Another biodiesel firestorm of debate

danoid · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:37 pm

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

This information is from the government, so you know you can trust it. :wink:

dgeist · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:24 pm

danoid wrote:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

This information is from the government, so you know you can trust it. :wink:

Err... I don't get it... That read pretty much like a summary of a good portion of the gen-1 bio reasearch conducted by governtment agencies. Did I miss the controversial part? I don't like hearing about the increased NOx, but if there's factual data to support it (granted, from the EPA...).

Dan

danoid · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:36 pm

It's just that every time someone mentions bioD it seems there's lots of messages and angst. I agree it all sounds rosy from that article. If only the less intelligent people in (C)ARB and Congress agreed...

dgeist · **Posted:** Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:04 am

danoid wrote:

It's just that every time someone mentions bioD it seems there's lots of messages and angst. I agree it all sounds rosy from that article. If only the less intelligent people in (C)ARB and Congress agreed...

That's not unique to Bio... Politicians tend to not like to hear the legitimate output from people with brains that use the scientific method to deduce findings.... (how close are we to violating board rules?)

GreenDieselEngineering · **Joined:** Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:10 pm **Posts:** 1111

We will probably just add the the GDE controversy with this post, but we are a big proponent of bio fuels and try to push their advantages whenever possible. One study the NREL (national renewable energy lab) did several years ago shows the tailpipe emission impact with different bio blends vs. D2. The paper is from 2003 and document number is NREL/SR-540-33793 in case someone wants to review it online.

In essence it states that B100 will increase NOx by ~13%, reduce PM ~40%, reduce CO ~40% and reduce HC ~60%. There are several government studies that show similar findings. However, there is one major flaw with the vast majority of studies completed with bio-fuel. For some reason, people (government) think you can just change the fuel without any other modifications and see the benefits. We agree that the fuel will cause changes in the emission output, but to realize the full potential of bio fuel the engine calibration must be changed to be optimized for the fuel properties. The higher cetane of bio makes the combustion process start faster after the fuel has been injected in the chamber (less ignition delay). This is essentially advancing the timing of the engine. Advanced timing increases NOx and decreases CO and HC. It also tends to lower PM, but the PM of bio is way lower due to cleaner fuel and more complete combustion due to its properties. If bio fuel was calibrated for an engine (optimized timing, injection pressure, pilot injection, boost, compression ratio and EGR rate) is shows lower emissions across the board. Engine produced CO2 will slightly rise due to the 3-8% lower BTU content of bio depending on the feed stock. One just needs to look at the "well to wheels" approach to see the overall 70% reduction in CO2, due to the fact that the plants used to produce bio convert CO2 to O2 while they are growing.

We are slowly waking up to the benefits of using plants to make fuel...the focus should be on using non food crops for conversion lest we have billions of barrels of bio and no food to eat. Just our two cents...

dgeist · **Posted:** Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:20 pm

GreenDieselEngineering wrote:

For some reason, people (government) think you can just change the fuel without any other modifications and see the benefits. We agree that the fuel will cause changes in the emission output, but to realize the full potential of bio fuel the engine calibration must be changed to be optimized for the fuel properties. The higher cetane of bio makes the combustion process start faster after the fuel has been injected in the chamber (less ignition delay). This is essentially advancing the timing of the engine. Advanced timing increases NOx and decreases CO and HC. It also tends to lower PM, but the PM of bio is way lower due to cleaner fuel and more complete combustion due to its properties. If bio fuel was calibrated for an engine (optimized timing, injection pressure, pilot injection, boost, compression ratio and EGR rate) is shows lower emissions across the board. Engine produced CO2 will slightly rise due to the 3-8% lower BTU content of bio depending on the feed stock. One just needs to look at the "well to wheels" approach to see the overall 70% reduction in CO2, due to the fact that the plants used to produce bio convert CO2 to O2 while they are growing.

So, does that mean you're going to offer a "B20" tune for the CRD?

dkenny · **Posted:** Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:54 pm

sorry I missed it..how does this relate to biodiesel?

it shows these is little/no correlation between oil rigs and oil production..uh... the relation to biodiesel?

-dkenny

grywlfbg · **Posted:** Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:33 pm

dgeist wrote:

So, does that mean you're going to offer a "B20" tune for the CRD?

I run B99 in my (wife's) CRD all the time. I spoke w/ the GDE guys before I sent my ECU in and they mentioned that different feedstocks may yield different "optimal" settings. My Bio-diesel place uses recycled oil from a variety of sources (sometimes it a tortilla chip factory, sometimes it's virgin cooking oil that has expired, sometimes it's ??).

But they did say they were going to try and order B99 from different feedstocks and do some testing. So hopefully they'll find something. Although the regular GDE tune made a big difference in mileage without a special "bio" tune.

dgeist · **Posted:** Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:31 am

grywlfbg wrote:

dgeist wrote:

So, does that mean you're going to offer a "B20" tune for the CRD?

I run B99 in my (wife's) CRD all the time. I spoke w/ the GDE guys before I sent my ECU in and they mentioned that different feedstocks may yield different "optimal" settings. My Bio-diesel place uses recycled oil from a variety of sources (sometimes it a tortilla chip factory, sometimes it's virgin cooking oil that has expired, sometimes it's ??).

But they did say they were going to try and order B99 from different feedstocks and do some testing. So hopefully they'll find something. Although the regular GDE tune made a big difference in mileage without a special "bio" tune.

I think a little tuned trim-pot under the dash with tick marks for the cetane of your current fuel would be neat

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:26 am

The link is about oil rigs . . .
No bio.

Nonetheless,

* Consider biodiesel an alternative energy ambassador for a frightened, confused and manipulated public. Only a few years ago, it was common practice for otherwise brave, intelligent people to show initial curiosity for alternative energy but no further investment of thought. Others would poo poo the subject, fearful that PV panels would lead to hairy women and turn America into a giant vegetable-eating hippie colony. I think BD has actually played a positive role in assuaging some fears of this topic by bringing it to the local fueling station - along with the obligatory pretty green leaf or yellow flower banners.

* Unfortunately, some proclaimed it an infallible fuel thus placing BD upon a pedestal of green, recyclable playing cards. Given the American public's collective dissociative identity disorder, its fall was inevitable, its pariah status ensured. At least temporarily. It is highly likely interest will rise once more - proportional to the price of oil, or course - and once more our rattling little mules will become a hit among those willing to fight the yellow jackets for buckets of restaurant grease, thus forcing me to eat more Chinese take-out in an attempt to increase my supply.

* My head spins & I barf green when I hear TV talking heads select one particular alternative energy product as if it's the only one and then go about arguing it "can't possibly produce all the energy we need". This argument is the most common and odoriferous species of Copper River red herring in the alternative energy debate. The faux experts embedded within Faux News should be relentlessly called out on this.

* Obviously, as with any product, the extent to which Biofuels populate fuel pumps of the future depends upon many factors, not the least of which is development of technologies for it's sourcing, refinement and use. Unfortunately, as history shows, without demand and high oil prices, development crawls. But too high a demand for an energy source still in its infancy causes conflict. Between Scylla and Charybdis.

* Still, whatever debate this may develop or devolve into, I hope we manage to avoid presentation of a favored energy source as a catholicon. Biodiesel is only part a complex energy future. Unfortunately, the Biodiesel story, when plucked by a media that cooks for mass-consumption must first be formed into the shape of a Hostess Ho Ho and thoroughly Sean-Hannitized or people will turn back to watching reruns of Michael Jackson's hair catching on fire while debating if he and Elvis are still alive.

UFO · **Posted:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:59 am

Well said KeighJeigh. I couldn't agree more.

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:21 pm

UFO wrote:

Well said KeighJeigh. I couldn't agree more.

Thanks! I actually spent quite a bit of time on that simply because I started getting into the fun of writing it. Although a bit long, I'm especially happy with the very last sentence and the first two of the second paragraph. It was fun.

Another biodiesel firestorm of debate

Who is online