Biodiesel Rulez!!! [ARCHIVED]

**biogas.works** · January 6th, 2007 12:00 PM

Dear Friends,

The use of BioDIESEL particularly the local product known as Coconut Methyl Ester (CME) made from coconut oil will be mandated at a 1% blend in the Philippnes soon under the BioFuels Act of 2006.

I have personally tested 1% CME and found that it gives 10+% mileage improvement during initial use. Prolonged use, however, seems unable to sustain 10% mileage improvements.

I have shifted down to 0.5% CME and have found after 3,000+ kms of simulated chassis dynamometer tests that 0.5% CME provides BETTER and MORE CONSISTENT Fuel Savings than 1% CME.

The latter follows a Canadian report that found after 2+ years of testing 5% Canola BioDiesel that lower blends like 0.25% were better. (Search: Saskatoon Biobus II Final Research Report and read Section 4: Higher Precision Highway Fuel Economy and Engine Wear Evaluations.)

As CME is expensive and if LESS CME can give BETTER Mileage and Performance, why should we use more considering that both our raw materials are finite and our production facilities are limited.

The implementation of the BioFuels Act of 2006 was not carried out before Christmas 2006 as widely anticipated. This is probably because the proponents are seeing that 1% CME may not be as good as they hoped.

I recommend that you try 0.5% CME while we still can (as only 1% CME will be sold in ALL gas stations after the BioFuels Act is implemented) and let us discuss your findings in this forum.

I would be happy to answer any questions on BioDIESEL if you have any.

Happy New Year and Best Regards.

Gerry

**artlynn** · January 7th, 2007 08:43 AM

Hi ALL!
1) Honestly...maganda ang nababasa ko regarding BioDiesel Fuel...pero takot pa rin ako gumamit nito kasi sabi ng Isuzu Dealer eh ma-VOID ang warranty ng Sportivo ko if i used NON Recommended Fuel and that includes BioDiesel.

2) May alam ba kayo kung saan maganda magpa-RUSTPROOFING??? Taga Project 8 ako. Sa Shell station ba eh okay rin magpa rustproofing?
I was thinking of magpa rustproof sa Kasa?

3) Okay rin ba magpalagay PAINT PROTECTOR?

Any suggestions or comments?

Artlynn

**garyq** · January 7th, 2007 11:00 AM

artlynn:continue reading about BD para mawala yung fear mo. Sa casa hindi alam ng many S.A and BD so they dont discuss it or worst inject fear and doubt. Use BD na from a reliable mfg since bago oto mo and see the results. May Xwind kami and we have been using BD for the past 3 years. (nung senbel days ko pa)

**biogas.works** · January 7th, 2007 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by artlynn

Hi ALL!
1) Honestly...maganda ang nababasa ko regarding BioDiesel Fuel...pero takot pa rin ako gumamit nito kasi sabi ng Isuzu Dealer eh ma-VOID ang warranty ng Sportivo ko if i used NON Recommended Fuel and that includes BioDiesel.

Some vehicle manufacturers oppose the use of BioDiesel. This is because NOT ALL BioDiesels are the same. In the US, BioDIESEL is made from Soya Oil, in Europe from Rapeseed Oil and in Canada from Canola Oil. All perform differently so studies in the US or Canada are NOT APPLICABLE in either country unless the same BioDiesel is used. More so in a foreign country for an unknown BioDiesel made from coconuts.

ALL BioDIESELS reduce emission levels even in low percentages but NOT ALL improve fuel mileage. Soya BD gives reduced mileage so it is used primarily as a fuel substitute and because of its high cost - users get incentives or subsidies from the US Government.

Coconut Methy Ester (or CME the Philippine BioDIESEL) has passed all emission tests in the US, Europe and Japan. However, its capability to increase fuel mileage has not been scientifically evaluated yet. Local studies of fuel mileage are not documented and the few that are do not appear to meet international testing standards so vehicle manufacturers and the transport industry (who are volume users of Diesel) continue to have doubts about CME’s ability to deliver long-term fuel savings.

This is not to say CME is not good. After using it for over 6,000 kms, I love it because I get over 10% more mileage (and power) despite the fact that I am only using 0.5% (after I saw a problem with 1%.)

I suggest you try using 0.5% CME. This minute percentage should be safe for your Sportivo. Even if it develops any problems it will not be noticed by Isuzu. Helping prove that 0.5% is better than 1% that will be sold in all gasoline stations (whether we like it or not) when the BioFuels Act of 2006 is implemented soon will allow us to put a good product to better use.

Why use 1% when 0.5% can give the same or better performance? CME is expensive and supply is limited. Why use more than necessary? If 0.5% can do what 1% can, we can be export the excess. This will generate foreign income for the Philippines and it also helps other countries save on fuel.

**GlennSter** · January 7th, 2007 12:51 PM

nice info biogas.works.

the more people are informed, the less they will fear using it. so tama silang lahat na read up on them =)

**biogas.works** · January 7th, 2007 12:53 PM

The quote below came from the thread BIODIESEL RULEZ! in this forum. Check BIODIESEL RULEZ! for more info on BioDiesel.

Originally Posted by artlynn

Hi ALL!
1) Honestly...maganda ang nababasa ko regarding BioDiesel Fuel...pero takot pa rin ako gumamit nito kasi sabi ng Isuzu Dealer eh ma-VOID ang warranty ng Sportivo ko if i used NON Recommended Fuel and that includes BioDiesel.

Some vehicle manufacturers oppose the use of BioDiesel. This is because NOT ALL BioDiesels are the same. In the US, BioDIESEL is made from Soya Oil, in Europe from Rapeseed Oil and in Canada from Canola Oil. All perform differently so studies in the US or Canada are NOT APPLICABLE in either country unless the same BioDiesel is used. More so in a foreign country for an unknown BioDiesel made from coconuts.

ALL BioDIESELS reduce emission levels even in low percentages but NOT ALL improve fuel mileage. Soya BD gives reduced mileage so it is used primarily as a fuel substitute and because of its high cost - users get incentives or subsidies from the US Government.

Coconut Methy Ester (or CME the Philippine BioDIESEL) has passed all emission tests in the US, Europe and Japan. However, its capability to increase fuel mileage has not been scientifically evaluated yet. Local studies of fuel mileage are not documented and the few that are do not appear to meet international testing standards so vehicle manufacturers and the transport industry (who are volume users of Diesel) continue to have doubts about CME’s ability to deliver long-term fuel savings.

This is not to say CME is not good. After using it for over 6,000 kms, I love it because I get over 10% more mileage (and power) despite the fact that I am only using 0.5% (after I saw a problem with 1%.)

I suggest you try using 0.5% CME. This minute percentage should be safe for your Sportivo. Even if it develops any problems it will not be noticed by Isuzu. Helping prove that 0.5% is better than 1% that will be sold in all gasoline stations (whether we like it or not) when the BioFuels Act of 2006 is implemented soon will allow us to put a good product to better use.

Why use 1% when 0.5% can give the same or better performance? CME is expensive and supply is limited. Why use more than necessary? If 0.5% can do what 1% can, we can be export the excess. This will generate foreign income for the Philippines and it also helps other countries save on fuel.

**GlennSter** · January 7th, 2007 01:00 PM

biogas works...to avoid multiple threads to the topic..please post any info about biodiesel in the original thread.thank you...

merging...

**MadMax** · January 11th, 2007 08:43 AM

Quote: "Of the three major oil companies, three manufacturers and some independent bodies I spoke to for this article, each one embraced the new law and fully supported it." -- YEAH, RIGHT!

(Took out some parts to make it fit the 10,000 char limit)

The Philippine STAR

Motoring

Fuel for Thought Part II
BACKSEAT DRIVER By James Deakin
Publication Date: [Wednesday, January 10, 2007]

Of the three major oil companies, three manufacturers and some independent bodies I spoke to for this article, each one embraced the new law and fully supported it. The Chamber of Automotive Manufacturers even took out an ad congratulating the government for it. Initially, their concerns were that ethanol is not compatible with all cars and could create some warranty issues, which is why the law was drafted to allow consumers a choice, as well as a gradual implementation that allows manufacturers enough time to introduce ethanol capable vehicles and for the public to get cozy with the idea. In other words, while no solution is in sight, regular unleaded will still be available.

Sounds too good to be true? You may want to pour yourself a taller glass.

While ethanol gets the nod from both the oil industry and the car industry, it is the mandatory implementation of the 1% Coco Methyl Ester (CME) on all diesel fuels that is leaving a nasty residue in some mouths. Unlike the ethanol component, the new biofuels act requires that every last drop of diesel that comes out of a pump be mixed with a minimum of 1% CME. No exceptions. Not even on the industrial diesel that powers generators. So what’s 1% between friends?

The industries affected (automotive and oil) both fear that not enough research has been conducted to guarantee consumers that the introduction of even just 1% of CME will have a positive effect on either their vehicles or the environment. In fact, independent tests commissioned by some oil companies show the reverse to be true.

And who are we doing this for if not the environment and our countrymen?

As of today, I’m told that approximately 65% of all CME will be supplied by Chemrez, a local Chinese company. The same company is said to be currently developing another plant, which will increase their production to as much as 80% or more. While it may be true that this will create local jobs and fill the BIR’s pockets with wads full of much-needed cash, coconuts are a commodity like anything else and the concern is that there is absolutely no guarantee that the prices won’t skyrocket once a mandatory demand is created.

If prices remain at today’s cost of 60 pesos per liter of CME, this should work out to a minimum added cost to the consumer of 35 centavos extra per liter of diesel. That is just cost of product. Once you start to factor in the cost of cleaning out and modifying pipes and fittings to accommodate the new bio diesel, this will inevitably shoot up. Anything that the oil companies need to do to comply with the new law will be billed directly to you. Let’s face it, nice as everyone may be, nobody is doing this for love.

Another concern is that CME does not react well with water. Tests conducted by our local oil companies have shown that the very properties that make up CME "grabs" water. This becomes an issue during storage. Strangely enough, as part of the transportation of fuel, oil companies use water to push diesel through pipes. It may sound bizarre, but once inside the tank, any excess water just floats to the top where it is easily skimmed off. The same technique is used when water finds its way into storage tanks in humid countries like the Philippines.

The concern now with CME is that it cannot easily be separated from the water, which if no solution is found, will lead to corrosion in the tank, pipes, fuel lines and then eventually in your car’s fuels system. This is why the oil companies and even the manufacturers have been asking for more time so that they can study it and come up with the necessary measures to cope with it.

Of all the manufacturers I spoke to, only Ford confidently claim that their diesel vehicles will run on up to 5% coco diesel. According to Luie Dy Buncio, Ford’s VP for Sales & Marketing, all their gasoline models will happily run on a 10% ethanol mix; the Focus will even take in as much as 20%, while oddly enough, the new Escape hasn’t got a sweet tooth at all and is not recommended to run on any blend of ethanol whatsoever.

Just about everyone else seems to be opposed or non-committal towards the issue.

And lastly, while the CME industry claim that the introduction of just 1% in all diesel fuels will reduce emissions and generate up to a 10% saving in fuel usage, the oil industry argues that it is yet to receive anything to support those claims and feel that the mere mention of it until such time is just plain irresponsible.

On a whole, both the oil industry and the auto industry agree with the need for a bio fuel act. It is more on the implementation and the proper testing procedures where the tension begins.

Don’t get me wrong, the shift from fossil fuels to renewable resources alone is already a great leap forward; but let’s not over simplify things. For the biofuels act to work we need everyone to be batting on the same side — oil companies, government, suppliers, manufacturers and the public. This is not meant to be a band aid solution; this is much needed chemotherapy to save the country from our hopeless addiction to crude oil. It took Brazil over 30 years and over 16 billion dollars from 1979 to the mid-nineties just in loans to sugar farmers to get where they are today. That does not even take into account subsidies including foregone revenue from tax breaks as well as other costs to consumers. So please, don’t expect us to get there overnight.

But thanks to Brazil, we have a much easier learning curve. We can take a leaf out of their book and work towards an energy independent nation, so long as we do not get caught up in the hype.

I would like to believe that every motorist is committed to a cleaner environment. Just like we are all for eradicating poverty and hunger. Problem is, if it has to come directly from our pockets, many will look the other way. Biofuels, in principle, is a good thing. But the costs have to be shared in order to get to the bigger picture. Shell has been subsidizing their ethanol effort for eight months now just to kick things off. Now that the party is over, if ethanol still remains a more expensive option, guess what? Give me some of that good ‘old fashioned crude, please. Charity, after all, will always begin at home.

And if our government is not prepared to invest in this program in the same way as their South American counterparts, then the whole exercise becomes fruitless. I’m all for the ozone layer, but not if it will cost me 50 pesos a liter. And I know I’m not alone. In 1986, after civilians replaced generals in Brazilian politics, the world price of oil plunged, endangering the government’s pledge to keep the price of ethanol below that of gasoline. In 1989, President Jose Sarney started cutting ethanol price supports. Sales of ethanol cars plummeted and some Brazilians felt the entire experiment had been a waste.

Today, they are stronger than ever; but despite being known as the ethanol capital of the world, it may surprise many to know that Brazil has only enjoyed intermittent success with its ethanol program. It fascinated me to know how a country as successful as they are with alternative fuels overcame their problems to land them in the enviable position they are in today. So, as the biofuels act drew closer and closer to getting carved into stone, I decided to dig a little deeper by flying over to Sao Paolo , Brazil , last October for the final F1 race and made a little pit stop myself.

Aside from the government assistance, I learned that Brazil basically had to reinvent itself. They reinvested in R&D and came up with a better way to make ethanol, including using the remains of processed cane to power sugar and ethanol plants, and using industrial waste from ethanol production to fertilize sugar fields. As a result, the productivity of Brazil’s ethanol producers has steadily increased. In 1975, Brazil squeezed 2,000 liters, or about 520 gallons, of ethanol from a hectare, or nearly 2.5 acres, of sugar cane. Today, it’s nearly 6,000 liters.

But the biggest difference came when the government realized that, despite its influence and best intentions, it could not control the world’s market price of oil and ethanol, so it developed something else: the flex fuel engine. Today, more than 80% of all new cars sold in Brazil are fitted with Flex Fuel engines. The idea behind this was to be able to stabilize the prices of fuel by having a vehicle that could take both. Now, as a motorist pulls up to the pump, they have a choice of gasoline or alcool, depending on which one is cheaper on the day.

Nobody I have spoken to during the research of this article is opposed to change, but making it mandatory to use CME in diesel fuels could end up backfiring on our government. Unless more is done to insure that prices will be controlled and side effects (or concerns at least) minimized, this will hit the public utility sector harder than anyone else, which will in turn affect the transportation and the majority of the nation’s workforce that depend on it. Not to mention the private diesel motorists and the industries that depends on them, too. They may have found out the hard way, but even a country as advanced as Brazil understands that the power of energy independence is worth nothing without the power of choice.

**biogas.works** · January 13th, 2007 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by MadMax

The Philippine STAR Motoring Section
Fuel for Thought Part II
BACKSEAT DRIVER By James Deakin
Publication Date: [Wednesday, January 10, 2007]
Excerpts:

While ethanol gets the nod from both the oil industry and the car industry, it is the mandatory implementation of the 1% Coco Methyl Ester (CME) on all diesel fuels that is leaving a nasty residue in some mouths. Unlike the ethanol component, the new biofuels act requires that every last drop of diesel that comes out of a pump be mixed with a minimum of 1% CME. No exceptions. Not even on the industrial diesel that powers generators. So what’s 1% between friends?

The industries affected (automotive and oil) both fear that not enough research has been conducted to guarantee consumers that the introduction of even just 1% of CME will have a positive effect on either their vehicles or the environment. In fact, independent tests commissioned by some oil companies show the reverse to be true.

Dear Mad Max,

Thank you for the sharing the above article and some previous ones too. I underlined and boldfaced the vital portions to highlight them.

As one who has used different types of biodiesel and compared their ability to save fuel from increased mileage, I was quite impressed with 1% CME (specially because it is made in the Philippines and it is a potentially exportable product.)

My tests did not include emissions as I do not have the capability for these tests. Besides they have already been widely tested internationally by organizations like the US NREL.

As I want to help prove that 1% CME can deliver LONG-TERM fuel savings, I continue using 1% CME and subjecting it to my simulated "chassis dynamometer test" so that I can accurately report fuel savings taken on later occasions that can be verified.

I was really surprised when after 2,000 kms of using 1% CME, from a baseline of 11.2 km/L that peaked to >13.0 km/L (16% mileage increase), my little test fuel tank ran out of fuel at the NLEX prematurely. On this occasion, I obtained only 10.3 km/L or an 8% decrease in mileage.

The fear that 1% CME will damage my engine made me shift to 0.5% CME specially since a Canadian Study also reported that lower biodiesel blends were better. My 0.5% CME tests are continuing and now at over 3,500 kms, I still see >13.0 km/L (or a 16% mileage increase.)

I have reported these findings to the DOE, PCA, Chemrez and AIPSI. While they said they will look into it, I can't avoid wondering if they really are as I have not heard from them since. My requests for data and reports on tests they performed to prove 1% CME can deliver LONG TERM fuel savings equivalent to at least 10% increase in mileage also remain un-answered.

I hope they are re-thinking legislation to mandate the use of 1% CME as this law could really BACKFIRE on them. Although I only saw a one-time drop in fuel mileage with 1% CME, it was enough to scare me about using it.

Besides why should we be required to use 1% CME that is expensive if 0.5% CME (or a lesser & cheaper amount) can do the same or better job of saving fuel from increased mileage.

Please continue to share with us information about how we can best use biofuels to protect our environment and conserve our dwindling resources that include oil.

Again, thank you and MORE POWER.

Gerry

**biogas.works** · January 13th, 2007 10:30 PM

(UPDATE) Arroyo signs into law Biofuels Act - INQUIRER.net ...
PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has signed into law the 2006 Biofuels Act. ...
globalnation.inquirer.net/news/ news/view_article.php?article_id=42849 - 101k -

Arroyo signs into law Biofuels Act
By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez
INQUIRER.net
Last updated 06:30pm (Mla time) 01/11/2007

PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has signed into law the 2006 Biofuels Act.

Arroyo announced this Thursday during a roundtable discussion as she renewed her pitch for greater energy cooperation between members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which are holding a summit in Cebu this week.

Arroyo said that with the enactment of the law, the country is expected to lessen its dependence on imported fuel and achieve energy independence.

The Philippines currently imports 30 percent of its fuel requirements.

The new law provides bioethanol make up at least five percent of the total volume of gasoline sold and distributed in the country while a minimum of one percent biodiesel shall be blended in diesel.

During the roundtable discussion, Arroyo called on the countries in the region to begin producing flexible fuel engines for vehicles that can be run by biofuel.

"It is necessary that trucks and cars use machines that cane use this biofuel, so it is important that this is agreed on by the whole region,” she said. “The whole of Asia must observe the same standards.”

Originally posted at 03:15 pm

Anytime now, only 1% CME will be sold in ALL gasoline stations in the Philippines with this NEW LAW. Before that occurs, we have one last chance to benchmark or baseline our fuel consumption with 100% diesel.

If we do not know our fuel mileage with 100% diesel, we will have no basis to determine or to compare if 1% CME is really better and if that improvement lasts indefinitely. If we do not determine that value now while 100% diesel is still available we will not be able to determine it later.

Expect to see 15 to 20% increase in fuel mileage the first time 1% CME is used (or during the first 2,000 kms.) I believe many people saw this savings at the onset and simply presumed it will last forever. I did too but I am glad I did not discontinue running my verifiable tests. Although I only saw a one-time 8.0% drop in fuel mileage after using 1% CME for 2,000+ kms – the experience was enough to scare me about using it.

The 1% CME mandated under the BioFuels Act should produce LONG TERM fuel savings (from increased mileage of 10% or more) on top of lower emissions. It will be a pity and a monumentally EXPENSIVE and WASTEFUL legislation, if after 2 or 3 months of 1% CME use, we will require more fuel than with 100% diesel when the un-determined detrimental effects of 1% CME kick-in (as in the 8.0% fuel mileage drop I experienced) and nobody is aware they are actually using more diesel than before.

More IMPORTANTLY, I also hope that my findings on 0.5% CME’s ability to produce higher and more sustainable fuel savings than 1% CME are wrong because if they are not – we will be using more CME than necessary and that excess is simply wasted unnecessarily.

Please benchmark your fuel consumption with 100% diesel now. Try 0.5% CME and compare it later with 1% CME (when only that will be available) and together let us tell the government what we find. Specially if CME proves to be as good or better than they claimed, let us commend them so that the whole world will know that CME is "The Perfect BioDiesel."