I am aware of one person who claims to have logged over 130K on a blend. He has a very unusualy circumstance in that he puts an unusually high number of miles on each day and so very little time is spend runnign the blend in an engine not yet up to operating temp. He has not kept any records that might indicate if his engine is exhibinitng any of the common indications of ring/land/groove coking.  The majority of individuals I have know and advised who have attempted to use a blend in a single tank conversion have had problems cosistant with what the results formal studies on blends down to 5% VO had.

I am conservative in my advice. I think tha this is expected of people who do provide prressional advice in any field that is considered emergine or experimental technology. My paying clients expect and appreciate my conservative approach...and for the most part those who recieve my conservative advice for free also appreciate the fact I value their engines enough to encourage great care be used in any conversion. Those who want to take significant chances are welcome to..but I do not feel it is doing them a service to not at least warn them that experience has shown there are methods with high success ratios..and those with low success ratios. I do not make a distinction between my level of responsibility for advice I am paid for and that I provide for free.

I repeat.blends will "work" as fuel..but by and large blends are not an acceptable substitute for diesel fuel IMO as accellerated ring/land coking is nearly inevitable unless the engine is warmed to operating temperature before the blend is introduced to the fuel injection system.  This is learly not saying it "does not work" it is merely saying that there are unintended consequences of using it as simply a diesel fuel substitute.

Fatty has engaged in posting baits and flames aimed at me on other forums to the point of being moderated. I see no reason to encourage that type of behavior on this forum by responding to any posts that appear to be simply ax grinding.  I hope the forum members will understand and appreciate this position.

Welcome to the forum Daniel,

Here is my web site about the press and my method of making bio diesel ,, easy!

What your website describes is commonly called VO blending.

While I applaud your efforts at self sufficiency and understand your eagerness to "spread the word"
the process you describe does not produce biodiesel and calling it "biodiesel" tends to confuse people.
The biofuels movement does not need MORE misinformation to confuse people interested in joiningi in. There is plenty being shared currently.
I am sure it is not your intent to present misinformation or confuse people.

But some of the information on your webiste is interesting but not all that accurate.

For example:
It is not possible to experience a power gain (over diesel fuel) on this blend.
I suspect you have not tested this claim with a dynomometer.

There is no glycerine in VO.
Although the process of making (real) biodiesel does result in the production of some glycerols they are not being "removed" from the VO...they are being produced by the chemical reaction which created (real) biodiesel and THEN are removed.

You may also want to do some research on the studies done in North Dakota (and elsewhere) regarding shortened engine life and VO blends.

I hope I have not presented this in a manner that make you feel as if I have insulted you.
That is not my intent. I present this in th hope that you will take th opportunity to take a more scientific directionin your efforts and present more accurrate information on your website.

Not only will the people who choose to follow your lead be benefitted..I suspect you will benefit as well.

I have not suggested that any "smallfry" need fear the EPA intruding into their lives.

However the EPA needs neither warrent nor probable cause to intrude if they wish to. Similar to ATF or INS they have "special" powers.

You are correct that if an action is not ever triggered by a complaint there is little if any chance of any contact wiith the EPA or your states PCA.

But you are not correct in the assumption that you have some protection from any such action as simple as running them off like a trespasser if they "show up" at your door. It is extremely unlikely that they will "show up" in person. If they do they will have the authority in hand needed to examine your property with or without your permission.

But most likely when an action is commenced it will be by certified mail. This will be a charge and cease and desist order along with the procedure to prove that you have in fact ceased operation and fully complied with the C&D order. Failure to comply can result in massive..and I mean MASSIVE.. fines that YOU must hire an attorney and go to federal court to have reduced or removed. This in iteslf is usually very costly...but compared to the 5 figure (per day) fines is chump change.

Remain "under the radar" is teh best policy for individuals.
My clients usually do not have this option and therefor must attempt to comply with all regulatory requirements.

The EPA can't do squat to you if you don't pollute.  You could dump every toxic substance you could find into a pit in your backyard and as long as NONE of it got into the air, ground, or water table surrounding your property, the EPA couldn't do anything to you.

I do not mean to be rude..but this is complete nonsense.
You have obviously not studied the laws governing pollution control or had any experience dealing with the EPA.

Tater,

I agree with nearly every thing in your post save this:

And if there were, they'd have no power, authority, permission or mandate to go on private property unless it's a corporation under their pervue.
As far as I'm concerned, the EPA deals with writing regs for imported engines.  Once it gets here and is mine....they'll have a LOT of trouble ever seeing it again.

The EPA does not need to see your "non-compliant engine" to order you not to use it.
They have the power to simply send you a cease and desist order and require you provide proof that it is no longer possible to operate the engine in question. They may require that you prove this by allowing them access. Failure to comply may result in fines as high as $25,000 (or higher) per day.  Ifyou choose to ignore this the state PCA is often then involved and THEY then receive a warrent based on the probable cause provided by trhe EPA.

It is a very rare case indeed when this process is aimed at an individual who is not involved in commercial operations.  And it is even rarer when the cease and disist order is not complied with when it is.

The "loophole" most available to us IMO is legitimate research programs. his is of course a huge PITA to set up to the EPAs satisfaction.  But it is possible.

Hey, I am happy to bounce ideas around. Beign somewhat familiar with the CAA and EPA attitude toward enforcement in non commercial situations....I thought I would share it. Iam not advocating simply sticking heads in sand. But it is nice to know the situation.

If anyone has info on the "education loophole" or any other semi viable option I would be interested in hearing more.


Anyone?

So why the new law, if there were a real interest in the environment it seems the EPA could get a better return in out tax investment in them, by working on the biggest poluters rather than the smallest.

HI Rod,

This is not a new law. It is the Clean Air Act. Like many sweeping reforms it is implemented in stages and so may appear new from time to time as the date for implementation of each new stage arrives.

As far as stationary diesel engines...the EPA is geared for enforcement of legislation on large polluters...not individual tax payers...the little guys.  The few exceptiosn have bewn when individuals essentially very publicly taunted the EPA. Unwise to do that.

And really the EPA appeared to have very little interest in enforcing the CAA on individual stationary diesels since most are run at optimum efficiency for economic reasons...and pollution is at its lowest at optimum efiiciency levels.  So they were sued by an environmental organization and rather than waste energy or money they allowed the organization to appear to "win" by agreeing to stipulations. This allows the organizations lawyers and leaders to appear to do thier jobs for the donors (members) and the EPA to essentially go on as they were before the suit.  There is very little incentive for the organizations leaders  to try to enforce that agreement siince it woudldbe very costly and probably not very sucessful. But it iIS a possiblity especially if you have a large generator that is used to produce electricity commercially. They would probably not pick on an individual since it makes them look bad to do so..and this is all about generating good publicity rather than bad. "Forcing" the EPA to "do its job" looks really good on a brocure to a prospective member (donor)...but if members looked cloaser they would see that mostly these types of claims are essentially "theatric" rather than substantial.

And of course they would have to PROVE that the specfic installation in question is not in complience unlike the EPA who can simply claim it is not in complince and fine you if you do not shut down and prove otherwise. Oc ethey proved it the EPA might be forced to enfoce the CAA on whoever the environmental organzation had targeted.  If one is at all carful the possibility of running afoul of the EPA as an individual is nearly ZERO.

if they allow exemption for educational purposes,

Are they..REALLY?

I have not seen this exeption...or the hint of it.
Do you have a link or lead I canuse to track this down.

I am skeptical at this point...but that is my nature.
This would be a relativly easy loophole to exploit.

As for the EPA mobilizing against the littel guy...they really are not interested unless commerce is somehow invloved.
I speak from experience.