KDF Search Results

The compatibility of plastic materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for an off-highway diesel fuel
and a blend containing 20% bio-oil (Bio20) derived from a fast pyrolysis process. Bio20 is not to be confused with B20, which is a
diesel blend containing 20% biodiesel. The feedstock, processing, and chemistry of biodiesel are markedly different from bio-oil.
Plastic materials included those identified for use as seals, coatings, piping and fiberglass resins, but many are also used in vehicle

The compatibility of plastic materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for a test fuel representing
gasoline blended with 10% ethanol. Prior investigations were performed on gasoline fuels containing 25, 50 and 85% ethanol, but the
knowledge gap existing from 0 to 25% ethanol precluded accurate compatibility assessment of low level blends, especially for the
current E10 fuel (gasoline containing 10% ethanol) used in most filling stations, and the recently accepted E15 fuel blend (gasoline
blended with up to15% ethanol).

The compatibility of plastic materials used in fuel storage and dispensing applications was determined for test fuels representing gasoline blended with 25 vol.% ethanol and gasoline blended with 16 and 24 vol.% isobutanol. Plastic materials included those used in flexible plastic piping and fiberglass resins. Other commonly used plastic materials were also evaluated. The plastic specimens were exposed to Fuel C, CE25a, CiBu16a, and CiBu24a for 16 weeks at 60oC.

The Biomass Program is one of the nine technology development programs within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This 2011 Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP) sets forth the goals and structure of the Biomass Program. It identifies the research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) activities the Program will focus on over the next five years, and outlines why these activities are important to meeting the energy and sustainability challenges facing the nation.

A dry-grind ethanol from corn process analysis is performed. After defining a complete model of the process, a pinch technology analysis is carried out to optimise energy and water demands. The so-defined base case is then discussed in terms of production costs and process profitability. A detailed sensitivity analysis on the most important process and financial variables is carried out. The possibility to adopt different alternatives for heat and power generation combined to the process is evaluated.

In the last decade biofuel production has been driven by governmental policies. This article reviews the national strategy plans of the world’s leading producers. Particular attention is dedicated to blending targets, support schemes and feedstock use. Individual country profiles are grouped by continent and include North America (Canada and the US), South America (Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia), Europe (the European Union, France, and Germany), Asia (China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand) and Australia.

The important key technologies required for the successful biological conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol have been extensively reviewed. The biological process of ethanol fuel production utilizing lignocellulose as substrate requires: (1) delignification to liberate cellulose and hemicellulose from their complex with lignin, (2) depolymerization of the carbohydrate polymers (cellulose and hemicellulose) to produce free sugars, and (3) fermentation of mixed hexose and pentose sugars to produce ethanol.

Enhanced environmental quality, fuel security, and economic development along with reduced prices of ethanol-gasoline blends are often used as justifications for the U.S. federal excise tax exemption on ethanol fuels. However, the possible effect of increased overall consumption of fuel in response to lower total price, mitigating the environmental and fuel security benefits, are generally not considered. Taking this price response into account, the optimal U.S. ethanol subsidy is derived.