Detaillierte Frage: Audi A6 2.0 TDI + Biodiesel | Posts 32+

Why should I look in the mirror just because the Biodiesel (BD) price is based on the price of diesel, according to the laws of the market economy?

because the price of biodiesel is not linked to the price of mineral oil.

And even though there's still cheap biodiesel in the tank, the landlord is shamelessly increasing the biodiesel price by 6 cents because the diesel price is also currently rising.
What's the difference between that and exploitation? I would try to increase my profits through higher sales.
Having more customers at the gas pump generally leads to more revenue. And if you factor in the occasional purchases made in the shop as well...

'Because this gas station is often slightly behind in updating its prices, it's sometimes not only more expensive than the brand-name gas stations, but even the biodiesel sometimes costs MORE than the regular diesel at the brand-name stations!'

Incidentally, biodiesel would be more expensive than mineral diesel.

CU Gremlin.

ulf wrote:

-> The average driver = workshop customer (rather than an IhBäh buyer and DIY enthusiast) would still pay more, even with a 15% price difference and a 100% reserve.

It's important to remember that PD elements are also subject to natural wear and tear. The reserve should therefore not be intended to cover the entire "damage," but rather to mitigate "premature" failure.

But you're probably right that this won't be sustainable in the long run.
"Therefore, if someone doesn't plan to drive their car for more than 100,000 kilometers, they can forgo the reserve funds and leave the hassle of dealing with potential issues to the next owner."


By the way, I think the new EU standard for Biodiesel will eliminate most of the problems related to fuel. Genuine Biodiesel damage should become much less common with this standard.
The only thing that's still giving me a headache is the potential water content of the broth.

Bertil wrote:

Therefore, anyone who doesn't want to drive their car for more than 100,000 km can forgo these reserves and leave the hassle to the next buyer.

So, a quality feature like "no BD incidents" could be included in used product listings.

Practically any provider can, without much hesitation, claim something like "long-distance vehicle" , because it is difficult to verify.

Gremlin wrote:

The "biodiesel kit" mainly includes a fuel sensor that informs the EDC about the most basic properties of the current fuel (viscosity, etc.). This allows the EDC to at least adjust its parameters so that nothing goes completely wrong (e.g., correction of injection timing and amount)

Ah, there was a post on that topic after all. :)Sorry, I completely missed it, and thank you for that. Is that confirmed information, or do you mean that it COULD be the new VAG biodiesel kit?

Gremlin wrote:

Nero24 wrote: Why should I look in the mirror just because the BD price is based on the diesel price, according to the laws of the market economy? because the price of biodiesel is not linked to the price of mineral oil...

Well, not exactly, but supply and demand determine the price, and...

Gremlin wrote:

I would try to increase profits by increasing sales...

...and you wouldn't do that either, because as a gas station owner, you would make sure to maximize your profits. If that means selling gasoline for 10-15 cents per liter less than diesel, then you would do that too . Gas station owners aren't stupid. They make sure that they get the most profit.

Gremlin wrote:

BD would, incidentally, cost more to tax than mineral diesel....

Yes, that makes sense. A ton of rapeseed oil currently costs 490 EUR for wholesale (source). Converted (density: 0.92 kg/l) to a barrel, rapeseed oil costs 84 EUR or 113 dollars, while crude oil currently costs less than 40 dollars (source), so it's practically only a third of the price. Therefore, it's logical that biodiesel, when subject to mineral oil taxes, would cost more than diesel.

Oh, and one more thing: a liter of rapeseed oil costs 53 cents net at the stock exchange, which translates to 61 cents gross. Biodiesel, on the other hand, costs 81 cents at the gas station. The 20-cent difference already includes the transesterification process, the methanol, the transportation costs, the equipment, and the margins for intermediaries and gas station owners. Therefore, the claim that the price of biodiesel is completely unrealistic and is being funded by some environmental lobby is completely unfounded.

And once again: Biodiesel and rapeseed oil are not mineral oils! So why should they be subject to a mineral oil tax?

Hi Dirk,

Regarding lubrication, the viscosity was considered. When comparing the standards for diesel and biodiesel (BD), the difference in viscosity is minimal.
Diesel: 2.0 - 4.5 mm²/s.
BD 3.5 - 5.0 mm²/s
PÖL - 38 mm²/s

Is the viscosity of a substance truly equivalent to its lubricating properties?
The fact is, I've had to completely replace several common rail systems (because the pump was damaged) due to biodiesel being used. Some of these systems were even approved for biodiesel. I believe the problem is that biodiesel often isn't completely free of water. It might be okay right at the pump, but what about when it's been sitting in the tank for a while?
Now, the connection to "Pumpe Düse" (a specific type of fuel injection system).
If, due to water or insufficient lubrication, the lubricating film breaks down under these manufacturing tolerances and pressures, the entire system is compromised.

Nero24 wrote:

Biodiesel and rapeseed oil are not mineral oils! So why should they be subject to a mineral oil tax?

In German tax law, anything is possible .
Okay, gib mir den deutschen Text, den du übersetzt haben möchtest.
-> Avoiding heating oil tax is illegal, even though the state would still collect taxes on it.
-> It is allowed to refuel abroad, although (from a German perspective) it constitutes 100% tax evasion.

Subject:
If BD were actually suitable as a complete replacement for DinoDiesel and were available in sufficient quantities: Do you really believe that the state would tolerate such widespread, legal tax evasion by (almost) all diesel drivers for a long time?

Then, for example, the mineral oil tax could be renamed "tax on fuels and energy sources," and that would eliminate the tax-related competitive disadvantages (to avoid using the word "subsidies") of biodiesel compared to conventional diesel.

ulf wrote:

If BD were actually suitable as a complete replacement for diesel and available in sufficient quantities: Do you really believe that the state would tolerate such widespread legal tax evasion by (almost) all diesel drivers for long?

No, of course not. Where did I claim that? The state would simply invent another tax to get its share, which is perfectly logical. The state always finds some way to tax something popular and profit from it. My point was about the concept of a subsidy in relation to the current mineral oil tax, which, in my opinion, is not justified for fuels that are not produced from mineral oils.

Furthermore, I'm surprised that there seems to be a unanimous opinion here that an alternative fuel must, in every case, be cheaper than regular "dino" diesel. I'm honestly surprised. Shell, for example, immediately gained a 5 percent market share with its outrageously expensive V-Power. Promise people more performance and package it in attractive advertisements, and they will throw money at you. However, apparently, no one is willing to dig deeper into their pockets for the sake of environmental protection (renewable resources) and long-term economic benefits (independence from oil prices). It's somehow perverse . Well, sooner or later, we will all have to pay the price. Hopefully, it will then become clear to everyone that electricity doesn't come from the wall socket and diesel doesn't come from the gas pump .

promethaeus wrote:

Regarding lubrication, the viscosity was discussed. When considering the standards for diesel and BD, the viscosity difference is minimal.

The difference between 4.5 and 5.0 is already 10% (in the worst case).
I wouldn't describe that difference as being *that* minimal.

Quote:

Is the viscosity of a substance truly equivalent to its lubricating properties?

It's complicated. More likely no, at least not directly.
Diesel systems are lubricated by oil that leaks past certain components (as a designed feature). If you use a lubricant with a lower viscosity, the amount of oil leakage will decrease, but this will severely compromise the lubrication due to the lack of lubricant.
Unfortunately, I'm not a hydrodynamicist, and I can't express the relationships involved in formulas or numbers. That would be quite interesting.

Quote:

The fact is that I've had to completely replace several common rail systems (because the pump was damaged) due to biodiesel being used. Some of these systems were even approved for biodiesel. I believe the problem is that biodiesel often isn't completely free of water. It might be okay at the pump, but what about when it's been sitting in the tank for a while? Now, the connection to "Pumpe Düse" (a specific type of fuel injection system). If, due to these manufacturing tolerances and pressures, the lubricating film breaks down because of water or insufficient lubrication, then the thing is ruined.

My speech. The (allowed) water content in the BD is extremely high!
However, I wouldn't call it a lubricating film.
As far as I understand, the key operating criterion also includes the cold start. Once the engine has started and reached its operating temperature, lubrication is no longer a problem. Therefore, I would also make the use of biodiesel dependent on the driving profile.

Quote:

Oh, and one more thing: a liter of rapeseed oil costs 53 cents net on the stock exchange. That makes 61 cents gross. Biodiesel, on the other hand, costs 81 cents at the gas station. The 20-cent difference already includes the transesterification process, the methanol, the transportation, the facilities, and the margins for intermediaries and gas station owners. Therefore, the claim that the price of biodiesel is completely unrealistic and is being sponsored by some environmental lobby is completely unfounded.

I can't just let this go. Not so long ago, Aldi used to sell 1-liter bottles of vegetable oil for 69 Pfennig. Not cents! And the supermarket certainly wasn't losing money on that.
The significant price difference has to exist somewhere.

Nero24 wrote:

Then hopefully it will become clear to everyone that electricity doesn't just... appear

in the socket.

Okay, then you should think about where you're going to get the 11 MJ/liter of energy required for the production of biodiesel. For diesel, this value is only half that!

Furthermore, the pollutant values for BD are not exactly amazing. I certainly won't spend more money because of the worse NOx values I achieve with BD (and thus significantly burden the environment... up to 12% with DI engines!"). I'll also forgo the 10% lower HC and CO2 values, which I completely negate due to the greater energy requirements during production.

Where's your ecological thinking in all of this?
You're just shifting the real problem!


The solution can only be a pure, natural product. Specifically, pure plant oil.
However, this would require modifications to the engines used.

@Bertil
First of all, thank you for your detailed answers.

What kind of corrosive liquid must that be?
Will this damage my injection equipment?
Please don't make the mistake of equating solvents with corrosive substances. BD (Biodiesel) doesn't corrode; it dissolves. For example, conventional paint is attacked by biodiesel because the biodiesel acts as a solvent. The relatively sensitive, water-soluble paint, like the one used by VW today, is not dissolved or attacked by BD. There's no sign of corrosiveness. If biodiesel were produced under hygienic conditions and without additives, it could even be consumed (although only in moderation, otherwise you might end up drinking it in the bathroom, just like with vegetable oil).

In this context, I even wonder what kind of substance mineral oil diesel is, that it can form deposits in the tank that can dissolve the BD (biodiesel).


Bzgl. Power loss:
'I'm also noticing the loss of power. However, the engine, specifically in the torque curve between 1,200 and 1,900 RPM (Alhambra 85kW AUY), runs much more smoothly. In my opinion, the car has a significantly smaller power dip with direct injection (BD) in the range of 1,200 to approximately 1,700 RPM compared to with manifold injection (MD).'
I cannot confirm increased fuel consumption. My records provide no indication of this. However, these observations could be explained by the higher oxygen content of BD, and possibly another property that I can't recall at the moment. It's also important to note that this behavior varies depending on the engine.


@Rainer K

I can name two gas stations in Berlin where the price difference is more than 15 cents per liter. They usually don't increase their prices.

@promethaeus

I specified the viscosity in relation to lubrication because another user had mentioned the supposedly 'higher viscosity' as an argument for an 80% reduction in lubrication due to 'leakage' (I can't quite recall the exact term now). Of course, other properties are also important for lubrication.

Of course, the protective film (PD) will be gone if the lubricating film breaks down. However, I also believe that if the standards are followed, this will not happen. For example, there's a long-standing member on the forum www.sgaf.de who is already on his 7th Alhambra and runs it almost exclusively and without problems with BD (including multiple PD systems). The current car also has about 90,000 km on the odometer.

@all

Whether this constitutes a subsidy or not is, of course, a matter of perspective. The fact is that the government promotes various alternatives through tax exemptions. However, this is not a problem specific to biodiesel, but also applies to other fuels such as petrol, natural gas, liquefied gas, and others.

Here's my opinion again: There is currently no alternative that is completely without drawbacks. None of these alternatives is perfect. However, I refuse to wait any longer, and I would rather start doing something now than wait 10 years.
Regards,

Dirk.

Rainer K. wrote:

I can't just let that stand. Not so long ago, Aldi had 1-liter bottles of salad oil for 69 Pfennigs. Not cents! And the supermarket certainly didn't lose money on that. The significant price difference has to exist somewhere.

Yes, back then. Then take a look at the price development of rapeseed oil from Olmühle alone in the year 2001:
http://www.wtb-hannover.de/content/maerkte/charts/charts.php?b25&de&produkt=6&bild=ROX01&type=_LIN&zeit=gesamt
...and then we'll talk again .
Brauchst meine Werte ja nur nachzurechnen, wenn Du sie trotz Quellenangabe und Rechenweg nicht glaubst. Nimm den aktuellen Preis für ne Tonne Rapsöl ab Mühle (kannst Du bei meiner Quelle oben bequem nachrecherchieren), rechne den Tonnenpreis auf den Liter um und schon hast Du den aktuellen Großabnehmerpreis für Rapsöl netto, wenn Du ein paar LKW-Ladungen davon einkaufst. Das s$0.53 net.

Bertil wrote:

Okay, then think about where you're going to get the 11 MJ/liter of manufacturing energy for biodiesel from. For diesel, that value is only half that!

No, I understand. We'd rather put a multiple of that energy into producing a fraction of the so-called wonderful, all-problem-solving future energy carrier, hydrogen, or? Or we simply do nothing and enjoy diesel until it's all gone. That's the most convenient option. As long as the energy content of biodiesel is significantly greater than what's needed for its production, it's not a problem where the energy comes from. If necessary, from the rapeseed oil itself, just like the energy for producing (transporting/refining) diesel comes from crude oil itself.

Bertil wrote:

Furthermore, the pollutant values for BD are not exactly amazing. I certainly won't spend more money because of the worse NOx values I achieve with BD (and thus significantly burden the environment... up to 12% with DI engines!"). I'll also forgo the 10% lower HC and CO2 values, which I immediately negate with the greater energy demand during production.

You conveniently gloss over the 52% less soot, just like the 24 percent fewer particles, don't you, ? And the carbon footprint of biodiesel is also significantly better than that of diesel, even considering production: Carbon footprint kg CO2eq/l 0.909 (BD) vs. 3.368 (Diesel).

Bertil wrote:

The solution can only be a pure, natural product. Specifically, pure plant oil. To achieve this, however, the engines used would need to be modified.

Of course, the energy balance of pure vegetable oil would be better. But how can a completely natural fuel gain acceptance when it requires numerous hardware changes, especially when even the compromise of biodiesel has so little acceptance? Or, put another way: who will force the mountain to become a prophet, when it is already so difficult to entice the prophet to the mountain?

@Bertil
Well, then you should think about where you're going to get the 11 MJ/liter of manufacturing energy for biodiesel from. For diesel, this value is only half that! }
Here's a possible translation:

'Let me answer that question: What about biodiesel? Since the energy balance is very positive (it needs to be greater than 1:2), you could burn biodiesel, for example, in a combined heat and power plant, and have the necessary energy for production. You would only need to initiate the production process once. Then, you wouldn't need any conventional energy suppliers anymore. You could also use the rapeseed plant residue as an energy source.'
Just calculate it!

Then the carbon footprint would be such that a complete closed loop is created. The entire energy supply would come from the sun, and only as much CO2 would be produced as the rapeseed plant absorbs during its growth.

Just a note: The energy expenditure for mineral oil diesel is not lower than that for biodiesel. In all calculations, the error is made of not considering the 'energy expenditure' for the formation of crude oil over millions of years. Crude oil did not arise spontaneously. It's not as if, for example, I could harvest plants today and leave them in a test tube for a few million years and then have crude oil.

Best regards,

Dirk.

Dirk_S wrote:

Just as a note: The energy expenditure for mineral oil diesel is not less than that for biodiesel. In all calculations, the mistake is made of not considering the "expended" energy for the formation of crude oil over the past millions of years.

That's a good argument, which I had completely forgotten to mention. Because the energy expenditure for the production of biodiesel includes everything, not just the transesterification. So, seed, fertilization, harvesting, transport, etc. In addition, when creating the balance sheets, it is always assumed that the energy required for this comes from non-renewable sources. For example, if the farmer fills his tractor with biodiesel to harvest the rapeseed, the numbers no longer add up.

All of this is simply omitted in the case of diesel, since crude oil is already available }. Here, only the amount of energy required from the oil field for production is specified, which is incorrect for a complete energy balance.

@Nero24

Audi or VW, as mentioned earlier, have their reasons, which may not be understandable to you. I would suggest, briefly, that you buy an A6, equip it with a BD (presumably a performance upgrade), and report regularly on your experiences here!

hi,

Here's something about "CO2-neutral combustion."

This statement is actually complete nonsense!
In nature, there is only one source of CO2... and that is living organisms!
Everything else is additional stress caused by combustion (of any kind).
Burning rapeseed oil is a short-sighted way to view the carbon footprint.
To put things into perspective, I'm going to elaborate a bit further:
How did oil and coal form?
"Fossil fuels are derived from dead plants that have 'matured' into them through various external influences. Therefore, I can argue that burning fossil fuels is as CO2-neutral as burning rapeseed, because the CO2 was simply stored in the ground for thousands of years."
If I remove these plants before they initiate this process, then no new fossil fuels will be formed.
That's exactly what I'm doing with the rap.
I can just as easily reverse the narrative about carbon neutrality if I consider a longer timeframe than just the next two or three generations.

Quote:

All of this is simply omitted in the case of diesel, since crude oil is already available. Here, only the amount of energy required from the oil field for production is specified, which is incorrect for a complete energy balance.

The fertilizers needed for growing rapeseed are also not included... so your comparison is flawed. The formation of crude oil is just as natural a process as the growth of plants.
At BD, the energy consumption is only recorded from the "Rapsfeld" location onwards.

Quote:

You conveniently omit the fact that it produces 52% less soot, just as you conveniently omit the 24% less particulate matter.

I don't need to hide these things.

Unfortunately, the use of biodiesel (BD) in modern gasoline (PD) and diesel (CR) engines leads to a significant increase in particulate emissions. Biodiesel is not easily atomized, which causes the particles to increase again (this is also a reason for the withdrawn approval of biodiesel).

By the way, the BD comparison mentions a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions. However, if I consume 5-10% more fuel, this advantage is largely negated.


If you were to tune the engine to run on BD (Biodiesel), the whole thing would probably look much better, but "compromise solutions" offer no advantages for the environmental balance (at least not in the long run).