Hi Keith,
I like to give it a final round and then try to write something and like a response. Also to give some more people opportunity to input. I thought that this subject was important and worth an attempt. But to get everybody involved, hackers seems to be more interesting and I see nothing wrong in this, but. At 04:41 AM 12/10/2002 +0900, you wrote: >Hi Hakan > > >Keith, > > > >First I want to tell you that any loss of power in todays vehicles in my > >mind does very little change. I have a licence to drive anything on wheels > >and the practical experiences that it implies. During my life time I have > >been driving around 3,000,000 km in almost any vehicles that you can > >imagine. > >Me too, anything from a bulldozer to a Dassault Mirage, two wheels, >four, as many as you like or none at all. Okay, I only flew a Mirage >once. :-) That means that you also have a very pragmatic view about vehicles. I only had a Cessna Cardinal and flew it around 400 hours, never piloted a jet and never even got the possibility to get in a jet fighter as passenger -:( . At 61, I think I have to give up that dream, because of the G-forces. Even small aerobatic plane as passenger, feels uncomfortable now, age I guess. I tried one of those modern roller coasters last summer and got severe neck pain from it, rheumatic problems or what it is called in English when your bone structure starts to degrade, I am 2 centimeter shorter now. >Not, however, only one wheel. Little Japanese kids learn to ride >unicycles, it's quite a common sight to see them spinning round the >place on their one-wheelers, I'm filled with envy. They look >incredibly cool. (I know when I'm beaten.) me too. > >With top speed limits between 55 to 85 miles per hour, most of > >current automobiles capacity has other values than pure and fast > >transportation. It is only in Germany that you have no speed limit and this > >is on a very low percentage of their roads. > > > >To talk about power loss in modern automobiles of around 10% does not > >really relate to any loss of efficiency in transportation. Talking about > >quantity used, have a direct relation to fuel produced. Therefore I am > >thinking more in fuel consumption than in power losses. > >You're right about the power loss, doesn't matter. Anyway, you still >have the loss in fuel consumption, of up to 13%. Plus the 20% alcohol >used in biodiesel (unless you recover, leaving average 13%), and the >savings of being able to use 160-proof ethanol. I don't know how it >compares, but these factors are not accounted for in the usual >comparisons. When I was driving on biodiesel in Europe, I did not see any higher consumption in my cars. Now when I was driving a VW Gol in Brazil the higher consumption compared with my wife's VW Golf was very noticeable. My wife's car is 4 years old and the Brazilian new, but I think that they are somewhat delayed in versions in Brazil and that it is comparable. Compared with a new Golf in Europe, it was very much higher consumption, nearly 100%. > >At 11:49 PM 12/7/2002 +0900, you wrote: > > >Hi Hakan > > > > > > > ><snip> > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > >The main by-product of each is stockfeed - DDG and seedcake, not much > > > > >to choose between them. > > > > > > > > >When I say byproducts, it is not only the stockfeed - DDG and seedcake. It > >is also the lubricant applications > >http://www.greenoil-online.com/hydraulc.html > > samples as Steve gave link to. > > > > > > > >http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/ceic/library/admin/uploadedfiles/H > > > >ow_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html > > > > > > > > > > > >carefully and it says about Btu per gallon, > > > > > > > >Corn based, Industry average : net energy gain = (energy ethanol) > 81,400 + > > > >(energy undefined co-products) 27,579 - (used energy) 81,090 = > 30,589 (38% > > > >gain) > > > > > > > >Corn based, Industry best : net energy gain = (energy ethanol) 81,400 + > > > >(energy undefined co-products) 36,261 - (used energy) 57,504 = > >62,857 (109% > > > >gain) > > > > > > > >Corn based, State of the Art Industry : net energy gain = (energy > ethanol) > > > >81,400 + (energy undefined co-products) 36,261 - (used energy) 47,948 = > > > >62,857 (151% gain) > > > > > > > >Cellulose based, Industry : net energy gain = (energy ethanol) 81,400 + > > > >(energy undefined co-products) 115,400 - (used energy) 76,093 = 122,407 > > > >(162% gain) > > > > > > > >What are the co-products? Do they go in the tank? How do you use Gluten > > > >meal, Protein feed and Carbon dioxide in the tank? > > > > > >Why would you need to? You can, if you like, feed it (with great gain > > >on the original product) to livestock, one possible co-product being > > >methane, which indeed you can put in the tank. > > > >When I said this I referred to (energy undefined co-products) which are the > >ones used to boost the energy numbers for ethanol. If we go over to ethanol > >and biodiesel, the surplus for animal food might be too big to have any > >value. I do not have numbers on this, have you seen any? > >Others also think that might be a problem. There are already huge >surpluses. Surplus is the true problem of agriculture, not shortage. Yes, yes and yes >But it is all obscured behind industrialized production systems and >centralized planning such as the CAP, and highly inequitable "free >trade" arrangements. However, in localized production, there are >other options. Much as I say that biofuels crop production on a >sustainable integrated farm need not require any exclusive land use, >such "excesses" or "wastes" or by-products are easily absorbed >without loss. You're not so much dependant on market swings. >Localization is the best approach to gluts and dearths. > >Case - Europe is apparently experiencing a glut in glycerine as a >result of biodiesel production there. (Yet this doesn't seem to have >affected buying prices, as gluts of soy and corn don't seem to affect >virgin oil prices in the US - but I'm sure it would affect selling >prices for small producers.) A local producer has quite a few options >with by-product glycerine. > > > > >Read for Biodiesel that for 1 unit energy used it goes 3.2 units in the > > > tank. > > > > > >"For every 1 BTU of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a > > >6.34 BTU gain." ("The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update", > > >Shapouri and Duffield, 2002) > > > >"liquid fuel", when I read all of those references about energy balances, > >they specify things in different way. If you use bagasse or non-liquid > >fuels, we end up approx. with what they say in, > >http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/ceic/library/admin/uploadedfiles/H > >ow_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html > > > >The differences are in recuperation systems and growing. It is logical that > >it is in that way and in my view it does not disqualify ethanol in any way. > > > > > > >Biodiesel's co-products do not go in the tank. Some can be used for > > >process heat, the others have other uses not related to energy. > > > > > >There's not much to choose between the overall energy efficiency of > > >biodiesel and of ethanol, IMO, even though distillation considered by > > >itself may be more energy-intensive than transesterification. > > > > > > >If you do not mind, I will keep my evaluation for this. > > > > > >I don't think it's based on very much difference. > > > > > > > >Sugar ethanol production tends to use the bagasse as an energy > > > > >source. I think there are many such possibilities. Also there's the > > > > >relative value of using non-mobile fuel to produce mobile fuel, which > > > > >puts a different sort of value on it. (Same with biodiesel perhaps.) > > > > > > > >Yes, bagasse can be used as heating source or as feedstock, this is the > > > >same as they do for fossil fuel. Since we have not done comparable > > > >evaluation for Biodiesel, the byproducts energy values are missing. I > > > >suspect that this and the less use of fertilizers, pesticides, > irrigation, > > > >more manual labor etc. are the reasons why Ethanol from sugar cane are a > > > >definite positive energy producer in Brazil. > > > > > >Ethanol is also a definite positive energy producer with corn in the > > >US. Sugar doesn't necessarily use any less fossil-fuel inputs than > > >corn does, or sugar beet - or at least not via industrialized > > >production. They can all do very well or better without any of those > > >inputs when grown sustainably. (Not just theory, according widespread > > >practical results in the field.) > > > >Agree, it is mostly the relation between the fermented volume and alcohol > >content. With rich sugar content, you end up at 36-proof and with super > >bacteria maximum is 48-proof. Fermentation goes on until bacteria dies > >because of starvation or too much alcohol, in the latter case you will end > >up with unused sugar anyway. The perfect raw material have just enough > >sugar for maximum alcohol and less energy to heat up excess liquid. Sugar > >rich base can be diluted, but if you miss sugar you are likely using heat > >to concentrate. > > > > > > >On the other hand, biodiesel co-products can also be used for process > > >heat (including glycerine). > > > >yes > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > >It's hardly explored - as I keep saying, what about the oil in the > > > > >maize? And so on. > > > > > > > >This is a very important point that can make corn very valuable. I do not > >understand that they do not use it that way. > >Corporate management is a collection of pyramids with no causeways >between them - one for biodiesel, one for ethanol... Proposing such >causeways threatens management's territories. Another constraint that >vanishes with small-scale enterprises. Yes, except that initial investment levels gets higher for bootstrapping of businesses. Bootstrapping is a very old computer term and come from the old IBM days, 40 years ago. It means that you start a small program that reads in a little bit bigger one and a little bit bigger one etc., until you have the whole operating system loaded. I will not go into details and get nostalgic about it, but it is a good term for starting up companies. > > > >See previous point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Cost to produce: > > > > > >See energy for production. > > > > > > > > > >See Butterfield refs. > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > >I suppose that you agree with this. > > > > > >"End use efficiency for fuel/technology less more more" > > > > > >No, I see little difference. > > > >I see the same difference that we have between gasoline/diesel, plus a > >smaller rise in difference depending on what we discuss above. > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > >You don't use much water that way, though it does improve efficiency. > > > > >You can use as little as 160-proof ethanol with the water in > > > > >solution, which saves on energy in distillation and the need for the > > > > >zeolyte step. Compare with the 20% alcohol you'll be using to make > > > > >biodiesel (if you don't recover the excess). SVO doesn't require > > > > >alcohol and isn't really comparable on this basis, but it's not a > > > > >proven fuel either. > > > > > > > > > >See also injection here: > > > > >Ron Novak's Do-It-Yourself Water Injection System > > > > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me3 > .html > > > > > > > >Do not forget that I am talking about quantities of fuel here. All > > > >testimonies and technical adjustments point to more quantity use with > > > >replacement of gasoline with ethanol and unchanged quantities with > > > >replacements of diesel. > > > > > >They're wrong - or at least only partly right. See below: "A loss of > > >engine power... > > > >Quantity used, I do not see power loss as determine factor. In my mind it > >is not, since it will not be compensated until you make new cars only for > >ethanol or biodiesel and then we loose the reference again. I think that we > >might have some different view angles on this and the differences between > >us is more that we are looking at from different points, than that we have > >different opinions. I think that I have to make an explanatory footnote to > >clear this up. Which make our discussion very useful. > >The power loss isn't significant, I don't think, you're quite right. >But the lost economy is. Yes, when we get new cars that compensate for power loss and loose the possibility to make fair comparisons again. The economy is 30% price and 70% taxes in Europe and based on type and volume of fuel, not on energy content like drinkable ethanol. That throws away all economic logic anyway, not uncommon when Big government, Big political parties and Big oil gets involved together. > > > > >All > > > > > >testimonies and technical adjustments point to more quantity use > with > > > > > >replacement of gasoline with ethanol and unchanged quantities with > > > > > >replacements of diesel. > > > > > > > > > >"A loss of engine power of about 8% is measured with neat biodiesel, > > > > >fuel consumption penalty as high as 13% and more was reported with > > > > >heavy-duty engines over the U.S." (it says here). If you're burning > > > > >160-proof ethanol that would quite largely offset the extra 30%-odd > > > > >economy you get with a diesel (less the loss of economy with > > > > >biodiesel and, I think, SVO). > > > > ><snip> > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > >Ideally, if possible. > > > > > > > > > >I'm a bit suspicious of the whole exercise, in a way. As with > > > > >proposing the "best" technology, comparisons like this to find which > > > > >is better don't really reflect the real world and can do damage when > > > > >imposed on the real world. They're a bit like the energy and > > > > >life-cycle studies above, doing a lot of averaging-out and ending up > > > > >with conditions on, say, an "average" farm, or even "the" average > > > > >farm, which is not something that exists. So I find it hard to make > > > > >comparisons out of context: in any given situation there are a lot of > > > > >factors to be considered to see which fits best, or which combination > > > > >fits best. But here there isn't a given situation. > > > > > > > >The subject is Biofuel Business and I have full understanding of > what you > > > >say about "best" technology. The question is what would be the best bio > > > >fuel business? > > > > > >My reservations still hold: "It depends..." For instance, considering > > >the question of corn oil... Agribiz giant (ogre?) Archer Daniels > > >Midland is both "Big Soy" and Big Corn", and big much besides, > > >including Big Ethanol in the US. The ethanol comes from the corn of > > >course. They've been making biodiesel in Europe for some time, but > > >not in the US, and recently announced a pilot study on biodiesel > > >there. It seems these oversized ogres are not too good at synergy and > > >integration. A bit dumb. Are they going to investigate making > > >biodiesel from the oil in the corn they currently make ethanol from? > > >I'd bet not, they'll use soy. So, might it not be a window of > > >opportunity to set up a biodiesel operation in a mainstream US corn > > >ethanol area? > > > > > >I don't know too much about this, I didn't know what happened to the > > >oil in corn ethanol production. Now there's some discussion with a > > >chemical engineer in Brazil about it. He's working with a factory > > >making ethanol from corn and producing 30 thousand liters per month > > >of non-refined corn oil, stored or used as fertilizer in the > > >sugar-cane crop, of all things. So it seems the corn oil is indeed > > >regarded as a waste product from ethanol production. They haven't > > >even thought of using it for process heat. If they did, and made > > >biodiesel from the excess (looks like there'd be an excess), that > > >would rather change the energy efficiency of the corn distillation > > >and the economics of both operations. > > > >My opinion about the business factors is not based on the energy content or > >the technical issues. It is rather social and economic interests that are > >inhabitations for ethanol. See below, > > > > > > > >Taking costs, energy returns, process, political road blocks > > > >etc. in consideration, I do think that Biodiesel/SVO has some definite > > > >advantages and a window of opportunity. I think that you also > >understand me > > > >very well, since you did not expanded it with producer gas, hydrogen > etc.. > > > >You are testing my case and I am very grateful for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > >I know that's not your aim, it's to shed some light on what a > > > > >would-be enterprise needs to consider, the potentials and > > > > >constraints. But that's my constraint! I think of villages. > > > > > > > >I fully understand this and it is also a different case. Villages > must use > > > >the best for local conditions, > > > > > >That's just my problem, I don't think that only applies to villages, > > >I tend to think it applies to everything, certainly everything to do > > >with energy. Bottom up, not top down. There's lots of good reasoning > > >to support this view at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), > > >Sustainable Minnesota, Carbohydrate Economy, New Rules Project > > >websites. > > > >Diesel and diesel engines were developed bottom up in Europe, it is for > >sure not Big oil who promoted it. > >Yes, originally developed as a counter to Big Steam. 1900 was a little to early and late to compete with steam cars and it was developed for vegetable oil. As the T-ford was developed for ethanol. The historical choice of Big oil was gasoline. > >Big oil have some very large interests in > >maintaining a balance that fits with the refining process. They are > >benefiting very much from the difference between Europe and US. If you go > >biofuels, this balance is not important any longer, because you can choose > >different sources and engine technologies independently. > >Yes, much better, do what fits the situation best rather than the >vested interests. It is also a technical fit and/or necessity for refined oil products, not only vested interests. You remember the scale of products from crude that you gave us a short while ago. This production is more of a ladder, than free choices of what you want to produce. MTBE that originally was a waste, became a product and it is now proven that Big oil knew about the problems. The temptation to use and sell the waste was too big. They knew the risks and how difficult/costly it was to get rid of the waste in a safe way, because they tried it before. >Best > >Keith > > > > > >Brazil is a good example of this. Reading > > > >about their investigation of experiences in the link you provided in > > > >another posting, I am very positive about their social and economic > > > >benefits from the ethanol program. > > > > > >There's been a lot of argument about it in various forums and at > > >various levels, in which I think Big Oil interests may have taken a > > >hand. It's been said it's not all it seems, but I think it is all it > > >seems. > > > >I think so too. > > > > > > >Something I haven't been able to find out more about is the cane > > >ethanol program in South Africa up to the 1960s, where fuel ethanol > > >produced from sugar cane (a major crop in Natal) was widely available > > >nationwide at the pump in many or most service stations, and widely > > >used. I don't know why it seems to have died, especially as South > > >Africa in those days and later was facing international sanctions, > > >including oil sanctions. More recently both South Africa and Zimbabwe > > >have been producing fuel ethanol, but it's a bit of a confused > > >picture. I think both were exporting it to Brazil, which didn't have > > >enough, as it was more profitable than using it locally. > > > > > >Regards > > > > > >Keith > > > >Hakan > > >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/ 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/
