Well, that sucks. Is nothing sacred? Talk about taking the "green" out of green fuels.

Let's put this in perspective. Burning any hydrocarbon releases harmful emissions. There are any number of emissions which we know are toxic but still don't regulate (at least in transportation): PAHs, aldehydes, ketones, peroxyacyl nitrates ... but we live with them anyway, even as we are told to stay indoors during smog alerts. There is a study out there noting that diesel PM is more carcinogenic than gasoline PM while gasoline PM does more genetic damage than diesel PM (nice choice) ... our response is to complain about being stuck in traffic. Nearly all metropolitan areas are in exceedence of ozone limits several times a year, sometimes weeks at a time, and our response is to crank up the AC and make sure we drive everywhere 'cause we sure wouldn't want to be outside breathing the stuff. We all know that CO2 is a train wreck waiting to happen and our response is to blame the evil oil cos and complain about the price of gas.

We are stuck with the ICE for the short and medium term. There are no great options here, air quality and climate-wise, but the least bad are BTL and FAE biodiesels, now that ULSD finally enables DPFs and NOx scrubbing. BTL better than FAE in direct emissions, life cycle analysis maybe, maybe not. But we have to be careful about feedstock. And we can't make enough of either (or any other alternative) to satisfy our current consumption, so neither is a magic bullet.

Natural does not mean non-toxic, OK? So we do the research and figure out how to make it better. Or maybe don't use canola oil?

This is what R & D of a new fuel infrastructure looks like. And it's also a perfect illustration why government shouldn't pick fuels or technologies to subsidize.

While sometimes it may shed light on the relevance of a study, the "who paid for the research" question does not automatically invalidate the results. It gets used so often these days that it's approaching a logical fallacy. We still have to be objective about putting results into perspective. The more important question than "who paid for it?" is "can it be duplicated?"

We need to proceed slowly and carefully into biofuels, and NO ONE has a crystal ball.

It would also appear that the usage path for biofuels calls for blends in the foreseeable as no manufacturer is about to endorse SVO. SVO issues of wear, viscosity, cold start are pretty well known. How 'bout these studies look at practical fuel blends B5, 10, 50, etc.

Just because BioWillie has been a big success it is no reason to think as Raphael says:

"It`s possible that both the oil industry and the finance ministries have a vested financial interest in supporting research that undermines SVO/WVO use."

Or is it?

This is another reason why biofuels are becoming a humanitarian and ecological disaster in their present form. There needs to be a freeze on the use of biofuels until they can be produced without using foodstuffs or without clearing forests. Bring on the PHEV's.

Can anyone say ALGAE?

I dont know exactly, merely posing the ?. Marginal arid lands, windmills, PVs, desalinization of marginal water...get enough Caterpillars together and alot of crazy things can happen...doubtful on the peeing caravan camels though, but thanx for paying attention.

archimedes wrote: what's the surprise here ? ignorance of organic chemistry ?

Exactly. Diesel particulates are particularly nasty in that they are small enough to evade the lungs mechanisms for removal of foreign objects. They can lodge in tissue, leaching concentrated mutagens in a small area. Face it, without expensive post-treatment, diesel sucks.

mo wrote: We can't afford to play off CO2 against classic emissions.

Like hell we can't! Not only can we, but we must. The only moral thing to do is to attempt to compute the least harmful path, subject to the price you wish to place on human life. We have epidemiological data telling us particulates kill tens of thousands of people yearly, and injure millions. I am not denying the possibility of harm from GW, but it is mostly in the future, difficult to accurately predict, and subject to mitigation. Compared to gas ICE and various other options, diesel does not look that great to me at the moment. Clean Diesel will of course change this, but the timeline for its widespread introduction is not much different than that of PHEVs.

Can anyone put this in laymans terms for me? What I am understanding is that fossil fuels are reccomended by this study because of the capacity of vegetable oil emissions to mutate. What does in mutate into?

This is a rather well-done experiment. I am a molecular biologist at the NSERL at UT Dallas. Although I have never done an emissions test before, an Ames mutageneity assay is standards. But this isn't the end of the road, kiddos.

First off, they only use rapeseed oil.
Second off, we don't know if it has been filtered at all. They mentioned a supplier co., gave us nothing further to go on.
Third of all, it is unclear which 2-tank system(s) they used, nor how the mRSO was heated, nor for how long.
Fourth of all, it is known that if SVO or WVO is not handled correctly, peroxides form, and fatty-free-acid (free radicals) - which would certainly mutate the hell out of some helpless Salmonella histidine operons.

Fifth of all, a company, Bioltec, has a system which was tested by BIFA and showed a reduction of mutageneity in Ames tests. It took me a long time to find the link, and unfortunately the paper is in German, not a language I speak, however as with all scientific papers, the figures are rather easily comprehended by anyone versed in the field (http://www.bioltec.de/pdf/zu_news_070726.pdf)

My concern with this BIFA report, ironically, is that BIFA is not a university, and this report is not in the literature - not peer reviewed. It is sort of the inverse of an oil company's hired research firm. So until someone tests the bioltec system independently, it is suspect.

I am personally interested in their system, and wrote an email in broken German to see if they have an English-speaking agent I can deal with.

All that said, this paper should be taken seriously, and any sort of a priori notions that vegetable oil, because it comes from vegetables, cannot do harm - well, sorry. All the oil in the ground came from dinosaurs and microbes in the ocean (diatoms), albeit from deep in the mother earth. It all comes down to what we're doing with it.

http://www.ufop.de/downloads/LFV-2007-4-Munack.pdf is a link to another study by one of the authors indicating particular problems with rapeseed oil's boiling point charecteristics = flat curve, thus problems with combustion.

"When comparing diesel fuel (DF) with RME, the disad-
vantage of RME becomes obvious: RME has almost one
boiling point, not a well rising boiling curve. An increas-
ing boiling curve is beneficial for a good fuel ignition and
combustion in the cylinder. Therefore RME may not be
considered as an optimal prospective fuel."