Originally posted by Jrosh

The problem you've had with your experience is you are trying to use a fuel that works just fine (how did your truck run on it in warm temperatures) in a system that isn't designed for it. With a whole crap load of emissions devices in your way as well.

So, unless you completely redid your fuel system with the design intent of using biomass based fuel, then i will concede; however, if you have not, then your experience is not arguable.

The truck ran fine in summer. There is a minor drop in efficiency (about 1 MPG, about 5%(?)) because the bio (soybean oil in this case) doesn't have quite as much punch as normal diesel. The event that caught me was an unseasonably early snow storm that was not predicted.

I took apart the fuel system completely myself. I sawed apart the fuel filter to get a look at what had happened. The gel was kind of foamy. It felt and looked like Crisco, very viscous and slippery. In theory this was supposed to go back into solution if it warmed up, but I had it at near room temperature for several days and it never did. You can imagine my fear of ruining the injectors on a $45K truck.

So you are arguing based on a fuel system that does not yet exist. I admit that it COULD, but it doesn't, and retrofitting current systems is, IMO, highly unlikely. It's way too expensive and the fact is, the bio infrastructure can't handle it. I had an E-85 certified truck before this one. I had it for seven years and never put E-85 in it because it wasn't available. The biodiesel dealers I used, two of them, went out of business and both lost a ton of money.

One way to approach this might be to do a blend of say, 20-25%. Current systems could handle it without retrofitting. It would save the 20-25% in petro-diesel, plus use the same infrastructure in use today. I'm certainly not against the issue. I'm a guinea pig in trying to make it work, but it's not just a matter of deciding to switch and have everything turn out peachy.

Originally posted by schuyler

One way to approach this might be to do a blend of say, 20-25%. Current systems could handle it without retrofitting. It would save the 20-25% in petro-diesel, plus use the same infrastructure in use today. I'm certainly not against the issue. I'm a guinea pig in trying to make it work, but it's not just a matter of deciding to switch and have everything turn out peachy.

I know its not just a matter of switching, but if there really is gonna be an oil shortage, or ww3, or iran bumps oil to 250, or whatever sort of a problem in the near future, than its certainly worth a look; I mean if we all know we are gonna have a problem, and there are viable solutions out there, we as a people are the ones that gotta take the reigns. The oilgarchy isnt about to help us...

I think blending would be a great way to transition from one base to another, over time say 10 years or so, it could be phased in to the general populice...

I dislike blends with ethanol, because it makes the fuel hygroscopic, and your never gonna win with water.

It would be great if more people had the ability and will to grow their own food. Not only would it allow for more corn to be used. A healthier diet could be reached which is also a global problem right now.

there is already alot of alternative to oil and so since many years but strangely, oil still dominate world energy needs. magnetic, electric motors are also a very good energy but oil is control and power so it's hard to replace it, elites are the most powerful mafia of the world

Originally posted by ANNED

Millions of tons of trash are buried in the US every day that could be used for fuel.
and this fuel can be made for about $60 a barrel.
But since oil sells for about $90 a barrel in the US the oil companies will try to block anyone that tries to use trash to make fuel.

Are you speaking of the methane landfills create? Because, FINALLY, cattlemen are storing and selling methane from live cows and steers.