Talk:Vegetable oil fuel

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Every producer of what Wikipedia calls "vegetable oil fuel" refers to the product as "Biodiesel." Every documentary I have ever seen calls the product "Biodiesel" as well, and I have never seen any mention, anywhere except Wikipedia, the distinction between "vegetable oil fuel" and "biodiesel." It really seems to me like Wikipedia is trying to invent its own standard, which does not seem to exist anywhere except Wikipedia. Can someone explain this rationale? - Artificial Silence (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why you're commenting when you clearly haven't read both articles or their respective sources; there are plenty of reliable sources that draw distinction between the two. Biodiesel (mono-alkyl esters) is a chemical derivative of vegetable oil or animal fat (lipids). As mentioned in this article, there are even governmental bodies that draw distinction between the two for taxation/use.--E8 (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article contained :

"As of 2000, the United States was producing in excess of 11 billion liters of waste vegetable oil annually, mainly from industrial deep fryers in potato processing plants, snack food factories and fast food restaurants."

Where do you get this information from? It does not look remotely plausible. The USDA says total consumption of fresh vegetable oil in the US is just over 3 billion gallons. When you take away what is absorbed in food (most of it), loss from processing etc. you are left with at most 400 million gallons a year. Potato chip manufacturers produce less than 3% waste. This article is seriously misleading. US petroleum usage in 2008 is 20.4 million barrels a day (230 billion gallons/year) (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_wpsup_k_w.htm). So UCO might if it was all used in cars replace 0.17% of US petroleum consumption. No utopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.83.220 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added : "If all those 11 billion liters could be collected and used to replace the energetically equivalent amount of petroleum (a rather utopical case), almost 1% of US oil consumption could be offset."

And someone ojected : [citation needed]... i'm quite puzzled. What i wrote is a unit conversion (from tons to barrels) and a division (this amoun/total US petroleum used). what reference could I provide? My calculator? --86.196.55.231 09:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe a citation of the current US petroleum usage? Natronomonas 11:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home heating

Under the Home Heating heading, it might be worthwhile to include a link to Cogeneration. At the home level, this can be implemented by running a diesel generator on Waste Vegetable Oil and reclaiming the heat contained in the engine coolant and/or exhaust to help heat your house and hot water tank. Sygen 14:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, and a mention of similar commercial and agricultural heating and electricity generation should be mentioned as well, along with a cross-link to raw bio-methane which is often used in similar capacity dating back to early 1900s. Also how early raw vegetable oil was used for heat and light does need mention, but someone needs to find a usable reference of an early stone tablet documenting this.--RuediiX 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EPA Who put the line in about the EPA? AFAIK, WVO can be used privately (i.e. not registered as a fuel, and therefore not sold). Cowbert 09:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an episode of

I'm not sure if there's any information in that episode that isn't already mentioned here. Malamockq 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's information is duplicate, but there is a significant and rational to mentioning it. A recent well publicized preliminary experiment resulting in favor, but not complete enough to be conclusive, such as that one has significance in one manner. Primarily, the argument that research into the practicality of use of raw vegetable oils is being suppressed by those funding large-scale research seems a little more true after such facts.

I would recommend putting this test next to the comment of the first experiments being all the way back in the 1900s, but let's wait until more discussion is on the topic. RuediiX 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I run a 1993 Peugeot 306 XNd, which has an XUD9 engine. This runs perfectly well on vegetable oil in an unmodified state. At the time I was actually running it like this, (2008), diesel was approx. £1.30 per litre, whereas I could buy NEW cooking oil for as little as £0.56 per litre. (Used oil was obviously cheaper when available.) My intention was to run the unmodified car on a 50/50 mix of diesel and oil, after asking around. Due to being skint, I ran it on almost pure oil for a while, and eventually blew the (Lucas) injector pump. I worked out that I could afford to replace this four times a year (at garage rates) and still save money on buying diesel... Since then, new cooking oil has appeared to take quite a jump to the point where it is dearer than diesel. BTW, "Top Gear" once demonstrated that you can deal with the viscosity problem by using about 3% non spirit based solvent. As an aside, it is apparently possible to run diesels on liquid paraffin, (cheaper), but you need to add a small amount of lubricant oil, as it strips the engine of oil as it runs. Some taxi companies in the UK have illegally done this, but normally using older cars, as the life of the engine may be adversely affected.82.6.1.85 (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell[reply]

The Water Car

The Government recently gave a 500,000,000.00 dollar grant to a company to develop a car that runs on water. (not needing hydrogen stations) It was on FOX and Friends, as a very quick mention, about May 13, 2006. For 40 years the IMF and WBO ignored Daniel Dingle the Filipino inventor that found a way to convert cars to run on water. (not even needing hydrogen stations)

Yes I believe that recent research was more accurately putting a hydrogen station in your garage. The result was less than spectacular, mainly in cost issues. However, it still showed some potential for small commercial fleets.

Personally, I wonder how it costs a half billion dollars to design a machine for basic hydrolysis of of household current, when I could probably sketch one up in 30 minutes flat that just uses a recycled circuit from an arch wielder power supply, a lead acid battery case, an air compressor, and a standard hydrogen-gas fuel system, but that's a whole different issue better discussed on a political blog, if you catch my drift.

Honda has a more cost effective solution for home hydrolysis out in field-test already, and it will be priced in the luxury car budget. These solutions do deserve mention elsewhere, and such pages do need to be hub-linked to a central "non-petroleum fuels" page.--RuediiX 13:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Car

In production now, an engine capable of propelling a car up to 110 Km/h, that can cover a distance of 300 km with one compressed air tank refill at a cost of 50 cents. Not only providing "zero pollution" but also purifying the air. ... http://www.theaircar.com

The torque consuming stop-and-go city driving of many gas-guzzling countries like the US hardly makes such solutions practical, and claims of cleaning the air is like making such claims about a vacuum cleaner. You do the math.

This idea is also hardly new. Similar compressed gas engines have also been used to power radio control vehicles, allowing much smaller engines than are possible with standard "glow" fuel, this has been obsoleted by the newer electric motors which give far better throttle control with the same or more torque.

I must say still, compressed gas engines are also noteworthy on a "non-petroleum fuels" section which should be hub-linked to all such fuels for easy cross reference. --RuediiX 13:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________ —The preceding

"Zero pollution"?? The compressed air tanks are not filled with magically-prexisting compressed air. They are, in all likeliness, running a gasoline engine to force compressed air into the tank. Pointless. Jwigton 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, there has been a lot of news about a small fleet of buses using spent oil used to cook Tempura (a popular Japanese food) as fuel, in the manner described on this page. They claim significant decreases in poisonous emissions, and prices comparable with regular diesel, given the fact that there are only a handful of pumps in the whole country. Can anyone find any information about this and maybe add it to the article? I also came across this page looking for some information on the reasons why vegetable oil shouldn't be used instead of diesel, but I couldn't find any. Is that because there are none? What reasons do the US gov. and others have for not keeping such practices legal? 210.138.109.72 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the History section, the second sentence, "When Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel engine, he designed it to run on peanut oil but it was soon discovered that it would operate on cheaper petroleum oil." is false.

Rudolf Diesel: Pioneer in the Age of Power, Nitske and Wilson, p. 87 -

   “The fuel oil first chosen for the tests was a tar-like Pechelbrenner - raw oil. This unrefined, very heavy hydrocarbon was a thick brown mass which would not flow through the slender fuel lines at ordinary temperatures.”

also

Diesel: Technology and Society in Industrial Germany, D. Thomas, p. 143 -

   “The very first fuel used,a crude oil, proved to be totally inadequate, and tests proceeded with gasoline and kerosene.”

Rudolf diesel did in his later years support and promote the use of vegetable oils, but it was not his idea nor did he design the engine for that purpose.

The French Otto company demonstrated the diesel engine at the the Wolds Fair.

Rudolf Diesel: Pioneer in the Age of Power, Nitske and Wilson, p. 139 -

   “At the Paris exposition of 1900, a Diesel engine, built by the French Otto Company ran wholly on peanut oil.”

Diesel didn't do studies of vegetable oils until later in his life.

From a paper to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (of Great Britain) in March 1912 from the paper Historical perspectives on vegetable oil-based diesel fuels

   “the author assumed the trials a few months ago. It has been proved that Diesel engines can be worked on earth-nut oil without any difficulty”

A good paper on this all of this is: http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/20011101_gen-346.pdf

This entry needs information on emissions. I've read a few studies that indicate veg oil, burnt as fuel, can produce highly-carcinogenic emissions. This needs to be discussed, debated, refuted... and added to the main page. See this link for an example study (there are at least two I know of): http://www.bv-pflanzenoele.de/pdf/ArchTox.pdf E8 04:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry needs more information on the effects of vegetable oil on engines. See here, http://www.uidaho.edu/bioenergy/Bioshortcourse/Rawoil.htm, for a list of studies along with the summary: [Even with heating of the oil,] "long-term durability has not been proven."E8 04:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm finding more studies that indicate vegetable oil can be used as fuel, without problem, if setup is done properly. I'll link some of these soon.--E8 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emission standards effective starting in 2007 caused all US car manufacturers to install exhaust particulate filters on diesel engines. These filters must be periodically purged. This is accomplished by injecting fuel into the combustion cylinder during the exhaust stroke so that it is forced into the filter and burned turning the particulates to ash. Unfortunately both vegetable oil and biodiesel are not completely vaporized in the cylinder and leave residue on the cylinder wall. If this residue migrates past the piston rings it will mix with the engine oil and void the engine warranty. Sygen (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on

• I second the merger. I'd also recommend removing any and all advertisements from the pages.E8 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The merger would dilute both the Greasecar (a company, not the generic name of a car) and the SVO article. In fact, to me they seem to be subtopics to either
  Biofuels (SVO) or Flexible-fuel vehicle (Greasecar).Rhetth 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Discussion appears to be a "stale" mate, deleted merge tag. Mirboj (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My previous reply to Rhetth was deleted. Since Greasecar is a company, is it allowed to have its own WP page? If not, the page itself is subject to deletion, not merger. What/where are the Wikipedia guidelines? E8 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have worked with these technologies for years and as I understand it there is nothing particularly different about greasecar equipment - they are just one of many companies offering modification equipment that allows diesel engines to run on vegetable oil. They are the biggest company in the US (I think). There are other companies in Europe with far more ground breaking technologies. To me it appears to be an attempt to give a name to the technique of modifying vehicles - that name happens to already belong to a commercial entity.....

It should be noted that GM, Ford, Mercedes and VW all forbid the use of any form of vegetable oil (SVO, WVO, or homebrew BioDiesel) in their cars unless it's commercially sold B5 BioDiesel. Cummins being the exception as it allows B20 in it's newer engines. Using vegetable oils or BioDiesel higher in percentage than allowed is a violation of the warranty terms. This would likely result in the fuel/engine system warranty being voided or denial of a warranty claim.

Heh, now that I have your attention... The citation tag applied to the sentence "The conversion of an automobile engine to burn vegetable oil is not legal under US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines" was added in February 2007. This is too long for uncited information to remain on here.

I deleted it rather than asking someone to find proof (which is what the tag has been asking for half a year). If you can reference it, feel free to add it back. The original statement is this:

"The conversion of an automobile engine to burn vegetable oil is not legal under US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines [citation needed]. The EPA has not fined anyone for doing so, but certain laws may have to change — or a certification process may need to be established — before VO conversions become more popular in the US."

Jwigton 02:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the potential for increased emissions, it is considered unlawful tampering to convert a vehicle designed for diesel fuel to operate on waste oil without EPA certification. To date, EPA has not certified any conversions for waste oils.

http://www.epa.gov/OMS/renewablefuels/420b07019.pdf

Etaireia (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a number of unsourced statements in this article that would violate WP:NOR without sources. For example:

• The UK exported 280 000 tonnes of rapeseed in 2005. If the UK used just its set aside land it could reach its 5% biofuel target without the need for exotic and environmentally damaging oil crop imports.

This statement seems to violate WP:NOR by stating that the UK could reach its 5% biofuel target by using set aside land to grow more rapeseed crops. Additionally, it uses a loaded statement to call oil crop imports "environmentally damaging" without any additional facts or references to back it up. I am tagging this article with {{refimprove}} for now, until sources can be found or the unsourced numbers and statements removed. Zzxc 05:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the "citation needed" sections then deleted the citation tag.Mirboj (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced "Citations Needed" and "Merge" tags as they are still relevant. Much of this page is without a source. I suspect this is because there are relatively few third-party, non-commercial entities participating in the Veg Oil for fuel industry. The heat/power example illustrates this perfectly; it's a quick search to find a vendor for such an item, but finding a peer-reviewed publication isn't so simple. Since linking commercial sources that advertising a company or product isn't acceptable, no suitable source may be cited, yet the information quite factual.E8 (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• E8, regarding merger, the discussion appeared to be dormant; will this article be improved by a merger? your point seems to relate to a problem with the other site. Regarding the citations needed tag, and my deletions, again the discussion appeared dormant, and those sections labled "citation needed", in my opinion, didn't add enough to the article to warrant including them and thus tagging the entire article. Are there other sections you find problematic?, if none and you find the "information quite factual", why label the article with the "citations needed" header? Especially, as you point out, the emerging nature of this topic.Mirboj (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're correct, Mirboj. It is the
  Greasecar page that I feel needs to be eliminated. It's a bit of a dead issue though, as I'm unclear what the procedure for doing so is and no one else has shown interest in assisting with the removal / partial merger. I'm working on adding some reputable sources to this page over the next few months. This is at least a step in the right direction.--E8 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A new and seemingly important development has been made by Deutz. They're marketing a duel tank tractor and engine specifically designed to operate on rapeseed oil (even unprocessed, cold-pressed). Clearly this needs to be incorporated into the main, as this is the first-of-its-kind development.--E8 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make an article straightening out the svo vs. global warming belief. Although it is true that burning svo is carbon neutral meaning it is not producing more CO2 than is taken in, the belief is that converting all vehicles to run svo will therefore end global warming. However, the truth is that if all vehicles were replaced with svo running vehicles, there would physically not be enough land on the earth to produce the amount of svo the world would need. Information from [1]

-So i've tried to find some articles to support this claim. I intend to change my wording and say that "it is unlikely that we have the needed arable land to produce the amount of crops needed to replace fossil fuels." let me know if there is anything else i need to keep a post like this up without being erased. I know a lot of the information being tossed around is referring to biodiesel, but i figure for this particular issue, svo and biodiesel can be interchangeably used as the indicator.

-quote from Dr. Tad Patzek of UC Berkley [2] -Production of biodiesel within UK.[3] -Someone explaining the info of the UK stats with further sources. (message #295) [4]

Please let me know if this is acceptable. --Longbutshort (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that is either true, acceptable, or supported by reliable references. If you look at 600 gallons/acre/year for palm oil and how much fuel is needed per year and figure out that it is far from all the land. Also, if algae works out it could be making 10,000 gallons/acre/year. So I don't think your "truth" is the truth. Vincecate (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Thanks for discussing before making a larger edit/addition (always a nice thing). Regarding this matter, there is a tremendous amount of media speculation regarding this subject, and the section would need a [article] template. If you have solid, less-speculative sources, particularly scientific ones, they are welcome and needed. Feel free to post a proposal here or link your sandbox. You should definitely get the green light from at least one other editor before proceeding. Also, I was kind enough to delete your email (you shouldn't list them on public forums). Oh, and always sign your posts like this->--E8 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed this content from the main. It needs a bit of editing to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines for encyclopedic content. The
  weasel words must go, and the writing made more concise. Perception is temporal in nature, an specifically disqualified under guidelines. Perhaps this discussion should be split into two discussions, limitations of oil yield from agriculture, and carbon footprint, as has been done on the Biodiesel
  page:

"There is a lot of media speculation going around that replacing fossil fuels with SVO and biofuels will solve the problem of global warming. The belief is that using biofuels will stop the extra emission of CO2 because biofuels are carbon neutral, meaning that they emit the same amount of CO2 which gets taken in by the initial crop. There are two things wrong with this idea. First off, current research has indicated that biofuels are not entirely carbon neutral because the process to gather and create biofuels uses a large amount of fossil fuels due to its cheap price.[5] Secondly, it is very unlikely that there is enough arable land in the world to create the amount of crops needed to fuel vehicles and feed the people of the world at the same time. "Realistically we might be able to replace 5% of our current oil consumption with biofuels.” says Dr. Tad Patzek, University of California-Berkeley.[6] This study was also done in the UK using rapeseeds yielding similar results. [7]Although this does not solidify anything, it seems that for now, we need to find ways to generate pure carbon neutral fuels as well as alternatives to combat global warming."--E8 (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone help me to make this usable? This is my first contribution and I understand my writing skills are not up to encyclopedia standards. --Longbutshort (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes! We're here to help each other. I'm buried work at the moment, but as soon as I can give my brain a bit of a rest, I'll see how I can help. You can always ask other editors active on this page for assistance, too. (Write to their talk pages.)--E8 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this statement can be made based on the one newspaper article. There isn't really a "typical" cost as I understand it. Some people weld up tanks and pipe them in in the garage for next to nothing, others buy kits for well over $1200 total. Some statement to that effect would be a good replacement for that statement/citation? That article would be more appropriately be used in the tax issues section. Ismellfish2 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]