A plant to take the 'red' out of red diesel has been discovered in Northern Ireland.
One of several found in recent months, according to a customs official.
Fuel laundering was a new one on me, but there's no end to the ingenuity of the criminal mind.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12757309
|
>> A plant to take the 'red' out of red diesel has been discovered in Northern Ireland
Zero has been experimenting with taking the blue out of his windscreen wash
|
|
Yeah, I was waiting for Old Navy to pop round so I can try it in his engine.
|
|
ON is the only member (I think) who has spent a fair amount of time cheek by jowl with a nuclear reactor, and has probably been more irradiated (whatever the rope's end-wielding bosun may have claimed in a force 9 bellow) than anyone else here. Yet he is of fairly mature years and well sprauncy with it. Cheering thought for the unfortunate Japanese.
|
|
you think perhaps by blue-less screenwash was irradiated by fall out from Japan?
|
>> ON is the only member (I think) who has spent a fair amount of time
>> cheek by jowl with a nuclear reactor,
I have sat (briefly) on the pressure vessel of a (shut down) nuclear reactor, I have two beautiful adult daughters, and do not glow in the dark.
I was at sea and underwater during the Chernobyl fiasco so recieved none of the dose you lot got.
The background radiation in a nuclear submarine is below the ambient level in the UK and I fully intend to live off your taxes for many years to come. :-)
|
>> The background radiation in a nuclear submarine is below the ambient level in the UK and I fully intend to live off your taxes for many years to come. :-)
Yes, I figured the bosun would have come on with a line like that, with a menacing whisk of his rope's end. No one would have dared urge him to pull the other one because he would have pulled it off.
As for your living off my taxes ON, why don't we just agree to live off each other's?
:o}
|
>>>> I was at sea and underwater during the Chernobyl fiasco so recieved none of the
>> dose you lot got.
>>
>>
Oh really?
Pray, where did the air come from that you breathed?
|
>> Oh really?
>>
>> Pray, where did the air come from that you breathed?
>>
Yes really.
Nuclear submarines make their own air. Split water and you get hydrogen and oxygen. Dump the hydrogen and breath the oxygen. The atmophere control system also has CO2 scrubbers and CO and H2 burners.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 16 Mar 11 at 20:50
|
Nuclear submarines make their own air. Split water and you get hydrogen and oxygen. Dump
the hydrogen and breath the oxygen. The atmophere control system also has CO2 scrubbers and CO and H2 burners.
>>
Guess that's told ol' Dunkie then!
|
>> Split water and you get hydrogen and oxygen.
If this can be done so easily on a submarine, how come we are being told that it's too expensive/energy inefficient to do on land in order to manufacture Hydrogen for use as a road fuel?
|
|
The submarine has a nuclear reactor.
|
>> The submarine has a nuclear reactor.
>>
I know. The UK has many nuclear reactors already. Why can't such thinggs be used for hydrogen production? Why is it so prohibitively expensive to do so when nuclear power stations are supposed to be a cheap source of energy?
|
>> I know. The UK has many nuclear reactors already. Why can't such thinggs be used
>> for hydrogen production?
Looks like just such an idea is being developed in various ways. Have a look at the NGNP site, for example.
www.nextgenerationnuclearplant.com/facility/hydrogen.shtml
|
>> >> The submarine has a nuclear reactor.
>> >>
>>
>> I know. The UK has many nuclear reactors already. Why can't such thinggs be used
>> for hydrogen production? Why is it so prohibitively expensive to do so when nuclear power
>> stations are supposed to be a cheap source of energy?
The submarine is designed for 130 people, and cost 175 million pounds. Not cheap.
|
So do land based nuclear power stations produce energy cheaply or not?
If they do, why would mass hydrogen production not also be cheap? The raw material (water) is free. The energy required to split it in to hydrogen and oxygen is cheap (given that nuclear energy is always promoted as cheap compared to other forms of energy production).
|
NO electricity is cheap.
Be it wind, wave, nuclear, coal, gas, oil, Solar.
|
|
Of course. I mean comparatively to other means of production. I think I said that.
|
It doesn't matter really, the high cost of any electricity makes production of hydrogen expensive.
The reason for the resurgence of nuclear power was never going to be based on cost* but more on continuity of supply (not reliant on middle east oil or russian gas) and the fact it emits few greenhouse gasses.
* the full life costs, inc building, running, decommissioning and clean up.
|
"NO electricity is cheap."
I bought four rechargeable AA batteries from Lidl on Monday for £3.
|
|
Go on then clever clogs, lets see you split water into hydrogen with them.
|
|
Even if hydrogen was cheap to produce, which it isn't, guess who would tax it till the pips squeak as soon as it is used in a car.
|
>> Go on then clever clogs, lets see you split water into hydrogen with them.
>>
Not hard at all.
periodictable.com/Stories/001.1/index.html
and many others.
|
ooohhhh
the bang bit sounds like fun...
|
>> Nuclear submarines make their own air. Split water and you get hydrogen and oxygen. Dump
>> the hydrogen and breath the oxygen.
Handy - what do you do for nitrogen?
|
>> Handy - what do you do for nitrogen?
Guessing something like a nitrogen generator.
|
>> >> Handy - what do you do for nitrogen?
>>
>> Guessing something like a nitrogen generator.
Ok clever clogs :) How does that work? I did do a quick google but just found a method for extracting it from the air, which wouldn't be ideal in this scenario.
|
>> >> Handy - what do you do for nitrogen?
>>
>> Guessing something like a nitrogen generator.
>>
No, you start off with a submarine full of air, all you have to do is keep it topped up with oxygen and cleaned of pollutants. Mainly exhaled CO2, many substances which evaporate, and aerosols are banned. Also the pressure inside the submarine is important as the effects of the CO2 content of the air increase with pressure.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 17 Mar 11 at 11:25
|
>> ON is the only member (I think) who has spent a fair amount of time
>> cheek by jowl with a nuclear reactor,
I can't claim the same experience as ON, but I have spent a little while setting up the instrumentation for a shock and vibration test in the reactor compartment of Swiftsure. The tests were to verify the strucutral calculations we had been working on.
At the time when I was in there, the reactor had been shut down and was "cold" in all senses, but there were some vessels in the compartment which were still "warm" and we were advised not to linger by them unnecessarily.
I was very surprised to see a schematic drawing of the reactor compartment shown on Channel 4 news the other night. At the time when I was working on these structures, the drawings and descriptive material were all controlled documents for which we had to make security provision, which themselves were secret, and had to sign varous documents prohibiting disclosure. It's rather a concern.
Despite spending a good few days in there, my film badge didn't tot up any meaningful dose, and Number_Nipper has just the one head.
|
>> >> ON is the only member (I think) who has spent a fair amount of
>> time
>> >> cheek by jowl with a nuclear reactor,
>>
>> I can't claim the same experience as ON,>>
>>
I am not an engineer and I only have a basic knowledge of the reactor and propulsion systems.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 16 Mar 11 at 21:40
|
Nor me really ON.
I worked for an engineering coinsultants in Derby, which meant there was quite a chunk of the railway industry, Rolls-Royce Aero engines, and Rolls-Royce marine power who look after the reactors all on our doorstep, which meant my work was rather varied. It was good while it lasted. We also did quite a bit of work in support of the nuclear power stations, and, oddly enough, some of the hydro-electric power plants in Scotland.
Last edited by: Number_Cruncher on Wed 16 Mar 11 at 21:56
|
>> Fuel laundering was a new one on me, but there's no end to the ingenuity
>> of the criminal mind.
Its a pretty old scam, the problem being is it leads to a lot of nasty dangerous noxious sludge left behind.
The new way, apparently is to mix red diesel with old engine oil to colour the red to black.
|
|
An old farmers ploy was to put a loaf of bread (in a nylon stocking) into a milk-churn of red diesel, to provide fuel for the Land-rover! - "allegedly"
|
|
The popular methods of removing the red only remove the visible tracer, so I understand. The underlying chemical is still there, sort of infra-red. Dog can probably see it.
|
i thought they used bleach to remove the red dye
the ira did this for years to fund funds
|
I thought they used collection tins in New York bars
Throw well, throw Shell
|
|
I saw a VOSA / HMRC fuel testing van parked near a supermaket fuel station yesterday, as this is a semi rural area they must be doing checks.
|
>> as this is a semi rural area they must be doing checks
I've seen VOSA running a red diesel checkpoint on the A12 by the North Circular interchange.
|
...on the A12 by the North Circular interchange....
Isn't that called Gallow's Corner?
|
Gallows corner is the junction of the A12 / A127
The junction of the A12/A406 is the redbridge roundabout
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 16 Mar 11 at 18:01
|
...the ira did this for years to fund funds...
The location of the latest find fits into that scenario.
|
I heard they use fuller's earth in the form of cat litter.
That was in the red days, now it has Euro Yellow added too.
I once left some in a jam jar outside and the sun bleached out the red.
You could have a labyrinth of clear tubing in a field in a continuous sun-bleach process..
Good luck.
|
>> I heard they use fuller's earth in the form of cat litter.
>> That was in the red days, now it has Euro Yellow added too.
+1
|
"This particular site was capable of producing enough fuel to take a family saloon car to the moon and back over 40 times a year," she said.
I didn't know we had roads to the moon!
|
10 years ago I knew someone in NU, his wife bought some illegal fuel - days later the fuel pump & other parts needed replacement.
The diesel was no longer red but equally no longer diesel - the Mercedes was older design from about 1995 - heaven knows what the "cheap diesel" will do to a modern engine.
|
...The diesel was no longer red but equally no longer diesel...
I was thinking the laundered fuel might not be safe to use in a modern common-rail diesel.
Probably only suitable for an agricultural tractor - which is a bit Irish, if you think about it.
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 17 Mar 11 at 17:21
|
one of the reasons the old pug diesels were so popular out there. you could run them on chip fat.
|
>> I was thinking the laundered fuel might not be safe to use in a modern
>> common-rail diesel.
>>
I think that applies to the low-sulpher, >5% bio modern diesel too.
Last edited by: gmac on Thu 17 Mar 11 at 17:38
|
>> I think that applies to the low-sulpher, >5% bio modern diesel too.
>>
All diesel in the UK is "up to" 7% bio these days, I haven't noticed the country littered with dead diesels.
|
>> I haven't noticed
>> the country littered with dead diesels.
More's the pity!
|
...More's the pity!...
Cheers Les, but if I have to fork out £5K for a new engine for the CC3, I shan't have any money left over to pay the taxes for your pension.
But it's OK because the handbook says the car is suitable to run on modern bio-percentage diesel.
|
>> >> I think that applies to the low-sulpher, >5% bio modern diesel too.
>> >>
>>
>> All diesel in the UK is "up to" 7% bio these days, I haven't noticed
>> the country littered with dead diesels.
>>
When I bought my Volvo four years ago I asked about bio diesel and was told under no circumstances to run the car on it. It's funny how things change without anything being changed (ín my car anyway).
|
>> When I bought my Volvo four years ago I asked about bio diesel and was
>> told under no circumstances to run the car on it. It's funny how things change
>> without anything being changed (ín my car anyway).
>>
There is a big difference between biodiesel and 7% biodiesel which is 93% real diesel.
|
sounds like a 7% difference ON
|
>> sounds like a 7% difference ON
>>
>>
A car which will run on 7% biodiesel will not run on 100% biodiesel unless designed to.
|
>>
>> There is a big difference between biodiesel and 7% biodiesel which is 93% real diesel.
>>
It was the pump available biodiesel (~5% at the time) I asked about, not Harry's fish bar filtered finest.
My engine was designed before Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) and Biodiesel were in the mainstream.
It was designed for the fuel pump to use the petrodiesel of the day as a lubricant. Then ULSD came along, the Sulphur in which provided much of the lubrication. Biodiesel is supposed to put some of that lubricity back.
The question is, is it the same as that which the pump was originally designed to work with ?
If I am paying £1.30+ a litre for a product I do not expect to have to pay extra for diesel additives to protect the workings of my car. By doing so I believe I would be saying the diesel I am buying is not fit for purpose or, I don't trust the oil company.
|
>> My engine was designed before Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD) and Biodiesel were in the
>> mainstream.
Which cars have been rendered unusable by the introduction of ULSD and biodiesel?
I know about the (quickly resolved) problems in Sweden, as they were the first to introduce it. As far as I am aware there has not been a problem elsewhere, even with modern CR diesels which use tighter tolerances and need the lubricity more than old tech diesels.
|
Fuel can be laundered as well as money - CGNorwich
