Talk:Biodiesel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Allowance for CO2 uptake?

This may be a stupid question - but shouldn't there be some allowance for the CO2 uptake of the crops when calculating nett CO2 impact of biofuels?Barneyt2 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, and there is! thats why it's lower than for fossil fuels. --Apis O-tang (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Energy security

I intend to add as section on energy security as follows:

One of the main drivers for adoption of biodiesel is energy security. This means that a nations dependence on oil is reduced, and substituted with use of locally available sources, such as coal, gas or other renewable sources. Thus significant benefits can accrue to a country from adoption of biofuels, even without a reduction in greenhouse gas emmissiions. Whilst the total energy balance is debated, it is clear that the dependence on oil is reduced. One example is the energy used to manufacture fertilizers, which could come from a variety of sources other than petroleum. The the US NREL says that energy security is the number one driving force behind the US biofuels programme. and the White House "Energy Security for the 21st Century" makes clear that energy security is a major reason for promoting biodiesel. The EU commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, speaking at a recent EU biofuels conference, stressed that properly managed biofuels have the potential to reinforce the EU's security of supply through diversification of energy sources. Any comments / refinements before it goes in? Stainless316 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Energy security is definitely an important aspect! Noticed that you mentioned it in the new lead section as well. --Apis O-tang (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it had to be mentioned in the article if it were to be in the lead section. Altered phrasing slightly Stainless316 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It has gone in. Not sure about the placement - I think the environmental effect section needs a re-jig as discussed, and then maybe a re-ordering of the sections would make sense.Stainless316 (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Automobile Mileage Reporting

While not a direct edit of the Biodiesel page, the Wikiproject Automobile discussion page is having a discussion about whether or not to include fuel economy as part of the Automotive Infobox. If interested, please share your opinion. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Food versus fuel

This new addition does not meet neutrality guidelines, in part because: 1) The price of food has long been held down by inexpensive energy, largely oil. There needs to be some discussion of the correlation between petroleum and food prices, as the increase in petro cost is what has driven the biofuel explosion. 2) some of the articles discuss corn (as an ethanol feedstock) and "biofuels," but make no mention of vegetable oils or biodiesel; this lumping together is inappropriate and inaccurate. 3) There was no mention of other factors driving up food prices (e.g. tremendous increases in Chinese consumer demand, transportation, etc). This "cherry-picking" hints at an agenda by the contributor; 4) Three of four of these sources are non-scientific media sources; thorough, scientific studies would be better. 5)I've seen a number of reports like this one, that indicate food and biofuel prices are NOT strongly correlated (none specific to oil seed crops or I'd post it); many of the factors that apply to corn input costs are the same for biofuel crops, however.--E8 (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely fair to state that price increases in all liquid fuels (or other forms fungible with liquid fuels) and energy in general, have driven up food costs. It's also fair to state that there are definite food vs palm oil issues, the criticisms have been limited to this one biodiesel feedstock. As such, generalizing to all of biodiesel is inappropriate. Note that I left the addition in question on in the main, but I needs more extensive research and balance in order to remain there.--E8 (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of biofuel related articles had something on this topic and I am trying to make a single article on it that can be referenced. It is just started and I mostly took stuff from existing articles (so it really is not all my point of view). Anyway, I agree with your points. In particular that it lumps ethanol and biodiesel together too much. But there is an issue that I think does have sufficient significance to warrant an article, and it is related to biodiesel. Feel free to correct problems and I will try to also. Vincecate (talk) 09:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for reply. I agree that this is an important point that requires public discourse. I'll try to find sources balance the article, and, if I can, will add/modify accordingly.--E8 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I made some more changes. I think that food vs fuel is not so bad now. Vincecate (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (U

• While I don't have specific references, it seems to me the issue here is more complicated then the article suggests. For example, palm oil is commonly used as a food oil, but it's use is controversial due to the potential health effects and there is definitely a push in some parts of the developed world (perhaps mostly unsuccessfully) to reduce palm oil usage as food oil. So whether it's a bad idea to use palm oil as a fuel oil from a food vs fuel perspective isn't a simple matter. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to a publication, Meat vs Fuel: Grain use in the U.S. and China, 1995-2008. This is an extremely worthwhile read with credible sources. It refers largely to methanol, which is why I posted it here and not on the main, but the soy industry is similarly affected.--E8 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge of environmental sections

Right now there are two "environmental" sections: Environmental effects and Environmental concerns. I think it might be better to merge them into one and present all environmental issues in the same section. It would hopefully give a more nuanced view since at least some of the benefits and concerns are related and it seems strange to me to present them on two different places. Otherwise there will be some duplicate information in both sections. Any objections/suggestions to this? --Apis O-tang (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be clearer all in one section. This is quite a hard section to get right, but also very important. Stainless316 (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting on this, the "Efficiency and economic arguement" section is largely redundant now, and I think could be either deleted or incorporated in the "Environment" section. Specific proposals to start. The first discussion about fuel use on farm vs oil yields is irrelevent, since this ignores all the other inputs e.g. fertilizer. I think this bit can go. The photosyntheses efficiency is interesting, and could be incorporated somewhere. The next bit is about energy balance, and belongs in the "environment" section. it also covers information about land required, which is covered, and about sources, which could be moved to appropriate section. Any objections to basically getting rid of this section? I will do it over a few edits, so it might get a bit scrappy before it gets better. This will be a first step to getting all the environment parts unified.Stainless316 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The efficiency and economic argument section does seem a bit redundant now yes. I pretty much agree with what you said. The comparison to solar is also interesting, although a bit unfair perhaps, it's the price per watt that is most interesting after all, although initial investment cost are probably high. Solar is primarily intended for grid use whereas biodiesel for vehicles so it seems a bit irrelevant. A comparison between electric batteries and biodiesel is also interesting but it would be nice to see more facts comparing them if that isn't out of scope here, and the big benefit from biodiesel is probably that it can be used in existing engines anyway? Well, it could be incorporated later if need be. So no objections from me.

I'm still working on the new environmental section, I need to add the last sections though and I'm going through sources and references. I know I've been a bit slow. :( I have been looking for more references from the related pages (biofuel etc). I should probably focus on getting it done and add sources later though. I would be thankful if you (or someone else) would help me go over it once I'm finished. But I'll make a post here then. =) Apis (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to have a look and chip in whatever I can. It takes a lot of time to get these things right. Stainless316 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly happy with the new environmental section now, it can be seen here: New Environmental Section.

I haven't included the "Food vs Fuel" section but it would be easy to move in there if anyone thinks thats where it belongs. Thankfully firefox have built in spell checker now days so I think the spelling won't be too bad =) but feel free to copy edit if there is something that's wrong/could be better (English isn't my native language). I have mainly added more material and rewritten to make the text more coherent, although one or two things with very dubious sources have been removed (data from an example msds factsheet for example). I'm not particularly familiar with the pollution and toxicity aspects (and there aren't many references to check out) so I have left that mostly unchanged. Comments and suggestions are appreciated. =) Apis (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally I think OK. I think there is a bit much emphasis on deforestatiuon, as it is included in the CO2 section and also has its own section, which is a bit of duplication. I would like to include some figures from the various estimates of CO2 savings without land use changes, such as Sheffield Hallam lifecycle analysis (LCA) 2003 [[1]] Summarised here[[2]] says CO2 Emissions are For each MJ of biodiesel produced 0.025Kg of CO2 is released. For each MJ of fossil diesel produced 0.087Kg of CO2 is released, giving a gain of 3.48. This does NOT include land change. Energy savings trust [3]] says generally accepted 60% reduction well to wheel. Well to wheel analysis european environment agency. [[4]] Report available here: [[5]] pdf format. Biodiesel from rapeseed can give saving of 53% of GHG compared to petrodiesel. Plus also the USDA recently released re-worked "Urban bus" figure of 3.5 (or thereabouts). These could be summarised as estimates of CO2 savings from about 2 to about 3.5, or similar.Stainless316 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I was initially planing on having a lead section which summarized everything and brought up the parts that was too short to merit their own section. I eventually realized I didn't know much about pollution or toxicity, and there's only one reference in those sections so I gave up. Some of that ended up in the first section (i.e. the CO2 section) and thus some duplication. The other data is great, I'll try to incorporate the figures, thanks. Apis (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through the reports and the first one (Sheffield Hallam analysis) give savings of 57% GHG, the eu ones: RME 45-50% GHG, SME 65% GHG WTW savings (slide 44 & 46). The energy saving trust says 60% CO2 WTW. With current production methods and not including land use change. I'll summarize it as 45-65% savings of GHG. The urban bus sounds a bit lower, but its possibly CO2 reductions then? or newer production methods? I also noticed that used cooking oil and tallow give ~85% CO2 reduction from the graph based on the UK rtfo report, I think that is worth mentioning as well. Apis (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have made some changes as discussed. If there are no other objections I'll make the switch? Apis (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Biodiversity, Philippines

I added this landmark current research of Philippines due to its bio-diversity: Ateneo de Manila University's Department of Environmental Science, isolated Philippines species, on algal mass production to source out oil as alternative source of fuel. "Carbon dioxide as a product of aerobic decomposition can be utilized to enhance the growth of the algal species. Since the alga is also a rich source of proteins and carbohydrates, upon extraction of oil, the algae can still be utilized as food for livestock or fish; 1,000 to 10,000 gallons of algae are needed to produce a liter of biodiesel."abs-cbnnews.com, Ateneo scientists working on algae as biodiesel source --Florentino floro (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about the figure 1000 - 10,000 gallons of algae are needed to produce a liter of biodiesel. First, is gallons an appropriate unit to use for algae? does it refer to wet or dry algae? Plus, the numbers seem unbelievably high. Compare: about 10 pounds of olives (1-2 gallons) makes a liter of olive oil [6]. maxsch (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, this link [7] says algae can yield up 10,000 gallons of oil per acre, perhaps that's where the 10,000 gallons number comes from? Or are there 10,000 x 10,000 = 100 million gallons of algae per acre? maxsch (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you search the archives and page history, you'll find this topic has been thoroughly discussed. As there has been so much discussion, Algae fuel has its own page. This discussion may be better there.--E8 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not finding the specific numbers I'm looking for, oil per unit of algae. The numbers that are in this and the algae fuel article are all oil per unit of land, per year. Either way, it seems to me that the edit by User:Florentino floro above gets those numbers confused or wrong. The reference is a news story--not a scientific publication. It would be a stronger edit if it mentioned the variety of algae or a scientific study, as it stands, it is at least misleading on the numbers. I'd like to take most of it out. maxsch (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ecofasa

Just moved the report on ecofasa converting waste into fatty acids using bacteria to the"current research" section. There is only one source, and it seems a bit early to put it in as a feedstock just yet. Nonetheless, it is quite interesting if it progresses.Stainless316 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Consumption table

Watti Renew created this handy table; I asked that it be moved to Biodiesel around the world as Biodiesel is already lengthy and somewhat confused. The table was added to the "around" page, but left here as well. I'd like to see it removed from this page, as the table content is more appropriate at the other page, but perhaps a new Biodiesel use page is in order. Thoughts?--E8 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks E8 for your work. I appreciate that you express your points of view to further develop the article. I agree with you that the table Consumption of Biodiesel in the European Union may also be relevant in the article: Biodiesel around the world, thank you. I would include this table in both articles. I support this argument with the following reasons:

A balanced neutral article should include all key information of the topic. The consumption of biodiesel is key information. The table presents the data in a compact form. Expanding the articles with key information is a recommendation. The dilution of relevant core information based on the article length is in this case in my opinion not true and in any case not neutral. Therefore, I recommend including the nation specific production and consumption levels of biodiesel in this article equal to: Installed wind power capacity (MW) in the article Wind power. The more detailed e.g. area and technology specific knowledge could be presented in the additional articles. In my opinion this main article Biodiesel should include all core information of the theme undepended of the additional related articles. The core data includes the nation specific consumption levels.

A new page: Biofuel in the European Union is appropriate equal to Wind power in the European Union. Watti Renew (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I continue to disagree and there is precedent to remove this content from this page and instead, link to it at Biodiesel around the world or Biodiesel use. There is little value in redundancy and a loss with the added length. The table is currently compact, but only lists information for only a few countries; to be complete, all other biodiesel-consuming countries must be added. The list will no longer be compact, adding clutter and length to an main that already has enough of both. Further, it will exceed the general article size guidelines. WP:Article Size - Readability issues clarifies this matter further. Splitting is common; you'll note that Biodiesel contains short overviews of some topics, and also includes links to the split-pages where details are provided. Biodiesel around the world and all of its subpages as well as Biodiesel production are both examples. I am of the opinion that this is the best way of dealing with this matter.--E8 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

--E8, What is the precedent you refer to? Watti Renew (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree E8, this article would need the biodiesel consumption and production tables with all countries. I did not have it. The link Biodiesel around the world is helpful. I started a new page: Biofuel in the European Union. Watti Renew (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fungus

Portions of the fungus topic have been moved to Talk:Biomass to liquid for discussion. Lipids are clearly related to biodiesel (as a feedstock), so lipid-producing fungus is relevant here. Fungi that produce alkanes or aromatics (NOT biodiesel esters or lipids) are NOT related, and either require new pages, or addition to Biomass to liquid or one of its sub-pages.--E8 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Applications in newer diesel engines vs older ones

I am just dropping my 2 cents worth in, about newer diesel engines and there ability to handle biodiesel. My father has been making his own biodiesel for ma ny years and has had few problems with mixing so that much I know is true, his truck is a '97 dodge 3/4 ton. I baught an '06 model "new" and started making my own biodiesel shortly thereafter. While my father had some issues running pure biodiesel or even high concentrates in his truck, mine handled and is still handling 100% just fine, my finding are that as long as the biodiesel is allowed to attain the proper reaction and is properly washed you will have a product every bit as reliable as petro-based diesel. I have found a website that backs-up my finding. Here:

http://www.journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html#usebd

I believe that the biggest problems driving these misconception about biodiesel are: people rushing into the process without being patient enough to ensure that they have made a quality product. I know that inferior biodiesel has a higher PH rating than that of biodiesel that has been fully reacted and properly washed. This also comes from folks using "B" rated product like grocery store drain cleaner instead of pure lye, this results in unreacted impurities and sometimes aluminum particles in the fuel. Like I said just my 2 cents worth. Check out the link, so far it has proved to be spot on. I am risking voiding my truck's warantee to run my homemade pure biodiesel in it... Thanks for listening... <Nesto76>

• The site link you have linked is not a reliable source (it's self-published, with no effective peer-review). Anecdotal evidence is insufficient, as Wikipedia does not permit the use of original research. Verifiability is essential when it comes to sources. There are numerous reliable technical sources that cover some of the problems with biodiesel engine-compatibility (post-injection issues spring to mind). These could all be collected and used for citations in a "compatibility" section (or, perhaps, someone has done this already). Regardless, quality sources are required for inclusion of material on Wikipedia.--E8 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Problems" section needed

In the Applications section, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Applications reads: "Biodiesel can be used in pure form (B100) or may be blended with petroleum diesel at any concentration in most modern diesel engines." This may have been true, but as more testing has been performed and biodiesel used, incompatibilities / problems have been found. Here are but a few links to such problems[[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]]. There are more issues and many reports of problems in use. This content needs to be added to the main after further research. Please comment.--E8 (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring

Hi, in looking to move towards FAC, I've made an outline of some proposed restructuring and additions. I know Wiki outlines aren't ideal, but please comment on what you think if you have a chance. I'm going to try to do the restructuring over the next few days. The goal is to have the article be more cohesive, less US focused, and cover the whole Biodiesel topic comprehensively, cover the important details well, and not give too much space to less important details. I plan on keeping most of the material in the current article, so some of the outline bits may be confusing, but let me know what you think. A lot of the parenthetical comments are to remind me which sources to cite which stuff to. - Taxman ^Talk 23:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Biodiesel

Note: there is discussion of this in the Archives as well. ASTM, EN, and the layman definitions are synthesized into a singular definition to begin the article, with detailing / clarification down the page.--E8 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Units for per-area yields

Most of the agricultural yield figures quoted here use the perfectly reasonable tonnes / hectare unit. However some are also cited in GPas, a unit of pressure. This is wrong on two counts (this is so wrong that I suspect LightBot or similar conversion bots must have done it). Firstly it's a unit of pressure, not obviously connected with a figure that's so obviously an issue of mass / area. Secondly it isn't even a dimensionally appropriate conversion (tonne is a mass unit, not a weight or force unit).

Is there anything to support the use of this unit? Given the second issue, I sincerely hope not (when it comes down to it, it's just plain wrong), but the ways of governments are peculiar. Otherwise I'll probably whack them throughout, when I next have spare time. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• The note immediately following the table mentions the conversion to "gallons per acre." Would G/A be the proper way to write the units? GpA? --E8 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so that's meant to be "gallons per acre", not GigaPascals? In that case it's a simple typo and should be gallons/acre, G/A, gpa or GPA, even "GpA" maybe, but never GPa. These aren't directly comparable units (they'd depend on fuel density, which will vary slightly with composition and temperature), but they'd both be a reasonable way to measure. It's probably worth citing their accepted approximate conversion ratio, if there is such a thing (and of course US gallons aren't the same as UK gallons). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Riventree suggests that the GPas unit probably started as N Tons/Acre (Tons of oil per acre of land) and a conversion bot saw that as some multiplier of "pounds per unit-area", which is indeed a measure of pressure. Silly bots! —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Unit conversions in yield table

The conversion factor used in the yield table is not constant! From the top, the factors apparently used are 10, 7.96, 1.54-2.93 (interesting! can I choose any value in this range?), 9.35 (three times), 1.53 (twice), 9.31. The correct value, as commented in the article text (and assuming US gallons, since the sources are US-based) is:

1 gal_US·acre^-1 = 3.785411784 L·gal_US^-1 (exact)/0.40468564224 ha·acre^-1 (exact) = 9.35395627 L·ha^-1

So allowing for the imprecision in the sources, only four of the SI values are correct. In fact, for Indiana soy, the original figure (which was in gal_US·acre^-1) has been entered as the SI value, therefore the conversion has been done the wrong way.

I can't see any objection to a simple correction of conversion factors, so having checked which figure was the original for each biofuel, I have decided to go ahead. The converted figures are entered as expressions so that it's easy to keep the converted figures correct if the original figures are edited. Peter Barber (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the source of the incorrect 1.53 conversion factor mentioned above might be website, as the SI figures in the table of yields could also have been taken verbatim from there. For a site focussing on biofuels, it is an embarrassing error to provide an obviously wrong conversion factor between two commonly-used measures of agricultural yield. It also gives no reference for the quoted values.

Now I have discovered this, the scientist in me is appalled. It is utterly misleading and wrong to offer values in SI and customary units alongside each other in a table without even highlighting that the two columns of figures were from independent sources, and therefore not equivalent! To help avoid this in the future, I have moved the citations next to the original figure (where I have been able to identify it). It is then much clearer which is the original and which is a conversion. Changed my mind on this - looked awful in preview! Peter Barber (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yield per acre for algal biodiesel

I am going to update the algal statistic in the yield/acre table. The DOE estimate of 300 gallons/acre per year is now very outdated. A recent article by the NY Times, which profiles an algae-based biodiesel plant in Colorado, places the number at between 1500 and 3000 gallons per year--twenty times the estimate given by the DOE. I will cite the article. The public should feel free to add more citations to this section, but we need more accurate information on this subject, since it is of pressing concern for energy researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlovscat567 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition to current research

I pulled this from the main page for some touch ups. I'll move it back after improvement unless another editor beats me to it:

Other Unusual Feedstocks

Over the past 24 years, the University of Idaho biodiesel lab has made biodiesel from a variety of unusual feedstocks, including oil from candlenut and croton from Africa, avocado from Mexico, karanja from India, hemp from Canada, algae from California, and used coffee grounds from Starbucks.

Probably the strangest feedstock researched was the fat from black soldier fly larvae. The larvae feed on manure and transform it into fertilizer. As they grow, they accumulate fat in their bodies. The fat was very high in free fatty acids—-about 80%. The theory is that the larvae produce an enzyme in their bodies to break down the fat and use it for life support.

I do question whether lab-level experimentation with feedstocks (i.e., ones that are not scalable to a production-level viability) should be included on this page. Research for research's sake, in this context, isn't notable.--E8 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Efficiency and economic arguments

User:SylviaStanley added the following to the article:

A 2005 study found that biodiesel production using soybeans required 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel produced and 118% more energy using sunflowers.

This is a vital component to this section, but does not mesh will other studies I've seen, and it lacking some context/details provided in the full article (e.g., how/if the meal is accounted for).--E8 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Solar cells and algaculture

"... if the entire mass of a crop is utilized for energy production, the overall efficiency of this chain is currently about 1%. While this may compare unfavorably to solar cells combined with an electric drive train, biodiesel is less costly to deploy (solar cells cost approximately US$1,000 per square meter) and transport (electric vehicles require batteries which currently have a much lower energy density than liquid fuels)."

This statement falsely implies that all energy collected from solar cells must be used in conjunction with batteries, when, in fact, solar plants may instead be used exclusively for the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen gas at 14~23 times the overall energy efficiency of biodesel. Similarly, there is no comparison with the characteristics of algaeic biohydrogen production, which has been estimated to require substantially less than biodiesel's surface area per joule.   — C M B J   06:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on Carbon Emissions

I'm not 100% clear on the carbon-neutrality of Biodiesel. My understanding is that burning biodiesel releases CO2 like regular fossil fuels, but unlike fossil fuels, the carbon released is the same carbon that the plants used during photosynthesis. No new carbon is being released into the atmosphere, so it is essentially carbon-neutral. Can someone please clarify? -Fogelmatrix 16:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogelmatrix (talk*contribs)

• That doesn't count the carbon released during shipping and production.Brakeu (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Methanol, which is a typically made from (non-renewable) natural gas, is used as a reactant in the biodiesel production process. There's also a carbon expense associated with the catalyst production, as well as process energy inputs. It should be noted that this topic is discussed in detail on the page and elsewhere, with sources. Biodiesel production has useful information as well.--E8 (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Low Temperature Gelling

This section does not include mention of the cold soak filtration test astmd7501. it does not mention the fact that the biggest contributor to gel point temperature is the percentage of saturated fatty acids in the biodiesel. It does not mention urea clathration, a chemical process that lowers gel dramatically. It does not mention additives used to lower gel point.Rick36502 (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good points all around. Clathrate compound could use the additional content is well. I see there is older research on the subject; has this technique been used at production scale or did it dead-end in the lab? (i.e., does it best fit the research section or elsewhere)--E8 (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be in the patent application process. My research on the topic is posted at http://make-biodiesel.org/Biodiesel-Chemistry/urea-clathration.html Rick36502 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

External Links

Please consider Small-scale Biodiesel Tutorial for the external links section. I have a conflict of interest and can not add it. It is a biodiesel tutorial website with more than 200 articles on hobby and farm biodiesel production. There was an objection about excessive advertisements, there are no advertisements on this webpage. For more detail see my Talk Page Rick36502 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

After taking time to reading through some of Rick's website along with a number of others, I can say Rick's is my personal favorite in terms of completeness (citing sources, reasonably partial, etc) and activity (it's up-to-date). The two issues, as I see them are 1) this is a popular topic, and there are many biodiesel how-to, hobbyist, and research aggregating sites (DMOZ lists quite a few, and more exist), and 2) we have removed at least one other tutorial link from this page in the past due to factual errors on that site. Posting EL's here is an implicit endorsement. Given this issue, that the expertise of the authors has not been established and there is no peer review of this sites content is a barrier to posting.

Further, the EL links list is to remain "minimal" by policy, and the precedent on this page (along with other renewable energy pages which are subject to frequent link-spamming [12]) has been to move most links to DMOZ[13][14]. The DMOZ Biodiesel list is lengthy, so I have petitioned to add a subcategory there specifically for education/tutorial content. The EL list can then direct users to that shorter, more convenient list, and editors can avoiding having to play favorites.--E8 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Two months, and no response from DMOZ. Having time to consider the options, I have replaced the link. It is the best option of its time that I've found, adverts or not.--E8 (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Contamination by Water

This whole section with the possible exception of the bullet items is wrong. The citations supporting the section are not valid references.

For starters, water is soluble in biodiesel in trace quantities. it is not hygroscopic. LeChâtelier's Principle equalizing out the partial pressures of humid air and and the trace quantities of water dissolved in biodiesel will force water either into or out of the biodiesel as dictated by their relative partial pressures. Note that a long accepted method of removing water from biodiesel is to desiccate the air over it forcing the partial pressures to equalize, driving the water out of the biodiesel. hygroscopic implies water moving only in one direction, when it actually moves in both directions according to LeChâtelier's Principle.

The idea of monoglycerides acting as an emulsifier is an urban ledgend and has no scientific support, while soap and glycerin have both been proven to be real emulsifiers. At any rate, emulsifers have no bearing on dissolved water. Also note that the test for water is ASTM D2709. A centrifuge test for water and sediment. it does not test for dissolved water. Dissolved water is only an issue for blendstock, (what the standard was devised to test) because biodiesel can dissolve up to 1500 ppm of water while diesel can only dissolve 500ppm. A blend of biodiesel and diesel will only dissolve 500ppm, so it's possible to mix dry biodiesel and dry diesel, per the standards and get a wet blend that will fail a centrifuge test for water and sediment and blow out your IP.

The idea that there has been no way to test for water in biodiesel is wrong. The reaction of calcium hydride and water produces a mass of hydrogen gas that is directly related to the mass of water. this test is over a century old and has long been used to measure water in lubrication oils. In addition the karl fisher titration test for water has been around for a very long time as well. The conductivity of oil/biodiesel containing emulsified water has been known and used in automated production for years.

Water does not reduce the effeciency of the catalyst. It is a catalyst for hydrolysis. The more water the faster hydrolysis proceedes. The ffa produced by hydrolysis cataylised by water immeadiately consumes the caustics used as a catalyst for base transesterification by neutralising the ffa. In the worse case, it will consume all the caustic without making any biodiesel. 173.87.143.106 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Tallow feedstock statistics

Recent edits brought up the lack of feedstock-type statistics. This content should be discussed (it may done on one of the many other biodiesel pages), and I'm working on it currently (it will take time to find the data, however) - help appreciated. Both the US and Australia use large volumes of tallow. The following content was placed in the research section, but is not research:

Rendered Animal fats have been used occasionally for biodiesel in the United States and Europe. Low-market return items such as chicken fat, alligator and tallow left over from the 56 billion animals slaughtered globally have all been used as fuel. High sulfur content and plastic contaminants in animal diets poses challenges to its' use as biodiesel.

I will relocate this, with appropriate additions/amendments in either another section of this page or at Biodiesel production, and will restore the exotic animal fats content that was research.--E8 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Removals

Per the recent additions, "Origins" and "Household," and their subsequent removal: keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so household information was removed (note that Biodiesel production is a better source for this information already]]. Also, the history section contained all the content Origins contained, in greater detail, with citations, and without the information unrelated to Biodiesel (Henry Ford was interested in ethanol).--E8 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Microalgae current L/ha figures?

According to (Chisti, Y. (2007). Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnology Advances, 25(3), 294–306. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.02.001) Microalgae oil yield is 58,700 L/ha (for 30% oil by wt in biomass) and as high as 136,900 L/ha (for 70% oil by wt in biomass) with current algae farming techniques, these figures are WAAAAAAAAY higher then the figures in the article? — raekyt 07:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

Reference 4 is a dead link. Kraftykarrot (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Images

Perhaps the images mentioned at Talk:Biodiesel_production#Images can be included to this article ? KVDP (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The images are of homebrew equipment designs; they're both how-to content and based on original research and thus, cannot be included. I'm unsure why you continue trying to foist this quality (questionably safe design, etc) of content on Wikipedia. We've had this discussion before (when you promised to make changes and never did). While you're capable of posting interesting and useful images, you also repeatedly ignore guidelines (particularly WP:NOR) to the point of being disruptive (as been cataloged here and here).--E8 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Dimethyl carbonate process; no byproduct

Process development and simulation of glycerol-free biofuel from canola oil and dimethyl carbonate. This was linked randomly on numerous articles and has been removed, but it appears very interesting at first glance (refs behind a paywall are frustrating.) I'll see if I can get access - anyone else have a full text version?--E8 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

See also

Regarding this section, links like Ethanol fuel are unneeded as they already exist in the Nav boxes. The MOS states that "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." There's an obvious reason - if all related nav box links end up in the See Also section, 1) the section is massive, and 2) there's no point in having the Nav boxes. Ethanol fuel is a parallel technology, but so are all other biomass derived liquid fuels; Ethanol and Biodiesel don't share production methods, rarely share feedstock (corn oil isn't a high percentage feedstock for Biodiesel), and aren't used in the same vehicles, so why single out ethanol above the other biofuels? I'm not strictly opposed to this addition, i just fail to see the justification for the special treatment.--E8 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Both are the most common methods for stretching transportation fuel. Consumers are going to be most familiar with the E10 gas at the pump, truck drivers are going to be most familiar with Biodiesel. See Also should be for topics that are strongly related to the article topic. Navigational links elsewhere are not immediately seen by most article readers (I certainly didn't notice them), and should be reserved for related, but not strongly related topics. I recommend removing the other See Also links if they are not strongly related. Greenlead (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I better understand your concern. Visibility is an issue. I think adding a "Biofuel" sidebar would resolve this issue; a sidebar with this specificity would be a better suited than the more general one on Ethanol_fuel (below), which would replaced as well. I'll draft a template.

--E8 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC) How does this look?--E8 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Transport demands are downplayed in the article

indicates that US consumes 15 million barrels/day = 6 billions/year. This picture says that 70% of that oil is transport's share. Yet, you say that US transport consumes 160 tonnes = 1.2 bbl. This looks like only 20% of consumed oil, 3.5 times less than 70%! --Javalenok (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• You're comparing values for crude oil and distillate fuel oil. Distillate fuel oil is a fraction of crude oil(~28%), accounting for the difference.--E8 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Product made of barrel of oil also represents the picture: transport consumes 70 at least? If you distill crude oil and split 30% for the transport and 70 for other purposes then you do not say that 70% is motor oil, right? Is 70% just waste? -Javalenok (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Duffy vs. Patrick and Duffy

I'm writing a paper, so I looked up the source for Duffy and Patrick doing transesterification. The main sources I could find were "histories of biodiesel," very few of them had sources. In google scholar, those that cited sources referred to other articles which did not cite sources. Not once did I find a primary source. Until proven otherwise, I believe this to be a fabrication. The original source would be great, if anyone has the citation or knows where to find it. Cheers! Semitones (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So what did you find already? I see they appear in a Spanish Ph.D. thesis in 2001 and some articles in 2002, and it was added to WP in 2003, so at least it wasn't just made up for us. Did you get hold of this one referenced in the Spanish thesis? (Summers P (1998) Studies highlight biodiesel's benefits. Golden, Colo. (EE.UU.): US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 6 Julio.). It's an announcement of a couple of reports, no mention of Duffy or Patrick anywhere. So maybe the Spanish student made it up? A couple of his Irish buddies? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it was not Duffy and Patrick, but Patrick Duffy (see refs in article). -- Linksfuss (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Link. I traced back the references from Noq's source for "Patrick and Duffy". The Arun paper cites New Dynamic Analysis and System Identification of Biodiesel Production Process from Palm Oil as it source, but this paper doesn't state its source; apparently, the problem lies in this somewhat sloppy scholarship. The Quarterly Journal of the Chemical Society of London clearly indicates one scientist, "Patrick Duffy," as you've indicated.--E8 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

When I look at this, the Patrick/Duffy story looks to me like a textbook case for the propagation of C&P Errors in the scientific literature. -- Linksfuss (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Biodiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511204114/http://www.massoilheat.org/MOC%20BioHeat%20Press%20Release.pdf to http://massoilheat.org/MOC%20BioHeat%20Press%20Release.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040906074833/http://www.unh.edu:80/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html to http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Biodiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080726004436/http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/documents/factsheet-biodiesel.htm to http://www.epa.gov/smartway/growandgo/documents/factsheet-biodiesel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080410055942/http://www.greenflightinternational.com/First%20B100%20Jet%20Flight%20Press%20Release.pdf to http://www.greenflightinternational.com/First%20B100%20Jet%20Flight%20Press%20Release.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071020142934/http://www.tecbio.com.br/templates/loadpaginas.php?pagina=sobreobiodiesel_ing to http://www.tecbio.com.br/templates/loadpaginas.php?pagina=sobreobiodiesel_ing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biodiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061004000259/http://www.fistenet.gov.vn/details_e.asp?Object=2111609&News_ID=4540732 to http://www.fistenet.gov.vn/details_e.asp?Object=2111609&news_id=4540732

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Biodiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iphe.org.uk/publications/tech_literature.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://biodieselamerica.org/files/articles/alaskafishoil_fs_3_18_02.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202202402/http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202202402/http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biodiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726174434/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/mustard_hybrids.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/mustard_hybrids.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618163304/http://www.valcent.net/t/news_detailf62c.html?id=36 to http://www.valcent.net/t/news_detailf62c.html?id=36

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Biodiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CygzTBuI?url=http://solazyme.com/media/2011-11-07 to http://www.solazyme.com/media/2011-11-07
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112174512/http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5077 to http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5077
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202202402/http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202202402/http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122133933/http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf to http://www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Biodiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100306182315/http://nbb.grassroots.com/07Releases/Incentive/ to http://nbb.grassroots.com/07Releases/Incentive/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.biodieselinvesting.com/biodiesel-archives/2006/08/31/halifax-city-buses-to-run-on-biodiesel-again/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814103101/http://www.halifax.ca/metrotransit/news/10_2004-Biodiesel.html to http://www.halifax.ca/metrotransit/news/10_2004-Biodiesel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080523163346/http://theglycerolchallenge.org/ to http://www.theglycerolchallenge.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301001245/http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-337.pdf to http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-337.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070918122719/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/basics/jtb_biodiesel.pdf to http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/basics/jtb_biodiesel.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111218030507/http://www.sgfuel.com/pages/hybrid-seeds-and-services/jMax-hybrid-seeds.php to http://www.sgfuel.com/pages/hybrid-seeds-and-services/jMax-hybrid-seeds.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305140144/http://sustainablebiodieselalliance.com/dev/ to http://sustainablebiodieselalliance.com/dev/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Biodiesel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224042615/http://halifax.ca/metrotransit/Biodiesel.html to http://www.halifax.ca/metrotransit/Biodiesel.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.solazyme.com/media/2011-11-07
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.klm.com/klm-to-operate-biofuel-flights-out-of-los-angeles/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729155610/http://cri.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=3&lang=en to http://cri.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=3&lang=en
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/levington.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606084122/http://www.wfs.org/futcontja07.htm to http://www.wfs.org/futcontja07.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816053206/http://www.extension.org/pages/Farm_Energy_Biodiesel_Table_of_Contents to http://www.extension.org/pages/Farm_Energy_Biodiesel_Table_of_Contents

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)