my webster defines fuzzy, amongst other things, as
'...not clear; blurred...'
and i find present biodiesel 'standards' to be
generally not clear, or misleading.
the one exception is perhaps the austrian standard,
C 1191, dated nov. '96, and based on a previous austrian standard, 0norm C 1190,
dated feb. '91.
all other standards actually are proposed
standards, and not binding legally in their countries of origin.
the din standard E-DIN 51606 dated sep. '97 is, as
the 'e' signals, a proposed standard. it is not a lawfully enforceable standard.
individuals or corporations may use it as their standard, but that would be
the same as if i set up standards for my biodiesel, dick 101, and claimed my
plant's biodiesel meets this standard. as long as a car manufacturer accepts my
standards as valid, it wouldn't really matter if where 'universal' or not.
the astm standard is again a proposed standard,
drawn jointly with the national biodiesel board (nbb), the ps
121 dated '98, and modified april '01. it is of interest to note that in
the us fuel standards are each state's prerogative, so that even if astm/nbb
where to come up with a definite standard, it would still need to be ratified by
50 state legislatures.
the ce standard is still in the political
backwaters, and will probably not be available for another year or so. my
guess is that it will be half way between C 1191 and
e-din 51606.
the argentine standard is again a proposed one,
and fits in with the ce one.
spain is working on a standard, but so far a lot of
hot air, but no muscle.
i know of no other standards, but will be most
happy to learn of such. australia, for example, or maybe japan
??
there are a couple of partial standards in the us
applicable to biodiesel, and these are the material safety standard, cas #
67784-80-9, which deals with the safety of biodiesel,
and takes into consideration specific gravity (which astm/nbb does
not), boiling point, which no other standard, us or elsewhere, addresses, %
volatiles, and evaporation indexes. this last index is again not contemplated in
astm/nbb ps 121 standard.
another us standard is the national motor freight
classification, which defines biodiesel as a 'fatty acid ester', with an
id # 144.920, and shipping # 65.
but why would i call these proposed or existing
standards fuzzy ? why are they unclear to me ? why do i find them confusing
? after all they might be proposed standards, but that
shouldn't detract from their usefulness.
the reason I find these 'standards' fuzzy,
confusing, unclear, blurred, is because they are not in agreement with each
other for parameters i consider of vital importance.
1) the cetane number varies from 40 for the
astm/nbb to 49 for the austrian and e-din ones. now i consider cetane index key
regarding engine longevity, and ml/hp/hr efficiency. how can i explain a 22.5 %
spread in that value ? i find this confusing, to say the least. so which of the
standards is right, and which is wrong ? fuzzy, what ?
(aside: i would be delighted to learn how you can
determine cetane index with either gc or nir. it would really further
my education. and of course it would make all those ricardo engines out
there obsolete, overnight)
2) density, a relatively simple value to determine,
goes from a minimum of 0.85 to 0.90, a mere 5.9 % spread. but this is
in the european standards. the astm/nbb does not define a value for this
parameter. why, or why not ? again, fuzzy.
3) the european standards for viscosity have a
spread of 42.8 % the astm/nbb has a spread of 315.8 % !!! am i missing something
here ? shall we say it's fuzzy ?
4) the fcpp so dear to gc testing proponents goes
from 0 to 15 in the austrian standards, to 0 to 20 for the e-din. the astm/nbb
does not take this into consideration. zilch to zilch.
how fuzzy can you get ?
5) total sulphur has a spread of 500 % between the
different 'standards'. that's a pretty hefty spread, considering biodiesel was
supposed to be sulphur free. something doesn't quite tally here. fuzzy, i'd
say.....
6) the list goes on, but i suggest you check
it out yourselves. water content is zilch for the austrians, 0.03 % for e-din,
and not listed for astm/nbb. water and sediment is not a european standard, but
it is one for the astm/nbb crowd. same for total contamination, e-din seems to
be losing sleep over this, but austria and the astm/nbb folks won't even list
it. neutralisation value has a spread of 60 %, no mean feat that
!!
and so on and so forth. not very edifying, what
?
and i haven't even mentioned iodine !!! being a
good boy today.
so what say we use our brains, and realise there
are no reliable standards per se, and that we should start making up our own.
logical, practical, pragmatic, and applicable to real world situations.
else we're playing right into the hands of big oil.
and into the hands of megabucks centralised biodiesel operators, who really are
nothing more than big oil, without the oil wells, and the reserve depletion tax
breaks.
if the us were to add ONE percent of biodiesel to
its present fossil diesel, it would need 300 million gallons of
biodiesel. us biodiesel capacity today is under 200 million gallons.
now lets suppose the epa really leans on the big
truck operators, and enforces b20. what would happen ?
one, production capacity would have to be increased
thirty fold. two, feedstock prices would go up. three, biodiesel would be in
short supply for many years to come. and four, standards, when existant, would
'soften' to accommodate 'marginal' biodiesel.
any other scenario suggestions, list members ?
thus i preach simple 'feet-on-the-ground' standards
for our industry: density, viscosity, pH, water and alky content. these are easy
to determine and allow for a 'go/no go' strategy. add alek's neat quasi
chromatography, and you should be able to recommend b20 to anybody willing to
listen. low temps ? do like the fossil boys do, use an additive.
and what about neat bio, or higher than b20 mixes ?
well, for that i'll just quote the national
biodiesel board:
"A considerable amount of experience exists in the
US with a 20% blend of biodiesel with 80% diesel fuel (B20). Although biodiesel
(B100) can be used, blends of over 20% biodiesel with diesel fuel should be
evaluated on a case by case basis until further experience is
available". april 2001
i stand my case.
as to the personal innuendoes, and criticisms (ad
hominem, for those of you who had latin), tendered in lieu of a factual rebuttal
of the information i post, or the opinions i hold, they shall go begging for my
attention.
i'd rather deal with facts, as per the above, and
not with feelings.
i consider this a business list, focused on
biofuels, and not a cat house chat room.
relax, have some mead !!! cheers, dick.
in <snipping> veritas !!! this is a public
service message.
Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. |
- Re: AW: [biofuels-biz] Re:NIR Wooly .
- [biofuels-biz] what standards ??? Dick Carlstein
- Re: [biofuels-biz] what standards ??? Keith Addison
- [biofuels-biz] big oil Dick Carlstein
- Re: [biofuels-biz] big oil Keith Addison
- Re: [biofuels-biz] fuzzy standards Dick Carlstein
- Re: [biofuels-biz] fuzzy standar... Keith Addison
- Re: [biofuels-biz] fuzzy sta... goat industries
- [biofuels-biz] wvo Dick Carlstein
- AW: [biofuels-biz] wvo Camillo Holecek
- [biofuels-biz] quality testi... Dick Carlstein
- Re: [biofuels-biz] wvo goat industries
- [biofuels-biz] the empire's ... Dick Carlstein
- Re: [biofuels-biz] the empir... goat industries
- [biofuels-biz] ocean air env... Dick Carlstein
- Re: [biofuels-biz] ocean air... Keith Addison