This is an extracxt taken from 'bio-power' news, a publication
produced by www.bio-power.co.uk It makes some valid points in my
opinion regarding the use of chemicals. I have mentioned this method
of fuel production before on this list and got an overwhelming reply
with negative comments on this other method of fuel production.
If indeed that's what it is. Negative or realistic? Here's my comment:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/44365/
Here's an earlier one (excerpts):
>They say it is a better process producing better fuel than bio diesel.
>Does anyone have any comments on that claim?
It's not exactly a process, all they do is
add a solvent, 3% turpentine or something (or "a spoonful" according
to Top Gear, LOL!). All it does is lower the viscosity a bit, but
there's rather more to it than just viscosity, especially with DI
diesels - see the ACREVO study on this, for instance:
http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Fair/F484.htm
Advanced Combustion Research for Energy from Vegetable Oils (ACREVO)
Better than biodiesel? What does "better" mean? Easier and cheaper to
make, sure. Does it also mean that it's been demonstrated in a wide
variety of circumstances using different engines and different oils
that it won't shorten the expected 500,000-mile life of a diesel
motor? No.
I don't want to discourage experiment, but that's all it is until
there's a lot more on-road experience behind it, as is now becoming
the case with two-tank heated SVO systems, and has long been the case
with biodiesel. I definitely do want to discourage experiment dressed
up as a mature and developed technology and being sold on those
grounds. Reminiscent of the chaos caused in South East Asia a year or
two back by weird and various mixes of petrodiesel and kerosene with
refined or unrefined coconut and palm oil, widely touted as
"biodiesel", but it damaged engines and persuaded the carmakers to
withdraw warranty cover for biofuels, great. I suppose a few people
made some money out of it though.
If you think viscosity is all that matters, you should also have a
look at this:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_SVO-Anso.html
Ricardo report on SVO - Niels Ans¿
Maybe that's enough negative/realistic comment for now.
People are conducting serious research on the use of additive blends
with SVO as fuel (one of them has just joined), but I wouldn't number
John Nicholson and the Biopower network among them.
On another group a member there (and also here) has asked John
Nicholson the same question about his additives at least four times
now and fails to get a response, though John Nicholson posts other
messages there all the while. I don't think he'll get an answer, he
has to pay up first. From below:
... we do have a much more detailed member’s site which is
accessible to people who have been on one of the Bio-power
Introductory Seminars and wish to become a Bio-power Local Agent
within the Bio-power Network.
From the Biopower website:
Any individual can join us for free as a supporter or as a
subscribing member by sending us a membership fee of £25.00. Both
categories of membership will receive the monthly Bio-power News,
but only subscribing members will be allowed to vote at the AGM.
... and have access to all the secrets no doubt available at the
members' site (password required).
I tried to find the issue of Bio-power News you lifted this from, but
the latest issue available at the Biopower website is #15 of July /
August 2004, and it got a "404 Not Found". Tut tut. The reason I
wanted to see it is that the comparison tables and so on are not very
clear. Anyway.
You can more or less close your eyes and chuck a dart at it, you'll
probably hit something iffy. For his reason I find it difficult to
reach the end of anything John Nicholson writes, I find myself in
editor mode and if it were on paper I'd spike it long before I
reached the end. Unfixable, unpublishable
First, comparisons are fair enough and useful, and so are discussions
of the pro and cons of each, but I've found it's a dead giveaway when
promoters of SVO systems or whatever market their wares by bashing
biodiesel. It's happened here too, several times, it lacked
integrity, and finally I banned it. Hakan put it in perspective: "SVO
versus biodiesel is a pseudo argument that should not exist. It
creates a false competitive situation between two good things and
distracts from the real issues on how we can minimize the use of
fossil fuels." Quite so. Have a look at this first:
SVO vs biodiesel in Europe
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html#SVO-Eu
Sounds familiar?
John Nicholson:
The process otherwise used to make bio-diesel as a Fatty Acid Methyl
Ester has many problems associated with the method of manufacture,
problems with the materials used and problems connected with the use
of the fuel type itself.
Ho-hum.
"This leaves glycerol as a waste by-product." It is not a waste
product, it's a by-product, with many uses, whether on its own or
separated - see for instance:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycsep.html
Separating glycerine/FFAs
John Nicholson doesn't know that? If not why not? If he does then why
does he write such nonsense?
"The volume of fuel made is therefore less than the volume of fat
stock used. For this reason we say it is a 'subtractive' method."
More nonsense. Many people, including us, get 100% yield or even
more: 100 litres WVO, 100 litres of washed, finished biodiesel. John
Nicholson doesn't know that either?
"The potential energy contained in the glycerol is wasted as a fuel..."
With SVO use at least there's little difference in performance or
economy compared with biodiesel, and I don't think SVO is better. It
would be interesting to see John Nicholson providing data to support
this claim for his fuel: "... all the potential energy in the fat
stock is made available for use as a fuel." I suppose you'd have to
pay your fees first.
"We also make larger volume of fuel than that of the fat feed stock
because we add other non-mineral materials..."
What, with a spoonful?
"The manufacture of Bio-diesel requires methanol. This is often
misleadingly called 'wood alcohol' as if it were a natural material."
This is where it starts to get slimy - the intent is to brand
biodieselers as misleading, we give our horrible chemicals nice
natural names to hide the fact that they're dangerous. No, it doesn't
say that, but that's the intention nonetheless.
In fact 'wood alcohol' is a very old name for methanol, because it
used to be derived from wood, and some still is. Not misleading. Many
people still call ethanol "alcohol" and know that "wood alcohol" is
not the same and it's poisonous.
"Methanol is also a very active chemical against which the human body
has no means of defence. It is absorbed easily through the skin and
there is no means of elimination from the body, so levels of methanol
dissolved in the blood accumulate."
Total crap. Try this:
"Methanol occurs naturally in humans, animals and plants. It is a
natural constituent in blood, urine, saliva and expired air. A mean
urinary methanol level of 0.73 mg/litre (range 0.3-2.61 mg/litre) in
unexposed individuals and a range of 0.06 to 0.32 µg/litre in expired
air have been reported...
"The two most important sources of background body burdens for
methanol and formate are diet and metabolic processes. Methanol is
available in the diet principally from fresh fruits and vegetables,
fruit juices (average 140 mg/litre, range 12 to 640 mg/litre),
fermented beverages (up to 1.5 g/litre) and diet foods (principally
soft drinks). The artificial sweetener aspartame is widely used and,
on hydrolysis, 10% (by weight) of the molecule is converted to free
methanol, which is available for absorption...
"Elimination of methanol from the blood via the urine and exhaled air
and by metabolism appears to be slow in all species, especially when
compared to ethanol. Clearance proceeds with reported half-times of
24 h or more with doses greater than 1 g/kg and half-times of 2.5-3 h
for doses less than 0.1 g/kg...
"The minimum lethal dose of methanol in the absence of medical
treatment is between 0.3 and 1 g/kg."
Also:
"Many national occupational health exposure limits suggest that
workers are protected from any adverse effects if exposures do not
exceed a time-weighted average of 260 mg/m3 (200 ppm) methanol for
any 8-h day and for a 40-h working week."
From: United Nations Environment Programme / International Labour
Organisation / World Health Organization: International Programme On
Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 196 - Methanol
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc196.htm
Other authorities concur.
You can see why I find it difficult to get the the end of it. We've
hardly begun, but would you buy a used car from this man?
"Caustic soda is also not a very nice chemical and can cause
irritation and serious burns."
Indeed it can, but it's nonetheless a common household item sold in
supermarkets and hardware stores, as is methanol, which is quite
often to be found on dining tables being used as a fuel for fondues
and Korean barbecues and so on.
"The supply of methanol is controlled by the petrochemical industry..."
Not entirely.
"... and at any time they wish they could increase the prices of
methanol to make the bio-diesel industry non-viable."
The same could be said of the big and generally inimical agribusiness
interests that control the supplies of vegetable oil. In fact the
petrochemical industry also has something of a strangehold on it
because most of it is a product of industrialised agriculture and its
production is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. It needn't be, it
can be organically produced, but only a fraction of it is, and
similarly methanol can be and is produced from biomass as well as
from natural gas.
"There is a finite resource of methanol and the use of this material
as a way to make bio-diesel is not sustainable."
More nonsense, biomass is not a finite resource. Members here are
working on new methods of small-scale production of methanol from
biomass. The problem will be solved. Meanwhile there's ethyl esters
biodiesel as well, also due for some technical breakthroughs, but
Nicholson doesn't mention ethyl esters - he doesn't know about it? As
with all this stuff, he's either too ignorant to be in this business
or he knows very well that he's talking junk.
Biodiesel is wasteful and environmentally irresponsible, it strips
paint and rots rear tyres - LOL! Varnish on the inside of tanks? Wax
deposits from petro-diesel actually.
Agh! Enough. You can easily tear the whole thing apart, it has no
substance at all.
IMO this is a bandwagon, it started rolling with that silly TV
program that said all you need is a teaspoonful of turpentine. It
looks like a pyramid scheme to me, which needn't be a scam if the
product or process is sound, but how sound is what John Nicholson
claims? Perhaps he means well, but I sure wouldn't believe him. Where
are his long-term results? There aren't any. And, again, if you think
viscosity is all that matters, check out those refs at the top.
I'm quite happy to await the results of real research on SVO additive
blends, and I hope Biopower doesn't succeed in giving it a bad name
in the meantime.
As for small-scale continuous biodiesel processors, stick around
awhile, I think your patience will be rewarded.
Best wishes
Keith
I am making biodiesel regularly not as a commercial project or
business but simply to run 2 vehicles. I produce batches of 100
litres about 4 at a time once a month and feel that the lack of
hazardous chemicals with this other method very attractive. It also
suggests a continuous process is a viable option which is also a
positive as if I can rig up a processor I will have to spend
significantly less time creating my fuel. Has anyone any experience
with this type of bio-fuel and what were the results? During email
correspondence with bio-power I was told the methods they are using
also allow the use of heavily hydrogenated oils such as palm (which
is used in most traditional English fish & chip shops and is readily
available in large quantities) I have made bio diesel with these
oils in the past and have had to run a 50/50 mix with fossil diesel
to winterise the fuel acceptably (even then I froze the tank twice
last winter which is not fun!) I am currently using lots of
suppliers of small quantities of various liquid oils.
Regards
Chris Bennett..
*The difference between Bio-power MUVO and standard Bio-diesel RME?
**Are there any dangers or risks in these different forms of bio-fuel?***
Many people ask these same questions, and I must add a few more
pages to the web site to deal with this remark. The Bio-power web
site is always rather out of date, but we do have a much more
detailed member’s site which is accessible to people who have been
on one of the Bio-power Introductory Seminars and wish to become a
Bio-power Local Agent within the Bio-power Network.
There are a number of reasons why we prefer the unique Bio-power
method for making a bio-fuel as Modified Used Vegetable Oil. The
process otherwise used to make bio-diesel as a Fatty Acid Methyl
Ester has many problems associated with the method of manufacture,
problems with the materials used and problems connected with the use
of the fuel type itself.
*Lets look first at the means of manufacture…*
As you probably already know, RME (Rapeseed Methyl Ester) is made by
shattering the lipid fat molecule to strip the three long
hydrocarbon chains from their ester bond. This leaves glycerol as a
waste by-product. The process is normally achieved using methanol as
the new stem, and caustic soda as the catalyst. The process is
called ‘transesterification’ because the hydrocarbons are swapped
from a triple bond with glycerol to a single bond with methanol. The
volume of fuel made is therefore less than the volume of fat stock
used. For this reason we say it is a 'subtractive' method. The
potential energy contained in the glycerol is wasted as a fuel,
though it can be used as a sugar in a must to create alcohol.
However, there are much more efficient and cheaper sugar sources.
Nitric acid and glycerol makes nitro-glycerine a high explosive. All
this potential energy is wasted.
By comparison, the Bio-power technique is an additive process. We do
not use any chemical reactions. We do not need any 'nasty' chemicals
like sulphuric acid, methanol and caustic soda. We especially do not
like methanol because it is created by the petrochemical industry
and is therefore fossil sourced, and our primary aim is to produce
alternatives to the use of fossil fuels. We do not create any waste
by-product like glycerol, and all the potential energy in the fat
stock is made available for use as a fuel. We also make larger
volume of fuel than that of the fat feed stock because we add other
non-mineral materials to achieve the most cost effective improvement
in combustion. Because we do not use the processes of esterification
or trans-esterification, we do not need any licences for our process
from the Environment Agency. Our process does not require any heat
or mixing procedures, and it does not create any vapours or toxic
emissions.
*If we look at the materials used in the two processes…*
The manufacture of Bio-diesel requires methanol. This is often
misleadingly called ‘wood alcohol’ as if it were a natural material.
In reality it is a product of the petrochemical industry and it is
made from fossil hydrocarbons. The process of transesterification
‘transfers’ the ester bond of lipid fats from glycerol (a plant
sugar) to methanol (a fossil hydrocarbon). It is therefore not a
wholly non-fossil process, and takes valuable energy stored in a
non-fossil material (glycerine) out of the fuel, and replaces it
with a fossil derived material whilst claiming to be a ‘carbon
neutral’ fuel.
Methanol is also a very active chemical against which the human body
has no means of defence. It is absorbed easily through the skin and
there is no means of elimination from the body, so levels of
methanol dissolved in the blood accumulate. This causes damage to
the nervous system and especially to the sensitive optic nerve, and
this can soon cause blindness. Caustic soda is also not a very nice
chemical and can cause irritation and serious burns. It is for this
reason that the process of transesterification requires an operators
licence from the Environment Agency to ensure that these risks are
properly managed.
The supply of methanol is controlled by the petrochemical industry,
and at any time they wish they could increase the prices of methanol
to make the bio-diesel industry non-viable. There is a finite
resource of methanol and the use of this material as a way to make
bio-diesel is not sustainable.
The Bio-power modification process does not involve any chemical
reactions. It is a simple mechanical process in which the liquid fat
is passed through a series of flow forms, which segregate the fat
molecules according to their molecular size and relationship to each
other, using a feature that fat molecules exhibit naturally. The
shorter chained molecules are used to make vehicle fuels, the longer
ones heating fuels and the very thick fats are used in modified
engines to generate electricity. The solvents and additives we use
are derived from plant oils and essences that are normally used for
cosmetic and therapeutic purposes. We also use water and alcohols,
all derived from natural sources.
We are not therefore dependant upon any one major (and competitive)
industry for the supply of any material. We can further trade with
other poorer nations by encouraging a new markets for many natural
materials that otherwise present a waste disposal problem.
*Turning finally to the differences in the fuels themselves...*
Bio-diesel (RME) is a very active solvent. It is known to strip or
blister car bodywork paint, and it strips the varnish or coatings
applied to the insides of fuel tanks, and then deposit these
materials in the fuel filter. This seems to happen more often in
lorries rather than cars, so there may be a different form of
coating used in commercial vehicles.
It is also known to dissolve or weaken the structure of rubber. One
of our local friends was very keen to support our early work in the
making of bio-fuels when I was still experimenting with all the
different ways of making bio-diesel (RME). They were keen to test
our fuel to see if their car did a better mpg. They did this by
filling up to the very top of the fuel pipe and then driving a
measured distance and finally measuring how much fuel was needed to
refill the tank to the very top. Having once done so, they parked
their car in the garage and when on a short holiday in a petrol van.
What they did not know was that the fuel filler pipe was rusty and
some RME dripped out and made puddle on the concrete floor, just
where the rear wheel was. When they returned home and went out in
their car there was an eerie up and down movement, then suddenly
their rear tyre came apart slightly and was rubbing on the wheel
arch. The RME had slowly dissolved the tyre, which then expanded
like a small balloon or aneurysm! This shows just how active RME is
as a solvent in destroying rubber!
We feel that the government may be right to be cautious about the
use of RME. At a dilution of 5% it is safe enough, but this does
very little to address the issues of Climate Change and Global
Warming. We are interested in getting towards 100% non-fossil fuels.
Bio-power fuels do not have the same solvency problem, and they do
not cause any reaction to paintwork or to the coatings of tanks. We
are not bound to a precise chemical formulation either so we can
vary the specification to provide a range of fuels for all kinds of
situations. We are working on a 100% bio-fuel that can be used in
China and Romania as low as - 20 degrees centigrade. We also make
special fuels for back up generators that will last a long time
without bio-degrade, and will start up very reliably when needed to
power a transmitter. We are currently working on a fat based fuel
for use in petrol engines.
Finally, bio-diesel has to be made to a precise specification as set
out in EN 14214. Our fuel does not meet that specification because
our fuel is largely triglycerides. Our aim is to get closer the
standards used for normal mineral diesel EN590, but for a fuel made
from renewable non-fossil materials. Many engine manufacturers say
that the use of bio-diesel in concentrations greater than 5% will
invalidate the engine warranty. This effectively limits the use of
bio-diesel in the UK to a very low proportion of overall fuel use.
However, the same issue does not arise in other nations like Germany
where manufacturers say that the use of bio-diesel at 100% is likely
to extend the working life of engines.
*A direct comparison between the two methods …*
Bio-power method (MUVO) Transesterification method (RME)
The fuel is derived from non-fossil materials The fuel is not
entirely a non-fossil fuel
The process creates a greater volume of fuel than feed Smaller
volume of fuel than feed
The fuel more powerful than fossil Fuel less powerful than fossil
No need for chemicals Needs Methanol and caustic soda
No chemical reactions Involves a chemical process
No need for EA License Needs a license – costs money
Continuous process Batch process
No waste by-product Creates waste Glycerol
Uses all the available energy as a fuel Wastes potential energy
Method can be varied Process is fixed by chemistry
*The overall process is …*
Efficient, Wasteful
Environmentally responsible, Creates by-product to dispose of
Economically viable, and profitable Marginal at best, more likely
not commercially viable as the
price of UCO and methanol increases
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
