German test with certified biodiesel shows great results
A recent test in Germany attempted to test claims by Neste that its biodiesel is sustainable. The tests involved 14 Daimler vehicles, DHL, the German Post, OMV and the Stuttgart bus company. The test involved about one million kilometers driven with NExBTL biodiesel that were produced from certified palm oil. The results stated that this fuel helped reduce NOx by 15 percent, compared to regular diesel, as well as CO2 emissions by 60 percent. The test measured each step in the production chain to assess its environmental efficiency and found that certified biofuels are the way to go, as there is no point in using biofuels that were produced with too many pesticides or old and polluting machinery.
[Source: Auto News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Matt 8:38AM (6/21/2009)
to the haters:
BOOH-YAAH!
to Nestle:
Thank you for studying this and publishing legitimate results that we can put to use.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 2:32PM (6/21/2009)
That CO2 reduction is a reduction of CO2 from non-renewable sources, correct? Because it'd be very unusual to reduce tailpipe CO2 80% without affecting performance at all.
Reply
TGNY 7:31PM (6/21/2009)
The only issue is that the new emission control technology (post-injection) used in US diesels doesn't allow for high mixture bio-diesel (>~B15). It's not the engines, it's the kinda cheapo emissions method.
This method in use sends a bit of fuel back into the engine, diluting crankcase oil. It can be remedied but all the Tier II Bin 5 diesels do it this way. It needs to be sorted out to make B100 work in the new diesels.
Reply
3er 5:43AM (6/23/2009)
post injection is used to regenerate particulate filters(exept PSA diesels that use chemical agent for particulate filter regeneration). that has nothing to do with american NOX limits that are tighter than current european standard. particulate filters are widely installed to diesel cars sold in europe.
secondly; BXXX numbers refer to FAME content and as NExBTL is not FAME, BXXX designations are not used(reason being that diesel with quite high NExBTL content fills the diesel spec thus it can be called diesel. diesel with FAME DOES NOT fill the diesel spec thus calling it diesel is illegal hence the Bsomething markings).
NExBTL can be mixed within spec to diesel up to about 75% and then only limiting factor is density(NExBTL is a bit lighter and diesel spec has lower limit for density). retuning of injection systems to compensate for the slightly lower density is the only limitation in using pure NExBTL(as proven by tests with YTV and Daimler).
NExBTL is sulphur free, aromate free, oxygen free(unlike FAME), has very good cetane number between 85 and 99(north american ULSD has cetane number of 40 and european pertodiesel has cetane number of 51) and has a CLOUD PONT as low as -30 degrees celsius(compared to -11 degree celsius FILTERABILITY of FAME). NExBTL also doesnt have corrosive methanol residues, doesnt have glycerin residues and it doesnt, unlike FAME, sour and form resins that clog fuels filters and lines.
NExBTL is, unlike FAME, not banned component from JET-A(1). any residual FAME causes jet fuel batch to be discarded meaning that pipelines, trucks and ships used to transport FAME or anything(ie. diesel) containing no matter how small quantities of FAME cannot be used to transport jet fuel(JET-A1 spec dictates that the fuel has to contain less than 5 ppm of FAME). Shipping off-spec jet fuel to a airline is out of question because of product liability in case of accident but as an american you knew that...
GK 11:19PM (6/21/2009)
I want to know what 'certified' palm oil means. The palm oil market has unfortunately resulted in MASSIVE rainforest deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia, where poor landowners are clearcutting rainforest to cultivate oil palms for the lucrative market. Rainforest destruction could eliminate any potential C02-emissions saving gains. Let's think people, there have to be better sources for biodiesel.
Reply
Matt 12:41PM (6/22/2009)
Nobody said you had to grow them in rainforests... if it were sugar cane or corn that grew well there they'd cut the forest down just as quickly. Not only that, but do you know how most of the farm land in the US came to be? I'll give you a hint, it didn't start out as corn. Is it responsible for us to continue to farm that land that we cleared a mere century or two ago? I'm not saying it is or isn't, but has anyone figured out an eco-friendly solution that allows third world countries to maintain their virgin forests and still provide 21st century jobs?
Lets keep in mind that the good people of Malaysia want desperately to compete in the global economy. Furthermore, we don't own their land, so we really have no say in what happens to it. Unless you have a better idea that they can profitably put to use, I think they're going to do what's best for themselves and their families.
GK 3:48PM (6/22/2009)
'Unless you have a better idea that they can profitably put to use"
Yes, for now--Carbon credit trading--which has already been accepted by the provincial Governors of Aceh and West Papua (Irian Jaya), two Indonesian provinces who have had the foresight to realize their rainforests (and their carbon sequestration) are more valuable intact. Borneo is unfortunately almost 90% deforested.....sadly, a bit too far gone at the moment.
Corn monoculture sucks too and yes, we should stop doing it. That point has been well established by many others.
This is not about passing judgement on 'third world countries' (I prefer the term developing world) but about doing what is in everyone's best interest--maintaining the invaluable carbon sequestration (not to mention wildlife and everything else) only the rainforest can provide. If we try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without being mindful of sequestration, it's a wash and we gain nothing.
I'm not anti-biodiesel BTW - we just need better strategies,
Reply
Matt 11:42PM (6/22/2009)
Seriously, carbon credit trading is such BS. There is no real regulation of the trade system, meaning I'm supposed to trust that everyone is being fair about it. Beyond that, on a global scale it means, "We can burn fossil fuels and feel ok about it as long as we pay you not to." You can't pay someone else to be good for you, especially if that means nothing at all has changed from where it was. In this particular scenario it would mean that we still burn coal (just as we used to), but we VOLUNTARILY pay extra so that someone else doesn't cut down a forest (that hasn't been cut down anyway). No thanks, I'll invest in solar panels for my home instead and actually stop buying coal power while saving on my monthly bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/business/05online.html
Furthermore, "THE rainforest" is a bit of an overstatement. There are about 4.5 million square miles of rain forest on earth, and I don't think the oil palms are going to make a significant dent... how about people stop buying teak, mahogany, and rosewood. I'm sure you're already aware that those are the primary reason for rainforest deforestation.
I'm not even sure Palm oil is what they're advocating here. I think it's more about the benefits of biodiesel in general.
3er 6:09AM (6/23/2009)
Matt is correct. NExBTL as process is not tied to palm oil and is capable of using most plant and animal fats. palm oil happens to have good yeld(way better than soy or rape seed) and its cheap. also palm oil is not food(palm oil is used as hardening additive in margarines but otherwise its not used as food). the main user of palm oil is cosmetics industry.
main reason for rainforest deforestation as matt pointed is harvesting of hardwood. palm tree cultivations are an aftertought in indonesia as there are wast wasteland areas left by clearing of rainforests in search for valuable wood. even if growing of palmtrees would be banned(you americans like banning things) today that would have no effect in deforestation as it is not the driving force behind the phenomenon.
PS: for the first poster its Neste Oil(Finnish state oil company), not the swiss food giant(Nestle)
Alex 4:37AM (7/13/2009)
Yes, maybe it's good, but nevertheless 90% of diesel cars' engines will not stand even 100 km on biodiesel(
Reply