What really happened to the tax credit for diesels

Ranger1 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:40 pm **Posts:** 1137

Wonder why no existing diesel vehicle qualified for the tax credits that hybrids did? According to this article, The Union of Concerned Scientists lobbied against diesels getting those credits - when they were done, only diesels meeting Tier 2, bin 5 qualified - meaning no current diesel vehicles qualified...

http://www.dieselforecast.com/ArticleDe ... icleID=224

ManicMechanicJoe · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:05 am

that is rediculous...we finally have a diesel vehicle available to the masses (Duramax/Powerstroke/Cummins cost to much for the average consumer) and that is capable or doing real tasks (yes the TDi is a great commuter car but the KJ can tow and has more cargo space). We have a REAL 4x4 that gets better mileage then a lot of cars yet no tax credit for saving energy? The CRD can get nearly double the milage my 3.7 can... I don't get it. DCX has a vehicle that gets better mileage then the RAV4 and CRV but the hybrids get a tax credit for saving energy while a diesel does not based on pollution? I thought it was an energy bill NOT a pollution bill. What a joke.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:21 am

ManicMechanicJoe wrote:

that is rediculous...we finally have a diesel vehicle available to the masses (Duramax/Powerstroke/Cummins cost to much for the average consumer) and that is capable or doing real tasks (yes the TDi is a great commuter car but the KJ can tow and has more cargo space). We have a REAL 4x4 that gets better mileage then a lot of cars yet no tax credit for saving energy? The CRD can get nearly double the milage my 3.7 can... I don't get it. DCX has a vehicle that gets better mileage then the RAV4 and CRV but the hybrids get a tax credit for saving energy while a diesel does not based on pollution? I thought it was an energy bill NOT a pollution bill. What a joke.

If you read the rest of the provisions in that "energy" bill, it's more like a "support your local oil company" bill (my apologies to James Garner).

Over 3 billion in additional subsidies and tax credits, over and above what they've already been getting for decades, at a time when they were simultaneously raking in record profits and telling Congress they only had a 5% profit margin.

And when the subject of refining capacity was brought up, they had the gall to say that if we want more refineries, they want even more subsidies and tax credits. And this is after they bought up and shut down 50 independent refineries from '95 on.

I realize these guys are in business to make a profit, but when they ride it to the point that it's driving the rest of the country into the ground, I believe it's past the point where you would call it obscene.

For that matter, the large semi manufacturers were trying to get Congress to pass a tax credit to offset the cost of the new EPA '07 engines (adds another 4 grand to the vehicle) so they wouldn't loose customers. But that sort of died on the vine after Katrina/Rita hit.

And if you buy the official spiel, diesels aren't part of the solution - we're supposed to wait for those magical fuel cells to appear 10 to 20 years from now. Strange, 35 years ago they said it would only be 10 or 20 years before they hit the road. And if they finally do, then we'll be buying hydrogen from the same companies that presently sell us gasoline and diesel.

ManicMechanicJoe · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:31 am

I read a study on fuel cells-and it doesn't sound good. First off it takes a lot of energy to get hydrogen... Second, they need platinum to make the fuel cells work. If vehicle numbers are the same on hydrogen as they are today with fossil fuels, all of the we would need 1.5 times the amount of platinum on earth as we have. Yes folks you would need to melt down your platinum bling but then we are still 50% shy of the amount required. It's too bad it's too dangerous to run a car on a nuclear reaction...the navy carriers only need to refill on fuel once ever 20 years or something...There is no one fuel that will save us from fossil fuels. I believe it will take multiple systems (fuel cells/biodiesel/etc) to replace fossil fuels because there simply isn't enough of any fuel to make it viable even if it is renewable.

Taz · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:38 am

Ok here is some of the rest of the story thats not spread around widely. The governmant is concerned that as Hybrids and other efficient vehicles become more popular they will use so much less fuel that states will loose billions in road tax revenue, since most of it comes from fuel sales, states are talking about additional road tax on gas or special taxes on, you guessed it, hybrids.

ManicMechanicJoe · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:52 am

I read about that in the Pioneer Press. I think they are going about it wrong though. I drive a heavier vehicle then a Prius or most hybrids. Therefore I do more damage to the road so I should pay more... I think the tax should be figured in when you register or renew registration on a vehicle-not at the pump and the tax should be based on weight. Heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on the road so they should pay more. Doing the tax at the pump makes for all of these stupid extra taxes. Why can't our government base its decisions on common sense?

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:35 pm

Taz wrote:

Ok here is some of the rest of the story thats not spread around widely. The governmant is concerned that as Hybrids and other efficient vehicles become more popular they will use so much less fuel that states will loose billions in road tax revenue, since most of it comes from fuel sales, states are talking about additional road tax on gas or special taxes on, you guessed it, hybrids.

Oregon did that from Day 1 with hybrids. I was stationed in the Seattle area till '97 when I retired from the Navy, and know several people down in the Portland area. About 5 years ago when they started selling hybrids, they were up in arms because the state government added on a special licensing fee, $100 or more, every time you renewed the tags on a hybrid. The state's explanation? They viewed anyone buying a hybrid as trying to avoid paying their fair share of the state's gasoline tax, ie willful tax evasion, so they added the licensing fee to recoup the lost revenue. No joke, that was the official explanation.

casm · **Joined:** Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:05 pm **Posts:** 694

Ranger1 wrote:

Wonder why no existing diesel vehicle qualified for the tax credits that hybrids did? According to this article, The Union of Concerned Scientists lobbied against diesels getting those credits - when they were done, only diesels meeting Tier 2, bin 5 qualified - meaning no current diesel vehicles qualified...

Read through this last night, and it looks as though the UCS has the same problem as the California legislature: a lack of understanding of modern diesel technology. CARB (California Air Resources Board) through the state legislature has effectively pushed diesels out of the California car market based on no actual worthwhile reason other than 'they're dirty'. While that may be true if you're stuck behind a bus with 750,000 miles on it or an early-'80s Mercedes that hasn't been proerly maintained, modern diesels with particulate catalysts run as clean as or cleaner than (in some cases) their gas counterparts.

The whole hybrid thing is a joke no matter how you look at it - drivetrain complexity, weight, battery life and recycling, true cost of ownership... But hey, since the state's decided they're the greatest thing since sliced bread they *must* be, right?

Taz wrote:

Ok here is some of the rest of the story thats not spread around widely. The governmant is concerned that as Hybrids and other efficient vehicles become more popular they will use so much less fuel that states will loose billions in road tax revenue, since most of it comes from fuel sales, states are talking about additional road tax on gas or special taxes on, you guessed it, hybrids.

I've been hearing this as well, but am calling BS on it. Think about it for a second - if they tax hybrids more heavily, they drop the one incentive people have to buy them, which is marginally-lower fuel costs. Basically the states have backed themselves into a corner on the issue, particularly now that the public's starting to wise up to the fact that they're not the all-singing all-dancing most wonderful car design ever.

ManicMechanicJoe wrote:

I read a study on fuel cells-and it doesn't sound good. First off it takes a lot of energy to get hydrogen... Second, they need platinum to make the fuel cells work. If vehicle numbers are the same on hydrogen as they are today with fossil fuels, all of the we would need 1.5 times the amount of platinum on earth as we have. Yes folks you would need to melt down your platinum bling but then we are still 50% shy of the amount required. It's too bad it's too dangerous to run a car on a nuclear reaction...the navy carriers only need to refill on fuel once ever 20 years or something...There is no one fuel that will save us from fossil fuels. I believe it will take multiple systems (fuel cells/biodiesel/etc) to replace fossil fuels because there simply isn't enough of any fuel to make it viable even if it is renewable.

I'll admit to being a huge fan of biodiesel, but if even 30% of the cars on the road were bio-capable we wouldn't have enough land to generate enough B100 to power them. Even using reclaimed waste oil wouldn't make enough of a dent. Don't get me wrong, I love the stuff and would like to be able to buy it at the pump - but on a widescale, practical level it'll probably never happen for much over B20.

Having said that... There've been some interesting developments in the workable hydrogen fuel cell arena in the last few weeks. Peugeot unveiled the GENEPAC fuel cell, a (comparatively) highly-efficient catalytic hydrogen generator. This looks like the most promising hydrogen fuel cell likely to hit the market, and they're aiming for a 2010 release. Power outputs may look low now, but given the advanced state of development on it I'm fairly confident they've got a good shot at coming up with something that'll work across a range of applications from superminis to SUVs.

grywlfbg · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:50 pm

I actually like the fuel tax idea. Because it's not the aboslute weight of the vehicle that does damage - it's the numebr of miles driven. A Prius driven 50k miles/year is doing more damage than my CRD driven 10k miles/year. so why should I have to pay more for my heavier vehicle?

Bottom line is if you drive a lot, you should pay more. Even a hybrid doesn't get that much better mileage than a regular Civic or Saturn for that matter. Plus they're a tiny percentage of vehicles sold.

To offset the "LOST" revenue from more fuel-efficient cars, raise the fuel taxes. It's still a good idea as it's a direct tax system - the people that use the roads the most pay the most taxes.

The alternative is to have the government track the number of miles you drive every year and tack that onto your income tax bill. I certainly don't want the government tracking my mileage. Not to mention how would you figure out what miles were driven in which state? Now you're talking GPS tracking systems on all our cars so each state can get their fair share.

I'll stick with gasoline taxes thank you very much.

grywlfbg · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:19 pm

casm wrote:

I'll admit to being a huge fan of biodiesel, but if even 30% of the cars on the road were bio-capable we wouldn't have enough land to generate enough B100 to power them. Even using reclaimed waste oil wouldn't make enough of a dent. Don't get me wrong, I love the stuff and would like to be able to buy it at the pump - but on a widescale, practical level it'll probably never happen for much over B20.

That isn't true. Check out the research UNH is doing on using oil-producing algae. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

From the article: "...to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals. "

If you could remove the oil companies' iron grip on the government this could have a major impact TODAY. Not 20 years from now.

casm wrote:

Having said that... There've been some interesting developments in the workable hydrogen fuel cell arena in the last few weeks. Peugeot unveiled the GENEPAC fuel cell, a (comparatively) highly-efficient catalytic hydrogen generator. This looks like the most promising hydrogen fuel cell likely to hit the market, and they're aiming for a 2010 release. Power outputs may look low now, but given the advanced state of development on it I'm fairly confident they've got a good shot at coming up with something that'll work across a range of applications from superminis to SUVs.

But they've yet to answer the question of where the hydrogen comes from. Today it's natural gas. How is this helping our dependence on petroleum? Fuel cells are completel BS until we can find a cheap source of hydrogen. Cracking water takes an obscene amount of electricty. Where does the electricity come from? In the US, it's from burning coal. How is this helping our dependence on petroleum? Sure, someday we can get electricity from wind and solar energy which I think is a great idea and should be funded. But it's many years away. Not to mention where's the water going to come from that you're cracking to free the Hyodrogen? Why the ocean. What do you do w/ all the salt? You can't dump it back into the ocean. You'll kill every sea creature for miles around the plant as the salt concentrations would be too high. It's all Marketing hype.

Check out Patrick Bedard's column in Car and Driver last year for some info on fuel cells and a simplified womb-to-tomb comparison of gas vs hydrogen. An then think how much better biodiesel would look compared to the gasoline used in the article.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp ... le_id=9978

casm · **Joined:** Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:05 pm **Posts:** 694

grywlfbg wrote:

That isn't true. Check out the research UNH is doing on using oil-producing algae. http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Yep, seen this before. I think it's a promising idea, but the killer is that it's not in production now. If they can make it workable, that's perfectly fine - but in the meantime we're still dependent on vegetable matter.

grywlfbg wrote:

If you could remove the oil companies' iron grip on the government this could have a major impact TODAY. Not 20 years from now.

We'll never be rid of the oil companies until we can come up with frictionless materials. Even if we moved 100% of the vehicles in the US over to biodiesel tomorrow, they've still got to be lubricated somehow. With today's technologies, that means oil. They're not going away anytime soon.

grywlfbg wrote:

But they've yet to answer the question of where the hydrogen comes from. Today it's natural gas.

Wait, natural gas in the case of the GENEPAC system? I'll frankly admit that I don't know the complete ins and outs of the system (Peugeot is keeping their cards close to their chest on it, and I think understandably so), but my basic understanding is that it's a catalytic system using distilled water. More:

grywlfbg wrote:

Fuel cells are completel BS until we can find a cheap source of hydrogen. Cracking water takes an obscene amount of electricty. Where does the electricity come from?

In this case, it's generated on-board. How, like I said, I don't exactly know. However, if their claims in efficiency can be backed up with real-world demonstrations I'm all for it. Yes, I am taking some of this on faith as I have yet to see a unit in the flesh. However, Peugeot has an excellent track record in developing fuel cell and diesel technology. I'm willing to bet that if they say they've made the first steps of a breakthrough that it has happened and needs further work to be production-ready.

grywlfbg wrote:

In the US, it's from burning coal. How is this helping our dependence on petroleum?

By moving the generation from the somkestack to the individual vehicle.

grywlfbg wrote:

Check out Patrick Bedard's column in Car and Driver last year for some info on fuel cells and a simplified womb-to-tomb comparison of gas vs hydrogen. An then think how much better biodiesel would look compared to the gasoline used in the article.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp ... le_id=9978

I think you may have missed my point somewhat. I wasn't knocking biodiesel; I actually support it. However, at this point in time we don't have the cropland to support it *and* account for growth. Using part of the Sonoran Desert sounds like a great idea until you have to irrigate it. Where's that water coming from? OK, move production to the Pacific Northwest - then you more or less have to grow stuff hydroponically so that the winter weather doesn't kill off the crops.

We're starting to see the first steps towards workable hydrogen propulsion. Ultimately, I could care less what my vehicle is powered by as long as it's comparable to a gas engine, fuel is cheap and readily-available, and it's no more complex to work on than an existing four-stroke. Whoever figures out how to meet those criteria will basically sew up the marketplace since I suspect most people feel about the same way.

grywlfbg · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:52 pm

And fuel cells are here today? That website is woefully short on details since I'm sure they consider it a trade secret but the bottom line is that hydrogen is NOT a SOURCE of energy. It's simply a transportation mechanism. Reading hte brochure the onboard generation thing talks about need a solution of sodium bromide and a catalyst. No one has invented a way to get hydrogen for free. You must always invest way more energy in than you get out of in the form of hydrogen. Then when you burn or fuel-cell the hydrogen you lose even more energy. Yes, the waste is clean but there's a lot more of it than in a diesel or gas engine.

We are decades away from a "hydrogen economy" because you can't make the hydrogen cheap enough. This Genepac thing is still going to require some type of external energy. You'll either need to plug it in or fuel it w/ hydrogen that you carry. It's the fuel cell equivalent of the hybrid. more efficient yes, but ultimately you still need fuel. Fuel that we can't produce in any quantity any time soon.

We could have algae ponds up and running in a couple years. Hydrogen plants are decades away. Not to mention fuel storage problems. From the UNH article:

"To get a 1,000 mile range, a tractor trailer running on diesel needs to store 168 gallons of diesel fuel. When biodiesel's slightly lower energy density and the greater efficiency of the engine running on biodiesel are taken into account, it would need roughly 175 gallons of biodiesel for the same range. But, to run on hydrogen stored at 250 atmospheres, to get the same range would require 2,360 gallons of hydrogen"

N the article isn't saying we should irrrigate the Sonoran desert. The author was simply using the desert to relate the amount of land needed. Read the article before you comment on it.

Biodiesel is here, it's now - with a fraction of the funding going into fuel cells and some government officials who aren't in the back pockets of the oil companies. Fuel cells for transportation are a plaything of scientists.

casm · **Joined:** Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:05 pm **Posts:** 694

grywlfbg wrote:

And fuel cells are here today?

Your point? I already said they were aiming for a 2010 launch date.

grywlfbg wrote:

That website is woefully short on details since I'm sure they consider it a trade secret but the bottom line is that hydrogen is NOT a SOURCE of energy. It's simply a transportation mechanism.

I assumed we were talking about transportation here - quite frankly, I'm not sure why other applications would be coming up in this context.

grywlfbg wrote:

Reading hte brochure the onboard generation thing talks about need a solution of sodium bromide and a catalyst. No one has invented a way to get hydrogen for free. You must always invest way more energy in than you get out of in the form of hydrogen. Then when you burn or fuel-cell the hydrogen you lose even more energy. Yes, the waste is clean but there's a lot more of it than in a diesel or gas engine.

Sure, but by the same token you get waste products in the petroleum cracking process. There's no 100% clean life cycle for any existing fuel - well, at least until we get the Mr. Fusion. And I *want* my Mr. Fusion

grywlfbg wrote:

N the article isn't saying we should irrrigate the Sonoran desert. The author was simply using the desert to relate the amount of land needed. Read the article before you comment on it.

I have read the article, and had you read my replies rather than springing to knee-jerk defence of your point of view, you'd know this. You'd also be aware that I'm on your side regarding biodiesel, a fact that seems to have escaped your notice. At this point, I'm really getting the impression you want nothing more than to get into a religious argument over biodiesel vs. anything that isn't biodiesel, which, quite frankly, sounds like about as much fun as listening to Slashdot weenies argue over which Linux distro they prefer. Have fun; I'm pretty much done talking to you at this point.

grywlfbg · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:27 pm

To come full circle, no one has solved the problem of where to GET the hydrogen and also how to store it efficiently. It makes me crazy when people in the media and members of our government talk about having a "hydrogen-based economy". This is complete BS. You can't base an economy on hydrogen like you can with oil because there aren't vast pools of hydrogen sitting around waiting to be pumped out. You have to MAKE hydrogen. This requires electricity. So now you have to solve the problem of cheap, clean, and renewable eletricity. We will certainly not have cheap and clean electricity by 2010 so the hydrogen to power these vehicles will come from natural gas - a finite resource.

Hydrogen and fuel cells are a great idea for the Jetson's era but wasting money developing hydrogen propulsion systems is quite literally getting the cart before the horse until you have dirt cheap, clean, and renewable electricity to make the hydrogen and an efficient way to store it.

I'm sorry for venting at you. I just wish biodiesel was given the same media attention as hydrogen (but it's not flashy enough - no sexy futuristic-looking cars). Like the UNH artical said, we could easily convert every drop of oil used for transportation and home heating oil to bio in just a few years. This would make a massive dent in the amount of petroleum we have to import. Someone in the government just has to pull the trigger.

valkraider · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:28 pm

retmil46 wrote:

Taz wrote:

Ok here is some of the rest of the story thats not spread around widely. The governmant is concerned that as Hybrids and other efficient vehicles become more popular they will use so much less fuel that states will loose billions in road tax revenue, since most of it comes from fuel sales, states are talking about additional road tax on gas or special taxes on, you guessed it, hybrids.

Oregon did that from Day 1 with hybrids. I was stationed in the Seattle area till '97 when I retired from the Navy, and know several people down in the Portland area. About 5 years ago when they started selling hybrids, they were up in arms because the state government added on a special licensing fee, $100 or more, every time you renewed the tags on a hybrid. The state's explanation? They viewed anyone buying a hybrid as trying to avoid paying their fair share of the state's gasoline tax, ie willful tax evasion, so they added the licensing fee to recoup the lost revenue. No joke, that was the official explanation.

Uhmm, I live in Oregon and that is not exactly true.

January 1 2002 Oregon doubled the registration fee for hybrid owners. From what was $15 a year to $30 a year, while normal cars still had the normal $15 a year fee.

However, as of 2005 (I believe, it could have been 2004 - I can't find the exact date) all passenger cars now pay $27 a year - hybrid or not.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/fees/vehicle.shtml

Additionally Oregon has always had a $1500 tax credit in place for Hybrids:

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/TRANS/hybridcr.shtml

They are still trying to tackle the issue of declining revenues due to increased fuel economy. They are running a TEST to see if charging people based on miles driven is feasable.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/mileage.shtml

This is only a TEST - they are trying to gain some knowlege on how to do this in the future. In a perfect world the rates would vary based on how heavy the vehicle is so that it is fair. We will see how that plays out. They also have been under a lot of fire from privacy advocates. Which is a genuine concern.

But the reality is - the roads have to be maintained. We are going to have to figure out something, and it is going to be tricky.

casm wrote:

I assumed we were talking about transportation here - quite frankly, I'm not sure why other applications would be coming up in this context.

I think he was referring to the fact that Hydrogen is an energy transportation medium. Not an energy source. As in Hydrogen only contains the energy that was used to make it which came from another source - like electricity or natural gas.

Not that we were referring to Transportation as in planes, trains, and automobiles.

I always like to consider biodiesel and ethanol liquid solar energy.

casm wrote:

I'll admit to being a huge fan of biodiesel, but if even 30% of the cars on the road were bio-capable we wouldn't have enough land to generate enough B100 to power them. Even using reclaimed waste oil wouldn't make enough of a dent. Don't get me wrong, I love the stuff and would like to be able to buy it at the pump - but on a widescale, practical level it'll probably never happen for much over B20.

That is only considering virgin soy as the source. That ignores other methods.

Like Smokestack Breath Mints:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/11/tech/main1202264.shtml

Algae farms (mentioned by others)

or the promise of TDP/TCP/TCC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

The way that I see it is that we should learn from our experience with fossil fuels. We need to be *smart* about biofuel. We need to put governmental restrictions on importing palm-based biodiesel. We need to make regulations which keep biodiesel production from replacing food production or destroying forests or conservation areas.

But we should also promote it's use as much as possible - as long as it is done *right*.

Taz · **Posted:** Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:56 pm

Weather you like Biodiesel, Ethanol, Hybrids or Just plain Gasohol this is a neat article and a great invention. This was one of my professors in school, he is a pretty cool guy. The neat thing is it uses ethanol, somthing that we can make and we all know how to dispense.

Quote:

As a kid, Lanny Schmidt was a bit of a pyromaniac. He loved making colored flames with his chemistry set, especially when the flames got away from him and caused an explosion

http://www.itdean.umn.edu/news/inventin ... rogen.html

retmil46 · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:01 am

Hmmm, perhaps that was a proposed law coming up before the Oregon legislature, and it got voted down. It was 5 years ago, perhaps I remembered incorrectly.

What I do remember, one of my friends out in Portland e-mailed me the newspaper article concerning it. Some of the hybrid and electric vehicle owners in the area staged a protest, either in downtown Portland or in Salem, concerning the increase in hybrid registration fees, and from what I remember the increase was quite substantial, on the order of tacking on $100 per year. I do remember the tone of the hybrid owners quoted in the article, they were quite pissed off, felt that the state was penalizing them for driving a fuel efficient vehicle.

I haven't heard any more about it since. If it was a proposed increase, looks like enough stink was raised that they dropped the idea.

dog_party · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:51 pm

There is some GREAT information in this thread! Thanks for the links everybody.

I'd like to volunteer the north-facing exterior walls of my VA Beach house as an algae farm for the express use as biomass for LOST CRD KJ drivers. I was going to clean it again with my pressure-washer, but I've decided to run my truck on it. Anyone who helps me scrape it off and process it in my garage gets free fuel. :wink:

valkraider · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:09 pm

dog_party wrote:

I'd like to volunteer the north-facing exterior walls of my VA Beach house as an algae farm for the express use as biomass for LOST CRD KJ drivers. I was going to clean it again with my pressure-washer, but I've decided to run my truck on it. Anyone who helps me scrape it off and process it in my garage gets free fuel. :wink:

Hehe, no kidding. We can just "harvest" the sidewalks here in Portland, Oregon....

There was a discussion somewhere - I get involved in so many I get them mixed up - but someone was talking about the smokestack algae farms, and how hard they would be to maintain as algae was "really fragile, and hard to grow".

And someone replied that the easiest way to grow algae is to dig a hole in the ground, fill it with water, and put in expensive fish that you want to look at.

dog_party · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:54 pm

valkraider wrote:

dig a hole in the ground, fill it with water, and put in expensive fish that you want to look at.

I had an Oscar (carnivorous fish) in college (in humid Eastern KY) and the algae was so bad it threatened to eat the fish. So I got the algae it's own tank, then the Oscar died of loneliness.

"Fragile and hard to grow"....crack me up! An algae farm would be hard to sustain in an arid environment like Northern CO (I grew up there, it's the only reason I use it as an example). I'll grant that. Not here though!!! Not in Eastern KY!!! And certainly not at my siter's place in central FL!! Whew! Try stopping algae growth in any of these environments and it'll carry you off and feed you to it's young!

What really happened to the tax credit for diesels

Who is online