Fuel prices

Help Support CattleToday:

Campground Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
preston39":1xlzfs4n said:
What is the date of the article in that post? Did you conveniently leave it off? Looks old to me.

News article from MSN probablly won't reach you for a week or two. On MSN if you can find it.Updated: 4:20 p.m. ET July 17, 2005
 

certherfbeef

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
0
Location
OH
preston39":1n20w707 said:
What is the date of the article in that post? Did you conveniently leave it off? Looks old to me.

How old do you want Preston? This is pretty much the same article, date and source are left there for your convenience.



Monday, July 18, 2005

Study: Ethanol not worth the energy

Researchers say it takes more fossil power to turn corn into fuel than what gets produced.

By Mark Johnson / Associated Press

Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.

The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.

The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.

Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.

The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.

Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.

Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.

Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.

------ On the Net: Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org

 

Campground Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
Cert you can bet it will be a reply on a subject he knows absolutely nothing about. You might try your local Ace Harware,
and you just might learn something.
 

preston39

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
2
Location
Kentucky, Smithland
certherfbeef":22ymiswr said:
preston39":22ymiswr said:
What is the date of the article in that post? Did you conveniently leave it off? Looks old to me.

How old do you want Preston? This is pretty much the same article, date and source are left there for your convenience.



Monday, July 18, 2005

Study: Ethanol not worth the energy

Researchers say it takes more fossil power to turn corn into fuel than what gets produced.

By Mark Johnson / Associated Press

Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.

The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.

The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.

Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.

The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.

Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.

Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.

Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.

------ On the Net: Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org

==========
Thanks for posting. If that is the guiding analysis why is the congress currently passing legislation putting bucko bucks into the process. Something doesn't jive. My only point.

Another new bio-diesel plant is almost ready to be opened in NC...several more are in the works. We are doing this with plans to use 27% more energy to produce same/less product? Something is screwey.
 

Wewild

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,899
Reaction score
0
Location
GA
preston39":2wkbkm4e said:
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm


Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.

Point out where it disputes the fact that it take more energy to produce than can be derived from an internal combustion engine.

Or just post it . I can't get anything but the home page up.
 

Campground Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
preston39":3i4vd6ix said:
certherfbeef":3i4vd6ix said:
preston39":3i4vd6ix said:
What is the date of the article in that post? Did you conveniently leave it off? Looks old to me.

How old do you want Preston? This is pretty much the same article, date and source are left there for your convenience.



Monday, July 18, 2005

Study: Ethanol not worth the energy

Researchers say it takes more fossil power to turn corn into fuel than what gets produced.

By Mark Johnson / Associated Press

Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.

The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.

The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.

Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.

The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.

Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.

Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.

Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.

------ On the Net: Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org

==========
Thanks for posting. If that is the guiding analysis why is the congress currently passing legislation putting bucko bucks into the process. Something doesn't jive. My only point.

Another new bio-diesel plant is almost ready to be opened in NC...several more are in the works. We are doing this with plans to use 27% more energy to produce same/less product?

Something is screwey.

Its called pork barrel and you have really shown your ignorance here it takes energy to produce energy, it's not free. A refinery or a bioplant doesnt run for free.
 

MikeC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
1
Location
Alabama
Ethanol and Bio-diesel production is "highly" subsidized by the government. Takes more fuel to plant, fertilize, harvest, truck to refinery, then truck to distributor - than it's worth.

Only reason I can think of to pursue it is national security.
 

Campground Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
WASHINGTON - Despite repeated calls by President Bush and members of Congress to decrease U.S. dependence on oil imports, a major energy bill that appears headed for passage this week would do nothing to reduce the country's need for foreign oil, according to analysts and interest groups.

The United States imports 58 percent of the oil it consumes. Federal officials project that by 2025, the country will have to import 68 percent of its oil to meet demand. At best, analysts say, the energy legislation would slightly slow that rate of growth of dependence.

"We'll be dependent on the global market for more than half our oil for as long as we're using oil, and the energy bill isn't going to change that," said Ben Lieberman, who follows energy issues for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "There's a few measures to increase domestic production . . . and that would not do much."


Negotiators worked into the night yesterday to iron out differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of an energy bill that has been high on the president's agenda since shortly after he took office in 2001 and created an energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney. The legislation would create billions of dollars' worth of tax breaks and other federal subsidies to encourage oil and gas production, to reduce pollution at coal-burning power plants, and to encourage energy conservation. The bill also would require the use of billions of gallons of ethanol and other fuels derived from agricultural products.

Lawmakers appeared close to resolving a dispute over whether to protect producers of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) against product-defect lawsuits. Senate negotiators have refused to support the House-backed provision. The Senate blocked final passage of an energy bill in 2003 after a similar provision was added.

No new fuel-efficiency standards
But the emerging package does not do what some analysts said would have the greatest impact on reducing U.S. oil demand and cutting imports: a requirement to increase fuel-efficiency standards for trucks and cars. Under strong pressure from the automobile industry, the House and Senate rejected higher efficiency standards. Lawmakers argued that doing so would require redesigns that would make vehicles unsafe and result in a loss of manufacturing jobs — arguments sharply disputed by advocates of fuel efficiency.

"The single biggest step that Congress could take to reduce our oil dependency is to significantly increase the fuel economy standards of the cars and trucks that Americans buy and drive," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which works on environmental issues.


As oil prices soared during the past year, and remained above $50 a barrel for weeks, lawmakers have raised increasing concern about being reliant on foreign oil, particularly from the Middle East. High oil prices have pushed the price of gasoline to well over $2 a gallon.

Selling energy as a security issue
From the start, Bush and GOP lawmakers have sold their energy policies as a means of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. "Our dependence on foreign oil is like a foreign tax on the American dream, and that tax is growing every year," Bush said in May. During the Senate debate on the energy bill last month, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said: "We must take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign countries and thereby enhance our energy security at home. When we rely on other nations for more than half our oil supply, we simply put our security at risk."

Some lawmakers say there will be plenty in the legislation to address the problem of dependence on foreign oil. The White House has not analyzed how the legislation would affect reliance on imports, spokeswoman Dana M. Perino said.

"Both bills will improve the nation's energy security by expanding the use of new technologies, increasing the diversity of renewable energy sources and reducing energy consumption through greater conservation and energy efficiency," she said.

The United States consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, an amount forecast to grow steadily. The Senate version of the legislation included a provision calling on the president to reduce oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2015, but the measure is nonbinding. The Bush administration opposed the provision, saying it would require increasing fuel-efficiency standards beyond what technology would allow at an affordable price.

Bill would boost gas alternatives
The provision that would have the biggest impact, analysts agreed, is a requirement for the United States to increase the amount of ethanol and other agriculture-derived fuels. That would offset some gasoline use, they said.

The Senate version, which requires more ethanol or agriculture-derived fuels than the House bill, would cut oil imports by 80,000 barrels a day by 2012, according to government estimates. That would mean oil imports would be about 0.8 percent less than they otherwise would have been in 2012.

The energy legislation would provide tax breaks and other subsidies that supporters say would encourage increased domestic oil production to further reduce reliance on foreign oil. Domestic production has been declining for years.

ANWR drilling remains on the table
Bush has pushed to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, to tap what geologists say is one of the few remaining areas of the country that hold promise for major new production. Without that new drilling, net oil imports would be 68 percent in 2025, according to the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration. With drilling in the refuge, net oil imports would account for 64 percent of consumption in 2025, according to the EIA.

A provision to open the refuge — a highly contentious issue because of the strong opposition from environmentalists and many Democrats — is unlikely to be included in the final version of the energy bill. But such a measure has been included in budget language, and final votes are expected in Congress in September.

The energy legislation also calls for money to be spent on research into hydrogen, alternative fuels, efficiency and technology, which supporters said could ultimately help reduce oil consumption. The Senate version of the legislation calls for tax breaks for hybrid vehicles, which supporters said would help reduce oil demand.

Environmentalists cited a provision of both the House and Senate bills that they said would result in more oil consumption and greater imports: extension of a provision designed to encourage auto manufacturers to produce vehicles that can run on either gasoline or a fuel blend of 85 percent ethanol.

The provision allows automakers to receive fuel economy credit — and increase production of less-fuel-efficient vehicles — even if owners use only gasoline, environmentalists said. Few gas stations sell the ethanol blend, and many of the cars end up being fueled by gasoline, they said.
 

preston39

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
2
Location
Kentucky, Smithland
Wewild":507oeqx6 said:
preston39":507oeqx6 said:
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm


Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.

Point out where it disputes the fact that it take more energy to produce than can be derived from an internal combustion engine.

Or just post it . I can't get anything but the home page up.
=======
wewild,
Sorry it didn't come thru from a pdf format. Here is part of the info I was referring too from the site.


"Biodiesel Myths and Facts

Myth: Biodiesel is an experimental fuel and has not been thoroughly tested.
Fact: Biodiesel is one of the most thoroughly tested alternative fuels on the market. A
number of independent studies have been completed with the results showing
biodiesel performs similar to petroleum diesel while benefiting the environment and
human health compared to diesel. That research includes studies performed by the
U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stanadyne Automotive
Corp. (the largest diesel fuel injection equipment manufacturer in the U.S.), Lovelace
Respiratory Research Institute, and Southwest Research Institute. Biodiesel is the first and
only alternative fuel to have completed the rigorous Health Effects testing requirements
of the Clean Air Act. Biodiesel has been proven to perform similarly to diesel in more 50
million successful road miles in virtually all types of diesel engines, countless off-road
miles and countless marine hours. Currently more than 300 major fleets use the fuel.

Myth: Biodiesel does not perform as well as diesel.
Fact: One of the major advantages of biodiesel is the fact that it can be used in
existing engines and fuel injection equipment with little impact to operating
performance. Biodiesel has a higher cetane number than U.S. diesel fuel. In more than
50 million miles of in-field demonstrations, B20 showed similar fuel consumption,
horsepower, torque, and haulage rates as conventional diesel fuel. Biodiesel also has
superior lubricity and it has the highest BTU content of any alternative fuel (falling in the
range between #1 and #2 diesel fuel).

Myth: Biodiesel doesn't perform well in cold weather.
Fact: Biodiesel will gel in very cold temperatures, just as the common #2 diesel does.
Although pure biodiesel has a higher cloud point than #2 diesel fuel, typical blends of
20% biodiesel are managed with the same fuel management techniques as #2 diesel.
Blends of 5% biodiesel and less have virtually no impact on cold flow.

Myth: Biodiesel causes filters to plug.
Fact: Biodiesel can be operated in any diesel engine with little or no modification to
the engine or the fuel system. Pure biodiesel (B100) has a solvent effect, which may
release deposits accumulated on tank walls and pipes from previous diesel fuel use.
With high blends of biodiesel, the release of deposits may clog filters initially and
precautions should be taken to replace fuel filters until the petroleum build-up is
eliminated. This issue is less prevalent with B20 blends, and there is no evidence that
lower-blend levels such as B2 have caused filters to plug.

Myth: A low-blend of biodiesel in diesel fuel will cost too much.
Fact: Using a 2% blend of biodiesel is estimated to increase the cost of diesel by 2 or 3
cents per gallon, including the fuel, transportation, storage and blending costs. Any
increase in cost will be accompanied by an increase in diesel quality since low-blend
levels of biodiesel greatly enhance the lubricity of diesel fuel.

Myth: Biodiesel causes degradation of engine gaskets and seals.
Biodiesel Myths and Facts
Fact: The recent switch to low-sulfur diesel fuel has caused most Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) to switch to components that are also suitable for use with
biodiesel. In general, biodiesel used in pure form can soften and degrade certain types
of elastomers and natural rubber compounds over time. Using high percent blends can
impact fuel system components (primarily fuel hoses and fuel pump seals) that contain
elastomer compounds incompatible with biodiesel, although the effect is lessened as
the biodiesel blend level is decreased. Experience with B20 has found that no changes
to gaskets or hoses are necessary.

Myth: No objective biodiesel fuel formulation standard exists.
Fact: The biodiesel industry has been active in setting standards for biodiesel since
1994 when the first biodiesel taskforce was formed within the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM). ASTM approved a provisional standard for biodiesel
(ASTM PS 121) in July of 1999. The final specification (D-6751) was issued in December
2001. Copies of specifications are available from ASTM at http://www.astm.org.

Myth: Biodiesel does not have sufficient shelf life.
Fact: Most fuel today is used up long before six months, and many petroleum
companies do not recommend storing petroleum diesel for more than six months. The
current industry recommendation is that biodiesel be used within six months, or
reanalyzed after six months to ensure the fuel meets ASTM specifications (D-6751). A
longer shelf life is possible depending on the fuel composition and the use of storageenhancing
additives.

Myth: Engine warranty coverage would be at risk.
Fact: The use of biodiesel in existing diesel engines does not void parts and materials
workmanship warranties of any major US engine manufacturer.

Myth: The U.S. lacks the infrastructure to prevent shortages of the product.
Fact: There are presently more than 14 companies that have invested millions of dollars
into the development of the biodiesel manufacturing plants actively marketing
biodiesel. Based on existing dedicated biodiesel processing capacity and long-term
production agreements, more than 200 million gallons of biodiesel capacity currently
exists. Many facilities are capable of doubling their production capacity within 18
months.

Myth: There is no government program to support development of a biodiesel industry.
Fact: The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in January 2001 the
implementation of the first program providing cost incentives for the production of 36
million gallons of biodiesel. Bills supporting the use of biodiesel and ethanol were also
introduced to the U.S. Congress in 2003, including one that would set a renewable
standard for fuel in the U.S. and one that would give biodiesel a partial fuel excise tax
exemption. More than a dozen states have passed favorable biodiesel legislation.
Biodiesel Myths and Facts
More information is available on the NBB Web site at http://www.biodiesel.org.
 

preston39

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
2
Location
Kentucky, Smithland
Wewild":22y1bhle said:
preston39":22y1bhle said:
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm


Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.

Point out where it disputes the fact that it take more energy to produce than can be derived from an internal combustion engine.

Or just post it . I can't get anything but the home page up.
===========
wewild,
I never said it disputed anything.....did I?
 

Campground Cattle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
0
Location
East Texas
Photo courtesy National Biodiesel Board
Soybeans can be made into biodiesel.

Part of what makes biodiesel so appealing and interesting is that it can be made from numerous natural sources. Although animal fat can be used, plant oil is the largest source of biodiesel. You've probably used some of these in the kitchen. Scientists and engineers can use oils from familiar crops such as soybean, rapeseed, canola, palm, cottonseed, sunflower, and peanut to produce biodiesel. Biodiesel can even be made from recycled cooking grease!
The common thread shared by all biodiesel sources is that they all contain fat in some form. Oils are just fats that are liquid at room temperature. These fats, or triacylglycerols (sometimes called triglycerides) are made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms bound together and arranged into a specific pattern. These triacylglycerols are pretty prevalent. In addition to household vegetable oils, they're also in common things like butter and lard. You may have seen a triglyceride count listed if you've been to a doctor and had some blood work done.

One way to visualize these triacylglycerols is to think of a capital "E." Forming the vertical backbone of this E is a molecule known as glycerol. Glycerol is a common ingredient used in making such things as soap, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics. Attached to this glycerol backbone and forming the horizontal elements of the E are three long chains composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. These are called fatty acids.


H H H H H
\ / | \ /
C-----------C-----------C
| | |
O O O
\ \ \
C=O C=O C=O
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H-C-H H-C-H H-C-H
| | |
H H H

So how do these triacylglycerols end up in a car, truck, or boat? Biodiesel is not pure vegetable oil. Although raw vegetable oil has been used to fuel diesel engines in the past, it has usually caused problems. The raw fat or oil must first undergo a series of chemical reactions in order to become fuel. There are a few different ways to make biodiesel, but most manufacturing facilities produce industrial biodiesel through a process called transesterification. In this process, the fat or oil is first purified and then reacted with an alcohol, usually methanol (CH3OH) or ethanol (CH3CH2OH) in the presence of a catalyst such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) or sodium hydroxide (NaOH). When this happens, the triacylglycerol is transformed to form esters and glycerol. The esters that remain are what we then call biodiesel.



Turbo-Diesel Fact & Fiction

Exposing some of the misconceptions and outright lies about today’s diesel engines.

By C.J. Baker

Today’s diesel engines are saddled with a lot of myths and misinformation. In all fairness, some of the bad rap was justly deserved in recent years, but the new generation of clean turbo-diesel engines for light trucks and motorhomes bears little in common with those of just a few years ago – it’s not your Granddaddy’s diesel anymore!

Clean diesel technology may well win out over alternative fuel vehicles, such as those that use compressed natural gas (CNG), hybrid, or even fuel cell technologies. Clean diesel designs will cost less to produce and buy, operate more cost effectively, and won’t require a completely new fueling infrastructure. The World Wide Web offers a wealth of information on this topic. Just use the search words, “clean diesel”. Does this mean everyone will drive diesels? Hardly, but the acceptance of diesels will increase to the point that light duty diesels may account for over 15 percent of the vehicles on the roads of America. In western Europe, diesels now make up 30+ percent of the vehicle population, with some experts predicting the percentage may rise as high as 50 percent in the next few years. Tax incentives for diesel-powered vehicles would hasten acceptance here, as they did in Europe. Clean, modern diesel technology could change the negative aura surrounding SUVs, for example.

Some old perceptions about diesels will die hard, especially in a country where gasoline has always been relatively inexpensive. Forward thinking people, however, have been quick to see the economic advantages of diesels, particularly in relation to our growing dependence on foreign oil and the instability of the world oil market. The potential 40+ percent fuel economy increase from diesels is hard to ignore. In response, diesel engineers have made huge progress in eliminating the problems associated with diesels. Here are examples:

MYTH #1
Diesel engines are smoky and dirty.

FACT
Diesel smoke is comprised of soot from unburned or partially burned fuel. Modern computerized fuel control and management coupled with ultra-high-pressure common rail fuel injection have virtually eliminated diesel smoke. What little smoke remains is nearly invisible, and even that trace smoke will be gone when the petroleum industry switches over to ultra low sulfur fuel, as mandated by the EPA by 2006. As for dirty, no smoke means no soot, and no soot means no dirt.

MYTH #2
Diesel exhaust smells bad.

FACT
The smell associated with diesel engines in the past came from incomplete combustion, smoke, and high sulfur content in diesel fuel. As mentioned above, electronic fuel management has dramatically improved combustion and nearly eliminated smoke. Today’s diesels won’t offend most folks, and when the sulfur goes, even those people with sensitive noses will be hard pressed to honestly object.

MYTH #3
Diesels have to be noisy, especially at idle.

FACT
There used to be a lot of truth to this statement, but new diesels with a feature called “pilot injection” have virtually eliminated the clattering sound associated with diesel engines. Many of these diesels are so quiet that it takes an educated ear to recognize that the engine is a diesel when it goes by or is stopped at a stoplight. Unfortunately, there are enough noisy older diesels on the road to sustain this myth for some time.

MYTH #4
Diesel are slow and sluggish.

FACT
All new automotive, light truck and motorhome diesel engines sold in America today are turbocharged. These turbo-diesels are responsive and powerful. They are capable of accelerating quickly, and they have high-torque output for climbing grades or sustained high-speed operation. Today’s turbo-diesels also are responsive to performance upgrades that make their performance nothing short of incredible. (see ”Project Sidewinder Goes to the Salt”)

The following are a few additional “tall tales” that occasionally arise:

MYTH #5
You should occasionally mix a gallon of gasoline with a tankful of diesel fuel to clean the fuel injectors and remove carbon from the cylinders.

FACT
Don’t do it! Gasoline, even in low concentrations, destroys the lubricity of diesel fuel and can quickly destroy the diesel’s expensive fuel injection pump. Gas in diesel fuel also increases the combustion temperature and can actually damage the expensive fuel injection nozzles. And lastly, today’s diesel fuel does not gum up fuel injectors, or build carbon deposit in the cylinders as was sometimes the case many years ago.
Don’t ever mix gasoline, or alcohol, with diesel fuel.

MYTH #6
You have to go to a truck stop to buy diesel fuel.

FACT
With the popularity of diesel pickup trucks and SUVs, more and more gasoline stations are now adding diesel fuel pumps. This trend will continue as diesel popularity grows. But, yes, you can buy diesel fuel at a truck stop if want to, and besides, you can buy great country music CDs while you’re there!

MYTH #7
You have to let a turbo-diesel idle for two minutes before you shut it off.

FACT
This is a current myth that has a basis of fact stemming from many years ago. It also has a kernel of truth regarding today’s turbocharged gasoline engines that operate at higher peak exhaust temperatures than turbo-diesels. In the early days of turbochargers, the turbo shaft was supported by a babbitt bearing that could seize, or even melt, if the engine was shut off immediately after sustained boost conditions where the turbocharger would “heat soak”. A two minute cool down at idle allowed the turbocharger to dissipate any remaining spinning inertia, and the oil circulation cooled the bearing and prevented oil “coking” in the bearing area. Turbochargers haven’t used babbitt bearings for over 30 years, and today’s oils resist coking. Synthetic oils won’t coke, period. With a turbocharged gas engine, it’s still good insurance to let the engine idle for 30 seconds to a minute to allow the turbo or turbos to dissipate any inertia and to cool the bearing area to prevent oil coking, especially if the engine has been worked hard just prior to shut-down. Of course, using quality synthetic oil eliminates this potential coking problem.

Today’s turbo-diesels are a different story. There is really no reason to “cool down” a turbo-diesel these days, but you won’t hurt anything by doing it either. You can still find people who swear you have to do it, but the myth is fading. Maybe they just like to sit and listen to the radio.

MYTH #8
You can’t use synthetic oil in a diesel.

FACT
Synthetic oils can be, and are, used in many diesel engines. Every engine manufacturer has specific oil recommendations, and as long as the synthetic oil meets the API rating recommended for that engine, it is acceptable. For most light-duty truck diesels, this means a minimum of API CF or CD. Some folks think synthetic oils will void the warranty on a turbo-diesel, but again, if the oil has the correct API rating, no problem. If you’re still in doubt, read your manufacturer’s warranty. It’s a contract between you and the manufacturer.

MYTH #9
Diesel fuel has less heat energy than gasoline.

FACT
Diesel fuel has almost 11 percent more heat energy than gasoline. A typical gallon of gasoline has about 124,800 BTU, whereas a typical gallon of #2 diesel has about 138,700 BTU.

MYTH #10
Diesels are hard to start in cold weather.

FACT
Diesel fuel is less volatile than gasoline, and wax crystals can begin to form in diesel fuel at lower temperatures, so it’s true that many diesels have starting problems in cold weather (below freezing temperatures). Happily, modern diesels with common rail injection and pilot injection have starting capabilities equal to gasoline engines at temperatures as cold as -40º F. Many diesels also feature fuel heaters to prevent wax crystal formation. The use of synthetic oils also helps diesels crank over in cold weather. This is just one more area where diesels have changed for the better.

MYTH #11
A diesel engine will run under water.

FACT
This isn’t completely a myth. Like any internal combustion engine, a diesel needs access to fresh air in order to run. It must also have water-free fuel and be able to easily expel exhaust gases. If these conditions are met, technically a diesel could run under water, assuming its fuel management computer and wiring harness is watertight, and some military vehicles with raised air intakes and exhausts can run under shallow water. On the other hand, it’s probably not a good idea to drive your diesel pickup through a river, pond, lake, creek, or the municipal swimming pool no matter how logical the idea seems at the time!
 

Wewild

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,899
Reaction score
0
Location
GA
preston39":1bo3jqcz said:
We are doing this with plans to use 27% more energy to produce same/less product? Something is screwey.

preston39":1bo3jqcz said:
wewild,
I never said it disputed anything.....did I?

Why did you post it then. It didn't do one thing to prove your point based on your previous post at top. That seems to be your norm though.

I'll stand by my post .....

Wewild":1bo3jqcz said:
preston39":1bo3jqcz said:
Something is screwey.

I got an idea what that is.
 

frenchie

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1
Location
nw manitoba
Campground Cattle":1qkigawv said:
.

MYTH #11
A diesel engine will run under water.

FACT
This isn’t completely a myth. Like any internal combustion engine, a diesel needs access to fresh air in order to run. It must also have water-free fuel and be able to easily expel exhaust gases. If these conditions are met, technically a diesel could run under water, assuming its fuel management computer and wiring harness is watertight, and some military vehicles with raised air intakes and exhausts can run under shallow water. On the other hand, it’s probably not a good idea to drive your diesel pickup through a river, pond, lake, creek, or the municipal swimming pool no matter how logical the idea seems at the time!


One thing a diesel engine can,t do is compress water.I drove a heavy equipment in the mines for years. Once in awhile some new guy would suck up some water on them Wagner truck air intakes.It was game over.
 

preston39

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
2
Location
Kentucky, Smithland
Wewild":v7zhoc9q said:
preston39":v7zhoc9q said:
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm


Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.

Point out where it disputes the fact that it take more energy to produce than can be derived from an internal combustion engine.

Or just post it . I can't get anything but the home page up.
============
Wewild,
Did you have doubts or were you just being critical? You are NOT THE ONLY ONE(campgroundcattle...are you reading this?)who needs to self educate before calling other folks names.......HUh?

======

"JULY 28, 2005

Preston,

I think you are referring to the Pimentel/Patzek study recently released that said it takes 27% more energy to make biodiesel than it is worth. THAT IS ACTUALLY FALSE. DOE and USDA life cycle studies, as well as other studies, have proven that not only does biodiesel produce more energy than it takes to make biodiesel, but it has the highest energy balance of any fuel, period. Biodiesel's is 3.2 units produced for every unit it takes to make it. Petroleum diesel only makes .88 units for every unit it takes to make it. Plus, there are at least 9 comprehensive (lengthy), peer-reviewed, journal-published studies backing up biodiesel's high positive energy balance, as opposed to just the two pages or so that the Pimentel/Cornell study had on biodiesel. I have attached our response on the matter, which point by point dissects the absurdities of the Pimentel study.

Amber
Amber Thurlo Pearson
Communications Specialist
National Biodiesel Board
PO Box 104898, Jefferson City, MO 65110
888-BIODIESEL/Fax 573-635-7913
http://www.biodiesel.org"


Note;

The responses are lengthy...should anyone want the details just ask.
 

Wewild

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,899
Reaction score
0
Location
GA
preston39":1rqtdt9i said:
Wewild":1rqtdt9i said:
preston39":1rqtdt9i said:
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm


Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.

Point out where it disputes the fact that it take more energy to produce than can be derived from an internal combustion engine.

Or just post it . I can't get anything but the home page up.
============
Wewild,
Did you have doubts or were you just being critical? You will NOT BE THE ONLY ONE(campgroundcattle...are you reading this?)who needs to self educate before calling other folks names.......HUh?


Note;

The responses are lengthy...should anyone want the details just ask.
.

I've read that crap and the way I understand the energy balance equation they use is to count the energy equivalent from nature to grow the corn (sun, rain, and soil nutrition, etc). This misrepresents their reports.

Bottom line. Put the corn or whatever in the machine and you'll supply more energy than you will get out.

Oh yeah.

Here is the report from the well repected unbiased University.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jul ... y.ssl.html
 

Caustic Burno

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
27,284
Reaction score
2,244
Location
Big Thicket East Texas
Now I ain't going to put my dog in this as I aint no fuel expert,I just have one question. If a gallon of cooking oil at the local grocery cost 4 bucks how are they going to make it cheaper,and how is that costing me less?
 

Latest posts

Top