Alcohol vs Wallas for heating & cooking

Chuckpacific · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:27 am Post subject:

I talked to Scan Marine yesterday....they said diesel. They said kerosene and Kleen Heat age...in fact it's not possible to know how old those products are. They said diesel has an indefinite shelf life and not to treat it with Stabil or other additives.

Chuck

Dora~Jean · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:43 am Post subject:

Thanks Chuck, another reason diesel is preferred. I'm no expert on any of the fuels. I've heard that kerosene will develop 'crud' or precipitates on the bottom over time which will certainly clog the pump and mechanism. After two years I've checked the bottom of the tank with Klean Heat, no evidence whatsoever of crud yet. I think I'll pour it through a filter and examine it. I believe it is synthetically made compared to kerosene which is not.

thataway · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:16 am Post subject:

Actually diesel does age--multiple things happen to it--including the precepitation of aspheltines. Also diesel out of the pump is more likely to have contaminations. I suspect that sticking to "Clean" Kleen heat would be one of the best plans. We switched from "aged diesel" in the CD 25 to Kleen heat, and smoking and oder dissapeared within one run of the stove.

Ron on Meander · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject:

According to the Wallas website the 1300 is a kerosene (paraffin) only heater. It is supposedly not able to burn diesel.
Ron

dogon dory · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject:

Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author

SEA3PO · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject:

I have always been a fan of Bio-Diesel.... has a great exhaust smell ...french fries....and is not a hydrocarbon... I wonder how it would do in a Wallas...I know it works gangbusters in my Diesel Model A....not only do I get better fuel mileage (almost 50 with bio-diesel...40+ with #2 diesel) but the cetane of bio-diesel is 50 and #2 is only 45 so the knock that I have with #2 is gone when I burn bio....plus it starts easier...nice stuff.. also it is available at most marinas (for yuppie sail boat diesels...no smoke and nice smell)

I plan on installing a heater only and that may be less fuel delicate than the stove/heater unit.

Joel
SEA3PO

dogon dory · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject:

Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author

SEA3PO · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject:

I always thought it was not......it is made from vegetable oil.

Joel
SEA3PO

dogon dory · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject:

Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author

drjohn71a · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject:

You guys bring up an interesting point about fuels derived from crops (Ethanol, Bio Diesel) vs. fuels from fossil remains (oil).

One important factor not mentioned about burning fuels derived from current crops is that you are extracting Carbon from the soil by using the fibrous plant parts, but oil from deep underground does not affect our topsoil.

Additionally, Corn, Soybeans and other crops are government subsidized and artificially inexpensive for fuel use due to Ethanol tax breaks, etc..

Additonally, a great deal of fuel and coal was needed to make, ship and operate the tractors, combines, trucks,etc. to plant and ship the bio-fuel raw materials.

Losing carbon from the topsoil depletes the soil and leaves it less able to hold water and properly hold and release plant nutrients and resist erosion. The Dust Bowl was a result of soil depletion.

Measured in "Carbon Years", the organic content of soil can be thought of as the result of a large tree dying and fully decaying in 20 years into the soil with in it's drip line. That is 20 Carbon Years of organic matter in the soil. When we plant and harvest fibrous crops like Cotton, each harvest removes 12 Carbon Years from the soil. So, 2 years' cotton harvest would take over 20 years of waiting for that tree to break down. It does not take many cotton harvests for the soil to lose all it's organic matter - and that is the end of crops for that area for a very long time. (Note that areas like the Mississippi Valley flood frequently and leave nutrient-loaded silt, so they got away with Cotton longer than say, KS, Neb, OK are going to.) The cane and corn crops use 4-5 times the amount of carbon as wheat. If, instead of plowing the wheat straw back in, send it to be fremented, you lose much more carbon years per harvest. Wheat and grasses generally remove only 1 carbon year per harvest, and if left fallow, put another year back.

Sooooooo..... the long term use of crops for oil product replacements will deplete the soil. Only removing the edible portion of crops allows most of the carbon to go back into the soil. We need some other answers for the long term.

On top of all this, if crop-based fuels were good for the environment and economy, etc., you would be trading being at the mercy of a dozen or so oil magnates to being at the mercy of 2 or 3 large corporations, such as Archers-Daniels-Midland.

John

dogon dory · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject:

Sorry, Folks - Post Deleted By Author

oldgrowth · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject:

No! You are wrong Dan.

Dr John’s post is not based on lies, like the inconvenient truth is. You will not get the No Peace Prize if you are accurate with your information or thesis.
________
Dave

JT · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject:

Hey oldgrowth,
This isn't a political thread is it? Sounds like Al gets your Goat!

JT Laughing

mikeporterinmd · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject:

oldgrowth · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: