One thing in Biodiesel's favor is that it will increase the mileage_fuel efficiency of a diesel engine, due to being an oxygenate and having about the same BTU's_gal as diesel. Ethanol is an oxygenate also, but it lowers the BTU rating of the fuel and will often lower mileage by a noticable percentage. It also has real problems with evaporation, and collecting water during transport. Ethanol can't be moved in pipelines. This makes Biodiesel a much easier sell than ethanol. As far as subsidies. Neither fuel is technically subsidized. However, they do receive tax abatements, which just means you don't pay road tax on that portion of the fuel. Currently, this makes Biodiesel cheaper than n2 fuel. Additionally, at least in MO. For every % biodiesel in a blend you abate the tax's on the same percentage of the diesel, up to a max of 10 or 20%. What needs to happen now is more emmissions_fuel efficiency testing. If the soybean producers really wanted to push Biodiesel. What they need to do is fund emmisions testing at NIPER. The fuel can't go into widespread use without widespread testing, and engine manufacturers just aren't going to spend their own money to do it, untill it becomes absolutely necessary, or economically attractive to do it. Biodiesel will probably become an almost unaviodable additive with the further lowering of sulfur in diesel fuels. It's very effective at replacing the lubricity that sulfur provides, and very economical in that role. Even before the tax abatement program, a 2% blend of Biodiesel, would replace a petroleum based sulfur additive for the same cost. That's the kind of numbers that will drive Biodiesel use. I don't see any similar advantages for ethanol. FR What's your mileage on E85IJ
