Biodiesel Banned In Texas
- Thread starter Stormbringer1992
- Start date
- Status
I don't know enough about diesel combustion. NOX emissions from gasoline engines comes from the air mostly, no?
I do wonder if this is "big oil" speaking.....or rather learning how to manipulate the ecopyscho's in the government.
I do wonder if this is "big oil" speaking.....or rather learning how to manipulate the ecopyscho's in the government.
The EPA is fixated on NOx, whereas other areas of the world are more focused on other emissions problems. Particulate matter is one of the worst diesel emissions as far as people are concerned and biodiesel significantly reduces particulates. In most cases biodiesel reduces the emissions output of a well running diesel engine, however the NOx doesn't change much.
The ULSD doesn't really do much of NOx either, it's the engine programming and engine pre/after treatments that make the 07+ engines produce less NOx.
The ULSD doesn't really do much of NOx either, it's the engine programming and engine pre/after treatments that make the 07+ engines produce less NOx.
1040 - how are NOx levels in Diesels vs. Gassers?
Pablo, that's an interesting question. I've never herd that question asked quite like that. Well, it's hard to say as it varies quite a bit. NOx emissions are directly tied with combustion temperatures. The higher the temp the more NOx. In most cases I would think diesel's would have much high NOx emissions. Truthfully I haven't look at the limits in years and when I was on the "smog" detail at the shop it would have been almost exclusively diesel equipment and at the time we didn't test for NOx in diesels anyway.
Actual NOx production will vary depending (obviously) on the size of the engine, but it will also vary with load since low load situations yield low combustion temps.
I still find it funny that the EPA is locked on NOx and doesn't give a rip about the real bad stuff in exhaust gases. They need to take a more realistic approach, but I'm no expert and don't know much and they remind me every chance they get.
Actual NOx production will vary depending (obviously) on the size of the engine, but it will also vary with load since low load situations yield low combustion temps.
I still find it funny that the EPA is locked on NOx and doesn't give a rip about the real bad stuff in exhaust gases. They need to take a more realistic approach, but I'm no expert and don't know much and they remind me every chance they get.
Let's talk about platinum group metals and toxicity. Maybe someone can invent an exhaust catalyst with no possibilty of causing asthma.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_1_6/ai_82006248
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc125.htm
"The signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity include urticaria, contact dermatitis of the skin, and respiratory disorders ranging from sneezing, shortness of breath, and cyanosis to severe asthma."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYH/is_1_6/ai_82006248
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc125.htm
"The signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity include urticaria, contact dermatitis of the skin, and respiratory disorders ranging from sneezing, shortness of breath, and cyanosis to severe asthma."
Now why would we want to control PGM and PM that are killing people when we can become obsessed with NOx that MIGHT be contributing to global warming that may or may not be part of some natural cycle of climates
I thought I was the only one that noticed that. Burn more gasoline to produce less emissions hardly seems like an effictive solution to me. Heck, a '94 Buick LeSabre with a 175 HP 3800 V6 can almost equal the disappointing MPG numbers of the "pregnant rollerskate" Aveo, and look how much more car is there!
The legislators deal in politics not science or facts. This NOx stuff is a little lacking in proof, need or substance. When the promoters of these policies came to the legislators they substituted things in place of facts. They are taking care of us because we are too stupid to manage our own affairs. Just pay your taxes and they will continue to care for us. Remember they got rid of demon lead and just because they poisoned the world to do it does not mean they don't care. They are kind people that only care for us.
Well bio is not totally banned now in the Eastern TxLED counties, in this document
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/publi...l_producers.pdf
producers are limited to 100,000 bbls of 100% bio production to be used as B20 blend in the 110 TxLED counties, basically anywhere East of I-35. At 20% blend that makes 500,000 bbls of fuel per producer, or 21,000,000 gal. per year. (using 1bbl=42 gal, 420,000 gal limit /year)
West texas will be where you can get B100 it looks like.
This looks a lot like a compromise, enough people complained that they decided they better compromise and better to shut up the majority while still giving concessions to big oil as that B20 still has to be 80% Tx LED diesel and a cap is put on the bio competitor to roughly less than half the production of a small bio-production plant. In this way they intend on limiting total bioD consumption to less than 1% of total consumption in this area by the TxLED's own documents. (2) Guess the rest will have to go to West Texas. I still smell collusion, or they are hedging their bets as they have conflicting reports from two government agencies. * Though in the above cited document (2), they are still touting the EPA numbers of 2% increase in NoX.
(2) http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/publi...l_producers.pdf
Biodiesel Industries advertises a standard modular production unit with 10Mgpy capability. Renewable Energy Group is building 60Mgpy plants in Kansas and Iowa.
If you look at the permits given out so far, only producers of both bio and regular diesel have recieved permits for supplying the TxLEd districts. One plus is that you can pretty much bet on getting good clean fuel in the TxLED area with requirements of a min Cetane of 48, where before I know sometimes this was not always the case. No additional requirements on over national standard on lubricity however.
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/news.html
*"A recent NREL study concludes that vehicles using B20 fuel—a blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum diesel—do not produce an increase in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, unlike an Environmental Protection Agency 2002 report showing a two percent increase in NOx emissions for B20.
"This is a major finding because the perceived small increase was leading some state regulatory agencies to consider banning B20 biodiesel," said Robert McCormick, NREL principal engineer for nonpetroleum based fuels research. "Our study helps remove a significant barrier to the expansion of biodiesel markets." ...
"Our study shows that the NOx impact of B20 varies with engine design, such that some engines show a small increase while others show a small decrease. The EPA's 2002 review was based on a data set made up primarily of data from one engine model that produces a small NOx increase. EPA uses these data to draw a general conclusion for on-highway engines that B20 causes a 2% increase in NOx," McCormick said. "The chassis dynamometer testing along with careful review of previously published data suggest that their conclusion is not correct, and that on average B20 has no effect on NOx." "
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/publi...l_producers.pdf
producers are limited to 100,000 bbls of 100% bio production to be used as B20 blend in the 110 TxLED counties, basically anywhere East of I-35. At 20% blend that makes 500,000 bbls of fuel per producer, or 21,000,000 gal. per year. (using 1bbl=42 gal, 420,000 gal limit /year)
West texas will be where you can get B100 it looks like.
This looks a lot like a compromise, enough people complained that they decided they better compromise and better to shut up the majority while still giving concessions to big oil as that B20 still has to be 80% Tx LED diesel and a cap is put on the bio competitor to roughly less than half the production of a small bio-production plant. In this way they intend on limiting total bioD consumption to less than 1% of total consumption in this area by the TxLED's own documents. (2) Guess the rest will have to go to West Texas. I still smell collusion, or they are hedging their bets as they have conflicting reports from two government agencies. * Though in the above cited document (2), they are still touting the EPA numbers of 2% increase in NoX.
(2) http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/publi...l_producers.pdf
Biodiesel Industries advertises a standard modular production unit with 10Mgpy capability. Renewable Energy Group is building 60Mgpy plants in Kansas and Iowa.
If you look at the permits given out so far, only producers of both bio and regular diesel have recieved permits for supplying the TxLEd districts. One plus is that you can pretty much bet on getting good clean fuel in the TxLED area with requirements of a min Cetane of 48, where before I know sometimes this was not always the case. No additional requirements on over national standard on lubricity however.
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/news.html
*"A recent NREL study concludes that vehicles using B20 fuel—a blend of 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum diesel—do not produce an increase in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, unlike an Environmental Protection Agency 2002 report showing a two percent increase in NOx emissions for B20.
"This is a major finding because the perceived small increase was leading some state regulatory agencies to consider banning B20 biodiesel," said Robert McCormick, NREL principal engineer for nonpetroleum based fuels research. "Our study helps remove a significant barrier to the expansion of biodiesel markets." ...
"Our study shows that the NOx impact of B20 varies with engine design, such that some engines show a small increase while others show a small decrease. The EPA's 2002 review was based on a data set made up primarily of data from one engine model that produces a small NOx increase. EPA uses these data to draw a general conclusion for on-highway engines that B20 causes a 2% increase in NOx," McCormick said. "The chassis dynamometer testing along with careful review of previously published data suggest that their conclusion is not correct, and that on average B20 has no effect on NOx." "
Some of these groups better get together and figure out what they are going to do, and the should include outsiders that have some science, business and manufacturering knowledge. If Texas is looking at banning biodiesel can California be far behind. If one of these groups succeeds with one of these bans it could put our lifestyle and economy in a tailspin.
The problem with NOx in diesels comes from high combustion temperatures when fuel to air mixtures are high (like 1 part fuel to 80 parts air...example). The EGRs inject inert mixtures (dirty hot previously combusted gases) into the combustion chamber to replace fresh air and lower combustion temperatures. A couple of problems with this method is that it increases Particle Matter/Soot production because of the lower cylinder combustion temperatures and it also increases soot that is absorbed by the oil. It also reduces efficiency overall and mileage.
BioDiesel reduces PM significantly but NOx production increases. BioDiesel proponents point to the fact that the "extra" NOx is a mute point because it comes from plant based material so it leaves no real footprint.
ULSD did go a long way to clean up PM emmisions but thye did not go with the higher cetane rating that would have helped even more...instead they actually lower the cetane rating from about 52 to 46. This is still better than the 42-44 cetance rating of the older LSD.
There are better ways to control NOx than EGR methods with urea injection ect. Diesel Particle Filters can also filter out more PM but they can also become clogged. Basically, there is always some cost from combustion.
BioDiesel reduces PM significantly but NOx production increases. BioDiesel proponents point to the fact that the "extra" NOx is a mute point because it comes from plant based material so it leaves no real footprint.
ULSD did go a long way to clean up PM emmisions but thye did not go with the higher cetane rating that would have helped even more...instead they actually lower the cetane rating from about 52 to 46. This is still better than the 42-44 cetance rating of the older LSD.
There are better ways to control NOx than EGR methods with urea injection ect. Diesel Particle Filters can also filter out more PM but they can also become clogged. Basically, there is always some cost from combustion.
Not trying to sound like a crackpot but this was "big oil" speaking pure and simple. You think they are going to let biodiesel make inroads in their own backyard?
A few calls to Austin, a few West Texas deer hunts, and some campaign donations and voile!
My 2003 Dodge diesel has an evil CA engine, a standard output with a CAT that evidently runs cooler than the high output or the 48 state standard output. As I recall from a comment from someone at Cummins it was designed for lower nitrogen byproducts and due to the lower operating temps is longer lasting than the other models. The newer high output engines meet the requirements, and Dodge doesn't provide other diesel engines.
From what I've seen a downside is that it evidently also produces more soot as the oil change interval is half of the other models.
From what I've seen a downside is that it evidently also produces more soot as the oil change interval is half of the other models.
- Status
