Hi Keith,
Thank you for your response and I am somewhat uncomfortable with the second table. I am not sure of that the presentation of political - commercial - influencing points are suitable in a table. Need to think more about it. Therefore I like to discuss the basics first and the table "Characteristics, comparing Ethanol, Biodiesel and SVO." first. I do think that the table "Characteristics, comparing Ethanol, Biodiesel and SVO." can be useful and ask you or others to suggest points that I maybe have missed. I must also underline that this is not a question of choice between them, they are all desperately needed and that is also covered in the table. On those points we agree. I have marked the points we agree on, in table at, http://energy.saving.nu/biofuels/biofuelorg.shtml from yours at http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_compare.html The open points are: Possible crops: I changed this to "Possible raw material sources", to be sure that I do not exclude trees and fruits. I like to have more discussions about this, but all that I have seen until now points to more source material for vegetable oil. Soil sensitivity: Here I am in deep water and need your expertise. It is a very important point and I would like you to analyze it further. Crop rotation problems: The same as previous point. But I thought with effective oil producing trees or more choices of crops, it would be easier to overcome. Fuel productivity per acre: Again, the production numbers I have seen for oil are better than for Ethanol. It is however a weak point, since we do not look at the total possible production of ethanol and veg oil from the same source. Possible bi-products: The same as for previous point. Veg. oil do opens up for a larger number of replacement applications, among those are many in the lubrication field. Chemical altering or distilling: I corrected this. Energy for production: I read a lot and I seems that ethanol is the most energy demanding process, oil pressing definitely is the least. Biodiesel as I understand the process, is much less energy demanding than alcohol. On producing raw material they are all similar, but distilling is a very energy demanding process. Net energy gain: The fossil fuel processes are also very energy demanding and not very effective, but it is mostly conversion processes to marketable products. Some of the raw material for ethanol, do contain more or less veg oil. We can maybe add this aspect also, but as I see it, it becomes a part of raw material evaluation. Cost to produce: See energy for production. End use efficiency: Needed clarification and I changed heading to "End use efficiency for fuel/technology", this to clarify that a change in fuel/technology will achieve substantial energy savings. I do not think we will disagree with this. Needed quantity to replace fossil fuel: Water can be added to gasoline also, with similar energy savings. The difference is that the water/air have to be added at injection. All testimonies and technical adjustments point to more quantity use with replacement of gasoline with ethanol and unchanged quantities with replacements of diesel. Storage time: I corrected this. I do not cover combined production of ethanol and veg oil from the same source and it would be very useful to discuss this. Maybe it is not a biodiesel or ethanol business, it could be that you need to combine both for a good business. Hakan At 12:33 PM 12/5/2002 +0100, Hakan Falk wrote: >Keith, > >Thank you, I will go through it and we will discuss >the differences. > >Hakan > > >At 08:02 PM 12/5/2002 +0900, you wrote: > >Hi Hakan > > > > >It is difficult to make tables in mail, if you cannot use html. > > >Therefore I also did the tables at the end of, > > > > > >http://energy.saving.nu/biofuels/biofuelorg.shtml > > > > > >Hakan > > > >Difficult too to discuss them by email, for the same reason, so I > >copied your tables and did an alternative version for comparison, > >here: > >http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_compare.html > > > >Best > > > >Keith > > > > > > >At 04:08 PM 12/4/2002 +0100, Hakan Falk wrote: > > > > > > >Keith, > > > > > > > >Original draft for article at > > > >http://energy.saving.nu/biofuels/biofuelorg.shtml > > > > > > > >You just posted several press releases from oil companies and these are > > > >quite telling. They touch very much the subject of my article. The > > > >situation in Poland and the "moonshine" argument, show the relevance of > > > >this discussion. David have already started to think about it and I hope > > > >that we get more valuable views. > > > > > > > >To add to the discussion about centralization versus > decentralization risk > > > >for Ethanol and biodiesel/SVO, I have done the following tables. I is a > > > >topic for discussion and I am not claiming that I got it right on the > > first > > > >time or on my own. > > > > > > > >The following table is a first attempt to map technical feasibility of > > > >fossil to bio fuel replacement. > > > >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/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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/
