Biodiesel frequently asked questions

BIODIESEL FAQ

BIODIESEL BASICS

What is Biodiesel?

Biodiesel is a  domestic, clean burning fuel for diesel engines made from animal and vegetable fats and oils. Unlike petroleum-based diesel, biodiesel is a renewable source of fuel because it can be naturally replenished using local resources. Unmodified diesel engines can potentially run on 100% biodiesel or any blend of biodiesel and petroleum diesel. A blend containing 20% biodiesel is called “B20,” a 5% blend is called “B5” and so on. Our biodiesel is produced locally from locally collected, recycled cooking oil.

Biodiesel is superior to conventional diesel in many ways. Biodiesel is non-toxic and biodegradeable, making it less damaging to the environment in the event of a spill or leak. Biodiesel has superior lubrication properties compared to diesel fuel. It increases engine life and can be used to replace the sulfur usually added to petroleum diesel, a lubricating agent that causes acid rain. Biodiesel is also safer to transport because of its higher flash point or ignition temperature.

Biodiesel can play a significant role in reducing air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to smog and global warming. Using biodiesel greatly decreases the carbon footprint of diesel vehicles. A recent U.S. Department of Energy study has shown that the production and use of biodiesel resulted in a 78% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions when compared to petroleum diesel. Biodiesel also has the highest energy balance of any transportation fuel. For every unit of fossil energy used to produce a gallon of biodiesel, 3.24 units of energy are gained.

Technical Definition for Biodiesel (ASTM D 6751) and Biodiesel Blend: 
Biodiesel, n – a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats, designated B100, and meeting the requirements of ASTM D 6751.

Biodiesel Blend, n – a blend of biodiesel fuel meeting ASTM D 6751 with petroleum-based diesel fuel, designated BXX, where XX represents the volume percentage of biodiesel fuel in the blend.

For more information, or to learn more about biodiesel, please go to: www.biodiesel.org or www.californiabiodieselalliance.org

How is biodiesel made?

Biodiesel is made through a chemical process called transesterification whereby the glycerin is separated from the fat or vegetable oil. The process leaves behind two products -- methyl esters (the chemical name for biodiesel) and glycerin (a valuable byproduct usually sold to be used in soaps and other products).

Is biodiesel the same as veggie oil?

NO!!! Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act. Our biodiesel meets strict industry specifications (ASTM D6571) and is legally registered with the Environmental Protection Agency as a legal motor fuel for sale and distribution. Vegetable oil is not registered with the EPA, has not met federal health effects testing requirements and is not a legal motor fuel.

Is biodiesel used as a pure fuel, or can it be blended with diesel fuel?

Biodiesel can be used as a pure fuel or blended with petroleum in any percentage. B20 (a blend of 20 percent by volume biodiesel with 80 percent by volume petroleum diesel) has demonstrated significant environmental benefits with a minimum increase in cost for fleet operations and other consumers.

Who can answer my questions about biodiesel?

The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) maintains the largest library of biodiesel information in the US. Information can be requested by visiting the biodiesel web site at www.nbb.org, by emailing the NBB at info@biodiesel.org, or by calling NBB’s toll free number (800) 841-5849.

Can I use biodiesel in my existing engine?

Biodiesel can be operated in any diesel engine with little or no modification to the engine or the fuel system. Biodiesel has a solvent effect that may release deposits accumulated on tank walls and pipes from previous diesel fuel storage. The release of deposits may clog filters initially and precautions should be taken. Ensure that only fuel meeting the biodiesel specification is used.

How do biodiesel emmissions compare to regular petroleum diesel?

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.

Does Biodiesel cost more than other alternative fuels?

When reviewing the high costs associated with other alternative fuel systems, many fleet managers have determined biodiesel is their least-cost-strategy to comply with state and federal regulations. Use of biodiesel does not require major engine modifications. That means operators keep their fleets, their spare parts inventories, their refueling stations and their skilled mechanics. The only thing that changes is air quality.

shared from

Mystery of how Shell escaped Brent Bravo criminal prosecution

Feb 7th, 2012

by John Donovan.

The Sunday Times article may go some way to illuminating the mystery of how Shell miraculously escaped criminal prosecution.

By John Donovan

An article published in Scotland by The Sunday Times may help to explain why the health and safety division of the Crown office and Procurator Fiscal Service decided not to prosecute Royal Dutch Shell for alleged criminal offences arising from an explosion on the Brent Bravo platform.

In 2005, Shell was fined a record £900,000 at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, for a series of safety failings on the platform which led to a gas leak inside the giant platform's utility leg and the tragic deaths of two workers, Keith Moncrieff and Sean McCue.

Former Shell International HSE Group Auditor, Bill Campbell, revealed that Shell had operated a "Touch F*** All" safety culture on the platform and that safety records had been falsified. He reported this to Malcolm Brinded, the then Managing Director of Shell Expro, who failed to take proper action. This was before the explosion.

Mr Campbell later courageously provided evidence, which resulted in Grampian Police conducting a long investigation into related alleged bribery and corruption of HSE officials by Shell. The police passed the case file to the Procurator Fiscal Service for a decision on whether to prosecute.

Mr Campbell was surprised when the Procurator Fiscal Service announced that it had dropped the case because there was insufficient evidence to justify a criminal prosecution. He was even more surprised to discover that NO witnesses were ever interviewed from the list he had provided to the Police. Neither witnesses from Shell or HSE.  Or indeed, the independent witnesses who could have provided corroboration.

Mr Campbell still maintains that there is an abundance of evidence provided by Shell employees and by HSE as a result of their internal investigation and through information released under the Freedom of Information Act. He remains utterly baffled why witness statements were not requested from the Procurator Fiscal by Crown Counsel.

The Sunday Times article may go some way to illuminating the mystery of how Shell miraculously escaped criminal prosecution.

It is alleged that Scottish prosecutors cherry-pick the easiest "slam dunk" cases. This would explain a 99% success rate. They allegedly do not pursue health and safety cases which are "slightly more difficult".

Bill Campbell handed over a wealth of evidence, but for some reason, it was not properly followed up by the Procurator Fiscal, leaving Mr Campbell and apparently Grampion Police, mystified by the outcome.

The Sunday Times 5 February 2012

Lord advocate 'takes only easy health and safety cases'

SCOTLAND'S top prosecutor has been accused of inflating the conviction rate in health and safety proceedings by only targeting so-called "slam dunk" cases where success is almost guaranteed.

Lord advocate Frank Mulholland has defended the claims which have been raised at Westminster, insisting every case placed before him will be taken on, regardless of difficulty.

Since the health and safety division of the Crown office and Procurator Fiscal Service was set up in 2009, 77 of the 78 completed cases have resulted in convictions – a success rate of 99%.

However, while appearing before the Commons Scottish affairs committee, he was accused by chairman Ian Davidson of cherry-picking the easiest cases.

The Scottish Labour MP asked whether, given the number of fatalities and reported serious accidents in Scotland, he thought he was taking on enough prosecutions.

Davidson said: "There's a chance they are not pursuing the cases which are slightly more difficult. So paradoxically, this is one situation where having a lower success rate is possibly better.

"Our initial suspicion is they are restrained in terms of manpower and therefore they are only pursuing prosecution in those cases which we describe as slam dunk. That would worry us quite a bit.

"If they are not being passed on to him, the question is whether they are being filtered out at an earlier stage in the process before they get to him. It may be that those who are passing them on to him are taking too cautious a view of what might be prosecutable."

He added: "We have been worried for some time about the high rate of health and safety-related deaths and serious injuries in Scotland. There are more people in agriculture, quarrying, construction, but that didn't explain all of it.

"If someone is getting a 1Wlo success rate with prosecutions, then it potentially means they are only taking ones where they are.absolutely certain of a success. Our concern is that there is a filter which removes difficult cases."

There has been a number of high-profile health and safety prosecutions in Scotland in recent years, including the Stockline Plastics explosion in Glasgow's Maryhill in 2004 which claimed nine lives.

Operators ICL Plastics and ICL Tech were fined £400,0000 after admitting four charges. The High Court in Glasgow, heard that the leaking pipework that caused the explosion could have been replaced for just £405.

Utility firm Transco was fined a record £15m after being convicted on a charge arising from an explosion which killed four people. Andrew and Janette Findlay and their children Stacey, 13, and Daryl, 11, died in the explosion in Larkhall, South Lanarkshire, in December 1999.

Transco was found guilty after a six-month trial in Edinburgh of breaching health and safety laws.

A Crown Office spokesman rejected the suggestions.

He said: "If we have sufficient admissible, credible and reliable evidence, and it is in the public interest to prosecute, then we will prosecute.

"The excellent record of the health and safety division is due solely to the diligence and expertise of our prosecutors, who work extremely hard to secure guilty pleas and convictions in the most complex of cases.

"The lord advocate made the committee aware that 219 eases had been reported to the health and safety division since its inception. Of those, 78 have been prosecuted and 77 have resulted in convictions. There are 116 live cases under consideration for which no decision has been taken.

"Ten cases have resulted in a Fatal Accident Inquiry. No proceedings have been taken in 15 cases. In six of those cases proceedings could not have been taken because the company was no longer trading.

"In another five cases proceedings could not have been taken because there was insufficient evidence in law."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmscotaf/uc1344-vii/uc134401.htm

Posted in: Bill Campbell, Bribery, Business Principles, Corporate Governance,Corruption, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Litigation, Malcolm Brinded, Oil, Outspoken Articles, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell Employee Safety.
Tagged: Bill Campbell · John Donovan · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Shell Brent Bravo Scandal

← Shell CEO Peter Voser €6.75 million salary plus €3.5 million bonus

Rise In Oil Thefts Threatens Nigerian Output →

Don Mimi and Tonton in Poway

The TRUTH will set you FREE.