'09 and later TDIs to be effectively banned in Iowa?

Current and future owners of new TDIs living in Iowa might want to write their state legislators and explain to them that 20% biodiesel is an absolute no-no in the world's best-selling new diesel sedan, the '09 (and future) TDIs:

"All regular diesel fuel would be illegal in Iowa after July 1 under a controversial proposal before state lawmakers....Farmers, truckers, school districts with diesel buses and owners of any personal vehicle with a diesel engine would be required to use biodiesel....Under the new proposal, the required blend of biodiesel would ramp up from 5 percent this summer to 20 percent by 2015"

Read the full article here.

Nobody cares when they ban guns, but lookout when they start banning straight D2

Maybe VW will do a recall and do the DPF and regen correctly...

maybe not.

BioDiesel in 2009 and later TDI's

Vw has not tested greater than 5% biodiesel. Iowa should not be allowed to do this,until further tests are done on ALL DIESELS,not just VW. The new TDI's would run great on 100% biodiesel,but you would have to remove the DPF.

Doesn't bio have some solvent effects that can damage plastic or rubber parts as well? I think it's not a problem for vehicles less than 5 or so years old, but there are a LOT of old vehicles and ag equipment that would potentially have to be rebuilt to keep seals and hoses from failing. Do they expect the consumer to pay for what appears to be another farm subsidy? Not all of us in Iowa grow beans. . .

This law looks like it was written by someone with no knowledge of how diesel engines work, simply looking at it from an environmental standpoint. I'm all for biodiesel, but they need to look at how the current fleet can handle it, possibly making exceptions or accommodations. That's my take on it, anyways.

BioDiesel in 2009 and later TDI's

Yes! Eric X, You get some of these Government People that don't have a clue. Then what happens is:

--The Engine pollutes more because it is not running right,due to bio-diesel use.
--Repairs to 'said engine' cause a carbon footprint.

--Another thing I don't like is when they clear vast areas of rainforest to plant trees to produce palm oil to make bio-diesel.

The future of Biodiesel has already been written, IMO. The world's agriculture will not be able to support their use in high concentrations with crop feedstock, ever (in everyone's opinion with a little common sense). It was nice to have when diesels were dirty, great to use in the older engines (I use it whenever I can find it), but it needs to be dropped ASAP by those who consider it a serious solution to anything, IMO

It's not doing anything for the air anymore in a modern CR DPF diesel. Its appeal is strictly as a renewable domestic fuel, IMO. It's qualities make it a less than ideal fuel for a high pressure common rail. Then there is exhaust treatment to contend with. I believe that better than 5% can be done with a little R&D by VW, but why would they ever want to do that for a fad? Only Caterpillar, to my knowledge, has developed clean diesel specifically with bio in mind. Exhaust temps can really only be raised w/o fuel dilution using a seperate downstream injection event.

But even with the limited amounts that are being produced now, look what it and ethanol have done. As was mentioned, environmental destruction, increased food prices and shortages. Now, if someone can figure out how to make it efficiently from a plant that isn't a world food staple, and isn't a TREE (palm), something like algae or a wasted byproduct, I might change my mind. Until then, I get sick driving through Iowa on I-80 and looking out over acres of green corn sucking up the water and nitrogen only to go through an energy intensive process and finally to be burned in a GM Tahoe "FLEX FUEL" at a 20% loss of FE. It's a mess. Nothing green about it, IMO.

There already is bio from algae. And bio from nearly any organic matter. Just not widespread yet.

Bob_Fout said:

There already is bio from algae. And bio from nearly any organic matter. Just not widespread yet.

Click to expand...

I know I know
note efficient: looooonnnggg way to go.

Dieselfitter said:

--Another thing I don't like is when they clear vast areas of rainforest to plant trees to produce palm oil to make bio-diesel.

Click to expand...

You are kidding, right? You are from the home of Tar Sand mining where vast areas of boreal forest are pit mined for tar sand so we can cook the tar out with natural gas... and you object to forest destruction?

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/OSF_Fact72.pdf

eb2143 said:

...even with the limited amounts [of soy biodiesel] that are being produced now, look what it and ethanol have done. As was mentioned, environmental destruction, increased food prices and shortages...

Click to expand...

Soy beans are not grown strictly to produce biodiesel.

Why?

Only 20% of the bean is oil. 98% of our soy bean crop goes to create animal feed. The beans are crushed to make the feed... and the oil comes squeezing out as a by product.

So... where does soy biodiesel cause environmental destruction? If we did grow more soy beans to get more oil, the cost of that animal feed would simply go down as more crushed soy cake came on the market. Soy biodiesel only got going big because there was a 300 million gallon surplus of soy oil with no market.

There isn't enough soy biodiesel to "save the Earth" but I don't get any claims about environmental destruction.

As far as this laws goes, mandated content should be limited to 5%. Just my $.02

eb2143 said:

...Nothing green about it...

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. There is a lot that is green about soy biodiesel. I've cut my CO2 emissions by 56% in the last six years while using 100% biodiesel. In my '03 Golf it runs smoother, quieter and pollutes far less than dino diesel. Pretty green. Long term? We need better and more plentiful sources for biodiesel that don't compete with food in any way.

Environmental effects of biodiesel specifically, I was thinking of palm plantations. I can't find statistics on how much biodiesel is produced for each feedstock, but I know that per acre, palm oil is lucrative. It has the best oil yield per acre by far, absolute $$$ for countries that have the environment to grow it, and my impression is that quite a bit of biodiesel is imported now from this source.

As far as nothing green about it, I was referring corn ethanol production in Iowa, I was a little off topic. More than 1/3 of US corn is going to renewable fuels. Incredible how quickly things ramped up with government incentive.

I agree, biodiesel's only glimmer of hope is a non-food feedstock that also must not compete for acreage against a food crop. That's two requirements, most people forget about the second one.

I also agree on the 5%. Oh, and oil sands are dang nasty, but it's pretty difficult to compare bad to bad (deforestation to pit mining)

eb2143 said:

This is about Iowa; pretty juvenille comment veolcity.

The future of Biodiesel has already been written. Biodiesel (and ethanol) are not the future. The world's agriculture will not be able to support them, ever, in high concentrations. It was nice to have when diesels were dirty, great to use in the older engines (I use it whenever I can find it), but it needs to be dropped ASAP by those who consider it a serious solution to anything.

Click to expand...

Juvenile? Opinion stated as fact is still opinion.

UFO said:

Juvenile? Opinion stated as fact is still opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. It's up to any reader to differentiate opinion from fact. It's not very difficult on a car forum. You can add IMO to every statement you make, or you can hope your readers aren't juvenile.

"Maybe VW will do a recall and and do the DPF and regen correctly"
You state it as a fact that the regen was done incorrectly, but that's your opinion, right?

I'm done. Been picked to pieces.

In Brazil they did the sugar cane thing, now they are oil independant and dont compete with pigs for food.

There's always the Jatropha plant.

I'm in 2 biodiesel plants and 3 ethanol plants. Some of you people don't seem to know about this problem. Here is a quote from an E85 forum.

why does no one talk about the permanent destruction and conversion of farmland to highways, residential, commercial uses? The following link points out the following land conversion losses;
Minnesota loses 24,000 acres of Farmland per year- 1 acre every 20 minutes
Michigan- 10 acres of Farmland per hour
Colorado- 300 acres of Rangeland/ day
Florida- 150,000 acres/ year (granted this may not be ag but for the carbon heads-----)
Nationally-- 1,000,000 acres of Farmland lost/year or 2,700 acres /day
California--where all the hubub just came from; 100,000 acres/year

Click to expand...

OP here. I just want to quickly go on record to explain that I love the idea of biodiesel, and I'm really jealous that I can't burn more than 5%. I just find it really frustrating when the gummint is too dang dumb to check before law-in' to see whether folks can actually burn the stuff. Grrrrrr

And, VelociT, I also wanna go on record that I'm a card-carrying gun-nut (or is that a gun-carrying card nut?), so I get riled when the gummint tries to ban either my D2 or my 9mm! I'll give up my D2 when they pry my cold dead fingers from the nozzle!

DoctorDawg said:

OP here. I just want to quickly go on record to explain that I love the idea of biodiesel, and I'm really jealous that I can't burn more than 5%. I just find it really frustrating when the gummint is too dang dumb to check before law-in' to see whether folks can actually burn the stuff. Grrrrrr

And, VelociT, I also wanna go on record that I'm a card-carrying gun-nut (or is that a gun-carrying card nut?), so I get riled when the gummint tries to ban either my D2 or my 9mm! I'll give up my D2 when they pry my cold dead fingers from the nozzle!

Click to expand...

This legislation is indeed B.S. for 09 owners and other vehicles that use the fuel to regen rather than urea injection regens.

I think legislators need to worry about the economy and stop trying to over-legislate.

velociT said:

I think legislators need to worry about the economy and stop trying to over-legislate.

Click to expand...

Of course, switching our society over to U.S. produced biofuels would hugely stimulate the economy vs. the crippling drain of 60% imported oil. Just guarding the flow of oil from the middle east is costing $5 for every gallon of fuel we consume. Its our tax dollars that we are pouring down the drain to keep the petroleum economy running.

Of course, that $5 cost is hidden from view when you are standing there at the pump so biofuels look WAY more expensive. While we are pumping what appears to be cheap dino fuel, the U.S. gov't taxman is picking your back pocket with the money that is withheld from your paycheck. If we made imported petroleum pay the real cost of fuel, U.S. produced biofuels would look like such a bargain. Remember, we are paying that $5/gal every day, every fillup. Real money, all the time. You just can't see it at the pump.

To get off of imported oil, we'd have to move way beyond soy biodiesel or corn ethanol. The technology is there, we just need to wake up and get it done. The oil companies would much rather keep us asleep with the illlusion of cheap fuel; no matter what damage it does to our economy or national security. Next time you are at the pump, just add $5 to the total every time a gallon comes out the spigot.

eb2143 said:

Until then, I get sick driving through Iowa on I-80 and looking out over acres of green corn sucking up the water and nitrogen only to go through an energy intensive process and finally to be burned in a GM Tahoe "FLEX FUEL" at a 20% loss of FE. It's a mess. Nothing green about it, IMO.

Click to expand...

Nice straw man. The stupidity of corn ethanol has nothing whatsoever to do with biodiesel!

mrchaotica said:

...corn ethanol has nothing whatsoever to do with biodiesel!

Click to expand...

And... I might add, there is a lot that people think they know about corn ethanol that is simply wrong.

Such as...

It takes more than a gallon of oil to make one gallon of ethanol (I hear this all the time on shows and the internet).

Simply wrong.

Most of the fossil fuel needed to make ethanol is natural gas for process heat and some coal for electricity in the ethanol factory. So little oil is consumed for farming, herbicides or pesticides that 1 BTU of actual oil is used to make 13 BTUs of corn ethanol. So... in spite of the only modest reduction in CO2 (about 18% less), corn ethanol does displace quite a lot of imported oil. It's kind of a way to convert natural gas and coal into a clean burning, U.S. produced motor fuel.

If anyone is interested, I have an eight page white paper on such issues. It took me several years to dig out much of the information as I looked into one "urban legend" after another.

ikendu said:

It's kind of a way to convert natural gas and coal into a clean burning, U.S. produced motor fuel.

Click to expand...

Well, then is it more efficient than (coal gasification + the Fischer-Tropsch process) or coal liquification?

Apologies for hijacking this hijacked thread, but to return to the OT:

One of the things that worries me about initiatives such as Iowa's: remember how VW decided in 2007-2008 that selling TDIs in the U.S. wasn't worth the trouble until it had a 50-state legal model? Well, if individual states start passing laws that make TDIs unsellable in some states, might VW just decide the same thing again, concluding that they don't want to sell into a market with 50 different moving targets? States' rights be damned...let's have one set of rules for motor fuels, please.

mrchaotica said:

Well, then is it more efficient than (coal gasification + the Fischer-Tropsch process) or coal liquification?

Click to expand...

Yes. With coal liquification, you invest 2 BTUs of coal to get 1 BTU of liquid fuel (gives off lots of CO2 in the process).

With corn ethanol, you invest 1 BTU total of gas, coal and oil to get 1.3 BTUs of ethanol (average gain from a variety of researchers).

Coal liquification 2 = 1
Corn ethanol 1 = 1.3

You get the boost of the sun changing CO2 and water into ethanol. If you switch out the coal for wind electricity, the fossil fuel balance gets better. Iowa has moved from #4 in wind to #2 now.

DoctorDawg said:

...let's have one set of rules for motor fuels, please.

Click to expand...

I'm for that, as long as that one set of rules starts getting us off imported oil. We saw the effect of $147/barrel oil; not good. It'll be right back up there one of these days and just continue to drain away our economy.

ikendu said:

I'm for that, as long as that one set of rules starts getting us off imported oil. We saw the effect of $147/barrel oil; not good. It'll be right back up there one of these days and just continue to drain away our economy.

Click to expand...

Keep an eye on Sunday's OPEC meeting to see if they are serious about further production reductions and maintaining compliance (in their group). I'm sure that $90/bbl crude is what they would like to see. That would push motor fuel here in the U.S. over $3/gallon.

Then watch this fragile economy go in the tank further.

ikendu said:

You are kidding, right? You are from the home of Tar Sand mining where vast areas of boreal forest are pit mined for tar sand so we can cook the tar out with natural gas... and you object to forest destruction?

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/OSF_Fact72.pdf

Click to expand...

Easy now boy!
I lived in Ft McMurray for 30 years!
A square mile of borialis forest in that area would be lucky to produce enough lumber to build and heat about 4 log cabins!
It is mostly swamp and winter access only.
1 square mile of 300 foot thick tarsand does produce a lot of oil big time and the reason that natural gas is used to heat it for separation is because is is used in cogen where the heat is used twice in the same operation.
Natural gas powers the big generators which by the way are tied into the Alberta power grid system and the waste heat used for the hot water to seperate the oil out of the sand.
They would burn thier own oil to do this except that gas is cheaper and yes cleaner to use.
Why burn your own pricy oil when you can burn cheaper gas?
The last time I checked over 90% of the oil produced in the Fort McMurray area was sold to the US for the plastics industry.
The reason it was prefered was because the oil was already decoked which ment they did not have to coke the oil and lose the 15% or what ever they lost in that process from normal or imported sources.
If you wre to fly over the tar sand mines in a small plane you would get about 15 minutes of vidio before you have to do a u turn.
Thats it!
The other sites are pushing steam down into the ground to extract oil on a slower basis but the ground above is unaffected.
By the way comparing Edmonton to Ft McMurray is like comparing Hollywood to Detroit!

I spent time in Ft McMurray two years ago with Enbridge Pipeline Company. I'm with Fst-switchback's anaylsis above. It's not like the "greenies" make it to be. Actually, it is hard to see very much going on. Plus, the town is such a friendly place.

Canada is doing good to provide us with a fair amount of crude (and it is good stuff). Actually, we import more crude from Canada than ANY OTHER country (yes, more than Saudi Arabia, aka, ARAMCO).