MM wrote: >I am happy to consider the idea that it is the other products in a >barrel which really bring home a somewhat higher margin of money, but >the figure that you cite ($27,000 per about 2.4 barrels of oil) sounds >absurd and for the moment the only thing it really does is prevent me >from lending any credibility to it.
It does look absurd, but Pavsner generally knows what he's talking about. Maybe I'll write to him and ask, I'd been thinking of doing that. On the other hand, think of some of the chemical applications, such as in the fragrance industry, flavourings, drugs, electronics, high-value stuff used in small quantities. So much of it comes from petrochemicals. How many chemicals are there? ScienceNet says they don't know. I found this: "More than 100,000 human-made chemicals have been introduced into the environment in the past 50 years. More than 1,000 new chemicals are developed each year. Wherever you live, there are probably more than 250 synthetic industrial chemicals in your body that were not present in the bodies of your grandparents when they were your age." I guess it's not accurate to say that the oil companies themselves make that much, but with all the many steps before it gets to the end-user that might be the case. I do sometimes regard the oil companies, the chemicals industry, the drugs corporations, and the fertilizer and pesticides industries as pretty much one phenomenon, it can be difficult to draw clear lines of distinction between them. Anyway, maybe we can do without the fossil-fuels and just keep the chemicals? That would be a more rational use of the oil reserves rather than just burning it all up. Maybe we could do quite well without a lot of the chemicals too. Regards Keith > >>>I was not aware > >>that it was so accepted that co-products are what is relatively more > >>profitable from a barrel of oil. > > > >This is one figure we had: "As I stated on many occasions, someone > >calculated that for every 100 gal oil the industry recovers $100 > >worth gasoline from half of the barrel and $27 000 in other chemicals > >from the other half." -- Dr. Laszlo Paszner of the Faculty of > >Forestry at UBC, who developed the Acid Catalyzed Organosolv > >Saccharification process (ACOS), in a message to the Bioenergy list > >at Crest. > > > >Best > > > >Keith > > > > > >>I also wonder about farming (i.e., if a Hemp farmer could make just > >>enough to forestall having to go off-farm for fuel, if this could be > >>worth it to him, just for his own fuel needs... probably not.) > >> > >> >Ok, a word about co-products. As has been correctly pointed out > >>here, the majority of profits from a barrel of oil come from the > >>co-products. The fuel itself is actually quite low value, > >>comparatively. The same principal will apply to the Biorefinery > >>envisioned. We will produce ethanol more as a public benefit than as > >>a profitable venture. The profits will be found in the co-products > >>and value adding done during processing. > >> > > >> >Lastly, I wanted to invite you to register and login to the all > >>new FaFCo portal, www.fuelandfiber.com - I have set up a whole set > >>of tools for you to use. Perhaps there is something useful there? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Rent DVDs Online-No late fees! Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/XfSp7B/XlOFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
