K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
just wondering if anyone here is running it? im hoping to save up enough to build one sometime this year, i got a taco bell, mcdonnalds, and chinese food resturant at the end of my street. WVO will not be a problem 
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
Biodiesel
- Thread starter K5dreamer
- Start date
4by4bygod
1/2 ton status
biodiesel and WVO aren't the same thing.
Here's a WVO thread:
http://coloradok5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214617&highlight=WVO
and type this in your browser:
www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/clean_cities_SVOpaper.pdf
Here's a WVO thread:
http://coloradok5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214617&highlight=WVO
and type this in your browser:
www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/clean_cities_SVOpaper.pdf
K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
oh sorry, i guess the way i typed that it sounded like i thought they were the same, i know theyre not. But you need WVO to make biodiesel through a methanol / lye titration reaction. im not trying to convert my truck to run on WVO, if anything id be putting a fuel heater/lift pump on the fuel line and thats it.
fun stuff with biodiesel, is its actually better on the parts than ULSD, runs just as well power wise, and produces far less emissions, and almost no particulate matter. Im all about it. Im even looking to find a turbo diesel sedan... to bad i live in the states. all the fun turbo diesel sedans are in europe
fun stuff with biodiesel, is its actually better on the parts than ULSD, runs just as well power wise, and produces far less emissions, and almost no particulate matter. Im all about it. Im even looking to find a turbo diesel sedan... to bad i live in the states. all the fun turbo diesel sedans are in europe
4by4bygod
1/2 ton status
oh sorry, i guess the way i typed that it sounded like i thought they were the same, i know theyre not. But you need WVO to make biodiesel through a methanol / lye titration reaction. im not trying to convert my truck to run on WVO, if anything id be putting a fuel heater/lift pump on the fuel line and thats it.
fun stuff with biodiesel, is its actually better on the parts than ULSD, runs just as well power wise, and produces far less emissions, and almost no particulate matter. Im all about it. Im even looking to find a turbo diesel sedan... to bad i live in the states. all the fun turbo diesel sedans are in europe
I gotcha..yes, there is a way to make BD from WVO, I forgot about that.
Actually, BD isn't all it's cracked up to be.. do what you want, but at least do a biodiesel search here on CK5 - lots of info you won't learn by reading the national biodiesel board website.
Here are the cliff's notes:
1) Biodiesel causes one to burn more fuel to perform the same amount of work, because of the reduced energy content of BD
2) Biodiesel raises NOx emissions, and raises certain particulates ( the nasty organic carbon emissions ). There are some reductions in other particulates, ( inorganic carbon), but as a method of reducing total particulates, it's not sufficient. the biodiesel industry cherry picks the numbers it likes, from test conditions that makes it look favorable,and proclaims them as gospel.
3) the aspects of BD that provide lubricity are the contaminants known as glycerides. Glycerides gell in the cold weather. this introduces the conundrum of " do we refine the BD so it won't clog, or do we leave the contaminants in there to help lubricate the fuel system"?
4) the methods of measuring lubricity aren't accurate, as they do not mirror real world operating conditions and temperatures.
5) The engine and injector manufacturers are on record as saying biodiesel causes things like injector coking, ring sticking, and other maladies - they're fine with higher blends however because of two things - the warranty can't be voided because you use or install something the factory didn't make (they don't make your fuel) so they can't say anything anyway, and the warranty doesn't cover damage cause by any fuel, bio or petro.. so they make money from you when you have problems.
6) As is the case with ULSD, biofuels are are a breeding ground for bacteria, fungus and yeast. that's another cause of the filter clogging, in addition to the glycerides dropping out of suspension.
the big winners are the farm lobby, and the politicians who cash their checks.
Let's not forget what BD production does to food prices...
There is one station near me that has B15, B30, and B100 as well as regular diesel. I pulled in needing diesel with no idea they had bio-diesel (let alone a good selection) and filled up with diesel anyways. The attendant made a big issue of how I chose regular diesel instead of the bio-diesel and that I must hate the environment or something...
I told him he should do some research himself before parroting the bio-diesel propoganda, paid and left.
Rene
There is one station near me that has B15, B30, and B100 as well as regular diesel. I pulled in needing diesel with no idea they had bio-diesel (let alone a good selection) and filled up with diesel anyways. The attendant made a big issue of how I chose regular diesel instead of the bio-diesel and that I must hate the environment or something...
I told him he should do some research himself before parroting the bio-diesel propoganda, paid and left.
Rene
K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
you raise interesting points, but allow me to interject....
1. BD has slightly lower energy density, but not much. and if im brewing my own fuel, that hardly matters, cuz im making it at around .50 a gallon.
2. everyone picks and chooses what results suit the argument they are making, why should the BD people be any different
Yes, NOx goes up, because BD tents to have about 11% oxygen and oxygenated fuels produce more NOx, but HC are definatly reduced drasticly, as is CO, both play a huge part in producing ozone. As for "some" reduction in particulates, id have to ask that you cite some sources on that, because every report i have read, has stated a signifigant reduction in particulate emissions. And these are not just the reports from the BD interests.
3. there is certainly a concern about fuel gelling with biodiesel. but with proper production, with washing and drying, this is minimized. Im not to concerned about it myself, i dont live in an area that really gets cold enough for it to be an issue. maybe in the coldest months of the year ill blend with some petro diesel to be safe, but with a fuel line heater, and maybe even a tank heater, i wont be to worried about issues.
4. fair enough, although recreating real world conditions in a lab is pretty much impossible, hence the reason for real world testing.
5. coking and other problems associated with BD tend to be from sloppy production methods, and incomplete processing of the fuel, such as proper titration, washing, drying, filtering your WVO stock before use, etc. etc.
6. couldnt care less about farm interests and politicians, id brew my own fuel, and stick it to the man.
Thing is, the world isnt a perfect place, im ok with that. Im not really interested in the politics of petro vs bio. But i do realize that petro fuels are going the way of the dinosaur. we dont have a perfect silver bullet answer to replace it, i dont think we ever will. Im majoring in... well, basically green energy, so my goal is the development of technologies that steer us away from petro fuel, and all the world conflict associated with it. IMHO the future is in algae diesel, hydrogen boosted electric cars, etc. etc. but thats for a different discussion.
short version, im sick of petro diesel, the corruption, the war, the negative impact on the environment and quality of life for so many people. So building a biodiesel still and brewing my own fuel, is my little way of giving the man the finger ive even toyed with the idea of selling off my gas powered IROC camaro and getting a TDI golf or jetta to fuel on BD, but i think ill just convert the camaro to run on strait alcohol, and get a distillers licence, and brew my own alcohol fuel as well 
1. BD has slightly lower energy density, but not much. and if im brewing my own fuel, that hardly matters, cuz im making it at around .50 a gallon.
2. everyone picks and chooses what results suit the argument they are making, why should the BD people be any different
Yes, NOx goes up, because BD tents to have about 11% oxygen and oxygenated fuels produce more NOx, but HC are definatly reduced drasticly, as is CO, both play a huge part in producing ozone. As for "some" reduction in particulates, id have to ask that you cite some sources on that, because every report i have read, has stated a signifigant reduction in particulate emissions. And these are not just the reports from the BD interests. 3. there is certainly a concern about fuel gelling with biodiesel. but with proper production, with washing and drying, this is minimized. Im not to concerned about it myself, i dont live in an area that really gets cold enough for it to be an issue. maybe in the coldest months of the year ill blend with some petro diesel to be safe, but with a fuel line heater, and maybe even a tank heater, i wont be to worried about issues.
4. fair enough, although recreating real world conditions in a lab is pretty much impossible, hence the reason for real world testing.
5. coking and other problems associated with BD tend to be from sloppy production methods, and incomplete processing of the fuel, such as proper titration, washing, drying, filtering your WVO stock before use, etc. etc.
6. couldnt care less about farm interests and politicians, id brew my own fuel, and stick it to the man.
Thing is, the world isnt a perfect place, im ok with that. Im not really interested in the politics of petro vs bio. But i do realize that petro fuels are going the way of the dinosaur. we dont have a perfect silver bullet answer to replace it, i dont think we ever will. Im majoring in... well, basically green energy, so my goal is the development of technologies that steer us away from petro fuel, and all the world conflict associated with it. IMHO the future is in algae diesel, hydrogen boosted electric cars, etc. etc. but thats for a different discussion.
short version, im sick of petro diesel, the corruption, the war, the negative impact on the environment and quality of life for so many people. So building a biodiesel still and brewing my own fuel, is my little way of giving the man the finger
ive even toyed with the idea of selling off my gas powered IROC camaro and getting a TDI golf or jetta to fuel on BD, but i think ill just convert the camaro to run on strait alcohol, and get a distillers licence, and brew my own alcohol fuel as well 
runamok151
1 ton status
not to hijack, but this is a good discussion going on. i bought a '05 cummins last year (my first diesel) with the anticipation of buying a system to make my own biodiesel. i was surprised to read the owners manual which stated that i should not use more than 5% biodiesel. does anyone know if there is a real problem w/ the newer diesels using this fuel (ie biodiesel can't handle the higher fuel pressures), or is it just that the engine manufacturers aren't satisfied w/ the quality control of a home brewed fuel and don't want to cover warrantee work for damage caused by poorly made fuel, or is it just that the oil companies have paid of the engine manufacturers to say not to use it?
K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
generally speaking its to avoid warranty and driveability claims. biodiesel does gel, and you can run B5 without worrying about it too much.
but you also addressed the other main concern where it is impossible to take the quality of home brewed fuels into account. newer diesels are more sensitive to the issues of clogged injectors, and coking, and other issues such as that than older diesels.
Now, that dosnt mean your truck cant run it. There are plenty of late model trucks being run on strait B100 biodiesel with no problems. so long as you are very careful with your filtering, and processing, you shouldnt have any problems.
but you also addressed the other main concern where it is impossible to take the quality of home brewed fuels into account. newer diesels are more sensitive to the issues of clogged injectors, and coking, and other issues such as that than older diesels.
Now, that dosnt mean your truck cant run it. There are plenty of late model trucks being run on strait B100 biodiesel with no problems. so long as you are very careful with your filtering, and processing, you shouldnt have any problems.
4by4bygod
1/2 ton status
Just to cover some bases first:
The manguson moss warranty act ( stating that a warranty cannot be voided by using an aftermarket product) is a federal law that applies to any product you might use with or install on any vehicle.
The key to remember is that warranties only pertain to materials and workmanship. IE: what Cummins, Mack, GM, Ford, etc make and put together themselves..
Since the engine manufacturer isn't in the fuels buisiness, any failures resulting from the use of a given fuel isn't their responsibility anyway.
here is a quote from cummin's warranty documentation:
The use of biodiesel does not affect the OEM materials and workmanship warranty.The key to remember is that warranties only pertain to materials and workmanship. IE: what Cummins, Mack, GM, Ford, etc make and put together themselves..
Since the engine manufacturer isn't in the fuels buisiness, any failures resulting from the use of a given fuel isn't their responsibility anyway.
here is a quote from cummin's warranty documentation:
However, any engine failure or performance issue caused by the use of biodiesel or other fuel additives cannot be considered as defects of the engine, components or workmanship - and would therefore not be covered by OEM warranty. This is no different from our position with any regular diesel fuel. cummins does not cover the damage caused by products from other companies that may have insufficient quality. It is important to ensure when using any diesel fuel or a B5 biodiesel blend with OEM engine that the fuel meets industry acceptable quality standards”
and here's another, from CAT:
“Failures that result from the use of any fuel are not factory defects. Therefore the cost of repair would NOT be covered by ‘OEM warranty”.
So, now you know that you as an engine owner are on your own, no matter what fuel you choose to use. As to why the B5 limit - a few years ago, it was all the engine manufacturers would agree to, as there were no ASTM standards in place for biofuels - now, there is an ASTM standard, but understand that it only applies to blends of B20 and below. And just because their is a standard, it doesn't mean that biodiesels operational drawbacks have gone away - they haven't..but now the OEM's can give the appearance of being politically correct, and accept a 20% blend, because it doesn't cost them anything anyway.
just to point this out - injector coking and ring sticking with BD has nothing to do with blend specifications or filtering - it is a function of heat ( from combustion temps and injector pressures ) breaking down the fuel itself. biofuels are limited by the physics of their composition, and the physics inherent in the combustion process.
If you guys want, search on all the biodiesel threads here on CK5 - there's lots of info, ( with links and citations) most of which you may not like, especially what comes from me.
it's good to be motivated to do the right thing - but it does no good to pick the wrong technology to help you get there. biofuels are a politically correct scam.
Rene is 100% dead on too - do some research on what biofuel production is doing to food crops and the rainforest..
the truth is out there..K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
4by4bygod - ill try not to be confrontational here, it definatly seems like you know alot about what youre talking about, however i question some of your statements, and to call biofuel a politically correct scam is, in my opinion, misinformation.
I am basically majoring in green technology, mechanical engineering major, dual minor in aerospace and environmental engineering, and have been a tree hugger since about sixth grade. I have done extensive research regarding biofuels and their pro's and con's.
are they a silver bullet cure. no, i stated that in my previous posts. but they are a helluva lot better than petro fuels. With current transportation consumptions of fuel there is no way biofuels can become our sole supply, and biofuels that take up crop land, such as E85 which is a pipe dream, are a detrament to the cause. Even Hydrogen which is being billed as the future of fuels, is laughable. The only place that hydrogen would be effective, is in the city, with fueling stations installed in peoples homes rather than on the street, a small electrolysis device, connected to solar or wind power would be able to produce the hydrogen needed for a short range commuter car. However the ideas of Hydrogen highways with high pressure gas lines or storage tanks and the infrastructure behind it is unrealistic.
I dont know if you have responded to my statement about algae diesel. its something you might concider reading up on. It would have no impact on the rainforests or food prices, because it dosnt require crop land. It is in the infant stages as far as the technology goes. but the promise is there. My college is actually doing experiments with the technology right now at a local water treatment plant. If the full potential, or even 3/4 the potential of algae diesel is realized (big if, ill admit that) the answer to domestically produced fuel source will be realized. and it will not be a bad thing.
regarding the negative effects of bio-fuels on automobiles, it is to be expected that running a fuel with different characteristics through an automobile will have some adverse effects. The responce will be to alter the design of the automobiles. This is the natural progression of things, not something to be seen as a negative. When biofuels become viable, cars will be designed to take better advantage of them.
E85 for instance. while i have already stated it is a pipe dream, as the land required to produce the needed feed stock will drastically effect the price of food and its availability, it serves a purpose in explaining what i mean. Everyone talks about the pro's and con's of the fuel, mainly in terms of its positive effect on the environment, and its negative effect on the car. but also its poor gas mileage due to a lower energy density than gasoline. Well, that is to be expected. The engines being used to test the ethanol are designed to run on gasoline, not alcohol. The technology exists to make an engine that will run ethanol with the same, or better mileage than current gas powered cars, and make more power. I could launch into a lengthy explenation, but for now, ill only focus on the fact that you can run much higher compression on alcohol than gasoline. Performance gasoline engines from the factory tend to top out around 10:1 compression. alcohol engines could safely run as high as 15:1, add to that a turbo, and direct injection with a stratified injection sequence, and youll be making more power and due to the optimized design, youll be getting a better combustion which yeilds better mileage.
Its similar to running two gasoline engines, both Naturally aspirated, but one is a 6:1 compression, and the other is a 10:1 compression. If all else is equal, which one will get better gas milage? the one that is optimized to run on the fuel being used.
Also, you talk about the coking issue and such as a "characteristic of the fuel" as if its an unavoidable side effect of running BD. I think the mass number of people across the country running BD in their daily driven cars would disagree with you. These issues do exist, but they are hardley a certainty, and it IS effected by the quality of your biofuel. im shooting off the top of my head here, and ill have to look something up to verify it, but the coking is a product of fatty acids, which arent a component of "pure" biodiesel. they are always there in some capasity, but bio-diesel is supposed to be methyl-esthers. The quality of the filtering and titration directly impacts the levels of fatty acids in the final product. the more fatty acids you have, the more coking, clogging, and other such problems.
I am basically majoring in green technology, mechanical engineering major, dual minor in aerospace and environmental engineering, and have been a tree hugger since about sixth grade. I have done extensive research regarding biofuels and their pro's and con's.
are they a silver bullet cure. no, i stated that in my previous posts. but they are a helluva lot better than petro fuels. With current transportation consumptions of fuel there is no way biofuels can become our sole supply, and biofuels that take up crop land, such as E85 which is a pipe dream, are a detrament to the cause. Even Hydrogen which is being billed as the future of fuels, is laughable. The only place that hydrogen would be effective, is in the city, with fueling stations installed in peoples homes rather than on the street, a small electrolysis device, connected to solar or wind power would be able to produce the hydrogen needed for a short range commuter car. However the ideas of Hydrogen highways with high pressure gas lines or storage tanks and the infrastructure behind it is unrealistic.
I dont know if you have responded to my statement about algae diesel. its something you might concider reading up on. It would have no impact on the rainforests or food prices, because it dosnt require crop land. It is in the infant stages as far as the technology goes. but the promise is there. My college is actually doing experiments with the technology right now at a local water treatment plant. If the full potential, or even 3/4 the potential of algae diesel is realized (big if, ill admit that) the answer to domestically produced fuel source will be realized. and it will not be a bad thing.
regarding the negative effects of bio-fuels on automobiles, it is to be expected that running a fuel with different characteristics through an automobile will have some adverse effects. The responce will be to alter the design of the automobiles. This is the natural progression of things, not something to be seen as a negative. When biofuels become viable, cars will be designed to take better advantage of them.
E85 for instance. while i have already stated it is a pipe dream, as the land required to produce the needed feed stock will drastically effect the price of food and its availability, it serves a purpose in explaining what i mean. Everyone talks about the pro's and con's of the fuel, mainly in terms of its positive effect on the environment, and its negative effect on the car. but also its poor gas mileage due to a lower energy density than gasoline. Well, that is to be expected. The engines being used to test the ethanol are designed to run on gasoline, not alcohol. The technology exists to make an engine that will run ethanol with the same, or better mileage than current gas powered cars, and make more power. I could launch into a lengthy explenation, but for now, ill only focus on the fact that you can run much higher compression on alcohol than gasoline. Performance gasoline engines from the factory tend to top out around 10:1 compression. alcohol engines could safely run as high as 15:1, add to that a turbo, and direct injection with a stratified injection sequence, and youll be making more power and due to the optimized design, youll be getting a better combustion which yeilds better mileage.
Its similar to running two gasoline engines, both Naturally aspirated, but one is a 6:1 compression, and the other is a 10:1 compression. If all else is equal, which one will get better gas milage? the one that is optimized to run on the fuel being used.
Also, you talk about the coking issue and such as a "characteristic of the fuel" as if its an unavoidable side effect of running BD. I think the mass number of people across the country running BD in their daily driven cars would disagree with you. These issues do exist, but they are hardley a certainty, and it IS effected by the quality of your biofuel. im shooting off the top of my head here, and ill have to look something up to verify it, but the coking is a product of fatty acids, which arent a component of "pure" biodiesel. they are always there in some capasity, but bio-diesel is supposed to be methyl-esthers. The quality of the filtering and titration directly impacts the levels of fatty acids in the final product. the more fatty acids you have, the more coking, clogging, and other such problems.
4by4bygod
1/2 ton status
Dreamer - sorry I come off as confrontational- I'm as committed to my positions as you are to yours, and I get a little strident - it's nothing personal.
Anyway, I wanted to show you some research that's out there regarding BD emissions - it's a PDF, so type it into your browser - I've excerpted a part of it below:
www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/20051130_gen-372.pdf -
"The soluble organic fraction(SOF) of the PM was signifi-
cantly higher with the biodiesel and neat methylester fuels
28 (Table5).This result corresponds with previous research
which showed that the SOF increases with biodiesel,although a
dependence on the engine test conditions and PM sampling
parameters can be observed. Although the exact mechanism
requires some research in light of some varying results concern-
ing petrodiesel versus bio diesel components, the higher SOF
observed with biodiesel and the neat methylester fuels can
probably be attributed to the lower volatility (higher boiling
28 point)of biodiesel."
Additional research ( it's out there, trust me) indicates the following emission changes with BD:
SOLID ( “ DRY” ) INORGANIC CARBON PARTICULATES ( SOOT ) – DECREASE
ORGAINC ( “WET” ) CARBON PARTICULATES ( SOF’S ) – INCREASE - SOF’S ARE THE MOST HARMFUL COMPONENTS OF PM.
TOTAL PARTICULATE NUMBER – INCONCLUSIVE ( if you increase one and decrease the other, what other answer would you expect?)
NITROGEN OXIDES – ( NOX ) - INCREASED
BIODIESEL ALSO NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THESE EMISSIONS: HCL – HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HC – HYDROCARBONS NH3 – AMMONIA
SO2 - SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM BIODIESEL BLEND FUELS ARE COMPARABLE TO PETROLEUM DIESEL.
It's helpful to understand how PM is defined - PM is defined as:
Diesel particulate matter (DPM), as defined by the EPA regulations and sampling procedures, is a complex aggregate of solid and liquid material. Its origin is carbonaceous particles generated in the engine cylinder during combustion. The primary carbon particles form larger agglomerates and combine with several other, both organic and inorganic, components of diesel exhaust. Generally, DPM is divided into three basic fractions
here's why all of this matters - SOF's are a large component of PM 2.5, otherwise known as fine level particulates. PM 2.5, and VOC's are toxicologically significant. States having counties with higher than allowable inventories of NOx and PM 2.5 face big time losses of federal highway funds, if they don't reduce these emissions. "non attainment" mandates exist, because the EPA knows that ULSD fuel and 2007 tier III engines can't solve the problem.
here's the big question - if states face sanctions for too much Nox and PM 2.5, why are states mandating the use of a fuel that raises these very emissions? ( ethanol has the same emissions effects, btw)
I've never gotten a straight answer on this question.
One solution to the carbon emission problem with biodiesel your professor will tell you about is to slap a DPF on there, and all will be well. What he doesn't understand, is that DPF's are very application specific, and have caused more operational problems than they solve, especially on low duty cycle applications like school buses and underground mining equipment.
here's where the anecdotal stuff starts, so everything I say has some context, and you'll understand why I care about this stuff:
I appreciate the fact you are majoring in green technology, and I applaud your enthusiasm,( and the fact you want to stick it to the man) but I come at it from a different perspective. I'm deeply involved with a company that solves emissions issues for fleets, without biofuels or retrofits. I get a front row seat for the unintended consequences of all of the green mandates.
I have read up on algae diesel, and yep, it sounds good..my issue is this.. when I hang out at clean air stakeholder meetings, they are well attended by engineers who work on things like fuel cells, biofuel projects, etc.. they all sit there, pat themselves on the back for doing gods work, and admit, " hey, none of this works in the real world, but we need more research dollars"... and the EPA guys sit there and say " if you guys want job security, get ready - once we figure out how to solve for non attainment, the clear skies initiatives will kick in, and we'll really clean the air with even newer rules".. these are the same people who want gas to be 5 bucks a gallon so everyone uses less..
to say I'm skeptical about the claims of biofuel technology advocates being on the side of the people is an understatement..
meanwhile, the guys with the trucks are quaking in their boots because they don't know what will happen next..those are the guys I stand with.. I talk to equipment operators who use biodiesel, and can't figure out why their PM emissions keep going up..they use more, and the problem gets worse..a BD rep told this one customer to " ignore the high organic carbon readings, just pay attention to the inorganic"..
I've met one, who went to B50, and every piece of equipment shut down, when the injectors coked.. and the fuel was a commercial blend, using a base diesel fuel known the world over.
it's funny - biodiesel never had to go through the EPA's verification program for emission reduction technologies - the EPA totally relied on industry supplied data, and rubber stamped it as good. when a school district buys it, they never come back and measure anything - they just parrot the propaganda.. industries that ARE measuring actual emissions using biodiesel in the real world are really upset right now..
The only positive outcome companies get from using BD is good PR, and everyone gets to feel good - otherwise, it's a net loss. biofuels only flourish in markets where fleets are made to use it, and if it wasn't subsidized, there would be no reason for the industry to exist.
I will be happy to see the biofuel fad flame out - as a nation, we need to get serious about coal to diesel..I also don't believe we're running out of oil, so I say we stop letting the sierra club run our energy policy, and get to drilling.
Anyway, I wanted to show you some research that's out there regarding BD emissions - it's a PDF, so type it into your browser - I've excerpted a part of it below:
Exhaust Emissions of Biodiesel, Petrodiesel, NeatMethyl Esters,and
Alkanes in a New Technology Engine
Alkanes in a New Technology Engine
www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/20051130_gen-372.pdf -
"The soluble organic fraction(SOF) of the PM was signifi-
cantly higher with the biodiesel and neat methylester fuels
28 (Table5).This result corresponds with previous research
which showed that the SOF increases with biodiesel,although a
dependence on the engine test conditions and PM sampling
parameters can be observed. Although the exact mechanism
requires some research in light of some varying results concern-
ing petrodiesel versus bio diesel components, the higher SOF
observed with biodiesel and the neat methylester fuels can
probably be attributed to the lower volatility (higher boiling
28 point)of biodiesel."
Additional research ( it's out there, trust me) indicates the following emission changes with BD:
SOLID ( “ DRY” ) INORGANIC CARBON PARTICULATES ( SOOT ) – DECREASE
ORGAINC ( “WET” ) CARBON PARTICULATES ( SOF’S ) – INCREASE - SOF’S ARE THE MOST HARMFUL COMPONENTS OF PM.
TOTAL PARTICULATE NUMBER – INCONCLUSIVE ( if you increase one and decrease the other, what other answer would you expect?)
NITROGEN OXIDES – ( NOX ) - INCREASED
BIODIESEL ALSO NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THESE EMISSIONS: HCL – HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HC – HYDROCARBONS NH3 – AMMONIA
SO2 - SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM BIODIESEL BLEND FUELS ARE COMPARABLE TO PETROLEUM DIESEL.
It's helpful to understand how PM is defined - PM is defined as:
Diesel particulate matter (DPM), as defined by the EPA regulations and sampling procedures, is a complex aggregate of solid and liquid material. Its origin is carbonaceous particles generated in the engine cylinder during combustion. The primary carbon particles form larger agglomerates and combine with several other, both organic and inorganic, components of diesel exhaust. Generally, DPM is divided into three basic fractions
- Solids - dry carbon particles, commonly known as soot,
- SOF - heavy hydrocarbons adsorbed and condensed on the carbon particles, called Soluble Organic Fraction,
- SO4 - sulfate fraction, hydrated sulfuric acid.
here's why all of this matters - SOF's are a large component of PM 2.5, otherwise known as fine level particulates. PM 2.5, and VOC's are toxicologically significant. States having counties with higher than allowable inventories of NOx and PM 2.5 face big time losses of federal highway funds, if they don't reduce these emissions. "non attainment" mandates exist, because the EPA knows that ULSD fuel and 2007 tier III engines can't solve the problem.
here's the big question - if states face sanctions for too much Nox and PM 2.5, why are states mandating the use of a fuel that raises these very emissions? ( ethanol has the same emissions effects, btw)
I've never gotten a straight answer on this question.
One solution to the carbon emission problem with biodiesel your professor will tell you about is to slap a DPF on there, and all will be well. What he doesn't understand, is that DPF's are very application specific, and have caused more operational problems than they solve, especially on low duty cycle applications like school buses and underground mining equipment.
here's where the anecdotal stuff starts, so everything I say has some context, and you'll understand why I care about this stuff:
I appreciate the fact you are majoring in green technology, and I applaud your enthusiasm,( and the fact you want to stick it to the man) but I come at it from a different perspective. I'm deeply involved with a company that solves emissions issues for fleets, without biofuels or retrofits. I get a front row seat for the unintended consequences of all of the green mandates.
I have read up on algae diesel, and yep, it sounds good..my issue is this.. when I hang out at clean air stakeholder meetings, they are well attended by engineers who work on things like fuel cells, biofuel projects, etc.. they all sit there, pat themselves on the back for doing gods work, and admit, " hey, none of this works in the real world, but we need more research dollars"... and the EPA guys sit there and say " if you guys want job security, get ready - once we figure out how to solve for non attainment, the clear skies initiatives will kick in, and we'll really clean the air with even newer rules".. these are the same people who want gas to be 5 bucks a gallon so everyone uses less..
to say I'm skeptical about the claims of biofuel technology advocates being on the side of the people is an understatement..
meanwhile, the guys with the trucks are quaking in their boots because they don't know what will happen next..those are the guys I stand with.. I talk to equipment operators who use biodiesel, and can't figure out why their PM emissions keep going up..they use more, and the problem gets worse..a BD rep told this one customer to " ignore the high organic carbon readings, just pay attention to the inorganic"..
I've met one, who went to B50, and every piece of equipment shut down, when the injectors coked.. and the fuel was a commercial blend, using a base diesel fuel known the world over.
it's funny - biodiesel never had to go through the EPA's verification program for emission reduction technologies - the EPA totally relied on industry supplied data, and rubber stamped it as good. when a school district buys it, they never come back and measure anything - they just parrot the propaganda.. industries that ARE measuring actual emissions using biodiesel in the real world are really upset right now..
The only positive outcome companies get from using BD is good PR, and everyone gets to feel good - otherwise, it's a net loss. biofuels only flourish in markets where fleets are made to use it, and if it wasn't subsidized, there would be no reason for the industry to exist.
I will be happy to see the biofuel fad flame out - as a nation, we need to get serious about coal to diesel..I also don't believe we're running out of oil, so I say we stop letting the sierra club run our energy policy, and get to drilling.
K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
Oh definatly nothing personal taken, i happen to rather enjoy a spirited debate with someone else who knows what they are talking about
I dont have the time right now to look into everything youve said, but let me touch on a few topics if i may.
sulfer dioxide emissions are similar with biodiesel blends, however, im talking about running pure biodiesel, which has no sulfer.
Lye - NaOH
Methanol - CH3OH
triglycerides - well..... really complicated to type out, but no sulfer
methyl esters - again, wont type out but no sulfer
now, i know youll have something to say about this one, but these are EPA tests, even though they are on the biodiesel.org website.
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.pdf
you stated before that HC were increased, indicating a less efficient burn or improper combustion. These results show a 20% decrease with B20, and a 67% decrease with B100. Lower carbon monoxide, and lower particulate mater, both close to a 50% reduction with biodiesel. but you are correct in that due to the oxigenated nature of the fuel, NOx does go up, but only about 10% with B100.
With sulfates, B100 causes a 100% decrease, that is a total elimination of sulfates. and B20 causes an estimated 20% decrease... i really wouldnt call that comparable as you did in your last thread. id say thats rather significant.
In terms of the organic particulates you labeled SOF's, im pretty sure they are also known as PAH's, or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, i may be mistaken, but the descriptions are almost identical. so i apologize if im making a false statement here. but if you look at the chart, it stands in stark contrast to what youve stated about biodiesel having more SOF's/PAH's than regular diesel. in fact, the chart shows an 80% drop with B100.
now i understand fully that this falls into the category of the industry picking and choosing what it wants to talk about, and i myself question the validity of any test result that dosnt first outline the procedure in which the results were obtained, but i am comforateable listing these numbers as they do corrospond to the numbers i am familiar with having researched this issue in the past.
In regards to a DPF, im afraid you are mistaken as to what my professors would say
ODU is actually conducting experiements with plasma arc gasifier technology that uses high current to tear apart molecules into base atomic structures, producing benign compounds with no harmful effects to the environment. And yes, they are designing it specifically to be mounted on vehicles in place of, or in addition to, catalytic converters and DPF's and such.
In any case, i need to get out of here, but i will look more in depth at the PDF you posted later today.
I dont have the time right now to look into everything youve said, but let me touch on a few topics if i may.
sulfer dioxide emissions are similar with biodiesel blends, however, im talking about running pure biodiesel, which has no sulfer.
Lye - NaOH
Methanol - CH3OH
triglycerides - well..... really complicated to type out, but no sulfer
methyl esters - again, wont type out but no sulfer
now, i know youll have something to say about this one, but these are EPA tests, even though they are on the biodiesel.org website.
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.pdf
you stated before that HC were increased, indicating a less efficient burn or improper combustion. These results show a 20% decrease with B20, and a 67% decrease with B100. Lower carbon monoxide, and lower particulate mater, both close to a 50% reduction with biodiesel. but you are correct in that due to the oxigenated nature of the fuel, NOx does go up, but only about 10% with B100.
With sulfates, B100 causes a 100% decrease, that is a total elimination of sulfates. and B20 causes an estimated 20% decrease... i really wouldnt call that comparable as you did in your last thread. id say thats rather significant.
In terms of the organic particulates you labeled SOF's, im pretty sure they are also known as PAH's, or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, i may be mistaken, but the descriptions are almost identical. so i apologize if im making a false statement here. but if you look at the chart, it stands in stark contrast to what youve stated about biodiesel having more SOF's/PAH's than regular diesel. in fact, the chart shows an 80% drop with B100.
now i understand fully that this falls into the category of the industry picking and choosing what it wants to talk about, and i myself question the validity of any test result that dosnt first outline the procedure in which the results were obtained, but i am comforateable listing these numbers as they do corrospond to the numbers i am familiar with having researched this issue in the past.
In regards to a DPF, im afraid you are mistaken as to what my professors would say
ODU is actually conducting experiements with plasma arc gasifier technology that uses high current to tear apart molecules into base atomic structures, producing benign compounds with no harmful effects to the environment. And yes, they are designing it specifically to be mounted on vehicles in place of, or in addition to, catalytic converters and DPF's and such.
In any case, i need to get out of here, but i will look more in depth at the PDF you posted later today.
Damn good thread. Lots of tech, lots of civil debate, lots of info...
Most definitely subscribed.
Most definitely subscribed.
K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
OH by the way, anyone reading this thread thats interested, the April 2007 issue of Diesel Power magazine has three rather informative articles on the subject of biodiesel, pages 82 (Is it safe?), 96 (Biodiesel and your warranty), and 102 (living with biodiesel).
Ill summarize a few points of interest on the articles here for those that dont have the magazine, and dont want to order the back issue.
The first article found on page 82, Is biodiesel safe?, is based on a study performed by GE (General Electric) which is cited as being one of the most comprehensive studies of pure 100 percent biodiesel. The article contains "chapters" on...
managing the stability of biodiesel - in which the use of additives is dicussed in dealing with the gelling and thermal breakdown of biodiesel. And addresses the key issues with biodiesel stability as low temp fluidity, water haze, and thermal and oxidation stability.
The manufacturing process, a critical success factor - glazes over the production method for biodiesel, and disucusses the importance of minimizing excess methanol, alkali metal salts, and free glycerol. as well as the drying faze to remove excess water from the wash faze. In large red letters on page 83 of the magazine it is stated..."A bad batch of biodiesel could lead to filter pluggage, fuel injector and pump deposits, injector coking, and corrosion." supporting the idea that these problems can be managed through careful biodiesel production, and are not an unavoidable nature of the fuel.
Why is stability important? - and i quote.."oxydation and polymerization reactions have been recognized throughout the refining and automotive industries as causes of filter pluggage fuel injector and pump deposits, injector coking, and corrosion." this oxidation and polymerization can be linked to poor production methods, as is explained above. It also discusses the fact that these problems can be related to insolubles in the fuel, that are more of an issue when mixing polar biodiesel, with non-polar petro diesel. stability is also shown in a graph on page 84 to have a drastic effect on viscosity, which is critical to biodiesels performance in an engine.
Measuring stability - this is where things get complicated as there are so many variables that effect the outcome, im not sure this is relivant to our discussion here so ill glaze past it.
Glycerols - the by product of biodiesel production from WVO through titration with methanol, are highlighted as a primary cause of biodiesel instability. Glycerols and their oxidized byproducts are the main cause of filter and injector pluggage, corrosion, and sediment deposits in the engine. again the importance of a quality manufacturing process is highlighted here as a way to avoid dangerous amounts of glycerols in the final biodiesel fuel.
Free Fatty Acids - similar in their detriment to biodiesel as glycerols, and also a product of sloppy manufacturing.
Metals - negative effects highlighted, again, proper manufacturing listed as the best cure.
Unsaturates - seeing the pattern yet here folks? negative effects, avoidable with proper manufacturing.....
Summary - pages 89-90 discuss the importance of proper manufacturing methods, as well as 3 case studies, including one using a GE stability additive called GE OTR 8003, in which they have no recorded operability problems, including filter pluggage, or fuel system related faiulres attributable to biodiesel blends.
The article on page 96, Biodiesel and your warranty, has already been summed up quite nicely by 4by4bygod, so ill avoid sounding redundant, ill only point out there is a nice biodiesel pro and con chart on page 98.
Pro's - reduced exhaust emissions, made from a renewable resource, almost no sulfer (in the biodiesel itself), higher cetane value (51 minimum vs 40 minimum for mineral diesel), excellent lubricity.
Con's - could harm certain elastomers (seals), has poor resistance to oxidation (especially when mixed with ULSD, can absorb much more water, has lower energy content.
page 100 has a rather comprehensive chart listing all the components of the fuel system, and the potential problems faced with running bio fuels.
the third article, Living with biodiesel, Diesel Power magazine used one of their project trucks to test power, fuel economy and any problems that may occur, while running B100 biodiesel. well... actually it was B99. They point out the website www.nearbio.com that you can use to find biodiesel stations in your area, (3.25 a gallon compaired to my 3.49 a gallon for ULSD dosnt look to bad). The biodiesel tests were not done on the first tank full. the guys were smart enough to run B99 through the truck for a few weeks before running the biodiesel tests. The test truck was an 02 F-250 super duty with a power programmer that had three levels, Stock, Tow, and Race.
Power results (hp/torque)
#2- stock - 186/352
B99 - stock - 199/385
#2 - tow - 223/410
B99 - tow - 223/420
#2 - race - 244/454
B99 - race - 244/459
The 186hp figure in the first pull on #2 was decided to be caused by a turbo that wasnt fully spooled, the rest of the runs were decided to be accurate. Showing B99 making the same hp figures, and slightly more torque across the board.
regarding fuel economy, they failed to mention anything, so i cant really say what their truck did with the change to B99.
anyway, the articles are very well written but not dumbed down, takes maybe two or three reads to fully absorb everything, but worth the time in my opinion. They might even be online by now.
Ill summarize a few points of interest on the articles here for those that dont have the magazine, and dont want to order the back issue.
The first article found on page 82, Is biodiesel safe?, is based on a study performed by GE (General Electric) which is cited as being one of the most comprehensive studies of pure 100 percent biodiesel. The article contains "chapters" on...
managing the stability of biodiesel - in which the use of additives is dicussed in dealing with the gelling and thermal breakdown of biodiesel. And addresses the key issues with biodiesel stability as low temp fluidity, water haze, and thermal and oxidation stability.
The manufacturing process, a critical success factor - glazes over the production method for biodiesel, and disucusses the importance of minimizing excess methanol, alkali metal salts, and free glycerol. as well as the drying faze to remove excess water from the wash faze. In large red letters on page 83 of the magazine it is stated..."A bad batch of biodiesel could lead to filter pluggage, fuel injector and pump deposits, injector coking, and corrosion." supporting the idea that these problems can be managed through careful biodiesel production, and are not an unavoidable nature of the fuel.
Why is stability important? - and i quote.."oxydation and polymerization reactions have been recognized throughout the refining and automotive industries as causes of filter pluggage fuel injector and pump deposits, injector coking, and corrosion." this oxidation and polymerization can be linked to poor production methods, as is explained above. It also discusses the fact that these problems can be related to insolubles in the fuel, that are more of an issue when mixing polar biodiesel, with non-polar petro diesel. stability is also shown in a graph on page 84 to have a drastic effect on viscosity, which is critical to biodiesels performance in an engine.
Measuring stability - this is where things get complicated as there are so many variables that effect the outcome, im not sure this is relivant to our discussion here so ill glaze past it.
Glycerols - the by product of biodiesel production from WVO through titration with methanol, are highlighted as a primary cause of biodiesel instability. Glycerols and their oxidized byproducts are the main cause of filter and injector pluggage, corrosion, and sediment deposits in the engine. again the importance of a quality manufacturing process is highlighted here as a way to avoid dangerous amounts of glycerols in the final biodiesel fuel.
Free Fatty Acids - similar in their detriment to biodiesel as glycerols, and also a product of sloppy manufacturing.
Metals - negative effects highlighted, again, proper manufacturing listed as the best cure.
Unsaturates - seeing the pattern yet here folks? negative effects, avoidable with proper manufacturing.....
Summary - pages 89-90 discuss the importance of proper manufacturing methods, as well as 3 case studies, including one using a GE stability additive called GE OTR 8003, in which they have no recorded operability problems, including filter pluggage, or fuel system related faiulres attributable to biodiesel blends.
The article on page 96, Biodiesel and your warranty, has already been summed up quite nicely by 4by4bygod, so ill avoid sounding redundant, ill only point out there is a nice biodiesel pro and con chart on page 98.
Pro's - reduced exhaust emissions, made from a renewable resource, almost no sulfer (in the biodiesel itself), higher cetane value (51 minimum vs 40 minimum for mineral diesel), excellent lubricity.
Con's - could harm certain elastomers (seals), has poor resistance to oxidation (especially when mixed with ULSD, can absorb much more water, has lower energy content.
page 100 has a rather comprehensive chart listing all the components of the fuel system, and the potential problems faced with running bio fuels.
the third article, Living with biodiesel, Diesel Power magazine used one of their project trucks to test power, fuel economy and any problems that may occur, while running B100 biodiesel. well... actually it was B99. They point out the website www.nearbio.com that you can use to find biodiesel stations in your area, (3.25 a gallon compaired to my 3.49 a gallon for ULSD dosnt look to bad). The biodiesel tests were not done on the first tank full. the guys were smart enough to run B99 through the truck for a few weeks before running the biodiesel tests. The test truck was an 02 F-250 super duty with a power programmer that had three levels, Stock, Tow, and Race.
Power results (hp/torque)
#2- stock - 186/352
B99 - stock - 199/385
#2 - tow - 223/410
B99 - tow - 223/420
#2 - race - 244/454
B99 - race - 244/459
The 186hp figure in the first pull on #2 was decided to be caused by a turbo that wasnt fully spooled, the rest of the runs were decided to be accurate. Showing B99 making the same hp figures, and slightly more torque across the board.
regarding fuel economy, they failed to mention anything, so i cant really say what their truck did with the change to B99.
anyway, the articles are very well written but not dumbed down, takes maybe two or three reads to fully absorb everything, but worth the time in my opinion. They might even be online by now.
K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/general/0704dp_living_with_biodiesel/index.html
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/general/0704dp_biodiesel_engine_safety/index.html
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/general/0704dp_diodiesel_vs_your_warranty/index.html
these are the three articles i was talking about in the previous post.
Oh and i used the nearbio website to find local biodiesel dealers. And im gonna give it a go, assuming its cost comparative to the ULSD im running right now. Theres a place near my distance learning class selling B20. ill give em a ring tomorrow and let ya all know how the price compares.
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/general/0704dp_biodiesel_engine_safety/index.html
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/general/0704dp_diodiesel_vs_your_warranty/index.html
these are the three articles i was talking about in the previous post.
Oh and i used the nearbio website to find local biodiesel dealers. And im gonna give it a go, assuming its cost comparative to the ULSD im running right now. Theres a place near my distance learning class selling B20. ill give em a ring tomorrow and let ya all know how the price compares.
K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
Just another update, used the nearbio website to find the local biodiesel pumps in the area. kinda sucks that most are for fleet fueling only and are behind gates you need a card and access code for. but turns out one of the few public ones around here, happens to be one of the only B20 ones, all the rest are B10 and B5.
As for pricing, around here ULSD is $3.48 a gallon. For B20, its only a little bit more, $3.59. so ill go fill up next week, and just to be safe ill keep an extra fuel filter and a diesel fuel treatment additive in the tool box.
I also found a guy locally who is selling brand new steel 55 gal drums with removeable lids, that have the screw on ports. They need to be cleaned, they apparently have some sort of acrylic residue in them. but for $5.00 apeice, ill probly grab a few for building a biodiesel still and for biodiesel storage. really the tanks tend to be the most expensive part of the project, so im pretty psyched about it.
As for pricing, around here ULSD is $3.48 a gallon. For B20, its only a little bit more, $3.59. so ill go fill up next week, and just to be safe ill keep an extra fuel filter and a diesel fuel treatment additive in the tool box.
I also found a guy locally who is selling brand new steel 55 gal drums with removeable lids, that have the screw on ports. They need to be cleaned, they apparently have some sort of acrylic residue in them. but for $5.00 apeice, ill probly grab a few for building a biodiesel still and for biodiesel storage. really the tanks tend to be the most expensive part of the project, so im pretty psyched about it.
grease or not
well for my 2 cents, the type of oil used makes a huge difference in effectiveness and outcome of the biodiesel (soy makes the best) the efficiency of the resturant you collect from is just as important fast food normally isnt worth the effort due to the repeated reheat and ammount of contaminats as well as what they are cooking. Chicken grease is its own contaminate so be carefull what the sourse is. Most reports do cherry pick the results but most deterants do just the same. Personally I worked for Chick-Fil-A doing repair for years but wouldnt use thier waste oil, however the local japanese resturants are my friend, they change thier oil much more and have a better quality oil.
Ive been running Bio since befor it was popular, there are always learning curves and quirks but lets not forget that Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to burn oil not petrolium.
Dadof5
85 K5 blazer 6.2l second engine(my fault oil cooling line rupture) 265,000 miles over 100,000 bio
85 Suburban 6.2l 325,000 bio for the last 50,000
99 f-250 7.3l 210,000 around 150,000 on bio
well for my 2 cents, the type of oil used makes a huge difference in effectiveness and outcome of the biodiesel (soy makes the best) the efficiency of the resturant you collect from is just as important fast food normally isnt worth the effort due to the repeated reheat and ammount of contaminats as well as what they are cooking. Chicken grease is its own contaminate so be carefull what the sourse is. Most reports do cherry pick the results but most deterants do just the same. Personally I worked for Chick-Fil-A doing repair for years but wouldnt use thier waste oil, however the local japanese resturants are my friend, they change thier oil much more and have a better quality oil.
Ive been running Bio since befor it was popular, there are always learning curves and quirks but lets not forget that Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to burn oil not petrolium.
Dadof5
85 K5 blazer 6.2l second engine(my fault oil cooling line rupture) 265,000 miles over 100,000 bio
85 Suburban 6.2l 325,000 bio for the last 50,000
99 f-250 7.3l 210,000 around 150,000 on bio
K5dreamer
1/2 ton status
i had heard that chinese food resturants were a better choice, ive got two of them in my neighborhood, and i was gonna go talk to them today to see if they had any problem with me taking some WVO from time to time. ill be buying the barrels now cuz i cant pass on the price, but ill definatly be starting off with 1 liter batches to make sure ive got my process down.
im looking at doing a two stage process, using a 4 parts WVO to 1 part methoxide, but using 3/4 of the methoxide at first and draining off the settled glycerine, then doing a second stage with the remaining 1/4 of methoxide which ive read does a better job of fully removing the soaps and other contaminants. then washing and drying again. it uses a little more methanol, but for a better final product im ok with it.
I do have a question as youve obviously been doing this for a while, what method do you use for getting rid of the waste glycerine??? im debating using KOH instead of NaOH and composting the glycerine, and maybe trying to sell it, or just give it away as fertalizer.
im looking at doing a two stage process, using a 4 parts WVO to 1 part methoxide, but using 3/4 of the methoxide at first and draining off the settled glycerine, then doing a second stage with the remaining 1/4 of methoxide which ive read does a better job of fully removing the soaps and other contaminants. then washing and drying again. it uses a little more methanol, but for a better final product im ok with it.
I do have a question as youve obviously been doing this for a while, what method do you use for getting rid of the waste glycerine??? im debating using KOH instead of NaOH and composting the glycerine, and maybe trying to sell it, or just give it away as fertalizer.
I'd like to see some sources cited on the Diesel Power articles. They're journalists, not scientists. I read Primedia mags, like Four Wheeler and Peterson's 4Wheel and Off Road, among others...they do occasionally get things wrong.
Anyone in the automotive industry is going to *want* to believe in biofuels, for many reasons, especially those that don't believe in man-made global warming or a shortage of oil supply. Why wouldn't they? Here we have this "magic fix" that promises us lower emissions, is sustainable and renewable, supposedly causes NO damage to our vehicles, and simultaneously puts the tree-huggers minds at ease. Oh yeah, and we can make it in our backyards for pennies on the dollar compared to buying it at the pump.
That's nice and all, but I just think it's a bit much to believe that all of the above is true...I *want* to believe it, but I also want to believe that spending $1 at the gas station for a lottery ticket will make me rich to the tune of $100,000,000.
While I can appreciate your enthusiasm, and the knowledge of your professor(s), I also trust 4by4byGod's opinions and knowledge, because he is a professional that actually works in the field and is IN THE BUSINESS of providing products that reduce emissions and engine wear.
Like I said, I appreciate civil discussion on the matter, and I want to learn more, but please provide more than the articles from a $5 magazine. Carry on.
4by4bygod
1/2 ton status
Dreamer- I get the point about highly refined BD being better from an operational standpoint, but the point remains, if you filter out the contaminants, any supposed lubricity benefit will be diminished. I started a thread on this very issue late last year - check it out - I cited a US department of agriculture study, and few more supporting articles.
http://coloradok5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220919
Regarding the PAH discussion, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are not the same thing as the soluble organic fraction of DPM, although PAH's can be a constituent of organic carbon emissions, assuming they are present the fuel to begin with. biodiesel won't have any PAH's, but the fuel it's blended with might, depending on allowable aromatic content levels. ( for the record, PAH's are heavy oil hydrocarbons, such as benzene and xylene )
Now, on to other things - here is more documentation on the emissions effects of biodiesel, and how the effects you get are dependent on duty cycle, engine, what you measure, and how you measure it.
If you type the title into your browser, I'm sure you'll find it yourself. I cited certain things for the purposes of discussion, but the whole paper is great reading..for us anyway
In general, use of 100% biodiesel in place of petroleum diesel increases NOx emissions slightly, while sharply reducing NMHC, CO, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and other toxic species. The solid carbon fraction of the PM emissions is greatly reduced, while the soluble organic fraction of the PM emissions increases.
The effect on total PM mass depends on the operating conditions.
Biodiesel emissions also depend on the feedstock used: saturated fats give lower NOx and better PM reductions, but the product tends to congeal in cold weather. For practical biodiesel feedstocks, the estimated NOx increase in a heavy-duty truck cycle would be about 5%. Overall, the emission effects of 100% biodiesel compare unfavorably to natural gas as a substitute for diesel fuel.
Non-methane hydrocarbons. The use of neat biodiesel tends to reduce non-methane HC, as measured by flame ionization detection (FID) by 40 to 90%. A substantial part of this reduction may be due to the condensation of biodiesel vapors in the sampling system, however.
Toxic air contaminants. The most important toxic air contaminant from diesel engines is diesel particulate matter, discussed above. Of the other toxic air contaminants of significance,
biodiesel appears to reduce formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions. PAH emissions with neat biodiesel are greatly reduced compared to U.S.certification fuel or CARB diesel, but still higher than those produced by ultra-clean diesel fuels such as Fischer-Tropsch or Swedish EC1 diesel fuels.
Biodiesel use has also been promoted as reducing emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide from diesel engines; although NOx emissions are acknowledged to increase somewhat. As this report will show, the actual emissions effects of biodiesel are complex, depending on both the engine technology and the duty cycle experienced by the engine.
Marketing literature and published summaries of biodiesel emissions effects
biodiesel use reduces PM, CO, NMHC, and aldehyde emissions, while tending to increase emissions of NOx. Our review of the published literature indicates that the situation is more complicated than this, however. The magnitude, and even the sign of biodiesel effects on pollutant emissions depend greatly on the test cycle used, and especially on the degree of
engine loading.
Most published data on biodiesel emissions effects in the U.S. are based on the U.S. heavy-duty transient test procedure. Emission measurements based on this procedure are the basis for the published summaries mentioned above, and generally agree with the emission patterns described in those summaries. However, other emission measurements carried out using U.S. and European test procedures for light-duty vehicles show an opposite pattern - with biodiesel tending to increase PM emissions while reducing emissions of NOx.
In addition, some limited data are available showing biodiesel effects on heavy-duty vehicle emissions under various on-road driving cycles. These data also show that the emissions effects of biodiesel depend on the driving cycle. Finally, some limited data are available showing the effects of biodiesel blends in a large two-stroke engine of the type used in locomotives. Contrary to what would be expected from the truck engine data, the large engine data show a reduction in NOx and increase in PM emissions with biodiesel use.
so there's more than meets the eye after all.
http://coloradok5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220919
Regarding the PAH discussion, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are not the same thing as the soluble organic fraction of DPM, although PAH's can be a constituent of organic carbon emissions, assuming they are present the fuel to begin with. biodiesel won't have any PAH's, but the fuel it's blended with might, depending on allowable aromatic content levels. ( for the record, PAH's are heavy oil hydrocarbons, such as benzene and xylene )
Now, on to other things - here is more documentation on the emissions effects of biodiesel, and how the effects you get are dependent on duty cycle, engine, what you measure, and how you measure it.
If you type the title into your browser, I'm sure you'll find it yourself. I cited certain things for the purposes of discussion, but the whole paper is great reading..for us anyway
STATUS AND EMISSION IMPLICATIONS OF BIODIESEL FUEL - FINAL REPORT - November 4, 2002
Submitted by
Christopher S. Weaver, P.E.
Engine, Fuel, and Emissions Engineering, Inc.
Submitted to: Technology Advancement - South Coast Air Quality Management District
Submitted by
Christopher S. Weaver, P.E.
Engine, Fuel, and Emissions Engineering, Inc.
In general, use of 100% biodiesel in place of petroleum diesel increases NOx emissions slightly, while sharply reducing NMHC, CO, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and other toxic species. The solid carbon fraction of the PM emissions is greatly reduced, while the soluble organic fraction of the PM emissions increases.
The effect on total PM mass depends on the operating conditions.
Biodiesel emissions also depend on the feedstock used: saturated fats give lower NOx and better PM reductions, but the product tends to congeal in cold weather. For practical biodiesel feedstocks, the estimated NOx increase in a heavy-duty truck cycle would be about 5%. Overall, the emission effects of 100% biodiesel compare unfavorably to natural gas as a substitute for diesel fuel.
Non-methane hydrocarbons. The use of neat biodiesel tends to reduce non-methane HC, as measured by flame ionization detection (FID) by 40 to 90%. A substantial part of this reduction may be due to the condensation of biodiesel vapors in the sampling system, however.
Toxic air contaminants. The most important toxic air contaminant from diesel engines is diesel particulate matter, discussed above. Of the other toxic air contaminants of significance,
biodiesel appears to reduce formaldehyde and acetaldehyde emissions. PAH emissions with neat biodiesel are greatly reduced compared to U.S.certification fuel or CARB diesel, but still higher than those produced by ultra-clean diesel fuels such as Fischer-Tropsch or Swedish EC1 diesel fuels.
Biodiesel use has also been promoted as reducing emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide from diesel engines; although NOx emissions are acknowledged to increase somewhat. As this report will show, the actual emissions effects of biodiesel are complex, depending on both the engine technology and the duty cycle experienced by the engine.
Marketing literature and published summaries of biodiesel emissions effects
biodiesel use reduces PM, CO, NMHC, and aldehyde emissions, while tending to increase emissions of NOx. Our review of the published literature indicates that the situation is more complicated than this, however. The magnitude, and even the sign of biodiesel effects on pollutant emissions depend greatly on the test cycle used, and especially on the degree of
engine loading.
Most published data on biodiesel emissions effects in the U.S. are based on the U.S. heavy-duty transient test procedure. Emission measurements based on this procedure are the basis for the published summaries mentioned above, and generally agree with the emission patterns described in those summaries. However, other emission measurements carried out using U.S. and European test procedures for light-duty vehicles show an opposite pattern - with biodiesel tending to increase PM emissions while reducing emissions of NOx.
In addition, some limited data are available showing biodiesel effects on heavy-duty vehicle emissions under various on-road driving cycles. These data also show that the emissions effects of biodiesel depend on the driving cycle. Finally, some limited data are available showing the effects of biodiesel blends in a large two-stroke engine of the type used in locomotives. Contrary to what would be expected from the truck engine data, the large engine data show a reduction in NOx and increase in PM emissions with biodiesel use.
so there's more than meets the eye after all.
