Biodiesel Rulez!!! [ARCHIVED]

[oknamlarry]

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

Taga project 8 din ako. For 2 years na akong gumagamit ng biodiesel sa aking 1995 Nissan Safari Patrol (TD42). So far, so good. Maganda ang takbo ng aking sasakyan, walang black smoke at nakakatulong sa pagtipid ng diesel. Yan ang aking karanasan sa BD.

Sa rustproofing, sa ZIEBART (Pasong Tamo, Makati) ako. Meron ding paint protector ang Ziebart. Try mo yn kanilang DIAMOND GLOSS.

[biogas.works]

Mga 6 na buwan ko nang ginagamit ang biodiesel. Gumanda din ang takbo ng Terrano TD27 & Pajero 4D56 ko. At gumawa ako ng paraan na tinatawag na "simulated chassis dynamometer" para masukat ng exacto ang "fuel consumption."

Sa paggamit ng 1% CME, nakaranas ako ng isang pagbagsak ng fuel consumption (from a baseline of 11.2 km/L to 10.33 km/L). Siyempre dahil dito, natakot akong magpatuloy gumamit ng biodiesel.

Buti na lang may nakita akong pagsusuri na ginawa sa Canada (Saskatoon BioBus II). Nakita nila na mas malaki ang tipid kung kaunti lang ang dinadagadag na biodiesel. Dahil dito bumaba ako sa 0.5% CME.

Sa 1% CME, ang pinakamalaking tipid na nakita sa "simulated chassis dyno test" ay 13.26 km/L. Ang average over 6 tests ay 12.39 km/L lamang (10.63% increase.) Hindi kasama dito yung isang bagsak na mileage.

Sa 0.5% CME, nakakita ako ng tipid na 13.63 km/L. Ang average ay 13.03 km/L (16.34%). Mas maganda ang takbo, mas malakas ang makina at "constant" o hindi nagbabago ang mileage (kahit ulit-ulitin ang test.)

Naniniwala akong mas mahusay ang 0.5% CME (at dahil mahal ang CME mas malaki ang matitipid kung 0.5% CME lang gagamitin.)

Basahin ang mga naunang "threads" para sa mga ibang sinulat ko.

[biogas.works]

[SIZE=2]Dear ka-tsikoters,

Below is letter I sent to Chemrez, AIPSI (Asian Institute of Petroleum Studies Inc.), Dept of Energy & others to raise awareness about the need to see if 0.5% CME is really better than 1% CME.

Gerry
- - - - - - - - - - -
To: "Jun Lao, Chemrez Inc." <junlao*chemrez.com>; james*deakin.ph
Cc: Boo Chanco <bchanco*gmail.com>; Rey Gamboa <reydgamboa*yahoo.com>; Dir. Mario C. Marasigan <mmarasig*doe.gov.ph>; Raffy Diaz <rsdiaz*pacific.net.ph>; florello galindo <dodogalindo*yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 7:34:35 AM

Subject: CME Fuel Savings fr Increased Mileage[/SIZE]

Dear Jun,

Thank you for inviting me to your meeting with James Deakin of The Philippine Star and C! Magazine last Tuesday. It was a pleasure to meet Raffy Diaz and Dodo Galindo of AIPSI. We have corresponded by email and it was great to meet them in person.

I must admit that after the meeting I felt like giving up on 0.5% CME and my perception (through simulated “chassis dyno tests”) that it provides better sustainable performance than 1% CME.

The mitigation of emissions by 1% CME is satisfactorily covered in extensive research by local and foreign experts. Interestingly, the ability of 1% CME to reduce dependence on imported fuel oil has not been researched with the same level of detail and precision.

But can we guarantee that 1% CME will not result in increased dependence or higher consumption of diesel? Other biodiesels like B20 Soya deliver equal or lesser mileage. The same is true for B5 Canola which reported negative fuel savings of $0.001 to $0.030 per liter. And, the latter was even confirmed in additional “Higher Precision” evaluations.

Although my simulated dyno test showed that 1% CME can deliver 10-15% increased mileage, the one-time 8% drop I experienced seems to be consistent with B5 Canola studies. If 1% CME leads even just to a 2% mileage drop in long-term use, diesel consumption will actually rise by 1.029%. A 5% mileage drop will consume an additional 4.102% of diesel. (Reference: Baseline = 10km/L)

The argument that fuel mileage studies and comparisons are not acceptable because driving habits, engine conditions, diesel from different manufacturers, etc. all vary is not valid. And, neither should these be used as justification for not performing research.

Fuel mileage studies specifically recognize that these conditions affect results. They are, therefore, performed so that these conditions are excluded as in the use of chassis dynamometers.

My simulated “chassis dyno” test is not a precision test but, in comparison to road tests used to base mileage improvements for 1% CME, my test results may be the only data that come close to being scientifically and statistically acceptable.

As my tests for 0.5% CME produce better mileage than 1.0% CME and these results are also consistent with the “Higher Precision” evaluations for B5 Canola, the necessity of long-term fuel mileage tests for both 1% and 0.5% CME cannot be underestimated or ignored.

While 0.5% CME will slightly increase emissions on a per vehicle basis, as 2 vehicles can use 1% with the lower blend, the reduced emission from 2 vehicles will be greater than if it only came from 1 vehicle using 1% CME. More importantly, the ability of 0.5% CME to produce higher and sustained fuel savings are substantial. (See chart below or detailed information in enclosed file.)

Of course I understand your industry’s reluctance to do further studies that may prove these findings correct. As a business proposition, 0.5% CME’s excess capacity may not be immediately marketable. Even if this excess is exported, this requires additional marketing effort; delays; and, if it is sold for practically the same price, less profits.

For the consumer, however, the global benefits of using 0.5% CME cannot be overlooked – especially since it will have a significant environmental impact and will mean substantial savings for everyone.

My tests will continue indefinitely and I will try to develop more awareness. I renew my invitation for you to participate and/or fund my plans for extensive tests. I hope you continue to support my research in any way you can.

Thank you and best regards.

Gerardo P. Baron
Email: biofuels.work*yahoo.com

[SIZE=1]Comparison of savings between 1% and 0.5% CME

CME Mileage Savings in liters (L)
1% Increase Diesel replaced by CME + Diesel saved

> 0% 70 million
> 10% 70 million + 693 million = 763 million L
> -2.0% 70 million + (-142 million) = -72 million liters or –1.029%

CME Mileage Savings in liters (L)
0.5% Increase [/SIZE][SIZE=1]Diesel replaced by CME + Diesel saved[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]
> 10% 35 million + 696.5 million = 731.5 million L
Global Savings: 731.5 x 2 = 1.463 Billion L
> 15% 35 million + 1,044.8 million = 1,079.8 million L
[SIZE=1] Global Savings: 1,079.8 million x 2 = 2.159 Billion L[/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=1]

Basis:
1. Annual diesel consumption: 7 Billion liters
2. Annual CME production capacity: 70 Million liters
3. Excess CME is exported & increases Global savings.[/SIZE]

[paulbaguio]

So ano na developments sa BioFuel act? any updates?

[tatalope]

The question now is should I or should I not add BD to my fuel tank anymore since the BD act is already put unto law. Thanks to Zubiri. (We know who to call unto if ever this BD thing backfires.

[Alpha_One]

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!

OT: Why not? I mean, can't you imagine, when hydrogen or whatever comes around, you'll still be filling up your fuel cell Toyota at the corner Petron?

(Just rambling, ignore me if you wish). The thing that many people don't realize, about "evil oil companies" is that it's not all about the oil, or that they'll come to an end if we come upon an alternative source of energy. Doesn't matter if we're using oil, hydrogen, or beer as fuel, they'll be there. One way or another. We'll just call them the "evil beer companies" or something.

[pervagus]

It seems to me that even among highly-educated vehicle owners there is still a pervasive low level of understanding about biofuels, biodiesel in particular. This gap is naturally being exploited by certain oil companies and vested interests who use FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) marketing tactics to derail the shift to biofuels. The government is not doing enough in the area of public information and education so as to counteract FUD and encourage acceptance of the great necessity for the country to adapt to biofuels.

Few people are unaware of the intense effort that went into the crafting of the Biofuels Act. This is not a law that happened overnight given that it was nearly two years in the making. A lot of debate and scientific presentations were involved in the legislative process and it was largely uncovered by media (whether through plain neglect or by some "persuasive" means). The oppositors to coco-biodiesel were naturally the big oil majors whose economic interests would be obviously compromised by the mandated reduction in fossil fuel sales and furthermore, in the case of coco-biodiesel, the improved mileage gain by automotive users.

More on this soon....

[rsnald]

.... This is not a law that happened overnight given that it was nearly two years in the making. A lot of debate and scientific presentations were involved in the legislative process and it was largely uncovered by media (whether through plain neglect or by some "persuasive" means).
More on this soon....

it's more than two years bro... i was there when it started way back 2001. And even before that, there had been scientific studies done as early as the late 80's into the early 90's... but i wasnt there yet... but my prof was already on the so called "coconut-oil based diesel fuel" ;)

now that it's a law... everyone from both sides of the fence is making a big fuss out of it. in the long run, we may all perhaps benefit from it if we (meaning including our government) manage it properly.

wag sana mangyari dito yung tulad ng nangyari sa oil deregulation law. where the intention was inherently good but eventually resulted in informal cartelization by the oil companies.

in the case of the biofuel law, remember that some of the people who own the largest tracks of sugarcane (source of bioethanol) and coconut farm lands are still the politicians in power. so you can only imagine who can and who has control on the prices of the raw materials that will be needed to make the biofuels. so cross your fingers and hold on to your seats folks... this is gonna be a wild ride :D

[pervagus]

Great, a poster with good insights.

Let me clarify some things. There were some filed bills that separately tackled ethanol and biodiesel but by late 2005 these were consolidated and evolved into the House Bill in November and this got further morphed when the Senate approved its version in October 2006. The end product is the Biofuels Act of 2006 signed last January 12.

There is no question that some local scientists may have studied and assessed the diesel-replacement potential of coconut-based methyl esters in previous years. However, the economics of those times were not conducive to any progress for coco-biodiesel since petroleum was, what, well below $30 a barrel and very few saw or played up the link between using coco-biodiesel and lowering carbon emissions for the benefit of the environment. Over the last two years, however, the steep rise in oil prices and the agitation for cleaner air sort of came together and coco-biodiesel got a really serious look by policy makers.

Alongside this came the growing need to ensure the viability of the coconut industry which was subjected to wide swings in commodity prices that had dire repercussions for the rural economy. Farmers dependent on coconut were contending with erratic prices for copra so a new market had to be found to at least prevent or minimise the adverse impact on farm incomes. It should be noted that coconut farms are mainly in the hands of small farmers many of whom live at barely subsistence levels. We do not practice corporate farming because CARP has ensured its impracticality. The same goes for sugar where we have seen big estates broken up over the last 30 or so years. The stereotyped big-league sugar hacendero is typically reduced to running centrals that are chasing an inconsistent supply of sugar cane. And our coconut oil mills are running at just half their capacities.

Unlike petroleum where you basically still have an oligopoly (notwithstanding deregulation) structure, coconut and sugar producers are greatly fragmented and this will ensure that these two major biofuel sources will be less prone to manipulation and narrow control. Coconut oil is highly commoditized in the world market (there are a lot of other vegetable oils) and the Philippines happens to consume roughly at home just a third of the coconut oil that it produces. This means that there is plenty enough volume to shift from exports to making coco-biodiesel without disturbing our food and oleochemical (soap and detergents) needs. We are far better off than the Europeans and Americans who have to choose between making biodiesel or using for food their native vegetable oils (rapeseed in Europe and soya bean in the U.S.) given that they are more pressed to ensure cleaner air and cut their huge dependence on imported petroleum.

So there should really be no apprehension about shifting to biofuels since we are a surplus producer of coconut oil and the new law has put safeguards in place to ensure that ethanol will be produced from new areas planted to sugar. We thankfully still have a lot of underutilized arable land to plant to sugar and coconut. This will mean additional employment in the countrysides as well as spur new investment in infrastructure for biofuels. The new law has mandated a new market for our agricultural sector and this will attract a lot of foreign investments. Witness the Chinese and Japanese who are lining up integrated biofuel projects that will yield surpluses for the export market.

I believe we will swing it this time around.

[XUV-AT2002]

On the practical level pls help:

What is the most reasonable and convenient procedure to ensure 1% or .5% blend of bioactive? My ride is 2002 xwind and my friend who endorsed the use of said product simply instructed me to add 1 bottle for every full tank. Twice na ako nag full tank and the immediate benefit is the smoking gun was gone. is there is long term bad effect if blend is not proper? thnaks.