Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

Who runs thei deisel on veggie oil??

Discussion in '1982-Present GM Diesel' started by big pappa b, Feb 13, 2004.

  1. big pappa b

    big pappa b 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Posts:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Falcon, Colorado
    I ran across this today. Anyone try it?

    Greasel??
     
  2. tRustyK5

    tRustyK5 Big meanie Staff Member Super Moderator GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Posts:
    36,169
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Location:
    E-town baby!
    Interesting, just like Biodiesel is interesting. Both look to be a lot like work though...especially when the alternative is going to the gas station and being done with it in 5 minutes. Factor in the fact that a full tank already lasts me 3 weeks and I can't see any incentive personally.

    Rene
     
  3. imiceman44

    imiceman44 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Posts:
    15,160
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    [ QUOTE ]
    Interesting, just like Biodiesel is interesting. Both look to be a lot like work though...especially when the alternative is going to the gas station and being done with it in 5 minutes. Factor in the fact that a full tank already lasts me 3 weeks and I can't see any incentive personally.

    Rene

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Well for now I agree with oyu, but I will be making some long trips across the states in the future and that would be nice, although I am working on a setup myself.
    I don't want to pay someone $400 to get something I can do for much less.
    I heard about this 5 years ago when a couple took their VW van and converted it and made a trek across the US hitting every Mac on their way to get the WVO.
    They were using a similar system where they start on diesel then switch to WVO.
    /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
     
  4. azblazor

    azblazor 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Posts:
    1,953
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Arizona, Phoenix area
    check out www.journeytoforever.org

    I plan to make some biodiesel and also to setup a small vehicle to run on vegetable oil (for commuting 100 miles a day)
     
  5. 4by4bygod

    4by4bygod 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    With My Tinfoil Hat
    When you look at the costs involved, I don't see the attraction to biodiesel. Cost is anywhere from 30 cents to a buck fifty more per gallon, it increases NOx emissions, and it turns to a honey - colored asphalt in the combustion chambers. yuk. Looks like a way for agribusiness to get more gov't money to grow more corn for "fuel", lol.

    Tom /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif /forums/images/graemlins/k5.gif
     
  6. azblazor

    azblazor 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Posts:
    1,953
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Arizona, Phoenix area
    [ QUOTE ]
    it increases NOx emissions, and it turns to a honey - colored asphalt in the combustion chambers. yuk. Looks like a way for agribusiness to get more gov't money to grow more corn for "fuel", lol.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Biodiesel is actually cleaner and while Nox emissions are slightly higher particulates are significantly less ( what they test for on diesel emissions).

    Here is some info from www.journeytoforever.org :
    Filters
    First is that conventional fossil-fuel petrodiesel is dirty stuff -- not only are the exhaust fumes dirty, but the fuel itself leaves a dirty deposit. Biodiesel isn't only clean, it's a good cleaner -- it does a great job of cleaning up the gunge fossil diesel leaves in the tank and fuel system. So when you first switch to biodiesel, check the fuel filters often and change them when needed. The first few weeks are the most critical.

    Timing
    Retard the injection timing by 2-3 degrees -- this overcomes the effect of biodiesel's higher cetane number. The engine loses a little of the extra power you get with biodiesel, but it runs quieter and the fuel burns cooler, reducing NOx emissions. (See also NOx emissions and biodiesel.)

    Rubber
    Any rubber parts in the fuel system may corrode in time with biodiesel, especially 100% biodiesel (B100). Newer cars (since the mid-1990s) do not use rubber parts. Biodiesel has been used in many older motors without any problems. If necessary, check with your vehicle's manufacturer. Viton parts are best. Check this table: "Durability of Various Plastics: Alcohols vs. Gasoline", see Methanol.
     
  7. 4by4bygod

    4by4bygod 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    With My Tinfoil Hat
    Hello!

    Thanks for the info. My thoughts follow each paragraph.

    <<Biodiesel is actually cleaner and while Nox emissions are slightly higher particulates are significantly less ( what they test for on diesel emissions).>>

    According to the EPA's own data, B20 only reduces PM emissions by 10%, which isn't a whole lot, considering its cost. Testing diesels for NOx emissions is going to soon be a fact of life. It's the main component of the cancer causing smog that has everyone worried about diesel emissions in the first place. I don't like "solutions" that don't really solve a problem.

    <<Here is some info from www.journeytoforever.org :
    Filters
    First is that conventional fossil-fuel petrodiesel is dirty stuff -- not only are the exhaust fumes dirty, but the fuel itself leaves a dirty deposit. Biodiesel isn't only clean, it's a good cleaner -- it does a great job of cleaning up the gunge fossil diesel leaves in the tank and fuel system. So when you first switch to biodiesel, check the fuel filters often and change them when needed. The first few weeks are the most critical.>>

    Biodiesel doesn't do anything for bacteria and fungus growth inherent in diesel fuel. If you've ever burned wesson oil in a pan, you have a good idea of what you're combustion chamber will look like after running this stuff for a long time.

    <<Timing
    Retard the injection timing by 2-3 degrees -- this overcomes the effect of biodiesel's higher cetane number. The engine loses a little of the extra power you get with biodiesel, but it runs quieter and the fuel burns cooler, reducing NOx emissions. (See also NOx emissions and biodiesel.)>>

    Biodiesel has a very low BTU ( energy content ), and retarding the timing makes the truck even more sluggish, not to mention causing me to burn more fuel to move the load. I still don't see the upside.

    Bottom line is there's a difference between the folks who get on TV by powering a motorhome with this stuff, and the fleet that has to run full time, move weight,and do this in any weather, and the engines actually get taken apart to see what the stuff is doing on the inside of the engine.

    Every engine manufacturer says not to run more than 20% biodiesel, and at that level I don't see where it's doing much more than providing a revenue stream for the corn growers.

    Are you interested in making biodiesel for the clean air aspect, or are you looking for a cheap fuel source?

    Tom /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif /forums/images/graemlins/k5.gif
     
  8. imiceman44

    imiceman44 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Posts:
    15,160
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    [ QUOTE ]

    Hello!

    Thanks for the info. My thoughts follow each paragraph.

    <<Biodiesel is actually cleaner and while Nox emissions are slightly higher particulates are significantly less ( what they test for on diesel emissions).>>

    According to the EPA's own data, B20 only reduces PM emissions by 10%, which isn't a whole lot, considering its cost. Testing diesels for NOx emissions is going to soon be a fact of life. It's the main component of the cancer causing smog that has everyone worried about diesel emissions in the first place. I don't like "solutions" that don't really solve a problem.

    <<Here is some info from www.journeytoforever.org :
    Filters
    First is that conventional fossil-fuel petrodiesel is dirty stuff -- not only are the exhaust fumes dirty, but the fuel itself leaves a dirty deposit. Biodiesel isn't only clean, it's a good cleaner -- it does a great job of cleaning up the gunge fossil diesel leaves in the tank and fuel system. So when you first switch to biodiesel, check the fuel filters often and change them when needed. The first few weeks are the most critical.>>

    Biodiesel doesn't do anything for bacteria and fungus growth inherent in diesel fuel. If you've ever burned wesson oil in a pan, you have a good idea of what you're combustion chamber will look like after running this stuff for a long time.

    <<Timing
    Retard the injection timing by 2-3 degrees -- this overcomes the effect of biodiesel's higher cetane number. The engine loses a little of the extra power you get with biodiesel, but it runs quieter and the fuel burns cooler, reducing NOx emissions. (See also NOx emissions and biodiesel.)>>

    Biodiesel has a very low BTU ( energy content ), and retarding the timing makes the truck even more sluggish, not to mention causing me to burn more fuel to move the load. I still don't see the upside.

    Bottom line is there's a difference between the folks who get on TV by powering a motorhome with this stuff, and the fleet that has to run full time, move weight,and do this in any weather, and the engines actually get taken apart to see what the stuff is doing on the inside of the engine.

    Every engine manufacturer says not to run more than 20% biodiesel, and at that level I don't see where it's doing much more than providing a revenue stream for the corn growers.

    Are you interested in making biodiesel for the clean air aspect, or are you looking for a cheap fuel source?

    Tom /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif /forums/images/graemlins/k5.gif

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Since I have no firsthand experience in the biodiesel or the veggie oil, I can only say I will try them, and the reason is not smog, but the renewable energy aspect.
    We need to find an alternative to fossil fuel eventually
    And if it ends up less poluting or more, more expensive or cheaper, once it's the only option we will have to use it.
    /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
     
  9. azblazor

    azblazor 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Posts:
    1,953
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Arizona, Phoenix area
    I'm don't know where you are getting your information from or how seriously you have studied the issue. And I am not an expert but I have been learning about the issue for at least 2 years by reading a lot on the subject both pro and con and talking to users of biodiesel and SVO
    I have not run B20, but I have run B100. I have not run SVO.

    I have used B100 my self. No fuel is perfect. I currently have 4 diesel trucks.

    There are many large scale fleets running biodiesel in varying degrees of mixtures.

    For any type of fuel, fuel processing is very important as the quality of the fuel has a large effect on the engine that burns it.

    Fossil diesel:

    Good: cheap, widely available, somewhat lower Nox emissions

    Bad: low lubricity (low sulfer) and higher particulate emissions, non-renewable

    Biodiesel:

    Good: lower particulate emissions, renewable, can make at home if motivated - cheap and higher quality, high lubricity

    Bad: higher cost if bought commercially, higher Nox emissions (Not tested for in AZ), may affect rubber parts after long use at high percentages.


    It sounds like you are lumping B20, B100 and SVO all together. They are not all the same and they each have there good and bad points also.

    [ QUOTE ]
    According to the EPA's own data, B20 only reduces PM emissions by 10%, which isn't a whole lot, considering its cost. Testing diesels for NOx emissions is going to soon be a fact of life. It's the main component of the cancer causing smog that has everyone worried about diesel emissions in the first place. I don't like "solutions" that don't really solve a problem.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    The UC Davis biodiesel study -- "Chemical and Bioassay Analyses of Diesel and Biodiesel Particulate Matter: Pilot Study -- Final Report" by Norman Y. Kado, Robert A. Okamoto and Paul A. Kuzmicky, Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis, California, November 1996. This U.S. Department of Energy study found that the use of pure biodiesel instead of petroleum-based diesel fuel could offer a 93.6% reduction in cancer risks from exhaust emissions exposure. Acrobat file, 3.1Mb.

    Terry de Winne (Biofuels for Sustainable Transport -- http://www.biofuels.fsnet.co.uk/) has this to add:

    "Ultra low sulphur diesel fuel (ULSD) suffers from two things -- lack of the lubricity of the sulphur and also its ability to vulcanise any rubber components. Ergo, when Europe went over to ULSD in 1993/95, all fuel components were changed by all manufacturers to Viton or similar plastic.

    "Initially, supplies of ULSD were found to be very harsh on the injectors and caused many problems. Most oil companies added lubricity additives to compensate.

    "The French, being farmer-friendly, opted for biodiesel. The three main companies add 5% to all their ULSD. Shell International adds just 2%, but even this small amount is enough to compensate for the removal of the sulphur. It also oxygenates the fuel and brings the emission levels down marginally -- particularly carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide.

    Biodiesel fuel burns up to 75% cleaner than conventional diesel fuel made from fossil fuels
    Biodiesel substantially reduces unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulate matter in exhaust fumes
    Sulphur dioxide emissions are eliminated (biodiesel contains no sulphur)
    Biodiesel is plant-based and adds no CO2 to the atmosphere
    The ozone-forming potential of biodiesel emissions is nearly 50% less than conventional diesel fuel
    Nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions may increase or decrease but can be reduced to well below conventional diesel fuel levels by adjusting engine timing
    Biodiesel exhaust is not offensive and doesn't cause eye irritation (it smells like French fries!)
    Biodiesel is environmentally friendly: it is renewable, "more biodegradable than sugar and less toxic than table salt" (US National Biodiesel Board)
    Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine
    Fuel economy is the same as conventional diesel fuel
    Biodiesel is a much better lubricant than conventional diesel fuel and extends engine life -- a German truck won an entry in the Guinness Book of Records by travelling more than 1.25 million km (780,000 miles) on biodiesel with its original engine
    Biodiesel has a high cetane rating, which improves engine performance: 20% biodiesel added to conventional diesel fuel improves the cetane rating 3 points, making it a Premium fuel
    Biodiesel can be mixed with ordinary diesel fuel in any proportion -- even a small amount of biodiesel means cleaner emissions and better engine lubrication: 1% biodiesel will increase lubricity by 65%
    Biodiesel can be produced from any fat or vegetable oil, including waste cooking oil.
    See the National Biodiesel Board's complete evaluation of biodiesel emissions and potential health effects, in accordance with the most stringent emissions testing protocols ever required by the US EPA (Acrobat file, 213 kb):
    http://www.biodiesel.org/news/bulletin/1998/0498.pdf

    Summary:


    The overall ozone (smog) forming potential of biodiesel is almost 50% less than diesel fuel.
    Sulfur emissions are eliminated.
    Substantial reductions of unburned hydrocarbons (-93%), carbon monoxide (-50%), and particulate matter (-30%).
    Biodiesel NOx emissions can be efficiently eliminated as a concern.
    Substantial reductions of cancer-causing PAH (-80%) and nitrited PAH compounds (-90%).

    [ QUOTE ]
    Biodiesel has a very low BTU ( energy content ), and retarding the timing makes the truck even more sluggish, not to mention causing me to burn more fuel to move the load. I still don't see the upside.

    Bottom line is there's a difference between the folks who get on TV by powering a motorhome with this stuff, and the fleet that has to run full time, move weight,and do this in any weather, and the engines actually get taken apart to see what the stuff is doing on the inside of the engine.

    Every engine manufacturer says not to run more than 20% biodiesel, and at that level I don't see where it's doing much more than providing a revenue stream for the corn growers.


    [/ QUOTE ]
    http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/Performance.PDF

    quote "One of the major advantages of biodiesel is the fact that it can be used in existing engines and fuel injection equipment with little impact to operating performance. Biodiesel has a higher cetane number than US diesel fuel. In over 15 million miles of in-field demonstrations biodiesel showed similar fuel consumption, horsepower, torque, and haulage rates as conventional diesel fuel." unquote

    [ QUOTE ]
    Biodiesel doesn't do anything for bacteria and fungus growth inherent in diesel fuel. If you've ever burned wesson oil in a pan, you have a good idea of what you're combustion chamber will look like after running this stuff for a long time

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Well I think you are confusing biodiesel with SVO but either way a diesel engine doesn't work like a frying pan /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

    I can post up several cases of engines taken apart and having unexpected levels of cleanliness after having run many thousands of miles on biodiesel.....but I guess this post is getting a little too long.

    One last thing:

    According to a comparative life-cycle study by the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, biodiesel requires only 0.31 units of fossil energy to make 1 unit of fuel.
    (An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles)
    http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/docs/lifecycle.html

    "By contrast, it takes 1.2 units of fossil resources to produce 1 unit of petroleum diesel," the study says.


    [ QUOTE ]
    Are you interested in making biodiesel for the clean air aspect, or are you looking for a cheap fuel source?

    [/ QUOTE ] Yes to both.

    SVO is a whole other issue and would require a seperate post.
     
  10. tRustyK5

    tRustyK5 Big meanie Staff Member Super Moderator GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Posts:
    36,169
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Location:
    E-town baby!
    /forums/images/graemlins/bow.gif /forums/images/graemlins/bow.gif /forums/images/graemlins/bow.gif

    Dang Mark...great post!

    Is Bio-diesel commercially available in the US? I realize a person could make it at home...but for some of us this isn't exactly practical.

    Rene
     
  11. azblazor

    azblazor 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Posts:
    1,953
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Arizona, Phoenix area
  12. azblazor

    azblazor 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Posts:
    1,953
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Arizona, Phoenix area
    big pappa b

    Sorry about how this post has gone. (off vegetable oil topic) I have talked to those guys (greasel) on the phone though. I have not run SVO but when I can make the investment (time and money) I will be trying it.

    My plan is to have a small diesel vehicle that is converted to the dual (tank) system and use it as a commuter car. I would like to have an arrangement with a small resturant or two, for picking up their waste oil and then filtering and using it for the vehicle and also experiementing with my own small scale production of biodiesel.

    Mark
     
  13. imiceman44

    imiceman44 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Posts:
    15,160
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    [ QUOTE ]
    .....but I guess this post is getting a little too long.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif

    Still very usefull info.
     
  14. tRustyK5

    tRustyK5 Big meanie Staff Member Super Moderator GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Posts:
    36,169
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Location:
    E-town baby!
    Hmmm, no retailers index for Canada. Looks like a 2 hour drive to WA state could get me some B20 though.

    Rene
     
  15. SUBFAN

    SUBFAN 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Posts:
    2,334
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Davenport, Ia
    All very good information.

    The Bio-Diesel we get is made from soy beans.

    It must burn cleaner, because in my area, the larger factories are using it for clean air credits.

    We sell it to the Power Co.'s fleet of trucks for use in all their equipment. Several of the schools and public transportation around here are switching too....

    I will concur with the cleaning of the system, that is our #1 problem with converts.

    I should have taken a picture of the B100 we spilled this winter....Really funky looking globs of crap! /forums/images/graemlins/yikes.gif /forums/images/graemlins/yikes.gif /forums/images/graemlins/yikes.gif /forums/images/graemlins/yikes.gif And you thought gelled fuel looked bad /forums/images/graemlins/eek.gif /forums/images/graemlins/eek.gif

    Azblazor, I am so impressed with your knowledge, I am going to show this post to my boss in the AM /forums/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif /forums/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif /forums/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif /forums/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif
     
  16. doctor4x4

    doctor4x4 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Posts:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Hey Mark
    VERY USFULL AND HELP FULL INFO !!!!!
    T H A N K S !!!!
    im gonna try it this weekend when i go to santa Barbra
    /forums/images/graemlins/bow.gif /forums/images/graemlins/bow.gif /forums/images/graemlins/bow.gif /forums/images/graemlins/bow.gif
    /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif
    R
     
  17. 4by4bygod

    4by4bygod 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    With My Tinfoil Hat
    Hello azblazor!

    Excellent posts. I do have a question about the lubricity of biodiesel. What is meant when you say it has "high lubricity"? How is it measured? Is it being compared to the lubricity of ULSD fuel, or the current 500ppm we have now?

    I ask because there's no standard for lubricity required for a diesel fuel to be called "premium", and I was wondering if someone came up with a standard when speaking of bio - fuels.

    Thanks, Tom /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif /forums/images/graemlins/k5.gif
     
  18. azblazor

    azblazor 1/2 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2001
    Posts:
    1,953
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Arizona, Phoenix area
    Re: Who runs their deisel on veggie oil??

    [ QUOTE ]
    What is meant when you say it has "high lubricity"?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    High lubricity would mean in relation to fossil diesel in general and low sulfer fossil in particular

    [ QUOTE ]
    How is it measured?

    [/ QUOTE ] D6078-99 Standard Test Method for Evaluating Lubricity of Diesel Fuels by the Scuffing Load Ball-on-Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator (SLBOCLE)

    D6079-99 Standard Test Method for Evaluating Lubricity of Diesel Fuels by the High-Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR)
    The bigger the number the lower the lubricity, the number represents the size of the "scar" left on the test subject.

    [ QUOTE ]
    Is it being compared to the lubricity of ULSD fuel, or the current 500ppm we have now?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yes, both. In my opinion. I am not aware of any mandatory lubricity value "required" to be in diesel fuel at this time.

    The Biodiesel Standard (ASTM D 6751)
    All engines are designed and manufactured for a fuel that has certain characteristics. In the US, the industry organization that defines the consensus on fuels is the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). In the case of diesel fuel (and biodiesel), the responsibility for setting standards lies within ASTM Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants. In order to assure that the standards are rigorous and robust, ASTM committee D02 is comprised of fuel producers, engine equipment manufacturers, and third party interests (users, government agencies, consultants). ASTM also uses a complicated ballot process in which a single negative vote is enough to defeat a ballot, so this is a true consensus organization. An ASTM standard is not easily achieved. Some standards can take over 10 years to gain agreement and be issued by ASTM. This rigorous, time-consuming process is why ASTM standards are recognized and adopted by others worldwide.

    ASTM fuel standards are the minimum accepted values for properties of the fuel to provide adequate customer satisfaction and/or protection. For diesel fuel, the ASTM standard is ASTM D 975. All engine and fuel injection manufacturers design their engines around ASTM D 975. In cooperative discussions with the engine community early in the biodiesel industry's development, engine manufacturers strongly encouraged the biodiesel industry to develop an ASTM standard for biodiesel fuel which would allow them to provide their customers with a more definitive judgment on how the fuel would affect engine and fuel system operations compared to ASTM D 975 fuel for which an engine was designed.

    In June of 1994, a task force was formed within ASTM Subcommittee E on Burner, Diesel, Non-Aviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels of ASTM Committee D02, with the expressed objective of developing an ASTM standard for biodiesel. The biodiesel standard, ASTM PS 121-99, was approved by Subcommittee E, and subsequently issued by ASTM in June of 1999 (for copies, see the ASTM web site at www.astm.org). In December of 2001, ASTM approved the full standard for biodiesel, with the new designation of D-6751 (succeeds PS 121-99). This standard covers pure biodiesel (B100), for blending with petrodiesel in levels up to 20% by volume. Higher levels of biodiesel are allowed on a case-by-case basis after discussion with the individual engine company, since most of the experience in the US thus far has been with B20 blends.

    The approval of this biodiesel standard, and the technical reviews necessary to secure its approval, has provided both the engine community and customers with the information needed to assure trouble free operation with biodiesel blends.


    [ QUOTE ]
    there's no standard for lubricity required for a diesel fuel to be called "premium", and I was wondering if someone came up with a standard when speaking of bio - fuels.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    "Premium" is more closely associated with cetane rating than lubricity.

    EMA (Engine Manufactures Association) August 1997 Consensus Position on Premium Fuel (EMA FQP-1A,8/11/97)

    50 Cetane rating - (ASTM D-613) (ordinary No 2 diesel fuel is blended to the minimum industry recommended level of 40)

    Regarding "Lubricity":
    All diesel engine fuel injection equipment, irrespective of specific design, depends on the fuel pumped for lubrication of internal moving parts. Failures due to a lack of lubricity in the fuel are caused by either the low-pressure (upstream) side of the fuel injection equipment, or the high-pressure (downside) side. Potential problems on the low-pressure side include failures in governing, advance and pump drive, and on the high-pressure side in sub-spec output.

    In recent years, federal and state regulations have targeted the reduction of sulfur and aromatics in diesel fuel in order to obtain cleaner air quality. Unfortunately, the processes that remove sulfur and aromatics also remove components (polyaromatics and nitrogen compounds) that help provide the fuel with its lubricating properties (lubricity). As a result, the new low-sulfur and CARB (California Air Resources Board) petroleum diesel fuels tend to lack sufficient lubricity. However, these fuels blended with as little as 0.4% Biodiesel can meet or exceed the minimum lubricity required by the US military and a proposed new ASTM standard for petroleum diesel fuel. That's right, with a less than 0.5% mix of Biodiesel, a low-sulfur or CARB fuel can become a premium diesel blend, relative to lubricity.

    Biodiesel is proven to have a much higher level of lubricity than the new low-sulfur petroleum diesel fuels. When blended at even relatively low percentages with petroleum diesel, Biodiesel can completely offset the lack of lubricity in the low-sulfur and CARB diesel fuels, while at the same time help reduce EPA-targeted exhaust emissions when used in higher percentages.

    The high lubricating properties of Biodiesel can help protect delicate fuel injection equipment cost-effectively. As previously mentioned, even at low blends (i.e. 0.4%), Biodiesel improves lubricity, with the maximum benefit occurring at blend levels of approximately 10%.

    Tests Show:
    Biodiesel Restores Lubricity to Low-Sulfur Petroleum Diesel

    The International Standards Organization (ISO) established a working group of experts from major diesel engine and equipment manufacturers to examine diesel fuel lubricity and the means for said testing. The group adopted two methods for its testing of lubricity: the BOCLE (Ball-on-Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator) and the HFRR (High Frequency Reciprocating Rig). In its employment of the BOCLE test, the group used the ASTM-5001 test conditions and changed them by increasing the speed and load, while modifying the surface finish of the cylinder (now known as the Scuffing BOCLE test).Through the Scuffing BOCLE test, the group found that with as little as 0.4% Biodiesel blended with #1 petroleum diesel, the resulting blend provided more than the 3,300 gram minimum lubricity rating specified by the US military and by ASTM in its proposed new standard for premium diesel fuel.

    "Low Blends" of Biodiesel: A Guide to Different Blend Levels
    Biodiesel has become a valuable blending component with diesel fuel at low percentage blends because of biodiesels "premium" aspects. Pure biodiesel has high lubricity, high cetane, and a high flash point. "Low blend" can be defined as blends of 5% and below. Even low blends of biodiesel are highly effective at enhancing the lubricity of diesel fuel. The typical blend used for lubricity enhancement is 2% biodiesel mixed with 98% diesel (B2).

    Several commercial "premium diesel" products have incorporated the positive benefits of biodiesel as a component of their multi-functional additive packages. These products typically claim that biodiesel serves as the carrier for the additive and delivers the lubricity properties, making up half of the total additive volume. These types of marketing messages often confuse the customer about the percentage volume of biodiesel in the finished blend. Generally, dosing rates for these types of additives is a maximum .25%. If biodiesel (methyl esters) makes up approximately half of the additive package, a customer could reasonably expect the finished blend to contain .10 - .15% biodiesel (or one-tenth of one percent).

    Blends of up to 5% biodiesel are considered additive volumes. B5 meets the ASTM specification for diesel fuel, D 975. (Blends of up to B20 can meet D 975, however, as blend concentrations increase, there is a higher chance for distortion of some of the test method results which were designed for diesel fuel rather than biodiesel. Hence, all biodiesel (B100) should meet ASTM's biodiesel standard, D 6751, prior to blending with diesel fuel at any level.)

    Interesting letter from a Stanadyne rep to the state of Kansas Legislature:

    http://www.biodiesel.org/markets/pre/resolution.pdf

    Also a cut and paste:

    ASTM to ok better lubricity, cetane formulas for diesels.(American Society for Testing & Materials)
    Diesel Fuel News, July 7, 2003, by Jack Peckham

    American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) "E2" (diesel fuel) subcommittee last month approved a tougher standard designed to help protect modem diesel engines from poor-lubricity fuels.

    The new standard--a 520 microns wear scar index via high-frequency reciprocating rig (HFRR) method--still faces final balloting by ASTM's "D2" fuels committee. At "E2" level, two "negative" votes against the standard were found "non-persuasive" and a third "negative" was withdrawn.

    The new limit represents a compromise between oil industry and automaker/engine positions (see Diesel Fuel News 12/23/02, p3). Refiners had pushed a relatively less stringent 3,100 grams (minimum) limit via scuffling load ball-on-cylinder lubricity evaluator (SLBOCLE) that would avoid possible over-additization and meet Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) standards for heavy-duty diesels.

    Fuel injection equipment (FIE) makers on the other hand pushed for a 460-microns HFRR limit as used for light-duty diesels in Europe. Automakers and FIE makers cite growth of light-duty diesels in North America, along with the growth of low-lubricity ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel, to justify a tougher limit.

    But until last month, the oil/auto sides were so far apart that California Air Resources Board (CARB) began moving to adopt a manclatory diesel lubricity standard (see Diesel Fuel News 6/9/03, p4).

    The ASTM and CARB standards could be tightened still further pending results from an auto/oil Coordinating Research Council (CRC) study on lubricity requirements for new-technology diesel engines. This could lead to a 460-microns (or even stricter) limit if required for ULSD.

    * Five-Year Battle On Cetane Index Ends

    On another front, ASTM's "D2" committee gave final approval to a new cetane index equation scheme, which effectively should put an end to the marketing of some substandard fuels that don't really meet 40-cetane minimum ASTM standards.

    Capping a battle that lasted over five years, D2 approved a variable-equation cetane index scheme for both high-sulfur and No. 1 diesel fuels, and a separate equation for low-sulfur diesel. The new variable-equation scheme eventually might have to be amended for ULSD as well (see Diesel Fuel News 12/23/02, p4).

    Low Sulfur and Diesel Fuel Lubricity; The Continuing Saga

    July 24, 2000
    by
    Maurice E. LePera
    LePera and Associates


    In October 1993, EPA limited sulfur in diesel fuel for "on-road"; vehicles to a maximum of 0.05% or 500 parts per million (PPM). This created many fuel related problems that resulted from the poor lubricating quality of the low sulfur diesel fuel. Since the maximum limit for sulfur in diesel fuel prior to October 1993 had been 0.50% or 5000 PPM, the refinery processing not only lowered the sulfur content but also removed trace amounts of certain polar impurities. Both organo-sulfur compounds and these polar impurities were the ingredients that gave diesel fuel its needed natural lubricating qualities.

    From this new low sulfur limit for all "on-road"; vehicles, several laboratory testing procedures were developed in the mid 1990's that measured the lubricity of diesel fuel. Chevron's Technical Review of Diesel Fuels publication defines lubricity as;the ability to reduce friction between solid surfaces in relative motion, the lubrication mechanism being a combination of hydrodynamic lubrication and boundary lubrication; More simply stated, lubricity is that quality that prevents wear when two moving metal parts come in contact with each other. Three methods were developed which are now available for measuring fuel lubricity; namely, the Scuffing Load Ball on Cylinder Lubricity Evaluator (SLBOCLE), the High Frequency Reciprocating Wear Rig (HFRR), and the Ball on Three Seats Method (BOTS).

    EPA proposed new regulations in May of this year that will further reduce sulfur for "on-road"; diesel fuel to a maximum of 0.0015% or 15 PPM. The proposed regulation is to go into effect June 1, 2006. This reduction in sulfur is fully supported by engine manufactures who contend their new exhaust catalyst systems needed to meet the enacted emission standards will not work if sulfur exceed 15 PPM. However, the proposed legislation is not supported by the refining industries and oil companies who are recommending the limit be set at 0.0050% or 50 PPM. They explain that attempting to meet the anticipated demand for diesel fuel having sulfur at 15 PPM or less will be extremely difficult and very costly for consumers.

    We first have to understand why lubricity is important for diesel fuel. There are several types of diesel fuel injection systems being used by engine manufactures which depend on fuel lubricity in varying degrees. Of all systems being used, the rotary distributor injection pump is the one most dependent on lubricity because the fuel provides 100% lubrication to the internal parts of the injection pump. As the rotary distributor injection pump is highly susceptible to boundary lubrication wear (i.e., when heavy metal-to-metal contact occurs with the fuel providing little or no lubrication), this potential wear becomes more severe with increasing ambient temperature and increasing loading on the engine. Any significant wear will lead to under run and/or stalling annoyances, and eventually premature pump failure. The remaining other types of fuel injection systems are not as highly dependent on the fuel for lubrication and therefore, are not as sensitive to low lubricity diesel fuel, sometimes referred to as "dry diesel fuel";

    These rotary distributor injection pumps, typically found on small to medium size engines, are widely used, and are manufactured by Stanadyne Automotive Corporation,, DENSO Corporation, Robert Bosch GmbH, and Delphi Diesel Systems. These types of fuel injection pumps are typically found in most US and foreign manufactured light duty vehicles and a wide variety of equipment systems.

    Since the introduction of low sulfur diesel fuel in 1993, there has been a considerable amount of effort by the automotive industry, users, and the petroleum industry to incorporate a "lubricity requirement"; in commercial diesel fuel; namely, ASTM D975. Unfortunately, this has not yet happened due to a combination of politics and other factors. However, there had been in Europe a greater awareness and acceptance for specifying a lubricity requirement. The European Union's Diesel Fuel Standard EN590 now requires all low sulfur diesel fuel sold in Europe to meet a lubricity standard that uses the HFRR procedure.

    In the United States, the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) published their "Recommended Guideline on Premium Diesel Fuel&" in 1997. This document, identified as EMA FQP-1A, did include a lubricity requirement for both grades of low sulfur diesel fuel. Additionally, the World-Wide Fuel Charter published by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) in January 2000 also specified a lubricity requirement for all four of their diesel fuel categories. More recently, the Diesel Fuel Injection Equipment Manufacturers (FIE) issued a "Common Position Statement on Fuel for Diesel Engines" in June 2000. Contained within this statement was a strong recommendation for including the same lubricity requirement as in the EN590 standard. So there has been some progress.

    As low sulfur diesel fuel continues to be sold in the United States without any requirement for lubricity, there continues to exist the potential for wear problems especially in engines with the rotary distributor fuel injection pumps. The consumer is led to believe that all is well as fuel producers would not market a "low lubricity or lubricity deficient" fuel that could promote wear. That however may or may not be the case since there is "no measuring stick" presently being used. Without the enforcement of a lubricity standard, neither consumers nor fuel distributors can be certain as to whether the fuel has adequate lubricity.

    As soon as the industry standard for diesel fuel D975 incorporates a lubricity standard, the potential for wear problems will become a distant memory. This standard will most certainly be needed prior to the next planned reduction of sulfur in 2006.
     
  19. tRustyK5

    tRustyK5 Big meanie Staff Member Super Moderator GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Posts:
    36,169
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Location:
    E-town baby!
    Re: Who runs their deisel on veggie oil??

    My head hurts now... /forums/images/graemlins/doah.gif

    Rene
     
  20. imiceman44

    imiceman44 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Posts:
    15,160
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Re: Who runs their deisel on veggie oil??

    [ QUOTE ]
    My head hurts now... /forums/images/graemlins/doah.gif

    Rene

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I wonder why... /forums/images/graemlins/yikes.gif

    Great info though.
    Thanks /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
     

Share This Page