BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS






Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  General Biodiesel Discussion    Why 2007 & Newer ULSD Emission Vehicles Don't Like Biodiesel
Page 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 33

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Why 2007 & Newer ULSD Emission Vehicles Don't Like Biodiesel
 Login/Join
 
member

posted Hide Post
I'd ask Jennifer Weaver to put B100 in that thing & drive it around for 10,000 miles and THEN check the oil.

Sorry, I really get tired of the NBB crap-o-la. Or as I call them the National Biodiesel Board of Soybean Farmers.

"B20 is all anyone ever uses...."
Yeah, right....and pigs fly!




Utah Biodiesel Supply - Biodiesel Supplies, Parts, Kits, Tutorials, Decals & More
Utah Biodiesel Supply Blog - Tutorials, Articles, Pictures, & New Products!
Free Biodiesel Tutorial Videos - Learn to make Biodiesel through videos!
Utah Biodiesel Facebook Page - Stay up to date on all things Biodiesel!
 
Location: Utah | Registered: October 08, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'd like to personally tell the NBB to take a flyin F ing leap, what we need is an International Individual Biodiesel Producers Cooperative Association (IIBPCA).
 
Location: West Michigan | Registered: April 26, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
Fab I'm with ya 100% Smile

A while back I posted a picture of a B20 pump at a Pilot station just outside Gainesville FL. B20 is the only option at that station at the auto pumps. On the way back up the road couple months back I happened to stop in there again for a fill up.. They have added a NEW sticker just below the big green B20 tag..




Found it worth another posting since it shows that Pilot is serious about biodiesel and didn't just bail on the project in fears of possible repercussions.

-Ken


Recycling & Green Fuels Research: www.altfuelsgroup.org
Ozone Eating Toys For Big Boys !!: www.suncoastexotics.com
Carefully Maintaining A Carbon Neutral Footprint...
 
Location: Southeastern Ohio | Registered: January 10, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kenr34:
The problem with signs like that....

I'm driving a 1981 VW....

While I haven't looked specifically at the manual... I don't think I actually inherited one...

Well, anyway, I don't think it says anything in the manual about running biodiesel or methyl esters. And, the manufacturer would likely wish that the thing would just DIE.

Same thing with E85.
I'd guess that there is a very large number of cars that will run just fine on it. Whenever I can find a tankful, it goes into my '91 Ranger.

Or, if the timing needs to be changed (for 100% E85), then the majority of the cars on the road could be "converted" for a few pennies each.

Oh...
And, as far as manufactures recommendations...
This came from the VW Chilton's Manual, Page 42:
quote:
LEVEL CHECK

NOTE: Volkswagen advises that the manual transmission lubricant need never be checked or changed.

VW also recommends you entrust all transmission service to the dealer.
One has to wonder if the "official advice" is meant to be self-serving.
 
Location: Oregon | Registered: October 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member

posted Hide Post
VW probably never bet on their cars lasting long enough to ever need the tranny fluid replaced.
Say's something about VW's own idea of life expectancy of their cars LOL!




Utah Biodiesel Supply - Biodiesel Supplies, Parts, Kits, Tutorials, Decals & More
Utah Biodiesel Supply Blog - Tutorials, Articles, Pictures, & New Products!
Free Biodiesel Tutorial Videos - Learn to make Biodiesel through videos!
Utah Biodiesel Facebook Page - Stay up to date on all things Biodiesel!
 
Location: Utah | Registered: October 08, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I realize that this is a BIODIESEL thread and not a SAVE THE WORLD thread.

However, I'm disappointed by some postings which condemn emissions regulations because they make certain things more difficult. A DPF may reduce your gas mileage, maybe costing you an extra fiver a month, but overall it's undeniably a good thing to reduce particulates in the air. You might also gain personally by increasing your mileage by running your engine very lean, but that might increase NOx, which is undeniably a net BAD tradeoff. (BTW there's no such thing as a "LOCAL atmospheric environmental problem" unless it's in a BioDome.)

A DPF with in-cylinder post-combustion injection is an ugly, wasteful solution to the problem of soot. (It's also CHEAP, which is of course the real reason why engine mfrs did it.) Luckily it seems to be going away already, moving (back) towards in-exhaust fuel/urea injection systems for the future, which have no issues with biodiesel. The best solution to this problem of non-BD compatible emissions equipment is that no one buys vehicles with this system and carmakers come up with a better, although more expensive, solution.

In any case, no one with a conscience can deny that soot, as well as NOx, SO2 and unburned hydrocarbons are all pollutants which need to be reduced to keep our air and water clean. These are addressed holistically in engine design alongside MPG and power output.

I love WVO BD because it greatly reduces the enormous "well-to-tank" costs (economic, environmental, social, military...)of petroleum fuel sourcing and refining.

I think there's a need to be aware of the GLOBAL +/-. Yes, diesel fuel derived from renewable sources MUST be an option, and IMHO it's the unavoidable wave of the future (not just for cars, but for OTR semis, trains and planes... not gonna drive a trailer of tomatoes from LA to Chicago on Li-Ions or fuel cells). But if you're looking at that big picture, and not just on a "hobby" level, BD must be incorporated in a way that makes sense. If you're driving a newly produced 6,000lb vehicle, single occupant, with the DPF knocked out and PCM chipped, thinking you're a clever enviro-crusader because you're running B100 you brewed yourself-- I humbly disagree.
 
Registered: November 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Well I am glad we live in a democratic Society. I understand what you write and I am well aware that you believe in what you say. the DPF system has actually caused more harm then good. The particulates before the DPF was large enough that it would fall to the ground. Now because of DPF system it is so small it can get into the blood stream. Now is that environmentally friendly? The environmentalist would love for us to stop driving diesels, owning animals, plowing fields to grow food. Some times I wonder if their trying to make the human population become extinct! The whole Idea is madness! They have done some good but in the end we the consumer, producer, and technician pay the price!


1999 F-250 Running B-50 and getting over 24 miles per Gallon. and getting +/- 380 ftlbs of torque from modifications HA HA HEH! OOH! RAH! Semper Fi!
 
Location: Redding | Registered: December 21, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin has a Bandito:
A DPF may reduce your gas mileage, maybe costing you an extra fiver a month, but overall it's undeniably a good thing to reduce particulates in the air.


I appreciate your post here, but I think that this statement is a little bit too black-and-white. A Jetta TDI 5-speed without these controls could get between 5-10 MPG added fuel economy, AFAIK. Using biodiesel, it already would have dramatically reduced particulates. So, the question we need to ask is, which is more important:

• the amount of overall emissions reduction from the added fuel economy without the added
controls (note: much more valid with biodiesel than diesel, obviously),

or

• the specific reduction in particulate (which would be relatively small when we're talking
about biodiesel) WITH the added controls.

Until I see the numbers, I don't really feel confident answering that question, but I'm skeptical that the DPF is "undeniably a good thing" when the vehicle is already using biodiesel and the fuel economy drop is sizable.


Kumar Plocher
Yokayo Biofuels
Yokayo Biofuels Facebook page
.........../ \..............
fueling / R \ evolution since 2001
'''''''''''''/____\'''''''''''''''''''

Sustainable Biodiesel...
 
Location: Ukiah, CA USA | Registered: September 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member

posted Hide Post
Kumar,

Granted, I haven't seen the numbers either, but even WITHOUT Biodiesel use in diesel vehicles, was a DPF really that big of a gain? In most diesels that they're employed on, there's anywhere from a 15% to 30% reduction in fuel mileage because of it being there. Just so the engine doesn't spew a little black smoke here & there. Most of these newer diesels hardly smoked as it was (I've not seen a newer stock Ford, Chevy, or Dodge diesel smoke under hard acceleration, or if I did, it was mighty faint). Now, chipped & piped, that's a different story. But I still don't agree with the DPF.

To me, it seems the EPA's goal here is to kill the diesel engine from ever having any real viability in the market place at all.

"Hmmmm....let's see...if we force manufacturer's to use DPF's they'll have to restrict air flow into the engines...and then restrict air flow out of the engine....hmmm.....maybe that'll keep people from buying them when they see the fuel mileage drop & put them back into gas cars....yeah, that's the ticket! We gotta get em back into Gas Engine cars!" <sarcasm>Because, you know, Gas engine vehicle emissions are sooooo much cleaner than diesel engines.</sarcasm>

While I agree that emission controls are necessary and that they do help to clean up the air, I just don't buy the DPF one. The supposed benefit to the environment that it produces is completely negated by the consumption of more fuel to make it operate correctly.

I think the EPA went overboard on this one.

So Bandito, I humbly disagree with your take on it.

I also disagree with the folks that think farting cows are contributing to global warming too. However, one of the biggest proponents of Global Warming, Mr. Al Gore Himself (who apparently invented the Internet), is a self-admitted meat eater. Anyone else see the hypocrisy there as well?




Utah Biodiesel Supply - Biodiesel Supplies, Parts, Kits, Tutorials, Decals & More
Utah Biodiesel Supply Blog - Tutorials, Articles, Pictures, & New Products!
Free Biodiesel Tutorial Videos - Learn to make Biodiesel through videos!
Utah Biodiesel Facebook Page - Stay up to date on all things Biodiesel!
 
Location: Utah | Registered: October 08, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member

posted Hide Post
Well, Bandito, this got me started...

Let's talk a little about the supposed holier-than-though EPA.
Apparently, even Biodiesel has succumbed to their political BS.

To make and sell Biodiesel in the US, Biodiesel had to be tested to meet the tier I & tier II Health & Human Testing Data. It was successfully tested. The NBB paid for it to be done.

So, why is it that we still have to PAY the NBB to get access to the test results that the EPA already HAS on file to be able to get certified by the EPA to sell it? How does that make sense? If Biodiesel meets ASTM D-6751-09, isn't it "Biodiesel" according to the EPA? Didn't "Biodiesel" apparently pass their standards? Why should I have to resubmit test data that WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED and that they HAVE ON FILE at the EPA? If I meet the ASTM Standard (as endorsed by the EPA), then that should be enough.

Makes about as much sense as the EPA slapping Tier II Bin 5 diesel standards on diesels in the United States. It's just another political organization that's beholden to those with the most money to help them "steer" their legislation.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.




Utah Biodiesel Supply - Biodiesel Supplies, Parts, Kits, Tutorials, Decals & More
Utah Biodiesel Supply Blog - Tutorials, Articles, Pictures, & New Products!
Free Biodiesel Tutorial Videos - Learn to make Biodiesel through videos!
Utah Biodiesel Facebook Page - Stay up to date on all things Biodiesel!
 
Location: Utah | Registered: October 08, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
Look up PM 2.5. That stands for Particulate Matter 2.5 micron and smaller. That's a size that is especially dangerous to health. Bigger particles are more visible (they're the "little black smoke here and there" mentioned above). The 2.5 micron particles aren't visible, so you can't judge their presence by eyeball. The intent of using a particle trap filter is to prevent these size particles from getting out the tailpipe and into your kids lungs.

Conventional diesel is among the greatest sources for PM 2.5. Coal power plants are another.

One SAE report I recently read pointed out that high percentages of biodiesel blends cooked-off ok on the DPF, but took longer to ignite due to a) lower exhaust temperatures and b) reduced build up of particles. This means the computer-controlled cycle is inappropriate for biodiesel use, although it would be theoretically possible to have the computer programmed for biodiesel.

A quick review did not let me find reference to particle size analysis in the health effects study the NBB owns. There is a popular belief that biodiesel exhaust is very clean and healthy, compared to diesel, but I don't know for sure if that belief holds for PM 2.5 - size particles. The PM 2.5 law was enacted in 2006, I believe, so it's probably too new to have been a consideration when the NBB conducted their tests.

I'll keep changing my oil at 3333 miles, to avoid polymerization. I'm rebuilding my VW engine to reduce the smoke as much as possible. I don't use diesel unless I have no alternatives.

Cheers,
JohnO
 
Location: Moses Lake, WA, USA | Registered: August 15, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by johno:
I don't use diesel unless I have no alternatives.


Big Grin


Kumar Plocher
Yokayo Biofuels
Yokayo Biofuels Facebook page
.........../ \..............
fueling / R \ evolution since 2001
'''''''''''''/____\'''''''''''''''''''

Sustainable Biodiesel...
 
Location: Ukiah, CA USA | Registered: September 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Rustin:
"Well I am glad we live in a democratic Society. I understand what you write and I am well aware that you believe in what you say."
Haha! That's gotta be the most diplomatic way of saying "I disagree" that I've ever heard! I'm totally stealing that.

re particulates, I've also read that it's the small particles that are the really bad ones.
Some questions which need to be answered and not just "assumed" or "it seems to me"d:

1. Does an engine running on biodiesel, compared to the same engine running on D2, produce a greater absolute quantity (not proportion) of the <2.5 micron soot particles? Yes BD is supposed to be less sooty, but exactly how much, of what kind of soot, does it emit?

2. What size particles does a DPF actually catch? I assumed that a DPF would reduce soot (on its face, a good thing) by catching the LARGER soot particles and actually allow the smaller, more toxic particles to go through, like a filter. Does anyone know for a fact if the process is actually more like gas chromatography, where the smaller particles have a higher relative attraction to the media, and stay in?

re "environmentalists", I don't know who is saying we shouldn't plow fields to grow crops! I consider myself an environmentalist but I sure like my wheaties, and my meat, and they definitely don't grow on trees. Plow away. And cut down trees for paper and lumber while you're at it. Sustainable land management, like crop rotation, forest management, hunting, etc is the trick. Clear cutting, strip mining, etc are short term private gains, long term public losses.
 
Registered: November 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Kumar:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin has a Bandito:
A DPF may reduce your gas mileage, maybe costing you an extra fiver a month, but overall it's undeniably a good thing to reduce particulates in the air.


I appreciate your post here, but I think that this statement is a little bit too black-and-white.


I think my statement is being misunderstood... I meant: "reducing particulates in the air is undeniably a good thing."

not: A DPF is undeniably a good way to reduce particulates.
 
Registered: November 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
A good general description of DPF's can be found here. I haven't yet found a good, general discussion or report on PM2.5 with regards to biodiesel. Some SAE abstracts hint that the catalyzed particle traps reduce PM 2.5 dramatically, and that they work equally well to reduce biodiesel particles as well, but do not say what the total load is. I'll keep looking.

A few years ago, a VW passed the CARB test for zero emissions vehicle while burning biodiesel. That's only indirect evidence that biodiesel burns clean enough to not need additional exhaust filtering. We need a direct test to know for sure.

Cheers,
JohnO
 
Location: Moses Lake, WA, USA | Registered: August 15, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin has a Bandito:
I think my statement is being misunderstood.


I appreciate your clarification. There ARE folks out there who would say that a DPF, even an in-cylinder post injection DPF, is undeniably a good thing, and those people, often scientists, drive me crazy.


Kumar Plocher
Yokayo Biofuels
Yokayo Biofuels Facebook page
.........../ \..............
fueling / R \ evolution since 2001
'''''''''''''/____\'''''''''''''''''''

Sustainable Biodiesel...
 
Location: Ukiah, CA USA | Registered: September 19, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin has a Bandito:
Rustin:
"Well I am glad we live in a democratic Society. I understand what you write and I am well aware that you believe in what you say."
Haha! That's gotta be the most diplomatic way of saying "I disagree" that I've ever heard! I'm totally stealing that.


Um... Yeah? You do that. Just so you know I don't want you to get bashed by your friends. I Vote independent and believe in a somewhat capitalistic society. Some would say I am Republican.
Where I am from the phrase "It's too bad we live in a democratic society where it's against the law to beat up a dumb #$%." Now I don't condone unjust violence, or vigilantism. Could they be right?

Be careful how you use my Phrase. You could Alienate your self from your group. and end up in.... mine? That might be a good thing! If your going to do that, You got to get rid of the gas Honda It's unbecoming, You can keep the bike!


1999 F-250 Running B-50 and getting over 24 miles per Gallon. and getting +/- 380 ftlbs of torque from modifications HA HA HEH! OOH! RAH! Semper Fi!
 
Location: Redding | Registered: December 21, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Interesting (but old, sorry if this is a re-post) article on particulates from GASOLINE engines. More points for biodiesel, with its lower overall particulate emissions!

Gasoline cars may need particulate filters; PM emission no longer just a diesel issue
Diesel Fuel News, Sept 15, 2003 by Jack Peckham
Newport, R.I. -- Scientists taking real-world emissions samples from cars on the road and in laboratory test centers are finding that gasoline cars emit a lot more particulate matter (PM) than popularly believed.

New data show that PM number emissions from modern gasoline cars--including "normal emitters at high speed and load" and cars with "worn engines with high oil consumption"--may "equal or exceed diesel [PM] levels," according to real-world vehicle testing by University of Minnesota's renowned combustion particle scientists.

Why this could be a big problem: Gasoline PM and semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) emissions can be equally (or even more) "toxic" than diesel PM, as peer-reviewed, published science studies now show (see Diesel Fuel News 9/2/02, p1).

Citing ground-breaking, real-world vehicle emissions test results--published in the December 2002 issue of Toxicological Sciences--Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) vice-president Joe Mauderly points out that SVOC exhaust vapors can be just as "toxic" as PM emission.

In tests, rat lung reactions to these gasoline/diesel vehicle exhaust emissions (without a diesel particulate filter--DPF) included inflammation and tissue damage. Similar reactions in humans "could aggravate asthma and may cause bronchitis" Mauderly explained to the Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction (DEER) workshop here (sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy). What's more, gasoline and diesel exhaust (without a DPF) both provoked mutagenicity in bacteria, a "crude indicator of cancer hazard," he said.

Poorly-maintained "smoking" vehicles were shown to pose the worst health threats, as these put out twice as much SVOC and PM emissions as well-maintained engines. What's more, "the toxicity of those emissions are twice as toxic as those from normal vehicles--[so] you're likely causing four times the respiratory health hazard" with "smoking" vehicles, Mauderly said.
 
Registered: November 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
As the standards keep increasing. Eventual, we will have to pay a tax on emitting clean air into atmosphere. And if we keep getting (which the new systems are not doing right now)better fuel economy we will have to pay a tax per mile. Hybrids Are not the way to go right now. However, the government, especially California and the utilities company are pushing them. Eventually they will push for demand of these vehicles.Do you know where the hydrogen comes from? There are a few ways 1. From Crude 2. Electrolysis (which the utilities like)3. Steam(very hard process) So we really wont win with hydrogen based vehicles. The utilities and large corporations have been commodities trading the electricity for years. How else does the Government and big business get away with free electricity. I think if they continue on with the concept of liquid to fuel technologies we will win for at least a few more centuries. The U.S has more natural gas then Saudi could ever squirt oil!


1999 F-250 Running B-50 and getting over 24 miles per Gallon. and getting +/- 380 ftlbs of torque from modifications HA HA HEH! OOH! RAH! Semper Fi!
 
Location: Redding | Registered: December 21, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Graydon,

quote:
To make and sell Biodiesel in the US, Biodiesel had to be tested to meet the tier I & tier II Health & Human Testing Data. It was successfully tested. The NBB paid for it to be done.

So, why is it that we still have to PAY the NBB to get access to the test results that the EPA already HAS on file to be able to get certified by the EPA to sell it? How does that make sense?


Is it possible that the NBB paid THEIR money for the Tier 1 & 2 human health test results, and they don't feel that those test results are now public domain, i.e. a free "license" for all biodiesel producers? Unless I'm misunderstanding their purpose, that's their right, but it does create another barrier to entry for new biodiesel outfits, putting the NBB more obviously on the side of industrial-scale companies.

quote:
I also disagree with the folks that think farting cows are contributing to global warming too. However, one of the biggest proponents of Global Warming, Mr. Al Gore Himself (who apparently invented the Internet), is a self-admitted meat eater. Anyone else see the hypocrisy there as well?


The science backs this up pretty clearly. Spectrophotometry shows that methane is 20+ times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and each cow (walking 1500lb composter) emits 200-500 liters of CH4 from their stomachs every day. By comparison, burning a gallon of gas (I used octane in my calculations) releases about 4,200L of CO2, which has about the same "global warming potential" as 200L of methane... but you'd probably still "disagree" Smile

And as for Al Gore, let's not go there. It's irritating how he has become the de facto figurehead for climate change, politicizing what should be a scientific issue.
 
Registered: November 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 33 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  General Biodiesel Discussion    Why 2007 & Newer ULSD Emission Vehicles Don't Like Biodiesel

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014