french fried vehicles

September 11, 2005 3:02 PM

Biodiesel could be one way out of high fuel costs and foreign oil dependency. Fuel efficient vehicles are on my mind lately. Will we ever be driving vehicles like this DIY special? or even this one?
posted by pekar wood (50 comments total)

No. Can you imagine either one of them passing emissions tests? Not to mention Federally-mandated crash testing?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:07 PM on September 11, 2005

Well maybe not the crash tests. But why not Emissions? I just went Biodiesel, and I passed with flying colors. and my exhaust smells like french fries!
posted by Windopaene at 3:12 PM on September 11, 2005

Are there biodiesel companies? I'd be glad to invest in that.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:13 PM on September 11, 2005

One of my best friends keeps trying to convine me and his wife, that he needs to build a bio-diesel refinery in his garage.
Every time we go past the local brewpubs, and see the fermentation tanks, he point them out as all you would need.
Biodiesel averages out to $1.50 a gallon, to $4.00 a gallon depending where you look.
He says we just need to get the used oil from McDonalds.
But don't waste disposal/rendering companies already have contracts to deal with these waste products? What do they do with it?

Plus, with vehicle waste smelling like french fries, will this affect the obecity factor?
posted by Balisong at 3:14 PM on September 11, 2005

"Meanwhile, several thousand people are thought to be running their cars on vegetable oil, after doctoring it to run in standard diesel engines - or having adapted their engines to run on neat vegetable oils bought from supermarkets. Studies suggest such fuels produce fewer harmful emissions than diesel."

I recently heard about vegetable oil shortages in supermarkets in part of the UK as a result of this practice.
posted by nthdegx at 3:15 PM on September 11, 2005

Fuck corn, hydrogen is where it's at. Those crafty Danes have just developed a way store hydrogen that makes it safe and decreases storage size by nine times.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:15 PM on September 11, 2005

Toronto just got Canada's second biodiesel station, with more to come. The most exciting thing about it is the fact that you don't need to alter your diesel engine to use it. So if you happen to stray too far, it's not like you'll be relying on jerry cans or walking it -- you can go right back to regular diesel for the trip.

Ideally, I'd like to do a Smart Car biodiesel mix, but as far as I know, they're not offering a diesel option. (and Smart Cars do very well in crash testing)
posted by dreamsign at 3:19 PM on September 11, 2005

Those china trucks are articulated. I can't think of any articulated US road legal truck. Pretty cool though. I wonder what is the reason for the painfully constructed super long wheel base?
posted by Mitheral at 3:20 PM on September 11, 2005

foreign oil dependency

What does the word foreign mean, in the context of an international web community like Mefi? Norway, the UK, Venezeula, Canada - all are no doubt represented in membership here, and all are oil producers/exporters (no doubt there are others).

Isn't this ever so slightly solipsistic (which may be part of the larger problem)? Or is the post only addresed to americans? Is it too much to ask, that US posters at least try to remember - Mefi is not an American website? How could this have been better phrased?

/rant
posted by dash_slot- at 3:32 PM on September 11, 2005

Ideally, I'd like to do a Smart Car biodiesel mix, but as far as I know, they're not offering a diesel option.

Don't know if it qualifies as a Smart Car, but Chevy's got a diesel/hybrid prototype they were showing off in Paris.
posted by Boydrop at 3:44 PM on September 11, 2005

SweetJesus - I'm with you. And to forestall the "Where do you get the hydrogen?" question, which I was about to ask, there's some good information here (HowStuffWorks) and here (National Academies website). Down side: the concensus seems to be a very long, slow curve. Maybe biodiesel's a good short-term stopgap until hydrogen comes onstream? (Hey, wow, look at all the buzzwords!)

On preview: dash_slot, how many of the countries you cite produce a net export of oil, or are 100% energy self-sufficient? Wait, let me think about that ... ok, how many besides Venezuela? :P

My point is that although the US consumes more energy per capita than any nation on earth and as such should be particularly sensitive to this issue, I don't think anyone wants to be beholden to anyone else for their energy needs. (Hey, wow, look at the really long sentence!)
posted by ZakDaddy at 3:56 PM on September 11, 2005

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml
I should have used this link instead of the Mother Earth News one that requires subscription to get the data.
I'd like to point out that the biodiesel available for purchase can be seen as a farm subsidy and a probable boondoggle much like methanol. Biodiesel made from fryer oil is very environmentally friendly.

I'm not falling for it dash_slot.
posted by pekar wood at 3:58 PM on September 11, 2005

Another interesting consideration is of course the fertilizer that we're using to grow all of this stuff that we will turn into fuel. Sadly, current fertilizers are based on... you guessed it: petroleum.

An interesting idea that is difficult to see working on a large scale in a post-oil world.
posted by rachelpapers at 4:00 PM on September 11, 2005

As for crash-worthiness, motorcycles aren't crash-worthy and we "let" people ride them.

We just need a category of wheeled vehicle that is more like a motorcycle. Hell, my Miata ain't so "crash worthy" either.

I don't think I'll be converting to biodiesel any time soon. I would rather see PV panels making that solar -> energy conversion directly, then either piping the amps to my house or cracking water with it.

Or more nukes. I have no great fear of nukes, given sufficient government (ie Admiral Rickover-quality) oversight and safer reactor designs.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:06 PM on September 11, 2005

dreamsign -- I think smart cars only come with diesel engines, in Canada anyway.

Do cars have to pass the crash test to be sold, or do they just get a rating?
posted by Rumple at 4:16 PM on September 11, 2005

Desert algae farms could eventually supply the necessary biomass.
posted by pekar wood at 4:20 PM on September 11, 2005

Rumple, it's pretty dry reading, but here are the U.S. government's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:22 PM on September 11, 2005

Know what REALLY pisses me off? Talk of alternate fuels is limited to online wankery, while the government we pay billion$ for and/or their mouthpieces are telling us "conservation is a personal virtue", "at $30/bbl we can get more oil from tar sands or shale", etc.

Kerry's energy policy statements:

• Raise CAFE standard to 36 mpg by 2015. (Jan 2004)
• 20% renewable energy by 2020. (Nov 2003)
• Drilling for oil doesn't gain energy independence. (Oct 2003)
• Apollo project approach to energy independence. (Oct 2003)
• ANWR won't provide any oil for 20 years. (Sep 2003)
• Invent our way out of oil dependency-don't drill our way out. (Sep 2003)
• Invest in advancing secure forms of energy instead of oil. (Jun 2003)
• Create new energy sources to end Mideast dependency. (May 2002)

Oddly, Kerry seems to have been saying the sane stuff for Democratic consumption during the primaries, don't remember this issue coming up much in the election proper.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:23 PM on September 11, 2005

wrong biomass link, sorry
posted by pekar wood at 4:24 PM on September 11, 2005

China is already perfecting meltdown-proof Pebble Bed nuclear reactors, and are building 30 of them between now and 2020. They will produce 300 gigawatts of power, collectively. The world currently produces, collectively, around 350 gigawatts.

China is growing, and we're losing pace. We need to stop bailing out Oil and Coal companies in the United States and come up with a real fucking plan, but that's not going to happen for another three years at least.
posted by SweetJesus at 4:25 PM on September 11, 2005

dreamsign, the Smart fourtwos you can get in Canada are all diesels. With the 80% mineral/20% biodiesel mix that is sold in Canada, it's guaranteed to work in any diesel car without modifications.

I'm sure that Topia Energy wouldn't turn away your investment, Smedleyman.

And please, SweetJesus, hydrogen isn't where it's at, and isn't likely to be in any vehicle you drive until 2050 or so. Don't take my word for it, take J J Romm's in The Hype About Hydrogen -- he's about as much as a hydrogen booster as you can get, and still he says widespread usage is far away, will be expensive, and is likely to results in minimal GHG reductions. And don't forget all those lovely emissions from nuclear fuel processing, and the fact that our exploitable uranium supply is finite ...
posted by scruss at 4:29 PM on September 11, 2005

I love Biodiesel as much as the next guy, or maybe even more than the next guy... but doesn't ramping the entire fleet of U.S. vehicles to run on Bio require a metric assload of biomass, which in turn require a crapload of petroleum-based fertilzers?

Although I've been reading the stories about algae having a much higher energy ratio than other crops, it seems like we'd still have to convert an unnaceptably high portion of our land to growing biomass for fuel.
posted by 40 Watt at 4:40 PM on September 11, 2005

there are other options besides petroleum-based fertilizers, such as algae. I think there's plenty more research to be done to find others, the need just hasn't been there.

but if i hear the complaint that it "takes more energy to make biodiesel" I'm gonna puke. it does take more energy, but that's something we can get from a whole slew of different places from solar to wind.

there's a place outside of baltimore that manufactures biodiesel...but their prices have risen alongside regular gas prices. Probably not because of the cost to get it, but just because they know they can charge that much and people will pay.
posted by destro at 4:48 PM on September 11, 2005

Consider also hemp, which has suffered in the public perception by it's association as a "cause" with marijuana consumption. In fact hemp doesn't have useful amounts of THC. As a carbon-neutral, renewable oil replacement its potential is nothing short of spectacular: it can grow in a huge range of environments, requires minimal cultivation and uses far less water than corn, has greater usuable yield per acre and is cheaper and easier to harvest and process.
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:49 PM on September 11, 2005

And don't forget all those lovely emissions from nuclear fuel processing, and the fact that our exploitable uranium supply is finite ...

Only using antiquated technology. The link I posted above talks about China's use of pebble bed nuclear reactors, which store uranium in thousands of graphite "pebbles", about the size of a billiard ball. They're far safer than older designs.

There are problems with developing hydrogen, but 45 years for complete conversion seems reasonable to me. We need a large-scale, government-funded initiative on the scale of the space program to develop concepts for a hydrogen economy. We'll need government-mandated standards for delivery and storage, and a whole host of other logistical problems.

However, bio-diesel is not a long-term solution - just rearranging the chaise lounges on a sinking ship...
posted by SweetJesus at 4:53 PM on September 11, 2005

Rumple and scruss -- you're both right. When I started looking, I was looking at hybrids, and I was slightly pissed that the Smart wasn't offered as such. My consolation was biodiesel (and a good one it is, except that I'm not currently close enough to T.O. to make use of it).

As for "buzzword", it's being sold, right now. The more people buy, the more commonly it will be available. For you Californians, you already have the option (and further north, Seattle I believe, too).

Oh, has anyone yet talked about the immense savings on engine and parts wear when using the stuff?
posted by dreamsign at 4:56 PM on September 11, 2005

Probably not because of the cost to get it, but just because they know they can charge that much and people will pay.

yup, that's the beauty of the free market. All alternative prices will conform to fossil fuel prices, even PV. The key to market success is maximizing quantity x margin, and there's less risk in doubling your margin rather than doubling your quantity (outside of network effect issues where market share gives you repeat business).
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:00 PM on September 11, 2005

However, bio-diesel is not a long-term solution - just rearranging the chaise lounges on a sinking ship...

This would only be true if biodiesel production is not strongly energy-positive, and everything I've read indicates that it is, particularly once economies of scale come into effect. (and if better yield, less energy-and-water-intensive crops than corn are used.)

Ethanol on the other hand, is highly questionable in that regard, I've seen a lot of figures and they vary widely with the analysis method used, whether things like transportation are taken into account and which axe the source has to grind, but on the whole it doesn't look good.

Biodiesel is not an alcohol, but an oil expressed by the plant and wouldn't require remotely as much industrial processing. And of course, it doesn't have to come from corn, and almost certainly should not.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:11 PM on September 11, 2005

For one overview of net energy effects, my former employer (many years ago, I've no connection to them now) The Institute for Local Self-Reliance has a recent paper on biofuels out

http://www.ilsr.org/

They are certainly advocates, but my own experience is that they also were dedicated researchers who sought to generate reliable information. In any event, that report (it's the top item on the home page) is a decent place to start learning about the issues that come into the net energy issue.

With respect to that, George_Spiggott, this is one viewpoint anyway that dissents strongly from your opinion. The other benefit of ethanol is that it is a drop-in fuel replacement and oxygenator that works with unmodified vehicles.

As far as the emissions issue, it is well established that biodiesel produces less emissions than conventional diesel fuel.

http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/

from that faq -

Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter compared to emissions from diesel fuel. In addition, the exhaust emissions of sulfur oxides and sulfates (major components of acid rain) from biodiesel are essentially eliminated compared to diesel.

Of the major exhaust pollutants, both unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are ozone or smog forming precursors. The use of biodiesel results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are either slightly reduced or slightly increased depending on the duty cycle of the engine and testing methods used. Based on engine testing, using the most stringent emissions testing protocols required by EPA for certification of fuels or fuel additives in the US, the overall ozone forming potential of the speciated hydrocarbon emissions from biodiesel was nearly 50 percent less than that measured for diesel fuel.
posted by nanojath at 5:36 PM on September 11, 2005

This link from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture is pretty compelling, comparing the net energy yields of gasoline, petroleum diesel, ethanol and biodiesel. Put succinctly, biodiesel kicks the living crap out of the others. This table from the British Association for Bio Fuels and Oils seems thoroughly inclusive of the various inputs and outputs gives comparable results.

nanojath -- the "working with unmodified vehicles" argument isn't a strong one, since the transitional timeframe is likely to exceed the useful working life of the great majority of personal vehicles. And anyway, one might as well argue that the internal combustion engine's advantages over animal power were diminished because it wasn't a drop-in replacement for the horse in a carriage. An existing automotive production line can be converted rapidly to the production of diesel vehicles. Only the engine and a few of its ancillary components are affected.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:44 PM on September 11, 2005

(correction: the second table also gives overwhelmingly positive results for ethanol from wheat if the straw is utilized as fuel in, for example, processing. These results are still positive but much inferior if it is not. Note that the processes implied bear no resemblance at all to current ethanol production from corn.)
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:54 PM on September 11, 2005

For those of you dreaming about converting your Canadian Smart fortwo to biodiesel, I'd wait for another few years of climate-change first. B100 has a gel point of 0degC (32degF), so it couldn't be used here for four months of the year.
(B20 has a gel point down near -20, which is better, but still not adequate for the depths of February, and you lose 80% of the environmental benefits)
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:24 PM on September 11, 2005

I drive a VW Golf TDI and regularly fill it up with biodiesel 80/20. It's always about $0.15 more per gallon than ordinary diesel, however. It would require more $$$ to put into my car to make it run on pure biodiesel than I would ever recouperate.
posted by Qubit at 8:22 PM on September 11, 2005

dreamsign writes "Ideally, I'd like to do a Smart Car biodiesel mix, but as far as I know, they're not offering a diesel option. (and Smart Cars do very well in crash testing)"

Smart Cars in Canada *only* come with diesel engines.
posted by clevershark at 8:25 PM on September 11, 2005

Study Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy. Ethanol Burns 29 Percent More Energy Than It Produces, According to New Study...
posted by jikel_morten at 9:02 PM on September 11, 2005

fyi, there was an article in this quarter's Make Magazine on how to DIY bio diesel if you're into the whole dead tree thing =)

It did seem like a inordanant amount of work... but it would be worth it just to be able to say "Master Blaster rule barter town!"
posted by rampy at 9:36 PM on September 11, 2005

What are you talking about Qubit? I just bought a 1983 Benz 240D, and am running it on B100. NO MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED. What do you think you need to change?
posted by Windopaene at 10:57 PM on September 11, 2005

Is it more efficient to grow a field of biodiesel crops compared to just plastering the field with solar panels? I mean, how many watts do you get out 1 hectare/year of solar panels compared 1 hectare/year of biodiesel crops (after subtracting out the watts that go into creating and maintaining this energy-producing hectare).

Also, is biodiesel suitable for aviation fuel? Because although I can see land transport being replaced with electric vehicles, I just don't know how you would make a jet without using a jet fuel.
posted by moonbiter at 1:46 AM on September 12, 2005

What about the whole issue of using food to produce energy that we don't really need? I haven't heard any mention of this. Sure you use used cooking oils from fast food joints, once again, more stuff we don't need. Wouldn't it just be better to drive/consume less and let the food products go to people that need the food?
posted by Pollomacho at 6:24 AM on September 12, 2005

*Toasts Pollomacho with a frothy stien of used McDonalds fryer grease*

Down the hatch!
posted by Balisong at 6:30 AM on September 12, 2005

moonbiter writes:
Is it more efficient to grow a field of biodiesel crops compared to just plastering the field with solar panels?

Biodiesel crops are a pipe dream. The entropy of such a conversion chain is ridiculously high. You end up with a fraction of a percent of efficiency. Photosynthesis itself is under 2%. That means less than 2% of the light reaching the foliage is converted into glucose. And yet, we're talking about biodiesel, not even direct glucose combustion. Before work is produced, you have at least two more inefficient conversion stages. Entropy is the big winner here. Internal combustion engines will never be efficient machines, especially diesel engines. Electric motors are typically much more efficient and they also allow to recoup the kinetic energy that is converted into heat otherwise. The only weak link of electric cars is the prerequisite chemical energy conversion (batteries, hydrogen or else). Solar cells today reach 30% efficiency and higher efficiency are on the horizon. Yet, their manufacturing and environmental cost limit them to specialized applications. In the long run, more fusion/fission is inevitable unless you envision some kind of massive SPS array.
posted by kush at 6:34 AM on September 12, 2005

Hey Windowpaene, I have a 240 as well. Did you have to change out any of the hoses or filters? I've been thinking about switching over but fear ruining the engine by doing something wrong (This car is my baby and is in showroom condition).
posted by spunpup at 8:22 AM on September 12, 2005

kush writes: biodiesel crops are a pipe dream

Uh, hate to tell you this but they're available now, and even without the economies of scale of major adoption, biodiesel is currently about the same price (if not slightly less) in my city than conventional diesel.

You're just offering generalized truisms about the base physics without in any way explaining how they support your thesis: all of your objections (and more) are also true of fossil fuel -- being originally photosynthetically produced -- and the net energy recovery of petroleum based fuels is a fraction of that of biodiesel even despite the fact that we don't have to grow petroleum. Recovery and production costs continue to climb and will almost certainly never fall again except with a reduction in demand.

I do however think SPS would be pretty cool.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:08 AM on September 12, 2005

Although going back and reading between the lines, if your objection is the amount of land that would need to be under cultivation, this is a serious consideration. Producing sufficient biodiesel from conventional crops to replace all petroleum fuels would be impractical if not impossible. However that's no reason not to go forward with it since A) that's no reason not to exploit the potential of biodiesel up to whatever practical limit we reach, and (B) there are unconventional crops with much higher oil yields per hectare than anything currently grown.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:10 AM on September 12, 2005

Willie Nelson Opens His Own Musical Theater in (biodiesel) Truck Stop.
posted by gigawhat? at 11:18 AM on September 12, 2005

My objection is to the amount of land under cultivation in order to fuel our gluttony for the automobile rather than feeding people.

Just think, you could feel doubly good next time you ride public transport, first you are costing a fraction of the energy and second the land that would have gone to growing rape seed or hemp can now actually go towards food products for starving people.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:25 PM on September 12, 2005

i agree with you, pollomacho, about the folly of trying to replace the fuel to support our current auto use (today's clusterfuck nation post takes this head-on), but i don't see why we can't both feed starving people and grow biomass. it takes 16 pounds of grass and grain to get one pound of beef, and 70% of our grain goes to cattle, according to the audobon society. cut back a bit on the beef, and we can still feed and fuel this country.

all in all, though, biodiesel isn't a silver bullet. it's going to take a combination of biomass, lighter vehicles, more public transportation, more nuclear plants, hydrogen, and a host of other technologies all working together to wean us off the oil teat.
posted by acid freaking on the kitty at 2:15 PM on September 12, 2005

I agree with you on the biomass front, it's the biodiesel I don't get. Why not replace personal autos with more forms of public transport? You could even run them on ethanol and methane from biodigesters chewing up the waste products of food production (and consumption). Cows produce an aweful lot of byproducts!
posted by Pollomacho at 8:20 PM on September 12, 2005

yes, thanks again for the correction. keep them coming.

Excellent note about the gel point, Popular Ethics.

And I'm a big public transit (and bike/jog/blade, etc) fan, Pollomacho, but the fact is that the most many people will do in terms of personal sacrifice is to occasionally sort through their refuse and drop a blue box on the curb now and again.
posted by dreamsign at 10:27 PM on September 12, 2005

In the long run, more fusion/fission is inevitable unless you envision some kind of massive SPS array.

I agree with that, except the fusion part. Until we can actually get it to work, there is nothing inevitable about it. If it takes too long to figure it out, we may not be able to count on the other forms of energy to keep us going until we figure it out. At least SPS is technically doable, which is something we can't say about fusion yet.
posted by moonbiter at 8:05 AM on September 13, 2005