![]() |
Import of Diesel vehicles up to 4000cc forbidden in Bolivia
Even though a Diesel engine above 4000cc could get the very same or occasionally some better mileage than a smaller one due to the differences in RPM bands and low-end torque, such a restriction based exclusively on the displacement is likely to become detrimental to the fuel-efficiency and eventually the performance in rougher terrain.
Let's consider, for example, a Toyota Hilux. Even if it would be possible to shoehorn a 4.1L 15B engine into it instead of the 3.0L 5L-E, the 2.5L 2KD-FTV, the 2.8L 1GD-FTV or the 2.4L 2GD-FTV available in different markets around the world, a heavier engine is likely to increase the tendency for the vehicle to have its front-end "sinking" in soft, unstable terrain. The dead weight inherent to a heavier engine may also reflect in a decrease of the payload, thus decreasing even further the efficiency of the vehicle considering the specific fuel-consumption for the payload. https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VJO0zW5IJ...%2Bsimples.jpg |
They also prohibit the import of vehicles fuelled by LPG.
|
Quote:
But anyway, either LPG or CNG take up some space and also decrease the payload to a point that may render them less suitable for certain jobs. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ps1CMqlHL_...ro-direito.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IaC-hE8kJq...2Btraseira.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qB4duI9jui...2Btraseira.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qgCVJHKEER...aparecendo.jpg Sometimes the CNG cylinders can be mounted below the tray, but it still has some side-effect to the payload... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f6_qoENsRG...Btr%C3%A1s.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TdhDKOEJf9...o-esquerdo.jpg |
Who are they protecting? Do they have an "indigenous" small diesel? Is diesel subsidized for a certain sector, like buses and agriculture?
Use of subsidized lpg in vehicles is a big problem in Ecuador. That subsidy is ending, as they attempt to transition to subsidized hydroelectric (made by China) powered induction coil stoves (Made in China). A horrible idea horribly executed. Hurrah for socialism! |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Ahh, so ALBA isn't working out so well.
Ecuador is developing its natural gas reserves, but they have no plans to distribute it for popular use. It is targeted for (limited) heavy industry and export. The subsidy for lpg was begun back in the '70's. It was a major factor in preserving forests and keeping urban air clean, along with buying votes, its principal purpose. It became unsustainable after the refineries were nationalized and production plummeted. They were purchasing lpg on the spot market to meet demand. Very pricey. The induction coil stoves are very efficient, if your power grid is stable. The plan was implemented without regard to its impact on the grid. It has become a money pit. Correa also banned the sale of gas stoves. Ecuador was a major producer of gas appliances in the region. That production was shut down. It was to have been replaced with domestically produced induction stoves, but that never materialized. The stoves were sourced directly from China, and they don't work reliably. The problem for the people is that in order to get the subsidized induction stoves, you had to hand in your gas stoves, which were crushed (or sold on the black market in Peru or Colombia). A housewife is faced with preparing daily meals without any backup to an unreliable power grid (except purchasing charcoal or firewood, back to the future). Returning to the original subject, wouldn't synthetic diesel be less of a burden on the economy? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
You are quite correct about the proposed use of Ecuador's natural gas. It has been some time since I looked into it and the rhetoric had changed. A quick review of their natural gas efforts would be comical if so much money had not been wasted on it. It seems the Correa regime couldn't get anything right, except fill their offshore accounts.
I am not a big fan of biomass as fuel at the industrial scale. The popular view is that biomass will come from existing tree farms, but the reality is that it is far cheaper to cut natural stands first, especially in the Third World. |
Quote:
http://www.arara.fr/CastanhaPara3.jpg |
Harvesting selectively for timber is damaging, harvesting for biomass is catastrophic.
I spent some time, many years ago, in the area of the Ouachita mountains of Oklahoma and Arkansas. It was Weyerhaeuser country. They held a 99 year lease on all the woodlands of the area. For the first few decades, they selectively harvested for furniture and construction grade lumber. Sometime in the '60's or '70's, the corporate focus shifted to pulpwood. They clearcut hundreds of thousands of acres of centuries-old virgin hardwood forest and sent it all to the pulp mills. They then replanted with fast-growing softwoods. Locals were enraged at the loss of quality hardwoods that had been feeding a thriving furniture manufacturing industry, and could have continued to do so for generations. Biomass is a good idea, generally, but when you lose perspective in pursuit of short-term gain there are unfortunate consequences. Agriculture and forestry waste is a byproduct that is often overlooked. A lot can be done at the local level to utilize those resources. Here is an interesting website that details some options for utilizing agricultural waste-streams: EPWT |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com