Diesel

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

As long as the world uses machines, they will need lubricating.

The more sophisticated the machine, the more sophisticated the lubricant will need to be.

A lightly loaded, low speed machine might survive on vegetable oils (castril R was developed for what were then highly stressed engines) or evn tallow.  But for highly loaded bearings, subjected to high speed, a sophisticated mineral or synthetic oil will be required.

Some manufacturing processes need mineral oil as a lubricant, as the oinly easily and economically, available lubricant.  (We use soluble oils during machining, as lubricant and coolant)

So I think that the day when every oil well is plugged and abandoned is still some time away!

Howard

[Howard Lewis]

On Howard Lewis Said:

 

Some manufacturing processes need mineral oil as a lubricant, as the oinly easily and economically, available lubricant.

Howard

I think you made that up! 😆🤣😂

[Howard Lewis]

 

On Howard Lewis Said:

Vehicles that meet Euro 6 emissions regulations are pretty clean.

My, (Admittedly petrol) is Euro6 compliant and at each MOT the emissions measured are either Zero, or have 2 Zeros after the decimal point, to my surprise.

Have spent the major part of my life working in and around Development of Diesel engines, to meet increasing stringent emissions regulations. A lot of engines, for various reasons could not meet the newer regulations. One, because it was so efficient that it could not raise the exhaust temperature to the point where the catalyst lit off, and so failed the test!

(The change from one year to the next required a decrease of particulates by a factor of ten!) Compliance  requires a VAST amount of work and investment.

Being cynical, it could be argued that some engines, at one time, used turbochargers to provide excess air, for a blow down effect during valve overlap, to dilute the exhaust gases!

The urge to go diesel powered , although welcome, did not come from the industry, but from our “elders and betters”. Later administrations, possibly in possession of newer data, reversed that, and Industry, again, had to comply.

In Britain, pre emissions regulation, the target was always a Just Visible exhaust haze, not smoke.         In Britain, Rolls-Royce was trying to develp a smoke meter, based on opacity, but were beaten to market by Leslie Hartridge. The German Bosch smoke meter passed an exhaust sanple through a filter paper, and then measured the opacity, or the reflectance of the paper.

The acceptamce levels were 30% Hartridge or 3 Bosch, maximum.

In the USA the axiom once was “If she ain’t smoking, she ain’t pulling”, which probably accounts for the high incidence of lung cancer anong truck drivers.  Probably not helped by the habit of leaving engines idling all night to have a warm cab in the morning.

I know of one tractor manufacturer, who years ago, complained that the smoke levels were too low, so that the tractor could not be located from the homestead!

How things have changed!

Howard

[old foolParticipant @old-fool]

Oh I do like stirring you all up! Tee-hee. As Vic just said oil is the base material for most of the chemical industry without it we wouldn’t have lights in our homes or electric cars (no PVC for insulation) I wonder if the “just stop oil crowd has thort that one through. Anyway no one is going to listen to us however much we rant. So let’s get back to doing what we’re good at. ie making noise and mess

See you all later     Bob

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Two different problems with fossil fuels, both of which are biting.

1. Burning fossil fuels to create energy on a large scale causes harmful pollution especially in cities.  Much more dangerous, Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas that’s changing the planet’s climate. If nothing is done, everything will change, beyond human control.
2. At the rate they are being consumed oil and gas can only rise in price as demand exceeds supply.  Those keen to retain oil based transport do so on the assumption that petrol and diesel will remain cheap forever.  Bad news is prices are going to rise sharply over the next couple of decades, and I expect only the rich will be able to afford IC motoring in 2044.

Not all is lost.  When people need energy, it doesn’t matter where it comes from.  There is no god-given reason why energy has to be produced by burning.   In fact, burning becomes downright stupid when coal, oil and gas are in short supply, and are needed for other priorities like petrochemicals.   Not difficult to replace an IC engine with an electric motor and battery:  much harder to make tyres for an electric when all the oil has been burned.   And old tyres can be recycled, whereas burnt petrol is gone forever.   Going electric also solves the city pollution problem, and green energy reduces global warming – no greenhouse gases!  Best of all, green electricity dodges the rising price of oil problem.  If you want cheap motoring in future, electric is best bet at the moment.   Maybe Hydrogen if it can be tamed.

Being cheap and convenient at the moment doesn’t make burning fossil fuels a fixture.  Even if global change weren’t a factor, I suggest it’s extremely unwise to rely on oil and gas.

Hope not, but we may be in for a taste of the whip.   What’s going on in the middle-east could easily escalate into causing a serious oil shortage, with high prices and long queues at the pumps.  Anyone else remember the OPEC crisis?   Again, switching to local green energy is a good way of protecting us from foreign complications.

My advice, worry about the big problems ahead.  We need to get on with solving them, not party like it’s 1999!  For example, what to do for people who don’t have access to a home charging point.   Lots of street side lampposts and bollards will help, but they aren’t a complete answer.  Plenty of old-school alternatives like push-bikes, buses, taxis, working from home, and living near your place of work.  I’d hope to do better.  Maybe subsidising IC fuels for deserving cases.   A high-tech possibility is driverless cars that charge remotely, and turn up when called for.

Rather than coming up with empty denials, do the team have any good ideas?

Dave

[Howard Lewis]

On Howard Lewis Said:

As long as the world uses machines, they will need lubricating.

The more sophisticated the machine, the more sophisticated the lubricant will need to be.

A lightly loaded, low speed machine might survive on vegetable oils (castril R was developed for what were then highly stressed engines) or evn tallow.  But for highly loaded bearings, subjected to high speed, a sophisticated mineral or synthetic oil will be required.

Some manufacturing processes need mineral oil as a lubricant, as the oinly easily and economically, available lubricant.  (We use soluble oils during machining, as lubricant and coolant)So I think that the day when every oil well is plugged and abandoned is still some time away!

Howard

A good many Whales have survived on the strength of that economy

MichaelG.

[old fool]

On old fool Said:

Oh I do like stirring you all up! Tee-hee. As Vic just said oil is the base material for most of the chemical industry without it we wouldn’t have lights in our homes or electric cars (no PVC for insulation) I wonder if the “just stop oil crowd has thort that one through. Anyway no one is going to listen to us however much we rant. So let’s get back to doing what we’re good at. ie making noise and mess

See you all later     Bob

I don’t know if it’s true, but it sounds plausible, but I read some time ago that the USA imports a lot of crude oil (or products made from it) so that it can conserve its own oil reserves for the future. I’m sure the American Military machine gets through a lot of oil based products every year.

Porsche tried to flog Hitler an Electric Tank but he didn’t fall for it! 😆

https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/ferdinand-porsches-tanks/

 

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

<p style=”text-align: left;”>Surely oil wells are just a convenient source of carbon for the chemical industry to make products. Carbon is abundant and there is a lot of it lying about. Plastics are one source which at the moment appear to be a pollutant but could be a valuable resource. No really good reason why plastics cannot be a feedstock for lubricant production. Similarly CO2 can be converted to fuel as a chemical synthesis.</p>
regards Martin

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

During WW2, Gernany started producing synthetic aviation fuel, since crude oil was in short supply.

For a long time, our high tech internal combustion engines have been lubricated by synthetic oils, so we appear to have the technology.

But maybe the emissions produced in manufacturing these exotica outweigh those from oil well stock, rather tghan from possibly vegetation? After all, at one time Castor oil (Castrol R) was the favourite lubricant for racing and highly stressed engines of the 50s. BUT what about the emissions from the machines used to cultivate / reap the vegetation?

Howard

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Crude oils are not all the same.  A lot (even most?) of North Sea oil is exported because a cheaper grade of crude is satisfactory for many purposes.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

According to the interweb most synthetic oils are produced using crude oil as the base material.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Natural petroleum is just a realatively cheap and convienent feed stock for fuel, lubricants, plastics etc. As others have noted the is no scientific reason why other sources of hydrogen and carbon cannot be used. Aviation has pilot plants capable of making fuel from hydrogen and carbondioxide. The problem is it takes a lot energy to make (not including any used to make the hydrogen).
Change happens. Unfortunatly forced change is likely to mean increased costs.

[Alan JacksonParticipant @alanjackson47790]

“Burning fossil fuels to create energy on a large scale causes harmful pollution especially in cities. Much more dangerous, Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas that’s changing the planet’s climate. If nothing is done, everything will change, beyond human control.”

Who is going to tell China, Russia, India, etc to stop doing this. Is it going to be Little England scaring them into submission? They might say that they do not believe your suppositions and say we think you are quite wrong, but we will carry on and make and sell to you these items you desire to keep your fantastic dreams alive.

[Alan Jackson]

On Alan Jackson Said:

“Burning fossil fuels to create energy on a large scale causes harmful pollution especially in cities. Much more dangerous, Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas that’s changing the planet’s climate. If nothing is done, everything will change, beyond human control.”

Who is going to tell China, Russia, India, etc to stop doing this. Is it going to be Little England scaring them into submission? They might say that they do not believe your suppositions and say we think you are quite wrong, but we will carry on and make and sell to you these items you desire to keep your fantastic dreams alive.

Air pollution is a big problem in China. The adoption of Electric Vehicles is apparently starting to make a big difference in their towns and cities. I read over 30% of new cars sales in China are now BEV’s. The figures exceed 50% if you include PHEV’s but they don’t count in my view as they still produce exhaust emissions.

I also read that renewable energy in China is cheaper than Coal powered electricity generation so they may stop building them soon?

[Howard Lewis]

On Howard Lewis Said:

During WW2, Gernany started producing synthetic aviation fuel, since crude oil was in short supply.

Correct.  Made by Hydrogenating Coal.  The process is expensive and inefficient.  It works best with high-quality coal, not brown-coal or nutty slack!  Made sense in WW2 Germany because the Luftwaffe were desperate for fuel, and the little they had was unsuitable for high altitude, high-performance reciprocating engines.  Not having the best petrol led Germany to push jet engines, because these don’t require high octane petrol.

Synthetic fuel manufacture requires large quantities of Hydrogen, which Germany could also only make from coal during WW2.   Today Hydrogen is made from Natural Gas, mostly to make fertiliser – hundreds of millions of tons of it, not bagfuls!  In future Hydrogen will be made by electrolysing water with green energy, so we can be optimistic about that.

I’m certain the synthetic fuel process will be used again.  As soon as the price of petrol made from fossil oil rises above the cost of synthesising it!  By then not many will still be driving IC cars because they are going to be priced off the road: the cost of petrol and diesel is going to rise and rise and rise…

For a long time, our high tech internal combustion engines have been lubricated by synthetic oils, so we appear to have the technology.

We do.   And the expert understanding of organic chemistry is far more advanced than the general public comprehend. Though there are many possibilities, as far as I can tell none of them provide cheap fuel at the pump in the way our generation takes for granted.  In the long run, roughly 30 years, motoring based on IC as we know it is done for.  It depends on an inexhaustible supply of natural oil, which doesn’t exist.   Electric gets close to being a decent replacement, but it’s not one size fits all.

But maybe the emissions produced in manufacturing these exotica outweigh those from oil well stock, rather tghan from possibly vegetation?

Pollution would be much worse if synthetic fuel were made again using Germany’s WW2 process.   Less so if it were made from green hydrogen, but the process still isn’t particularly clean or efficient.  And of course burning synthetic fuel in an IC engine still pollutes city centres and adds to global warming.    I see synthetic fuel as part of the answer, a fuel reserved for priority users like agriculture, heavy construction, railways and aircraft etc.   High costs will automatically stop Model Engineers hauling heavy caravans over the Alps in hope of finding bargains in a Rumanian Flea Market!

 

After all, at one time Castor oil (Castrol R) was the favourite lubricant for racing and highly stressed engines of the 50s. BUT what about the emissions from the machines used to cultivate / reap the vegetation?

Much bigger problem than that!  Where is the land to come from?  Like fossil fuels, God isn’t making any more!   At the moment, climate change is reducing the amount of agricultural land on the edge of deserts.   In other parts of the world, heavy rainfall and rising sea-levels are also taking agricultural land out of commission.  The land is needed to grow food.  That bad things are happening may not be obvious in Little Snoring yet, but they are.   For example, the UK harvest will be bad this year because the highest total rainfall ever recorded here occurred this year.   Not obvious, but the evidence for Climate Change continues to grow.  Unfortunately, no evidence has emerged over the last 40 years to suggest Climate Change isn’t happening.

Howard

I hope no-one thinks that manufacturing petrochemicals from crude oil is clean.   In many ways it’s getting dirtier.  When the industry started it was only necessary to find an oil reservoir and drill into it; result a gusher, producing crude oil that could be piped or tankered away for processing.   Those simple days are pretty much gone.  The planet has been comprehensively searched and the number of oil-fields available for exploitation is known, and none of them are easy gusher fields!  Now oil is increasingly expensively drilled for off-shore, extracted by pumping, freed by fracking, or extracted from shale or tar-sand.  The latter two are particularly filthy.    About a quarter of US oil comes from Canadian tar-sand, a mixture of gooey bitumen and sand.  Its quarried by giant earth movers, leaving deep holes miles across, and then processed to break the bitumen into useful oil fractions.   Unlike gusher or pumped oil, the extractive process requires a lot of heat, itself producing massive quantities of Carbon Dioxide and other pollutants.   Then the result is piped to the USA for further processing, and burning.

Nothing easy or straightforward about oil!   Like electrification it also requires massive engineering and investment. If we can do oil, we can do electric.  Nothing lasts forever, even if a technology is wonderful.  Mankind is reaching the point where exploiting oil isn’t the right answer.

Clinging to the wreckage is a bad strategy.  So far as oil is concerned, it’s time to find alternatives, and time is running out.  The present rate of progress is pitiful.  Sad because there is no shortage of energy.  It’s just that tapping into it is harder than burning fossils.  Technologies need to be developed and debugged,  which takes time.  Though I shall be dead before the poo really hits the fan, my children are in for a rough time.  Shame when the reasons for delay seem so poor: vested interests,  small-c conservatism, ignorance, denial, wishful thinking, fear of change, and politicians who prefer easy short-term wealth generation to tackling difficult long-term issues.

Dave

 

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

I think everyone might, if they really considered it properly, would accept that the “just sop oil crowd” have adopted an almost ‘click bait’ title.

It would be far better to have made specific reference to burning the stuff.  Because that is what they are campaigning against – with liquid transport fuels being top of their agenda.

But, as usual, few actually recognise that fact.

[not done it yet]

On not done it yet Said:

I think everyone might, if they really considered it properly, would accept that the “just sop oil crowd” have adopted an almost ‘click bait’ title.

It would be far better to have made specific reference to burning the stuff.  Because that is what they are campaigning against – with liquid transport fuels being top of their agenda.

But, as usual, few actually recognise that fact.

Presumably because they haven’t clicked on the website to find out what Stop Oil’s demand is.  It is:

Our governments must work together to establish a legally binding treaty to stop extracting and burning oil, gas and coal by 2030…

Burning oil is the problem.  No-one objects to extracting it for other reasons.

Dave

 

[SillyOldDuffer]

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

[…] Our governments must work together to establish a legally binding treaty to stop extracting and burning oil, gas and coal by 2030…

Burning oil is the problem.  No-one objects to extracting it for other reasons.

Be careful, Dave … that statement is a model of ambiguity [upon which the Lawyers could dine well] and by emboldening part of it you have forced your interpretation.

MichaelG.

 

[Michael Gilligan]

On Michael Gilligan Said:

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

[…] Our governments must work together to establish a legally binding treaty to stop extracting and burning oil, gas and coal by 2030…

Burning oil is the problem.  No-one objects to extracting it for other reasons.

Be careful, Dave … that statement is a model of ambiguity [upon which the Lawyers could dine well] and by emboldening part of it you have forced your interpretation.

MichaelG.

 

Michael, absolutely spot on.  The “and” between “extracting and burning” places equal emphasis on both actions.  Yet another example of selective reading and biased interpretation / presentation of a quoted factual statement.  Dave has missed his vocation and should have pursued a career in media!

Paul.

[David George 1Participant @davidgeorge1]

There is a problem in the estate where I live. The estate was built just after the war and the main power cables were of a type which were paper and bitumen insulated and the joints were a type where a clay cover were filled with hot bitumen to seal and insulate them. Every time we get any disturbance for cables, pipework etc these disturbe the cable structure combined with wet weather, there is a bang and yet another blackout. A while ago i was looking to have three phase to my garage which was turned down on the cost of replacing the cable to the sub station as the cable size was of insufficient capacity. If you want a battery charger for a battery car there is insufficient power because of the cable size to supply them on our estate of several hudreds of houses. Are we going to get the whole estate re-cabled to upgrade our houses and how many other estates are similary cabled.

David

[Paul Kemp]

On Paul Kemp Said:

On Michael Gilligan Said:

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

[…] Our governments must work together to establish a legally binding treaty to stop extracting and burning oil, gas and coal by 2030…

Burning oil is the problem.  No-one objects to extracting it for other reasons.

Be careful, Dave … that statement is a model of ambiguity [upon which the Lawyers could dine well] and by emboldening part of it you have forced your interpretation.

MichaelG.

 

Michael, absolutely spot on.  The “and” between “extracting and burning” places equal emphasis on both actions.  Yet another example of selective reading and biased interpretation / presentation of a quoted factual statement.  Dave has missed his vocation and should have pursued a career in media!

Paul.

Ye gods!  Michael and Paul are arguing a point on the basis of a single word.   And it is the word ‘and’, the 5th most common word in British English, and the 3rd most common in American English.

In response to NDIY’s observation, ‘It would be far better to have made specific reference to burning the stuff’ I cut and pasted what Just Stop Oil actually put on their website’s front page.  I emboldened their reference to ‘burning’ to emphasise that ‘burning’ is there, only to have Michael accusing me of emboldening to force my interpretation,  whilst Paul goes further by concluding I should have pursued a career in media.

Dare I suggest that Michael and Paul are themselves guilty of ‘selective reading and biased interpretation‘.   I repeat, their criticism of me is based on a single emboldened word, plus their interpretation of what Just Stop Oil might mean by ‘and’, plus an unjustified assumption that I’m in favour of Just Stop Oil.   I didn’t say that!

Chaps, your criticism is entirely unfounded.   I’m particularly disappointed by Michael, who recently had to ask members not to shoot the messenger after inadvertently directing us to a paywall.

If anyone wants to take issue with Just Stop Oil, focus on their methods.   Plenty to criticise there!   But to be fair have a close look at the oil lobby – they too have a disgraceful record.

To be clear, my conclusion is that the case against continuing to use fossil fuels as we are at the moment is rock solid.  It’s bad news.  Oil and gas are within 30 years of becoming a permanent shortage.   And at the same time the evidence for Climate Change has grown for 40+ years, whilst nothing to gainsay it has appeared in the same period. Both problems can be tackled, but only if we get on with it.   The world is changing whether we like it or not and choosing to disbelieve unpleasant facts never helps.   This one is a double whammy.

Nothing new in change:  I enjoy watching old films on Freeview’s TalkingPictures channel.  Street scenes filmed in the 1940s, are noticeably different from what going on in the 50s, and the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90’s all show a rapidly evolving world.  In 1950s Britain, lots of down-at-heel Victorian premises, very few cars, and plenty of new homes being built.   Factory chimneys everywhere.   High Streets full of small shops and crowded with pedestrian customers. London still a major sea-port, the Thames packed with cranes, lighters, and small merchant ships.  Everyone dressed warmly and wearing hats and gloves.

Same scene filmed during the 70s and 80s, shows supermarkets, far more cars, and plenty of High Street seediness – Betting shops displacing Grocers etc.   Plenty of people in thinner clothing, and fewer hats!  Lots of Victorian brickwork is gone or being demolished,  and there are plenty of derelict factories for filming car-chases.   The Thames is almost empty of shipping.

Today, the High Street is full of Charity Shops, motorists are positively discouraged, and most of us shop in out-of-town hypermarkets.  These aren’t a fixture either though – they’re taking a serious beating from online shopping.  A factory chimney is a tourist attraction!  Collieries, shipbuilding, and other heavy industry gone.  What’s happening to Fossil Fuels is just another adaptation.   As nothing lasts forever, the trick is to move on before the old system crashes.

Dave

 

 

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

The simple correct wording should have used the word “for” instead of “and”.  That might be too much for a bunch of anarchists?  Can’t write properly – or even used it, fully knowing the ambiguity that might arise with readers.  Most ov their followers are simply like sheep, after all.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Dave

I am unrepentant !

… I merely suggested that you exercise caution.

MichaelG.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

Perhaps the problem is folk focussing on much too small area, to the exclusion of taking a wider view.

Yes, man has spent centuries causing global warming (From the first to discover how to make fire)

We cannot do much about about natural fires, such as caused by lighning strikes or volcanic eruption (But the climate change that humanity has brought about, might tend to increase/worsen the effect of these)

The world, as it is now, would cease to function if oil, or metals, were instantly not available.

A sobering thought.

It has taken ages to bring us to where we are, and it will take a long time to reverse whatever damage we have done.  Maybe too long for the human race and life (as we know it) to survive.

So should we be exploring space to find another planet (Presunably in another solar system) that is in better condition than ours?

But think of the warming involved in launching, (let alone making) the rockets for that exploration.

Howard

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Partly because of the difficulty and expense of sourcing decent coal (now that we are no longer allowed to dig up our own) the North York Moors Railway are busily converting one of their locos to burn oil. I suppose it’s just about possible that this will reduce CO2 emmisions, but I doubt it will have a huge effect on global warming.

Speaking to a chap who fires on the Welsh Highland, they are having all sorts of fun with alternative solid fuels, having to stop and clean the spark arrestor wasn’t much fun with a full fire on.

I wrote to my MP about the needs of heritage railways, but he clearly didn’t understand. Perhaps I’ll have a go with the new lady, but I’m not hopeful.

[Author]

Posts