most economical diesel swap [Archive]

fridgefreezer

03-04-2008, 03:33 PM

The turbo is different is it not?

I am sure you have more up to date info than I do, but the cost of a take out drivetrain from a 1996 disco when I priced it about a year ago was about $1500 less than a similar defender drivetrain.

I'm not totally down with the kids on this as I don't like diesels :flipoff2: so the cool kids don't talk to me :p but a rusty Disco 200TDi (complete vehicle) will set you back less than £500 which is <$1000, a 300TDi maybe a bit more, up to £1000 / $2000 for the whole vehicle mainly because they tend to be a newer/higher spec vehicle.

The defender equivalent parts have a bit more value because everyone (at the moment) wants a TDi in their Series / Defender. The differences are:
Exhaust manifold is different to fit in the defender, although you can fab round this. (Defender engine is "tall and thin" layout, Disco/RR is "low and wide")
Gearbox shifter is further forward on the Defender, you have to swap the box complete to change this so the defender box is worth more.
LT230 is geared lower in a defender (1.410:1) - if you're running "big" (34"+:shaking:) tyres you don't want the hi-ratio (1.222:1) LT230 from a Disco or RR that ran 205's from the factory as it'll never pull it :rainbow:

I agree with Mercedesrover - proper engines don't use elastic bands. The LR TDi's are an OK engine but these days they don't have an awful lot to recommend them, even in the UK where they're plentiful and spares are cheap the thinking person's diesel is the Isuzu 2.8.

Then again, as I said above, unless the gas mileage is a real problem I really can't see the point of sticking a TDi in where a V8 was.

evilfij

03-04-2008, 04:13 PM

Find me a rusty 1995 LWB (soft dash) 300Tdi truck and part out the drivetrain to me. I suppose disco stuff of a similar vintage would work.

Velocewest

03-05-2008, 12:00 AM

oh yeah, I totally forgot that moving to a foreign country is more economical than swapping your friggin motor........:flipoff2:

Checked the exchange rates lately? :eek::D

One of my Oregon homeys just dropped a 300Tdi in his RRC LWB. Given what that cost, and assuming 12,000 miles a year, he's 7+ years away from recouping his investment in fuel cost savings. Fortunately, that wasn't his motivation.

I think diesels are the shit, but installing one for any reason other than personal preference and satisfaction is fantasy.

Dougal

03-05-2008, 12:44 AM

I think diesels are the shit, but installing one for any reason other than personal preference and satisfaction is fantasy.

So 7x12 = 84,000 miles at current fuel prices.
Do you expect fuel to go up or down in the near future?
Do you want the ability to run alternative fuels (WVO, SVO, Bio etc)?

But yeah the personal preference and satisfaction is the winner for me. My truck was converted to diesel back in about 94. It's done 200,000km since then. If it was still a petrol V8 it would have been scrapped years ago as just another thirsty POS.

fridgefreezer

03-05-2008, 01:16 AM

So 7x12 = 84,000 miles at current fuel prices.
Do you expect fuel to go up or down in the near future?
Do you want the ability to run alternative fuels (WVO, SVO, Bio etc)?

Personally:
1) Up, but who cares, the thing's a toy not an energy-saving lightbulb
2) Bio-ethanol anyone?
3) The V8 sounds great, has more power, and is more fun. That's the whole reason I own the truck - fun. If I want sensible I'll drive the diesel company van, but that's not so good for wheelin' :flipoff2:

Junkyddog11

03-05-2008, 05:07 AM

Another diseasel debate?

I make a living swapping the frigging things into cars, trucks, boats and etc.

I like V8s

First, 300 tdis are 300 tdis. The motors are the same regardless of what they came in, they cost the same regardless of what they came in. The only differances are which transmission they have and what sort of electronic crap they have attached that needs to be thrown out. Anyone who pays more for one out of a Defender is making a mistake as these generally, from the lumps I buy, seem to be in worse shape. You do need (obviously I would think) to use the appropriate tranny for the vehicle being converted.

200 Tdis from a defender fit nicely in a series rig and demand a premium price.

I love V8s

200 tdis from a disco fit nicely in a discovery or RRC and are dirt cheap. Major fucking pain in the ass to fit in a series or defender.

There are no benefits cost wise short term, or long term unless it is really looonng term.....unless you are, as the person who started this thread wants to be, looking at putting a diesel into a disco (or RRC) which, if you find a used 200 tdi and do your own work can be a really low budget approach. You'll get mileage in the low 20's and contrary to some beleif can pull 34"' tyres with the standard 1.22 ;1 t-case.

I have no issues getting parts for any of the rover diesels and the parts are not at all expensive, relative to any imported motor.

Reliability has certainly been no worse than the V8 (which I love....did I say that already)

The diesel fuel range is nice when taking trips into the wilderness. Runs nicely on biofuel if you want to tout yourself as being "green" or like blowing clouds of black smoke that smells like fried clams at the anti war/ kill your TV/ my kids are dying for your SUV crowd.

Plenty of motors use "frigging rubber bands" for timing and properly maintained I can't see the issues. I've seen them with 150k+ miles that look brand new, also seen them fail relatively young. Sure it will destroy the motor when it breaks. Maintain the fawkin thing correctly and more than likely it wont break. I see plenty of other motors in the shop that have issues that have gear or chain driven timing. I have not had the pleasure of messing with the Isuzu 2.8, in which case everything might change and I could join the ranks of the "thinking men".....(does that require the use of a hard hat?)

I personally like the Rover motor swap into a Rover that gets built with a diesel elsewhere in the world as it is a straight up bolt in. An idiot can do it (I'm living proof eh?) and parts are a no brainer, post swap support and service are simple. I do "alternative" swaps also, but these are never as straight forward as some would have it, in the conversion cost, complexity, or the support and maintainance post swap. Not at all economically feasable unless the work is done by owner. Not saying that that is not a fine thing, just a consideration.

Nothing wrong with a V8.

PTSchram

03-05-2008, 05:32 AM

And to think I had a neighboring shop owner tell me I shouldn't put boneyard engines in trucks due to fears of being married to them!

One of the reasons I discourage folks from their fantasies of SBCs in Rovers is difficulty finding someone who knows how to work on them in converted guise. I'd hate to try to find someone to work on a Tdi in the US, how many shops have folks who are sufficiently knowledgable to troubleshoot a misbehaving Tdi? It's hard enough finding someone to fix a V-8 and most Americans grew up wrenching on them.

Junkyddog11

03-05-2008, 06:16 AM

PT, almost any truck shop can work on a Rover Tdi. It's a simple diesel. Most parts can be had within a day. Fawkin idiots can work on them. My injection guy had never heard of them, yet he rebuilds pumps, injectors and turbo's for me as they are nothing special. Support is probably easier to get than if you had a SBC in your Disco.

in many cases also a fuck of a lot easier than getting anyone to deal with a misbehaving Rover V8........which reminds me that I'm 'sposed to be in the shop doing just that .....grrrrr

Did I say I love V8's......they are great for business

PTSchram

03-05-2008, 06:35 AM

PT, almost any truck shop can work on a Rover Tdi. It's a simple diesel. Fawkin idiots can work on them. Support is probably easier to get than if you had a SBC in your Disco.

in many cases also a fuck of a lot easier than getting anyone to deal with a misbehaving Rover V8........which reminds me that I'm 'sposed to be in the shop doing just that .....grrrrr

Did I say I love V8's......they are great for business

I'm a fawking idiot-plenty will agree, not just my wife. I'd be stuck trying to do anything more than the most minor stuff with a diesel.

V8s OTOH, unless they are in my personal trucks usually don't cause me much stress. SBCs... Too easy!

Now, I can't say that about P38 air suspension, BeCMs and today's excitement, door locks that randomly won't let you out-I had to climb out the sunroof on one last night! Thank God for the Rovacom!

reraub

03-05-2008, 06:44 AM

steering towards a cummins that has a new lifter and injector pump stuck on a 4 speed. Im checking it out this weekend.

pendy

03-05-2008, 07:30 AM

Diesel's complement Land Rovers. Its a statement about what you drive and how you want the vehicle to live into the future. It becomes timeless when you show how it can be re-invented to keep pace with the world around it.

If this doesn't speak to you then I look forward to the time when you choose to waste words on some other model vehicles forum and leave us to our passion.

Having just been witness to an old RRC with 200 tdi doing work similar to my 1 ton Dodge w/ cummins engine pulling trailers all about northern UK, I say the engine family is worth the admiration I have paid it over the years by retrofitting it in our models.

And if your project calls for cheap then thats what you are left with when you are done. Even good fabrication can only overcome so much.

Mercedesrover

03-05-2008, 08:12 AM

steering towards a cummins that has a new lifter and injector pump stuck on a 4 speed. Im checking it out this weekend.

And what do all the Cummins guys do about gearing with an engine that peaks out at 2200rpm?

texascadillac42

03-05-2008, 08:36 AM

Put a gov. spring (or springs, depending on the type of pump in it) and let it wind to 3200rpm+.

Leafsprung

03-05-2008, 08:40 AM

Bio-ethanol anyone?

As opposed to ethanol derived from fossil fuels right? Gotta love marketing. Did you know Cookie Crisp is part of a complete breakfast?

HandBuilt

03-05-2008, 09:44 AM

And what do all the Cummins guys do about gearing with an engine that peaks out at 2200rpm?

Run man-sized tires :flipoff2:

spork2367

03-05-2008, 10:37 AM

Did you know Cookie Crisp is part of a complete breakfast?

You also Can't Get Enough of That Cookie Crisp.

CJ5-Man

03-05-2008, 11:09 AM

You also Can't Get Enough of That Cookie Crisp.

what about super golden crisp?

Junkyddog11

03-05-2008, 01:12 PM

Jayzus Pendy ......I never realised you were such a fawkin poet. Well done. 'nuff said.

Jtisdale

03-05-2008, 06:13 PM

Leafsprung

03-05-2008, 07:02 PM

Diesel's complement Land Rovers. Its a statement about what you drive and how you want the vehicle to live into the future. It becomes timeless when you show how it can be re-invented to keep pace with the world around it.

Says the guy who sells diesel installs. Sounds like you lifted that right out of the land rover lifestyle magazine. Cooooooookie Crisp!

RPR

03-05-2008, 08:10 PM

jimfoo

03-05-2008, 08:59 PM

Hopefully I will be noticing the price fairly soon. :flipoff2: Engine is almost back together after it's transformation to a TDI.

Narzuhl

03-06-2008, 07:13 AM

My Diesel dream story,

My 2.25 engine was shot, it needed a total rebuild so i started to look at alternatives to the speedy 4 cyl in my 109.
I was just about to put a MB diesel into my Series. Had everything to do this swap. Engine, Adapter and a few other parts. Some where along the line i decided not to do this.
Part of it was the total cost. After looking at my engine, i decided it probably could use a rebuild, well the turbo for sure. So i started to call around and using numbers off the turbo (not the Mercedes Name) the prices were up there. Then looking at everything to use my dual tank setup. Rebuilding the injectors, injector pump, head and heck why not a total rebuild, after all everything else will be rebuilt. The cost skyrocketed.
On top of that my transmission and transfer case are suspect, the front axle is as well.
So my diesel dream was put on hold. Total cost would take me several years to recoup (not that it was much of a worry as i was just not going for fuel economy in this swap). So i started to look at other diesel options, found a Landcruiser diesel that was crashed (body is shot and turns out engine as well) knowing that it cost me 5K the last time i had a LC diesel rebuilt i decided to skip that.
So the decision was made and i will be using a SBC (out of a 71 vette) mated to a Toyota Land Cruiser drivetrain (keeps the same right hand drops as the original series)

Why not continue on the diesel route? Cost of most diesels used are over priced and used means what? Well if your lucky then the engine is fine, might need a few little things like injectors glow plugs or a injector pump, maybe a timing chain/ belt. If your unlucky then you will spend all that money on the conversion to start it up and poof, another 4K to get the engine rebuilt. (yes i am sure you can get some rebuild for less, but looking at the import diesels and your in that ballpark).

So after everything total cost of the diesel installed and running would have ended up being 75% of to total cost of my Rover rebuild. Now the engine swap is 15% (even after the rebuild) and the drive train another 15% of the total rebuild.

Just a note on changing your Rover to a diesel in the US.
In the US changing your engine to a Diesel is a sketchy thing when it comes to EPA and meeting all the regs (reading the regs the answer is basically no you cannot do it). In states that require emissions, unless it it exempt, then your out of luck, even then it is iffy and no clear answer can really be found ( for an exempt vehicle i am talking the vehicles that are over the 25 year mark, thats seems to be the magic year in most states for emissions) . States like California your looking at even more problems as they do emission on vehicles older then 25 years old.. Even the guys importing a 25 year old Land Cruiser diesel are having problems registering them with the DMV in Cali.

FrankenRover

03-06-2008, 08:14 AM

spork2367

03-06-2008, 10:10 AM

Has anyone noticed the price of diesel these days, at least in the NE?

I can't fill my truck up for less than $110 :mad3: I know, I should be running it on babassu nut oil or the free chippie drip from Mickey Dee's:flipoff2:

i just read the tow rig shootout in Peterson's the other day. the average between the big three diesel tow rigs was 11.0 mpg...that is pitiful. especially considering the price of diesel and the extra cost of buying the truck with a diesel engine (around 5000.00 give or take) you could take that extra money, boost a gas 6.0 to 450-500 reliable horsepower and get better gas mileage. you might not get 480 ft. lbs. of torque, but you'd save a shitload of money.

jimfoo

03-06-2008, 10:26 AM

spork2367

03-06-2008, 10:33 AM

I don't know what kind of shootout it was, I didn't read it. But when my work got a Duramax truck, it was getting about 20 mpg. None of our gas engines would get close to that in mileage or close to matching it's speed.

the new diesel ratings and real world mileage are horrible. i don't know why anyone would buy one unless they had to trailer 20,000 lbs every day. they are far worse than the "dirtier" engines they replaced.

jimfoo

03-06-2008, 10:51 AM

I think in general, that's the problem. Everyone wants a badass diesel with a gazillion ft/lbs of torque though most will never use it. They could easily put in smaller more efficient diesels that would still equal or surpass a gassers abilities, yet get a ton better mileage. That's all I wanted in my diesel swap, more power than my 2.25,(not hard to do:shaking:) just to be able to do the speed limit up a hill, and a little better mileage. So I went with a 1.9 diesel, doubling my hp and getting 50% better mileage on the road, and well beyond that off road.

FrankenRover

03-06-2008, 12:16 PM

the new diesel ratings and real world mileage are horrible. i don't know why anyone would buy one unless they had to trailer 20,000 lbs every day. they are far worse than the "dirtier" engines they replaced.

They don't "test" diesels that have been properly aged. My 04.5" Dodge CTD got about 13mpg new. At 60k at was averaging 21 mpg on the same commute.

Your 500hp gas engine would have a very short service life for the kind of work and pulling alot of diesel trucks do (granted, many diesel owners are poseurs). Not to mention the fact that you would get far less than 11 mpg doing it.

edit - Most folks do actually buy their 3/4 ton + trucks for hauling. When was the last time you saw a Hotshotter with a gas engined truck? It is more economical in the long run, even with the disparity in fuel prices. Also, resale value for used diesels is FAR greater than gas trucks. You get every bit of the 5k you spent up front on the backside if you resell.

Dougal

03-06-2008, 01:09 PM

i just read the tow rig shootout in Peterson's the other day. the average between the big three diesel tow rigs was 11.0 mpg...that is pitiful. especially considering the price of diesel and the extra cost of buying the truck with a diesel engine (around 5000.00 give or take) you could take that extra money, boost a gas 6.0 to 450-500 reliable horsepower and get better gas mileage. you might not get 480 ft. lbs. of torque, but you'd save a shitload of money.

You are clueless if you think a petrol engine will return better fuel mileage than a diesel. Look up the BSFC numbers and it becomes very very clear.

I have a rangerover (yes they are sold in the US) with an Isuzu diesel engine which is also sold in the US.
With simply more fuel and boost I have approx 500Nm of torque (more than any factory SBC) which can squeal tyres at 1400rpm in second gear on dry tarmac.
It also averages 10km/l (roughly 23-24 USMPG).

But because you guys have the steering wheel on the wrong side, you'd have some clearance issues to work out. Get a RHD one and it's dead easy. I can even provide drawings for engine mounts (bolt onto block, bolt onto V8 mounts).

spork2367

03-06-2008, 10:57 PM

You are clueless if you think a petrol engine will return better fuel mileage than a diesel. Look up the BSFC numbers and it becomes very very clear.

i am well aware that a diesel will return better mileage when the displacement is roughly the same and with equal horsepower. however, my family has two one ton chevys, one truck and one van. both have 454's and give 15.0 on the highway. that's better than the manufacturer listed mpg for the new diesels. granted towing heavy load the gas mileage will suffer much more than the diesel mileage.

(granted, most diesel owners are poseurs)

edit - Most folks do actually buy their 3/4 ton + trucks for hauling. When was the last time you saw a Hotshotter with a gas engined truck? It is more economical in the long run, even with the disparity in fuel prices. Also, resale value for used diesels is FAR greater than gas trucks. You get every bit of the 5k you spent up front on the backside if you resell.

changed it for you...if most diesel owners were using there trucks for hauling all the time there wouldn't be such a ridiculous aftermarket for them. let's face it, you can't use most of the power adders when hauling. that, and most of the people i know that are running diesels for work are using them to death, so resale isn't a big deal. my question was, how do you build a cleaner engine, with only slightly more power, and much worse gas mileage? when they finally make small diesel engines clean enough for the US, they will probably get the same shitty mileage our gas engines get.

Dougal

03-07-2008, 01:23 AM

i am well aware that a diesel will return better mileage when the displacement is roughly the same and with equal horsepower.

Regardless of the power you need, a diesel engine will provide it for a fuel saving of up to 50%.
US EPA rating are BS, talk to the owners and ask them what the trucks actually do.
15mpg on the highway with a 454 maybe, but they'll be well into single figures for every other type of driving. Part load on a petrol engine is where they truely suck.

Junkyddog11

03-07-2008, 05:23 AM

Spork, I don't understand where you get this, and some of it may just be your entitled opinion, and I'm very interested in discussion and all....but what the fuck dude. If you just want to opine, go to Dweeb and "chat" with Chapman......before this thread is also lost to the SOVTR (Spork Opinion vs the Rest) syndrome.

FrankenRover

03-07-2008, 07:04 AM

i am well aware that a diesel will return better mileage when the displacement is roughly the same and with equal horsepower. however, my family has two one ton chevys, one truck and one van. both have 454's and give 15.0 on the highway. that's better than the manufacturer listed mpg for the new diesels. granted towing heavy load the gas mileage will suffer much more than the diesel mileage.

changed it for you...if most diesel owners were using there trucks for hauling all the time there wouldn't be such a ridiculous aftermarket for them. let's face it, you can't use most of the power adders when hauling. that, and most of the people i know that are running diesels for work are using them to death, so resale isn't a big deal. my question was, how do you build a cleaner engine, with only slightly more power, and much worse gas mileage? when they finally make small diesel engines clean enough for the US, they will probably get the same shitty mileage our gas engines get.

Retard, your input fails is SO many ways. I think actually, you just can't afford a diesel and thus you save your ego by dissing them. There is ZERO advantage to owning a 3/4 ton plus truck that is NOT a diesel. The only way your 454 powered rigs get 15 mpg is driving 55 on the highway and using two barrel carbs. My '01 Chevy 8.0 GAS got ..... wait for it..... 9 mpg UNLADEN, and near 4-5 pulling a big load. Modern big blocks are HORRIBLE on gas mileage.

Your the poseur bud, and until you get some insight and realize it, you make a fool of yourself every single time you post on these forums. gtfo

Mercedesrover

03-07-2008, 07:25 AM

My '01 Chevy 8.0 GAS got ..... wait for it..... 9 mpg UNLADEN, and near 4-5 pulling a big load. Modern big blocks are HORRIBLE on gas mileage.

We've got a big-block dually we tow a goose-neck with. It gets 6.5 mpg with no trailer, 6.0 mpg pulling a 10 ton trailer.

The only way a big block gasser gets 15 mpg is if it's ridding around in the bed of a diesel truck.

PTSchram

03-07-2008, 07:38 AM

I had a 3/4 ton Chevy with a flat bed, 350 carbed.

It got eight miles per gallon whether it was empty, had 2800 pounds of water softener salt on it, or a huge camper.

Always ran, moved more people than I can count and was one hell of a workhorse for $850, but efficient, no.

OTOH, my sister's one-ton with the 350 EFI, got ~18 MPG pulling AFI's pig of a rig on my heavy-ass trailer. If I ever get my hands on the SOB that stole it, there will be Hell to pay!

PT

spork2367

03-07-2008, 11:05 AM

Retard, your input fails is SO many ways. I think actually, you just can't afford a diesel and thus you save your ego by dissing them. There is ZERO advantage to owning a 3/4 ton plus truck that is NOT a diesel. The only way your 454 powered rigs get 15 mpg is driving 55 on the highway and using two barrel carbs. My '01 Chevy 8.0 GAS got ..... wait for it..... 9 mpg UNLADEN, and near 4-5 pulling a big load. Modern big blocks are HORRIBLE on gas mileage.

Your the poseur bud, and until you get some insight and realize it, you make a fool of yourself every single time you post on these forums. gtfo

i quoted a publication on the gas mileage, that was the EPA numbers versus their testing. if you don't like that, call Peterson's. they aren't all knowing, but they try not to print blatantly incorrect knowledge. no, i can't afford a diesel. in all honesty, i don't tow anything over 10,000 lbs, so even with the savings in gas the price difference wouldn't be justified. besides, i'd rather build something than shell out 40,000 for a truck that isn't anything special.

"There is ZERO advantage to owning a 3/4 ton plus truck that is NOT a diesel."

yeah, absolutely no reason...cheaper to buy, cheaper to fix. and if you're daily driving it without hauling, in the course of 1000 highway miles the diesel will be about 10-20 dollars cheaper to run. at that rate it would only take about....333,000 miles to pay off the diesel. 1 out of 10 diesel pickups i see on a daily basis are actually towing something.

i'm a poseur because i question how an engine can become so much cleaner, but lose efficiency?

We've got a big-block dually we tow a goose-neck with. It gets 6.5 mpg with no trailer, 6.0 mpg pulling a 10 ton trailer.

The only way a big block gasser gets 15 mpg is if it's ridding around in the bed of a diesel truck.

i'm more than capable of calculating my gas mileage, but thanks for telling me what i'm really getting...it was the last year that the 454 was available, and they had it pretty well tuned.

Leafsprung

03-07-2008, 11:13 AM

My neighbor is in the process of buying a new dodge truck. He initially wanted a diesel. He wanted to purchase during the recent "lifetime powertrain warranty" incentive program. Come to find out they do not offer this incentive with the diesel trucks because it is not "made by dodge". He is planning to keep it for a long time and has, as a result, decided to go with the gas model . . . Thought that was interesting. Maybe relevant, maybe not.

reraub

03-07-2008, 11:24 AM

HandBuilt

03-07-2008, 02:53 PM

Well I went and looked at a 6Bt cummins 180,000 miles had new lifter and injector pumps. I may be able to get away with using it but the engine is a pig I may have to beef up the front springs. Anybody know how much a gems 4.0 weighs? I think this cummins is about 1000lb give or take. Uhhhh spork:shaking: they do make diesel cars for the U.S. market among them is this company Hitler was very fond of called Volksvagen. I have a couple friends who have golfs and jettas and guess what they get as good if not better economy than my 69 220d which is completly restored mechanicaly. One of the biggest reasons for my conversion is WVO:grinpimp: otherwise it would not be as attractive. Plus I just like diesels less to go wrong than a sparker engine oh crap i just went up to my windows in dirty creek water oh well snorkel + no ecu = driving away.

I measured a Disco for a 6BT before and I don't think it would work without having at least a 4-5 inch lift and some pretty serious floorboard mods to fit the bellhousing in, plus everything else would have to be reengineered. You could do a custom oil pan that might clear the front diff but it would be a major engineering exercise and I think it would still hit the block. Plus, I think the front axle would have issues handling the load, broken pins and bearings.

Yes, the 6BT is about a thousand pounds fully dressed, I would think the GEMS 4.0 is over 600 lbs lighter. I once carried a 4.0 (fully dressed) in the trunk of a VW Jetta hanging out the back (lots of tie wraps) and it was surprisingly lightweight. The 6BT is not a great choice for a Disco. They are quickly turning into the cheapest swap out there because they are so common but I think that there are better engines. I think the 4BT with a TH400 combo that can be had for 2500$ would work much better, and you could probably use the stock rad and everything, plus the TH400 to LT230 adapter is available. Still blows your budget by about 2K$ by the time it's all done.

Dougal

03-07-2008, 03:32 PM

I measured a Disco for a 6BT before and I don't think it would work without having at least a 4-5 inch lift and some pretty serious floorboard mods to fit the bellhousing in, plus everything else would have to be reengineered. You could do a custom oil pan that might clear the front diff but it would be a major engineering exercise and I think it would still hit the block. Plus, I think the front axle would have issues handling the load, broken pins and bearings.

Isuzu 4BD1T, it's a japanese version of the cummins 4BT. It fits it works and it delivers 500Nm by turning a couple of screws. Pack the front bump stops by 1 inch and you're done.

6BT would be an absolute mission.

HandBuilt

03-07-2008, 04:34 PM

Isuzu 4BD1T, it's a japanese version of the cummins 4BT. It fits it works and it delivers 500Nm by turning a couple of screws. Pack the front bump stops by 1 inch and you're done.

6BT would be an absolute mission.

Yes we all know you love your Isuzu, they are a great motor, but it's a PITA to find one in NA. It was only used in piddly little Isuzu cabovers that were mostly sold with the larger 6 cylinder version installed. Most of the ones we got were sold as GMC Forwards and I think these were all 6s, I have never seen a 4. The other problem is that they command a high price. The 4BT is the universal 4 cyl diesel here, you can get one in anything.

The point of this thread was the cheapest engine swap you can do to a Disco. I still maintain that a yank-out 4BT that's attached to a junkyard TH400 might be close to what he is looking for a decent return on little investment.

PTSchram

03-07-2008, 05:24 PM

W/R/T the weight of the 4.0, Slade was able lift one and put it in the back of my rental truck when I was moving out west.

W/R/T the 6BDT, I wish I know how Timm Cooper put the engine in Simon's 109! Big shoehorn?

Dougal

03-07-2008, 05:31 PM

Yes we all know you love your Isuzu, they are a great motor, but it's a PITA to find one in NA. It was only used in piddly little Isuzu cabovers that were mostly sold with the larger 6 cylinder version installed. Most of the ones we got were sold as GMC Forwards and I think these were all 6s, I have never seen a 4. The other problem is that they command a high price. The 4BT is the universal 4 cyl diesel here, you can get one in anything.

The point of this thread was the cheapest engine swap you can do to a Disco. I still maintain that a yank-out 4BT that's attached to a junkyard TH400 might be close to what he is looking for a decent return on little investment.

The Isuzu NPR engine is all over the US, fitted to the 4 ton truck. It was only the larger Isuzu Forwards (6 ton plus capacity) that received the 6 cyl 6BD1. Some of the NPR's had a petrol V8 instead.

Head to www.4btswaps.com and take a look in the Isuzu section.

Here're the ones that popped up on the first page on Ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1995-ISUZU-NPR-15FT-BOX-VAN-W-LIFTGATE_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ80762QQihZ008Q QitemZ180220884505QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Isuzu-NPR-ISUZU-NPR-DIESEL-LANDSCAPE-GATE-BOX-TRUCK_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6271QQihZ005QQite mZ150222124579QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1992-Isuzu-NPR-Diesel-Box-Truck_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ80762QQihZ005QQit emZ150220939509QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1997-Isuzu-NPR-w-16-Box-1600lbs-LiftGate_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ80762QQihZ002Q QitemZ120228798801QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Isuzu-Truck-Parts-OEM-NPR-4BD1-T-Engine-Block_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33615QQihZ008QQit emZ180220058141QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

Parts and rebuild kits aren't a problem either.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Isuzu-NPR-4BD1-Turbo-Diesel-Engine_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33615QQihZ025QQi temZ380001699017QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ISUZU-NPR-3-9-GARRETT-AIRESEARCH-TURBOCHARGER-NO-CORE-R_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33742QQihZ015QQitemZ2 50221824553QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Isuzu-4BD1T-engine-kit-diesel-NPR-medium-duty-truck_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ140692QQihZ010QQi temZ200205173332QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

spork2367

03-07-2008, 08:23 PM

Uhhhh spork:shaking: they do make diesel cars for the U.S. market among them is this company Hitler was very fond of called Volksvagen.

so you could buy one of the big three trucks and get mediocre gas mileage in a truck where most won't ever take advantage of the torque...you could buy a jeep grand cherokee 3.0 diesel for 45,000, or you could get a volkswagen...not a huge amount of choices. i go to Honduras, CA every summer. i've driven newer turbo diesel toyotas and naturally aspirated nissan diesels. those are the vehicles i'm looking for. the problem is, once they make them available, they will be like the grand cherokee, some sort of status symbol, out of the price range of the people who really want them.

PlantDriver

03-07-2008, 09:49 PM

aaron t

03-07-2008, 10:41 PM

i have followed my dreams of finally building my disco. and now i get like 12mpg.

i was hoping that when i read this thread, there would be diesel panacea that would solve all of my fuel woes.

maybe i should build a rat ass 6.2 na motor and burn old motor oil. that stuff is like a buck or two a gallon these days in filtered and burnable form.

it just kills me to drive anywhere anymore. i can't own a commuter car, and a tow rig.

it is getting to the point when i may have to sell my buggy, my rovers and get a moped.

land use won't kill our sport, we will be killed by the fuel industry long before.:(

CJ5-Man

03-08-2008, 12:22 AM

i have followed my dreams of finally building my disco. and now i get like 12mpg.

my Disco owning dreams are to do whatever I want, and have income where I can afford gas.

Junkyddog11

03-08-2008, 05:16 AM

the ability to drive on for free, on a climate-change neutral and no-war-required fuel.

::slight hijack:: but somewhat on topic

Craig,

First, you know that I totally respect what you do and your opinions / knowledge on the subject of alternative fuels. I fully beleive in all of it and try to spread the word as best I can.

slight rant....Problem I have is the "drive for free" thing. I mean even after the added cost of having a diesel and altering it to effectively be able to use WVO you have to be able to find the damn stuff, which, at least around here has become increasingly difficult.......for free. Never mind the cost of actually collecting it etc. as some of the places I used to collect from will only allow it now if you pay for it and you have to take ALL of the waste, which is something most people cannot even physically handle or store. Most resturants here are now selling it to companies that are "refining" it to Biodiesel and selling as home heating oil and off-road fuel. Nothing wrong with that and I applaud them (and use the fuel in my heaps), just as I applaud you for your efforts. What has happened is that it (WVO) has become a commodity and people are going to have to pay for it. Currently the cost of local B100 (refined from WVO) is at or more than dino diesel and they sell it as fast as they can make it as people will burn it on moral principals rather that cost savings. It would serve us all well if more, or some realism can be employed by all in terms of what biofuels cost and why burning vegetable based oils is a good thing.......rant off.

side note; why the switch to the 2.8?

Mercedesrover

03-08-2008, 06:53 AM

FrankenRover

03-08-2008, 07:28 AM

Ultrafiltered, unrefined WVO at the pump (yes we have a pump supplier) here in Albuquerque is less than 1/2 the cost of pump #2 diesel (which interestingly is now at least B5).

RedlineMike

03-08-2008, 07:36 AM

how much do you guys pay for diesel?

we are £6 per gallon which must work out about $11 a gallon

FrankenRover

03-08-2008, 07:57 AM

$3.51/gallon at Luv's truckstop (a bit cheaper than that if you pay cash).

PTSchram

03-08-2008, 08:08 AM

$3.51/gallon at Luv's truckstop (a bit cheaper than that if you pay cash).

Up to almost $3.90/gallon locally, it's getting expensive to use diesel fuel to heat the shop. Propane next year!

Leafsprung

03-08-2008, 08:58 AM

that and the ability to drive on for free, on a climate-change neutral and no-war-required fuel

Going to have to go with Matt B on this one. Whether you intend to or not, you are still spending money, changing the climate, and killing middle-eastern civilians using WVO and biodiesel.

pendy

03-08-2008, 09:49 AM

6BT would be an absolute mission.

Amen

aaron t

03-08-2008, 09:52 AM

Man, how many times and how many ways does it have to be said?????

A diesel swap will not save you money!!!!!

There are many reasons to do a diesel swap but saving money on fuel is the very last of them. Keep your gas engine and put the money in the bank.

i think this is the unfortunate sucky reality. we all look for these panaceas in hopes that one day there will be a pill that falls from the sky, dissolves into a never ending water supply, turns into gasoline, and makes old growth trees re-appear instanly in california.

Junkyddog11

03-08-2008, 05:54 PM

Ultrafiltered, unrefined WVO at the pump (yes we have a pump supplier) here in Albuquerque is less than 1/2 the cost of pump #2 diesel (which interestingly is now at least B5).

That's nice. I probably must have a slightly scewed perspective living in a cold climate and all. We can only get B5 this time of year and more than B20 is rare. WVO is not sold anywhere up here (that I know of) and according to the guys I buy from is not legal for sale for road use, as it is not an approved fuel even if you pay tax as if it were diesel.....at least in our neighborhood. I've never questioned this or looked into it at all.

I run B100 home heating oil and pay the road use tax on it. Works out at about $3.50 / gal including paying the State of Maine.

Yorker

03-09-2008, 02:03 PM

Plus, any diesel can be run on free used fryer oil, and with the price of a barrel of oil at $105 this week, look for gas and diesel at over $4/gallon at a pump near you. A gasser truck that gets 10 mpg, with gas at $4/gallon means it will cost you $4 to drive 10 miles.

Diesel is already $4.05 a gallon here- though 87 octane gasoline is $3.35.

Everywhere I've looked is already selling off their WVO here- there doesn't seem to be any that is free for the taking. The local oil companies are getting into bio-diesel and between them and the co-ops it is apparently putting a good demand on restaurant's WVO.

I like diesels but the "most economical diesel swap" is to trade your LR for a VW Jetta TDi...

Serious One

03-09-2008, 03:03 PM

Diesel is already $4.05 a gallon here- though 87 octane gasoline is $3.35.

Everywhere I've looked is already selling off their WVO here- there doesn't seem to be any that is free for the taking. The local oil companies are getting into bio-diesel and between them and the co-ops it is apparently putting a good demand on restaurant's WVO.

I like diesels but the "most economical diesel swap" is to trade your LR for a VW Jetta TDi...

+1

Buckon37s

03-09-2008, 03:21 PM

Hi Spork,

The '08 Ford Powerstroke 6.4L, Dodge 6.7L and the new Duramax all have more emissions stuff than the '07 and earlier trucks - active particulate filters, afterburners, etc. that make them get worse mileage. If one doesn't need a brand new truck, the earlier trucks get much better mileage; a 12-valve Dodge with the Cummins 5.9L engine will get 18-22 mpg, and even towing will get 18, try doing that with a gasser. Plus, any diesel can be run on free used fryer oil, and with the price of a barrel of oil at $105 this week, look for gas and diesel at over $4/gallon at a pump near you. A gasser truck that gets 10 mpg, with gas at $4/gallon means it will cost you $4 to drive 10 miles. And anyone who thinks that fuel prices aren't going to continue to rise is too dumb to be behind the wheel.

I went from the 3.9 in my Defender to the 300Tdi (and Shane at Rover Hybrids is now replacing that with the International 2.8) because I didn't what to get stuck out in the middle of nowhere - where I like to take the Defender - with some impossible to diagnose EFI problem. But it's the increased range that I love now; that and the ability to drive on for free, on a climate-change neutral and no-war-required fuel.

Craig

Actually,

I just brought home our new tow rig. I know this is going to get me endless grief but I bought a 2008 Toyota Sequoia. Gasser, 381HP 401 foot LB of torque 10,000LB tow rating. Drove it into LA, and back in stop and go traffic on the 91 (if you know LA, you know that sucks). Averaged 19.5mpg. Towing 9,000LB it averages 13mpg. Mostly due to a very intelligent transmission. So yeah, you can get close to a Diesel in mpg.

And my 454 gets 7.5mpg tops. I don't think 15 is possible even if you dropped it out of a plane.

One last thing, as it has been mentioned before, burning bio is not climate change nuetral, and you could argue is actually more damaging to the Earth. But global warming is BS anyway.

Dougal

03-09-2008, 05:46 PM

But global warming is BS anyway.

Whether or not someone believes in global warming is an argument that will go on forever.
But I think everyone agrees that the easy to find oil is going to run out and the prices we complain about now will be laughed at in the future.

jimfoo

03-09-2008, 05:59 PM

I think mine ended up being one of the least economical Diesel swaps of all time. Well, at first it wasn't too bad, but having to rebuild it after the truck got totaled, then again after battery acid ate through the air intake hose, destroying it. However it runs again. After converting the old IDI block to a mechanical TDI, I finally got it started today. Still work to do before I can drive it though. Since this isn't my thread, I won't clog it up with pics, but they are here (http://www.66rover.com/TDIswap/TDI%20Parts%20121307/index.html) if anyone is interested.

Buckon37s

03-09-2008, 06:16 PM

Whether or not someone believes in global warming is an argument that will go on forever.
But I think everyone agrees that the easy to find oil is going to run out and the prices we complain about now will be laughed at in the future.

Not in our lifetime, and maybe never. There is still debate as to how oil is created. So no, not everyone agrees.

PTSchram

03-09-2008, 07:57 PM

But I think everyone agrees that the easy to find oil is going to run out

Depends upon whether you believe in the heat death of the universe. If so, it's a given, if not, less so.

Leafsprung

03-09-2008, 08:11 PM

But global warming is BS anyway.

Theres lots of data from some fairly respected institutions for the opposing viewpoint. I have yet to see any very compelling science for this one. (even though the Penn and Teller bit was funny) Like most arguments, I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Its ignorant to think that we can continue dumping stuff in the atmosphere without any repercussions. Its equally ignorant to think that burning biodiesel or )and maybe especially) ethanol will cure the problem.

Buckon37s

03-09-2008, 08:43 PM

Theres lots of data from some fairly respected institutions for the opposing viewpoint. I have yet to see any very compelling science for this one. (even though the Penn and Teller bit was funny) Like most arguments, I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Its ignorant to think that we can continue dumping stuff in the atmosphere without any repercussions. Its equally ignorant to think that burning biodiesel or )and maybe especially) ethanol will cure the problem.

Thats pretty level headed. If you are interested in compelling evidence against global warming, read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. There is more evidence against than for by no small margin. Not the least of which is that we have been in a cooling trend since 1998. I'll try not to argue the point here though.

FrankenRover

03-09-2008, 10:35 PM

Burning B100 is about 3/4 the carbon signature (overall from production and usage in your vehicle) of regular gas. That is in the US - where most of the biodiesel burned in vehicles is sources from soybeans. In some other countries - Europe especially - there have it even better and that margin widens to near 1/2 using rapeseed oil. This is similar to the E85 stuff - where in the US its carbon neutral with burning regular gas, but in Brazil where they use sugar cane to produce alcohol (we use corn), they get near 1/2 the carbon signature.

So yeah, burning B100 is more environmentally sound than diesel or gas or E85 for that matter. Though there is a slightly higher output of sulfites I think with B100.

Buckon37s

03-09-2008, 11:33 PM

Burning B100 is about 3/4 the carbon signature (overall from production and usage in your vehicle) of regular gas. That is in the US - where most of the biodiesel burned in vehicles is sources from soybeans. In some other countries - Europe especially - there have it even better and that margin widens to near 1/2 using rapeseed oil. This is similar to the E85 stuff - where in the US its carbon neutral with burning regular gas, but in Brazil where they use sugar cane to produce alcohol (we use corn), they get near 1/2 the carbon signature.

So yeah, burning B100 is more environmentally sound than diesel or gas or E85 for that matter. Though there is a slightly higher output of sulfites I think with B100.

There is a lot more to consider than just carbon at the exaust pipe. Soil degredation, fertilizer consumption, refining output, ect. It could actually be worse for the environment.

Leafsprung

03-09-2008, 11:45 PM

Burning B100 is about 3/4 the carbon signature (overall from production and usage in your vehicle) of regular gas. That is in the US - where most of the biodiesel burned in vehicles is sources from soybeans.

My family has about 900 acres of farm ground in northern Indiana, which, when I was growing up, was used for growing beans, corn and pop-corn. Mostly for human consumption. Now the grains grown there are used in large part for bio-fuels. My father thinks its great. Not because he is an environmentalist, but because he has a new Cadillac. Its driven the price of corn and beans up significantly as well as the price of the land itself. Im somewhat familiar with many of the processes used to grow, harvest, transport and refine biomass for bio-fuels.
Depending on the study you read, it can be as much as 150% (or more) of the carbon signature of fossil fuels. Depending on the way the crops are grown, fertilized, irrigated, transported refined and distributed. Most of those processes are HEAVILY reliant on fossil fuels. In fact the most common and efficient way of refining oil from bio-mass relies on Hexane, which is dirived from, you guessed it, our friends at the late cretaceous. In theory if you were Amish and grew your crops traditionally, refined the oil (on site) by pressing and your equipment was wind, water or animal powered you could have vegetable oil that was nearly free of fossil fuel use to use in the car that you couldn't drive! In reality, much of what you get in terms of vegetable oil comes from environmentally unsustainable processes which not only consume vast quantities of fossil fuels but contribute to ammonium nitrate runoff and other forms of air, water and soil pollution. Mostly so some self righteous yuppy scum in Eugene Oregon can feel good while his late model car with a "bio-ethanol" sticker prominently adhered to it, sits idling in line at the driveup coffee window at the new local bio-fuels station, burning the very corn produced on the family farm 2450 miles away. Simultaneously he gives me the stink eye as I drive by in my old smokey beater. He feels at peace because he thinks he is reducing dependency on foreign oil, saving the planet, and probably curing cancer. Seriously, that is great marketing.

Junkyddog11

03-10-2008, 05:45 AM

Ike, does this apply more to the production of ethanol and not so much the production of biodiesel?

Does it make a difference if done the european way with rapeseed vs soy and half the soil damaging added processes. Not trying to argue anything, just seems as if you have some good knowledge of this.

Old smokey beaters rule. Probably never make as much environmental impact in it's whole life as the production of a new car.

PTSchram

03-10-2008, 06:46 AM

Whatever happened to Knaaf (sic)? I thought the Japanese were touting it as the second hemp, fuel, food, fiber.

Ya know guys, I got into working on Rovers to get out of dealing with environmental stuff :flipoff2:

Leafsprung

03-10-2008, 09:23 AM

does this apply more to the production of ethanol and not so much the production of biodiesel

Biodiesel is largely the same in terms of production, growth, distribution. Hexane refining is used for vegatable oil, not ethanol.

Does it make a difference if done the european way with rapeseed vs soy and half the soil damaging added processes.

sure, its still not riding a bike . . .

PlantDriver

03-10-2008, 09:51 AM

WVO (waste vegetable oil, aka used fryer oil) is for sure getting harder to find, but it's still out there for free in every part of the US and Canada. I tell customers of my kits and components to "eat out more often" - asking a restaurant for oil when you're a customer is an easier way to get access to their oil than walking in cold. (And to answer Matt's other question about why I'm switching from the 300Tdi to the International 2.8HS: I want to be able to cruise faster on the freeway while still carrying enough free fuel for a long road trip. It's 2000 miles from the SF Bay Area to Moab, and I need to be able to carry about 100 gallons to do that. My rear tank is 24 gallons, so I need about another 15 5 gallon jugs, and that 600# of extra fuel slows me down.)

WVO has the skinnest carbon footprint of any fuel out there, since the fossil fuel inputs that went into it's growing, harvesting and transportation were there for it's primary use: as cooking oil.

As far as the question of whether or not we can grow our way out of our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil without displacing food crops, and adding the large fossil fuel inputs required for growing crops there is a solution on the horizon: oil derived from algae. Here's something I sent to my 30 or so PlantDrive dealer/installers:

Virgin Atlantic’s Jet Airliner Flight on Biodiesel, February 2008

Here's the press release about the Virgin Atlantic flight yesterday:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080224/nysu001.html?.v=101

If the biodiesel that Virgin (and other commercial airlines) use in the future is made from algae, the environmental benefits would be huge.

Here's a link to a Mother Jones article about the Virgin flight before it took place, with the following quote: "The Energy Department estimated it would require 15,000 acres (an area about the size of Maryland) to grow enough algae to replace all of America's petroleum needs; it would require half the continental United States to accomplish the same with soy.

http://www.motherjones.com/washingto...l-warming.html

If you have time for nothing else, click on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0

The link is to a short video about growing algae for biodiesel production in vertical clear plastic bags. The clip features the head of Valcent in Texas explaining the Vertigro technology they're using to grow algae.The video is quite old, I think, because he's only claiming about 15,000/gallons/acre/year. They are currently producing 50,000 gallons per acre per year, and hope to be at 100,000 gallons/acre/year sometime this year (soy is 49 gallons per year (not 49,000 gallons per year, but 49 gallons per acre per year) Canola is 130, African oil palm is 655, Jatropha up to 16,000.) Here's a link to the Vertigro section of Valcent's website:

http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039

Also: years ago, MIT constructed an algae pond adjacent to a coal-fired electrical generating plant, and bubbled the exhaust from the smokestacks on the power plant through the algae pond, and the huge amount of CO2 in the exhaust caused the algae to bloom at a much faster than normal rate and simultaneously cleaned up the global warming pollution of the plant. So, an electrical utility could install a vertical algae farm on a very small plot of land adjacent to their plant, produce and sell algae SVO as biodiesel feedstock, and sell or trade the carbon credits.)

Algae doesn't compete with food oils for acreage and doesn't raise the world pricing of food oils (or food items made from oil, like tofu, etc) and doesn't result in clearing vast tracts of tropical rainforest for soy (as is happening in Brazil as soy is displaced in the US by corn for corn ethanol) or with African oil palm in SE Asia, etc.)

But, once oil from algae is made widely available to commercial biodiesel or jet fuel producers, anyone can buy it, and my feeling is that those of us in the conversion business may find ourselves very much in demand to convert vehicles to run on new SVO that should be a whole lot cheaper than new soy is now. Plus, the availability of free WVO may increase as biodiesel producers turn to algae, allowing the current mainstay customers of our industry - those who prefer free fuel to SVO at almost any price - to have an easier time finding it.

And of course the main demand for SVO derived from algae will be trucking companies and those with fleets of smaller trucks, who will find that they'll amortize the cost of a conversion very quickly, especially if diesel's at $5+ a gallon and algae biodiesel not far behind, and algae SVO is, say, $3.50/gallon. And will people enter the marketplace to make this fuel available to those who've converted? My answer is yes. (Willie Nelson's BioWillie (and he's since sold the company) was selling - as B20 - in truck stops only in Texas at 20 cents a gallon less than diesel, and the truck stops sold out almost as soon as they got their new deliveries. Can you imagine the lines of big rigs stretching down the off-ramps if it was $1/gallon less and all you had to do to be able to burn it was pay $2000-6000 for a conversion?

Craig

reraub

03-10-2008, 10:01 AM

thank handbuilt I went out to look at this thing and I think I will have to agree its not a good idea. WAY to much to mess with. I may just recam a mercedes diesel. I have a 240d that I can source the engine from If I do this I will put up post+pics frequently.

Mercedesrover

03-10-2008, 10:33 AM

Ah....a 240D engine? In a Disco? Aaaahhhhmmmmmmeeeeeehhhhhh I don't think so. I've got one in an 88". It's fine. In anything bigger? No friggin' way. Maybe a 109 if you live at sea-level and don't want to go over 50mph.

But 75hp in a Disco? Well, maybe if you only drive down hill. :flipoff2:

aaron t

03-10-2008, 11:06 AM

out in the phx valley there is an electric power plant that burns methane. it is working on a prototype algae farm. the farm consists of cylindrical tubes filled with h2o and algae. the co2 is bubbled in, and the tubes take sunlight and make more algae. then the algae is harvested, pressed for its oils, refined into biodeisel, then the remaining bio mass will be fermented into ethanol.

for this 250MW plant to be co2 neutral will require 1000 acres of tubes of algea. so that is a lot of land. fortunately the phx valley is rife with useless ugly desert with nothing going on. no real ecology to protect in some of these areas.

this same company has recently opened a power plant outside of tucson that uses pentane farms for electricity. they have tubes filled with pentane in trenches, the sun heats the pentane up, it quickly flashes into a vapor and powers a low pressure turbine system (not combustion, just like pentane "steam") then back into liquid to the troughs again. the system is called "solar troughs". pretty cool.

i have to agree with ike. i think global warming is a reality. what that actually means as far as climate change is a highly political issue. the facts will always be obscured by world-views so one may never know what is "true" until we are in the middle of it.

just like we are not in a recession, but nobody has any money:flipoff2:

back to ike, the million dollar question is "who is selling the new green cars"?
car companies of course. so does that mean that they are all of the sudden concerned with ecology and whatnot? i doubt it. they want to stay in business and these guys aren't stupid. they get paid a lot of money to make you think that you are socially responsible.

my work for the environment will be to keep my crappy ass old disco. why? because it is an old car and at least it isnt making more carbon emissions by being a new production vehicle. that is what i call "recycling".

also, i have gotten fat. i am going to ride my fuking bike to work. not that hard to figure out.

if you are a rich guy, and you want to "reduce" your carbon foot print, walk or bike more...:shaking:

pt, there is both enthalpy, heat death, and progression towards more order in the universe. the key is to understand the concept of dynamic tension:flipoff2:

spork2367

03-10-2008, 11:31 AM

PTSchram

03-10-2008, 11:31 AM

pt, there is both enthalpy, heat death, and progression towards more order in the universe. the key is to understand the concept of dynamic tension:flipoff2:

Sounds like you're rewriting the second law of thermodynamics. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics has serious penalties. Kinda like betting against the house, you're gonna lose.

PlantDriver

03-10-2008, 11:52 AM

people(public) are positive now that global warming is a fact...one time we thought the world was flat too...i'm not sure how we can base global climate change on the maybe 300 years of accurate weather history we have. even if you are a creationist and believe the world is only 6000 to 10,000 years old. that would give us roughly 3 percent of the weather history of the world to base global warming on...that means we have no idea what happened prior to 300 years (give or take). how do we know this isn't a trend that happens every 500 years, lasts a century, then changes back...? we don't. and if you believe in the big bang/evolution, then scientists calculate that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. that would make our recorded history .000000066 percent of the total weather history. can we really know anything about global trends if that is all the information we have?

Ice cores taken in the arctic, antarctic, Chilean Andes and the Himalayas, all show that the huge rise in the temperature of the earth exactly coincides with the huge increase in the amount of carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution. I'm open to hearing an alternate explanation for this; absent anything plausible, I'll have to say that believing that the planet is not warming due to mankind about as smart as still believing the earth is flat.

Craig

Discosaurus

03-10-2008, 11:56 AM

for this 250MW plant to be co2 neutral will require 1000 acres of tubes of algea. so that is a lot of land. fortunately the phx valley is rife with useless ugly desert with nothing going on. no real ecology to protect in some of these areas.

Give it time. If this type of land use catches on, there will certainly be some extremest "environmental" group bitching about using this "pristine desert landscape" for such purposes.

Discosaurus

03-10-2008, 11:58 AM

PlantDriver

03-10-2008, 12:12 PM

Nope, high fuel prices are all I need to ensure that my long-range business plan (making more money all the time) succeeds. Anyone want to debate whether fuel prices will continue to rise?

I thought not :D

Craig

spork2367

03-10-2008, 12:15 PM

Ice cores taken in the arctic, antarctic, Chilean Andes and the Himalayas, all show that the huge rise in the temperature of the earth exactly coincides with the huge increase in the amount of carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution. I'm open to hearing an alternate explanation for this; absent anything plausible, I'll have to say that believing that the planet is not warming due to mankind about as smart as still believing the earth is flat.

i knew someone would bring up ice cores. based on the fact that we don't know the weather trends prior to last couple hundred years, how can we associate dates with those ice cores accurately? we have no direct proof that carbon dioxide is to blame for the earth being warmer. and if it is, how can we associate it with only one cause? maybe it's because of 6.5 billion people exhaling. maybe methane released by livestock flatulence is causing the problem.

maybe the ratio of CO2 to O2 in the atmosphere is screwed up because of the massive deforestation across the planet. shouldn't we be more concerned about the rain forests being chopped down and running out of oxygen? rainforests provide over 20% of the earths oxygen. that is also a lot of CO2 being converted. how often do you hear about that on the news? we changed the earth a lot over the past 200 years. technology seems to have increased exponentially. it's hard to say that with all the changes, that we can with any amount of certainty, associate global warming with particular things we have done.

and if you believe that global warming is a fact, and that we need to change, why not start with eliminating fossil fuel burning power facilities and change completely to nuclear power. obviously a few spent fuel rods pose much less of a risk than this dreaded carbon dioxide. we can just launch the spent fuel rods into the sun. i'm actually making parts right now for a local company that is making some sort of transport or storage container for spent nuclear fuel.

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 12:48 PM

aaron t

03-10-2008, 01:07 PM

Sounds like you're rewriting the second law of thermodynamics. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics has serious penalties. Kinda like betting against the house, you're gonna lose.

even you as a budhist must admit that Lacan was correct in his distinction of The Real. there is a factor of the universe that tends towards order, and not just at the expense of of entropy.:flipoff2:

aaron t

03-10-2008, 01:11 PM

spork2367

03-10-2008, 01:13 PM

that is akin to the concept in the church of the flying spagghetti monster's main tennant that global warming was actually caused by a decrease in pirates. both of those co-relate as well. as the number of pirates since the 18th century has gone down, so has global warming conversely increased.:flipoff2:

that's the perfect example. i forgot about that. gave me a good chuckle.

aaron t

03-10-2008, 01:34 PM

since we are in full banter here, i will continue on my e-rant:D

i find that having to ask balanced questions about an issue requires profound discipline in removing our personal opinions, feelings, and wishes from the equation.

however once we do that then the outcome of the argument then often becomes moot. as our personal feelings are important. so we must find some form of balance.

1. most of the scientific community in the world of ecology does indeed agree that the evidence is there for some form of profound correlation between fossil fuel usage and "global warming".

2. what that intones however is vague. to make long range predictions based on the current data is at least ill informed and at worst dangerous. these kinds of things produce witch hunts.

3. to continue to burn fossil fuels in the manner in which we are is also unwise. and it displays our errant disregard for the world around us. global warming being a fact or fancy is not a reason to become energy fastidious. we should explore alternative forms of energy production and usage from a human social evolution standpoint, not because "if we don't the world will end". that is not a good motivator.

4. most of the debates about global warming are not about the actual science nor the data. they are about one ideology clashing with another.

spork2367

03-10-2008, 01:53 PM

1. most of the scientific community in the world of ecology does indeed agree that the evidence is there for some form of profound correlation between fossil fuel usage and "global warming".

2. what that intones however is vague. to make long range predictions based on the current data is at least ill informed and at worst dangerous. these kinds of things produce witch hunts.

3. to continue to burn fossil fuels in the manner in which we are is also unwise. and it displays our errant disregard for the world around us. global warming being a fact or fancy is not a reason to become energy fastidious. we should explore alternative forms of energy production and usage from a human social evolution standpoint, not because "if we don't the world will end". that is not a good motivator.

4. most of the debates about global warming are not about the actual science nor the data. they are about one ideology clashing with another.

i agree with all of the above. we must consider as well;

1. many other changes we've made to the planet have caused it to be less able to process the amount of CO2 we put out. this includes urban sprawl, and deforestation.

2. carbon footprint for the most part is completely useless. it doesn't take into account so many factors. it was a fancy scale made by yuppies and environmentalists to make themselves feel better about there obsessive behavior and lack of scientific basis. it's based on the already unproven aspects of global warming.

3. let's face it, it is more detrimental to the environment in the long run to drive hybrids. and hydrogen power won't be feasible for a long time. no one ever wants to consider the energy costs to produce hydrogen...as of a couple years ago, it took more energy to produce hydrogen than you got out of the hydrogen in the end...not real efficient. they also don't want to consider the disposal of power storage devices in hybrid cars...heavy metals here we come.

4. the oil industry can't claim to be raising prices because of cost of finding and obtaining crude oil then make record profits by the billions every year. do they think people are that stupid? their only saving grace is that we live in a country run on fossil fuels.

5. the price of fossil fuels will always go up in relation to each other. why? because they can. let's face it, why has the price of coal gone up so much? there is no shortage of it, and the cost to produce it is only marginally higher. (obviously they need diesel fuel to obtain coal). no fossil fuel will ever be a good alternative. the price will always go up. the more we use, the more the price will rise to "increase production" and "meet demand". and when consumption starts going down due to efficiency, they will say that profits are lower and they have to raise prices to compensate for low sales. it's evil marketing at its best.

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 02:00 PM

1. most of the scientific community in the world of ecology does indeed agree that the evidence is there for some form of profound correlation between fossil fuel usage and "global warming".

Correlation yes, but definitely not causation. The surface temperature on Mars is also increasing. It's Mars's fault, not the lack of Pirates!

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 02:04 PM

5. the price of fossil fuels will always go up in relation to each other. why? because they can. let's face it, why has the price of coal gone up so much? there is no shortage of it, and the cost to produce it is only marginally higher. (obviously they need diesel fuel to obtain coal). no fossil fuel will ever be a good alternative. the price will always go up. the more we use, the more the price will rise to "increase production" and "meet demand". and when consumption starts going down due to efficiency, they will say that profits are lower and they have to raise prices to compensate for low sales. it's evil marketing at its best.

Actually, it's the futures market, not evil dastardly plotting in some smoke filled back room. If we pulled it of the futures market we would pay what it costs plus whatever profit the market would allow the oil companies to make, and of course, all the taxes our federal and state gov's throw at it.

Discosaurus

03-10-2008, 02:15 PM

since we are in full banter here, i will continue on my e-rant:D

i find that having to ask balanced questions about an issue requires profound discipline in removing our personal opinions, feelings, and wishes from the equation.

Meaning, once a subject becomes akin to religion, all logical discussion is pointless. Global warming became religion with the 2nd coming of Algore the Confused.

PTSchram

03-10-2008, 02:17 PM

If we pulled it of the futures market we would pay what it costs plus whatever profit the market would allow the oil companies to make, and of course, all the taxes our federal and state gov's throw at it.

If it were regulated like electricity, natural gas, water, etc, this would be the way it is, but for some reason, oil/gasoline/diesel fuel isn't seen in the same light as other utilities. If only Thomas Edison had the lobbyists that the oil barons had, we'd be paying a fortune for electricity.

As to the question at hand, from the perspective of availability and ease of install, wouldn't a 300 Tdi be the most economical? It could conceivably be a bolt-in endeavor.

spork2367

03-10-2008, 02:22 PM

Actually, it's the futures market, not evil dastardly plotting in some smoke filled back room.

if it weren't for the fact that the oil companies are the ones calculating futures markets. let's face it, who knows for sure how much oil we have left? no one. the oil companies are the ones saying that it's harder to find and produce...on a decade basis, sure i'd agree. on a yearly basis...no. the reserve to production ratio is based on how much oil the oil companies say they can get from current wells. how could they possibly predict this for the future without almost completely guessing.

the basis for raising the price based on reserves indicates we have an idea of how much oil is left to extract from the earth. we have essentially no knowledge of that. nor does it take into account tar sands, oil shales, which will certainly be more feasible to extract in the future. it hasn't been researched seriously now b/c there is plenty of liquid crude to extract.

so it's still a crock.

Discosaurus

03-10-2008, 02:22 PM

Actually, it's the futures market, not evil dastardly plotting in some smoke filled back room.

I think the current estimate of the actual VALUE of a barrel of oil is ~$40. Anything above that is simply comex (commodities exchange) at work. Oh, there's also the inconvenient issue of the Treasury being unwilling (or unable) to keep the USD$ from being pummeled in the forex (foreign currency exchange) markets...

Interesting (and dangerous) times to be an investor :D

Discosaurus

03-10-2008, 02:24 PM

If it were regulated like electricity, natural gas, water, etc, this would be the way it is, but for some reason, oil/gasoline/diesel fuel isn't seen in the same light as other utilities.

Possibly because the raw stock for such fuels come, in large part, from foreign countries who care not about Uncle Sams regulations...

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 02:30 PM

if it weren't for the fact that the oil companies are the ones calculating futures markets. let's face it, who knows for sure how much oil we have left? no one. the oil companies are the ones saying that it's harder to find and produce...on a decade basis, sure i'd agree. on a yearly basis...no. the reserve to production ratio is based on how much oil the oil companies say they can get from current wells. how could they possibly predict this for the future without almost completely guessing.

the basis for raising the price based on reserves indicates we have an idea of how much oil is left to extract from the earth. we have essentially no knowledge of that. nor does it take into account tar sands, oil shales, which will certainly be more feasible to extract in the future. it hasn't been researched seriously now b/c there is plenty of liquid crude to extract.

so it's still a crock.

It's a crock, yes. But because of the speculation, not the other reasons you mentioned. The oil companies are not the ones calculating futures markets.

spork2367

03-10-2008, 02:37 PM

It's a crock, yes. But because of the speculation, not the other reasons you mentioned. The oil companies are not the ones calculating futures markets.

the future market is calculated based on the reserve to production ratio, the measurement of the oil companies ability to maintain current production. this is based on reserve numbers that they determine. they are the ones paying scientists to find new reserves and calculate the amount of oil they think could be there, but it's a guessing game. determining world oil reserves is speculation. so i agree that it is based on speculation, but on the part of the people determining oil reserves. if we assumed that there was a limitless amount of oil, wouldn't the price remain relatively the same and just be adjusted for inflation?

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 02:40 PM

I think the current estimate of the actual VALUE of a barrel of oil is ~$40. Anything above that is simply comex (commodities exchange) at work. Oh, there's also the inconvenient issue of the Treasury being unwilling (or unable) to keep the USD$ from being pummeled in the forex (foreign currency exchange) markets...

Interesting (and dangerous) times to be an investor :D

All very true.

So yes, ^&**%#@ is the most economical diesel swap. :D

Dougal

03-10-2008, 02:42 PM

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 02:50 PM

the future market is calculated based on the reserve to production ratio, the measurement of the oil companies ability to maintain current production. this is based on reserve numbers that they determine. they are the ones paying scientists to find new reserves and calculate the amount of oil they think could be there, but it's a guessing game. determining world oil reserves is speculation. so i agree that it is based on speculation, but on the part of the people determining oil reserves. if we assumed that there was a limitless amount of oil, wouldn't the price remain relatively the same and just be adjusted for inflation?

No, actually. Most of the fluctuation we experience is based on Supply chain interuption or the perception of a supply chain interuption. The actual amount of oil in the ground really doesn't affect our cost unless word got out that we were going to run out in the near future.

Also, it is not based on a reserve to production ratio, it is influenced more by a demand to production ratio.

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 02:54 PM

It seems everyone on both sides agrees there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature.
To prove causation, you need to find the link (the mechanism) and prove (or disprove) that it works that way.

That will take a long time, right now we have two choices.:
Doing nothing or doing as much as we can.

The first choice could turn out to be completely fine. It could also roger us all in a big way.
The second choice is guaranteed to roger us big time with massive economical consequences, loss of freedom, decreasing quality of life, and astronomically high energy costs.

There, I fixed it for you. :p

Discosaurus

03-10-2008, 03:09 PM

the future market is calculated based on the reserve to production ratio, the measurement of the oil companies ability to maintain current production. this is based on reserve numbers that they determine. they are the ones paying scientists to find new reserves and calculate the amount of oil they think could be there, but it's a guessing game. determining world oil reserves is speculation. so i agree that it is based on speculation, but on the part of the people determining oil reserves. if we assumed that there was a limitless amount of oil, wouldn't the price remain relatively the same and just be adjusted for inflation?

Oh please...

The market price is set by speculation - traders speculating how many square feet their new house in the Hamptons will be once they run up the price by hipe and fear and then bail. Then they'll all take short positions because they need a few new Jags to fill that Hamptons garage.

Your scenario may have had some truth to it when oil was $50/bbl - not now. It's a pure money play...

edit to stay on topic...
I don't NEED a diesel swap - the OM352 in my Benz does just fine, thanks...

spork2367

03-10-2008, 03:12 PM

No, actually. Most of the fluctuation we experience is based on Supply chain interuption or the perception of a supply chain interuption. The actual amount of oil in the ground really doesn't affect our cost unless word got out that we were going to run out in the near future.

Also, it is not based on a reserve to production ratio, it is influenced more by a demand to production ratio.

what is the basis for the comment about supply chain interruption? where has the supply chain interruption been in the last 6 months? demand doesn't control production either. if it did, OPEC would have increased production based on higher demand, but they did not. the exxon CEO just announced the other day that "the market continues to be well supplied. there has been no interruption in supplies."

other companies keep their real reserve numbers and possible full production numbers closely guarded. if they didn't, we might know how much they could really produce and what the price would be.

spork2367

03-10-2008, 03:16 PM

Oh please...

The market price is set by speculation - traders speculating how many square feet their new house in the Hamptons will be once they run up the price by hipe and fear and then bail. Then they'll all take short positions because they need a few new Jags to fill that Hamptons garage.

Your scenario may have had some truth to it when oil was $50/bbl - not now. It's a pure money play...

that's what i said at the beginning, the prices are calculated by the reserve and production numbers that the oil companies make up. there is no factual basis for how much the barrel costs. it isn't based on demand. it's based on the supply they claim they can provide.

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 03:25 PM

what is the basis for the comment about supply chain interruption? where has the supply chain interruption been in the last 6 months? demand doesn't control production either. if it did, OPEC would have increased production based on higher demand, but they did not. the exxon CEO just announced the other day that "the market continues to be well supplied. there has been no interruption in supplies."

other countries keep their real reserve numbers and possible full production numbers closely guarded. if they didn't, we might know how much they could really produce and what the price would be.

I said supply chain interuption or PERCEPTION of a supply chain interuption. It's a simple concept. And I never said production was influenced by demand, production and demand influence speculation which influences price. This is why the speculation of a strong hurricane season can drive up price, or Iran shaking it's sabre can drive up price. Or conserns of China's future demand can drive up price.

The reserve of each country doesn't matter. I don't really know how else to explain it.

Discosaurus

03-10-2008, 03:28 PM

that's what i said at the beginning, the prices are calculated by the reserve and production numbers that the oil companies make up. there is no factual basis for how much the barrel costs. it isn't based on demand. it's based on the supply they claim they can provide.

But, who is "they" ??

If "they" are the guys at the commodities desks getting people to buy into their inflated quotes, then we agree.

If you think "they" are some shifty, shadowy mystery men controlled by "big oil", might I suggest you go join Mike Moore in another made up conspiracy ? I'm not buying into that...

Anyway, sorry to continue pulling further off topic - I promise to stop now.

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 03:32 PM

the prices are calculated by the reserve and production numbers that the oil companies make up.

No, they are not. They are determined by the speculators. Production is a factor that speculators look at, along with demand, and many other factors. Production is up, so is price.

I promise to stop too.

spork2367

03-10-2008, 03:47 PM

I said supply chain interuption or PERCEPTION of a supply chain interuption.

And I never said production was influenced by demand, production and demand influence speculation which influences price. This is why the speculation of a strong hurricane season can drive up price, or Iran shaking it's sabre can drive up price. Or conserns of China's future demand can drive up price.

i'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand where you're coming from. if a CEO says there is no supply chain interruption, where would the perception of it come from? reserves determine cost of production, although i would agree that short term changes such as the current price increase are not based on reserves, countries that are members of OPEC lie about reserves and production capacity, which stalls increases in production, which raises prices. OPEC says that taxes are the biggest reason for high prices. while taxes are a huge part, that doesn't account for billion dollar profit increases for oil companies.

almost all the speculation in the market can be traced back to the oil companies themselves.

thought this was entertaining. it's off of OPEC's website:

"OPEC seeks a stable oil market, without sudden price changes or excessively high or low prices. OPEC regularly meets with other oil producers and with consumers in an effort to improve understanding and trust in the oil industry and to seek policies and measures that do not create unnecessary economic hardship for oil producers or consumers."

when the hell is the last time an oil producer has had en economic hardship?

i'm not saying it's some huge conspiracy, i'm simply saying that if you don't think that OPEC and the large oil companies themselves control prices, you might be a bit naive. they don't make billions every year because the market just happens to be favoring them.

evilfij

03-10-2008, 03:58 PM

Inelastic demand curve with a cartel/oligopoly type supply.

om617

03-10-2008, 04:05 PM

Buckon37s

03-10-2008, 04:06 PM

i'm not saying it's some huge conspiracy, i'm simply saying that if you don't think that OPEC and the large oil companies themselves control prices, you might be a bit naive. they don't make billions every year because the market just happens to be favoring them.

Are you as sure about this as you were about my links? :flipoff2:

All joking aside, if you don't undertand it after all this, you probably don't want to, so discussing it to death seems futile.

Discosaurus

03-10-2008, 04:34 PM

OK - only one more :laughing:

i'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand where you're coming from. if a CEO says there is no supply chain interruption, where would the perception of it come from?

Hugo Chavez, the Mullahs, Al Queda (however the f**k they spell it), Nigerians drilling holes in pipelines, on-and-on-and-on. Part of the speculators JOB is to try to get the buyers to PERCEIVE interruptions.

almost all the speculation in the market can be traced back to the oil companies themselves.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

thought this was entertaining. it's off of OPEC's website:

"OPEC seeks a stable oil market, without sudden price changes or excessively high or low prices.

:eek::laughing:

Actually, OPEC fears high prices too. Too high for too long = decrease in TAM (Total Available Market). This would be bad for them.

i'm not saying it's some huge conspiracy, i'm simply saying that if you don't think that OPEC and the large oil companies themselves control prices, you might be a bit naive. they don't make billions every year because the market just happens to be favoring them.

One reason they make billions is because they own, under contract, large amounts of oil in the ground at foreign locations (they "helped" ;) develop the fields). The cost of PRODUCING a bbl of oil is still in the single digit dollar range. They effectively own oil selling for $105/bbl delivered, at under $10/bbl. Increasing price through speculation adds directly to their profit margins.

The people really feeling the pinch right now are the fuel producers who do not own oil reserves outright (Valero, ect).

spork2367

03-10-2008, 04:41 PM

Are you as sure about this as you were about my links? :flipoff2:

All joking aside, if you don't undertand it after all this, you probably don't want to, so discussing it to death seems futile.

lol, yeah...i guess the best comparison i can give, is to look at all the underhanded, morally wrong, and in many cases illegal marketing and sales strategies tobacco companies used to sell more cigarettes. also noting the health studies they paid for that said that cigarettes weren't harmful.

now think of an industry that is hundreds of times larger and has much more influence. you don't think they are doing the same things in their own respect? lying about production capabilities and reserve supplies, constantly producing less than the demand just to artificially inflate prices. i'm not saying that they alone control prices, i'm saying that they control the prices more than any other factors.

okay, you won't hear any more from me on the subject. i think we can all agree that gas prices suck regardless of the reason.

Actually, OPEC fears high prices too. Too high for too long = decrease in TAM (Total Available Market). This would be bad for them.

that is assuming that people have an alternative to buying super expensive gas...most do not.

An outdoor woodboiler for all heat, Hot H20 for house, barn and shop has made a huge impact on my quality of life, available funds, and lack of uncertainty re: keeping my family warm.

an area near me just banned outside boilers citing low chimneys, and lingering smoke/fume output among other BS reasons. it's only a matter of time before other areas do the same. although in defense of the ban, there are a lot of people burning shit they shouldn't be in them.

Mercedesrover

03-10-2008, 06:32 PM

very interesting conversation folks. I am fortunate to be somewhat freed of the Big Oil companies. The best phone call I ever made was to the fuel oil supplier and explaining that I no longer needed their services. An outdoor woodboiler for all heat, Hot H20 for house, barn and shop has made a huge impact on my quality of life, available funds, and lack of uncertainty re: keeping my family warm. The option for bio-diesel, WVo etc gives me a lot of options.

Hear, hear! I've saved $2500-$3000 every year for the past 4 years burning wood off my property. Not a boiler but a simple wood stove in the basement. Still heat water, dry clothes and cook with LP, but that adds up to about 100 gals a year. I can handle that. Through my 6th cord or wood this winter and into my 7th. It's been 72 degrees in the house all winter with no heat from LP at all. The 1977 Vermont Castings was $300, the wood is free.

Junkyddog11

03-10-2008, 07:00 PM

...here we go with the free thing again.....

Junkyddog11

03-10-2008, 07:06 PM

sure, its still not riding a bike . . .

you got that right. Bikes are good. So is working at home, cigar box guitars, peaches and a dog that's number than a plank.

Yorker

03-10-2008, 09:52 PM

Hear, hear! I've saved $2500-$3000 every year for the past 4 years burning wood off my property. The 1977 Vermont Castings was $300, the wood is free.

Geez Jim with all that free wood why fuck around with Diesel?
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1980-05-01/Ajax-The-Woodburning-Steam-Powered-Truck.aspx :eek:

Dougal

03-10-2008, 10:22 PM

The second choice is guaranteed to roger us big time with massive economical consequences, loss of freedom, decreasing quality of life, and astronomically high energy costs.

The scenario you've mentioned above is far from conservation. It is in fact what will happen if your viewpoint is wrong.

In fact the oil wars have had exactly that effect already, just on a smaller scale.

Buckon37s

03-11-2008, 08:05 AM

The scenario you've mentioned above is far from conservation. It is in fact what will happen if your viewpoint is wrong.

In fact the oil wars have had exactly that effect already, just on a smaller scale.

Read more about the legislative "solutions" already proposed. Your comment about conservation shows that you are unaware of what governments hope to do about G.W. The cure is worse than the disease.

jimfoo

03-11-2008, 09:12 AM

Just one little area in Cali, Long Valley Caldera, pumps out 100 tons of CO2 per day, and it isn't even an active volcano. Just think about what all the other ones pump out, and our vehicles and factories pale in comparison. The funny thing I never see mentioned is the sun's output. It sure as hell doesn't remain constant yet I've never seen anyone mention it. It would have a larger effect than anything on G.W.. What about all the cats put on cars? They increase the CO2 output of engines. I think the environmentalists caused G.W.! :flipoff2:

Serious One

03-11-2008, 09:35 AM

you got that right. Bikes are good. So is working at home, cigar box guitars, peaches and a dog that's number than a plank.

Damn, you just described my dog!

JSBriggs

03-11-2008, 01:12 PM

Inelastic demand curve with a cartel/oligopoly type supply.

Ron brings the Econ!

And for a little more off topic......The price of tea in China....Discuss :flipoff2:

-Jeff

Discosaurus

03-11-2008, 01:23 PM

And for a little more off topic......The price of tea in China....Discuss :flipoff2:

-Jeff

¥1643 per Hogshead, last time I checked.
Depends on whether it's green, black or oolong...

Serious One

03-11-2008, 01:39 PM

And for a little more off topic......The price of tea in China....Discuss :flipoff2:

-Jeff

I actually bought some tea when I was in China last year. Can't remember how much it costed me though.

Dougal

03-11-2008, 02:59 PM

Read more about the legislative "solutions" already proposed. Your comment about conservation shows that you are unaware of what governments hope to do about G.W. The cure is worse than the disease.

Bureaucracy as a cure.:eek:
Yeah I know full well what happens when dumb politicians try to legislate solutions to problems they don't understand.

The Kyoto protocol for example was a piece of legislation aimed squarely at trying to bring the US into line. But when the US didn't sign up, it backfired into simply hobbling the other countries.
For example, here the penalties for deforestation came into force last January, in the months leading up to that there was a record number of trees felled across the country.

Under the Kyoto Protocol if we logged our entire native bush and replanted, we'd be a shining light and swimming in carbon credits. But you'd need to be truely stupid to consider this a good outcome.

abraded

03-11-2008, 03:57 PM

I'm a bit of a lurker here, but am interested in this topic. This thread has a bunch of different information floating through it. So far I've learned that B100 has between 1/2 and 1 1/2 times the carbon signature of fossil fuels. That ice cores show that temperature follows CO2 rise and that C02 rise follows temperature. That CO2 may or may not be a greenhouse gas. And that the price of tea in China depends on if it is green black or otherwise...

Here's my take on Global Warming: There is a lot of quite impressive describing how it is happening, why it is happening and what influence we have in the whole works. Science tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because observation has shown it to absorb solar irradiation. Current measurements tell us that CO2 levels are rising at an unprecedented rate. In some cases ice cores do show a CO2 following temperature for approximately the first 800yrs of a few of the different warming periods in history. The explanation for this in the scientific journals is really kind of interesting. Basically the theory is that there are numerous ways to warm the climate. In essence these specific warming periods are thought to be started by another influence, and the ultimate magnitude/duration may eventually be due to increased CO2. Kind of like a match being the cause of a much larger fire. The noted lag may be 800 years, but the warming period may total more on the order of 5-6000. Solar irradiation has been a noted cause of temperature changes and again the primary literature suggests it may have been responsible for 50% of the warming over the last 100yrs and perhaps 30% since 1970. So, there is definitely some complex stuff going on. What I do know is that there are some wickedly smart scientists working on these questions and their overall tone has gone from curious to cautious to downright scared.
There is no question that we are dealing with incomplete data. What decision should we make? That's a complex thing to think about. We all seem to trust science in many aspects of our daily lives and yet we seem to be pretty wary of trusting science in this instance. We wonder about the economic consequences, the drain on our quality of life. One thought many people have is that this is an new opportunity for the US to again become a scientific leader. The race to industrialize, to make the bomb, to land a man on the moon could all be viewed as expensive changes to our lifestyle and economy. But, they utlimately helped shape the future of our country in what many people feel to be a positive way. The way things are going we may be left behind because we don't seem to have any real leadership on the issue.
From what I have read on currently available technologies, biodiesel and veg oil seem like a really interesting waste stream technology. But, to use it as a primary method of energy extraction just seems like really ineffecient solar capture. The typical farming practices in this country also seem to exact a pretty heavy toll on topsoil and groundwater. I'd hate to see our country wind up like the fertile crescent. Finally, with regards to nuclear power as a replacement the thing to consider seems to be that the time it takes to bring a new plant online is long enough that we may already be deep in the heart of the problem before being able to shut down a significant number of fossil plants.
In sum, I don't know what we should do about GW and I'm not ready to tackle the pricing influences of pump gas. However, it does seem prudent to consider exactly what the scientists are saying and what the implacations are. That's my rant.
Anyone know the cost of bacon in China?

--Shams

pendy

03-12-2008, 10:05 AM

Nothing like 5 pages of rhetoric to dilute any real point to this thread.

Without a demand for excellence, progress takes a snails pace.

Global warming or no, I still want my fembot in the future to run on organic fuel of some sort to give me the "feel" of nature mankind has paved under with concrete.

spork2367

03-12-2008, 10:57 AM

The Kyoto protocol for example was a piece of legislation aimed squarely at trying to bring the US into line. But when the US didn't sign up, it backfired into simply hobbling the other countries.
For example, here the penalties for deforestation came into force last January, in the months leading up to that there was a record number of trees felled across the country.

as of last year, 175 countries had ratified the kyoto protocol. only 36 of those agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the rest only agreed to "monitor" their emissions. which the US obviously already does. i also don't believe that any countries have met the guidelines for reduction, which according to the protocol differs by country. effectively it is a worthless contract.

as far as deforestation, our country isn't the problem, it's south american and african rain forests. places where there are zero enforced regulations. the relatively small places that produce 20% of the earths O2.

Global warming or no, I still want my fembot in the future to run on organic fuel of some sort to give me the "feel" of nature mankind has paved under with concrete.

x2

Discosaurus

03-12-2008, 11:00 AM

The point was made at the top of page 4. After that, it was open season for diluting rhetoric.

I want MY fembot to run on a good grade of Napoleon or X.O. (supplied by the leasing company).

spork2367

03-12-2008, 11:08 AM

Global warming or no, I still want my fembot in the future to run on organic fuel of some sort to give me the "feel" of nature mankind has paved under with concrete.

i'm thinking it could have a small boiler that only burnt bristlecone pine....

JSBriggs

03-12-2008, 01:28 PM

i'm thinking it could have a small boiler that only burnt bristlecone pine....

Whats so wrong with WVO? Just think how much better of an experiance it could be if it smelled like donuts!

-Jeff

Dougal

03-12-2008, 02:00 PM

as far as deforestation, our country isn't the problem,

You do realise I'm in a different country? One that has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is attempting to meet it's requirements.

Mercedesrover

03-12-2008, 02:54 PM

Like Yorker said. Wood gas....It's the wave of the future!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1292/636674879_983abf71f9.jpg

Yorker

03-12-2008, 04:58 PM

Like Yorker said. Wood gas....It's the wave of the future!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1292/636674879_983abf71f9.jpg

Bahahaha! that is a great pic...

http://http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1974-05-01/How-To-Run-Your-car-On-Wood.aspx

When I was a kid I remember a family friend who was in a concentration camp in WWII- I still remember him telling us about the wood gas or coal gas trucks they used to drive.

http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/Pictures/hol2.pngHolzbrenner VW

I wonder how many miles to the cord you get?:D

Maybe acetylene is the answer...
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1980-03-01/I-Run-My-Car-on-Acetylene.aspx

Mikel

03-12-2008, 05:59 PM