biodiesel, Should all states do this?

[HGM]

I would like to see it advance. It would become a great boost to our economy and reduce forign dependancy. Currently we have to remember that it is in its infancy. As long as the issue isnt rushed and the mix doesnt go over B5(5%) all should be fine.

Right now, again concentrating on Ford products, the Powerstroke injection system is oil fired. If more than B5 is used Navistar gets nervous. The fuel deposits that end up in the oil have been known to sludge the injectors. On the 6.0L for instance the oil enters through a spool valve that has .017" movement. This causes stiction of the injector and a resulting missfire.

As more MFG's make the move to common rail fuel delivery, you may see the acceptance of this as a fuel in greater blends. Give it time.. Just make sure that it is acceptable to the MFG of your vehicle. If the state mandates a B20 blend, I cant see how they would avoid a class action lawsuit from possible dammage resulting from the lack of an option. But I'm not a lawyer....

 

[SkyPup]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Did you even look at the information before replying? Read the statements from engine manufacturers at the bottom of the article. Each expresses their concerns about biodiesel in statements issued prior to the ASTM's D-6751 standard.

The NBB obviously is biased, but then again so are oil companies with interests in the Middle East. )</font>

LOL, NO Engine Manufacturer of diesel engines anywhere in the world produces any Fuel Injection Equipment. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

No ASTM BD reg even come close to meeting their bare minimum requirements either.... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[sneaky_pete]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...but the truth is, States already legislate which fuels you can use.)</font>

How very true! The MTBE-oxygenated gasoline fiasco is a textbook example of legislation for the Greater Good gone horribly awry, because the regulations were put in place before all the data were in and the consequences were known. The politics and emotions outran the science to our detriment, no matter how well-meaning the legislators may have been.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...the bio-fuel industry is good for America and should be a cornerstone is reducing our dependancy on foreign oil.)</font>

Assuming for argument's sake that this is true, then the free market will embrace it, the new industry will thrive and grow, and its investors, the economy, and all of us will profit from it. My only point is, that if it's as good as many people believe, it won't need legislation to force it on us and it wouldn't need to be subsidized with $3,000,000,000 of the taxpayer's cash per year to make it work. I really hope it does work, but I would feel a lot better about it if it was allowed to stand or fall strictly on its own merits.

Farmwithjunk said: </font><font color="blue" class="small">( Bio fuels will gradually become more accepted. I'd MUCH rather see them used, and the money stay with-in our borders than to pump our dollars to the middle east.)</font>

I agree, I just don't think you can legislate acceptance. If the process is efficient and profitable, then bio-fuels will penetrate the market in an "S" curve, like every other successful technology in our history.

 

[To20Chris]

Sure, maybe not require it for all, but at least encourage it. Even if it does not quite return all the energy it takes to make it, there are precious few alternate fuels that can be used without major modifications to the base of existing equipment. It's pretty hard to run tractors on nuke or coal power. And it won't be long before we'll all be happy to be able to find and afford anything that will run in the engine.