Printable View
Can chloro flouro carbons (CFC's) and carbon dioxide (CO2) and Methane (fart or 75% CH4, 15% ethane (C2H6), and 5% other hydrocarbons, such as propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10) be confused with greenhouse warming and the ozone layer?
Well I am confused so I'll stick to my day job :roll:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/index.html
Back on topic
Baz
Did you fill the tank on empty or are you running thr first tank on part dino and part bio?
LRA the other day on the phone told me...
Biodiesel = No :?
Reasons given were contamination of injectors and blocking of fuel lines.
I was told warranty goes goodbye on Bio...
Several Bio forums comment on this to. Aparently TD5s and TDV6 are not Biofriendly.
Cheers
Mike
The destruction of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are totally unrelated. The (manmade) damage to the ozone layer is primarily caused by the breakdown of flourocarbons in the stratosphere under bombardment by UV - the flourine ions destroy the ozone. The worldwide ban on manufacture of the relevant flourocarbons has now been in effect long enough to significantly reduce the effect, although it will be perhaps fifty years before all the flourine is gone from the stratosphere. The removal of the flourocarbons has been possible because there are alternatives.
Greenhouse gases are a separate affair altogether, and human actions are almost certainly causing an increase in the greenhouse effect due to forest clearing, farming, and the burning of fossil fuel, all of which increase the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. (It is uncertain how much of the additional CO2 will dissolve in the oceans and how rapidly) There are also other gases that have an effect, including methane. What is less clear is whether the manmade effect is counteracting a natural cooling, and it is even less clear whether the predicted amount of warming will be a net adverse or positive to humankind as a whole. This predicted warming will result in a world that is probably about the same temperature as the world was a thousand years ago. I cannot see a major reduction in use of fossil fuels or in farming, as there are no practical alternatives. The best we can expect is a reduction in the rate of increase. Land clearing can be expected to decrease on a worldwide basis and even be reversed (as is happening here - Australia has far more forest than it had fifty years ago, mainly thanks to myxamatosis).
And 200 years ago according to Lt Collins of the First Fleet they were able to ride at ease through the Illawarra escarpment through what is now dense rainforest pre-rabbit and contemporanious with Aboriginal land management https://www.aulro.com/afvb/Quote:
Originally posted by JDNSW
The destruction of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are totally unrelated. The (manmade) damage to the ozone layer is primarily caused by the breakdown of flourocarbons in the stratosphere under bombardment by UV - the flourine ions destroy the ozone. The worldwide ban on manufacture of the relevant flourocarbons has now been in effect long enough to significantly reduce the effect, although it will be perhaps fifty years before all the flourine is gone from the stratosphere. The removal of the flourocarbons has been possible because there are alternatives.
Greenhouse gases are a separate affair altogether, and human actions are almost certainly causing an increase in the greenhouse effect due to forest clearing, farming, and the burning of fossil fuel, all of which increase the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. (It is uncertain how much of the additional CO2 will dissolve in the oceans and how rapidly) There are also other gases that have an effect, including methane. What is less clear is whether the manmade effect is counteracting a natural cooling, and it is even less clear whether the predicted amount of warming will be a net adverse or positive to humankind as a whole. This predicted warming will result in a world that is probably about the same temperature as the world was a thousand years ago. I cannot see a major reduction in use of fossil fuels or in farming, as there are no practical alternatives. The best we can expect is a reduction in the rate of increase. Land clearing can be expected to decrease on a worldwide basis and even be reversed (as is happening here - Australia has far more forest than it had fifty years ago, mainly thanks to myxamatosis).
Mike, is that the only reasons? There wont be a lot of muck in the lines, and the filter should catch everything from the tank. The injectors work at about 23000psi and should blow any glazing through. If anything, I would have expected the significantly improved lubricity to be a benfit for injectors that work at such pressures and the solvent nature of the fuel be excellent for keeping the injectors clean.Quote:
Originally posted by tombraider
LRA the other day on the phone told me...
Biodiesel = No :?
Reasons given were contamination of injectors and blocking of fuel lines.
I was told warranty goes goodbye on Bio...
Several Bio forums comment on this to. Aparently TD5s and TDV6 are not Biofriendly.
Cheers
Mike
Biodiesel is better because it doesn't live under desert owned by Arabs.Quote:
Originally posted by Redback
Oh dear, i should of said nothing at all, as far as i know from the boi diesel forums and info you get on the web it's better for the environment, because it's a natural resoarse and not a fossil fuel or alcohol base fuel, so we are better off, if not then what would be the point of it then, and why all the hipe :?
Baz.
'nuff said.
And don't foget to take into account Global DimmingQuote:
Originally posted by JDNSW
The destruction of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are totally unrelated. The (manmade) damage to the ozone layer is primarily caused by the breakdown of flourocarbons in the stratosphere under bombardment by UV - the flourine ions destroy the ozone. The worldwide ban on manufacture of the relevant flourocarbons has now been in effect long enough to significantly reduce the effect, although it will be perhaps fifty years before all the flourine is gone from the stratosphere. The removal of the flourocarbons has been possible because there are alternatives.
Greenhouse gases are a separate affair altogether, and human actions are almost certainly causing an increase in the greenhouse effect due to forest clearing, farming, and the burning of fossil fuel, all of which increase the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. (It is uncertain how much of the additional CO2 will dissolve in the oceans and how rapidly) There are also other gases that have an effect, including methane. What is less clear is whether the manmade effect is counteracting a natural cooling, and it is even less clear whether the predicted amount of warming will be a net adverse or positive to humankind as a whole. This predicted warming will result in a world that is probably about the same temperature as the world was a thousand years ago. I cannot see a major reduction in use of fossil fuels or in farming, as there are no practical alternatives. The best we can expect is a reduction in the rate of increase. Land clearing can be expected to decrease on a worldwide basis and even be reversed (as is happening here - Australia has far more forest than it had fifty years ago, mainly thanks to myxamatosis).
Not the only reasons but the majors.Quote:
Originally posted by Slunnie
Mike, is that the only reasons? There wont be a lot of muck in the lines, and the filter should catch everything from the tank. The injectors work at about 23000psi and should blow any glazing through. If anything, I would have expected the significantly improved lubricity to be a benfit for injectors that work at such pressures and the solvent nature of the fuel be excellent for keeping the injectors clean.
Apparently there is an issue with the bio at 23000psi.
Not all fluids behave the same at those pressures.
But looking at $12k+ for an engine I consider the saving a big negative.
And until the EUI manufacturer signs off on Bio I'll be staying away.
Cheers
Mike
And I'm yet to be convinced the plastic they make TD5 fuel lines from is compatible.
It may have a low reaction time but it may do damage that I am not willing to risk.
Plus, many bio users here have complained of issues since using the bio. This is on Cruisers Patrols Hilux and Jackaroos.
The only positive I've heard was from a 4.2L NA Patrol owner who said his runs better. Has done for 8 months. He's the only person I have physically met who likes the stuff.
He did however have his pump rebuilt 3 months ago.
To each their own... But a $0.10c savings is in my eyes negligable if the engine, EUI, Pump or Lines have issues.
And on that topic... I can get up to a 200km range difference with just buying different fuels.
Local Shell = 900+km per tank
Mobil = 720km per tank
BP = 690km per tank
If bio burns more then my saving is negated.... At this stage its hardly seems worth the risk.
There is a post on another forum. One of Sydneys leading Landy specialists says to avoid bio at all costs (his words) - Its not suitable for Landrovers and will end in damage (his words).
He tells me they have seen the effects of Bio already.
Caveat' Empor
Cheers
Mike