LOST JEEPS :: View topic - "Green" Diesel

oldnavy wrote:

Why? We have lots of NG here in this part of the world if I remember correctly.

More than anything, getting the oil companies to make this "green" diesel from NG. You know that they will not do it unless they are dragged kicking and screaming by the Feds either thru EPA requirements or tax incentives. The bio fuels would not have been developed at somewhat market prices except for incentives and the push by the various farm groups (of which I am a member). Qatar isn't waiting for a mandate.

I recall Popular Mechanics back in '73 taking a AMC Gremlin with a V8 and converting it to run on Hydrogen by the same method as having it run on LNG or Propane. The results were pretty good, cost was only $600 (1973), performance was on par with gas, and emissions were far and away cleaner than gas (even by todays standards), but do you see Hydrogen as a fuel option on any internal combustion engine? Instead all you see is high tech fantasy ideas about using hydrogen fuel cells because of Govt funding and incentives.

Author:	Cowpie1 [ Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:	"Green" Diesel
Not sure if anyone has posted this or come across it. Good read if not practical for us. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/11/06/qatars_green_diesel_set_for_market/ Bio will probably be the only viable alternative for us. That would be fine with me. But the article does spice up the mix.

Author:	oldnavy [ Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Why? We have lots of NG here in this part of the world if I remember correctly.

Author:	Cowpie1 [ Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:
oldnavy wrote: Why? We have lots of NG here in this part of the world if I remember correctly. More than anything, getting the oil companies to make this "green" diesel from NG. You know that they will not do it unless they are dragged kicking and screaming by the Feds either thru EPA requirements or tax incentives. The bio fuels would not have been developed at somewhat market prices except for incentives and the push by the various farm groups (of which I am a member). Qatar isn't waiting for a mandate. I recall Popular Mechanics back in '73 taking a AMC Gremlin with a V8 and converting it to run on Hydrogen by the same method as having it run on LNG or Propane. The results were pretty good, cost was only $600 (1973), performance was on par with gas, and emissions were far and away cleaner than gas (even by todays standards), but do you see Hydrogen as a fuel option on any internal combustion engine? Instead all you see is high tech fantasy ideas about using hydrogen fuel cells because of Govt funding and incentives.

Author:	oldnavy [ Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Cowpie1 wrote: oldnavy wrote: Why? We have lots of NG here in this part of the world if I remember correctly. More than anything, getting the oil companies to make this "green" diesel from NG. You know that they will not do it unless they are dragged kicking and screaming by the Feds either thru EPA requirements or tax incentives. The bio fuels would not have been developed at somewhat market prices except for incentives and the push by the various farm groups (of which I am a member). Qatar isn't waiting for a mandate. I recall Popular Mechanics back in '73 taking a AMC Gremlin with a V8 and converting it to run on Hydrogen by the same method as having it run on LNG or Propane. The results were pretty good, cost was only $600 (1973), performance was on par with gas, and emissions were far and away cleaner than gas (even by todays standards), but do you see Hydrogen as a fuel option on any internal combustion engine? Instead all you see is high tech fantasy ideas about using hydrogen fuel cells because of Govt funding and incentives. taking inflation into account that $600 would be at least about $3,000 today, maybe closer to $4,000 today.

Author:	Cowpie1 [ Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:48 pm ]
Post subject:
That might be true, but you have to remember, that was not a production run which would be far cheaper.

LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

"Green" Diesel http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14243	Page 1 of 1

Author:	bbo [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:
why is there so much effort being made to take one fuel and convert into something else for use as a fuel. Woudn't it make more sense to use the original fuel as the fuel source, if possible? Am I missing something with regards to inability to use NG as a fuel source for vehicles? Also with regards to Hydrogen as a vehicle source .. how would one generate Hydrogen to use a fuel source in an enviromentally friendly manner and how much energy would be needed for that?

Author:	no-blue-screen [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:07 am ]
Post subject:
More important questions: 1) Cost vs. regular D2? 2) Energy content vs. D2 If you ask me, this just sounds like a bunch of crap. Sure it is possible, but the energy content will likely go down significantly and the cost is likely to be quite a bit higher at the pump than regular D2.

Author:	bhysjulien [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:
The Dec. 06 issue of Diesel Power has an article about coal liquification. Supposedly it could be done with the coal in MT for $1.20 a gallon.

Author:	Trailbreaker [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:
It is good enough to win the 24 Hours of Lemans!! http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?sit ... _race.html http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03 ... l_win.html

Author:	KenJennings [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Trailbreaker wrote: It is good enough to win the 24 Hours of Lemans!! [...] Shell V-Power Diesel with GTL available in: Austria, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland Shell V-Power Diesel available in: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Hungary It ain't for sale in the US. Why am I not surprised?

Author:	AndySRT [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:
thats becuase we have to have ULSD. we are now the strictest country in the world on diesel emmisions.

Author:	Trailbreaker [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:26 am ]
Post subject:
AndySRT wrote: thats becuase we have to have ULSD. we are now the strictest country in the world on diesel emmisions. GTL Diesel has ZERO! sulfer.Should have no problem with our emisions regs.Maybe the NOX is to high?I don't know. Probably involves politics!

Author:	oldnavy [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:25 am ]
Post subject:
You most likely will see us continuing to use the mid-east oil as long as possible before switching the fuel source to coal. Just think what will happen to the OPEC countries (Mid-East) when the rest of the world stops buying their oil, what have they got now but money deposited in US & European banks. That money will go up in smoke in about 10 to 15 years from now, why do you think guys UBL and a couple of OPEC countries are in such a rush to destory the West. Little do they know it, but they are too late already unless their are some whopper mistakes are made in the West. France and Spain comes to mind here, but who knows. Just my opinion.

Author:	valkraider [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:
AndySRT wrote: thats becuase we have to have ULSD. we are now the strictest country in the world on diesel emmisions. Not exactly - depending on how you look at it... We just moved to ULSD (15ppm) diesel from LSD(500ppm). Euro diesel standards are/were as such: Effective October 1996: max sulfur 500ppm - minimum cetane 49 Effective Jan 2000: max sulfur 350ppm - minimum cetane 51 Effective Jan 2005: max sulfur 50ppm - required retail availability of "sulfur free" diesel (less than 10ppm) - minimum cetane 51 Effective Jan 2009: max sulfur 10ppm - for ALL on and off road diesel fuel - minimum cetane 51 So while there is not a direct comparison - we are pretty comperable now. Europe started the cleanup sooner, we just advanced slightly ahead in the maximum levels but they are still ahead in that they require the availability of No-Sulfur diesel. I am not sure what the EPA requirements are in the future beyond ULSD here in the states.

Author:	KenJennings [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Given the (unfairly) low popularity of small diesels in the US, unrealistically changing the emissions specs can (will? did?) torpedo most diesels in consumer vehicles for the short term future and the auto industry remains largely unconcerned. But I think if the standards make it impossible to sell many gas engines the auto industry will really start doing some back room arm twisting (read: lobbying congress) to get the specs relaxed.

Author:	no-blue-screen [ Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Ken is correct that it will kill current diesel passenger car offerings in the short term. There is also going to be a big problem with misfueling until they totally switch to ULSD everywhere.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	oldnavy [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:
It has been awhile since I read the proposed '09 & '11(?) EPA reg for gas & diesel. I have heard that auto mfgs can't build a gas engine to pass the '11 proposed US EPA reg's and lot of current gas engines will dead with '09 EPA reg's as well, but that just may be rumor to scare people.

Author:	edon [ Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Ken, I think that just the opposite is true with diesel emission specs. I'm no expert but I believe it is only because of the change to ULSD fuel in North America that we are able to get the good diesel engines that Europe has had already. Before that, they just could not run properly without damage. So a diesel that smoks less, stinks less and gets better mileage will only become more popular. Just read some info on the Mercedes V6 diesel in the E class and ML. You're toast if you use anything but ULSD. Along with particulate traps, the E-class also has an odour filter so it doesn't even smell like a diesel.