Most People Will Never Know About Biodiesel

Page 1 of 2  
What kind of difference can the use biodiesel make when it comes to changing the world for the better? Perhaps the biggest impact of the use of biodiesel fuel instead of just plain diesel is on the human
health and the environment. One of the biggest differences that biodiesel make is with regards to smog. Using biodiesel actually reduces smog. Both unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in diesel fuel account for most of the particulates in air pollution. When you use biodiesel product or homemade biodiesel there is a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons and if you are using a blend that is right for your machine. Tests that have been conducted according to EPA regulations have shown that the hydrocarbon exhaust emissions that biodiesel are half that of that measured for diesel fuel. Can biodiesel make more energy? Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, the burning biodiesel fuels actually gives back more energy to the environment that it takes. Lifecycle studies of biodiesel production show that for every unit of fossil energy it takes to manufacture ... http://biodiesemde.blogspot.com/#
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3 Feb 2007 03:55:40 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Not true. While Biodiesel can produce less hydrocarbons it does produce more NOx and not even the chemists are sure why (and this has been known for a very long time) . It is not the magic diesel fuel replacement than some promote it to be. Plus by nature most "bio" products use potentail food sources be it for human or animal feeds and the answer does not lay in finding more sources to feed a hungry and growing fuel apetite but in using fuel more wisely too. It is a pipe dream to think we can grow or "brew" our way out of this. Same on gas side which has its own problem. THey want you to use corn to make "gas" but two big problems with that. First if all the corn grown was converted to gas and left none for food it would only provide about 25 to 30% of daily fuel needs at current levels. The next problem is that achol is considerd a preburnt fuel chemically and has low energy yeild per gallon compared to gas and it also give off about 40 to 50% more CO2 per mile than gas (GM's own testing firgures). Even if you use Biomass to make ethanol for grass and wood waste you still have the CO2 issue. Few politicians want to deal with real issues here and tell the public what they want to hear and that we can grow are way out of this because the truth will not keep them in office long because people do not want or are not ready to hear the truth yet. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

However, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that smog is a result of particulate matter and CO emissions. These are nearly 50% less (48% and 47% less respectively) than conventional diesel fuel.

Not true. One of the main sources of raw material is used fryer oil. Another is waste and byproducts from food processing and cooking. Both sources are deemed unfit for human consumption.

Generally false. We cannot place our entire future in either ethanol or biodiesel. However, we CAN reduce emissions that contribute to global warming, reduce dependance on oil (foreign or domestic) and reduce the costs of fuel overall by diversifying our sources. As such, three major benefits CAN be had from bio fuels.

This assumes no further research into the bio fuels. Switchgrass has proven to yield far more energy per ton than corn.

CO2 is better than CO, in that the counter to this is vegetation.

What exactly is the truth? We've seen very little of it in your post here.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Aw the clueless Max armed with a little bit of knowledge and ready to lead the fuel world. Sure some stuff is unfit for humans and made into animal feed or fertilizer. But I gues that does not matter either.

This really says nothing at all, pure jiberish. YOu will NOT reduce CO2 emission with ethanol (you will make it worse) and Biodiesel will make NOx worse too and diesel are already BIG NOx generator making about 5 to 5 times as much NOx per mile as a gas truck. They have gotten away with it in the past but not much longer. If you want to reduce dependance on imported oil, you have to reduce consumption as well big time. Right now we import over 50% or our oil and by 2020 the DOE say we will be importing 80% or more. It is pure foolishness to continue as we are using as much as we can and just look for more sources to rob to pay for it. Watch food prices in next 3 to 5 year if more biofuels are made because you will pay for it twice, once in fuel and again in food cost. The answer lie in a coal based fuel and more efficent use of it too being that US has the largest know coal reserves in the world by a long shot (about a 300 to 500 year supply based on projected usage trends and this is known reserves not maybe). The problem is that oil lobby runs most of DC and they do not want to see the glove passed to coal

They can burn the midnight oil on biodiesel but it has to do with its chemical bonds thant causes NOx problems. In the past it was not a problem but it is now. Sure switch grass process has some promiss but I do not think you realize the volumes being dealt with here. Plus if you need say about one half a billion gallons of gas/fuel a day (close to what we use now) that mean you will need 700 to 900 million gallons of ethanol because it has a much lower energy contant and it weight about 30% more too wich mean that tanker truck can carry less of it. If you go by the wieght of the fuel in the tanker truck, one pound of ethanol has about one half the energy of a gallon of gas so basically twice as many tanker trips are needed to deleivery the same amount of BTU's which means even more fuel delivering it too! They do not tell you that though because they like to keep John Q Public in the dark as much as possible and dangle a carrot for them sometimes on energy solutions.

Poy, you really show your lack of knowledge on this issue. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is why earth is heating up. It is being produced far faster than biology can remove it and it get worse every year. You have heard about the planet Venus right? Sure it is closer to the sun but it has basically the same tempature day or night (around 700 degrees) because its atmossphere is mostly CO2. CO2 is volume is bad news and it has been rising at record level and higher CO2 emision for fthanol will make it even worse. THis is one of those bite the bullet and work on it now and maybe suffer some hardship or wait until it bites you in the butt and pay far more dearly

Not yours that for sure. DO a bit a research and you will see than I am not blowing smoke. You just have issues with the messanger and the message that all. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again, many sources of biodiesel are byproducts that are unfit for consumption. Do I need to repeat again? Or will you be drinking fryer oil?

Reducing CO isn't an issue: TREES do that. Reducing CO IS an issue, and nothing is proven to handle that better than changing fuels. NOx emissions are being reduced with new technology; particulates and CO2 have not. However, simply by changing fuel, two out of four major emissions concerns are reduced by nearly 50%. IOW, its worth the change, despite what your uninformed opinion claims.
They have

False. We all have seen the reports on North Slope reserves and Gulf of Mexico finds. Further, we've got unstudied regions such as those west of Florida and other offshore areas. Go one step further, with the increased price and demand of fuel, it follows that it is more economically viable to explore and drill in places formerly thought economically unfeasable.

While true, its plain that we have domestic sources that could supplant the foreign sources.

Not if they explore non-food sources such as switchgrass. Furthermore, technology has already made it so we can grow more food than we need; stockpiles have been destroyed and others have been sent free of charge (although arms deals were struck) to USSR and other nations. I'm not saying its a great idea at this point to go to ethanol, but the problems with it are within reach of technology. Whether or not we as a nation are capable of handling the problems before we screw it all up is yet to be seen.

Again, false. The oil lobby is said to be losing its grip on the title of largest lobby, and other interests are moving in. Coal may be a solution, but its economic viability parallels that of ethanol at this point.

The NOx emissions are being dealt with on common diesel fuel, so it stands to reason that biodiesel will benefit from the same solution.

Switchgrass is an ethanol source, and has little to do with biodiesel at this point.

This assumes we use the exact same configuration of our present IC engines. Clearly if a drag car burning alcohol can make quarter mile passes equal to or better than a gasoline burning car, we can put vehicles on the highway that burn ethanol in an efficient manner. However, I agree that ethanol is not a pure solution at this point, thus my support of biodiesel.

Um, yeah, but the reason so much of it is hanging about IS NOT because we burn so much fuel, but because we eliminate so many forested acres in a year.
It is being produced

Because we keep cutting down the "biology".
You

You get a kickback from Al Gore or something?

Wrong. I agree that ethanol is a false hope and will drive food prices higher. However, my disagreement with you stems from your lack of knowledge about biodiesel, and the rubbish you spew about conventional sources.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why do you let SnoMan get to you? We all know he is full of shit. Biodiesel /may/ not be more than a crutch to get us to the next step, but I'm standing quite firmly on that crutch right now. I make it for just over $1.00 a gallon using a WASTE product that REDUCES greenhouse gasses. So, SnoMan, fuck off. Enjoy your $2.00 a gallon gasoline.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ken, Max has found a new toy, please let him play with it for a bit. It usually get's real good.
Roy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I remember awhile back in Diesel Power mag and on Trucks, they outlined the process and it seemed to be extremely easy to do. A few hours time on your part (after acquiring the products, which is really only 3, oil, lye and methonal) would yield something like 30 gallons after 24 hours (IIRC)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

journeytoforever.org like a plauge (iirc that is the site the show was based on) so my thoughts were to do a little more research and maybe ask ken a few questions before i venture into it when im closer to being ready. it never hurts to take a little time to make sure your well informed.
--
----------------------------
-Chris
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's the deal with that site? Can't say I know much about it, or BD (right now with owning a gasser) but I agree 100% it is something that I would definitely want to know as much about as I could before I start anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
azwiley1 wrote:

The info at Journey to Forever is mostly right most of the time. The problem is beginners can't spot the errors. I don't recommend anyone starts there. I think the best info is at http://www.biodieselcommunity.org/ . If you can't find what you are looking for there and still have questions http://biodiesel.infopop.cc is a great forum.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where is Craig or was it another Chris that seemed to be up on bio? He struck me as having some decent info as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm here. A good place to go for general information that has links to many different websites like the ones Ken posted is:
http://www.biodiesel.org /
or
http://www.biowillie.com /
The BD I have made has been purely for research purposes for school. I have not burned my own brew in my truck. I burn BioWillie B20. There is a BioWillie station down the road and it is not worth my time to brew my own batch. (Not to mention, I only burn a tank every 3-4 months now since I ride the train to work and school). It sounds like Ken has much more "hands-on" in regards to using home-brewed BD Dodge Trucks than I do.
My research is purely a feasibility study and the effects of BD (and other alternative fuels) on the environment. Many of my fellow students are burning the fuel that we have made with no problems.
I'd be happy to help anyone with questions or guide you in the process of making BD.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy,
Craig was more up on it than I was, I'm simply a proponent of the idea. and I do run the b20 that I buy from the local shell station in both trucks. my info on the matter is personal experience running the 20% blend.
--
----------------------------
-Chris
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We had a cold snap here a while back. It went down to 18F. I left a sample of 100% biodiesel from my last batch sitting on my driveway overnight in a plastic soda bottle. It jelled completely at 18. When it warmed up to 22 it returned to a liquid state but it was still cloudy. It was mostly back to normal by the time it got to 25. Good thing I had a 50-50 bio-petro blend in the tank that night. If I lived where you do I wouldn't fool with it at all in the winter. It's unlikely you'd have any trouble with it in jelling in Florida. Time for another CTD?
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mostly back to normal at 25. Seems it would plug a filter at 32. No thanks

Don't think so. The SRT is a real nice and actually functional car for me. Real quick, feels like a 13.2-5 car. Goes I don't know how fast, I got out of it at 145. I know I know, it was at 0300 on a I-95 and I was the only one around. Anyway has 4 doors so the wife is happy at 70 it gets about 20 mpg. It will go to FL in April so I'll have a better feel for it. I'd be fibbing if I said I didn't miss the truck. But situations change. Hell, it's Feb and still no plowable snow, so I moved it at the right time I guess.
Roy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The problem is going to be getting the oil. While it may now be free (if you get lucky), if the demand goes up then these restaurants will begin selling to the highest bidder.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Again narrow minded and not looking at big picture

YOur realy are clueless, tree will not do it not only because we male far more on it than they can remove but there are less of them every year as they are cut down for building materail and rain forest is being cleared away at record rates. I can see you are one of these head in the sansd guys that does not beleive that man is the cause or that there is a seriuos problem. I gues California is full of S$!% to because they passed alaw a while back limiting CO2 emissions for industry and vehicles and other states are considering them too. Detriot is fighting it vigorously (they will loose) because it will mean a end to the HP wars and force them to make vehicles truely more efficent and kinder to environment. If it was left to short sighted people such as you it would get even worse. THe reality is we are slow cooking ourslfs and even if we stop making CO2 today it will take 20 or 30 years for it to start to decline but but limiting it today we can slow the rate of rise and lessen the peak impact it will have over time or we can do it your way and rape and burn the earth.

Again classic head in the sand. You talk before you read the fine print . If all the oil on the north slope could be used as once there is about a 6 month supply of it for US needs, that is it period. With the gulf it is likely even less than that. Se politicains and oil companies that promote this as a solution for people such as yourself never tell you what it equals in days of potentail oil supply. To someone such as yourself a find of even a potenail one billion berrels sound like a answer to our need but the reality is that this is less than a years supply at current need levels because oil is not converted to usable fuel gallon for gallon and a lot is converted to other products such as fertilized and plastics and such that we use daily. John Q Public does not want to here this though so it is nver talked about.

Our domestic source are long passed their peak capacity and are in decline because of our thirst for oil we have wasted a lot of it. The US has less than 5% of the world population but uses more than 25% of the oil in the world) Also the US has the "honor" of being the only major power in the world that uses far more oil than we produce. THe real reason we went into Iraq was for the oil, make no mistake about it because Iraq is basically tied with Russia for the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world with Saudi Arabia first. Had there been no oil we would not have been there but current admin will never tell you that.

It is not that simple because everything you use will have impact for animal feed to fertilers to compost and much to grow food. If you change this balance there will be trouble down the road. The answer lies in serious conservation efforts starting today not trying to bandaid fix it.

Not at all. Current admin pushed for new oil and natural gass fired power plants, not coal because of oil lobby, The reality is that 10 pounds of caol has same approx BTU content as a gallon of crude and today while one ton of coal is trading for $40.50 that same amount of energy in crude is about $265! Again, they never bother to tell you that either. The less the public knows about true energy costs and limitation the better with current admin

YEs and no because they are going to have to use some brute force methods of like urea injection to combine with high NOx levels to redure them inert but that also means they want less to start with to remove which means lower boosts levels on diesels (the higher the boost, the more NOx) and they will want fuels that produce lowest possible NOx when burned which is not Biodiesel

Agreed but it goes with th philospy that we can "grow" our way out of this when we cannot and like Biodiesel adds to NOx problems ethanol adds to CO2 problem which the promotoers of either NEVER talk about

I used to drag cars with Methanol 20 years ago but we used a LOT more of it in a quarter maile than with did with gas because it has a far lower heat content abd it requires a A/F ratio of around 4 or 5 to 1 WOT to make best power verse 10 to 12 to one for hioctane or other exotic petro based fuels, Achol does well in a drag car because of octane and the amount it cools mixture to make it denser (largely due in part to the much large amount of it needed and higher cooling properties when it evaporates) but it stll take a lot more fuel. THey could make achol a more viable fuel for cars if they would remove compatabilty with gas completely and use much higher CR's that alchol would permitt (12 or 13 to 1) which would extract more energy from fuel during expansion and inprove MPG and lower CO2 because less fuel would be needed to do work. I do not see this happening though because of americas love for 87 octane gas as the cure all. Same with propane (which is the closest thing to a purfect motor fuel today with very low emissions without any exotic control) as it could allow for us of CR's of 13 to 1 and more and better MPG too. Today dual fuel cars that use gas or propane are far from extracting the tru potenail of propane as a motor fuel because it is used in engine designed for gas and not from ground up for propane, Granted propane need a heavier tank than gas but fuel weight about 4 lbs a gallon vs gas weighs around 6.5 (depending on tempature) and achol over 8 lbs /gal. In BTU contant per lb of fuel, Propane is higher than gas and even slighter better than diesel but this is not exploted at all. TOne of the reason the diesel get better MPG as a rule is because the very high CR's that they require to run extract more energy from expanding gas. Us a higher octane fuel in a IC engine (like 12 to 1 and more) with proper fuel and you will see a big imptovement in "gas" MPG but again the love affair with 87 octane prevents this.

Not really, it has been rising since 1800's when records have been kept and is rising even faster. It is pretty nieve to think that you can dump more and more of it into the atmosphere and nature will take it out. Man has upset the balance in about 100 years that nature took millions of years to achieve

Not that simple but it plays well to head in the sand crowd.

No, I like to read and learn. I have a engineering back ground and kids in college that are open minded to and "dad" has to beable to help answer questions they may have or that are debated in some classes they take so I make it a point to kept well informed. I do not consider myself a treehugger or a Al Gore flucky but rather a realist that does not take things at face value and understnads that the environemt on aits resource are complex and limited and we have two choice to evolve and adapt to live in harmony with it or keep our head in the sand and hope it will go away. Make no mistake it will catchup with us and force a terible price on us if it is ignored. At this stage we can only try to mitigate the damage and lesen the peak impact or choose ignorance with head in the sand and one day see a complete collapse of ecosystem on planet earth. There is no avoiding this beast and its "anger" to be tamed when it shows itself will be determined by how much we try to appease it or ignore it now.

There is not question at all that you really have no understanding of the bigger picture here (you would do well with current admin on there energy policy staff) and that you are only looking for a very short term answer that looks good on surface and tells you want you want to hear without reading the fine print to keep your big iron viable regardless of long term impact on our children and their children. One day you are going to be force to take off the rose color glasses and see the truth or you can take them off know and adapt sooner over time and watch others that kept head in sand pay a bigger price because they were not "ready" for it. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So I'm narrow minded because I prefer to think of fryer oil and waste from rendering plants as non-consumables that are a great source of fuel? Please, enlighten me, is it ketchup that makes them palatable?

Again, if we reduce the emissions of a diesel engine by 50%, this HELPS the trees deal with the CO2. Second, even while you argue with me as to WHY the trees/vegetation cannot handle the CO2, you reiterate the EXACT reason that I've cited as to WHY the trees cannot handle it.

Wrong again. Man has altered the ecosystem, no doubt about it. However, if we avoid the opportunity to cut back on our use of fossil fuels, we doom ourselves. What you are suggesting is a solution to foreign oil dependancy, NOT an ecological/environmental change.

California IS full of shit. If they had done something to limit the explosive developement of land back in the 60's and 70's, the drastic environmental policy would not be necessary or as stifling. As is typical for the human species, California is trying to reverse the symptoms of the problem, rather than addressing the problem. If "A" happens, and "B" suffers, we change "C" to solve the problem, rather than addressing the "A" event. Case in point, the crusher law that awarded credits to industry towards emissions that were out of control.

Short of changing to a totally different design than the reciprocating piston, there is no way to find great gains in efficiency. What needs to happen is a method to integrate our current level of vehicle technology with better methods of mass transit.

"Short sighted people like" me feel that rail transit and electricity from wind and tide are viable methods of cutting back on consumption of fossil fuels. On the other hand, fools such as yourself feel that vehicles can be made far more efficient, depending on our own resources solves the emissions problem, and biofuels have no place in the future planning of energy.

I agree there is a problem. However, the amount of alarmist reaction seems to be similar to that when they discovered the ozone layer had a hole in it. Now, we don't even talk about that "environmental catastrophe."

Really? 10-20 billion barrels is about 16 months supply, if that was our sole source. ANWR has 22Billion recoverable at $24 a barrel, with 44 billion barrels in the hole. Given that we're currently at $60 a barrel levels, wanna bet they can ge all 44 billion barrels out? And thats just on land in Alaska. We're not even talking about in the Arctic Sea, neighboring Canada, or any other location in the world. Now, do I think we should depend on these? NO. But the paranoia you seem to be wrapped up in is ridiculous.

Wrong. See above.

Very true. But claiming that biofuels are not part of that solution is "short sighted" and very wrong.

I live very near the heart of PA coal country, I know what the price of coal is. Converting that coal to liquid fuels will chnge its price. Again, coal is only part of the solution.

Again, biofuels are part of the solution, even if not a perfect solution.

Too bad you don't do more of it then.
--
Max

Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your entire article is filled with false statements. This is one specific example. ANWR has *nothing* like the oil you claim! First, there are *zero* proven reserves in ANWR. *Zero*. What we have is an educated guess produced by the USGS.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
They *estimate* that there might be a grand total of 7.668 billion barrels of _technically_ recoverable oil in ANWR. They say that at $24 a barrel less than 6 billion barrels would be recoverable, with the estimate approaching 7 billion as the price goes above $40 a barrel.
Note that vast difference between the USGS figure and the myths you posted.

See above for why nothing you say, on this or any other topic, can be believed.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.