Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-24-2016, 04:46 PM   #71
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 866
How is MB going to know if you had run a tank or two of B20 or B5?

The big concern with running Biodiesel above 5% is crankcase oil dilution with post combustion injection to clean (regenerate) the dpf


If you run a tank of B20 just follow up the next tank with pure diesel and you'll be ok. If B20 is prevalent and you can't avoid it, reduce oil change intervals to 5,000 miles and you'll be ok.

I've got a 100k miles on my 3.0 MB engine and have used B20 about 1/3 of the time. Engine has been fairly reliable except for a bad turbo actuator which I replaced last month. Speaking of turbo actuators, they don't sell them in the USA and dealerships will want to sell you a 4,000 dollar turbo. You can get the actuator rebuilt for about 200 dollars overseas!

Don't get stuck because you are afraid of running B20 fuel. A little B20 occasionally won't hurt a thing but do not use extended oil intervals.
__________________

__________________
Skyliner is offline  
Old 09-30-2016, 05:08 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
MNtraveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,523
A bit of an update - the industry lawsuit against the Minnesota biodiesel mandate was rejected by a federal district court judge. This is subject to appeal, but it does not look like it would be very successful on appeal either.

http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/art...diesel-mandate




Land of 10,000 Lakes
2016 Forester MBS 2401R
Nights camped 2016: 29; RV to date: 32
__________________

__________________
2016 Forester 2401R
MNtraveler is offline  
Old 11-27-2016, 01:13 AM   #73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Posts: 109
Interesting article about biodiesel I came across in another forum

A new study points to the negative results of using Bio Fuels.


University of Michigan’s Energy Institute research professor John DeCicco, Ph.D., believes that rising carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming and, therefore, humans must find a way to reduce its levels in the atmosphere. But ethanol is the wrong solution.
According to his just-released study, political support for biofuels, particularly ethanol, exacerbates the problem instead of curing it.

DeCicco and his co-authors assert: “Contrary to popular belief, the heat-trapping carbon dioxide gas emitted when biofuels are burned is not fully balanced by the CO2 uptake that occurs as the plants grow.” The presumption that biofuels emit significantly fewer greenhouse gases (GHG) than gasoline does is, according to DeCicco: “misguided.”

His research has upended the conventional wisdom and angered the alternative fuel lobbyists. The headline-grabbing claim is that biofuels prove worse for the environment than gasoline.

DeCicco has been focused on this topic for nearly a decade. In 2007, when the Energy Independence and Security Act (also known as the expanded ethanol mandate) was in the works, he told me: “I realized that something seemed horribly amiss with a law that established a sweeping mandate which rested on assumptions, not scientific fact, that were unverified and might be quite wrong, even though they were commonly accepted and politically correct (and politically convenient).” He saw that while biofuels sounded good, no one had checked the math.

Previously, based on life cycle analysis, it has been assumed that crop-based biofuels, were not just carbon neutral, but actually offered modest net GHG reductions. This, DeCicco says, is the “premise of most climate related fuel policies promulgated to date, including measures such as the LCFS [California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard] and RFS [the federal Renewable Fuel Standard passed in 2005 and expanded in 2007].”

The DeCicco study, Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use, uses Annual Basis Carbon (ABC) accounting—which does not treat biofuels as inherently carbon neutral. Instead, it treats biofuels as “part of a dynamic stock-and-flow system.” Its methodology “tallies CO2 emissions based on the chemistry in the specific locations where they occur.” In May, on my radio program, DeCicco explained: “Life Cycle Analysis is wrong because it fails to actually look at what is going on at the farms.”

The concept behind DeCicco’s premise is that the idea of ethanol being carbon neutral assumes that the ground where the corn is grown was barren dirt (without any plants removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) before the farmer decided to plant corn for ethanol. If that were the case, then, yes, planting corn on that land, converting that corn to ethanol that is then burned as a vehicle fuel, might come close to being carbon neutral. But the reality is that land already had corn, or some other crop, growing on it—so that land’s use was already absorbing CO2. You can’t count it twice.

DeCicco explains “Growing the corn that becomes ethanol absorbs no more carbon from the air than the corn that goes into cattle feed or corn flakes. Burning the ethanol releases essentially the same amount of CO2 as burning gasoline. No less CO2 went into the air from the tailpipe; no more CO2 was removed from the air at the cornfield. So where’s the climate benefit?”

Much of that farmland was growing corn to feed cattle and chickens—also known as feedstock. The RFS requires an ever-increasing amount of ethanol be blended into the nation’s fuel supply. Since the RFS became law in 2005, the amount of land dedicated to growing corn for ethanol has increased from 12.4 percent of the overall corn crop to 38.6 percent. While the annual supply of corn has increased by 17 percent, the amount going into feedstock has decreased from 57.5 percent to 37.98%.

The rub comes from the fact that we are not eating less. Globally, more food is required, not less. The livestock still needs to be fed. So while the percentage of corn going into feedstock in the U.S. has decreased because of the RFS, that corn is now grown somewhere else. One such place is Brazil where previous pasture land, because it is already flat, has been converted to growing corps. Ranchers have been pushed out to what was forest and deforestation is taking place.

Adding to the biofuels-are-worse-than-gasoline accounting are the effects from producing ethanol. You have to cook it and ferment it—which requires energy. In the process, CO2 bubbles off. By expanding the quantity of corn grown, prairie land is busted up and stored CO2 is released.

DeCicco says: “it is this domino effect that makes ethanol worse.”

How much worse?

The study looks at the period with the highest increase in ethanol production due to the RFS: 2005-2013. The conclusion is that the increased carbon dioxide uptake by the crops was only enough to offset 37 percent of the CO2 emissions due to biofuel combustion.

DeCicco’s research finds, that while further work is needed to examine the research and policy implications going forward, “it makes more sense to soak up CO2 through reforestation and redouble efforts to protect forests rather than producing biofuels, which puts carbon rich lands at risk.”
__________________
namusmc is offline  
Old 11-27-2016, 09:19 AM   #74
Senior Member
 
CaptnJohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Ocean Isle Beach NC
Posts: 2,000
Since no one sent me a check to plant a tree I've never had much faith in global warming. As that proved inaccurate it is now climate change. Latest headlines indicate 30,000 scientists disagree with Al Gore and the environmentalists. Headlines also indicate the ice packs are relatively unchanged. Agree or not it always seemed ridiculous to burn food in gas and diesel tanks. Mileage decreases and more fuel is needed. Maintenance is often required in old engines, small engines, and fuel tanks that sit awhile. People wonder why the cost of food has gone up- corn is a very useful food source not only for humans directly but everything from chickens to cattle. Farmers hardly benefit, the major corporations with 10s of thousands of acres do. They are the one with the lobbyists and marketing people to keep the facts and fallacies at the forefront as well as the taxpayer funded subsidies rising. Extra costs at the refineries.... just never made a bit of sense to me,,, but I'm not getting any subsidy either.
__________________
2016 Keystone Cougar 303RLS
2016 F350 diesel
Edgewater 205 EX 150 Yamaha
CaptnJohn is offline  
Old 11-27-2016, 09:35 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,782
Global warming to me is the heat coming from my furnace that keeps me warm in the winter..

That is it.

All phooey to me, So is B20. That is phooey too. More expensive than ULSD everywhere...

Being green is having more green (backs) in my wallet...
__________________
SidecarFlip is offline  
Old 11-27-2016, 11:01 AM   #76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Marion, IL
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptnJohn View Post
Since no one sent me a check to plant a tree I've never had much faith in global warming. As that proved inaccurate it is now climate change. Latest headlines indicate 30,000 scientists disagree with Al Gore and the environmentalists. Headlines also indicate the ice packs are relatively unchanged. Agree or not it always seemed ridiculous to burn food in gas and diesel tanks. Mileage decreases and more fuel is needed. Maintenance is often required in old engines, small engines, and fuel tanks that sit awhile. People wonder why the cost of food has gone up- corn is a very useful food source not only for humans directly but everything from chickens to cattle. Farmers hardly benefit, the major corporations with 10s of thousands of acres do. They are the one with the lobbyists and marketing people to keep the facts and fallacies at the forefront as well as the taxpayer funded subsidies rising. Extra costs at the refineries.... just never made a bit of sense to me,,, but I'm not getting any subsidy either.
I suppose we could say the same thing about the extra fuel burnt by my diesel during regen, it seems counter productive. It also costs me more money.
__________________
2012 Windjammer 3001W
2016 Sunset Trail Super Lite 250RB-For Sale
2015.5 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD LTZ crew cab Z71 4x4
KingFisher is offline  
Old 11-28-2016, 12:09 PM   #77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,748
Listen, all the science in the world is not going to change one thing with these dunces. These tree huggers think us non-believers, still drag our knuckles. I say, RV as you wish, and your pocketbook lets you. Let them by the prius and eat tofu. Want to really rile up a tree hugger, go RVing.
__________________
Still Kickin is offline  
Old 11-28-2016, 12:24 PM   #78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Still Kickin View Post
Listen, all the science in the world is not going to change one thing with these dunces. These tree huggers think us non-believers, still drag our knuckles. I say, RV as you wish, and your pocketbook lets you. Let them by the prius and eat tofu. Want to really rile up a tree hugger, go RVing.
Gimme prime rib anyday. Tofu SUCKS bi time

In the subject of B20, I had a bad experience (expensive) with B20 a few years ago, let it sit in my fuel tank over the winter (fuel tank full) and it grew slimy algae, ruined the lift pump, destroyed the fuel level sensor in the fuel tank, clogged the fuel filters and cost me almost a grand in parts (I did the repairs myself including dropping the fuel tank and replacing it with a new one), all for the 'honor of being green'. Phooey with that. Never again.

I run ULSD now and every tank, add a bottle of Stanadyne additive and in the winter I dose the tank with Power Service fuel additive and Bio-Kleen biocide, just to be sure.

Nothing better (or worse) than a non running diesel (with clogged arteries) in the spring.
__________________
SidecarFlip is offline  
Old 11-28-2016, 02:43 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
CaptnJohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Ocean Isle Beach NC
Posts: 2,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Still Kickin View Post
Listen, all the science in the world is not going to change one thing with these dunces. These tree huggers think us non-believers, still drag our knuckles. I say, RV as you wish, and your pocketbook lets you. Let them by the prius and eat tofu. Want to really rile up a tree hugger, go RVing.
Most are well aware it is nothing but a great way to make money from those ~~ cannot recall Hillary's exact quote ~~
__________________

__________________
2016 Keystone Cougar 303RLS
2016 F350 diesel
Edgewater 205 EX 150 Yamaha
CaptnJohn is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




ForestRiverForums.com is not in any way associated with Forest River, Inc. or its associated RV manufacturing divisions.

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 AM.