Biodiesel - MYTH or FACT?

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:59 pm

Reflex wrote:

Well I don't have a bunch of sources sitting around on that, but its been brought up many times by reputable environmental organizations in active discussions. The Sierra Club has expressed that concern locally here in the NW, for instance. The problem is that a 'clean coal' plant could concievably do better, but the vast majority of our plants are ancient, some as old as a century, and they definatly are not even close to clean. Burning gasoline in the engine is cleaner since it gets to use a catalytic converter to clean it up, while many of the old coal fired plants have only the retrofits to emissions required by law and that are possible with their plant design.
Once again thats not so much an issue in the NW, but on the eastern seaboard, its a huge issue.

Yes, and as I have said 12,365.54 times in the past several years, power should be regionally appropriate and produced as near the point of use as possible. That is the mantra for most all good manufacturing facilities utilizing Lean Principles.
My comments regarding your rooftop solar panels got a serious answer but obviously solar in Renton is only makes sense for a few homes in the summer in exposed locations.
BTW: I have followed the goings-on of the Rocky Mountain Institute over the years and like their basic message. I'm not sure how many people have had the chance to check them out, but it is an interesting approach:
http://rmi.org/

Quote:

Helping Businesses/Organizations Make Money Doing What’s Right
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is a nonprofit organization that fosters the efficient and restorative use of resources so that companies, governments and organizations are more efficient, make more money, and do less harm to the environment. RMI is engaged in cutting-edge research on oil independence, renewable energy technologies, distributed energy, resource planning, green buildings , and radically efficient transportation

.

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:03 pm

Quote:

"dieselenthusiast": Car and Driver says that the Jeep Liberty needs a diesel http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot ... age-4.html

15 MPG with the new Liberty and the V6!?! And not particularly powerful in return.
That seems almost incomprehensible. My massive Powerstroke F350 4X4 dually does nearly that well on the highway loaded with a 4,500 lb Arctic Fox truck camper while pulling a snowmobile trailer - of course burning Biodiesel.

It is almost as if they are actually trying to make that new Liberty as inefficient as possible. :roll:

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:14 am

Reflex wrote:

Lithium Ion is really bad for transportation uses, thats why its not in current hybrids despite its advantages over nickel metal hydride. For one, if cells get punctured it will erupt into a ball of fire, and there is no easy way around that without adding a ton of internal shielding and weight, which negates its advantages.

Incorrect.
GM - one of the most conservative car companies on the planet - is investing heavily in Lithium battery technology:

Quote:

Dr Borroni-Bird is part of a team accelerating development of GM’s Chevrolet Volt concept car in an attempt to get it into production by 2010. Last week the company announced it has signed contracts to begin development of new high-performance lithium ion batteries, vital to getting an electric car with a useable range to market.
But there is no guarantee that these batteries will be ready for use in a production car in three years. Despite this risk, GM is willing to risk spending millions on developing a car that may not have a viable propulsion system by the time its ready to go on sale.

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

They claim to be, but like most car companies that claim to be using lithium ion(Tesla Roadster comes to mind) the products are so far just vaporware. As I said, its a highly dangerous battery type, and as a result very unlikely to pass safety standards. If you think the Ford Pinto explosions were bad, just wait to see LION chemical fires. We had one at work when a laptop battery exploded during a meeting. Read the quote you posted, there is no time frame on it, its all up in the air without any ability to predict when such a battery is feasible.

The problem with batteries is that there has not been a fundamental change in technology nor capacity in more than a century. While our ability to refine it has kept it very slowly creeping up and reduced cost, we have not had a true breakthrough in a century. Hopefully super capacitors will change that, but they have so far resisted easy manufacturing.

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:33 am

Reflex wrote:

..... The problem is that a 'clean coal' plant could concievably do better, but the vast majority of our plants are ancient, some as old as a century, and they definatly are not even close to clean. Burning gasoline in the engine is cleaner since it gets to use a catalytic converter to clean it up, while many of the old coal fired plants have only the retrofits to emissions required by law and that are possible with their plant design.

Not quite.

For starters, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, EVs generate a fraction that expelled by a normal gasoline engine car. For every gallon of gasoline burned, approximately 22 pounds of CO2 are created. If a car gets 25 miles a gallon it will emit 22 pounds of carbon dioxide over that distance, as well as other pollutants. By comparison, an electric car may travel the same distance consuming 5 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electric power at a rate of 200 watt hours/mile. Assuming the local grid is 100% coal-fired, roughly 5 lbs of coal would be consumed to create that 5kWh. Depending on the grade and carbon content of the coal, one kilowatt hour creates approximately 1.4 pounds of CO2. That's 7 pounds of CO2 vs. 22 pounds to travel the same 25 miles. But recall that the power grid isn't entirely coal-fired; it includes hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear and a small, but growing segment of renewables.

But what about other pollutants, aren't today's cars significantly cleaner? Yes they are and getting more so all the time, which is good. But so is the power grid, at least in terms of many criteria pollutants, if not CO2. And as more wind and solar electric power is added to the grid, and older, more polluting power plants are decommissioned, the grid can get cleaner, though it will still take citizen awareness and pressure, especially in the light of the fact that hundreds of coal-fired plants plan to be built around the world in the come decades, to ensure the very best technology is used, including carbon sequestration if we plan to continue to utilize coal.

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:46 am

Reflex wrote:

The problem with batteries is that there has not been a fundamental change in technology nor capacity in more than a century. While our ability to refine it has kept it very slowly creeping up and reduced cost, we have not had a true breakthrough in a century. Hopefully super capacitors will change that, but they have so far resisted easy manufacturing.

Yes indeed, this IS the big problem.
I firmly believe that electric battery technology must be and probably will be the energy storage of the long term future.
This is a page I have bookmarked and check into once in a while to keep track of many different alternative energy technologies that are in the works. You might enjoy this page - it's kind of fun to see some of the quirky things people are actually developing. If you scroll down, you will see they have organized the page by issue such as energy production, storage etc.. Toward the middle is energy storage. (batteries)
http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/

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

I think your assuming a much higher level of efficiency with electric motors than is actually attained, plus there is transmission losses to factor in, battery discharge rates(ie: you lose power out of the battery just when its sitting, that power does not then get applied to locomotion), and the fact that not all coal plants are created equal, as I said many of ours are decades old and not nearly as efficient nor clean as a modern clean coal plant. Furthermore, CO2 is but one measure emission to be concerned about, and coal puts a LOT of other pollutants in the air that are far more easily controlled by a cat converter than at a plant, ultimatly gasoline in general is a cleaner burning power source than coal(not saying its great, only that its better). Basically I think you are being excessively optimistic.

As for battery tech, obviously we are on the same page there. I don't see a lot of hope in that field yet however unless one of the super capacitors that are currently being tested can be brought into mass marketing. I don't believe that LiON is a serious consideration, it has safety issues, recycling issues, and is expensive, plus does not charge fast enough.

In my opinion, a mass rollout of nuclear power so that we have the infrastructure to support electric locomotion when it does arrive would be the best immediate step we could take towards that end.

UFO · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:15 pm

Nuclear power is a bit OT for this thread, but until there is a sane and comprehensive way of storing waste and regulating plant safety, it needs to be held up. I don't trust the policies currently in place, especially regarding Yucca Mountain.

nursecosmo · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:16 pm

I know, I know, its off topic but a cool concept if it can be made to work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_battery

chadhargis · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:37 pm

This is an interesting thread.

Reading it only supports my belief that we need to approach eco-friendly fuels from multiple fronts.

Biodiesel, electric, hybrid, ethanol, etc....all have a place, but none of them can serve as a replacement for gasoline, at least in the forseeable future.

I've always wondered what would happen to the power grid if everyone started buying electric cars. Heck, California already has "rolling blackouts" during times of high demand. Add a few million electric cars charging to that problem. What if you're staying at a hotel or at work? Will there be an outlet for you to plug into?

Electric vehicles work fine for some, diesel works for others, hybrid works as well. Ethanol seems to be the only turd in the punch bowl from what I've read and strangely I see more "flex fuel" vehicles than I do anything else.

For me, diesel is what makes sense. I wanted decent fuel economy, towing capicity, and fuel that's easy to find. I got that with my Liberty. I can't imagine trying to tow my motorcycle trailer to the track with a Prius. Something tells me it woudn't fair too well.

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:21 pm

chadhargis wrote:

Reading it only supports my belief that we need to approach eco-friendly fuels from multiple fronts.
Biodiesel, electric, hybrid, ethanol, etc....all have a place, but none of them can serve as a replacement for gasoline, at least in the forseeable future.

Exactly. We will have a complex energy future. There will be no magic bullets. This is still not understood by most people and is THE most frustrating parts of the discussion for me. For each alternative energy source presented you inevitably have the media talking heads yammer on about how XYZ energy source can't possibly solve ALL of our energy needs. This is a strawman argument that further discourages people from participating in change; it keeps them waiting for some miracle solution in the undefinable future. Don't take the bait.

chadhargis wrote:

I've always wondered what would happen to the power grid if everyone started buying electric cars. Heck, California already has "rolling blackouts" during times of high demand. Add a few million electric cars charging to that problem. What if you're staying at a hotel or at work? Will there be an outlet for you to plug into?

The actual physical grid needs upgrading no matter what happens. This has been a problem for years. However, there are many good ideas for how to reduce the power production grid strain. Since most cars would charge at night, it would help load-level demand with day. Power plants expend a fair amount of energy just to keep their turbines spinning at up to speed regardless regardless of power demand so that they are ready when all the hot water tanks turn on in the morning. When I visited Grand Coulee dam they discussed how they could see the West Coast "breath" by how the electricity demand fluctuated. Water heaters, furnaces, coffee makers, morning lights - all these things are massive nearly simultaneous spikes in power consumption both in morning and evening. If the cars charged at night OR if their chargers simply stored energy when grid demand was low, it would be much less of a problem than you might think.

chadhargis wrote:

For me, diesel is what makes sense. I wanted decent fuel economy, towing capicity, and fuel that's easy to find. I got that with my Liberty. I can't imagine trying to tow my motorcycle trailer to the track with a Prius. Something tells me it woudn't fair too well.

Yep! Hybrids are not good for towing - yet. And regionally produced sustainably grown biodiesel is a good choice to fuel it.

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

chadhargis wrote:

I've always wondered what would happen to the power grid if everyone started buying electric cars. Heck, California already has "rolling blackouts" during times of high demand. Add a few million electric cars charging to that problem. What if you're staying at a hotel or at work? Will there be an outlet for you to plug into?

Peak electricity demand is generally from about 7 or 8 in the morning through 6 or 7 at night (though it has been shifting later into the evening in recent years). Lowest demand is midnight to 6 AM or so. So folks driving their plug-in hybrids or electric cars during the day, plugging them in to be recharged at night, are not likely to make much of a dent in power demand or the capacity of the grid.

chadhargis wrote:

Electric vehicles work fine for some, diesel works for others, hybrid works as well. Ethanol seems to be the only turd in the punch bowl from what I've read and strangely I see more "flex fuel" vehicles than I do anything else.

Because of our federal government's desire to subsidize corn, automakers can get "extra credit" under fuel economy standards for building flex-fuel vehicles that are capable of running on ethanol, thus offsetting the low fuel economy of big SUV's and trucks. All it takes to make a modern gasoline engine ethanol-compatible is to install stainless steel fuel fittings/corrosion-resistant components. Those "flex-fuel" badges are just regular old gasser cars and trucks with $50 bucks or so of upgraded fuel components on them, and 99% of them will never be intentionally fueled with ethanol.

chadhargis wrote:

For me, diesel is what makes sense. I wanted decent fuel economy, towing capicity, and fuel that's easy to find. I got that with my Liberty. I can't imagine trying to tow my motorcycle trailer to the track with a Prius. Something tells me it woudn't fair too well.

Same here, I went with the Jeep CRD for fuel economy and towing. But do not think that electric motors are low-torque. They actually produce very very high torque, and do so instantly with no need to rev or warm up. Most locomotives use a diesel engine to turn a generator, that provides power to the electric motors that actually propel the train (and the tens of thousands of tons of weight it is pulling). While a Prius may be relatively anemic, electric motors in general are not. Would be interesting to see what kind of efficiency would be possible in a tow vehicle with a small diesel running an on-board generator to power a high-torque electric motor to turn the wheels.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:32 pm

Even with advanced batteries and plenty of power plants, recharge time is the one stumbling block that will prevent battery-only electrics from being anything but local or regional commuter vehicles.

An efficieint electric vehicle such as GM's late EV-1 used 130 whrs/mile, or in more conventioal format 8 miles/kwhr.

For this vehicle to have a 300 mile range would require a battery pack with 38 kwhrs of useable capacity.

To do a full recharge on said battery pack, it would take 21 hours from a standard 120V 15 amp house outlet, and 4 hours from even a 240V 50 amp outlet as you would find in an RV park.

And that's assuming the outlet can supply it's full rated output without tripping a breaker or frying other components, and 100% efficiency on the part of the charging system and battery pack.

And from my own experience of 15 years owning and operating a battery-only electric vehicle, that's far from real world conditions.

A simple analogy to this would be trying to fill one of the 15 ft X 4 ft swimming pools you can buy from Wal-Mart for $300. These pools contain 4500 gallons of water when full. Filling it with just a 3/4" garden hose from an outside faucet took days. Same basic problem with trying to recharge a 38 kwhr battery pack from a standard residential outlet.

To achieve a recharge time of anything under an hour on this size battery pack would require industrial level voltages and currents, and some type of local surge/dump storage capacity to be able to serve multiple vehicles.

In other words, you're going to need the electric equivalent of gas stations along the route - dedicated infrastructure.

And as far as the power plants providing the power - unless told otherwise, the utilities are going to build whatever type plant generates the most return on their investment - ie, the cheapest to build, maintain, and operate. If that turns out to be coal fired, that's what they'll build unless the government mandates another type.

And right now the EV/nuclear scenario could only conceivably work for POV road vehicles. Don't think that a battery-only 18 wheeler or electric 747 would work too well.

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

Wasn't the EV1 problem in part the lead-acid batteries? You can only squeeze so much juice through a 110 volt or 220 volt "pipe", but my understanding is that there is another issue in that the battery has to be able to absorb that juice quickly. One of the reasons for the lithium-ion research being done by Toyota and GM is the hope of a battery that can hold more juice and be recharged quickly (that is at least what their hype says).

For now, the plug-in hybrid seems the best solution for a commuter vehicle. If one could get a 20-30 mile range out of the batteries before the hybrid system was needed, I'd never need to run the IC engine on my normal commute.

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:58 pm

Reflex wrote:

I think your assuming a much higher level of efficiency with electric motors than is actually attained, plus there is transmission losses to factor in, battery discharge rates(ie: you lose power out of the battery just when its sitting, that power does not then get applied to locomotion), and the fact that not all coal plants are created equal, as I said many of ours are decades old and not nearly as efficient nor clean as a modern clean coal plant. Furthermore, CO2 is but one measure emission to be concerned about, and coal puts a LOT of other pollutants in the air that are far more easily controlled by a cat converter than at a plant, ultimatly gasoline in general is a cleaner burning power source than coal(not saying its great, only that its better). Basically I think you are being excessively optimistic.
As for battery tech, obviously we are on the same page there. I don't see a lot of hope in that field yet however unless one of the super capacitors that are currently being tested can be brought into mass marketing. I don't believe that LiON is a serious consideration, it has safety issues, recycling issues, and is expensive, plus does not charge fast enough.
In my opinion, a mass rollout of nuclear power so that we have the infrastructure to support electric locomotion when it does arrive would be the best immediate step we could take towards that end.

* Line loss, friction, control losses, motor losses are factored into these equations - the numbers are composites.
* If you read more you would see lots of "hope" developing in battery technology. It is especially hopeful if we consider just how tiny a sliver of our overall research dollars are dedicated to the topic.
* CO2 is the most problematic pollutant right now because carbon sequestering is extremely difficult to scrub from the smoke stacks. Nonetheless Mr. Strawman, :roll:

I am NOT arguing in favor of continuing the use of old, inefficient coal fired plants. And, unlike most people of my persuasion I do support nuclear with reservations and caveats: Similar to old coal plants, old nuclear needs to be supplanted with new nuclear.
I was the quality manager for a company that made inspection equipment for nuclear power plants (as well as submarines and aircraft carriers) so I am fairly familiar with the subject. HOWEVER, nuclear is expensive and I would much rather have our money and resources go to a Manhattan Project for alternative energy BEFORE we resort to building very many more nuclear plants as they are expensive and far harder to decommission once online. Plus, don't be fooled. There is FAR more hazardous waste that comes from those plants than people discuss. I have been in them, seen it and dealt with it. The general public and talking heads focus on the big stuff such as spent fuel rods, but on a daily basis people are constantly throwing out protective garments, masks, inspection equipment, various pieces of equipment etc..etc... there is a constant stream of hazardous waste pouring from those facilities. Nonetheless, if done properly and if no mistakes are made :shock:

the actual immediate pollution is minimal.

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

One thing I have noticed is the level of overlap when people mention the diversification of energy solutions being the answer. The most obvious answer that has pieces in this thread regards charging cars at night and the use of widespread solar power. The point of sticking solar panels on roofs is that you can reduce back end capacity(ie: central power plants) because during the day part of the load is being offset by solar panels on roofs coping with the load. The only way this concept saves us energy is if we reduce capacity(or in a realistic scenerio, simply don't build as much new energy production capacity) because energy is 'realtime' and when excess is produced it is not stored for later, it simply is wasted. So what that means is that if you do not reduce the back end capacity you are not really saving any power by adding those solar panels.

Now this sounds fine to me, if we had solar panels en masse it would work. But wait, here is the wrinkle: Now people are proposing charging cars at night. Thats a big deal, you see we now have reduced capacity at night, meaning that there is less power to draw on since the solar panels are not operable. Conundrum?

The problem is that many of the solutions of a diversified future will step on each others toes. When one is promoting solutions one needs to have an overall plan, not just a hodge podge of remedies that may end up causing problems for each other.

BTW, I agree with the concept of solar on roofs to reduce daytime power consumption. I also agree with electric cars. I just think there are major challenges and we need somethign for the in between stages. After all, even if we could build the nuclear power plants necessary, it takes a lot of money and 16 years before they go up, and we could do a lot in the meantime.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:05 pm

KeighJeigh wrote:

I was the quality manager for a company that made inspection equipment for nuclear power plants (as well as submarines and aircraft carriers) so I am fairly familiar with the subject. HOWEVER, nuclear is expensive and I would much rather have our money and resources go to a Manhattan Project for alternative energy BEFORE we resort to building very many more nuclear plants as they are expensive and far harder to decommission once online. Plus, don't be fooled. There is FAR more hazardous waste that comes from those plants than people discuss. I have been in them, seen it and dealt with it. The general public and talking heads focus on the big stuff such as spent fuel rods, but on a daily basis people are constantly throwing out protective garments, masks, inspection equipment, various pieces of equipment etc..etc... there is a constant stream of hazardous waste pouring from those facilities. Nonetheless, if done properly and if no mistakes are made :shock:

the actual immediate pollution is minimal.

Well said. Mirrors my own experience of 20 years in Naval Nuclear Power.

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:08 pm

Threeweight wrote:

Wasn't the EV1 problem in part the lead-acid batteries? You can only squeeze so much juice through a 110 volt or 220 volt "pipe", but my understanding is that there is another issue in that the battery has to be able to absorb that juice quickly. One of the reasons for the lithium-ion research being done by Toyota and GM is the hope of a battery that can hold more juice and be recharged quickly (that is at least what their hype says).
For now, the plug-in hybrid seems the best solution for a commuter vehicle. If one could get a 20-30 mile range out of the batteries before the hybrid system was needed, I'd never need to run the IC engine on my normal commute.

Lead acid were used in some very old electric cars and are still used in golf carts and a few cheap "cars" out of China recently, but it is mostly kit cars use them now. The Prius uses Nmh batteries while your laptop uses rechargeable Lion. Still, the focus on whether or not Lion batteries are explosive compared to other batteries or whether one feels there is hope for battery technologies is a diversion and a rather boring one at that. We need to focus on the variety of solutions available to us, participate in whatever solutions or partial solutions we can and encourage the government and industry to step up to the plate. But they WON'T do it if we don't create demand and rattle our cages a bit.
Although I am sure Remix will find something wrong with them, but the fact is plug in hybrids are a very good idea! In fact, there are forums for Prius owners similar to CRD owners who love to tinker with the cars - and they are indeed making some of them into plug-in hybrids by adding charging systems, changing out batteries and changing the point at which the engine turns on. They are participating in change and helping create demand. Car companies are also influenced by these folks.......

InCommando · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:22 pm

Do folks just stop by to poll diesel mechanics? I always read posts like " five (insert whatever here) told me I can get 5 more mpg if I..."

The EV-1's were reported $1million each to build. Nothing worthwhile there, if true.

A lot of fuel cell research going on near me. Neighbor works at one of the premier labs, in partnership with the U. of Dayton. Let's just say that the I/C engine is in no danger for at least a decade...

The MPG's claims for the Prius were grossly overstated for the average driver, and remain so even though yoter has reduced their claims. Seems that funny stuff like actually driving them, not bypassing hills, using the a/c, kinda hurts them.

Yep, gotta love all of that clean solar & hydro energy in most of the country. Just forget that the vast majority of electricty here comes from fossil fuels. I know, if the emissions aren't coming out of your personal tail pipe, but a plant you can't see instead, that plug-in car is magically "green."

And crops plant, tend, harvest, & process themselves.

The feds subsidize hybrids at the manufacturers level, or did last time I checked. I hate that my tax dollars go to aid some fat cat's car purchase when he could have a much cheaper driving experience by having a Corolla and leaving my cash out of it.

I think I will go let my '79 360 with no emissions stuff idle for a couple of hours just to undo a few Prius driver's. :shock:

KeighJeigh · **Posted:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:37 pm

InCommando wrote:

Do folks just stop by to poll diesel mechanics? I alwasy read posts like " five (insert whatever here) told me I can get 5 more mpg if I..."

I mean, I read some enthusiast mags, follow some stuff on the web, talk to other owners when the occasion arises, but do people actually seek out ,echanics & the like to plumb the depths of their minds? Or are is this more like the nebulous "they" as in "they said thatblah blah bla."

I know, but it is something I have wondered about.

BTW: Put 180,000 on a CTD in a D350 Dually. Lubricity is like holy water to those things.

Poll diesel mechanics on what topic? The diesel mechanics I know are very specialized. And frankly, any polling I did would not be particularly useful because they don't see enough BD vehicles and the ones they do see are often tinkered with to no end.
If you are talking about BD then all I can tell you from experience is that they love working on them because BD is not toxic and the engines are cleaner to work on. But BD does NOT add HP.
If you are not talking about BD then you must be referring to all the mods people are doing increase fuel mileage, in which case I defer to people who dyno the cars or some of the more anal-retentive folks in here who do mileage calculations carefully to include air temperature, humidity, course, speed etc... Many of the mods people do CAN improve mileage but end up NOT doing so because they increase HP and thus increase leadfoot syndrome. (me too

)

Biodiesel - MYTH or FACT?

Who is online