What are the advantages of using diesel as a power source? And where is diesel taken from?
153353
Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines. Also, since diesel fuel evaporates at a higher temperature than gasoline it forms fewer fumes in the air and is less likely to  cause an explosion and fire in an enclosed space. This is why diesel engines are used in submarines and army tanks. Diesel fuel is one of the products made from oil.
1123253
try this link  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine\n\ni think this will fulfill your requirement
29418
Ethanol is bad and creates many nasty acids that wear away the journal bearing babbits, etc.  Many materials cannot stand up to the increase acidity present when burning higher percentages of ethanol. (Boy i hope i don't mean methanol instead of ethanol.  You might want to double check me there!)\n\nCNG can ONLY be used on SUPERCHARGED diesel engines.  To date, there are no SUPERCHARGED automotive diesel engines made.  The only way to get CNG into a diesel engine is to use very large superchargers which run mechanically off the crankshaft to ensure enough air-fuel mixture gets into the engine.  See Waukesha for stationary CNG products.  Traditionally, many diesel/CNG power plants run on CNG most of the time to save $.  \n\nCNG is GREAT for normally aspirated automotive spark-ignition engines.  It may produce less peak power, but the cylinder wear is REDUCED, oil contamination REDUCED--the engine runs SO MUCH CLEANER it is unbelievable.  Combustion chambers remain spotless and spark plugs stay clean.  CNG evaporators need a heat source, so in cold climates you may have to have a preheater.\n\nYou may be able to increase compression ratio when building up an automotive conversion--but don't overdo it.  I know plenty of CNG trucks that end up blowing a head gasket because people have a lead foot.  You could probably run a 9.0.  The best engines to use are V-8 carbureted truck engines.  \n\nTotal fleets of frozen food delivery trucks have been converted to CNG--but none has a diesel engine--they are all gasoline type engines.  So they do use them in trucks.  \n\nCNG will run out fast in your automotive application.  CNG must be stored in a gas phase, which means by the cubic foot.  It is not practical usually to build CNG storage into a car, and check with your Dept. of Transportation on explosion hazards--it may be illegal in some cases to carry so much cubic feet of explosive gas on a car or in a non-rated tank.  The heating value, i.e. energy per cubic foot of fuel is far less than gasoline, and less than propane. \n\nThe most practical conversions for cars are propane kits.  They are very simple: pressure regulator, evaporator, and some kind of throttle linkage.  You will get a few more miles per bottle of propane than CNG.  Both propane and CNG keep engines spotlessly clean.  Be sure to start with a clean engine and be sure that the valves have valve seats in the heads.  Exhaust gases can run the valves a bit hotter than when burning gasoline because of unburnt hydrocarbons in the exhaust--if your air-fuel ratio is right, you will never have that problem with CNG or LPG.
697444
Advantages\n\nCan use when there is a scarce of electricity\nJobs for lot of people\nCan use in major research activities\n\n\nDisadvantages\n\nVery Dangerous if leaked\nCan cause thousands of human loss if handled incorrectly\nMay bore new types of diseases if leaked\nNeighbourhood people are always at risk\nNeed a large area to construct\nLot of people need to be on site for maintenance\nThreats from other countries if used inappropriately\n\nBYE
338094
Diesel or Diesel fuel is a specific fractional distillate of fuel oil (mostly petroleum) that is used as fuel in a diesel engine invented by German engineer Rudolf Diesel. The term typically refers to fuel that has been processed from petroleum, but increasingly, alternatives such as biodiesel or biomass to liquid (BTL) or gas to liquid (GTL) diesel that are not derived from petroleum are being developed.\nDiesel is produced from petroleum, and is sometimes called petrodiesel (or, less seriously, dinodiesel) when there is a need to distinguish it from diesel obtained from other sources. As a hydrocarbon mixture, it is obtained in the fractional distillation of crude oil between 250 °C and 350 °C at atmospheric pressure. Petro Diesel is considered to be a fuel oil and is about 18% denser than gasoline.\n\nThe density of diesel is about 850 grams per liter whereas gasoline has a density of about 720 g/l, or about 15% less. When burnt diesel typically releases about 40.9 megajoules (MJ) per liter, whereas gasoline releases 34.8 MJ/l also about 15% less. Diesel is generally simpler to refine than gasoline and often costs less (although price fluctuations often mean that the inverse is true; for example, the cost of diesel traditionally rises during colder months as demand for heating oil, which is refined much the same way, rises).\n\nDiesel fuel, however, often contains higher quantities of sulfur. In Europe, emission standards and preferential taxation have both forced oil refineries to dramatically reduce the level of sulfur in diesel fuels. In contrast, the United States has long had "dirtier" diesel, although more stringent emission standards have been adopted with the transition to ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) occurring in 2006 (see also diesel exhaust). U.S. diesel fuel typically also has a lower cetane number (a measure of ignition quality) than European diesel, resulting in worse cold weather performance and some increase in emissions. High levels of sulfur in diesel are harmful for the environment. It prevents the use of catalytic diesel particulate filters to control diesel particulate emissions, as well as more advanced technologies, such as nitrogen oxide (NOx) adsorbers (still under development), to reduce emissions. However, lowering sulfur also reduces the lubricity of the fuel, meaning that additives must be put into the fuel to help lubricate engines. Biodiesel is an effective lubricant. Diesel contains approximately 18% more energy per unit of volume than gasoline, which, along with the greater efficiency of diesel engines, contributes to fuel economy (distance traveled per volume of fuel consumed).\n\nThere has been a lot of discussion and misinformation about algae in diesel fuel. Algae is a plant, and it requires sunlight to live and grow. As there is no sunlight in a closed fuel tank, no algae can survive there. However, some microbes can survive there. They can feed on the diesel fuel.\n\nThese microbes form a slimy colony that lives at the fuel/water interface. They grow quite rapidly in warmer temperatures. They can even grow in cold weather when fuel tank heaters are installed. Parts of the colony can break off and clog the fuel lines and fuel filters.\n\nIt is possible to either kill this growth with a biocide treatment, or eliminate the water, a necessary component of microbial life. There are a number of biocides on the market, which must be handled very carefully. If a biocide is used, it must be added every time a tank is refilled until the problem is fully resolved.\n\nBiocides attack the cell wall of microbes resulting in Lysis, the death of a cell by bursting. The risk of filter clogging may continue for a short period after biocide treatment until cellular residues break down and are absorbed into the fuel.\n\nDiesel fuel is very similar to heating oil which is used in central heating. In Europe, the United States and Canada, taxes on diesel fuel are higher than on heating oil due
142694
Advantages:\n\nFuel is cheap. Unlike other types of electricity generation only a tiny proportion of the cost of generating nuclear power is in the actual fuel burned. \n\n\nFuel is very easy and cheap to transport. A coal or gas power station will burn tonnes of fuel every day. A nuclear power station will burn only a few grams. Because so little fuel need sot trannsported the amount of auilliary grenhouse gas pollution form transport is almost nil, as opposed to thousands of tonnes a year from coal or gas transport.\n\nSafe. Coal or gas power is a highly dangerous way to generate gas. In the US alone dozens of people are killed each year mining and transporting coal and gas for power generation and hundreds more die as a result of the pollutants these stations produce. If the same amount of power were generated using nuclear stations fewer than 10 people would die. \n\nAccidents in nuclear power generation is also far less likely to result in a loss of life. Chernobyl was the worst accident ever in the history of nuclear power generation and killed less than 50 people. There have been numerus mine accidents in the US that have killed more than 10 people at a time.\n\nUnder safety I will also include the very low levels of radioactivity released. In the US alone around 10 people a years are killed by radioactive materials released by coal power stations. Nobody in the US has ever been killed by radioactive material from nuclear power stations. Fewer than 100 people have been killed by the radioactive material released by nuclear power stations in the last 50 years in the entire world. \n\n\nNon-polluting. Aside from making nuclear power generation very safe the almost total lack of unintentional pollutants is a major environmental bonus for nuclear power. Nuclear power stations contribute just 1/100, 000th of the amount of greenhouse gas as a coal or gas plant generating the same power.\n \nAbundant fuel. The world has about enough liquid rude oil to practically last about another 100 years at current consumption and extraction rates. Coal will see us through another 400 years if we sue it as an oil supplement. We have sufficient fissionable material available to provide 10, 000 years of nuclear power even if we abandon coal and oil altogether and get ALL our energy from nuclear power.\n\n\nDisadvantages\n\nWaste disposal. This is the biggest problem. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive material that takes thousands of years or longer to become safe. Until it does decay to a safe level it has to be stored where it can’t contaminate the water supply or stolen by people who want to use it as a poison. That requires either the construction of expensive containment facilities or the permanent lockdown of decommissioned stations so the material can be stored on site.\n\nStations are relatively expensive to build. Due to pressure from environmental lobby groups nuclear power stations are more heavily regulated than any other industry, far more heavily regulated than coal power stations or even coal mines and far more heavily indicated than the statistical danger warrants. IN addition any proposed nuclear power station will be the target of protests, endless legal challenges and direct acts of sabotage from ‘environmentalists’. Those factors make it far more expensive to build a nuclear power station in the US than to build a coal or gas station.\n\nPortability. Nuclear power requires nuclear reactors, big nuclear reactors. That means they are restricted to use in large ocean going vessels, trains and as stationary electrical generators. You can’t use nuclear power to directly power cars, trucks, and airplanes. That means that nuclear power can never directly replace a large amount of US fossil fuel use. The issue of portability can be offset somewhat by using nuclear electricity to convert plant material or even air and water into petroleum, but doings o is fairly expensive.
788942
Your question leads us to try and come up with what creates energy and that is not going to happen.\nI suppose you are asking what conversion processes exist and which is best for your needs or the needs of the general population.\nThe energy in fossil fuels is converted to heat and the most popular source is coal because it is least expensive.  That heat energy from coal is then converted to electricity at most power plants.\nThe energy in petroleum is converted to kinetic energy in your car's engine.  Since we buy millions of barrels per day, one can assume it is the most popular.\nThe energy coming from atomic fusion is the greatest energy used on the planet.  We get it from the sun.  We can capture that energy and convert it to electricity too.  Not only is it our planet's greatest source of heat, but also is the greatest source of light.  Given the number of people sunbathing at the pool, one can assume it is the most popular, too.  Atomic energy can also be pulled from uranium and turned into electricity or used to destroy entire towns.  One is popular, the other is not.\nPlease add some more info to your question.  It is too vague for me to answer well.  Just as minootoo points out, the pros and cons of ALL sources of energy is beyond the scope of this forum.
548851
Some pros to this energy source are: 1) Vast new source of energy 2) Fuels (mostly hydrogen) are plentiful 3) Inherently safe since a malfunction results in a rapid shutdown 4) No atmospheric pollution leading to acid rain or "greenhouse" effect 5) Radioactivity of the reactor structure, caused by neutrons, decays rapidly and can be minimized by careful selection of low-activation materials. There is basically only one con to these energy sources though. Scientists have not figured out a way to make it efficiently. At this point they have sustained a reaction at the break-even point, which essentially means they used as much energy as they created to make the reaction take place.
711272
Naptha (common usage), gasoline, and diesel fuel are both hydrocarbon chains. Naptha has relatively short chains, probably 6 to 7 carbons long. Gasoline is a little longer, in the 8 carbon region. Diesel fuel, yet again longer. I don't know the average carbon length for Diesel, but I'd guess around 10. The longer the chain, the higher the boiling temp, the higher the flash point, the harder it is to ignite, and the higher the viscosity.\n\nNaptha, as a term used in the US (common usage) typically means the same thing as what was most commonly used as lighter fluid in hand held lighters. In some Euporean countries, it's means an easily flammable, volitile petroleum product, of which, gasoline is one.
922773
Hydraulic power is not a power source.  There is no energy storage in a hydraulic system.  Power sources like batteries with electric motors or an internal combustion engine with a gas tank are power sources because they can store energy for use at a later time.\n\nThe great thing about hydraulics is the very high power density (lots of power in a small space) and the flexibility in having both linear and rotary actuators.  The main drawback (at least for me working in robotics) is the need for a real-time continuous power input to run the system.
230939
probably you mean ELECTRICITY.\noil and petroleum could be used to produce electricity. There is such a thing as electrical energy.
985971
Not sure exactly what your are looking for but this website should help\nhttp://www.dieselduck.ca/http://www.dieselduck.ca/
116159
Solar energy (from solar panels)  converts sunlight into electricity. Solar arrays (massive groups of solar panels) can be used to produce energy on an industrial scale, but the average solar panel is still expensive and produces very little power.  However these solar arrays can be attached to the power grid like a normal power plant.  \n   Coal  fired power plants are currently the primary fuel used to produce electricity in the US.  There are also a  very few oil/gas plants used to produce power.      Solar panels can be placed on very light weight vehicles (like bikes) as a primary power source.  However since the power produced from a solar panel is pretty small,  you will never see a viable commercial solar powered SUV in the next 15 years.
1014207
I would say Paul's answer is very good and level-headed (best answer).\n\nTo add to his answer:\n\nTruth is that petroleum and its products have a very high energy density.  The trick is to find alternate fuels that can compete with that high energy density and use technologies that preserve our fossil fuels (hybrid cars is a good example).  We have these technologies now, it is just going to take a little while before they can be easily and efficiently implemented world-wide.\n\nAlso, we can use more electricity from the power grid to power transportation vehicles and other petroleum-using devices.  It is more economical for a large power plant to use massive amounts of an alternative fuel than a single individual car.  Also, power plants can regulate their gas emissions easier than individual cars.  Plug-in hybrids and other technologies are poised to do great things (see PopSci article linked below).
129903
Diesel engines were built to run on vegetable oil also. But it only works when the engine is at a certain temperater so you have to have to fuel tanks on for diesel and one for veggie oil when the engine reaches the right temp you switch to veggie power. You can buy kits to modify your car this way and there are a few garages that will do it for you.
460294
Depends on what for.  Nuclear fission is great for generating electricity.  Biodiesel has lots of promise as a motor vehicle fuel (not to mention would be great for the US Agriculture industry).  Solar power can greatly reduce the amount of power individual homeowners have to purchase from larger providers (but the initial investemnt is expensive).  Probably a combination of Fossil Fuel alternatives would be better than adopting a single alternative replacement.
111534
For starters, if you don't have a diesel motor, you would have to change motors.  Then there are things that you have to do to the diesel motor to get it to run on biodiesel.