Author Topic: Biodiesel (Read 397 times)

Sixpence · « **on:** December 30, 2002, 01:49:47 AM »

Know how to prevent an oil rich leader from spending his wealth on weapons? Make his oil worthless.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/363/economy/Interest_in_biodiesel_grows_de:.shtml

http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/

(need adobe reader)

If the true cost of using foreign oil were imposed on the price of imported fuel,
renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, probably would be the most viable option. For
instance, in 1996, it was estimated that the military costs of securing foreign oil was $57
billion annually. Foreign tax credits accounted for another estimated $4 billion
annually and environmental costs were estimated at $45 per barrel. For every billion
dollars spent on foreign oil, America lost 10,000 – 25,000 jobs.

Economic Benefits
Increased utilization of renewable biofuels results in significant microeconomic benefits
to both the urban and rural sectors, and the balance of trade. A study completed in
2001 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that an average annual increase of
the equivalent of 200 million gallons of soy-based biodiesel demand would boost total
crop cash receipts by $5.2 billion cumulatively by 2010, resulting in an average net
farm income increase of $300 million per year. The price for a bushel of soybeans
would increase by an average of 17 cents annually during the ten-year period.

Compatibility of biodiesel with engine components. The recent switch to low sulfur
diesel fuel has caused most OEMs to switch to components suitable for use with
biodiesel, but users should contact their OEM for specific information. In general,
biodiesel will soften and degrade certain types of elastomers and natural rubber
compounds over time. Using high percent blends can impact fuel system components
(primarily fuel hoses and fuel pump seals), that contain elastomer compounds
incompatible with biodiesel. Manufacturers recommend that natural or butyl rubbers
not be allowed to come in contact with pure biodiesel. Biodiesel will lead to
degradation of these materials over time, although the effect is lessened with biodiesel
blends. If a fuel system does contain these materials and users wish to fuel with pure
biodiesel, replacement with compatible elastomers is recommended.

Imagine that.....I now have an excuse to buy a dual axle Ram 4x4:D

If more were produced it would get cheaper, we've got B20 close by, but the B100 is in Holyoke( a good ride away). Should be close by soon I hear. I'll pay for it,.... shoot, i'll make my own,lol

Staga · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2002, 03:23:23 AM »

BioDiesel is not the only option, in South-American countries Alcohol-Gasoline mixture is widely used.
Money would also stay in your own country and help your farmers; I heard they are having pretty hard times.

funkedup · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2002, 03:47:51 AM »

The cost and energy needed to produce alcohol make it pretty much economically useless as fuel. The "gasohol" efforts by various government bodies are thinly disguised welfare programs for farmers. Dunno if biodiesel is any better. I worked in the alternative fuel industry just enough to become very suspicious of such programs.

I vote for bio-CNG.

whgates3 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2002, 04:43:38 AM »

would alcohol fueled cars make the cost of my booze go up?
Cruzan rum is already like $12 a bottle....

capt. apathy · « **Reply #4 on:** December 30, 2002, 08:13:40 AM »

funked,
I think his point was that if the pricetag for your gallon of gas included the cost of military spending and evironmental impact costs asociated with producing it, then the cost and energy needed to produce the bio-deisle (or alchohol) would be much lower in comparison.

as it is we pay for our petrolium products at (at least) three different levels.- at the pump, taxes for enviromental cleanup, and taxes for military spending associated with securing oil.

miko2d · « **Reply #5 on:** December 30, 2002, 09:39:46 AM »

Biodisel used in the example is 2.5 times more expensive than regular disel.

at the pump, taxes for enviromental cleanup, and taxes for military spending associated with securing oil

Such considerations are very valid. But we also have to remember the costs associated with creating the biodisel.

If considerable amounts of it had to be produced to replace the inmported oil, enormous new areas of land would have to be plowed and intensively exploited - leading to soil erosion, fertiliser and pesticide use and runoff into the water streams, increase in warer use, ecosystem disruption, etc.

miko

ygsmilo · « **Reply #6 on:** December 30, 2002, 10:19:01 AM »

Funked,,, I am impressed.

One way to really piss off someone in the "renewable fuels" industry is to ask them why it takes more therm units to produce ethanol than it produces. If it wern't for the subsidies granted to the producer the ethanol industry would not be viable. But remember the same thing could be said for High fructose corn syrup, corn glutun etc, guess who is the biggest producer and biggest reciepent of the $$$ of all of the above--- ADM and Cargill.

Charon · « **Reply #7 on:** December 30, 2002, 11:35:04 AM »

Quote

One way to really piss off someone in the "renewable fuels" industry is to ask them why it takes more therm units to produce ethanol than it produces. If it wern't for the subsidies granted to the producer the ethanol industry would not be viable. But remember the same thing could be said for High fructose corn syrup, corn glutun etc, guess who is the biggest producer and biggest reciepent of the $$$ of all of the above--- ADM and Cargill.

Ethanol's a serious pet peeve. You know, we (taxpayers) pay over .50 cents per gallon to subsidise ethanol, with money that would otherwise be spent on our highways. In return we get few clean air benefits (contrary to claims) and relatively minor gains at reducing foreign oil. Great for ADM though. ADM has been working (successfully) to get a national ethanol mandate imposed. The only problem is that ethanol is difficult to work with, expensive, requires considerable energy to produce, is in relatively short supply (not going to have a notable impact on imported oil). It may not even be good for farmers in the long run.

Because ethanol is difficult to transport, the solution is to find sources close to the usage areas. This involves biomass (plant waste) which is currently even more expensive to produce than corn-based ethanol. With an ethanol mandate, you can expect more $$ to go into biomass research to bring the costs down. Soon, biomass become as, or perhaps more competitive, than corn-based ethanol. ADM won't mind, but I imagine the farmers might. And still, we're talking about a drop in the bucket with little bang for a lot of buck.

As for biodiesel... I've toured a biodiesel refinery. It's neat stuff (they processed biodiesel from waste food grease) that adds a popcorn smell to driving

It's edible, but tastes kinda nasty (or so I'm told

Still, it's hard to imagine a significant supply of biodiesel, even from soy or canola, though there seems to be enough to add economically to regular diesel when subsidised by urban areas (for their city fleets, etc.) with renewable fuel grants.

Charon

funkedup · « **Reply #8 on:** December 30, 2002, 02:46:59 PM »

Capt. Apathy I agree completely.

Sixpence · « **Reply #9 on:** December 30, 2002, 11:01:18 PM »

If considerable amounts of it had to be produced to replace the inmported oil, enormous new areas of land would have to be plowed and intensively exploited - leading to soil erosion, fertiliser and pesticide use and runoff into the water streams, increase in warer use, ecosystem disruption, etc.

miko [/B][/QUOTE]

A tanker breaking in half and spilling causes an ecosystem disruption too;)

The white house is full of big oil, and I don't like the thought of our kids dying over it.

miko2d · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2002, 08:52:37 AM »

Sixpence: A tanker breaking in half and spilling causes an ecosystem disruption too;)

Not really - it inconveniences human commercial activity a lot but for ecosystem it's no worse than a forest fire - which is a part of natural lifecycle. Few years after a forest fire you have more vibrant ecosystem than before. Same after the oil spill.

Anyway, your automatic conclusion that me being against bio-disel means being pro-oil is totally incorrect.
I just do not believe losing our forests and topsoil layer and poisoning the land, rivers, and aquifers is the way to go.
My preferred technology would be windmills every half mile all over US and offshore producing electricity and hydrogen.
Of course the way to implement it would have to be consistent with free market which means making it economically feasable but there are ways to do that.

The white house is full of big oil, and I don't like the thought of our kids dying over it.

Big Oil's reason for existence is making money through serving the customers - serving them petroleum products. There are plenty of choices available for people to cut down their petroleum consumption.
Most people in USA do not buy economical car, insulate their house, carpool or use public transport or lower their termostat in favor of an extra sweter just because they really do not care if their kids are going to die for it - or too ignorant to realise it.
The conspiracy nuts do not conserve because they have a nice excuse not to bother - the "Big Oil" in the White House.

miko

Sixpence · « **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2002, 11:40:39 PM »

Sixpence: A tanker breaking in half and spilling causes an ecosystem disruption too

Not really - it inconveniences human commercial activity a lot but for ecosystem it's no worse than a forest fire - which is a part of natural lifecycle. Few years after a forest fire you have more vibrant ecosystem than before. Same after the oil spill.

You have got to be kidding. Sorry , but if you are telling me that the Exxon valdez spill was good for the ecosystem and farmers growing food is bad for it.....well, I find that hard to believe.

Expected costs to fight war on Iraq.......50 billion(small price to pay for the second largest oil fields in the world eh?)

And can you explain the positives effects of an oil spill? I'de like to know, cause i've read that the area will never be the same. That is one of the richest fishing grounds in the world, an oil spill good? First I ever heard of that, correct me if I'm wrong.