Talk:Vegetable oil fuel

message: Every producer of what Wikipedia calls "vegetable oil fuel" refers to the product as "Biodiesel." Every documentary I have ever seen calls the product "Biodiesel" as well, and I have never seen any mention, anywhere except Wikipedia, the distinction between "vegetable oil fuel" and "biodiesel." It really seems to me like Wikipedia is trying to invent its own standard, which does not seem to exist anywhere except Wikipedia. Can someone explain this rationale? - Artificial Silence (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Biodiesel" vs. "Vegetable oil fuel" 

message: the article contained : 
"As of 2000, the United States was producing in excess of 11 billion liters of waste vegetable oil annually, mainly from industrial deep fryers in potato processing plants, snack food factories and fast food restaurants."
Where do you get this information from? It does not look remotely plausible. The USDA says total consumption of fresh vegetable oil in the US is just over 3 billion gallons. When you take away what is absorbed in food (most of it), loss from processing etc. you are left with at most 400 million gallons a year. Potato chip manufacturers produce less than 3% waste. This article is seriously misleading. US petroleum usage in 2008 is 20.4 million barrels a day (230 billion gallons/year) (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_wpsup_k_w.htm). So UCO might if it was all used in cars replace 0.17% of US petroleum consumption. No utopia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.83.220 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, and a mention of similar commercial and agricultural heating and electricity generation should be mentioned as well, along with a cross-link to raw bio-methane which is often used in similar capacity dating back to early 1900s.  Also how early raw vegetable oil was used for heat and light does need mention, but someone needs to find a usable reference of an early stone tablet documenting this.--RuediiX 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? 

message: Recently, there has been a lot of news about a small fleet of buses using spent oil used to cook Tempura (a popular Japanese food) as fuel, in the manner described on this page. They claim significant decreases in poisonous emissions, and prices comparable with regular diesel, given the fact that there are only a handful of pumps in the whole country. Can anyone find any information about this and maybe add it to the article? I also came across this page looking for some information on the reasons why vegetable oil shouldn't be used instead of diesel, but I couldn't find any. Is that because there are none? What reasons do the US gov. and others have for not keeping such practices legal? 210.138.109.72 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent tests in Japan

message: This entry needs information on emissions. I've read a few studies that indicate veg oil, burnt as fuel, can produce highly-carcinogenic emissions. This needs to be discussed, debated, refuted... and  added to the main page. See this link for an example study (there are at least two I know of): http://www.bv-pflanzenoele.de/pdf/ArchTox.pdf E8 04:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Emissions

message: This entry needs more information on the effects of vegetable oil on engines. See here, http://www.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/Bioshortcourse/Rawoil.htm, for a list of studies along with the summary: [Even with heating of the oil,] "long-term durability has not been proven."E8 04:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Engine Effects

message: Heh, now that I have your attention...
The citation tag applied to the sentence "The conversion of an automobile engine to burn vegetable oil is not legal under US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines" was added in February 2007.  This is too long for uncited information to remain on here.  
I deleted it rather than asking someone to find proof (which is what the tag has been asking for half a year).  If you can reference it, feel free to add it back.  The original statement is this:
"The conversion of an automobile engine to burn vegetable oil is not legal under US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines [citation needed]. The EPA has not fined anyone for doing so, but certain laws may have to change — or a certification process may need to be established — before VO conversions become more popular in the US."
Jwigton 02:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite or Die 

message: There seem to be a number of unsourced statements in this article that would violate WP:NOR without sources.  For example:
*The UK exported 280 000 tonnes of rapeseed in 2005. If the UK used just its set aside land it could reach its 5% biofuel target without the need for exotic and environmentally damaging oil crop imports.
This statement seems to violate WP:NOR by stating that the UK could reach its 5% biofuel target by using set aside land to grow more rapeseed crops.  Additionally, it uses a loaded statement to call oil crop imports "environmentally damaging" without any additional facts or references to back it up.  I am tagging this article with  for now, until sources can be found or the unsourced numbers and statements removed.  Zzxc 05:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the "citation needed" sections then deleted the citation tag.Mirboj (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *E8, regarding merger, the discussion appeared to be dormant; will this article be improved by a merger? your point seems to relate to a problem with the other site.  Regarding the citations needed tag, and my deletions, again the discussion appeared dormant, and those sections labled "citation needed", in my opinion, didn't add enough to the article to warrant including them and thus tagging the entire article.  Are there other sections you find problematic?, if none and you find the "information quite factual",  why label the article with the "citations needed" header?  Especially, as you point out, the emerging nature of this topic.Mirboj (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're correct, Mirboj. It is the Greasecar page that I feel needs to be eliminated. It's a bit of a dead issue though, as I'm unclear what the procedure for doing so is and no one else has shown interest in assisting with the removal / partial merger. I'm working on adding some reputable sources to this page over the next few months. This is at least a step in the right direction.--E8 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag, possible [[WP:NOR]]? 

message: A new and seemingly important development has been made by Deutz. They're marketing a duel tank tractor and engine specifically designed to operate on rapeseed oil (even unprocessed, cold-pressed). Clearly this needs to be incorporated into the main, as this is the first-of-its-kind development.--E8 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deutz "natural fuel" engines / tractors 

message: I want to make an article straightening out the svo vs. global warming belief. Although it is true that burning svo is carbon neutral meaning it is not producing more CO2 than is taken in, the belief is that converting all vehicles to run svo will therefore end global warming. However, the truth is that if all vehicles were replaced with svo running vehicles, there would physically not be enough land on the earth to produce the amount of svo the world would need. Information from 
-So i've tried to find some articles to support this claim. I intend to change my wording and say that "it is unlikely that we have the needed arable land to produce the amount of crops needed to replace fossil fuels." let me know if there is anything else i need to keep a post like this up without being erased. I know a lot of the information being tossed around is referring to biodiesel, but i figure for this particular issue, svo and biodiesel can be interchangeably used as the indicator.
-quote from Dr. Tad Patzek of UC Berkley 
-Production of biodiesel within UK.
-Someone explaining the info of the UK stats with further sources. (message #295) 
Please let me know if this is acceptable.
--Longbutshort (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  svo vs global warming 

message: *I removed this content from the main. It needs a bit of editing to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines for encyclopedic content. The weasel words must go, and the writing made more concise. Perception is temporal in nature, an specifically disqualified under guidelines. Perhaps this discussion should be split into two discussions, limitations of oil yield from agriculture, and carbon footprint, as has been done on the Biodiesel page:
:"There is a lot of media speculation going around that replacing fossil fuels with SVO and biofuels will solve the problem of global warming. The belief is that using biofuels will stop the extra emission of CO2 because biofuels are carbon neutral, meaning that they emit the same amount of CO2 which gets taken in by the initial crop. There are two things wrong with this idea. First off, current research has indicated that biofuels are not entirely carbon neutral because the process to gather and create biofuels uses a large amount of fossil fuels due to its cheap price. Secondly, it is very unlikely that there is enough arable land in the world to create the amount of crops needed to fuel vehicles and feed the people of the world at the same time. "Realistically we might be able to replace 5% of our current oil consumption with biofuels.” says Dr. Tad Patzek, University of California-Berkeley. This study was also  done in the UK using rapeseeds yielding similar results. Although this does not solidify anything, it seems that for now, we need to find ways to generate pure carbon neutral fuels as well as alternatives to combat global warming."--E8 (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes! We're here to help each other. I'm buried work at the moment, but as soon as I can give my brain a bit of a rest, I'll see how I can help. You can always ask other editors active on this page for assistance, too. (Write to their talk pages.)--E8 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global perception 

message: I don't think this statement can be made based on the one newspaper article. There isn't really a "typical" cost as I understand it. Some people weld up tanks and pipe them in in the garage for next to nothing, others buy kits for well over $1200 total. Some statement to that effect would be a good replacement for that statement/citation? That article would be more appropriately be used in the tax issues section. Ismellfish2 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 5, typical cost of WVO vehicle conversion 

message: Regarding the pizza delivery addition to this page, it is not notable by Wikipedia definition. See the "Significant coverage" and "Sources" discussion in particular. From this page: 
Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage.Further, the addition was also not properly sourced, so no peer-review of your work could be completed. Generally, any unsourced material on Wikipedia will generally be removed quickly if challenged. The burden is on the author to properly cite and read Wikipedia rules when posting.--E8 (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent non-notable post deletion

message: This article states that for colder temperatures one must use heated fuel lines to prevent the fuel from gelling.
This is not cited, neither is the statement on "atomizing" the fuel. Some quick googling reveals that running 5% paint thinner in the tank works fine to prevent cold temperature gelling and more, but this is not the issue. A whole section of this article runs uncited, and I believe that for such claims to be made, they should be. Anyone opposed, and if not, anyone feel like finding cites? Scryer_360 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading and uncited? 

message: Perhaps this can be briefly mentioned (vegetable oil being a lot cheaper than petrodiesel, ie 0,6 euro vs 1,4 euro (on average)). Link to vegetable oil economy
91.182.37.177 (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true of UK where veg oil (in shops) is usually more expensive, although it can sometimes be found on 'special offer' - yesterday I found some at 35% less than Diesel 94.197.127.167 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Price

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Vegetable oil fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814100833/http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/13863/1/IND23287385.pdf to http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/13863/1/IND23287385.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.sopac.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Coconut+Oil+Fuel+Research+RMI
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724024758/http://www.r-e-a.net/document-library/articles/REAYearbook2009FINALVersion.pdf to http://www.r-e-a.net/document-library/articles/REAYearbook2009FINALVersion.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813034227/http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/123038.aspx to http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/123038.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202134901/http://www.bioenergy.nl/Flex/Site/Download.aspx?ID=1843 to http://www.bioenergy.nl/Flex/Site/Download.aspx?ID=1843
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified