Switched to Renewable Diesel!

[bwindrope]

I've been using biodiesel for many years here in the Salish Sea of Canada and WA, and though I have enjoyed the mechanical and odor benefits, it has become hard to acquire. At a recent talk at my local sailing club, the South Sound Sailing Society, we had a guest speaker from an organization called the Inside Passage Decarbonization Project founded and led by a gentleman named Peter Wilcox, who may, for all I know, be active on this site.

He spoke to us about ways we can reduce our carbon footprint on the Salish Sea, and many of his ideas were new to me, surprisingly. One, in particular, caught my attention, and that is Renewable Diesel. I'd not heard of it. Down in CA and even OR it is far more common because they have state laws that mandate the use of green fuels. Turns out, Renewable Diesel is a cousin of biodiesel but quite different. It is made from the same stocks of oil and fats, but is a direct drop in replacement for fossil fuels. It is clear, odorless and has higher cetane than either fossil or biodiesel. That's right, it is a direct replacement, and is being used by whole fleets of long haul truckers and municipalities in CA and OR who report better engine performance, cleaner engines, and no issues with seals or hoses.

I've converted over and am delighted. Better for my diesel, better for the environment, and my wife is happy to be rid of the "diesel smell" in our boat. I did a full post on my non-monetized blog if you like to learn more: https://gulf32aeolus.blogspot.com/20...le-diesel.html

Have you heard of this? Used this? I've got the zealotry of the convert right now.

[skybolter]

How does using it reduce your carbon footprint. Are you saying it generates less particulates when combusted, or does it generate less CO2?

[billknny]

Try calculating the amount of land it takes to grow that biodiesel. And then extend it to how much land it would take if everybody did it. Your “carbon neutral” fuel just destroyed all the forests in North America.

But if it makes you happy in your ignorance....

[roverhi]

FWIW, Rudolph Diesel designed the engine with the intent that it would run on vegetable oil.

[bwindrope]

Using renewable diesel from sources that are are post-use like waste vegetable and other industrial oils saves carbon because you are not pulling new carbon out of the ground, but cycling carbon that is already in the atmosphere. Like all biofuels, the carbon benefits and other ecological benefits depend on the source materials. The sources we have here in the West, and in Europe, are not only carbon beneficial, but the stuff burns BETTER in our engines. Has higher cetane, and doesn't have impurities like soot that carbonize our systems and stink.

The pessimism of billknny may be in jest, but no one can argue that pulling more fossil fuels out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere, along with the impurities and sulphur and such, is doing our planet any good. From what I can see, the renewable diesel being made is sourced from carbon that has already been in the atmosphere. There is much written on this subject. I am not an expert. I encourage people to read about renewable diesel and how it is made, sourced and why it is being used so successfully in states like CA and OR for fleets. I give links on my blog to some articles.

[tkeithlu]

Renewable diesel comes from the same sources as biodiesel, but with a different chemical process. It costs more, and despite a whole bunch of promotion, doesn't seem to help the environment much. The basic argument seems to be that since it starts with carbon dioxide sucking plants (but often through herbivore digestion/fat) it displaces the harm of burning it. A more efficient engine, or just not pushing against hull speed (slow down) would seem to save more. I don't think this is going to revolutionize motor transport.

[bwindrope]

I agree there are many other factors, like choosing to sail when you can and how clean your hull might be. But for when we are pumping out exhaust, we may as well use one that is as neutral as possible. Aside from the environmental benefits, which are more concrete than sometimes thought, but not a panacea, it is also simply better for our engines in having higher cetane and being cleaner burning. There is only upside for our engines. Read the fleet reports and reports from Caterpillar for yourselves.

We all know that there is no way we are converting every vehicle on the road to a fuel based from plants and animal fats instead of fossil fuel. It's nearly impossible and certainly undesirable. The future will have to be electric and fuel cell and other less land intensive sources. Eating beef is one of the most carbon impactful things you do in a day, second only to driving long distances, but few are giving up beef yet. So at the scale we are talking, a few boats and diesel trucks here and there, I don't see why we shouldn't do our part to be more carbon neutral. It's a tragedy of the commons thing. We need to do what we can, where we can.

[Red Herring]

Sounds good. Wish we could get it here in Victoria.

[skybolter]

I am having difficulty wrapping my head around this one... So if I use a plant-based fuel, I am going to have to release the carbon from its "bound" state (as a plant) and convert it into heat and exhaust gas which has the CO2 that was previously bound and not in the atmosphere. I understand it was "above ground" while bound in the plant state, but as soon as it is burned, it is no longer is bound. This is similar to what happens when a tree falls in a forest and rots over the years...it releases the same amount of heat and CO2 as it would had you burned it, only at a much slower rate.

[bwindrope]

Originally Posted by skybolter

I am having difficulty wrapping my head around this one... So if I use a plant-based fuel, I am going to have to release the carbon from its "bound" state (as a plant) and convert it into heat and exhaust gas which has the CO2 that was previously bound and not in the atmosphere. I understand it was "above ground" while bound in the plant state, but as soon as it is burned, it is no longer is bound. This is similar to what happens when a tree falls in a forest and rots over the years...it releases the same amount of heat and CO2 as it would had you burned it, only at a much slower rate.

Yes, I think you understand it just fine. It is a closed system. Now, when we pull carbon out of the ground, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere. When we use fossil fuel based fertilizers, which we do, we are adding carbon to the atmosphere one way or another even though it is a plant. But if you go back before combustion engines, the carbon in the atmosphere largely cycled, except over very long periods of time when volcanic or solar activity added carbon or melted permafrost releasing methane. In geologic time scales, you can trace the evolution of plants and animals in the geologic record as they are both climate altering organisms. Easy to forget the Earth had only bacterial life for BILLIONS of years, and much of that was before oxygen was abundant in the atmosphere.

Geology aside, the agricultural industry as currently operating produces a large amount of waste oils and fats. It's from meat and plants we are already growing and eating. Taking that and making diesel and burning it again only puts back what was already in the atmosphere that the plants soaked up. A closed loop, except for the fertilizers and transportation costs and such. But it is still much less carbon intensive than fossil fuels.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by skybolter

I am having difficulty wrapping my head around this one... So if I use a plant-based fuel, I am going to have to release the carbon from its "bound" state (as a plant) and convert it into heat and exhaust gas which has the CO2 that was previously bound and not in the atmosphere. I understand it was "above ground" while bound in the plant state, but as soon as it is burned, it is no longer is bound. This is similar to what happens when a tree falls in a forest and rots over the years...it releases the same amount of heat and CO2 as it would had you burned it, only at a much slower rate.

If you bring fossil fuel you add carbon to the atmosphere that hasn't been there for a few million years. Over time that's a net increase in carbon, to the point that we've doubled the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. You use a plant based fuel you release carbon that was in the atmosphere 6 months ago before the crop grew and is being removed as you burn it by the replacement crop. Do that for 300 years and atmospheric CO2 levels remain constant except for slight seasonal variations as you harvest and plant new crops that cancel out each year.

And no, it wouldn't require cutting down all the trees in the world to convert to biodiesel. Keep in mind we literally pay farmers not to grow crops and have for decades.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by bwindrope

...and my wife is happy to be rid of the "diesel smell" in our boat...

Ahh, but do you get the "French fry smell" instead?

Sorry, this thread was starting to veer towards politics. Something I'd rather avoid lately.

[bwindrope]

Ha! The renewable diesel doesn't have the french fry smell, but virtually none at all. Because it doesn't have the impurities and sulphur and such, in a well functioning diesel it essentially puts out C02. And I agree these conversations can imply politics, but should not. It's really physics, biology and chemistry. One of the great benefits of science is that like reality, it remains true whether you believe it or not!

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by billknny

Try calculating the amount of land it takes to grow that biodiesel. And then extend it to how much land it would take if everybody did it. Your “carbon neutral” fuel just destroyed all the forests in North America.

But if it makes you happy in your ignorance....

This is the result of renewable diesel in parts of South East Asia.

Indonesia and others, burning vast rainforests to plant palm oil.

[leftbrainstuff]

Biodiesel or any form of recovered oil reformulated diesel is not better for the environment. That's marketing bs. But plenty of non technical folks sleep better at night because of their preceived planet goodness.

Also I wouldn't let most so called bio diesels anywhere near my fuel pump or injectors. It is many years since I've conducted lab analysis on fuels so there may be some better options.

The US Army, for example, maintains a vast refining capability around their diesel needs. They do it for strategic reasons.

Originally Posted by billknny

Try calculating the amount of land it takes to grow that biodiesel. And then extend it to how much land it would take if everybody did it. Your “carbon neutral” fuel just destroyed all the forests in North America.

But if it makes you happy in your ignorance....