ArcaMax

* The lion's share (about 50 percent) of bio-diesel production involves soybeans - a food crop. The diversion of millions of acres of cropland to non-food-production means less land devoted to food production - which inevitably means, higher prices for food.

* Bio-diesel, like ethanol, is not energy efficient. A gallon of it won't take you as far as a gallon of "straight" petroleum-based diesel. Therefore, more bio-diesel must be produced (and consumed) to provide the same motive power.

* It takes energy to make bio-diesel, just as it takes energy to produce ethanol. It doesn't just well up, magically, out of the earth. How much energy "input" is necessary to produce bio-diesel vs. refine petroleum-based diesel? If the economics of bio-diesel are so favorable, then why is government force necessary?

* Bio-diesel, like ethanol, is hygroscopic - it attracts moisture. This wreaks havoc with fuel systems - especially diesel fuel systems. Hard or no starting, internal corrosion and injector problems are among the many problems associated with bio-diesel.

* A problem not much discussed outside of engineering circles is that even slight bio-diesel adulteration of the fuel supply is incompatible with common rail direct injected (CDI) diesel engines. Which just happens to be almost all currently-in-production passenger car diesel engines.

* There are major warranty - and emissions - issues with the use of the bio-diesel fuel, especially in higher concentrations, in modern diesel passenger car engines.

* Currently, "B5" and "B2" diesels ( 5 percent and 2 percent bio-diesel, respectively) constitute more than 95 percent of all currently available diesel fuel being sold at service stations.

If the EPA mandates higher concentrations, it could prove to be as big a debacle for diesel-powered cars as ethanol has been for gas-engined cars.

But Grassley, et al, seem unconcerned. After all, they won't be affected (Congress being exempted from the laws it applies to the rest of us, like Obamacare, for instance). And so they're forging ahead with their plans to use the EPA to force-feed the American driving public ever-increasing percentages of this doped-up fuel. They will claim - have been cleaning - that so-called "renewables" are good for America. They are certainly good for the agribusiness cartels.

But if they're so good for America, why is it necessary to literally shove a funnel in the mouths of the driving public and force them to use the stuff? The fact that this is necessary tells a damning truth about the desirability of "renewable" fuels.

========

www.ericpetersautos.com or EPeters952@aol.com for comments.