Chris, Anything beyond the personal production level is going to require industrial filtration in order keep up with the finished product output.. I'd venture to say even as low as 100 gpd would warrant a filter press.
> The manufacturer claims disposal by composting, the filters > are non consumable. I think this idea of "composting" such material is getting way out of hand, at any level. This stuff, soaps, FFAs and partially reacted glycerides, doesn't readily "compost.". It's essentially an oily mess that kills good composting. Almost better to put the filtrate in a solid fuels boiler I think that in the case of Magnesol, or at least if it's incorporated universally, whether wet washing is viable at a location or not, is an example of "the enemy of good is better." Of what value is "better" fuel wherever another wash option exists if the process proves to be more wasteful in the long run? > As they are to treat and pump water, and to treat sewerage. I agree it > would be nice to know the true energy costs, but where do you stop? I > remember at Uni reading a paper about nuclear power stations. A group of > students started doing energy calculations, I believe an equally worthwhile question is "Where do you start?" To my knowledge no one has produced an energy inputs comparison for the two washing processes, Nor has anyone done an "effluents" analysis between the two. >> A) Water is universal, by and large. > Tell that to those people in S England who face having theirs turned off soon! ;-)) Instances such as this might be where the qualifier "by and large" comes in, no? > I have nothing else to do with my wash water but to put it down the drain. That's putting part of the cost of your fuel production upon the pockets of others. Perhaps not a large cost, but it violates a general principle of "cradle to grave." Industry does this all the time. Are you sure you want to head in the same direction? If you're producing just for yourself and have a front or back lawn, you've got ample space to dispose of treated gray water. You could even cistern it and use it during a dry spell. Or maybe not in your case. But the principles are there and it wouldn't hurt if we all adhered to them as well as possible. > Erm, sorry you have lost me, what is resfresh? ;-) It comes from accompanying English/grammar volume to George Bush's Fuzzy Math. Should have been "refresh." Todd Swearingen Chris Bennett wrote: >Appal Energy wrote: > > >>B) Use of Magnesol marries the manufacturer to a vendor. >> >> >> > >I believe there are alternative brands of synthetic magnesium silicate >on the market, several at a lower cost. I am currently looking into >this, several posts on online forums suggest this also. > > >>C) Rather costly filter presses are required to remove Magnesol from the fuel >>stream. >> >> >> >Not exactly. A cheap and readlily available sock filter and gravity will >do the trick with very little investment. There are commercially >available filter units which are big bucks, but in the spirit of the JTF >site I doubt many people here would have any difficulty in suspending a >5 micron sock filter over a collecting drum. Wont look as nice as a >commercially bought stainless filter unit, but thats not always an >issue. The units I have seen in the commercial sector are simply a >stainelss enclosure taking a £9.99 for 10 sock filter and a pump. > > > >>D) Expended Magnesol must be handled as a solid waste, inclusive of the >>filtrate. >> >> >> >The manufacturer claims disposal by composting, the filters are non >consumable. > > >>E) Energy expenditures are required to manufacture and transport synthetic >>magnesium silicate (Magnesol). >> >> >> >> > >As they are to treat and pump water, and to treat sewerage. I agree it >would be nice to know the true energy costs, but where do you stop? I >remember at Uni reading a paper about nuclear power stations. A group of >students started doing energy calculations, adding up everything it took >to run a power plant (and I mean everything!!) right down to the fuel >used to transport materials to the brickworks to make the bricks to >build the plant! They concluded that they couldnt possibly have factored >in all the energy, but on what they had it was something like a 25-30 >year running time before the break even point was reached!! > >On the water side: > > >>A) Water is universal, by and large. >> >> >> > >Tell that to those people in S England who face having theirs turned off >soon! ;-)) > > > >>B) Water has a dual utility, as easily treated wash water can be reused as >>gray water irrigation. >> >> >> > >Assuming that you are in the situation where you need irrigation, if not >then it is going to get drained. Not being critical of your comments at >all, just factoring in my situation, which is probably the same as many >here. I have nothing else to do with my wash water but to put it down >the drain. > > >>All in all they both have their place. Neither is necessarily superior over >>the other. >> >> >> >> >I agree. As I have said, I am aiming to get a small scale >semi-continuous process online soon to process the WVO of a small group >of people. I feel this will be beneficial over lots of small processor >running individually. Integrating magnesol washing it going to be far >easier than integrating water washing as every gallon squirt out of the >processor could be dosed with magnesol, mixed for a number of minuites >then dumped into a tank to be gravity fed through a filter bag. > > >>Todd Swearingen >> >> >> >> >> >>Bruno M. wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>Magnesol, >>> >>>with a G in it, and not Manesol like in the title ;-) >>> >>> >>> > >Sorry for the typo! > > > >>>is used in the US to clear ( resfresh) frying oil and makes it last longer. >>> >>> >>> > >Erm, sorry you have lost me, what is resfresh? ;-) > > > >>>The end result of this biodiesel washing with Magnesol is that you will have >>>used a lot of water and a lot of time. >>> >>> >>> >I see, this error that was mentioned earlier (magnesol not water) was on >the website of a third party distributor of Magnesol, not from Magnesol >themselves. I was getting a bit woried there for a moment with all the >mention of 'sloppyness'. ;-) > >Chris.. > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
