Biodiesel - MYTH or FACT?

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:36 am

Quote:

- B20 gives the best milage. It also runs almost as smooth as B100. It's also more palletable for corporate types that shy away from the number 100. It's also 18 cents cheaper than ULSD per gallon at the commercial oil company that sells it retail across town. It's less likely to completely dissolve my paint than B100.

B-20 has higher Cetaine :!:

Our CRDs were designed to run on good fuel not the 40 cetaine junk we get :!:

Our Esteemed Elected Officials must be getting paid under the table :!:

Steve

dgeist · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:42 am

warp2diesel wrote:

Quote:

- B20 gives the best milage. It also runs almost as smooth as B100. It's also more palletable for corporate types that shy away from the number 100. It's also 18 cents cheaper than ULSD per gallon at the commercial oil company that sells it retail across town. It's less likely to completely dissolve my paint than B100.

B-20 has higher Cetaine :!:

Good. That means that my empirical observations match the chemical and phyiscal requirements of the combustion system. It's nice to know your vehicle operates the way it was designed to :wink:

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:43 pm

To compensate for the lousy 40 cetaine junk we get from our oil companies our injection timing has to be advanced :!:

To get rid of the NOX emissions partly caused by the requirement to advance the injection timing to compensate for the lousy cetaine, EGR has been added and screws our fuel economy :!:

Better cetaine would allow the injection timing to be retarded without reducing performance resulting in lower NOX emissions and reduce the need for EGR :!:

Conclusion, our Esteemed Elected Officials must be getting paid under the table by big oil :!:

Steve

Uffe · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:05 pm

Easy now - we got EGR valves on the other side of the pond too

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:07 pm

I haven't been able to verify this in any way, but -

From what I've heard, when it came time to write the standards for ULSD, the POV OEM's lobbied to set the cetane level at 50, but the trucking industry lobbied to keep it at 40. The government compromised and set it at 45. No idea what the supposed position of the oil industry was.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:37 pm

Quote:

Easy now - we got EGR valves on the other side of the pond too Wink

From what I've heard, when it came time to write the standards for ULSD, the POV OEM's lobbied to set the cetane level at 50, but the trucking industry lobbied to keep it at 40. The government compromised and set it at 45. No idea what the supposed position of the oil industry was.

I suspect the trucking industry was threatened by the oil companies with higher prices at the pump and the added mileage obtained by tweaking the timing with the technicians laptop would not make up for the threatened increased cost at the pump :idea:

More proof that our Esteemed Elected Officials are getting Paid UNDER THE TABLE and at the BALLOT BOX, they are the best crooks money can buy :!:

Steve

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

Living in Oregon, we are quite lucky to have a major bio-diesel refiner blending the stuff to high standards. http://www.sqbiofuels.com/

Last year our legislature passed a series of tax credits to encourage the use of bio-diesel (and unfortunately, ethanol to), and to support the growth of a home-state industry. Sequential got its start off of waste veggie oil (from a big potato chip maker here in Oregon, Kettle Foods). I'm a little dubious of their expansion into bio-diesel made with virgin oils. Oregon does not have a climate suitable for soybeans, and canola is a little doubtful. Plus the eastern 2/3 of the state is high desert, where water diversions for agriculture and development is already a big environmental problem.

Bio-diesel is in a catch 22 situation right now. There is not really THAT much demand for the stuff in the US, but there is also not that much capacity to make it, particularly to make it to high quality control standards. The investment $$ to produce larger quantities at good quality hasn't been coming in because there isn't that much demand. There isn't that much demand because the big diesel users (fleets and trucking) are nervous about the quality. There is clearly some role for the government here in encouraging the growth of the industry.

On the other hand, I don't want to see bio-diesel become an ethanol-style juggernaut that rolls on no matter what the science or economics says. Long term, the solution to our oil, national security, and environmental problems is not going to be found in technology that was developed around 1900.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

Threeweight wrote:

Living in Oregon, we are quite lucky to have a major bio-diesel refiner blending the stuff to high standards. http://www.sqbiofuels.com/

Last year our legislature passed a series of tax credits to encourage the use of bio-diesel (and unfortunately, ethanol to), and to support the growth of a home-state industry. Sequential got its start off of waste veggie oil (from a big potato chip maker here in Oregon, Kettle Foods). I'm a little dubious of their expansion into bio-diesel made with virgin oils. Oregon does not have a climate suitable for soybeans, and canola is a little doubtful. Plus the eastern 2/3 of the state is high desert, where water diversions for agriculture and development is already a big environmental problem.

Bio-diesel is in a catch 22 situation right now. There is not really THAT much demand for the stuff in the US, but there is also not that much capacity to make it, particularly to make it to high quality control standards. The investment $$ to produce larger quantities at good quality hasn't been coming in because there isn't that much demand. There isn't that much demand because the big diesel users (fleets and trucking) are nervous about the quality. There is clearly some role for the government here in encouraging the growth of the industry.

On the other hand, I don't want to see bio-diesel become an ethanol-style juggernaut that rolls on no matter what the science or economics says. Long term, the solution to our oil, national security, and environmental problems is not going to be found in technology that was developed around 1900.

Wow, despite our conflicts it appears we have the same opinion on this. I am not anti-biofuel, I am simply against it without full realization of its consequences and research into less damaging alternatives(including other biofuel alternatives). I see crop-based solutions as worse than the problems they are solving, but that does not mean there is no biofuel solution to be had.

You are correct, the real threat here is that it becomes entrenched in a non-sustainable form, which is why I tend to go after it aggressively. My fear is that we end up with a new order where we have simply replaced Shell, BP, Texaco, etc with Monosato, Con-Agra, Archer-Daniels Midland, etc. Thats not an improvement, and environmentally speaking its probably a worse trade.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:56 pm

Reflex wrote:

You are correct, the real threat here is that it becomes entrenched in a non-sustainable form, which is why I tend to go after it aggressively. My fear is that we end up with a new order where we have simply replaced Shell, BP, Texaco, etc with Monosato, Con-Agra, Archer-Daniels Midland, etc. Thats not an improvement, and environmentally speaking its probably a worse trade.

Very much agreed with you there.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:29 pm

With a B-5 blend we get the benefit of the lubrication for our CP3 pumps and our injectors, this may be why the Diesel Injection Manufactures who look long at the bottom line approve up to B-5 blend so that will cut their warranty claims.
With the B-5 blend we can enhance twice as many gallons of Dino-diesel as B-10 and 20 times more than with B-100. Most of the Biodiesel I can get in the Midwest is B-10.and most of the pumps have a sticker stating that it MAY BE up to as high as B-10.
Older diesel engines need timing adjustments for any thing richer than B-20!

More Cetaine is good :wink:

Perhaps we could get THE DEAD TREE HUGGER singer song writers to demand B-20 in their songs so that we will all get B-5 and have our CRDs rum for a long time :idea:

Steve

Does any one know what the Cetaine correction factor is for B-5, B-10, or B-20 :?:

With Montsanto producing Biodiesel, we will need to run the stuff through a grit classifier like what they use a Waste Water Plants to remove the grit and then a big Clarifier to finish up the decanting procedure

dgeist · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:15 pm

Sir Sam wrote:

Reflex wrote:

You are correct, the real threat here is that it becomes entrenched in a non-sustainable form, which is why I tend to go after it aggressively. My fear is that we end up with a new order where we have simply replaced Shell, BP, Texaco, etc with Monosato, Con-Agra, Archer-Daniels Midland, etc. Thats not an improvement, and environmentally speaking its probably a worse trade.

Very much agreed with you there.

X2. I'm supporting the poultry and waste oil biofuel industry. People aren't going to stop eating chicken or other fried foods any time soon, so as long as they are ecologically conscious with with water and reactant use, I'm good.

BiodieselJeep.com · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:36 pm

The "good" news is that soy/rape/jatropha will not "take over" the food market. Trust me, food is food, the market loves food....hates volitile commodities like fuel. People will pay for food some how, but can skip fuel.

Bad news is that the soy/rape/jatropha is indeed not a good use of land...for many reasons. Most recently, papers are showing that forrests are better than soy/rape biodiesel for both CO2 containment when factoring petro displacement. And the chemical fetilizers and land management is nasty. However, most of this land is currently being used in some form of agriculture and isn't suddenly going to pot. But still.

But in the end, no-one displutes the increase in economic and national security provided by displaced imported energy. And I personally weigh that in heavily in my decision. And I do so knowing that there is no way that the soy-biodiesel as I know it can make a significant dent in the import of petroleum. Its a pesonal thing, like the cool vegitarian dude who doesn't make you feel bad about eating Bessie, he just doesn't want to eat Bessie himself.

Also, supporting these first generation fuels is the first step to breaking the petroleum monopoly....consider soy biodiesel and corn ethanol as gateway drugs. If the market can be proven profitablefor ANYTHING other than petroleum, investment will continue into more efficient, second generation fuels (celulosic ethanol, pyrolisis based biodiesel, algae biodiesel, etc). So it ain't all bad in the long view.

My view: in the end, supporting current biofuels is not so bad when considering their place in the evolution of energy independence for this nation. Every industry has a dirty, early phase.

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

The problem is that I don't see any motivation to evolve when tax subsidies will finance lobbying to keep it as-is. The end consumer simply does not care what they are putting in their tank or where it comes from, so its up to policymakers to be smart about it, and they tend to do what the campaign contributers tell them to do.

dgeist · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:50 pm

Reflex wrote:

The problem is that I don't see any motivation to evolve when tax subsidies will finance lobbying to keep it as-is. The end consumer simply does not care what they are putting in their tank or where it comes from, so its up to policymakers to be smart about it, and they tend to do what the campaign contributers tell them to do.

Well, you have to look at it from a feasibility standpoint. If you get get tax credits for doing SOMETHING different than relying upon the big-oil, then perhaps you won't go on to make the world a better place, but the simple fact that competition is present reduces barriers to entry for other technologies. Anything to reduce the stranglehold of the cartel-style oil industry is better than nothing, even if it's not the end of the story.

On the jatropha topic, I was under the impression that it has been pushed hard in India in very arid areas...areas where there's no existing food-crop farming. Also, its water resources are very small. Just imagine, you could make the middle of the desert green for no obvious reason, kinda like the greater Phoenix area.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:52 pm

dgeist wrote:

Reflex wrote:

The problem is that I don't see any motivation to evolve when tax subsidies will finance lobbying to keep it as-is. The end consumer simply does not care what they are putting in their tank or where it comes from, so its up to policymakers to be smart about it, and they tend to do what the campaign contributers tell them to do.

Well, you have to look at it from a feasibility standpoint. If you get get tax credits for doing SOMETHING different than relying upon the big-oil, then perhaps you won't go on to make the world a better place, but the simple fact that competition is present reduces barriers to entry for other technologies. Anything to reduce the stranglehold of the cartel-style oil industry is better than nothing, even if it's not the end of the story.

On the jatropha topic, I was under the impression that it has been pushed hard in India in very arid areas...areas where there's no existing food-crop farming. Also, its water resources are very small. Just imagine, you could make the middle of the desert green for no obvious reason, kinda like the greater Phoenix area.

HA!

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:55 pm

On a flight a few months ago an ADM exec told me that one road block they were running into was the big resistance on using waste animal fat in biodiesel. Personally I don't care if the biodiesl blend gets the bio part from road kill, waste animal fat, from genetically engineered cat tails, algae, or out of sewer plants. All that counts is the economics, what happens in my engine, and what happens to our environment from a conservationists view point.
When it comes to tax breaks, subsidies, or grants, we get what we pay for. We can encourage our elected officials to have people research biofuels or study the social demographics of cock roaches under unnatural environments (I like Combat brand bates for co0ck roaches).
On the bright side, some of the ENERGY COMPANIES are starting to branch out and look at sources other than oil, capitalism rules, some one makes a buck, buys food, eats and lives.

Steve

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

One thing I'll point out is that animal 'waste' fat is a misnomer. There is no waste, that stuff normally goes into fertilizer and other products. When its diverted for biofuel they have to make up for it by importing more petroleum. Its six of one, half a dozen of the other.

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:50 pm

I'm enjoying this thread

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:00 pm

Interesting topic since I just finished a 1,000 gallon biodiesel fueling station at my house. I have 2 CRDs and a F350 Powerstroke - all 3 run on B100 except in the winter when I add 10% kerosene to lower the gel point a bit. The truck has been running on it for 4 years beautifully. Before getting into biofuels, I studied the living daylights out of this issue for 3 years including the good, the bad and the ugly. There are some good comments here!
A simple rule of thumb: Know your feedstocks and how they are grown. Low impact, locally grown and produced - just like the food we eat and products we buy should be in general. (I say this as I sit here in my Chinese made T-shirt so I know my poop stinks!)

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

KeighJeigh wrote:

Interesting topic since I just finished a 1,000 gallon biodiesel fueling station at my house. I have 2 CRDs and a F350 Powerstroke - all 3 run on B100 except in the winter when I add 10% kerosene to lower the gel point a bit. The truck has been running on it for 4 years beautifully. Before getting into biofuels, I studied the living daylights out of this issue for 3 years including the good, the bad and the ugly. There are some good comments here!
A simple rule of thumb: Know your feedstocks and how they are grown. Low impact, locally grown and produced - just like the food we eat and products we buy should be in general. (I say this as I sit here in my Chinese made T-shirt so I know my poop stinks!)

Hey hey, your right up the hill from me. I'm in the Renton Highlands.

Biodiesel - MYTH or FACT?

Who is online