Biodiesel info

Don't give up hope yet

Cool, I especially like the part about UF Biotech Breakthrough Drives World's First Biomass-To-Ethanol Plant

"The new technology will allow ethanol to become economically competitive with fossil fuels for the first time," he said. "Until now, all the world's ethanol has been produced by yeast fermentation, which converts sugars into ethanol, carbon dioxide and other by-products."

Most of us biodiesel fans like the fuel for its ability to make use of "waste bio materials" such as used vegetable oils, sugar cane residues, rice hulls, forestry and wood wastes and other organic materials.

This is also great news: Biodiesel Production Gets Simplified With New Method The researchers are refining their economic model to account for income from the sale of the lipid-free, protein-rich flakes left over from the biodiesel reaction for use as animal feeds, and to account for differences in the cost of the refined oil and flaked soybean feedstocks.

Thanks for the good link.

Try reading the publication dates (they're even a part of the URLs posted above).

Todd's reference supercedes Sven's by 3 months.

Unfortunately for biofuel fans there's no Perpetual Motion Machine here, either.

The scheme *might* have a chance IFF [If and only if] no fertilizers, no pesticides, and no motorized vehicles were to be used in the process of growing the plants, harvesting, and transporting the components.

IOW, those dedicated to living "off the web" in the remotest areas who have returned to animal power might be able to benefit but not on a commercial scale.

He's looking at the wrong plants-- try algae [large file]:

Some kinds of algae make 100 times as much oil as soybeans. Soybean-based biodiesel is popular in the US because the soybean farmers are subsidised.

Diesels can also burn straight vegetable oil, which saves a lot of processing. It has to be heated, but that's no big deal.

I'm not sure what this has to do with metalworking...

check out

for thorough refutation of this study. Of course, you can believe they are biased and wrong, but don't take this one study as gospel (assuming you can actually find the full study to read).

k

I dunno, seems to me an awful lot of BD users are in it for the political statement: use local fuel instead of importing, use clean-burning fuel instead of garbage petrol, produce fuel locally instead of trucking it all over the planet, and help farmers instead of CEO's and emirs.

but I also believe the stock could be grown more effectively by organic methods (thus no petrochemical fertilizers), using equipment fueled by the fruits of their own labor (i.e., biodiesel). Maybe I'm just a crackpot lefty with no sense of reality.

k

I believe liquid fuel from plants should be profitable with the right technology and I would hate to see it written off just yet. There are far too many things that were deemed impossible or improbable only to find out otherwise, to point at something and say no way! We must keep the course we are on.

"Steve Peterson" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@enews4.newsguy.com:

A Perpetual Motion Machine would be nice, too!

After all, that's what this dream is: another variant on the Perpetual Motion Machine.

The goal of the elimination of petroleum-based fuels IS doable BUT not by this approach.

The key ingredient is the utilization of electricity produced by Nuclear Reactors to power the equipment needed to produce the Hydrogen and Oxygen needed to power the Fuel Cells that, eventually, will supply the motive power for the Electric Cars of the future.

Until the Anti-Nuclear idiots are told to "Go Home And Be Silent" this will never come to pass.

FWIW, it may amuse you to know that the Aussies had taxicabs running on Charcoal during WW2.

--- snip --- | A Perpetual Motion Machine would be nice, too! | | After all, that's what this dream is: another variant on the Perpetual | Motion Machine. | | The goal of the elimination of petroleum-based fuels IS doable BUT not by | this approach. | | The key ingredient is the utilization of electricity produced by Nuclear | Reactors to power the equipment needed to produce the Hydrogen and Oxygen | needed to power the Fuel Cells that, eventually, will supply the motive | power for the Electric Cars of the future. | | Until the Anti-Nuclear idiots are told to "Go Home And Be Silent" this will | never come to pass. | | FWIW, it may amuse you to know that the Aussies had taxicabs running on | Charcoal during WW2.

Why go to all that trouble. What's wrong with a small personal Nuclear Power Pack. That way we are self sufficient. We power anything we need. We would be responsible for our own power.

Cool!

"Mungo Bulge" wrote in news:9MydnWYvyJgKFUHfRVn- snipped-for-privacy@rogers.com:

HydrOx can be used to power aircraft but fuel cells can't.

After looking at the forum all I see is folks saying He is evil and wrong, NO REAL refuting of numbers using facts just bashing him because they don't like him.

The one I liked (Discovery Channel) was wind powered electricity to produce the H2 (electrolysis) to power small around town fuel cell powered cars.

Ted

perhaps you should look deeper--some of those guys are REALLY into this and seem to know their stuff. I am certainly not an expert in BD or chemistry, but I like being able to fuel up with soybeans regardless.

k

Hmm, I looked back and you are right, there is no real refutation using numbers. Instead, they point out the flaws in methodology, including:

*treating soy meal byproduct as waste *assuming forests are clearcut to create new crop land to grow soy *factoring the cost of food to feed farm workers (won't they be eating anyway?)

These are big omissions, and don't even address the idea that ANY bio-oil can be used, including waste oil, lard, palm, peanut, canole/rapeseede (comon in Europe), algae (as had been mentioned already in another post) . . . well, you get the idea.

Again, I'm no expert, but I see this as a major benefit. And, maybe it was someone else who compared BD to perpetual motion, but whoever it was overlooked that the energy is not pulled out of the air--no, wait, it IS pulled out of the air, as it streams down from the sun. Hard to figure how that is a cost to people or the planet.

k

ps, if you read in the thread "Cornell Study Bad for Biodiesel?" you can find two different posts where user turbobiodiesel offers to send the complete study to anyone interested. Maybe you should go straight to the source and see for yourself.