Hi All
Even though most of the points in this thread has being raised as well as debated right here some time back may be it is worthwhile to perhaps deal with some realities
As things stand there is no legal requirement to disclose what is included in petrodiesel so long it complies with the standard which is available by a simple search on the net
The standard refers to a variety of ASTM as well as EN standards which in themselves provide for the limits as well as the testing methods
These do involve rather elaborate testing equipment as well as difficult procedures which have to be done as per the method specified in the standard
The cost of these printed reports from Standards Australia or from the ASTM is quite high about $50 per standard some are more, at the 19 test's one has to perform it amounts to about $2000,00 before any equipment is purchased
The amount of equipment necessary so as to satisfy the requirements takes up an area of 300 square meters of laboratory space which needs all of the necessary supporting infrastructure
Things like exhaust system air conditioning water air and gas supply stainless steel benches or granite slab tops escape routes fire system safety equipment etc etc cost? about $450 K
One can then get the necessary equipment to install in there for the miserable sum of about $600 K so as to be able to start doing the test's with a staff of at least three chemist's if he wishes to get a result in three days
The above expenditure will not include a cetane testing rig which comes at a cost of $1.5 Million alone
It is only a couple of years ago we manage to get one here in Australia we only being burning diesel for 90 years
Once you are in the premises with all the gear required you then have to purchase all of the standard solutions certified from the vendors of the equipment which are in themselves expensive
It gets better, you then have to get the supplier of the gear to certify that the equipment he sold you perform as required initially and then it is something that is done at least yearly, another rather high expense
In short there is no way that an independent fuel testing lab will ever justify the cost of setting up so as to test fuels so the task is left to the oil/petro refiners suppliers
Judge jury and executioner all in one
There are very few Biodiesel manufacturers in the world who have testing facilities to do a full test as it is called by the standards and none in Australia
In a practical sense as it has been argued by the experts out there, some of these tests are adopted from the petro industry which are inapplicable to biodiesel
As well as the above, there are specifications in the standards that exclude the use of certain oils by the way the standard is applied
As an example the use of fish oil in any oil used to make biodiesel will not meet the EN standard, in another example high erucic oils are limited to 12%
Of course standards take a fair time to establish as well as to modify so as to make sense, no doubt the same will also apply to biodiesel in time to come
It is fair to say that some labs here in Australia have equipment that will do quite a number of the tests but not all of them and to the best of my knowledge a cetane no test can only be done in Brisbane as mentioned above
Another point if inapplicability of a test since any vegetable or animal fat will certainly be above the minimum cetane number required for petrodiesel
In stating the above it is to be noted that the standard still requires proof of compliance of the fuel to that standard therefore empirical proof
(the statement here excludes petroleum refiners some of which do have all of the gear necessary)
In summary to the best of my knowledge if one wishes to conduct a test on fuel quality regardless of wether it is an enforcing agency or an individual, they will have to send samples to at least three if not four locations so as to get a result in a few days
Of course by that time the bad fuel has already been disposed off to motorists with whatever resulting consequences
So the only thing remains then if the enforcing agency or the individual wishes to take legal action against the culprits
So much for testing fuel for compliance with the standard
In so far as the push for B5 or B20 my view is; given that petrodiesel since January 2006 is less than 50 ppm content of sulphur, or ULSD its lubricating qualities have diminished to the point where the life of the injector pump is lessened considerably
The addition of 2% of biodiesel suffices as a lubricant so as to assure lubricity of the IP for the life of the vehicle therefore the push
At the end of the day 2% of biodiesel added to dinodiesel will just about exhaust the oil as well as the tallow supplies in this country any way, and apart from "Nigerian" supplies there is very little available around the world at the present
Now the point has also to be made that if we turn all of the oil/fat available in this country into fuel we may replace 8% before we eat any of it, an impossibility, so at the very best we can do about 2% and I can assure any one reading this it will happen since it is pushed by the manufacturers
They will prove that it will make no difference if biodiesel remains excise free since they will get it indirectly as political gain
The point of this post is; as much as we like to think ideologically we cannot go away from the hard realities
We got to see the situation as it really is rather than thinking or hope it is somewhat different

__________________
Cheers
Chris
Never give up :)

Hi there Dave,

There's a lot to agree with in your latest comment. Just getting the bit I disagree with slightly -- though its more about the flavour of the pudding than the pudding itself -- is the need to get the consumers interested before carmakers and engine manufacturers.

Its chickens and eggs, its not which came first, but how long did it take them to simultaneously evolve. We have to move on both fronts at the same time.

But in any case the whole thing falls flat if there's no consistent standard for the products, and firms that don't conform to that need to be named and shamed. A bit tough, but the great thing about gas is that its the same nozzel to nozzel, station to station and company to company. Is the same true for biofuels in within states in Aus?

That's the way to get big oil, with its distribution channels interested. They're big enough to take the politicos with them.

Hi Simon,

I agree with what you are saying and should have said that I felt the main focus should be on the public initially. I think both ends of the equation certainly need to be addressed. My thoughts are that given that this will be quite some undertaking for any group here (not that there is anyone very big who are interested if any organised group at all) it would probably be better to concerntrate first on pulling in some advocates so they had a a stronger base and support from the public when they really started hitting Big Business and the government.
I think until the powers that be see the NEED from the public to address the situation, nothing is going to change.

With the demosntrated complacency and lip service the govt. is giving renewable fuels here, getting them and the car manufacturers to change their polices is going to take the leadership of a very experienced, dedicated and talented person indeed to rally enough support and bring enough pressure to bear.

As for the fuel producers and retailers here, I think they are limited to a number of small players scattered around all serving relatively local areas. As far as I am aware, the big national ( international) companies here are not offering anything in the way of bio fuels with the possible exception of some B5 they may not even be revealing the Bio component of anyway.

The most prominent player with bio blend in Sydney is a company called VP Fuels who have established a strong reputation as selling all sorts of suspect crap and single handedly doing more to damage the perception and reputation of bio fuels than anyone else could if they were paid.

So we need to educate both the public and the manufacturers.

The public will follow what they read/see/hear in the press ( bunch of sheep).

The press will only get involved if they can smell controversy or graft.

So we need to develop controversy. Long term project I guess but a small start could be to get around all the dealers, and I mean all the dealers and get their opinions on bio fuels. Go in to the dealership posing as a buyer and ask their opinion. Record the answers and if you are not happy with the salesmans response ask for the managers/owners opinion. Be tough and question the opinions. Rock the boat.

When you take your cars in for a service, talk to the workshop foreman ( the workshop manager is often not mechanically inclined, sitting behind his desk and punching numbers), again question his "experience", ask for proof.

This can happen right around the country and it does not matter if the same dealer sees half a dozen "buyers". The more the better.

This will show the total lack of knowledge that manufacturers have on biofuels yet they insist on restricting the blend to 5%. I wonder if there is anything in the Trade Practices act covering lack of knowledge about a product you are marketing?

This can be turned into a story that one of the TV magazine programmes may buy into. Or we might be able to get an article into one of the motoring mags.

__________________
Slippery
Small steps taken one at a time.

Why not try lobbying your MP suggesting that the governemnet at Federal, state and local level make their fleet purchases conditional on being able to run on biofuel blends?

Senator Barak Obama (a potential Presidential Candidate in the US) said recently...

you can read the rest on the big biofuels blog (sorry guys, couldn't resist that )

But anyway, he suggested that ti would be a good idea for the US to do this and said the only reason that they're not doing it is a lack of political will.

Yeah, and if the yanks do it, little Johnny is bound to think it is a good idea.

__________________
Slippery
Small steps taken one at a time.