in answer to : Message: 13 (#247) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:37:48 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Hydrogen Fuel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >it seems to me it's not only about biofuels, it's about efficiency and >homemade fuels. if hydrogen makes an engine run better or cheaper we >are all interested in it, same for other ideas. however we should >maintain an idea of not making a regular fuel engine better but making a >homemade fuel engine better, a la, is there any way to improve a >biodiesel engine that wouldn't work on a regular diesel? or is that >what the guy in the ng asked? Fuel economy is worth discussing, but how does this apply to homemade fuels, particularly? (And I'd still like to know what the advantage of the hydrogen booster is over alcohol injection or water injection - see [biofuel] Re: Hydrogen Fuel, Mon, 8 Jan 2001.) *for one, it would help biodiesel reach diesel fuel's kcal/liter values. this is one point that is usually mentioned off-hand, but under certain conditions it can be critical. *all information available points to reduced fuel economy when you switch to pure biodiesel. *if the hydrogen booster can revert this, it will help the biodiesel cause. IMHO. >... a la, is there any way to improve a >biodiesel engine that wouldn't work on a regular diesel? *no. they're the same engine. fiddling with the timing might alter nox emissions, but there's little else can be done to a diesel engine to make it into a 'biodiesel' engine. 'xcept for putting in the right kind of elastomers, in the right places. but this is not a mechanical mod, more like a 'chemical' mod, as i see it. The NBB says: "Biodiesel's lack of sulfur allows the use of NOx control technologies that cannot be used with conventional diesel." But I don't know too much about this. The EPA sees ULS diesel (15ppm sulfur) as the gateway for effective emissions control technology. It "will ensure the effectiveness of low emission-control technologies in vehicles and reduce harmful air pollution. When the new tailpipe and sulfur standards are implemented, Americans will benefit from the clean-air equivalent of removing 164 million cars from the road." *hate to say this, but the NBB statement is just fancy wording. biodiesel's lack of sulfur does not affect the fact that it's nox emissions are usually worse than fossil diesel's. but these can be corrected via the catalyst route. *nox emissions from fossil diesel fuel can also - and are so being for certain engine models - be reduced by the use of a catalyst. what cannot be reduced via a catalyst are sulfur emissions at the present 500 ppm content level. *the epa is trying to mandate the oil boys to reduce present 500 ppm sulfur content to 15 ppm. the oil boys are offering 50 ppm. and the engine boys are saying that with such low sulfur contents, their existing engines will burn-up for lack of lubrication. *enter biodiesel. adding 5 % like the french do will make up for the lost sulfur content. and should nox emissions increase due to biodiesel, then catalytic converters are a possibility. *epa wants to reduce sulfur, by the way, to put a stop to acid rain. *car gas already has no sulfur. Well, maybe. According to Greenpeace, six million tonnes of ore have to be refined every year for car catalytic converters - and that was in 1990. ["The Environmental impact of the car". Greenpeace 1990] What kind of ore would that be? Nice clean pollution-free process, is it? *gross overstatement. if anything these days is recycled, that's catalytic converters. it's the first thing salvage yards pull when the heap comes in. plus use of rare metals has dropped tenfold thanks to improved chemistry and manufacturing techniques. *as you well said, those are 1990 figures. eleven years old. For older diesels to benefit, adding 1% of biodiesel (and increasing lubricity by 65%) will be a lot cheaper than the EPA's retrofit program. *epa recognizes a 20% biodiesel blend as being a new fuel, meeting its standards, and not requiring engine modification. problem so far is there's not enough biodiesel. maybe enough for 10% of the fleet, which leaves 90 % out in the cold. *plus the us insists in making biodiesel from soybean oil, which is like running the 100 meter dash with your arms tied behind your back, and just one shoe on. soybean produces half the biodiesel per acre than canola does. or sunflower for that matter. and the energy in is greater. Anyway, I don't think this is an issue for backyard biofuellers. The hydrogen booster doesn't qualify as an improvement specifically for biofuels engines. I can't think of anything else that might qualify. *IMHO anything that gives you more squeal when you deal, is an improvement. the hydrogen booster is precisely that, a 'booster'. as is mathewson's water/alcohol injection. and whereas mathewson's booster might not work on a straight alky engine (bioalky !), sam's hydrogen booster might. and both hydrogen and water/alky will work well in a biodiesel fueled engine. dick carlstein Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
