# All diesel in PA is biodiesel



## bayoucity (Jun 11, 2010)

Tuce said:


> I think all (or most) gas sold in the US contains ethanol, unlike the gas sold in Europe.


That's not truth. There are two articles which all drivers shall glance over:

#1) http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/as...est-would-you-pay-more-for-ethanol-free-fuel/

#2) http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e15-ethanol-opposition-calls-for-hearings/


----------



## bayoucity (Jun 11, 2010)

Tedj101 said:


> Interesting. My 2010 only says 5. I wonder if there were any changes that made that possible or if it is just a change in heart by BMW...


Attached is the photo of my 2011's fuel cap. It might have to do with the imminent of B7 throughout Germany.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

d geek said:


> huh? did you read the document?
> 
> This was co-authored by Bosch, who designs both BMW and VW HPFP, in 2009. They wrote the paper to highlight their concern about fuel quality differences between EU and US.


Actually we're both wrong. It's about bio only. You posted the wrong statement. The statment you're looking for is in regards to lubricity and how it relates higher pressure requirements. The statement basically states the the 520um rating isn't sufficient and that 460um barely makes the cut but if you read that actual report (which I have done btw) and not just the position statment you'll see that they're more concerned with future lubricity requirements due to the ever increasing pressures of the CR system. In addition the actual report only states that the service life of the equipment will decrease on 520um fuel but it did not state by how much. Seeing as these CR systems go a couple of hundred thousand miles it's really a non-issue for our vehicles. I think what we should all keep in mind is that the truckers (long, short, local) have been running on ULSD for a few years now putting more miles on their CR systems than we EVER will. There are no reports of these systems failing on the ULSD. Just as there are no statistically significant reports of HPFP on the TDI's failing either. There are plenty of TDI's with 100k, 200k miles which ran NO additive.

IJS.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

The fact that Biodiesel provides excellent lubricity is undisputed.

The reason I linked the article is to show the differences between Euro biodiesel and US biodiesel in light of the discussion on mandatory biodiesel levels in the diesel at every retail pump in certain states. The concerns are with the stability of this fuel.


----------



## 62Lincoln (Sep 26, 2004)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> I think what we should all keep in mind is that the truckers (long, short, local) have been running on ULSD for a few years now putting more miles on their CR systems than we EVER will.


Not disputing the content of your point, but is this a valid comparison? Are those truckers running engines with direct injection and the associated high fuel pressures, the injectors necessary to run those high pressures, etc.? Not sure this is an apple to apple comparison.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

62Lincoln said:


> Not disputing the content of your point, but is this a valid comparison? Are those truckers running engines with direct injection and the associated high fuel pressures, the injectors necessary to run those high pressures, etc.? Not sure this is an apple to apple comparison.


I believe they are. Personally I've always believed that the FIE statment was a "CYA" more than anything else being that they didn't give hard numbers in regards to life cycles of their systems. "Reduced" can be interperted in may ways. If that means 300k miles reduced to 200k miles am I going to be upset ~15 yrs down the road? No.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

d geek said:


> The fact that Biodiesel provides excellent lubricity is undisputed.
> 
> The reason I linked the article is to show the differences between Euro biodiesel and US biodiesel in light of the discussion on mandatory biodiesel levels in the diesel at every retail pump in certain states. The concerns are with the stability of this fuel.


Nobody is doubting the benefits of BD, my gripe is the gov't forcing it down your throat. It's not like the refiners can't get the wear scar down to 460 or below w/out BD. It's political/GW 'feel good' policy throwing a bone to the rent seekers*.

*Rent seeker: Any business entity seeking preferrential treatment from the gov't. This treatment typically includes the confiscation of money (ie Taxes) to be directed towards the business entity. The business entity needs this 'rent' because the business model on which it stands is not viable.


----------



## Tedj101 (Nov 24, 2009)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> Nobody is doubting the benefits of BD, my gripe is the gov't forcing it down your throat. It's not like the refiners can't get the wear scar down to 460 or below w/out BD. It's political/GW 'feel good' policy throwing a bone to the rent seekers*.
> 
> *Rent seeker: Any business entity seeking preferrential treatment from the gov't. This treatment typically includes the confiscation of money (ie Taxes) to be directed towards the business entity. The business entity needs this 'rent' because the business model on which it stands is not viable.


PA was (shamelessly) trying to bring bio-diesel business into the state. 6 or 7 new refineries were built based on the promise that the fuel would be mandated if they got production up to a particular level (40MM gpy). I live just below the border in DE. Someone built a new state of the art refinery just below the PA border. He was out of business in 8 months because the cost of his feedstock rose dramatically (with the cost of food). Since the industry wasn't subsidized here (as it is in PA), he lost his business.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> Actually we're both wrong. It's about bio only. You posted the wrong statement. The statment you're looking for is in regards to lubricity and how it relates higher pressure requirements. The statement basically states the the 520um rating isn't sufficient and that 460um barely makes the cut but if you read that actual report (which I have done btw) and not just the position statment you'll see that they're more concerned with future lubricity requirements due to the ever increasing pressures of the CR system. In addition the actual report only states that the service life of the equipment will decrease on 520um fuel but it did not state by how much. Seeing as these CR systems go a couple of hundred thousand miles it's really a non-issue for our vehicles. I think what we should all keep in mind is that the truckers (long, short, local) have been running on ULSD for a few years now putting more miles on their CR systems than we EVER will. There are no reports of these systems failing on the ULSD. Just as there are no statistically significant reports of HPFP on the TDI's failing either. There are plenty of TDI's with 100k, 200k miles which ran NO additive.
> 
> IJS.


No that is NOT the statement I was looking for. We weren't discussing lubricity.

This thread is about states mandating biodiesel. That's why I posted some information relevant to the stability of the biodiesel prevalent here in the US vs that which is used in the EU.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make


----------



## 02 330Ci (Jun 9, 2008)

2 things I think about bio and mandating its use.
1. They do not need to use food stock, I remember they made bio out of sea algae. and 2. when done correctly bio can be better for your engine, sure there have been cases where the process was incorrect and it caused harmful effects but that can happen with petroleum as well if the refining process or just contamination while in storage tanks happen.
Getting off off oil should be encouraged I do not think it needs to be subsidized if it is done the right way. It may take time to get perfect though, Oil was not perfected over night either.


----------



## Penguin (Aug 31, 2003)

02 330Ci said:


> It may take time to get perfect though,


Yeah, but I would just as soon not have the government mandate that I put it into my vehicle until it is perfected.


----------



## 02 330Ci (Jun 9, 2008)

Penguin said:


> Yeah, but I would just as soon not have the government mandate that I put it into my vehicle until it is perfected.


With as expensive of a car you drive I can understand, a chevy truck it is not.
I have driven slightly out of my way to get that mandated bio just for the extra lubricity as the mid 90's chevy is used to LSD not ULSD.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

62Lincoln said:


> FWIW, the 2011 335D's gas cap indicates that 7% is okay. Maybe that will buy you another year.


I wonder if PA can mandate fuel that car manufacturers have specifically not approved? Would PA have to cover any engine damage that resulted from their mandate?


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

d geek said:


> No that is NOT the statement I was looking for. We weren't discussing lubricity.
> 
> This thread is about states mandating biodiesel. That's why I posted some information relevant to the stability of the biodiesel prevalent here in the US vs that which is used in the EU.
> 
> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make


I just re-read the statement, it covers a lot of things primarily min wear scar of 460 and stability of BD like you had mentioned or the lack of US standards regarding stability, but correct me if I'm wrong, I believe I've seen some BD producers mention the Euro specification for their fuel. I'm probably wrong.

Here's your link: http://www.bimmerfile.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/FIEM_Common_Position_Statement_2009.pdf


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

02 330Ci said:


> With as expensive of a car you drive I can understand, a chevy truck it is not.
> I have driven slightly out of my way to get that mandated bio just for the extra lubricity as the mid 90's chevy is used to LSD not ULSD.


Of course a new Chevy diesel truck can easily run as much as these cars and sometimes more. I was looking at new Ford diesel trucks this weekend while waiting on mine and the ones I found on the lot were all about the same price as a 335d. That is comparing MSRP to MSRP, they had some that were a lot more than a 335d. I'd be caring with either, interesting enough the new Ford has fender badges that say it can run on B20.


----------



## Tedj101 (Nov 24, 2009)

anE934fun said:


> I wonder if PA can mandate fuel that car manufacturers have specifically not approved? Would PA have to cover any engine damage that resulted from their mandate?


Are you kidding? You want accountability from politicians? Stop sippin' the biodiesel<g>!


----------



## bayoucity (Jun 11, 2010)

Just be thankful that we are driving an oil burner. I just posted the following on the E90 forum (mostly petrol user over there & one crazy anti-diesel Canadian):

Apparently, EPA has decided it is safe to force E15 down on all vehicles made since 2007. Isn't it amazing that EPA has the power to go against the will of manufacturers?
What is next? Ohh, they will be deciding in December if it shall apply to every vehicle built from 2001 onward.

Here is the official news link> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69C31120101013

Not to tub it in, I still prefer oil burner over petrol. (Let's hope that crazy French Canadian won't chip in.)

As much as one tries to deny the effect of E15 on the engine, the article does mention what has been going on in reality : "Many service stations have expressed a reluctance in selling E15, because of most of the fuel pumps have not been certified to sell the higher ethanol blend. Service station owners also face being sued by consumers if E15 harms the engines of boats, lawn movers and chain saws. "


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

What I find interesting about the whole E15 and so on debate is the people I know who still street race cars, build their cars to run on E85. They can make a ton more power on the stuff and are not really doing much special at all in order to run it. Plus they are running it typically in 20+ year old vehicles. Of course they lack the issues of very high pressure fuel systems that newer DI motors use, but lawnmowers, boat engines, and chain saws also lack that.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

bayoucity said:


> Just be thankful that we are driving an oil burner. I just posted the following on the E90 forum (mostly petrol user over there & one crazy anti-diesel Canadian):
> 
> Apparently, EPA has decided it is safe to force E15 down on all vehicles made since 2007. Isn't it amazing that EPA has the power to go against the will of manufacturers?
> What is next? Ohh, they will be deciding in December if it shall apply to every vehicle built from 2001 onward.
> ...


Time for another letter to my Senators voicing my displeasure over this.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

Snipe656 said:


> What I find interesting about the whole E15 and so on debate is the people I know who still street race cars, build their cars to run on E85. They can make a ton more power on the stuff and are not really doing much special at all in order to run it. Plus they are running it typically in 20+ year old vehicles. Of course they lack the issues of very high pressure fuel systems that newer DI motors use, but lawnmowers, boat engines, and chain saws also lack that.


Yep, ethanol has been used in racing for a while but it's a much different application and they're not too worried about consumption either.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

I should have clarified, these people are doing it in daily driven cars that they street race. In most cases the cars are their only means of transportation.


----------



## 02 330Ci (Jun 9, 2008)

I believe those racers are running high compression engines, the E85 does have a high octane rating I think.
Though I got agree with previous poster, they are not worried about consumption, or most likely long term reliability. They rebuild frequently, either to improve or after grennading while racing.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

I have been friends with these guys for a very long time and yes they run it for the octane but I can't think of one that has torn into their motors before or after switching to E85 and they all did the switch a number of years ago. They are running it because they have turbocharged vehicles and is cheaper than mixing or running aviation gas which is what they did prior. Sure consumption is higher but I was not pointing them out for that reason, I was pointing out how they are not running into these horrifying reliability issues like I read about online amongst boat owners and the like with E10 or guess E15 soon.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

Snipe656 said:


> reliability issues like I read about online amongst boat owners and the like with E10 or guess E15 soon.


I read about a year ago that the problem had to do with the the ethanol 'falling out of phase' (I think that was the term) while is sat in the gas tanks during the offseason. Basically it ended up collecting at the bottom of the tank (just like water) and along the fuel lines where did its corrosive work. I have a buddy in Eastern NC who had this problem.

:dunno:


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

That makes sense that might happen. I suppose not so much in cars since the fuel at stations does not tend to sit in the tanks so long.


----------



## 02 330Ci (Jun 9, 2008)

Snipe656 said:


> I have been friends with these guys for a very long time and yes they run it for the octane but I can't think of one that has torn into their motors before or after switching to E85 and they all did the switch a number of years ago. They are running it because they have turbocharged vehicles and is cheaper than mixing or running aviation gas which is what they did prior. Sure consumption is higher but I was not pointing them out for that reason, I was pointing out how they are not running into these horrifying reliability issues like I read about online amongst boat owners and the like with E10 or guess E15 soon.


how many run the same motor, no changes for 100k miles?
from what I read they build, decide its not enough power and rebuild for more.
Sure there is a chance some don't build as often but 100k miles on one engine, and racing?:dunno:


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

My comments from the very begining was in comparisons to the boats and such. Show how many of those folks pu on the equivalent of 100k miles. I also said STREET racing, not race cars. But since we are talking a few years for daily drivers then I seriously doubt many or any have that many miles. They unlike me do not drive 35k to 40k miles a year.


----------



## Kamdog (Apr 15, 2007)

Tedj101 said:


> Each time a threshold is reached a new mandate must issue. Hopefully, cooler heads will look at the problem at that time.


Yeah, good luck with that one.


----------



## bayoucity (Jun 11, 2010)

Snipe656 said:


> I have been friends with these guys for a very long time and yes they run it for the octane but I can't think of one that has torn into their motors before or after switching to E85 and they all did the switch a number of years ago. They are running it because they have turbocharged vehicles and is cheaper than mixing or running aviation gas which is what they did prior. Sure consumption is higher but I was not pointing them out for that reason, I was pointing out how they are not running into these horrifying reliability issues like I read about online amongst boat owners and the like with E10 or guess E15 soon.


My point is EPA shall not define E15 as safe for all cars 2007+. I will think car manufacturers will understand their engines better than anyone else When roundel decides max E10 for its petrol engine (as stated in the manual), shall anyone else mess around with it? I won't.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

And I was not even commenting on that point. I was addressing how I find it odd that the boat crowd and some other crowds have a decent hatred towards E10 because of issues they run into yet I know people running E85 in non flex fuel vehicles and who beat on them rather routinely yet are not running into fuel related issues. I think I even stated how I am sure it is different in newer setups that do direct injection and use very high fuel pressures(so a lot of newer cars). I find it odd because I would seem like based on how I have read their complaints that increased amounts of E would result in even quicker problems in setups not designed for it.


----------



## jkp1187 (Jul 2, 2008)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> Actually we're both wrong. It's about bio only. You posted the wrong statement. The statment you're looking for is in regards to lubricity and how it relates higher pressure requirements. The statement basically states the the 520um rating isn't sufficient and that 460um barely makes the cut but if you read that actual report (which I have done btw) and not just the position statment you'll see that they're more concerned with future lubricity requirements due to the ever increasing pressures of the CR system. In addition the actual report only states that the service life of the equipment will decrease on 520um fuel but it did not state by how much. Seeing as these CR systems go a couple of hundred thousand miles it's really a non-issue for our vehicles. I think what we should all keep in mind is that the truckers (long, short, local) have been running on ULSD for a few years now putting more miles on their CR systems than we EVER will. There are no reports of these systems failing on the ULSD. Just as there are no statistically significant reports of HPFP on the TDI's failing either. There are plenty of TDI's with 100k, 200k miles which ran NO additive.
> 
> IJS.


[EDIT: Concerning the VAG TDI HPFP failures.]

Sure, the older TDIs easily make it to 200k+ with standard maintenance (and a few known problems). But the newer ones, which have been designed to meet the new emissions standards are experiencing reports of catastrophic HPFP failures that send metal flakes through the fuel system, requiring repairs that, out of warranty, would cost up to $10,000.

See, e.g.:

FAQ: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=286380
Speculation as to cause: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=284441
Autoblog article: http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/31/report-nhtsa-looking-at-2009-vw-jetta-stalling-issues/

EDIT: I see you used "statistically significant" in your posting. Fair enough. But there have been sufficient reports about HPFP failures in the 09+ TDIs to make _me _quite willing to avoid purchasing a VAG TDI for my next vehicle (we had been considering an A3 for our grocery-getter vehicle.)


----------



## Tedj101 (Nov 24, 2009)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> I read about a year ago that the problem had to do with the the ethanol 'falling out of phase' (I think that was the term) while is sat in the gas tanks during the offseason. Basically it ended up collecting at the bottom of the tank (just like water) and along the fuel lines where did its corrosive work. I have a buddy in Eastern NC who had this problem.
> 
> :dunno:


That's one of the problems. Another is that it eats right through molded fiberglass fuel tanks that were used in the 80. People keep boats much longer than they do cars so 80s vintage boats like Bertram and Hatteras still sell for substantial $$. Since the fiberglass tanks are part of the hull, they aren't exactly replaceable. Yes, there are "solutions" but they are prohibitively expensive.

Another problem (and one that occurs in much newer boats) is that fuel tanks often have a layer of accumulated varnish in them (from years of fuel sitting in them - this occurs more during layup than while running so it is more prevalent in boats at an earlier stage of their life). E-10 is a good solvent for dissolving that stuff and then it gets in the fuel system which doesn't operate properly from that point on. If you catch it soon enough, the cost to fix it is much smaller. If you don't, you may have to rebuild the engine(s).

The same thing occurred when fuel suppliers simply put E-10 in their existing tanks (which also had significant varnish build up). They then pumped this stuff into your boat leaving you with the ultimate problem.

There is one problem with alcohol <E-10 and that is that fuel systems (except those labeled Flex Fuel) do not have gaskets, flexible fuel lines and seals that can withstand greater concentrations of alcohol. (That is one of the biggest differences between regular cars and trucks and those certified for flex fuel use). I suspect that your friends using alcohol based racing fuel have replaced the necessary gaskets, seals and fuel lines. It's not that big a job if you know what you are doing - especially on an older car which is what I understand you have been referring to.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

Tedj101 said:


> Are you kidding? You want accountability from politicians? Stop sippin' the biodiesel<g>!





bayoucity said:


> Just be thankful that we are driving an oil burner. I just posted the following on the E90 forum (mostly petrol user over there & one crazy anti-diesel Canadian):
> 
> Apparently, EPA has decided it is safe to force E15 down on all vehicles made since 2007. Isn't it amazing that EPA has the power to go against the will of manufacturers?
> What is next? Ohh, they will be deciding in December if it shall apply to every vehicle built from 2001 onward.
> ...


As bayoucity posts about service station owners being reluctant to sell E15 due to litigation concerns, the same issue occurs for either the state or their 'agents' - if they mandate a fuel that manufacturers have explicitly stated will cause mechanical damage to the fuel system, then a reasonable reading of most liability law will cause the state to be liable for any damages that result from the state mandate. The state can possibly pass a law that shields them from liability, but that could have adverse results at the ballot box.

It will be interesting to see what happens when/if PA's biodiesel production capacity increases to the level that triggers greater than B07....


----------



## Tedj101 (Nov 24, 2009)

anE934fun said:


> As bayoucity posts about service station owners being reluctant to sell E15 due to litigation concerns, the same issue occurs for either the state or their 'agents' - if they mandate a fuel that manufacturers have explicitly stated will cause mechanical damage to the fuel system, then a reasonable reading of most liability law will cause the state to be liable for any damages that result from the state mandate. The state can possibly pass a law that shields them from liability, but that could have adverse results at the ballot box.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what happens when/if PA's biodiesel production capacity increases to the level that triggers greater than B07....[/QUOTE ]
> 
> Most states can't be sued because they are subject to Sovereign Immunity...


----------



## bayoucity (Jun 11, 2010)

Tedj101 said:


> anE934fun said:
> 
> 
> > As bayoucity posts about service station owners being reluctant to sell E15 due to litigation concerns, the same issue occurs for either the state or their 'agents' - if they mandate a fuel that manufacturers have explicitly stated will cause mechanical damage to the fuel system, then a reasonable reading of most liability law will cause the state to be liable for any damages that result from the state mandate. The state can possibly pass a law that shields them from liability, but that could have adverse results at the ballot box.
> ...


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

bayoucity said:


> *It might be harder to sue each and every state. EPA can certainly be sued, there have been many precedents where it is sued for pollution & water supply policies.*
> 
> This whole mess was started because of Growth Energy's initiative ( http://www.growthenergy.org/ ). It is totally uncool EPA was only using 2 cars to test E15 during the initial 8 moths testing from April 2009 till November 2009. For those that care, please feel free to read the attached old correspondence.
> 
> The big unknown will be the component durability over a long period of time.


But don't they all have sovereign immunity? :dunno: Ted says they can assert sovereign immunity.... :yikes:

Since EPA has pulled the trigger on E15, it will be interesting to see if any lawsuits result from damage to fuel systems due to E15. I wonder if EPA will attempt to assert sovereign immunity?


----------



## Tedj101 (Nov 24, 2009)

anE934fun said:


> But don't they all have sovereign immunity? :dunno: Ted says they can assert sovereign immunity.... :yikes:
> 
> Since EPA has pulled the trigger on E15, it will be interesting to see if any lawsuits result from damage to fuel systems due to E15. I wonder if EPA will attempt to assert sovereign immunity?


The federal government has limited its sovreign immunity to some degree. However, I am not any kind of expert on what sort of claims against the federal government are no longer subject to sovreign immunity.

(Personally, I find the whole concept of sovreign immunity distasteful in a country that was founded to free us of a sovreign -- but then I am a bit on the conservative side <G>)


----------



## DC335i (Nov 2, 2006)

It is one thing to sue a federal agency to make them act or change policy, but another all together to sue for damages. Good luck with that (look into Federal Tort Claims Act). As for Ethanol, I've run into a ton of problems with my Harley thanks to it. Have torn down and cleaned the carb, replaced the fuel shut off valve because the diaphragm was eaten away, and am now looking at a total carb rebuild. The Ethanol eats away at any rubber in the system, while also attracting moisture which causes corrosion problems if the vehicle sits for any length of time. I've heard all sorts of horror stories from boat owners (thank goodness our sailboat is diesel like our car). I know the mandates are meant to help get us off fossil fuel and to help the environment, but the collateral damage is inexcusable given that the problems are so well documented. I really feel for people with older vehicles who cannot afford the repairs or to upgrade to something newer.


----------



## bayoucity (Jun 11, 2010)

I'm thinking about how cool not to worry about bio-diesel dilemma for awhile. Damn ! Those chicken growers in the south are copying the playbook of their corn grower cousins in the mid-west. Tyson is announcing today it's opening a plant in Louisiana to churn out 75 million gallon of diesel annually from chicken fat.

F! This is getting despicable. I guess I will settle for B7 or less. :

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131155496

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/08/digits-live-show-a-chicken-in-every-gas-tank/


----------



## TDIwyse (Sep 17, 2010)

As an FYI, the Tyson plant is not making conventional biodiesel. It's using a thermal depolymerization approach to synthesize molecules into oil/fuel as opposed to producing a methyl-ester based liquid. The TDP approach produces fuel that meets petroleum based fuel requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization


----------



## bayoucity (Jun 11, 2010)

*Farm, food groups sue to block E15 for newer vehicles*

A day after Tyson's announcement of turning chicken fat into diesel, the farm group including "the National Meat Association, the National Turkey Federation, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council..." decides to file suit blocking EPA's approval of E15.

Here is the quote: The petitioners argue that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA administrator may only grant a waiver for a new fuel additive if it "will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system."

link> http://detnews.com/article/20101109...od-groups-sue-to-block-E15-for-newer-vehicles

I'm unsurprising by the lawsuit. I love this country.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

TDIwyse said:


> As an FYI, the Tyson plant is not making conventional biodiesel. It's using a thermal depolymerization approach to synthesize molecules into oil/fuel as opposed to producing a methyl-ester based liquid. The TDP approach produces fuel that meets petroleum based fuel requirements.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization


Hmmm. Maybe there is an opportunity here for all of the liposuction clinics. If chicken fat can be turned into diesel, human fat should lend itself to a similar conversion process. The savings on medical waste disposal costs alone should make for a compelling value proposition. :angel:


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

bayoucity said:


> A day after Tyson's announcement of turning chicken fat into diesel, the farm group including "the National Meat Association, the National Turkey Federation, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council..." decides to file suit blocking EPA's approval of E15.
> 
> Here is the quote: The petitioners argue that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA administrator may only grant a waiver for a new fuel additive if it "will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system."
> 
> ...


And a similar argument could probably be advanced for the schemes to mandate the use of B20, since the authority for mandating the use of B20 is usually derived from the Federal Clean Air Act. All it takes is an enterprising attorney with a word processor, printer, Internet connection and a subscription to Lexus/Nexus.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

anE934fun said:


> Hmmm. Maybe there is an opportunity here for all of the liposuction clinics. If chicken fat can be turned into diesel, human fat should lend itself to a similar conversion process. The savings on medical waste disposal costs alone should make for a compelling value proposition. :angel:


Human fat is better used for soap anyway or so the movies have taught me.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

Snipe656 said:


> Human fat is better used for soap anyway or so the movies have taught me.


I doubt that the human fat that was converted to soap was subjected to the TDP process.... :angel:


----------



## bayoucity (Jun 11, 2010)

*I feel bad for petrolhead*

Very predictable:

EPA took further action on Growth Energy's waiver request and granted a partial waiver for E15 use in MY 2001-2006 cars, light duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles, subject to the same conditions that apply to the partial waiver for newer light-duty motor vehicles.

link> http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/#wn


----------



## 3ismagic# (Mar 17, 2011)

Bump
Any updates to this?

I will be moving to PA in the next year and have been considering changing my ED from a 328i to the 335d.
I have to say this scares the crap out of me. I am buying the car an plan to own it for the long haul (10 years 100k). I don't know much about diesel but the thought of buying a car and a 2-3 years down the road having to choose between violating the warranty/integrity of the engine and not being able to get fuel is terrifying.

I know the folks here tend to be diesel evangelists but in all honesty how concerned should I be about this?


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

*WA State 5%*

All diesel in WA State is 5%. Almost 30K miles on my 2010 335d and no problems.


----------

