Thor and Mark
The Missouri study is a nastily formatted .pdf, would be nice if
someone could print it out and scan it in again. As it stands it is not
possible to cut and paste text from it (which would make a summary a lot
easier and allow easier access)
This 1996 report is a summary on a number of previous emissions
tests carried out with rapeseed oil and rapeseed methyl esters.
Emissions are tested using American FTP-75 tests or European ECE-15 13
and 5 tests.
A table at the beginning of the report shows emissions from an
unmodified IDI vehicle on rapeseed as a percentage compared to diesel
fuel (DF = 100) under both FTP-75 and ECE-15 tests. Part of the use of
this table is to illustrate the different between different testing
procedures.
Exhaust Component-FTP result(ECE result)
HC-230(162)
CO-185(214)
NOx-97(94)
Particulate-267(320)
CO2-107(112)
And a number of other components are listed with results from 141 to 825
Of note here is the fact that the engine is unmodified, the
particulate count is running high compared to the 40% reduction the
later ACREVO report cites for running pre-heated rapeseed. Clearly
there is some inferior combustion going on during this test.
The report then goes on to compare an IDI engine, the Elsbett
multifuel DI engine and a Knickpleuel (articulated con-rod) engine on
rapeseed using a number of graphs.
The results from these graphs is a somewhat rosier picture. The
Elsbett engine (the only one designed for SVO) performs better than the
other two engines (very limited data on knickpleuel) figures are much
more comparable to diesel or biodiesel.
Another table later in the report gives emissions compared to diesel for
both IDI and DI on RME and rapeseed - not sure if the DI rapeseed is the
Elsbett engine although closer analysis of the report should reveal this
and the results below would suggest so.
Component-Rapeseed oil IDI(DI)/RME IDI(DI)
HC-210(110)/70(80)
CO-180(115)/70-90(100)
NOx-100/110
Particulate-sationary90 mobile 320(80)/60-80?(100)
Soot No.-55(60)
There is more data of interest but I have to go out for dinner
and these are the main points.
The report also stresses the need for further work in testing
the emissions of these fuels.
I think that it is generally understood that an engine designed
to run on diesel fuel will not perform well without modification to the
fuel system to allow heating of fuel - giving a better fuel injection.
It would be interesting to correlate all the data from this
report and the other sources to see what the picture was then.
Darren
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thor Skov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 August 2003 22:36
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [biofuel] SVO emissions
>
> WOW!*!
>
> I just glanced at some of the emissions data in the
> Missouri study and was shocked at how poorly SVO
> performs. I can't see why I would want to install an
> SVO system from an environmental perspective, although
> certainly I see the cost savings if you can get your
> used oil for free. Biodiesel just seems the much
> cleaner alternative.
>
> Any counter-arguments? Am I missing something? Why
> is SVO so darn dirty?
>
> thor
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
