Hi BK >Keith, > >Apologies for not replying to your message below. When I previously opened >your message, it appeared that 'Hi' was all you had written.
Sorry, I should have said "Comments below" or something. > The more >recent note from Tilly suggested there was more to your response, which made >me go back and scroll down to see a very thoughtful response. LOL! The guy actually did something useful for a change. That'll make him cross. Well, so what. >My reply is interspersed below. I have (((triple bracketed))) my recent >additions to indicate that it is the 3rd addition to this exchange. A couple of suggestions. A man named Don Woodward wrote to me a while back and we had some correspondence. I think you might check out his company, which makes this stuff: http://www.rxp.com/R-Modifier.htm R-Modifier Additive for NOx Reduction It's specifically for biodiesel. There have been good reports about this product, but I don't have any direct experience of it and don't endorse it, it's just a suggestion. His email address is at that website. If you do contact him, please tell him I referred you. Just so he knows, there's no interest in it for us. Also, I suggest you contact Mr Addy Majewski, who Darren Hill just referred to in a message a couple of days ago, and consider subscribing to DieselNet. DieselNet is the best resource I know on emissions and emissions reduction technologies. http://www.dieselnet.com/ His email address is: "W. Addy Majewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Again, please tell him I referred you. Darren's post: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/33643/ The archived article: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/28554/ Please read the archived piece, I'm sure you'll find it of interest. Eg.: "In a study investigating emission effects with biodiesels from numerous feedstocks, the highest NOx emissions were reported with the most highly unsaturated fuels (soybean, rapeseed, and soapstock-based) [Graboski 2003]" You might also find this of interest: http://www.deq.state.la.us/evaluation/air_indicators/no_2_.htm Air Indicators - Nitrogen Dioxide NITROGEN DIOXIDE Indicator Title: Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Ambient Levels and Emission Trends "Sources of Pollutant "Nitrogen oxides form when fuel is burned at high temperatures. The two major emissions sources are transportation sources such as cars, buses, and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers. Industrial nitrogen dioxide emissions in Louisiana result largely from compressor stations, refineries, nitric acid plants and utilities. "NOX and VOCs in combination with sunlight form ozone. Urban airshed modeling studies of the Baton Rouge nonattainment area show that reductions in VOCs are more effective in reducing ozone levels than reductions in NOX. In some cases, reductions in NOX have actually been shown to have a negative benefit in the control of ozone levels. For this reason, DEQ's current ozone reduction strategy calls for more VOC reductions rather than further reductions in NOX." -- Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality By the way, we also have this NOx "problem" (it's a concocted problem) in Japan, thanks to Tokyo's populist mayor, a far rightwing buffoon named Ishihara, and his cheap-vote-catching "DieselNo!" campaign. Maybe you know about this. Everyone's frightened of confronting the petroleum lobby here. A Toyota executive who got interested in biofuels wrote to me and said this, among other things: "... our company would be afraid to introduce products which determinedly confronts not only petroleum major, but also grain major..." Amazing. The Clean Air campaigners told Midori the same thing some time back - they wouldn't be discussing the fuel. So despite the dirty fuel they sell here (there's no petroleum diesel standard in Japan!), that aspect doesn't come into it. The automakers jumped on the DieselNo! bandwagon for the sake of the short-term gains to be made from selling more new cars - gasoline cars. The "petroleum majors" love it because gasoline cars use much more fuel. So, there are more and more restrictions on diesels, especially diesel cars, and it's spreading beyond Tokyo. Not many Japanese know that the Japanese automakers do make highly efficient, very clean, diesel cars - but only for export, to Europe, not for Japan. I mentioned our friend Takehiko Wada a few days ago (he bought an Elsbett system for his '94 Golf 3). Wada-san was heading to be a victim of the DieselNo! campaign. He found himself being forced to spend many millions of yen on a new, gasoline-engined car that he didn't want and didn't need. And he loves his VW. It was fitted with a catalytic converter, which hardly worked at all because there's no ULSD fuel here, too much sulphur, lots of black smoke. He had it cleaned up and started running on biodiesel (no sulphur) which he managed to buy from one of the very few outlets here (poor-quality stuff but better than nothing). He also rigged an electronic control for it (he works for IBM). He had to pay I think 300,000 yen to put the car through emissions tests to prove that it was within the DieselNo! limits. He used petro-diesel for the test, and the catalytic converter worked well because of the previous use of biodiesel. And it passed the test. So now he drives his diesel in a DieselNo! area. Very interesting. Others are planning the same thing. We're working with a diesel injection system engineer who was using the same biodiesel Wada-san used - he found it wasn't too bad if he centrifuged it. He took some of our biodiesel and was impressed, "Good fuel!", and especially impressed with the fact that you can make high-quality biodiesel without having to buy the ridiculous 15 million yen processors they sell here, which can't make high-quality fuel. (Our processor cost less than 10,000 yen.) He's planning to put his own diesel through the test, and to get catalytic converters and so on for someone else we work with, also for the test. This man has a mobile organic food and produce business with a specially fitted diesel truck, which now runs full-time on Journey to Forever B100. Both these test cases will happen in the next few months, and there's little doubt they'll succeed. So it can be done. What we want to change is the requirement that the vehicle owner has to pay for the test - diesels are guilty until proven innocent. The authorities should pay for it. If that could be changed then I think the whole silly business could be laid to rest, with a big boost for biodiesel here. It'll happen anyway I think, we can see from feedback from our Japanese website (the main biodiesel resource here), interest-levels at the Japanese Biofuel mailing list, and attendance at our seminars, that there's a rapidly growing interest in biodiesel and its potential, and it's widespread, from DIY guys to environment NGOs to a lot of different business interests. It's only a matter of time. I hope that's encouraging for you. Replies below in-line, the >'s should make it clear. >BK > > > >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: [Biodiesel] NOx/Ozone > >Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:08:36 +0900 > > > >Hi > > > > >hi there, > > > > > >Till now, I've been listening in to the discussion group and learning > >quite > > >a bit. Thanks to you all. I have also gained quite a database of > > >information related to development of biodiesel in Hong Kong. > > > > > >One thing being considered by Government at the moment is to limit > >biodiesel > > >to 5 or 10% mixes because of the reported tendancy for biodiesel to > >increase > > >NOx emissions relatvie to ultra-low sulfur diesel, the standard diesel in > > >Hong Kong. > > > > > >I have also heard/seen evidence that biodiesel from waste restaurant > >greases > > >and oils has much less a tendancy to increase NOx, and in fact, has been > > >shown to decrease NOx emissions. Furthermore, the main issue of concern > >is > > >ozone formation, and I have read in numerous reports that biodiesel in > > >general, and biodiesel from waste greases and oils in particular, > >decreases > > >ozone forming potential of emissions (apart from impact on NOx). > > > > > >Can anyone refer studies/anecdotes that support that: > > >- Biodeisel from waste greases and oils has less tendancy to increase > >NOx > > >or decreases NOx; and/or > > >- Biodiesel has a tendancy to decrease ozone forming potential of > >emissions > > >(despite impact on NOx)? > > > > > >Unfortunately, all other benefits of biodiesel are taking back stage in > >Hong > > >Kong, and NOx and ozone are the focus. > > > >We've found that where authorities insist on that focus, it's > >generally because they're looking for obstacles rather than > >solutions. No doubt there are exceptions to that but from our > >previous experience there, I doubt Hong Kong would be one of them. > >(Do people there still refer to the EPD as the "Environment > >Prevention Department"?) The EPD's Mr Mok was quick to seek out > >objections to biodiesel's benefits rather than considering its > >potential (to the extent that a lot of people enquired whether he > >worked for Shell). Of course NOx is the obvious one. >(((Generally, the attitude does seem to be one of support, particularly from >LegCo members, Env. Transport and Works Bureau, and yes.. even EPD. There >is significant consideration being given to this one POTENTIALLY negative >aspect, and I am certain that EPD would love nothing more than tests to come >back with all positives. Unfortunately, it seems that it needs to be 100% >benefit, rather than a mere 95% or 90% in order for them to alleviate >pressures being exerted by... well, you know the players.))) Yes I do. But that sounds a lot more hopeful than it used to be. Nonetheless this is five years later, from our point of view. At that time it was killing 2,000 people a year, costing HK$5.5 billion a year in health costs associated with air-pollution, and costing that much or more in lost tourism revenue and other lost business, including busineses relocating elsewhere. And they're still arguing, about not very much. > >Try telling them that NOx is not a problem anyway with biodiesel > >because there's no sulphur in biodiesel and therefore NOx reduction > >is a simple matter... and watch them glaze over. >(((Are you available to discuss this?))) Hm... I'd say not. Not directly. > > >I should also note the following: > > >- HK will require that all biodiesel produced meet the most strict > > >standards, specifically EN14214; > > >- In order to achieve this standard using HK's waste greases and oils, > >very > > >expensive capital equipment will have to be purchased and thus any > >project > > >will have to be large > > > >I don't think so. Small projects using simple equipment are just as > >capable of making standard-spec or better biodiesel from WVO as large > >projects are. Large projects have so far built up quite a reputation > >of causing problems by producing sub-standard biodiesel in both the > >US and Europe, though the industry folks invariably claim only they > >can produce quality fuel and homebrewers can't - not so! >(((It's not really size, throughput, capacity etc., it is more the kinds of >equipment that will be required to manage grease trap waste... from removing >and treating the 300+ tonnes per day of wastewater from the waste, detecting >other illegal waste that grease trap waste collectors may try to deliver, >extracting all grease and oil from water in face of soaps and surfactants, >preconditioning feedstock, converting a feedstock that ranges between 40 - >95% free fatty acid (ave. 71%) to FAME, and meeting all 25 EN14214 >parameters proposed to be adopted in HK on a consistent basis (you will be >happy to know that CFPP is not proposed, as logic would have it). There are >many variables, and to get HK to recycle grease trap waste on any large >scale within the next 50 years, I am convinced that considerable processing >equipment will be required.))) Grease trap waste... Hong Kong grease trap waste yet. You have a point. Todd was discussing grease trap waste here though quite recently, maybe he'll have something to say. In Hong Kong I kept hearing tales that the Triads had a stranglehold on WVO collection. They were allegedly filtering it, cleaning it up a bit and reselling it as cooking oil, perhaps in China, not sure about that. We only ever collected WVO on Lantau Island, where that's not the case, I don't know what happens in Kowloon. Anyway, grease traps and local food outlets aside, there are quite a lot of food factories that should produce quite large and regular quantities of WVO, what's the situation with those? > >AFAIK the EN14214 Euro standard has not yet been finalised and what's > >mostly been said about it so far isn't much more than conjecture. > >Despite the US EPA's finding of "susbstantial equivalence" or > >whatever between soy and other feedstocks, though they only tested > >soy (SME), probably EN14214 will favour the characteristics of > >rapeseed (RME) over soy or WVO, and especially WVO with high > >lard-content (common in Hong Kong I think). Its CFPP (Cold-Filter > >Plugging Point) and low-temp viscosity considerations will hardly > >apply to Hong Kong conditions, but that probably won't move the Hong > >Kong authorities much either. >(((CFPP addressed above. Notwithstanding, some parameters included in the >EN Spec do strongly favour rapeseed. It will be impossible for HK to import >biodiesel from rapeseed at a price that can compete with mineral diesel. >Thus, the EN Spec presents a challenge to viability of biodiesel in HK. >Production of biodiesel from local waste feedstocks in HK is an incredible >opportunity to promote biofuels, waste recycling, renewable energy, >viability of environmental business, etc., etc., but it seems that pressures >are strong enough to focus attention of some decision-makers on the few >potential downsides, rather than extol the virtues. HK may miss an >opportunity to demostrate support of progressive environmental business - >wouldn't be the first time))) Indeed it wouldn't. The thing about Hong Kong though is that it might be tiny but if it did manage to demonstrate such support it could be very influential, out of all proportion to what Hong Kong itself could accomplish. > >The Europeans are concerned that soy biodiesel (SME) has problems > >with polymerisation, or at least worse problems than RME does. The > >rapeseed Iodine Value is 98, soy is 130, so they could have a point. > >(Rapeseed and Canola are the same.) I think there are also concerns > >over sunflower oil as a feedstock (IV 125). With WVO it's hard to say > >what the IV might be, especially if it's been used to cook fish, and > >hard to say what the CFPP might be too (tallow and lard content). >(((IV in HK ~70 - 80%))) > > > >Have you seen what the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers' 2002 > >"World-Wide Fuel Charter" has to say about it, and about EN14214? > >It's here: > >http://www.oica.net/htdocs/fuel%20quality/WWFC_Dec2002_Brochure.pdf > > > >This is also worth a look: > > > >Fuel Injection Equipment (FIE) Manufacturers statement on biodiesel > >(Delphi, Stanadyne, Denso, Bosch): > >Summary -- html > >http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_FIEM.html > >Full document -- Acrobat file, 104kb > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/FIEM.pdf > > > >Actually, as far as the World-Wide Fuel Charter is concerned, it's a > >little hard to see why the (US) Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers > >and the Engine Manufacturers Association are so concerned, > >considering that the quality of petro-diesel supplied in the US is > >some of the worst in the world. I don't think one's seen Detroit > >squealing too much about that in the past. The Japan Automobile > >Manufacturers Association is similar - there is no petro-diesel > >standard in Japan, let alone a biodiesel standard, and quality is > >generally bad. So, all the super-clean Japanese diesels go to Europe, > >not Japan, and neither the Japanese nor the European diesels go to > >the US, or at least very few of them do. The US is set to clean up > >its fuel with ULSD diesel in 2007, and Japan a little sooner than > >that. Perhaps by then EN14214 will be finalised. > > >Hong Kong's standard ULSD fuel is imported from Singapore, no? I > >suppose everyone's still pretending there's no problem with all the > >extremely poor-quality but very cheap petro-diesel smuggled in from > >China? And the fact that the trucks fill up on that stuff in China > >before returning to Hong Kong? I guess both those things are still > >happening, are they? When will China develop - and *apply*!! - > >petro-diesel standards equivalent to EN14214? But we have to be all > >squeaky-clean about the non-problem of biodiesel and NOx, eh? LOL! >(((I believe it may be from Singapore, and arrives mainly at Tsing Yi. Re. >illegal diesel, it's pretty out in the open now. EPD and Customs and Excise >both acknowledge. To cross the border, fill up in China and return with a >full tank is legal. It becomes illegal when it is brought back and pumped >from one vehicle to another, or to storage. Also, a lot of illegal diesel >is imported by boat. In all, it's estimated that legal cross-border diesel >+ illegal diesel approaches 50% of consumption, from the numbers that are >bandied about))). So at best Hong Kong can't hope to solve more than half it's problem? That being the case you'd think they'd be after using any and all solutions they could find instead of cavilling at details. Is the China fuel still so dirty? There was talk of a joint approach between Hong Kong and Guangzhou, but that sounded like so much talk and not much else. > >Trouble with this kind of problem is the intention, which is to > >obstruct. If you provide solutions to the current objections, the > >evil intention remains and they just find a new excuse. >(((We hope not, and we will work for as long as our appetite for the >challenge exists. It's too good an opportunity to demonstrate environmental >business to let pass easy. I will look at the references you listed above. >I have received numerous studies that support that NOx is much less an issue >when you balance other reductions in ozone forming potential of biodiesel, >and can represent significant net benefit with respect to NOx and ozone when >waste greases and oils are used.))) Re the Louisiana report above on NOx and VOCs, I tried to contact them for more information but I didn't get any response. You might be luckier. To sum up, the problem seems to have two main parts. One would be to show that the concerns over NOx can be dealt with, and to put those concerns in perspective, the other to show that the parameters of the EN14214 standard, especially where they favour rapeseed oil, can be adapted to suit Hong Kong's conditions without compromising air quality, rather than failing to adapt Hong Kong to the Euro standard and nothing else happens except people go on dying unnecessarily. It doesn't sound too impossible, you've given me quite a positive picture, thankyou! Again, the best of good fortune. Keith > >Well, best of good luck. >(((Thanks))) > > >I suppose you've seen this? > > > >http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_hk.html > >Biodiesel in Hong Kong: Journey to Forever > > > >http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_hk_text.html > >Biodiesel in Hong Kong - News Stories: Journey to Forever > > > >I don't know how much help you'll get on this rather dysfunctional > >list, I hope you do get some. Meanwhile I'll forward this to the > >Biofuel list. It would be good if you could forward any further > >comments or developments there. There is a current discussion there > >on NOx, and quite a few members from Hong Kong and the region. > > > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel > > > >Best wishes > > > >Keith Addison > >Journey to Forever > > > > > > >and will have to depend on some amount of commercial > > >distribution, rather than small-scale, for personal use projects; > > >- Although all the waste greases and oils in HK would not likely produce > > >biodiesel in excess of 5% total diesel consumption, a 'side-effect' of > > >requiring any mix restriction would be that biodiesel producers would > >have > > >to work with one or more of the large oil majors in HK for distribution > > >(there are other factors and restrictions involved here somewhat too > > >intricate to explain here); > > >- Oil majors in HK have not yet demonstrated support of biodiesel, and > >thus > > >cooperating with them would introduce distribution logistics and risks > >that > > >will likely make any large scale biodiesel production unlikely; and > > >- Therefore, without evidence supporting that mix restrictions (whether > >5, > > >10, 50%...), should not be passed by HK Government, and as mentioned > >above > > >NOx and ozone are the major concerns, I am afraid that biodiesel > >production > > >of any kind will be shelved indefinitely. > > > > > >Thanks in advance for any assistance. > > > > > >Take good care, > > >BK ------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
