Hi again Glenn First, this list is for people making their own fuel, our other list, Biofuels-biz, is for people making it for distribution, "especially local-scale" - there are big producers there, and here, and of course they're more than welcome, but the focus is on *small*, local operations - what MM and Hakan have just been saying about distributed generation and so on.
Some members may have large-scale plans, but what I mostly see is people setting up all kinds of local coops in niche markets, if they can even be called markets. They produce the fuel, mostly from a waste product, and it gets used, displacing fossil-fuel sales, and possibly some sales of commercial biodiesel made by large-scale producers as well. Others have elegant schemes for sowing their technology through a succession of local, small-scale operations, perhaps sharing their resources to an extent; the technology is public domain, but the equipment itself is standardized, scaleable, and either supplied in some way or plans are supplied. I don't think any of these people have much to fear from competition muscling in on their "market" and squeezing them out - there might even be room for another small operation in a different niche in the same locality, and the two might find it worthwhile to cooperate. I think that kind of competitiveness would still be some way down the road. I just quoted this in another message: "Approximately 20 million gallons of biodiesel are expected to be produced nationwide this year, compared with 5 million gallons in 2000, according to the National Biodiesel Board." Another source says the US produced and used 35 million gallons last year - that's 700% growth. The EU produced and used 300 million gallons in 2001. The US expects to produce more than 800 million gallons a year by the year 2016. The Department of Energy expects six billion gallons a year by 2020, 15.5% of projected diesel consumption in the US. These are production projections, not market projections - you could say there's a market for six billion gallons now. You could even say there's a market for the entire amount of diesel consumption - 38 billion gallons. So there should be room for everyone, eh? For the time being at least. I think all the technology required for successful small-scale production is now available. That wasn't the case three years ago, it is now, and the development has mostly been done in a distributed way by people sharing information and resources through Internet forums like this one, backed up by increasingly useful archives that can be searched and by online resources like those at Journey to Forever and Webconx, and others, as well as on-the-ground by local groups and coops sharing these same resources. This is a bit like Open Source software development - the resulting products aren't necessarily free (people sell their processors for instance), but the technology is public domain. I'm sure it isn't all shared - a lot of people have their "tricks of the trade" that they've developed, that they might keep to themselves, fair enough. There's still nothing to stop anyone setting up a small production, using the freely available knowledge, and indeed developing their own tricks of the trade soon enough. These people don't seem to have funding problems. I don't know what arrangements people make, but it could even be self-funding. Making a basic set-up to produce your own fuel costs pocket money and will immediately start saving you money in fuel costs. Add home heating oil savings and that's more than pocket money. Make a bit more than you need for a friend or neighbour or two, and you can soon build a bigger and better processor, or another processor and run them in parallel. I saw one small producer fail to get a grant to fund plans for a large-scale operation, but I don't think that proved anything. I know another that's trying and will probably succeed. I reckon a small producer who gets well-established could just keep on growing if he wanted to, and with an established business could probably get the funding he wanted. I don't see really why patents need play a part in this, nor technology protection - how would that apply to, say, a small printing business wanting to expand? There's no basic requirement to own a technology. I know of one person who's designed a new processor which will use the public-domain production processes, but is considering patenting several aspects of his processor design. He needs investment to set up processor production and has been talking to potential funders. I believe he'll get his funding, but I don't think it will depend on whether he bothers to go for patents or not, there are other factors at work. As for protecting technology through a deliberate policy of secrecy, Biox, for instance, does that, with their patent that's been pending for quite a long time and nothing happens. Others who've been involved point to this: Methylation of fatty acids, William W. Christie, Scottish Crop Research Institute http://www.lipid.co.uk/infores/topics/methests/ ... and say there's nothing to patent. There's a lot of scepticism in the industry about Biox. Other commercial producers and technology suppliers have patents, but I think they're mostly on the technology, not on the processes themselves - the machinery, not the chemistry. Not altogether sure about that. I think the technology that's freely available now is good enough, it's quite mature and might not change too much more for the time being. However, if you produced a revolutionary new, proprietary technology to produce biodiesel, well, go ahead and produce it - if the process means you're producing better quality or at reduced costs you should do well, and nobody has to see anything but the product itself. If you want to sell the technology itself rather than the product, then you have a problem, and would probably want to patent it. I don't know how much that would help - I think if the "Big Guys" wanted it, they'd take it, as you say. "Sue me", yes. The big corporations employ patents lawyers, often lots of them. Most patent cases now are between corporations suing each other. Patents are not the useful things they were 20 years ago, for several reasons: because of what can be patented now (life), because of the nature of the major players, and because of globalization (both corporate and real), the Internet etc. Undertakings to unify international patent laws do not seem to be making much progress and law is being left trailing practice, especially with copyright, which will affect patenting. Internet publishing is making a mess out of copyright laws, and hey're a mess anyway. Further pressure for change is coming from the the Open Source developments, the worldwide wrangle over bio-piracy, and through opposition to the WTO. Some people are deliberately publishing their technology, even free full-text online publication, in order to stop other people patenting it by putting it in the public domain, with various provisos. Stillmaker does this, for one: "My intent is to release this document into the public domain in such a manner that anyone may freely copy, modify, or distribute its contents. Experience has shown that ideas exchanged in this way can be refined into much better products when any number of authors get involved and make their own contributions. "However, the legal system being what it is, several issues can turn up in doing this: "1. Any free document containing patentable information such as this is threatened constantly by second party patents. I want to avoid the danger that re-distributors of this free document will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the document and it's contents proprietary. To prevent this, I've tried to make it clear that any patent arising from this document must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." Etc. http://www.Moonshine-Still.com If you have a look at a modern patent document, what immediately strikes you is all the legalese - as far as clear language goes, they're silly documents. That means two things, I think: first, it probably isn't possible any longer to do it yourself, you'll need to employ a specialist lawyer; second, probably all that's needed to break it as a more expensive lawyer. Which leaves this: >Assuming, however, we are talking of a technology, like I presume producing >biodiesel by a process that is already in the public domain, -- nothing, I >suppose, but government regulations can stop you. Right? Right, and where that's the case I think it can be changed. MM said this: >This is good evidence that the present government, including the Bush-Cheney >Administration, is not doing everything possible to address itself, with more >*alacrity* and *earnestness*, to pressing energy issues. Either the producers >of biofuels should be subject to the same rules as everyone else and >they should >be *aided* to understand that without having to suffer the consequences as >business-wrecking penalties, and-or the law should be changed to decrease the >taxes on biofuels, given their strategic and environmentally critical status >(not to mention that they could help with Kyoto-type issues). And I noted that backyard biofuellers are effective campaigners, and others have also noted that. We're below their radar screen, and when they do stumble upon us they penalize us, even drive us out of business. That's not their attitude to erring corporations - there are corporations that are repeat offenders in breaking the pollution laws, often serious breaches, they merely get successions of paltry fines that don't even deter them, and they even maintain their eligibility to take on government contracts. Best wishes Keith >Hi Keith, > >Patents, of course, represent intellectual property that gives the patent >holder a protected proprietary postion, enabling the patent holders to >attract the large amount of venture capital money that are typically required >to enter the market in a big way. Without patents, most venture capitalists >won't invest; they want to see a protected proprietary position. So far as I >know that protection can only be protected by a deliberate policy of secrecy, >or by patents. Most big business in the U. S, I feel safe in saying, base >their businesses upon the proprietary protection that patents will provide, >at least in the startup phase. Without patents, anyone who becomes aware of >the new technology can use it for their own purposes; there is no proprietary >protection. > >Under these conditions, assuming a potential competitor wants to use the >patented technology, and wants to avoid the legal hassles of being >prosecuted for patent violation, their alternative would be to invent around >the patent. In so doing, as I use the term, they would develop new >technology with sufficient additional claims to be recognized by the patent >office as being eligible for a new patent. > >As you know, there are other alternatives. If a company wanting to use >someone]s patented technology without obtaining permission, they can do so, >and just say "sue me." Or, without obtaining a patent, an individual can >enter the market in a big enough way as to overwhelm any potential >competitor. > >Assuming, however, we are talking of a technology, like I presume producing >biodiesel by a process that is already in the public domain, -- nothing, I >suppose, but government regulations can stop you. Right? But, if you >develop some new, proprietary, technology, to produce biodiesel, how would >you propose to keep some large company from swiping it, except by patenting >it? > >Regards, > >Glenn ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
