NW GreenFleet

Rentar Fuel Catalyst
Effects On Engines Using Bio-diesel

Bio-diesel is being encouraged in many states today. Bio-diesel has its advantages and disadvantages. Learn more about Bio-diesel by going to the U.S. Department of Energy website: http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/biodiesel.html

The Rentar Fuel Catalyst offsets two of the disadvantages. The cost of Bio-diesel is a little more per gallon but is offset with the Rentar Fuel catalyst by the improvement of fuel consumption. Another disadvantage of Bio-diesel is it burns hotter creating increased NOx. The Rentar Fuel Catalyst is proven to reduce NOx thus offsetting the increase.

Rentar was awarded a 3 year contract with the State of Delaware to sell Rentar Fuel Catalyst for Bio-diesel applications. In addition to being installed on some large state equipment, Rentar is currently being purchased by the State to be provided to farmers, at no cost to the farmer, to exempt the farmer from regulation if the farmer agrees to use Bio-diesel and the Rentar Fuel Catalyst.

The United States Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground extensively tested the Rentar Fuel Catalyst using Bio-diesel, using the EPA testing equipment and reported a 6.6% reduction in fuel Consumption and 8.5% reduction in the Greenhouse Gas CO2. (See complete published report)

Virginia Tech University publishes study for the State of Delaware comparing number 2 diesel fuel, Bio-Diesel (20-80) fuel and the effects the Rentar Fuel Catalyst had on both fuels.

Bio-diesel offers many positive benefits except it usually costs more because of the special blending and it produces increased NOx emissions. The Rentar Fuel Catalyst offsets both of these possible negatives.

The State of Delaware retained Virginia Tech University to study the performance of number 2 diesel fuel compared to number 2 diesel fuel used with a Rentar Fuel Catalyst and how number 2 diesel fuel compares to Bio-diesel (20-80) and Bio-diesel used with a Rentar Fuel Catalyst.

The study, conducted at the Everett Meredith Middle School, was paid for by the Delaware Department of Agriculture, the Delaware Soybean Board, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Control (DNREC) and the Appoquinimink School District.

RESULTS – Fuel Consumption (exact quotes from report - see Page 7)
“The Rentar Catalyst DECREASED the number 2 fuel oil use by
7.6 PERCENT with greater than 99% confidence.”
“The Rentar Catalyst DECREASED the B20 (Bio-diesel 20-80) use by
5.7 PERCENT with greater than 99% confidence;

RESULTS – NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) (exact quotes from report - see Page 8)
Using number 2 diesel fuel as a baseline and number 2 diesel fuel with a Rentar Fuel Catalyst installed the following result was published: “The NOx concentration showed a REDUCTION OF 13 PERCENT using the Rentar Fuel Catalyst.”

As expected, the use of Bio-diesel increase NOx. The use of the Rentar Fuel Catalyst reduced that increase. (exact quotes from report - see Page 10 paragraph 6.3.2.2) “ The emissions of NOx of B20 INCREASED 10% over number 2 oil and INCREASED only 7% with B20 using the Rentar Fuel Catalyst A REDUCTION OF 3%.

OTHER RESULTS – Change in Emissions When Firing Number 2 oil with and without the Rentar Catalyst. (See page 8 and 9)

NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) REDUCTION OF 13 PERCENT
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) REDUCTION OF 9 PERCENT
CO (Carbon Monoxide) REDUCTION OF 4 PERCENT
SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide) REDUCTION OF 21 PERCENT
THC (Total Hydrocarbons) REDUCTION OF 13 PERCENT

The study was called the EFFECT OF RENTAR FUEL CATALYST ON EMISSIONS AND EFFICIENCY FROM A COMMERCIAL BOILER USING NUMBER 2 OIL AND B-20 SOYBEAN BLEND.

See Entire Report prepared by Professor John H. Pohl,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Alexandria Research Institute, Alexandria, VA 22314

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

http://www.komotv.com/news/business/17264314.html

By JOSEPH COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - With global markets in turmoil and the U.S. threatened by recession, negotiators at a climate change conference are asking: can nations afford to make rapid cuts in emissions to fight global warming without going into an economic tailspin?

The price of slashing the carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming is expected to be high, but proponents of firm action argue that delay will cost more in the long run.

“If you start having water supply problems in Peru, Chile and, a little further down the road, India and China, what are the global economic implications of that?” said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The argument for quick action is that a climate pact would actually spur economic growth through new industries such as clean technology.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said businesses are eager for clear environmental guidelines so they can plan their investments accordingly.

“The current economic uncertainly makes it all the more important for governments to provide clarity on where they intend to go on this issue,” he said.

The United Nations launched talks this week in Thailand aimed at forging a new global warming pact by the end of 2009. It is hoped a new pact will help control greenhouse gas emissions and prevent rising temperatures from triggering an environmental disaster.

Rising sea levels, droughts and crop damage - already linked to global warming - can severely strain entire economies.

But the costs of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere will be great.

Japan, for instance, recently issued a report estimating it would cost $500 billion just to cut domestic emissions 11 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. A separate estimate says cutting greenhouse gases would cost about 1 percent of global GDP annually.

U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson said such costs need to be factored in when deciding how deep the world ought to require industrialized nations to reduce emissions.

“If you push the globe into recession, it certainly isn’t going to help the developing world either,” he said. “Exports go down, and many of the developing countries of course are heavily dependent on exports. So there’s a lot of issues which need to be fleshed out … so people understand the real world.”

World Growth, a pro-business group, argues that quick action on climate change would do more harm than good.

“Immediate and substantial cuts in emissions will rapidly translate into reduced access to energy, lower economic growth and a reduced capacity to roll back poverty,” the group said in a report in December.

The current economic turmoil could draw more attention to the costs of combatting global warming, potentially complicating negotiations to put in place an international agreement to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

The current round of talks coincides with dire financial times in the United States.

Orders to U.S. factories fell for a second straight month, the government reported this week, reinforcing the fears of economists that believe a prolonged housing slowdown and credit crisis have already pushed the country into recession.

Economic concerns have damaged global warming agreements in the past. The United States, the only industrialized country not to ratify Kyoto, argued in recent years that the greenhouse gas reductions required by the pact would hurt its economy.

The economy hasn’t yet become a major topic in the Bangkok discussions, but it could be a concern in affected countries down the road, said Andrej Kranjc, secretary of Slovenia’s Environment Ministry, speaking for the European Commission in Bangkok.

“It could divert policy makers’ attention from climate change to these problems, of course, and it would be a problem,” he said.

Do you have 70 or more trucks and based in the USA ?
If so. We want to give you our fuel saving technology for free thru our
Pay Per Save Program which has an Infinite Return on Investment!
Call us now to find out how!

http://www.komotv.com/news/local/17226004.html

By Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) - A group of state attorneys general is taking the EPA back to court to try to force it to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that rebuked the Bush administration for inaction on global warming.

The high court decided a year ago that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to take action.

But 17 states and others said in a court filing Wednesday that the EPA has not issued a decision on regulation. Their court filing seeks to compel the EPA to act within 60 days.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said the EPA is failing to deal with the dangers of global warming.

An EPA spokesman did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.

The plaintiffs in Wednesday’s court action include Coakley and attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia, plus the city of New York, and the mayor and city council of Baltimore.