its not limitless energy.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 6:39 PM. Reason : -]

10/4/2005 6:37:24 PM

Quote :

""We have discovered a catalyst that can produce ready quantities of hydrogen without the need for extreme cold temperatures or high pressures, which are often required in other production and storage methods," said Abu-Omar, an associate professor of chemistry in Purdue's College of Science. "It is possible that this technique could lead to fuel cells that are safe, efficient and not dependent on fossil fuels as their energy source ... The team estimates that about 7 gallons each of water and organosilane could combine to produce 6 1/2 pounds of hydrogen, which could power a car for approximately 240 miles. .""

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2005/050831.AbuOmar.hydrogen.html

but hey... what do a bunch of researchers at purdue know?

they only have....educations, degrees, labs ...brains ...ect



[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 6:48 PM. Reason : its over. you lose]

10/4/2005 6:46:16 PM

you fucking moron. You're worse than aaronburro with your bullshit and your pseudo-science posts.

This stuff does absolutely nothing to water. The hydrogen comes from this organosilane stuff, not water.

from your own link:

Quote :

"Abu-Omar's team took a compound based on rhenium, a comparatively rare metal often obtained while mining copper, and added it to the organosilane in the presence of water. Over the course of an hour, the organosilane changed completely into silanol, leaving the water and rhenium catalyst unchanged. But the team also noticed there was a gas bubbling from the mixture. "It turned out to be pure hydrogen," Abu-Omar said. "

OMFG, you're telling me that there are compounds in the world that release hydrogen gas when in a chemical reaction? Stop the presses!

10/4/2005 7:01:02 PM

^but since you get more energy out then you put in, its still perpetual motion. the point remains.

10/4/2005 7:18:08 PM

I've been reading most of this thread, and I'm going to have to say that aaronburro and LoneSnark win. Supposing that there is a catalyst that makes the electrolysis of water less energy-intensive, you still can't get more energy out of the hydrogen (in the form of reacting it with oxygen to form water again) than you put into it.

For example, and I'm just totally making up numbers for this example, let's say that it typically takes 8000 joules to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen (that assumes perfect efficiency, though). If everything is also perfectly efficient in the reverse reaction, you can't get more than 8000 joules worth of work out of that hydrogen fuel. Now suppose you use this catalyst, and let's suppose that it reduces the energy by half, to 4000 joules. According to thermodynamics, then, you can now only get a maximum of 4000 joules worth of work out of the hydrogen. So yes, you reduced the energy necessary to form the hydrogen, but have you not also reduced the amount of energy you can extract from the fuel you create? Is it not true that you can only get as much energy out of a system as you put into it? Or does josh8315 mean to tell me that it only takes 4000 joules to generate the hydrogen gas but will potentially give off 8000 joules of work?

10/4/2005 7:32:44 PM

Quote :

"let's say that it typically takes 8000 joules to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen"

it takes zero when you use the right catalyst. some biological organisms will do it for you. many metals will do it.

the rate is slow, but it goes.

Quote :

"Is it not true that you can only get as much energy out of a system as you put into it?"

its is in fact not true. your spark plugs in your car put into tiny amounts of energy, yet you get a lot out of the combustion of fuel -- do you not? is it not true?

the fuel had potential energy, and so does water; its just a matter of access.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 8:13 PM. Reason : -]

10/4/2005 8:10:09 PM

^You just answered your own question. The potential energy stored in the chemical bonds of the fuel/air mixture, plus the energy in the spark is the most you can get out of a car's engine.

As for the organosilane thing, you still have to use energy to create the organosilane. You don't just find tetraethoxysilane (for example, I don't know which on they used) wandering around.

10/4/2005 8:48:31 PM

^right. and im saying there is energy in the chemical bonds of water that can also be accessed.

10/4/2005 9:35:56 PM

No, Fuel caught it. It is quite plausible to get hydrogen from a lifeform.

But Josh, up until now you were arguing that you had a system to turn water into hydrogen for less energy than could be extracted by turning hydrogen into water. This was complete fiction. However, as Fuel noticed, this is not what is happening here.

The energy source here is not the water or electricity or high temperatures but locked inside the organosilane, your catalyst is simply releasing the free-hydrogen trapped inside this molecule. No water is being separated in the process.

As such, the car's fuel is NOT Water but Organosilane:

Quote :

""The big question is, of course, whether it would be economically viable to create organosilane fuels in the quantities necessary to power a world full of cars," Abu-Omar said. "As of right now, there simply isn't enough demand to make more than small volumes of this liquid, and while it's a relatively easy process, it's not dirt cheap either." But, Abu-Omar speculated, producing organosilanes in larger quantities would bring the price down, and the byproduct – silanol – also could be recycled or sold to lessen the overall cost."

And don't act like this is what you were talking about all along, because you damn sure were not:

Josh8315: "...water powered cars are the best bet for the future."

And, the hydrogen locked inside water can easily be accessed, just the way the rest of us said it could: by expending energy to extract it in excess of the expected energy of the hydrogen.

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

10/5/2005 1:18:07 AM

Quote :

"Is it not true that you can only get as much energy out of a system as you put into it?" its is in fact not true. your spark plugs in your car put into tiny amounts of energy, yet you get a lot out of the combustion of fuel -- do you not? is it not true?"

Don't try to twist my logic. You know very well that the spark plugs provide the activation energy that is necessary to achieve the combustion. Is it energy that you put into the system? Yes, that is true. However, it is extra energy that you put into the system, with the intent not to increase the energy of the system, but the intent to release the chemical potential energy that is stored within the gasoline.

Technically, you're right. You are dumping more energy into the system. However, you do so in order that the combustion reaction will become energetically favorable. Un-ignited fuel, thermodynamically speaking, is "happy" as it is; the fuel is not in the lowest energy state possible, but it also has no driving force to decrease its free energy further. In essence, the fuel is meta-stable. The addtion of an ignition spark, however, gives the fuel the necessary energy to overcome that meta-stability and decrease its free energy to the next lowest state.

But anyway, let's assume that there is an activation energy barrier of, say, 100 joules, to react hydrogen with oxygen. The difference in free energy between hydrogen/oxygen gas and water vapor is 7900 joules. That means that you have to put in 8000 joules of energy to transform water into hydrogen. My point is, yes you have to put in that extra 100 joules of energy to start the process, but you've already put in the other 7900 joules of energy when you performed the electrolysis. You still haven't gotten more energy out of the reaction than you put into the reverse reaction. You haven't created fuel with less energy than you can get out of it, energy still hasn't come out of nowhere, and all is right with the world.

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 1:31 AM. Reason : spelling ninja attack!]

10/5/2005 1:27:51 AM

You're trying to explain thermodynamics to a retarded kid.


Good luck with that.

10/5/2005 1:36:07 AM

Quote :

"Technically, you're right. You are dumping more energy into the system."

only, he's not. He's ignoring the other half of the equation... You mentioned the potential chemical energy of the system as if it were just an outlier. That energy itself is precisely why the spark plug yields to so much more energy than just its spark. You have added more energy to the system than just the spark of the plug. You have added the potential energy, as well. Thus, the amount of energy put in is NOT just the spark. Its the spark AND the potential energy of the gas.

Viewing the "energy going in" as just the spark itself is fallacious.

10/5/2005 1:42:39 AM

^^ I dunno, it kinda becoming a game in its own right. I'm actually curious at times to read what Joshy has come up with this time.

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 1:44 AM. Reason : ^]

10/5/2005 1:43:44 AM

Quote :

"it takes zero when you use the right catalyst. some biological organisms will do it for you. many metals will do it."

so in other words, the organism itself is expending energy to create the hydrogen. or, the catalyst, itself is "changing" the water, but in the process, being reduced. It would only be perpetual energy if the catalyst, itself, were not reduced in its capacity to continue creating hydrogen.

Josh, no one is arguing that you can't separate hydrogen from water. we are all arguing that you can't separate hydrogen from water and then recombine it with oxygen and yield NET energy output. The fuel cells are great, but notice that they need charging. The catalysts are great, but note that they still require an input of energy in addition to the water itself, in addition to the continued addition of the catalyst. In effect, the catalyst becomes the fuel. Organisms making hydrogen from water are great, too, but THEY are expending energy to do so. Its akin to plugging your radio into the wall at the library and saying "hey! free energy! i'm not making the energy, and I'm not paying for it. it must be free!!!!" wrong! and I'm not talking about taxes, either...

Quote :

"there are dozens of peer reviewed studies showing you can get extract hydrogen from water with little to no energy as long as you have the right catalyst."

thats great. their are dozens of peer-reviewed leaflets out there that say homosexuals are going to hell, too! and I doubt those studies are saying that the processes described for making hydrogen are perpetual and require no "energy input." Remember, the mass of the catalyst is an energy input... They really mean "less energy input than we have to use right now."

Quote :

"ive said this a million times, water vapor is formed."

tell, me, whats the chemical formula of water as a liquid and water as a vapor? what are the molecules made up of? are they different molecules? or are they just in different states? Because the energy derived from combustion is NOT derived from it due to the molecules being in different states. Its derived from the beginning and ending parts being DIFFERENT molecules (E=m*c^2). Seriously, if you took an electron microscope and peered at a molecule of water vapor and a molecule of liquid water, would they not be the same? You are a chemist, and I KNOW you know the answer...

Quote :

"By providing energy from a battery, water (H2O) can be dissociated into the diatomic molecules of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). This process is a good example of the the application of the four thermodynamic potentials."

AKA, input energy INTO the water... now, we have an energy loss due to enthalpy and friction and shit when the H2 and O2 combine into water, right? Are we to assume that our energy input INTO the H20 to split it up will, however, not be lost at all? hmmm...

Quote :

"ok, hyperphysics is the largest and most respected physics site on the net. they agree you can expend hydrogen to get energy"

thats great, so do we. notice what they didn't say. They didn't say that their "reversal" of the process was taking place in the same context as their traversal of the process. Instead, they showed them as two distinctly seperate entities. Look at what they REALLY said:

"dissociation of water into hydrogen" takes a TOTAL of 285kJ. It didn't say it takes "237kJ total" it said it takes a TOTAL of 285kJ. The "environment" of the electrolysis provides that energy the "first time." So, what do we do? we then pump that hydrogen and oxygen into another environment, where it yields 237kJ of electrical energy, assuming there is no loss of energy in the H2 and O2 as they traverse to the new environment. Now, 48kJ is pumped out to the "environment" of the fuel cell, as well, that is plain to see. So, we send our 237kJ of energy BACK to the electrolysis machine... (interesting note, here. all 237kJ of energy HAVE to go back to electrolysis mechanism. AKA, NO ENERGY can be sent elsewhere (IE the engine), as it all has to go right back over to the electrolysis... so we have no energy going to the engine, even in the BEST CASE scenario) Now, what happens? We put that 237kJ into our electrolysis machine and... nothing happens. You know why? because the last time through we counted on the "environment" to give us that extra energy. Now that energy is GONE. We used it up. It got pumped into the "environment" of the fuel cell. These are two separate environments. The environment in the electrolysis machine has been changed and has had its energy reduced, and what we counted on the first time to provide that extra boost to complete the electrolysis is no longer there. Its stuck as unusable energy somewhere else. Thus, not only do we NOT have energy being given to the motor, we also don't have enough energy to restart the process. And this is all in the BEST CASE SCENARIO.

At this point, our ONLY alternative is to introduce a catalyst or another energy source. When we do this, we stop being a "water powered car" and we become a "catalyst powered car."

Quote :

"you dont need to input energy to get the hydrogen out of water when you use a catalyst. ive said it a million times."

so in other words, you have an energy input in the form of a catalyst, which you have to keep adding in, right? hmmm...

Quote :

"buy hey, im sure the entire physics community is wrong and you are the only one who is right."

ironically, the entire physics community is not made wrong if our statements are true... its made wrong if YOUR statements are true.

Quote :

"It is possible that this technique could lead to fuel cells that are safe, efficient and not dependent on fossil fuels as their energy source"

AKA, "its possible to create a fuel cell using another source of energy," not "its possible to create a self sustaining fuel cell"

Quote :

"but since you get more energy out then you put in,"

WRONG. you are pretending that the catalyst, ITSELF, is not energy. are you getting catalyst out of this reaction as well? if not, it aint perpetual.

Quote :

"it takes zero when you use the right catalyst."

if we assume that the catalyst is NOT energy and that we end up w/ the catalyst when the process is over...

Quote :

"and im saying there is energy in the chemical bonds of water that can also be accessed."

no, shit? so THATS how combustion of ANY MATERIAL works. who woulda thunk?

I know somewhere that you said that H2O spontaneously splits into H2 and O2 at special conditions. well, guess what? those special conditions AINT S.T.P. To get to ANY OTHER CONDITIONS, you HAVE to expend energy. And, to get from ANY OTHER CONDITION to S.T.P., energy is released. And guess what? if you got a process going FROM x TO STP, the same amount of energy is released as the amount you have to put in to go TO x FROM STP. and thats assuming no loss do to friction...

Quote :

"its. over."

oh yes. yes it is.

10/5/2005 2:40:53 AM

Quote :

"only, he's not. He's ignoring the other half of the equation... You mentioned the potential chemical energy of the system as if it were just an outlier. That energy itself is precisely why the spark plug yields to so much more energy than just its spark. You have added more energy to the system than just the spark of the plug. You have added the potential energy, as well. Thus, the amount of energy put in is NOT just the spark. Its the spark AND the potential energy of the gas. Viewing the "energy going in" as just the spark itself is fallacious."

That's basically what I said, dude.

10/5/2005 3:32:11 AM

i know, but you say he is "technically right" is fallacious. He only appears "right" on the surface, if you ignore what is actually going on...

10/5/2005 9:04:46 AM

^^^ I hope I never spend so much time on someone like Joshy.

10/5/2005 9:18:08 AM

Forget about hydrogen or electric. This car runs on, well, air. It is weird but they are making it.

http://www.theaircar.com/

10/5/2005 11:35:06 AM

interesting concept. I like it because it is inherently safer than a combustion based system. if your tank leaks, you don't leak fuel which will then ignite and cause lots of havoc. of course, if, your tank fails catastrophically, there is bad juju, because of the pressurized air... put a decent firewall between the tank and the driver and that should be no problem to the driver. it will, however, destroy the car

still, though, there has to be some way to initially store the air, and even replenish it, which they seem to suggest is done entirely via fossil fuels. I like the idea of the steering wheel having a generator in it (i think thats what it said, tell me if I'm wrong), though I wonder how this affects power steering (don't have power until you start to steer, but you need that power to make starting to steer easier...)

10/5/2005 12:06:46 PM

In look around online the car has some interesting concepts in it. At night, you can plug it up and the internal generator "refills" the tank.

Not to mention the fact that you could fill up at literally any gas station today that has an air hose for around .50

I think they are having trouble in real world test though achieving the max range they claimed. The motor definitely works but range is apparently the initial issue.

However unlike electric, you can refil the car in minutes not hours.

10/5/2005 12:10:48 PM

Quote :

"The motor definitely works"

oh, i'll bet it does, and its quite brilliant, too! All of our engines today (excluding fuel cell bsed ones) utilize compressed air to move the pistons, yet use an intermediate process on board to create the compressed air. Removing the intermediate process is brilliant, especially from the standpoint of efficiency.

BTW, "plugging the car in [to an electrical outlet, I presume]" wouldn't be utilizing the car's "internal generator," unless you are using the word "generator" to mean "compressor of air"

10/5/2005 12:16:39 PM

^Yes, I mean it is generating the compressed air.

Every article I can find on it is over two to three years old. I think this is a cool idea with some potential. The guys behind it seem very shady though.

10/5/2005 12:20:35 PM

Quote :

"I prefer a vehicle that doesn't hurt Mother Earth. It's a go-cart, powered by my own sense of self-satisfaction. -Ed Begley "

10/28/2005 12:58:14 PM

Get to work on better electric cars, then build a few hundred nuclear power plants. Pop up some wind turbines in the windy places, some hydroelectric plants on some rivers... of course all those things cost money.... But I like the electric car, we just need gas prices to triple so that we will ah.. put that higher on our list-o-things-to-do...

10/28/2005 2:15:35 PM

to all who have opposed me, you have lost. its over. its 100 percent over.


http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,69529,00.html

Quote :

"Hundreds of semitrailer trucks zipping along North American highways are now powered in part by hydrogen. These 18-wheelers make hydrogen as they go, eliminating the need for high-pressure, cryogenic storage tanks or hydrogen filling stations, which, by the way, don't yet exist. These truckers aren't just do-gooders. They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution. "We're saving $700 a month per truck on fuel," said Sherwin Fast, president of Great Plains Trucking in Salinas, Kansas. The company tried the HFI system on four trucks and has ordered 25 more. "Drivers like the increased power and noticed there is a lot less black smoke coming out of the stacks," said Fast. HFI is a bolt-on, aftermarket part that injects small amounts of hydrogen into the engine air intake, said Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Steve Gilchrist. Fuel efficiency and horsepower are improved because hydrogen burns faster and hotter than diesel, dramatically boosting combustion efficiency. "You get more work from the same amount of fuel," said Gilchrist. This is not a new idea. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology published research on the uses of hydrogen as a combustion-enhancing agent in the early 1970s. But the ability to make hydrogen on the go is novel. The sticking point for hydrogen has always been getting it. Unlike crude oil, natural gas, wind or solar energy, hydrogen doesn't exist freely in nature. It costs $5 a gallon to make hydrogen from natural gas. But the HFI system uses electricity from an engine's alternator to power the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen as needed from small amounts of distilled water. "That's a big advantage and a bit of a novelty," said Venki Raman, an expert on hydrogen-energy applications who started Protium Energy Technologies. HFI's manufacturer guarantees 10 percent fuel savings, which likely won't interest car companies or consumers, Raman said. But a reduction of pollution emissions could spur broader use. Trucks with the HFI system produce half the amount of particulates -- microscopic, unburned bits of diesel. The system also reduces nitrogen-oxide emissions, which are major contributors to harmful air pollution, by up to 14 percent, according to Canada's Environmental Technology Verification Program. The HFI units are relatively small and cost between $4,000 and $14,000, depending on the size of the vehicle. "It looks like a good transition technology to hydrogen fuel cells, which are still at least 15 years away from commercialization," said Raman. It will take at least until 2040 before fuel cells begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to the National Hydrogen Association, Gilchrist pointed out. "We vehemently disagree with governments picking the fuel cell as the single path to a cleaner environment," he said. Gilchrist recently argued just this point in meetings with California officials, who are considering buying prototype fuel-cell vehicles that will cost more than $1 million each. That money could buy many HFI systems, which would provide "300 times" the air-pollution reductions of one fuel-cell vehicle, he said. "

dont further make fools of yourselves by continuing to deny reality.





[Edited on November 15, 2005 at 11:07 PM. Reason : over]

11/15/2005 11:03:17 PM

What is your point again? I forgot. You do realize that 100% of the energy being used by the truck is coming from burning diesel, right?

Evidently minute quantities of hydrogen can be used as a catalyst to increase the combustion efficiency of diesel, so what? The fuel source is obvious, diesel!

In your mythical system the fuel is chemically identical to the waste product, in a diesel engine it is not.

11/16/2005 1:09:41 AM

Quote :

"What is your point again? I forgot. You do realize that 100% of the energy being used by the truck is coming from burning diesel, right?"

well....try reading the title of the article;
"Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power"

Quote :

"Evidently minute quantities of hydrogen can be used as a catalyst to increase the combustion efficiency of diesel, so what? The fuel source is obvious, diesel!"

the fuel is hydrogen from water. i think thats clearly stated about 100 times in the article.

Quote :

"In your mythical system the fuel is chemically identical to the waste product, in a diesel engine it is not."

in the trucks, when the hydrogen is burned, the product is water vapor. which is what i stated would be the product. im not sure where you are getting liquids being identical to gasses. i missed that day in class i suppose. so youve pwned yourself again, just as i predicted, vapor is the emmision, and water is the fuel.


just stop, becuase its obvious your just trolling for laughs, so i cant continue to feed the trolls as the scientific community continues to prove me correct in saying that hydrogen from water is the alternative power of the future. the article clearly proves that water is being used to help power automobiles. energy from the cars motion is inputted into extracted hydrogen, which helps move the automobile. the reaction contiues until the fuel, water, is expent.




[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 2:39 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2005 2:35:17 AM

here are some good examples of aaronburro pwning himself.

Quote :

"Plus, the fact that hydrogen combustion produces WATER ought to tell you something about trying to use electrolysis to create hydrogen... And it ought to tell you that you expend more energy making hydrogen from water than you make from burning hydrogen. Thus, if you have the energy to create hydrogen from water, then from an efficiency standpoint you should use that power source to power your cars... Now, if your power source is renewable, then thats another thing. But saying "put electrolysis in a car!" is stupid, because it won't work."

self pwnt badly here. i know, it hurts.

Quote :

"you will NEVER get more energy from burning hydrogen than you will have to expend to get hydrogen from the water. If the current electolysis efficiency is 2% (as in burning hydrogen gives you 2% of the energy it took to create the hydrogen), then inventing some process that makes it 20 times easier to get hydrogen via electrolysis doesn't change the bottom line: it takes more energy to make hydrogen from water than you gain by burning hydrogen. "

wrong again. tell it to the truckers who are using electrolysis.

Quote :

"So, let me get this straight. We have a source of fuel that is all over the place that we call "water." And somehow, SOMEHOW, we are going to take this "fuel," pour it into our cars and have it power our cars, and then it comes out again as "water." So, why don't we just take a hose from the exhaust and pump that water right back into the fuel tank? PERPETUAL ENERGY!!! YAAAAAAAAAY!!!"

again, its proven that hydrogen from water is not perpetual fuel, and can be used. so all this perpetual energy talk is now ruled out.



the weight argument proven false

Quote :

"Thats great. its also STUPID, because you have to have both water and another power source in order to utilize hydrolysis, and in utilizing the other power source, you are putting a second layer of inefficiency into the process, especially when you consider that the hydrogen has to push not only the car, but also the added weight of the other power source. The hydrogen would do much better without that extra weight, and the other power source would provide more power to the engine ON ITS OWN than it does by first going through the process of hydrolysis. Performing hydrolysis OBOARD a car in order to use the hydrogen as a fuel in the manner described so far in this thread is pure tom-foolery."

it sucks being a loser. its over.


[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 3:15 AM. Reason : 0]

11/16/2005 2:46:46 AM

in summry;

Quote :

"you will NEVER get more energy from burning hydrogen than you will have to expend to get hydrogen from the water"

energy from gas moves the alternator, that power extracts hydrogen. by your logic the energy expent extracting hydrogen could not make the car run any more effieciently.

but it doesnt, does it? how can this be?

perpetual motion is what you suggest. i think you should make another suggestion.

11/16/2005 3:39:46 AM

Damn you are retarded. Did you read your article?
opening line:

Quote :

"Hundreds of semitrailer trucks zipping along North American highways are now powered in part by hydrogen."

The fuel of these trucks is diesel. Period. Hydrogen helps the diesel burn cleaner and more efficiently. Hydrogen is not powering the vehicle.

11/16/2005 9:18:45 AM

biodiesel

make it out of the HUGE amounts of waste oil used in the food service industry

Americans love french fries like blue whales love krill

11/16/2005 2:43:46 PM

Quote :

"Damn you are retarded. Did you read your article? opening line:"

but that article shows it can be produced onboard like aaronburro was so viscously saying was impossible
and further aaronburro said that you would lose energy to produce it, which we again see is not the case

11/16/2005 6:01:29 PM

^The main thing is that you USE energy to produce it, which is exactly why water is not a "fuel" per se. In order to tap into the energy contained in water, you have to use other energy sources, which ultimately comes back to a polluting source such as diesel.

^^Biodiesel is a lot like ethanol. A renewable, less-polluting additive that can can be blended with current fuels, but not a viable fuel by itself right now. Commercial biodiesel vendors rarely sell higher than 20% blends. Deregulation of fuel standards would do a lot to make biodiesel more easily produced and sold, but that is unrealistic given the current political climate.



[Edited on November 16, 2005 at 6:43 PM. Reason : 1]

11/16/2005 6:33:13 PM

public transportation.

11/17/2005 12:44:39 AM

So who else thinks Josh8315 is living in an alternate reality?

11/17/2005 8:24:47 AM

JonHGuth doesn't seem to think so.
LoneSnark does think so.
Anyone else for Josh8315?

11/17/2005 10:31:14 AM