>To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com >From: Jim Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:29:53 -0800 (PST) >Subject: Re: [biofuels-biz] Fuel Quality Test for Small Producers > >Todd: > >My comment about testing was taken from a conversation with Dr. >Charles Peterson, Director of the BioFuel Lab at U of Idaho, Moscow. >Dr. Peterson flatly stated that the key issue for small biofuel >producers was the need to test each batch, that small producers >could not, typically, afford such tests. He recommended that the >small producers join forces and create a "central" lab to test each >batch made by each producer if that fuel is to be sold. If anyone >is attempting to sell untested biofuel, there is a risk that such >fuel -- off-spec fuel --could foul a diesel engine, its injectors >and filters. > >Further, if a producer sought product liability insurance, I am >reasonably certain that the carrier would insist on the testing of >each batch. > >As to labeling, how would anyone label non-tested, off-spec >biodiesel? The term, "biodiesel" has a correct and scientific >meaning, that is a compound which has passed ASTM D 6751. It is not >"biodiesel" unless it has been tested and has passed the test. >Petro diesel also has to pass its tests. I understand that the B20 >may have its own test. > >Testing, in my opinion, is critical to the success of the entire >biodiesel industry. We need to be on par with the big producers of >diesel fuels. We must be able to assure the buying public that >"our" biodiesel meets the standard of D6751. The problem lies in >the cost of testing each batch. Dr. Peterson's conclusion is that >testing could become economical if enough of the small producers >form a "coop" or some other business arrangement so that a sample of >each batch can be tested. I agree with Dr. Peterson. > >Jim Miller > >Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Jim, > > >4. The test profile is there for a reason -- you do not truly have > >biodiesel unless it passes the test. You may have a compound which > >will burn, but to mis-lable it as "biodiesel" would be illegal. > >Civil liability could follow. > >That's a bit of a mis-correlation. I sure wouldn't want to put it in a >storage drum and label it "maple syrup." And labeling it as "A Compound >Which Will Burn" is equally misleading. > >Just because a sample may not be subjected to the costly tests and rigors of >ASTM D-6751 doesn't mean that it's not biodiesel. It's just not a fuel that >can be legally sold for road taxable use. And that's only because of >"legislative legalities," not chemical "realities." > >Todd Swearingen
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
