Confusion over Safety Tester's Approval of E85 fuel station pumps

Oddly, that "corrosiveness" nature of ethanol is one of the undeniable advantages it has as an alternative fuel over biodiesel. It keeps all the fuel components clean as a whistle.

With biodiesel, there's a fatty residue (glycerin) that can build up in fuel lines & filters over time. Refineries do there best to remove as much as possible, but trace amounts still remain. So the engine may eventually suffer from clogging, just like people stuggling with cholesteral do... which is preventable in part from the consumption of certain alcohols, like ethanol!

Funny how that works, eh?

 

Biodiesel is a fairly corrosive substance on its own, and will keep engine parts clean and prolong engine life. It can actually be a drawback to an older vehicle. It will eat through rubber fuel lines. Though I understand manufacturers switch over to resilent components in the mid 90s. In any engine that has run on petro-diesel for awhile, the biodiesel can be too effective a cleaning agent. All that diesel gunk gets loosened up in the tank and then clogs filters and lines.

I can see how the glycerine can be a problem. How much trace amounts is being left behind by refineries?
If biodiesel can overcome its major obstacle, then cleaning agents will likely be required. Ethanol would probably work. But for now, biodiesel gels up at 40F, leaving it only suitable as an additive to petro-diesel. On the plus side, if you live in a mild locale and have the time and inclination, homebrewing biodiesel is relatively easy.

While good for the engine of an auto make for it, the corrosiveness of ethanol is bad for the infrastructure. The pipelines can't handle concentrated ethanol. Leaving it to be shipped and trucked, by diesel burners, to stations.

Butanol kicks both their butts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Oct 20 2006, 12:26 PM) [snapback]335633[/snapback]</div>

When B2 became mandated here in Minnesota last year, it only took a few months for fuel filters to become so clogged that they required replacement. The problem turned out to be that their refining process was not meeting established standards. So, all worked out in the end. However, that was only a 2 percent blend. So there is still a question of how long you could drive with a higher amount, even if it was quite a bit better refined. Perhaps the routine change interval is often enough to deal with that.

Of course, automakers currently only warranty for blends as high as 5 percent. That could indeed be due to biodiesel also having rather corrosive qualities. So that adds an interesting twist to all this. Biodiesel still has the problem of increasing NOx emissions too.

Solutions to getting us off our addicition to oil clearly are not as simple as people hope. Thankfully, what some of us drive already is helping that process.

E20 is mandated in Minnesota for 2013, a 10 percent increase over the current E10 mandate that has already been in place since the late 90's. So in addition to the benefits hybrid technology offer, the fuel for the engine is improving too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Oct 20 2006, 02:01 PM) [snapback]335654[/snapback]</div>

When somebody doesn't meet standards or cuts corners, things going bad tend to happen.
Regulations require whole milk to be at least 3.25%, but diaries don't want to go over this since the money is in the cream. I mention this because the biodiesel refineries use the same basic techniques to seperate out the glycerine. They should be able to remove all of it. Or at least to the point where a trace addative can neutralize any remaining glycerine.
Being a stronger solvent than diesel could also have led to the problems. That 2% might have been enough to loosen up any dirt in the tank, and thus allow it to clog the filter.

In my brief research I haven't heard of any homebrewers having problems with glycerine, besides what to do with it. Nearly all of them use the sit and wait method of seperation. Which probably is a better method to completely remove it. It can take days to weeks though.

The 5% is do to the gelling issue, and the fact a person could go from semi-tropical to semi-artic conditions in a day or two. The 5% is the max you can have in petro-diesel and not have gelling in near freezing temps. You could go up to 20% when mixed with kerosene. The fact that the American public doesn't have the inclination to educate themselves on new things doesn't help. I think that's why we don't get the EV switch. Toyota didn't want to hear the complaints of it not working when the computer was just overiding it.

Yes, it does increase NOx emissions, but it is also low sulfur. Low enough for emission control components to be used.
Just saw this on wikipedia, "In February 2006 a Navy biodiesel expert claimed NOx emissions in practice were actually lower than baseline." Haven't checked it out though.
Biodiesel has lower particle output than the petro stuff.

Ethanol's big disadvantage is that its use requires conversion. E10 is the highest recommended by auto manufactures for non-flex-fuel vehicles. Mandating E20 for the near future is nice. But who is going to cover the cost of possible damage to the car I have now? And flex-fuels sacrifice effieciency to be able to burn both. It also means a more exspensive distribution method.

Butanol doesn't have those problems. Plus, its energy content is much closer to gasolene than ethanol, and it isn't hygroscopic. Yeah ethanol takes water out of your tank, but it also sucks water out of the air. 5% of the ethanol you pump into the tank could be water. If it pans out, butanol is the better choice, but there doesn't seem to be much research going on with it.

Couple of links:
http://www.butanol.com/
http://www.biodieselcommunity.org/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Oct 20 2006, 02:24 PM) [snapback]335737[/snapback]</div>

That wasn't the case. Look up the articles published from this time last year. It was after repeated filter changes, all clogged from the same fatty substance (definitely not dirt), that finally led to the abrupt halt in distribution. Too many miles were driven to be just loose debris.

Fortunately, we are not dealing with a single-product. Just fuel alone won't do it. As you pointed out, NOx emissions can indeed reduce the bio/diesel negative substantially. It's basically a matter of whether or not people will be willing to pay for that level of cleansing hardware. The same is true for the extreme efficiency advanced batteries can offer a hybrid. But all along, there's still a fuel involved.

It's the multi-facet solutions that complicate understanding & support.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Oct 20 2006, 02:24 PM) [snapback]335737[/snapback]</div>

What damage? That E20 limitation is a misconception, due mostly to no one requesting it... which is the very reason Minnesota has started the push. Studies so far have shown that an additional 10 percent isn't a concern. The vehicles currently on the road are actually capable of using it without consequence.

Continued study for another 6 years will easily satisfy that concern, especially since vehicle life is shorter up here anyway. The oldest ones still in daily service by 2013 will be fairly new still by today's standards.

Of course, all this attention to E85 helps to make the E20 support easier anyway. Issues, like the pumps, would have been approved and well proven long in advance of that.

 

Too bad that someone messed up with the biodiesel. Usually the glycerine and biodiesel mix like oil and water. So seperating them shouldn't be difficult.

I sure the issues with ethanol will be ironed out. Those pumps are likely safe too use now. I'm just concerned that ethanol is being pushed for political reasons, and possibly better solutions are being overlooked because this.

BP and Dupont are looking into butanol.

 

If the production issues can be solved butanol is vastly superior to ethanol. It's sorta the dream biofuel except that the production efficiency seems to be poor. It's good to see dupont and BP investigating it.

 

HHHmmm.