Comments on: EPA Sulfur Rule May Help Biodiesel http://biodieselreport.com/2006/01/09/epa-sulfur-rule-may-help-biodiesel/ Biodiesel news and know how Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:48:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: BDR http://biodieselreport.com/2006/01/09/epa-sulfur-rule-may-help-biodiesel/comment-page-1/#comment-10 BDR Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:50:12 +0000 http://biodieselreport.com/?p=27#comment-10 Whether or not there is a standard, the lubricity is still a factor. Although my memory is a bit hazy, when lead was removed from gasoline back in the 70s, engines had to be modified, (primarily valve seats) to make up for the loss of the lubrication from the lead. Was there a standard? I don't really recall but that doesn't change the fact that the lead performed that function, same as sulfur in diesel fuel. As to the feds giving up on biodiesel, I would suggest looking at the recent requirements to include biofuels in future fuel production in the U.S. Along with tax incentives, which are such that they are even attracting foreign producers, the government is very supportive of biodiesel. That said, I'm not sure they should be supporting it to the degree they are. Biodiesel is a great fuel but if we mandate its use, that means the market can provide better and less costly alternatives which people have to be prevented from using, which also says the government has chosen a winner before all of the alternatives have been tested against one another. Whether or not there is a standard, the lubricity is still a factor. Although my memory is a bit hazy, when lead was removed from gasoline back in the 70s, engines had to be modified, (primarily valve seats) to make up for the loss of the lubrication from the lead. Was there a standard? I don’t really recall but that doesn’t change the fact that the lead performed that function, same as sulfur in diesel fuel.

As to the feds giving up on biodiesel, I would suggest looking at the recent requirements to include biofuels in future fuel production in the U.S. Along with tax incentives, which are such that they are even attracting foreign producers, the government is very supportive of biodiesel.

That said, I’m not sure they should be supporting it to the degree they are. Biodiesel is a great fuel but if we mandate its use, that means the market can provide better and less costly alternatives which people have to be prevented from using, which also says the government has chosen a winner before all of the alternatives have been tested against one another.

]]> By: Tom Chuna http://biodieselreport.com/2006/01/09/epa-sulfur-rule-may-help-biodiesel/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Tom Chuna Tue, 10 Jan 2006 04:49:28 +0000 http://biodieselreport.com/?p=27#comment-9 How can it be said that biodiesel provides superior lubricity when there is no lubricity standard to begin with? There is no standard because the available tests ( HFRR / SBOCLE) have been found to be imprecise and unreliable. They do not take into account combustion temperatures. The federal gov't has given up on biodiesel. Biodiesel only fourishes where it's mandated. How can it be said that biodiesel provides superior lubricity when there is no lubricity standard to begin with?

There is no standard because the available tests ( HFRR / SBOCLE) have been found to be imprecise and unreliable.

They do not take into account combustion temperatures.

The federal gov’t has given up on biodiesel. Biodiesel only fourishes where it’s mandated.

]]>