Camillo, thank you....I simply make the point right now that there should not be a debate of "which one is better" between SVO and biodiesel. There is a need for both, depending on the circumstances, and both will find their place in the market. We should not waste our own "energy" as people working in this field on that sort of "debate", but stick to the main problem - reducing reliance on non-renewable, highly polluting forms of petrodiesel.
We need every clean diesel technology (like Sweden's city diesel used as the baseline fuel in that infamous Swedish study...a much cleaner fuel than is typical!), the Sun diesel (VW), natural gas engines, solar cells, wind, hydrogen, fuel cells, microhydro, etc. Also we need a large reduction in demand per capita and an large increase in fuel efficiency, if we are to solve the problems we face as a society thoroughly hooked on current practices of wasteful use of fossil fuel, (which is stored solar energy formed over millions of years - a very versatile gift of nature, which ought to last many generations, but which clearly will not, at present rate of use - burned up in a few generations and waste products dumped to the atmosphere, and from there back into our water. Regards, Edward Beggs www.biofuels.ca on 4/15/02 4:32 AM, Camillo Holecek at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks, > realy a heartfelt lot of thanks, > Edward, > yours is the very first educated answer I was able to obtain so far on > that matter. > > Because of lack of time today I post a SHORT answer here, although I > would like to enter this most productive discussion head long right > now.... > > Both is way better than dinodiesel, RIGHT! > > So far I kept hearing this alert on possible endless exhaust gas > poisions troubles and could not (and still can not) reach a final > conclusion. I am very much prepeared to accept a lot of your points on > the advanteges of SVO > > Camillo Holecek > DonauWind GmbH&Co KG > > -----UrsprŸngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Neoteric Biofuels Inc. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. April 2002 20:21 > An: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com > Betreff: Re: [biofuels-biz] SVO? > > > Camillo - > > > Obviously, emissions results of acrolein, aldehyde etc. will vary > widely > depending on a large number of factors, including engine type, > condition, > load, operating temperature, characteristics of the oil, contributions > from > the engine lubricating oil, exhaust gas after-treatment, etc. > > Next, whatever level of emissions actually occur, has to be put into > perspective. > > > If you average all the above for a wide range of conditions, what is the > amount and speciation of the emissions generated? > > > Then, look at fates, exposure pathways and exposure levels. Acrolein, > for > example, does not persist or accumulate in the atmosphere, it has a half > life of about 12 hours, and a lifetime of about 17 hours. (US EPA) > > The toxicological endpoint in humans for acrolein is the respiratory > system. > RfC (reference concentration) is 0.02g/m according to US EPA - exposure > below that level, over a lifetime, would not be expected to result in > occurrence of chronic, non-cancer effects. How many SVO diesels in what > proximity for how many hours of operation per day does it take to get to > that level of exposure? How might any risk, if it exists, be mitigated? > These are the basics of toxicology and risk assessment, and they are > often > missed in exclamations and pronouncements of fitness for use of a > particular > substance in a particular application. > > Then shall we look at biodiesel and its emissions? Whose study will we > look > at? The Chalmers study? Biodiesel did not fare much better than rapeseed > oil > in that one. Perhaps the German Federal one that found biodiesel not > worthwhile in general? No, I don't think so, that is not productive, is > it? > > Should we discuss the glut of glycerine from biodiesel production, a > problem > in itself, and one other reason why the research on SVO options > continues? > > Production, transport and use of methanol? It's usual source, > non-renewable > natural gas, produced often, in conjunction with fertilizer plants? > Emissions from those plants? Emissions getting the methanol product to > where > it is needed, risk of spills, etc.? And this (methanol) is the least > expensive and most commonly used alcohol in biodiesel production, and > 95% or > so does come from natural gas (which we have seen can quickly spike in > price, which the individual cannot produce easily and cheaply, or have > any > control over) > > Emissions to transport the glycerine to market, processing? > > CO2 life cycle emissions reduction comparisons? > > Energy balance? > > Capital /labour requirements? > > Wastewater generated? > > Safety of the materials stored, used and handled? (exposures, spills) > > Ability of local, small producers to compete in biodiesel production > against > large interests or even to be able to be allowed to produce? > > Water hazard classification of biodiesel versus vegetable oil > (disagreement > there, even...on the relative toxicity of vegetable oil versus > biodiesel). > > Other uses of the stored product, if needed (drastic and far-fetched, > yes, > but vegoil can be mixed and fed, or eaten, if need be - and nutrition > derived from it - in an emergency) > > The relatively higher cost of production of biodiesel? > > On and on it goes. > > > So, if biodiesel is too expensive and therefore will not be used in some > places instead of petrodiesel, then the preferred option would be SVO, > which > is cheaper and often closer in price to petrodiesel - at least here it > is. > > For the farmer, SVO is a simple and inexpensive option that makes sense > - > at least as much or more economic, technical, sustainability and > emissions > "sense" than biodiesel production. > > You say yourself that the amount involved is "(very little)" of these > "very > nasty poisons". How much is too much is little enough that the overall > benefits outweigh any concerns in this regard? > > Look at the whole picture, and don't get caught up in fear-mongering and > disinformation - the jury is still out on all of this, so don't cast SVO > as > if its any kind of foregone conclusion that its an "either/or" > situation, > with biodiesel being obviously vastly superior on all counts. > > This debate continues and will not be resolved any time soon. > > I believe actually that the outcome will be that both SVO and biodiesel > will find support, depending on costs, available feedstock, and > application. > > Either is better than burning petrodiesel, with the many emissions and > other > problems of that fuel. > > Regards, > > > Edward Beggs > www.biofuels.ca > > > > > > > Biofuels at Journey to Forever > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > Biofuel at WebConX > http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
