|
|
|
#61
|
||||
|
||||
Please correct me if I am wrong. Is it not true that most of, if not all of, the oil we return to be "recycled" is burned as a fuel oil for heating and manufacturing purposes?
__________________
1993 W124 300D 2.5L Turbo, OM602.962 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier, 2.4L DOHC 2002 Ford Explorer, 4.0L SOHC 2005 Toyota Prius, 1.5L http://www.fuelly.com/sig-us/40601.png |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Heck,I'm going to use rest of oil to heat with.
__________________
1999 w140, quit voting to old, and to old to fight, a god damned veteran |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Might as well. I don't think what we return to recycle is cleaned up, refortified and resold for motor oil usage.
__________________
1993 W124 300D 2.5L Turbo, OM602.962 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier, 2.4L DOHC 2002 Ford Explorer, 4.0L SOHC 2005 Toyota Prius, 1.5L http://www.fuelly.com/sig-us/40601.png |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
As of about ten years ago, I understood that most diesel powered ships burned largely WMO.
|
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Still do, I believe. As well as bunker oil.
__________________
Michael LaFleur '05 E320 CDI - 86,000 miles '86 300SDL - 360,000 miles '85 300SD - 150,000 miles (sold) '89 190D - 120,000 miles (sold) '85 300SD - 317,000 miles (sold) '98 ML320 - 270,000 miles (sold) '75 300D - 170,000 miles (sold) '83 Harley Davidson FLTC (Broken again) :-( '61 Plymouth Valiant - 60k mikes 2004 Papillon (Oliver) 2005 Tzitzu (Griffon) 2009 Welsh Corgi (Buba) |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Do they burn fuel oil in boilers or diesel in engines?
__________________
1993 W124 300D 2.5L Turbo, OM602.962 2000 Chevrolet Cavalier, 2.4L DOHC 2002 Ford Explorer, 4.0L SOHC 2005 Toyota Prius, 1.5L http://www.fuelly.com/sig-us/40601.png |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
As I understood it, they ran it in BIG diesel engines. These engines are so big that there is a catwalk above the crankshaft of the V engine so you can walk along under what would be the valve lifter galley of V8. I expect that the injectors are so huge that a little particulate is not going to matter much.
|
#68
|
||||
|
||||
The oil burner steam locomotives burn WMO.
__________________
RRGrassi 70's Southern Pacific #5608 Fairmont A-4 MOW car 13 VW JSW 2.0 TDI 193K, Tuned with DPF and EGR Delete. 91 W124 300D Turbo replaced, Pressure W/G actuator installed. 210K 90 Dodge D250 5.9 Cummins/5 speed. 400K |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Waste Motor Oil might be cleaner the Bunker C as far as fuel contaminates go. In Trade School they said they have to heat Bunker C to pass it through the filters and into the fuel Injection System.
__________________
84 300D, 82 Volvo 244Gl Diesel |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
More likely in boilers as most big Ships have Steam Turbines. But, in the past Buncker C was burned in huge Diesel Engines. Bunker C is a very unrefined Fuel compared to waste Motor Oil.
__________________
84 300D, 82 Volvo 244Gl Diesel |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
I think in most ships like that they have a much smaller diesel engine they use at first just to get the big one going.
__________________
Michael LaFleur '05 E320 CDI - 86,000 miles '86 300SDL - 360,000 miles '85 300SD - 150,000 miles (sold) '89 190D - 120,000 miles (sold) '85 300SD - 317,000 miles (sold) '98 ML320 - 270,000 miles (sold) '75 300D - 170,000 miles (sold) '83 Harley Davidson FLTC (Broken again) :-( '61 Plymouth Valiant - 60k mikes 2004 Papillon (Oliver) 2005 Tzitzu (Griffon) 2009 Welsh Corgi (Buba) |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Most IIRC. Just like rubber tires can be cut up and used w/ coke for concrete. Course, there's a huge difference between the impact of a ship in the middle of the pacific or a factory in BFE buring WMO and someone using it it populated areas. Unless you don't like your neighbors, then it's perfectly acceptable.
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Happy Motoring, Mark
__________________
DrDKW |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, but specific boilers or engines used for WMO burn very clean. We use a WMO furnace at our shop to heat the inside, it's a new furnace (not sure the model) but it claims a 99% burn of the fuel. Engines, like diesels, while they can burn WMO... don't do so efficiently and with some side effects.
Efficiency is a non-issue since the fuel is practically "free". Emissions are higher as well , but that's a personal choice as well (How many have removed their EGRs or other emissions devices? Or find ways to cheat emissions testing?). Finally the side effects are the gelling of fuel, water contamination, metal particulate, and coking on injectors/prechambers. |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
BUT, if I did, I wouldn't feel guilty about it. My state has one of the highest fuel tax rates in the US and in the last 20 years they have blown BILLIONS of dollars collected as fuel taxes instead of fixing the roads. Combine that with one of the highest property tax rates in the country and all the Fed taxes I pay, and I pay WAY more than my "fair share"...
__________________
1984 300 Coupe TurboDiesel Silver blue paint over navy blue interior 2nd owner & 2nd engine in an otherwise 99% original unmolested car ~210k miles on the clock 1986 Ford F250 4x4 Supercab Charcoal & blue two tone paint over burgundy interior Banks turbo, DRW, ZF-5 & SMF conversion 152k on the clock - actual mileage unknown |
Bookmarks |
|
|