FINAL REPORT

on the

Twin CitiesBiodiesel Pickup Truck Demonstration

Being Conducted Under’theEnergy Policy Act

submitted by Kelly C. StrebigFebruary 25,1997

1 INTRODUCTION 1

The Energy Policy Act (EPACT) requires Federal agencies to purchase specific quantities ofalternatively fueled vehicles. The EPACT lists neat (100%) biodiesel as an approved alternativefuel.

Biodiesel has the advantage over other alternative fuels as it does not require any enginemodifications or any special equipment for refueling. The use of biodiesel allows use of unalteredproduction line diesel pickups and vans, thus not increasing the vehicle purchase price and notdecreasing the resale value of the vehicles. The fuel used is renewable and can be domesticallyproduced from any plant or animal oil feedstocks, such as soybeans, and has the potential toreduce emissions.

The United States Bureau of Mines conducted research on biodiesel fuel made from esterifiedsoybean oil for use in the underground mining industry and found biodiesel fuel to reduceparticulate emissions over 70 percent both in the laboratory and in underground mines.(reference SAE Paper 950400 Emission Characteristics of Soy Methyl Ester Fuels in an ID1Compression Ignition Engine, J. F. McDonald, D. L. Purcell, B. T. McClure , and D. B.Kittelson, 1995) From the outcome of the above mentioned research and knowing therequirement of EPACT, Bureau personnel suggested to the Department of Interior AlternativeFuels Coordinator, that a biodiesel demonstration be conducted in the Twin Cities.

A joint effort was undertaken between the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy,GSA and the MN Soybean Growers Association. GSA provided six diesel powered trucks andthree gasoline powered trucks. The gasoline trucks were used as a baseline. DOE paid GSA forthe differential cost between the normal base model gasoline pickup and the diesel trucks used inthis demonstration. DOE, through its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), providedfunding for the data collection and summarization of the results of this demonstration. Theyalso provided program guidance and coordination. The Minnesota Soybean Growers Associationprovided the methyl soyate and the storage/refueling tank.

This demonstration project was conducted to study the feasibility of using a biodiesel blend inunmodified, light-duty diesel engine pickup trucks. At the time this project started, the DOE hadnot defined biodiesel or biodiesel blends as an alternative fuel which could meet EPACTrequirements. In March 1996, DOE guidelines for meeting the Alternative Fuel TransportationProgram (10 CFR Part 490) only defined neat (100%) biodiesel as an alternative fuel. In spite ofthe fact that the biodiesel blend used in this project is not considered an alternative fuel underEPACT, the project did collect some valuable information. This light-duty vehicle biodiesel

1

demonstration sponsored in part by DOE was a 1 l/2 year demonstratton, starting June 1995 andending December 3, 1996. These dates were picked to cover two summer driving seasons, butonly one winter season, as Biodiesel would not be used during the coldest, often sub-zero monthsof mid December through March to avoid any potential stalling problems. Under the project, datawas collected on fuel usage and vehicle maintenance, and one emissions test was performed.

Test Vehicles

This demonstration used nine, 1995 Ford F250 heavy duty 2 wheel drive pickup trucks. Six werepowered with 7.3 L direct injection turbodiesel V-8's and three were powered by 5 L gasolineV -8’s.The nine vehicles were originally distributed to five different agencies and two militaryinstallations in Minnesota. During the course of this demonstration, GSA found it necessary tomove some of the vehicles to different agencies. Three of the six diesel pickup trucks wereoperated on a biodiesel blend (50 percent methyl soyate, and 50 percent number one petroleumdiesel). The other three diesels were operated on normal petroleum diesel fuel for comparisonpurposes.

All nine trucks used in this demonstration had consecutive license plate numbers, from G4358818to G4358826. For this demonstration and for reporting purposes the trucks are identified by aletter followed by 2 numbers, The letter indicates the fuel: D indicates diesel, B indicatesBiodiesel, and G indicates Gasoline. The two numbers are the last two numbers of the licenseplate number. For example, truck D20 was the truck fueled by Diesel fuel, with the license plate# G4358820.

See Table 1 for information on the vehicles’ locations and use.

Truck ID

G 24

G25

G 26

D 19

D21

B 18

El 22

B 23

TABLE 1 - VEHICLE LOCATION AND USE

Agency In -ServiceLocation

MileageTime Accumulatior

VA Hospital 5195-l l/96Minneapolis, MN 3,733

AMSA(military installation) 6/95-l l/96Duluth, MN 23,543

MN National Guard Surface Maintenance Office 6195-l l/96Little Falls, MN 53,214

USDA Forest Service

v i c e

6J95-121965,480

619s6196

8196- 12J9613,151

6/95-6/96

6/96-8/96 9,480

Bureau of MinesMinneapolis, MN

GSA-PBS, Federal BldgMinneapolis, MN

Bureau of MinesMinneapolis, MN

Bureau of ReclamationM i n n e a p o l i s , M N

5/95-2196

6196- 1 l/966,432

6/95-2196

2/96- 121965,617

GSA Fieet ManagementMinneapolis, MN

VA HospitalMinneapolis, MN

7195-1196

6/96-l l/966,463

,

Biodiesel Fuel

The fuel blend used was a blend of50 percent methyl soyate and number 1 diesel fuel. The 50/50blend was arrived at after negotiation between the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) and DOE.DOE originally desired a 70 percent ester blend and NBB felt a 20 or 30 percent blend was moreappropriate. .DOE agreed to allow a 50 percent blend for this demonstration.

Number 1 diesel fuel was used to achieve the viscosity of the blend similar to number 2 diesel fueland to lower the cloud point which improves cold weather performance. The similar viscositywould result in a similar injector spray pattern, thus minimizing droplet impingement on thecylinder walls and in turn minimizing oil dilution.

All methyl soyate used in this demonstration was obtained from Twin Rivers Technologies, Inc. atQuincy, MA. It was delivered in new plastic 55 gallon drums. It was pumped into the 550 gallonstorage/refueling tank with equal amounts of number 1 diesel fuel, and mixed by recirculating atleast twice the volume of fuel mixed each time a batch was blended,

The biodiesel refueling facility was a 550 gallon double wall storage/refueling tank with pump,meter, and automatic shut-off nozzle. It was originally located on Bureau of Mines property, butwhen the Bureau of Mines closed in early spring of 1996, the tank was moved to the Bureau ofReclamation at Building 20 1.

Biodiesel Fuel Analvsis

Fuel samples were taken from the batch of biodiesel fuel mixed in 1995 and from the lastbiodiesel fuel batch mixed in 1996. The sample of the blend was taken from the refueling nozzleimmediately after mixing the batch to ensure the sample was representative of the blend. Each fuelsample was analyzed to determine its properties.

In addition samples of the unblended methyl soyate were taken from the middle of one of thebarrels of each of these two shipments. All these samples were analyzed by Analysts MaintenanceLaboratories, Inc. of Hoffman Estates. IL. Fuel properties of interest are provided in Table 2.

In addition a sample was taken from each of the four barrels of methyl soyate delivered in fall of1996. These four samples were taken by Agricultural Utilization Research Insitute (AURI) ofMarshall Minnesota, after thoroughly mixing each drum with a barrel stirrer and then removing asample from the middle of each drum. These four samples were thoroughly analyzed forcomposition by AURI The average viscosity was 4.39 and the Cloud Point was 39 degrees F.Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix B

Lubrication Oil Analvsis

Efforts were made from the beginning of this demonstration to find a source of funding to coverthe cost of lubrication oil analysis. In the summer of 1996, the Univ of MO, under contract to theNational Biodiesel Board, had 14 oil samples analyzed. The samples were taken between Juneand October 1996 and analyzed at Cleveland Technical Center, Kansas City, KS. Only the truckslocated in the Twin Cities area were sampled. Review of the data shows no significant differencein the oil between the petroleum fueled and biodiesel fueled trucks. (see Table 3)

One exception was the oil samples from petroleum diesel D19. The first sample taken in Juneshowed a high level of copper, at 103 ppm. This lead to an investigation that found that truckD19 had missed its last scheduled oil change. Even after having its oil change, its copper was upto 44 ppm within 215 miles. In late winter of 1996 this truck was accidentally refueled withgasoline, but was only driven at low speeds for a few miles before that mistake was realized andcorrected. This should not have damaged the bearings, as the high copper levels would indicate.

6

Maintenance and Repairs

All trucks received preventative maintenance as prescribed by Ford. The trucks that did notaccumulate many miles tended to have their oil changed on a time basis (about every five months),instead of on a mileage basis. It was very difficult to track most repairs since the trucks wereunder warranty during the demonstration and there were no charges for repairs. Some drivers ofGSA vehicles do not report warranty work and GSA does not have an up-to-date warrantyrepair tracking system. The only two repairs we are aware of are a repair of a shift lever in one ofthe gasoline-fueled trucks and the replacement of a fuel pump on one of the biodiesel-fueledtrucks.

Truck/Fuels Use

All nine trucks had bumper stickers identifying them as being part of a DOE alternative fueldemonstration and the three Biodiesels had rear window stickers that explained they were fueledwith 50 percent biodiesel made from soy bean oil. All trucks had a clip board inside with a notethat explained the demonstration and a supply of data record sheets. A sample data sheet isprovided in Aooendix D.

The nine 1995 Ford Heavy Duty two-wheel drive F250 trucks were delivered to GSA in June1995. GSA distributed the trucks to the participants in July. Because of delays in getting therefueling tank delivered, all nine vehicles were initially operated on petroleum fuel.

On August 4, 1995, the biodiesel refueling tank was put into operation with the biodiesel blend.From August 4, 1995 until December 18, 390 gallons of biodiesel were used in the three pickuptrucks. Two trucks were kept parked outdoors, and one truck was parked in an indoor heatedgarage. The drivers of the two outdoor trucks were instructed to suspend refueling withbiodiesel from November 1, 1995 to Spring 1996. Biodiesel refueling was suspended during thewinter to avoid starting and stalling problems during the extreme cold weather. The third truckwas refueled for the last time with biodiesel on December 18, 1995 and continued to operate onbiodiesel into February 1996.

In spring of 1996 the refueling rig was moved to the Bureau of Reclamation at Building 201. OnApril 17, 1996 the first batch of biodiesel blend fuel for the second year was mixed. It consistedof over 100 gallons of blend left over from 1995 added to a new batch mixed using methyl soyatewhich was left over from 1995. Careful inspection of both the barrels of blend and methyl soyaterevealed a high viscocity discolored material on the bottom of all barrels that were stored outsideover the winter. To prevent this material from getting into the storage/refueling tank, the materialwas carefully pumped from the barrels leaving the bottom 5 gallons undisturbed. This procedureis only required on fuel that has been exposed to freezing temperatures as they cause thecomponents of the methyl soyate to separate

The trucks began using biodiesel for 1996 and a total of 394 gallons of Biodiesel were used in1996. Refueling with biodiesel was continued through the end of this study in December 1996.The nine trucks accumulated a total of 127,113 miles during this demonstration.

Vehicle Performance Report

The demonstration has proceeded with no major vehicle operation difficulties. The mileage andusage of the nine trucks varied significantly. One gasoline-powered truck accumulated 53,214miles while another accumulated only 3,733 miles. The highest mileage diesel truck has 13,151miles and the biodiesel-fireled trucks accumulated from 5,617 to 6,432 miles.

One of the biodiesel-fireled trucks has started at temperatures of five degrees F without the use ofits engine block heater. At these temperatures the trucks tend to run rough for the first fewminutes. The combination of the blend using number one diesel resulted in a cloud point of 15degrees F and pour point of minus 10 degrees F. In addition, the Ford fuel filter heater systemhas allowed the trucks to run at subzero temperatures.

In January of 1996 a biodiesel-fueled truck was accidentally left outside in minus ten degreetemperatures overnight without its block heater plugged in. It did not start immediately but afterthe engine block heater was plugged in for less than one hour, the truck started and ran fine.

Over a period of days in November 1996 one of the biodiesel-fueled trucks would not start attemperatures around 20 degrees F. The vehicle would not start unless the block heater wasused. However, it was felt this problem was due to low state of charge in the batteries, but thiswas never substantiated during the demonstration.

Fuel Consumption/Mileage

The GSA data base, credit card receipts, the weekly biodiesel tank readings and the drivers’ datasheets have provided data to evaluate the fuel consumption data. Table 4 is a summary of thisdata. Because of the changes in the use of the trucks, their average fuel consumption is dividedinto three sections - 1995, 1996, and the total demonstration. Comparison of fuel consumption inthis type of demonstration can be misleading unless one looks very carefully at each truck’sspecific use.

TABLE 4 - FUEL CONSUMPTlON in miles per gallon

Truck 1995 1996 Average mpg for entire

G 2 6 12.0 14.1 13.3

gas average 11.8 12.5 :. 12.3~ : ‘ i .:

Dl9 -_ 1 9 . 1

1

The data in Table 4 must be analvzed keeping in mind the varied use of the trucks. Two of thegasoline trucks had the best conditions for high milage, thus biasing the gasoline milage to thehigh side. Trucks G25 and G26 (gasoline) were used only on the highway and thus had verygood fuel milage. G24 was used only on the grounds of the VA Hospital and thus had very poormilage. All the biodiesel trucks were kept in town to enable maximum use of biodiesel fuel andwere used only for short trips which biased their milage to the low side.

It is also believed that the biodiesel refueling tank meter read ten percent higher than the actualamount dispensed. The reasons for this are 1) both years the total taken out of the tank plus theremaining fire1 was about ten percent greater than the amount of fuel mixed, and 2) when theremainins fuel left in 1995 was pumped into Sj gallon drums, the meter read 60 gallons. Thus itis believed that the biodiesel trucks actually obtained better fuel milage than is shown in Table 4.

The 1996 tire1 economy calculations for truck D19 have been excluded from Table 4. It wasdecided to not included a value for this vehicle in 1996 because too many fire1 and mileage recordswere not available. This vehicle was used on the highway in 1995 and used for both highwaydriving and short trips in 1996. Truck D20 was used on the grounds of the VA Hospital in 1995and on the highway in 1996, therefore its mei milage increased greatly. Truck D21 was used intown in 1995 and in 1996 it was used some on the highway.

Truck B18 (biodiesel) was used in town both years, but Its use did change. Truck B22 was usedin town both years, but in 1996 it was for shorter trips in town. Truck B23 was used in town,with a lot of freeway driving in 1995 and in 1996 it was used only on the grounds of the VA.Thus its fuel mileage decreased.

Truck D20 (diesel) in 1995 and Truck B23 (biodiesel) in 1996 saw similar types of drivingconditions and use. Table 4 indicates that their fuel mileage results were also similar. However,when the tire1 meter correction is taken into consideration, the biodiesel truck mileage was betterthan the diesel mileage. Also, Truck D21 (diesel) in 1995 and Truck B18 (biodiesel) in 1996 sawsimilar driving conditions, and the fuel mileage results show a better mileage for the biodieseltruck.

Data Recording

A major problem has been getting the drivers to record the amount of fuel used and the odometerreading when they refuel. The GSA computerized fuel tracking system that promised to alleviatethis problem is still not operational. A fall-back system of obtaining refueling data from the creditcard receipts has been very time consuming to use and is not 100% complete for ail the trucksbecause some of the receipts are lost or misplaced before we can analyze them.

Emissions Testing

NREL paid for emission testing on one of the biodiese! trucks in May 1996. They tested fivefuel/blends - 100 percent petroleum diesel, 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent methyl soyate. Theemission testing contract was to Automotive Testing Laboratories in East Liberty, Ohio.Because ATL was not able to test diesels they subcontracted the testing to GRTECH inCanada

Results of this testing showed no major difference in any of the tIreI blend ratios. See figures inAupendix E. However, this does not agree with other research conducted on heavy duty engineswhich has clearly shown a difference in emissions with different blend ratios. Emission testingdone by FEV of a similar 7.3 L turbo diesel engine, exhibited changes with diierent blend ratios.(reference SAE paper 950054 Emission and Performance Characteristics of a Four Stroke DirectInjected Diesel Engine Fueled with Blends of Biodiesel and Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel, by R.J. Last,M. Krueger, and M Duemhoiz.) A possible explanation of why ORTECH did not observe asignificant difference in emissions or even a trend with the di@erent blend ratios could be due toan inadequate amount of time that was spent conditioning the engine and exhaust system betweentests. This would tend to cause all the data to be averaged together and thus disguise anydifferences,

10

Drivers Imorewons

All the drivers liked the diesel powered trucks. There have been a few comments on the highernoise level of the diesels and everyone likes the high power and brisk acceleration. Commentslike “It’s faster than our 454 four-wheel drive Chevy and faster than my F150 with gasoline V8,”are typical of drivers’ feelings towards the diesel trucks. The drivers of the biodiesel-fueled truckssaid there was no visible smoke and there was very little odor compared to petroleum-fueleddiesels. One minor problem with all diesel trucks is their high torque combined with two-wheeldrive, which makes them a challenge to drive on icy roads.

In the future, it might be best to place two-wheel drive diesel pickups in southern climates andplace only four-wheel drive pickups in northern climates. Diesel passenger vans might be fine innorthern climates because of their better rear weight distribution. It is aiso necessary to use thediesels’s engine block heater at temperatures below zero degrees, while the gasoline starts at sub-zero temperatures without assistance.

Although the drivers have not complained about a rough ride in the heavy duty F250s, Ipersonally think that any fiture purchase of diesel pick-up trucks should consider the regular halfton models for their softer ride and lower height.

At this point biodiesel appears to be a very viable alternative fitel. The biodiesel industry needs towork with DOE to arrive at a reasonable blend ratio that is acceptable to DOE yet is economicalfor the consumers. The biodiesel industry feels that considering the total energy offset in theproduction and consumption of biodiesel, a blend as low as 20 percent is correct. As of late 1996,DOE will only approve a 100 percent methyl ester biodiesel for use under further EPACT. Thisdemonstration has shown that a 50 percent blend is workable in diesel pickup trucks. Issuesinclude cold weather operation of vehicles fueled with biodiesel, and the cost of the fuel.

The future use of biodiesel under the EPACT depends on DOE approving a reasonable blend.The blend ratio must be low enough to allow biodiesel to be economical and practical to use. It isunlikely that the engine manufacturer would ever warrantee their diesel engines on 100 percentesters. Economically it is di&ult for biodiesel to compete with ethanol, with its govemmenisubsidy, especially if biodiesel is required at high blend ratios by DOE. If a blend ratio can beestablished by DOE that takes into consideration the true petroleum offset offered by biodiesel ascompared to the other fuels. biodiesel can then be economically competitive on a cost per gallonbasis.

11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This demonstration project has been made possible through the support andcooperation of a large number of people. Individuals key to the formation and approvalof this demonstration were Bob Jarcho of the Department of Interior, John Garbach ofDOE, Grant Jahr of GSA, and Tom Betlock of GSA Fleet management. Throughoutthe demonstration, Page Lindom and Roman Meyer of Fleet Management providedvaluable infomation and assistance as did Scott Benson of GSA.

At each agency where the vehicles were placed for this demonstration, there was atleast one key individual who provided invaluable assistance by coordinating vehicleuse, insuring that the data sheets were filled out, or collecting and forwarding the datasheets. These individuals were:

Jerry Manders:Mary Beth Wacek:Beverly Head:Kevin Pellow andLee Maxfield:Mike Gilbertson:Jerry Cooper:Sam Ritchey:Gene House:Roger Werner:Mary Hegna:

VA HospitalUSDA Forest ServiceIndian Health Service

Public Building ServicesBureau of MinesGSA-FMC Fort McCoyBureau of ReclamationVA HospitalAMSA-DuluthMN National Guard s~rf~e Maintenance ~~~~~~~~~~

A special thanks to Steve Swan of the Bureau of Reclamation for his cooperation inproviding a site for the refueling tank during 1996. Thank you also to all the vehicledrivers and administrative staff that assisted in this demonstration.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Analysis of methyl soyate, biodiesel blend, and diesel fuelanalyzed by Analysts Maintenance Laboratories, Hoffman Estates, ILL

Appendix B Analysis of Methyl Soyateanalyzed by Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, Marshall, MN

Appendix C Analysis of Lubrication Oilanalyzed by Cleveland Technical Center, Kansas City, KS(for University of MO)

Appendix D Sample Data Sheet

Appendix E Emission Testingby ORTECH, Canadafor Automotive Testing Laboratories, East Liberty, OH

0NULYfT::. W,INTENhNCE La&:?, I NC

2450 HASSELL ROHOHOFFIl&N E S T A T E ’ : . , I L hO 1’95

, 70:;: , E::1:4-,:37,

(G”O) 222-00-7,

rESTING P E R F O R M E D :

D6h - Distillatior,, rhg F- I n i t i a l Eoilirtg P t . Temp- E v a p o r a t e d - 5 X t e m p

- IO % t emp-’ 20 % t emp- 30 % t emp-. 40 % tsnp

- E v a p o r a t e d - 5 0 r t e m p- 60 % t n m p- 70 x t emp- E:o % t emp

- E v a p o r a t e d - 9 0 r t emp- 95 x t e m p

- End P o i n t - FBP t emp- RecovPry - x VOl- Residue - % vol- L o s s % “01

V i s c o s i t y 62 40’C. cst - 0445A P I G r a v i t y @ 60 ‘F - ~2~7C e t a n e Index (CdlC.) - 0976S p e c i f i c G r a v i t y @ 60’~ - ~129~;C l o u d P o i n t , ‘ F - 02500P o u r - P o i n t I ‘ F - DY7F l a s h P o i n t PtlCc, ‘ F - 093H e a t o f C o m b u s t i o n - D240G r o s s H e a t V a l u e , BTIJ/~I - ~240N e t H e a t Value. BTU/g1 - ~240G r o s s H e a t Value. BTU/lb - D240N e t H e a t Value, BTU/lb - 0240C a r b o n C o n t e n t , XwtC o p p e r - S t r i p Car-rosion - 0130- C o r r o s i o n H o u r s- Cot-r-oaion T e m p . ‘ F- C o r r o s i o n Numb-l--

Mfg. : OOES N O T A P P L YModel : -P O N o . JCC-4- 1424.5-01T i m e Or-1 Sys t ekn

MEASURED

49 u5 6 5.X:05 9 5605615h156.20A306306 3 56356 3 5

7523

4 . 22S.O4 4 . 4

0 es703 015

1 7.5

1 2 5 0 0 312lE:4,

I6922

1 A4947 7 . 1 1

02 1 2

1

Continued

Appendix A-2

Lab# : 9141 o.stccl 05..CCT-95

T E S T I N G P E R F O R M E D :

Hydraget, Col-8tarntI XwtS u l f u r Cot-,ter,t, ppm, - CC.120

tlECISURED

1 2 . 0 531A

R e s p e c t f u l l y !Submitted,

4ppendix A-3

1, S DEPARTIlEI(T OF T H E IPITEHI!,Rk ELLY STREE I GEUREA” O F N I N E S5 6 2 9 M I N N E H A H A A V E 2?IINNEAPOLIS MN 5 5 4 1 7

U n i t I D E P A C T EIODIESEL PU!?ample I D : BIODIESEL E L E N DUorks i te :T i me On F 18.1 i d

TE:iTI NG PERFORMED

DElb - Distillatian. Deg F- Initial Boiling Pt. Temp.- Evaparated - 5 X t emp

- 10 x t emp-. 2 0 % t enrp- 30 x t e m p- 40 % t emp

- E v a p o r a t e d - 5 0 % t emp- 60 % t emp- 70 * t e m p- 80 % t emp

- E v a p o r a t e d - 90 % t emp- 95 x t e m p

- E n d P o i n t - F B P t emp- Re~.o”~r\, - % VOl- Residue - % vol- L o s s % VOl

Viscosity @ 40'C. cSt - D445A P I Gravity G 60 ‘ F - 132.87Cetane I n d e x (Calc. 1 - 0976Specific Gravity Q 6O'F - D1ZYEC l o u d P o i n t , ‘ F - D2.500P o u r - P o i n t , ‘ F - D97F l a s h P o i n t PMCC, ‘F - *93H e a t o f Combustion - 0240G r o s s H e a t V a l u e , BTU/g1 - D24.0N e t H e a t Value, BTU/g1 - 0240G r o s s H e a t V a l u e , BTU/lb - D2’oNet H e a t Va1i.e.. ETU/lb - 0240Carbon Corntent , ‘nutCoppet- S t r i p Cot-r-osion - D1ZO- Cart-osior-1 H o u r s- Corrosion T e m p . ‘ F- Cart-osiot-c N u m b e r

Cant inued

L.ab Na.rn,brr- : ‘3142Loqqed D a t r os-oc-r-,+5:i.an,p 1 P Draw, - , :RePOTt Date : 2 1 -OCT-95Rrcor-d Rsf .# : 2 4 6 0 5 9

M f g . : D O E S . NOT A P P L YModel : -P O N o . : J C C - 4 - 1 4 2 4 - Z - 0 1T i m e Or-c :3ystem

MEASURED

3553854z54755 0 55 3 55706 0 56156 2 56 2 562562.5

9:s11

3 . 13 1 . 246.7

0 . 6 7 0 0200

170

1 3 1 0 0 0125551

,:30791 7 3 2 73 0 9 0

TO2 1 2

1

T E S T I N G P E R F O R M E D

RECOMMENDATION!: / COt~lMENT5

C o l d Filter- Pll.49 P o i n t , ‘ C - c:

SMIPLE :SUfPlITTECi A N D PHOCE:S:SED F O R T H E TEST D A T A (Ol4L‘s’)

R e s p e c t f u l l y S u b m i t t e d ,

TESTING PERFORMED :

Appendix A-5

2 . 0

212

Appendix A4

i:

Appcndis A-l

Appendix A-X

Appendix A-9

Appendix A-IO

Sheet1

Appendix B-2

Page:1

Appendix B-1

Agricultural Utilization Research Institutedo Southwest State University - Science and Technology Bldg. 107 - Marshall. MN 562.58 -507-537-7440 * Fax: 507-537-7441

December 12,1996

Mr. Kelly Strebig1421 Clemcnts StreetMendota Heights, MN 55118

Dear Kelly:

The analytical data related to the four (4) drum samples of biodiesel you had in storage areattached This material was targeted for use in the Diesel Truck Research you are conducting onbehalf of NBB Project # 219.

The samples were.obtaincd independently from each of the four using the following samplingprocedure. A high shear drum mixer with impeller was allowed to mix for five (5) minutes prior totaking each sample. After mixing, a siphon delivered the sample by gravity from the mid sectionof the.- into 16.01311~ glass containers The samples were returned to the AURI for analysis.ANALYSIS’ :-..

The mater& were analyzed using typical AOCS and ASTM methodologies designed to describethe physical and chemical propca-dcs rcqui& as bicdicsel fueL

The drum samples were consistent in composition and quality measurements (free fatty acid,methyl ester content, peroxide value, specific gmvity and fatty acid composition). The samplespossessed a minimum ,of 97% methyl ester including a minimum level of triglycerides. The fattyacid profile indicati t& fcedstcxzk used in preparing the methyl esters was likely a blend of oils,perhaps palm oil d soybee 03 (25:75).

The biodiesel fuel is satisfactory for use.

Sincerely,

Max E. Non-isSenior Scientist, Fats and Oils

MiPle

Serving Minnesota with regional offices in Waseca. Morris Marshall, and Crookst~nState Headquarters: P.O. Box 599. Crookston. MN 56716-0599 - 218-281-7600. Fax: 216-281-3759

I I

,

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

:-2

2

-

I

Appendix C-3

xx

-

”as

t:2

.?d

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

s

0-

-

sY;

8d

Appendix C-l

-Appendix C-5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

:

_I

1

-

Appendix C4

,

.

0

N

-

-

-

L

Appendix C-9

Appendix C-10

Appendix C-l I

”

2

F:

-

Appendix C-12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

02

z

-

Appendix C-13 ?

‘2Appendix C-14 r

E-Nd

2

04:

WEEK OF:~PPCrldl.\ r>

Alternative Motor Fuel Act (AMFA) -Weekly Report of Operational DataMinnesota

Veh. License Plate #: G Organization: Contact:

R.EFUELlNG I N F O R M A T I O N- --

Please Record Any Problem With Your Vehicle Operation Below With a Check Mark 1

VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY

Hard to Start

1.. I-

;Type of Fuel: G=Gasoline; D&tro[eum &sel.F~el; B=BioDies&f_u_jI

Appcndis E-,

RUG-2B-lST6 lE1:05 513 666 5351

AppendIs E-2

RLir-28-1996 18: 06 513 666 5391 96% P.03

:I-yc (D

3Appendix El

513 666 5391