Appal Energy wrote: > Does anyone have an idea as to when 100% Biodiesel achieved notariety > as a > "blend?" > > B-1 through B-99.9 are blends, not B-100. > > Whoever wrote that letter needs to redress that error if it's not > already sent. If a credit is being > sought for biodiesel, great. If it's being sought for blends, great. But > they're two separate animals and should be treated as precisely that. > > It's a bit like calling a blend of 30% fruit concentrate and 70% corn > syrup > "juice." It's not, nor will it ever be. > > Todd Swearingen Some of reasons it makes sense in this instance are as follows (some of these are my own interpretation some came from the draftees of the response). 1) The standard test for blending gives you a number with an error margin of 1% so B99 is between B98 & B100, B100 could be B99 or B101 :^). 2) ASTM-D675 is for biodiesel as a "blended stock", this could possibly have caused confusion in the creating of the legislation. 3) Enforcement is much more complicated if you have to make sure that petro was actually blended with bio and what if you're running B99 and the test says you're running B100 do they reject your application for the tax rebate? So what this group is saying is that 4) Biodiesel should get a level playing field with petrodiesel no matter how it's used 5) The cost of verifying that someone is actually blending is worth the value as the vast majority of the BD sold is blended at or below B20 and the Jobs Creation act talks about blending. 6) We should not enact laws that will be invalidated by technology the specifics of biodiesel usage which are dependent on engine technology, which will change. -- Kenneth Kron President Bay Area Biofuel http://www.bayareabiofuel.com/ kkron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: 415-867-8067 What you can do, or dream you can do, begin it! Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust>.