BioDiesel TDi emissions vs comparable Gas Engines

genau

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Location
Temecula, Ca
TDI
03 Golf TDI
I am having an argument with a coworker about the emissions of our cars (newer 1.9l engine [or even the next year's PD]) vs gas engines. He's convinced that diesel is dirty and gas is clean (and greener which is garbage because fossil fuels encorage dependance on foreign oil) . At any rate I'm looking specifically at our engines running B100 and am interested in not only the QUANTITY of the emissions but also the TYPE. Mostly my coworker is going off the "green vehicle" list at http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles which rates vehicles on a scale of 1-10 (10 being best) based on their environmental impact...our diesels are at the bottom with a rating of 1 Let's be clear here, this is the same rating given to GMC and FORD Full Size Trucks - total bull. I do have to admit how funny it is tht the government propogates the misconceptions of the foolish. What's that expression?...the blind leading the blind. Can anybody help? TIA
 

Geordi

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Location
Somewhere between Heaven and Hell. But it is reall
TDI
14 JSW DSG, 03 Wagon 01M, 400k and IPT performance auto!
First thing, ask your coworker if he would be comfortable connecting a hose to his shiny new SULEV (Super-Low-Emission-Vehicle) exhaust and sitting in the car with that hose running inside with him. Chances are, he will think you are nuts for even asking. BUT, you can tell him this: With biodiesel (NOT something the Gov't tests with for that "Green Car List") you COULD sit with the exhaust running into the car, and at most, you might get a headache. There is basically NO CO in the exhaust. The particulates / Soot that your coworker is most likely referring to? Gassers produce just as much of that, BUT the particles are MUCH smaller. In the sub-3-micron size, where diesel particles are larger than 15 microns. Your average cigarette smoke is visible, because the SAME SOOT (carbon dust from burning) is about 10 microns, and there are millions of particles in each puff. Now comes the good stuff: Your lungs can filter out anything larger than about 5-7 microns, so for the most part, cigarette smoke soot doesn't get into your blood. BUT, at 3 micron and smaller... Car soot DOES. Your lungs can EASILY filter the diesel particles, they are much too large. It would be like trying to inhale a beach ball. Now, at such a small size, car particles are VERY light, and can remain airborne for weeks, if not longer. Sound like SMOG to anyone? Diesel particles will only remain airborne for AT MOST a few hours, usually only a minute or two, then they fall to earth, to mix with the rest of the fallen dust... Commonly known as: Dirt. Carbon particles are a large portion of dirt.

The mystery of why gas cars are "cleaner" than diesel is a simple one: They aren't. BUT people wrongly THINK they are, because they simply can't SEE the exhaust from the family SUV. Beyond that, Diesel will ALWAYS produce less emission per mile driven, because simply LESS of it is used when compared between the same vehicles with different engines. Diesel gives you a much higher energy output, so the engine can be smaller, using less fuel for the same job, and giving you higher MPGs.

--Jim
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
With biodiesel.......There is basically NO CO in the exhaust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horsepucky! You've been misled by the hype again!!

AVERAGE BIODIESEL EMISSIONS COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL DIESEL

Carbon Monoxide -48% (B100) -12%(B20)
------------------------------------------------------------

Now how in the heck can you have a reduction in CO when you claim there isn't any?!?!? /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

You need to get your facts straight.

From a widely posted Swedish study that tested VW TDi's with Swedish EC1 diesel , the cleanest (<10ppm sulphur) commercially available diesel in the world these are the results NHMike came up with.......

a Golf TDI emits.......
car________ CO ________HC_______NOx______CO2_______PM
Golf TDI__ 0.135___0.0267____0.627_____243______0.483

Now half 48% of that would be 0.065 g/mi

That's great! That's wonderfull!
But is it next to nothing or so much better than a SULEV?

From the NREL/EPA test certification site.....
Data and Results—Toyota Prius

For the two main test procedures....
FTP75 CO = 0.116 g/mi
HWFET CO = 0.091 g/mi

For a total average of CO / 0.1035 g/mi
These are certification figures for 2001. For model year 2004 SULEV's will be 30% cleaner to meet durabilty requirements of 10y/150K miles.
TDi's won't get cleaned up until 2007.

The point?
Are you going to be able to tell the difference while "sucking on a tailpipe"?
I dought it. There is not much difference and yes biodiesel does emit CO.

Like I said before, get your facts straight.
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
Diesel will ALWAYS produce less emission per mile driven, because simply LESS of it is used when compared between the same vehicles with different engines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another misnomer.

Emissions are checked by measuring them in grams per mile.

on pump fuel.....(actually the Golf is with 10ppm diesel, something we won't even have in 2006)

a Golf TDI emits.......
car________ CO ________HC_______NOx______CO2_______PM
Golf TDI__ 0.135_____0.0267______0.627_____243_______0.483

a Toyota Prius emits......(using HWFET test cycles)
__________ CO ________ HC ______NOx_____CO2_______PM
_________.116________ 0.009____0.003____158_______0.01(the max allowed for SULEV certs)

It sure is funny how modern three-way catalysts can change the emissions in modern cars today. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

When diesels get their oxyidation-cats and pm filters in 2007 then they can too!

Now considering biodiesel.
If you want to get someone (NREL/EPA/GermanyTUV/anyone!) to actually test diesels on biodiesel with some certified test results then we might have something to talk about.
No experimental labs, please. Real legal for the road tests only.

Until then, it is all just extreme speculation.
 

Geordi

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Location
Somewhere between Heaven and Hell. But it is reall
TDI
14 JSW DSG, 03 Wagon 01M, 400k and IPT performance auto!
Why don't you go troll somewhere else, like the Prius forums if you are so hyped up on them.

"No experimental labs, please. Real legal for the road tests only."

Ok smart guy, then why do you keep posting the SAME DATA that is using (according to you) Swedish EC-1 which we will most likely NEVER have, and start talking about the data with fuel that is available NOW, TODAY, not in 2006, 2007, or anywhere in the distant future. That is vaporware data, the results can never be met in this country.

Your so-called 3-way catalysts also wouldn't be needed if people were using biodiesel anyway, especially B100, because then the emissions would ONLY be from the plants that were JUST RECENTLY in the environment, not ADDING pollution from dinosaurs that have not been "in the environment" for thousands of years. If you are using plants for fuel, the very next day after you burned them, their remnants would be getting absorbed by the next crop waiting for harvest. That is called pollution-neutral living, you neither add nor subtract and live in harmony with the environment. Yes, when measured directly at the tailpipe, there will be X amount of CO2 that is released per mile. HOWEVER, there can ONLY be a total amount of Y CO2 in the entire tank, since that SAME Y AMOUNT was absorbed by the soybeans while growing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Only converted.

Stop adding pollution to the environment from dinosaurs, and then maybe the plants can control the level that comes from burning the biomass of the previous crop. And if you want to clean the air of dinosaur pollution, add those extra filters anyway, the air coming out the tailpipe will be cleaner than it went in.

--Jim
 

genau

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Location
Temecula, Ca
TDI
03 Golf TDI
Auto, you don't seem very popular. Every post I've ever read with you in it, (only 2 or 3 now) people seem to be mad at you. /images/graemlins/confused.gif Oh well, I guess unpopular doesn't mean wrong. I did notice though that there was no link to that Swedish (10ppm fuel) test. Could you post the source of your numbers just for verification? Thanx.
 

naturist

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2001
Location
Bro Jerry's hometown, Virginia
TDI
2001 Jetta TDI, 2005 Jeep Libby CRD, 2012 BMW X5 35d
Geordi clearly has an axe to grind, no?

AutoDiesel is right in saying that diesels on dino, however clean of sulfur it might be, is not zero on anything. Geordi is also correct in saying that the carbon from biodiesel is not adding to the net carbon load, but only in the sense that it just recently CAME from the atmosphere, and in fact more was absorbed from the air into the plants than will be released back to the atmosphere when the biodiesel is burned.

But that does not address the oxides of nitrogen or particulates issues. And the evidence is clear that oxides of nitrogen are higher from a diesel, especially if that diesel is burning biodiesel.

But all this argument is beside the point: no matter which you drive, you will contribute to the pollution. Which is worse is open to debate, thus the, er, debate.
 

RichC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Location
Cincinnati, OH
TDI
Others: 82 MB 300D Turbodiesel & 2010 BMW X5 35D
My primary irritation with the 'nasty' debating, is that ordinary people reading the thread eventually decide to pick a side rather than embrace the 'many' developing alternatives. When the debate is friendlier, the recognized outcome is that there are several technologies and they all have merit over what we are currently using.

It would be helpful if the current debate thread recognize that both hybrids and biofuels would like to see more efficient use of resources, cleaner emissions and that a renewable fuel source is definitely better for our longterm needs.

If we look a the big picture and realize that many of today's 'larger' diesel will be in operation for many years to come ... then we need to continue our development of cleaner alternatives to run in these engines .... be they petroleum or biodiesel. Personal transportation may be a different story yet assume their is room for many developing alternatives.
 

Lightman

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Location
Sunny Florida
[ QUOTE ]
genau said:
Auto, you don't seem very popular. Every post I've ever read with you in it, (only 2 or 3 now) people seem to be mad at you. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Yes genau, Autodiesel seems to feel the need to take it upon himself to rid the TDI club of biodiesel use and to slander biodiesel at any chance he can get, by posting a lot of nonsensical stats and figures, that aren't always directly applicable to North American TDI's TODAY. I like many prefer real world tests, such as the fact that I've run 25k miles on b100 with great results and oil analyses, and many others have run a lot more miles on b100. When I've succesfully used it since 2001, all of those stats posted mean about as much as dog crap to me.. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

I also agree with Rich to a degree.

I think this debate is kinda stupid overall though, because both types of vehicles do get great mpg's and have low pollution. Work on the guys with the v10 pickups, dump trucks, etc, if you want to make any difference in pollution..
 

Geordi

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Location
Somewhere between Heaven and Hell. But it is reall
TDI
14 JSW DSG, 03 Wagon 01M, 400k and IPT performance auto!
Rich, I agree with you. As a country, we need to develop alternative renewable fuels for the engines and distribution methods that are already in use. I have no problem at all with the Prius, or anyone that chooses a gas hybrid over a diesel hybrid (which are coming soon, at least in Europe) as long as that choice is not just because they think: Diesel? Eww, dirty stinky pollution! That is the opinion from the 70s. Even the exhaust from big semis is not as dark as it once was. Use Biodiesel, and that smoke almost totally disappears. BUT, as I keep saying, that smoke is not the problem. Smoke is carbon ash. Dust. Dirt. EVERYTHING that burns produces it, carbon is the base element in everything living, hence oil, biodiesel, and anything else that grows is made of mostly carbon. Ash is not pollution, but it IS harmful, if it is small enough to get into your lungs and get past the filter. Car ash is small enough, and I strongly believe that is a major cause of the asthma epidemic that is spreading across our country. The cars and trucks are getting cleaner, yes. But as they get cleaner, the particles are getting MUCH smaller. You can never truly eliminate these particles, since they are the base element in the fuel. But the rest of the exhaust components, Nox, CO, CO2... Are all changed by the use of biodiesel or ethanol. Soybeans remove more nitrogen (Nox) from the air than they use to grow. That is why a farmer can grow soybeans on a field and then sell them, rather than leaving the land fallow to recover, or plowing the soy under. The crop enriches rather than weakens the soil for other crops. So, the increased Nox number is not a big deal, since Nox is only harmful to the air in the presence of other pollutants, thise which are reduced greatly by Biodiesel use.

Our country runs on trucks. To anyone who says differently, where did you get that computer you are using? How did it get to the store? The chair under you? The soda next to you?
Trucks deliver everything. Trucks run on diesel fuel, not hydrogen (with half the range and NO fueling stations) not electric (see hydrogen) not gasoline (less energy, but LOTS of stations and lots of cost).

Delivery trucks (for fuel) are set up for a liquid fuel, under zero pressure. Biodiesel can work with any underground fuel tank, and probably with any diesel fuel station without any signifigant changes. Can Hydrogen? I think not. Ethanol is basically the same story, but for gassers.

This is why I support alternative LIQUID fuels, and not just the "It's bad, don't ever use it" mantra. Let's research and change that, and LEARN to fix those problems.

--Jim
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
because then the emissions would ONLY be from the plants that were JUST RECENTLY in the environment

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is when a bio-derived fuel is not going to produce harmfull byproducts when burned in a internal combustion engine?

What a very nice Utopian vision! ( hint, it doesn't work that way )

Wait a miniute.

This is what you posted previously.....

[ QUOTE ]
There is basically NO CO in the exhaust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are posting......

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, when measured directly at the tailpipe, there will be X amount of CO2 that is released per mile.

[/ QUOTE ]

So which one are you wanting to make a point about, CO/carbon monoxide or CO2/carbon dioxide?

We already discussed CO.
As for CO2........

Global warming is caused by the SUN, not SUVs

More proof of the causes of climate change came earlier this month when the Geological Society of America's GSA Today published a study by a Canadian geologist and an Israeli astrophysicist which shows conclusively that over the past half-billion years, the interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays from deep space has caused the periodic warming and cooling of the planet, on a fairly predictable cycle of about 135 million years.

Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research, Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide, rather than the other way around.

So, how have the pushers of global warming theory gotten away with pretending the sun has no impact at all (or a negligible one), especially when such internationally renowned scientists as TechCentralStation's own Enviro-Sci Host, Sallie Baliunas and her colleague Willie Soon, have been convincingly demonstrating for years that solar brightening and other solar activity have a profound, if not the principal effect on climate?

The greenhouse chorus has been able to say that solar activity and carbon dioxide have both been increasing in lockstep with global temperatures, so there is no way to prove one is a "driver," and the other not.

Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases.

------------------------------------------------------------
So if you are worried about CO2 causing global warming all I can say is everyone has to have something to believe in! /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

I'm not saying everyone should drive a big fat A$$ SUV. But the real problem we face is local pollution.
Global warming is real.
But we are not the driving force of it.
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
Could you post the source of your numbers just for verification? Thanx.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been posted many times in a few other threads.
Thank's Tapokata

My purpose is not to slam anyone for their beliefs. The big misconception is if one doesn't agree with what you believe then one is agains't you. Not the case. Do what you believe. But if the facts don't meet those beliefs then they should be challenged.

I may come across a little strong sometimes but I mean no ill for it.
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
I like many prefer real world tests, such as the fact that I've run 25k miles on b100 with great results and oil analyses

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you done any tailpipe testing?

There has been zero official road qualified (not experimental labs) certified tests of TDi's in the U.S. running on biodiesel. That is the problem. If you or anyone else can produce some real tests results that can prove that the biodiesel does what you or anyone else says it does in a VW TDi I will shut up. Even the only manufacturer that used to OK biodiesel won't do any emission testing with RME.
But you can't because 99.999999999999999999999999% of all testing with biodiesel has been done with heavy duty truck engines. Their emission cycles are much different than light duty diesels.

[ QUOTE ]
because both types of vehicles do get great mpg's and have low pollution.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that mpg's have nothing to do with low emissions? Don't you?
Emissions are rated in grams per mile.
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
So, the increased Nox number is not a big deal, since Nox is only harmful to the air in the presence of other pollutants, thise which are reduced greatly by Biodiesel use.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would only assume that there would be a reduction in the amount of "other pollutants". Just because a individual TDi or pick-up or truck uses biodiesel and reduces its' own pollutants does mean it is not affecting the surrounding air that is being affected by other sources. Not every ICE engine can or will use biodiesel.
 

Lightman

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Location
Sunny Florida
[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
I like many prefer real world tests, such as the fact that I've run 25k miles on b100 with great results and oil analyses

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you done any tailpipe testing?

No, I see little or no point in tailpipe testing, as I said, this argument is pretty pointless IMO

There has been zero official road qualified (not experimental labs) certified tests of TDi's in the U.S. running on biodiesel. That is the problem. If you or anyone else can produce some real tests results that can prove that the biodiesel does what you or anyone else says it does in a VW TDi I will shut up.

What more do you want than tons of TDI'ers successfully running bio? I dont know what kind of testing you want, but you are welcome to look at mine and tons of other oil analysis reports from biodiesel users..
all testing wit

[ QUOTE ]
because both types of vehicles do get great mpg's and have low pollution.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that mpg's have nothing to do with low emissions? Don't you?
Emissions are rated in grams per mile.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I realize they aren't related in your opinion or the way that the EPA looks at it, however if you measured grams per gallon burned, you might find different and more accurate results IMO. However I dont care much about the emissions argument. I like running bio and knowing it's domestic, the car runs better, etc etc..
 

Geordi

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Location
Somewhere between Heaven and Hell. But it is reall
TDI
14 JSW DSG, 03 Wagon 01M, 400k and IPT performance auto!
[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
So, the increased Nox number is not a big deal,
That would only assume that there would be a reduction in the amount of "other pollutants". Just because a individual TDi or pick-up or truck uses biodiesel and reduces its' own pollutants does mean it is not affecting the surrounding air that is being affected by other sources. Not every ICE engine can or will use biodiesel.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, Ok then since I can't get EVERY VEHICLE EVERYWHERE to run on the same alternative fuel at the same time, I shouldn't use it either. That will really help spread the word and clean up the atmosphere, one car at a time.

You are truly an idiot. When have I ever said anything about global warming? CO2 is a pollutant, when there are excessive levels beyond what the environment can absorb. Same for Nox and CO. Now when talking about burning fossil fuels, the byproducts will be elements that have been buried underground for thousands of years. Releasing them into the environment in large amounts is the same as dumping a bottle of ink into a fish tank. The environment will be overwhelmed and unable to clear the pollution. Same for our atmosphere with the various fossil fuels.
Now when talking about biomass fuels, the environment is cleaned as the plants grow. In the case of soy, more is removed from the environment than is produced by burning the soy, so the net result is the environment is CLEANED even when considering the slightly higher Nox level when compared with FOSSIL diesel.

Pull your head out of your ass and try to understand, instead of simply obfuscating the facts to your view.
Remember when cars started using UN-leaded gas? Not all of them did it all at once, it was a slow one-at-a-time process in the beginning just like it is now with biodiesel. People starting to CHOOSE to use the new fuel, because it was something that they as one person, could DO for the environment. Eventually the government forced the oil companies to produce all gas without lead, even as they tried to prevent the laws from passing.

So it shall be with Biodiesel. Eventually all diesel will be at least partially biodiesel, and then the science will expand to the point where the problems we are having now will be solved.

--Jim
 

TheLongshot

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Location
Burke, VA
TDI
Jetta Wagon '03 Reflex Silver
The problem I have with AutoDiesel is that he's always doom and gloom. Always talking about the problems and not offering any solutions.

So, Bosch and VW don't approve Bio for their vehicles. What are they doing about it? Since Bio will be mixed in with Diesel in the future, it will be something that they will have to address.

How about enviromental impact of dino fuel? Despite what AutoDiesel says, I can't believe that the millions of vehicles on the road have no impact on the enviroment. To be honest, I think Diesel has the best mix of responsibility and power out there.

There is also the issue that sometime in the future, we will run out of fossil fuels. Having an alternate fuel source would be helpful.

So, Autodiesel, how do you think would be the best solutions to these problems, since Biodiesel sucks so bad...

Jason
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
The problem I have with AutoDiesel is that he's always doom and gloom. Always talking about the problems and not offering any solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't been reading all of my posts have you?
There are other types of fuels that would and could be used in diesel engines that would make a larger impact on emissions than biodiesel.
(See below.)

[ QUOTE ]
So, Bosch and VW don't approve Bio for their vehicles. What are they doing about it? Since Bio will be mixed in with Diesel in the future, it will be something that they will have to address.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way biodiesel will be mixed with all diesel in the future is if the government forces it.
Not going to happen in this country.
It will take another 4 years just to get ULSD nation wide.

VW is pushing another fuel and is working very hard to get it to market in the next couple of years.
SunFuel
They are moving away from biodiesel and not recommending it anymore for their diesels starting with all of their vehicles certified for Euro-4 emissions.

[ QUOTE ]
So, Autodiesel, how do you think would be the best solutions to these problems, since Biodiesel sucks so bad...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice how everyone puts words into someone else's mouth.
If you'd noticed I have said I am going to use biodiesel again at mixes up to B20. That's even more that the manufacters OK! OH NO! I have my own reasons for using it and emissions are not one of them.
There are other paths to take.
And relying on only one type of mono-culture fuel is not going to do it.
You are never going to produce enough biodiesel to have the effect that people want. And you are never going to get a U.S. or a European manufacturer certify the use of biodiesel for the upcoming U.S. Tier II / CA LEV II or the Euro 4 emissions. It will always remain a alternative fuel and at best might be used as a lubricity additive.
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, Ok then since I can't get EVERY VEHICLE EVERYWHERE to run on the same alternative fuel at the same time, I shouldn't use it either...... You are truly an idiot..... CO2 is a pollutant

[/ QUOTE ]

Have I anywhere said you shouldn't use biodiesel?
No.

Your name calling shows your true colors. Must be pushing some buttons of yours.

CO2 is only a pollutant well you are sucking on tailpipes.

Now tell me why.........
"Carbon Dioxide (CO2) contributes to plant growth as part of the miracle of nature known as photosynthesis. This enables plants to combine Carbon Dioxide and water with the aid of light energy to form sugar. Some of these sugars are converted into complex compounds that increase dry solid plant substances for continued growth to final maturity. However, when the supply of carbon dioxide is cut off, or reduced, the complex plant cell structure cannot utilize the sun's energy fully and growth or development is curtailed.
CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
IMPROVES PLANT GROWTH AND QUALITY
Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.

The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.

Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value."

I'll give you the link only if you can answer correctly.
 

Davin

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 4, 2001
Location
L.A.
TDI
2001 Golf GLS 5spd blk/blk
[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
As for CO2........

Global warming is caused by the SUN, not SUVs

More proof of the causes of climate change came earlier this month when the Geological Society of America's GSA Today published a study by a Canadian geologist and an Israeli astrophysicist which shows conclusively that over the past half-billion years, the interplay between solar activity and cosmic rays from deep space has caused the periodic warming and cooling of the planet, on a fairly predictable cycle of about 135 million years.


[/ QUOTE ]

Auto, I'm not intending to slam you like everyone else here seems to be doing... it's nice to see someone look into an issue based on research and facts rather than hearsay and personal opinion...

But come on here... you have to look at the quality and validity of your sources. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

First of all, a cycle with a period of 135 million years is responsible for measurable warming over the last 100?

Second of all, here's the description of the organization who runs the website you quoted:

http://www.eco.freedom.org/whoweare.html

"Which was founded in 1988 when 17 national organizations met in Chicago to devise a strategy to protect private property rights from erosion by excessive environmental regulations. "

You guys MUST click on the link and look at the board of directors... it's too funny! Hey... if you're trying to come off as a legitimate source of environmental info, maybe take the cowboy hats off!!! You couldn't get a more stereotypical group of good ol' U.S. homegrown oilmen. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 

Lightman

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Location
Sunny Florida
LMAO, first he uses bio, then he hates it and won't touch it, now b20. LMAO. Just admit it auto, you love biodiesel. /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
 

MITBeta

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Location
Boston's Metro South-West
TDI
2001 Jetta TDI, 2004 Sprinter CDI Passenger (Mid/High), former: 1996 Passat TDI Variant
[ QUOTE ]
And the evidence is clear that oxides of nitrogen are higher from a diesel,

[/ QUOTE ]

Caveat: WHEN NEW. As gassers age, they put out more NOx. As diesels age, they don't. So eventually (sometimes in a very short period of time) gassers PASS diesel for NOx emissions. Which once again goes to show that our emissions laws are stupid since many of them rely on a snapshot of emissions at the time of birth of the car...

[ QUOTE ]
If you or anyone else can produce some real tests results that can prove that the biodiesel does what you or anyone else says it does in a VW TDi I will shut up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I somehow doubt that you will. Instead you'll likely turn to trying to discredit the tests in some way or another...

[ QUOTE ]
VW is pushing another fuel and is working very hard to get it to market in the next couple of years.
SunFuel
They are moving away from biodiesel and not recommending it anymore for their diesels starting with all of their vehicles certified for Euro-4 emissions.


[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight:

VW won't certify the use of biodiesel, but instead is developing their own "designer" fuel that's derived from biomass.

So on the one hand, you've got a clear conflict of interest. If I were designing a new fuel, I certainly wouldn't want to do ANYTHING to allow my competitors to eat up some of my future market share...

On the other hand, VW is developing a new form of biodiesel. No? You say tomaeto, I say tomahto.

[ QUOTE ]
I have my own reasons for using it and emissions are not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mind telling us what they are, and given that you HAVE reasons at all, why you're fighting so hard to persuade others NOT to use it (oh, I'll bet you'll say that you've done no such thing...)...
 

Davin

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 4, 2001
Location
L.A.
TDI
2001 Golf GLS 5spd blk/blk
[ QUOTE ]
MITBeta said:
[ QUOTE ]
And the evidence is clear that oxides of nitrogen are higher from a diesel,

[/ QUOTE ]

Caveat: WHEN NEW. As gassers age, they put out more NOx. As diesels age, they don't. So eventually (sometimes in a very short period of time) gassers PASS diesel for NOx emissions. Which once again goes to show that our emissions laws are stupid since many of them rely on a snapshot of emissions at the time of birth of the car...


[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard this argument a lot but have seen little data to back it up. How much do gasser NOx emissions go up? Comparing a TDI with, say, a Honda Accord, the TDI NOx levels are on the order of 100 times higher. So you're saying that eventually that Accord's NOx output will go up ten thousand percent?
 

Wally

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2001
Location
The Springs, CO
TDI
98 NB, 96 and 97 B4Vs, & 03 A4V
"SunFuel-A future without CO2"--I guess CO2 isn't the issue?

"The problem with hydrogen
Volkswagen sees the year 2015 as the earliest date when appreciable numbers of cars will be produced with hydrogen in conjunction with a fuel cell drive. Until that time, the lack of an infrastructure and considerable technological barriers will impede the continuous production, distribution and storage of elementary hydrogen."

This is VW's point of view. I'll second the "biodiesel by any other name..." argument. I think it's safe to say that reading any description for SunFuel that it matches Biodiesel perfectly. It's all in the Spin.

I also like the "If you aren't part of the solution..." idea. A.Diesel has tossed this stuff about before-repeatedly-it doesn't seem to change much. But I am interested in what we should do/use today, now, if not biodiesel. I am all ears.

How do we deal with:
pollution BD shown to be less polluting (than diesel) from tailpipes in university studies, not government labs, but who do you trust more? And I stress tailpipes not swedish stovetops.

Availability Petroleum is going to run out. no two ways about it. And Hydrogen is a joke for the present-at least according to VW. BD can be made now and transported/sold anywhere using existing infrastructure.

Domestic BD can be made here, now, without the need of foriegn (read politicaly volitile) oil sources the exploitaion of which tends to piss off other people and make them want to crash planes into buildings here.

Once again I must say that I use BD because it solves these problems and the issues it raises are minor and easily correctable. If there is an alternative, that is available now and answers these concerns, and is as cheap or nearly so then I will switch.

But I haven't heard of it yet. I've only heard how BD is bad. But as lightman said a while ago when I have well over a hundred thousand cumulative miles of experience with BD use and I haven't even had an inkling of the BD spectors I tend to dismiss them outright. Because my driving in the real world is all the lab I need.

So show me the alternative. I'm waiting, eagerly. Show me that you have used it, not heard of it. Show me that you have thousands of trouble free miles, not that lab report says it will kill your engine. Show me that its domestic and clean, don't tell me a lab in sweden buring it in an oven instead of a car says its dirtier than crude oil.

SHOW ME! Because I think I have. I think I have shown (along with many others around here) many times over that this works and it works now.

One last thing before I hear about labs analysis. A man from the EPA offered to test my tailpipe last spring. I will endeavor to get a hold of him and have that done so we may add even more credible evedince to the biodeisel table.

I am not trying to be antagonistic, I really want a better solution. But if you don't have one...
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, a cycle with a period of 135 million years is responsible for measurable warming over the last 100?

[/ QUOTE ]

Understanding the large cycles between warm and cold here on earth are only now starting to be understood.

Here's another.

Sci/Tech Global warming - is the Sun to blame?
Global warming may not be caused by humanity's fossil fuel emissions, but could be due to changes in the Sun.

Research suggests that the magnetic flux from the Sun more than doubled this century. As solar magnetism is closely linked with sunspot activity and the strength of sunlight reaching Earth, the increase could have produced warming in the global climate.
The evidence for an increasingly energetic Sun comes from a new analysis of the magnetic field between the planets, carried out by scientists at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxford, UK.
The scientists produce evidence that since 1964 the interplanetary magnetic field has increased in strength by 40%. Evidence from before the space age suggests that the magnetic field is 2.3 times stronger than it was in 1901. Scientists do not doubt that the increased magnetic field results from a more energetic Sun. Their problem is that the effect of these increases on the Earth is unknown.
The research is published in Nature and in the same journal Professor Eugene Parker, of the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research, University of Chicago, comments that it could explain global warming.

He notes that the increased solar activity has occurred in parallel with an increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. And it may not be a coincidence, he says.

Professor Parker suggests that the Sun's increased activity caused the Earth's global temperature to rise and that in turn warmed the oceans.

Warmer oceans absorb less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So a warmer Earth has more of the so-called greenhouse gases. Humanity's burning of fossil fuels may therefore not be the cause of global warming.
------------------------------------------------------------

It is very illogical to blame only one input (CO2) to a system that we are only now just starting to understand and have a long way to go.
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
I guess CO2 isn't the issue?

[/ QUOTE ]
Even in Europe they have act politically correct so they don't upset the mindset that only believes in CO2.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll second the "biodiesel by any other name..." argument. I think it's safe to say that reading any description for SunFuel that it matches Biodiesel perfectly. It's all in the Spin.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct.

But the big difference is that it is made from biomass that produces a synthetic gas, not a liquid. It is then processed with Fischer-Tropsch reactor to create a specific fuel. Thus the quality can be ensured from start to finish.
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
One last thing before I hear about labs analysis. A man from the EPA offered to test my tailpipe last spring. I will endeavor to get a hold of him and have that done so we may add even more credible evedince to the biodeisel table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do it Wally.
Run it through a EPA FTP75 cycle and prove me and all of the information I've posted wrong. If you can prove that a current VW TDi is cleaner than a modern ULEV/SULEV/PZEV certified vehicle I will shut up and move on.
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
AutoDiesel said: The only way biodiesel will be mixed with all diesel in the future is if the government forces it.
Not going to happen in this country.


Well, that might be right. Although, there is a Canadian study that shows that mixtures like B2 actually improve mileage by 6-13%. Typically B2 adds about 2 cents per gallon. A 6% improvement at $1.50 a gallon is a 9 cent a gallon improvement...so, buying B2 will save an operator a nickel a gallon. Once that word gets out...you just might see B2 "flying off the shelves". There was a write up in a local paper quoting a local fuel distributer as saying just that. His customers were getting better mileage on B2 and the demand was really ramping up as word of mouth spread.

I talked to a guy the other day that is totally convinced his truck gets 18 mpg on dino diesel and 20 mpg (11% improvement) on B2. He is totally sold on it.

So...you might be right, gov't action MAY be required. I understand that Canada is trying to get ALL diesel fuel to be B2. Or...just the savings alone might make it popular.
 

MITBeta

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Location
Boston's Metro South-West
TDI
2001 Jetta TDI, 2004 Sprinter CDI Passenger (Mid/High), former: 1996 Passat TDI Variant
[ QUOTE ]
But the big difference is that it is made from biomass that produces a synthetic gas, not a liquid. It is then processed with Fischer-Tropsch reactor to create a specific fuel. Thus the quality can be ensured from start to finish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying that the relatively simple chemical process of producing biodiesel from vegetable oil is somehow not able to have its "quality insured from start to finish"?

What happens when you put Sunfuel in a railcar and ship it halfway across the country. Does it absorb water and become and even BETTER fuel? What happens when it gets cool? What kind of emissions does this fuel produce?

I'm not knocking the fuel, by any stretch, I'm merely trying to point out you inconsistencies on the subject...
 
Top