PDA

View Full Version : Biodiesel



Jay Panetta
04-14-2001, 06:45 PM
While cruising last summer, I met a fellow who told me he was running his Yanmar 30GMF on a mixture of standard diesel and biodiesel fuel. He claimed quicker starting, smoother running, far less soot on his white topsides, and less odor. He also reported that he'd gotten the blessing of Yanmar USA to try this fuel mix--and that he'd never go back to straight diesel.

Biodiesel is relatively expensive and not widely available, but that wasn't an issue for this particular owner, who--like many of us--powers little and fills his tank only once a year.

I'm wondering if others have tried biodiesel, and what they can report about the results.

Jay Panetta
04-14-2001, 06:45 PM
While cruising last summer, I met a fellow who told me he was running his Yanmar 30GMF on a mixture of standard diesel and biodiesel fuel. He claimed quicker starting, smoother running, far less soot on his white topsides, and less odor. He also reported that he'd gotten the blessing of Yanmar USA to try this fuel mix--and that he'd never go back to straight diesel.

Biodiesel is relatively expensive and not widely available, but that wasn't an issue for this particular owner, who--like many of us--powers little and fills his tank only once a year.

I'm wondering if others have tried biodiesel, and what they can report about the results.

Jay Panetta
04-14-2001, 06:45 PM
While cruising last summer, I met a fellow who told me he was running his Yanmar 30GMF on a mixture of standard diesel and biodiesel fuel. He claimed quicker starting, smoother running, far less soot on his white topsides, and less odor. He also reported that he'd gotten the blessing of Yanmar USA to try this fuel mix--and that he'd never go back to straight diesel.

Biodiesel is relatively expensive and not widely available, but that wasn't an issue for this particular owner, who--like many of us--powers little and fills his tank only once a year.

I'm wondering if others have tried biodiesel, and what they can report about the results.

gashmore
04-14-2001, 07:56 PM
My only experience with it was as a guest crew on a boat in Chicago. It definitely does not smell like deisel. More like French fries. As we motored out of the marina I had the vague feeling there was a McDonalds close by.<G>

gashmore
04-14-2001, 07:56 PM
My only experience with it was as a guest crew on a boat in Chicago. It definitely does not smell like deisel. More like French fries. As we motored out of the marina I had the vague feeling there was a McDonalds close by.<G>

gashmore
04-14-2001, 07:56 PM
My only experience with it was as a guest crew on a boat in Chicago. It definitely does not smell like deisel. More like French fries. As we motored out of the marina I had the vague feeling there was a McDonalds close by.<G>

paladin
04-14-2001, 09:58 PM
I thought it was more like fresh popcorn.....

paladin
04-14-2001, 09:58 PM
I thought it was more like fresh popcorn.....

paladin
04-14-2001, 09:58 PM
I thought it was more like fresh popcorn.....

Ed Harrow
04-15-2001, 09:03 PM
But whatever it is, it's better. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

Ed Harrow
04-15-2001, 09:03 PM
But whatever it is, it's better. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

Ed Harrow
04-15-2001, 09:03 PM
But whatever it is, it's better. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

Scott Rosen
04-17-2001, 04:11 PM
The exhaust stinks worse than regular diesel. One of the yards was trying it in Newport a couple of years ago. I wonder how much petro-chemicals get used to fertilize the vegetable matter, process it, ship it to the refinery and then blend it with the diesel. I'll bet that the environmental gain is minimal or negative. Plus the smell is really bad, and that's a form of environmental pollution, too.

Scott Rosen
04-17-2001, 04:11 PM
The exhaust stinks worse than regular diesel. One of the yards was trying it in Newport a couple of years ago. I wonder how much petro-chemicals get used to fertilize the vegetable matter, process it, ship it to the refinery and then blend it with the diesel. I'll bet that the environmental gain is minimal or negative. Plus the smell is really bad, and that's a form of environmental pollution, too.

Scott Rosen
04-17-2001, 04:11 PM
The exhaust stinks worse than regular diesel. One of the yards was trying it in Newport a couple of years ago. I wonder how much petro-chemicals get used to fertilize the vegetable matter, process it, ship it to the refinery and then blend it with the diesel. I'll bet that the environmental gain is minimal or negative. Plus the smell is really bad, and that's a form of environmental pollution, too.

bill hersey
04-17-2001, 05:28 PM
We are in the middle of production on a new TV series, ENERGY MATTERS. One of the subjects we have been involved with is biodiesel. Here's what we have learned:

It is meant to be used alone as a fuel -- not mixed. Although it can be mixed, that's when the smell gets bad.

The creation of biodiesel uses 75% less non-renewable resources (petroleum, etc.) in its creation and shipment than diesel or gasoline, which are produced in highly polluting refineries, and also shipped by tanker ship, train and truck -- which COULD burn biodiesel.

It has no evaportive emnissions (those gases given off by petrochemicals when they are stored or moved around, accounting for over 1/3 of fuel- caused air pollution).

It is made from soy, easily and inexpensively grown in most areas of the world.

It increases the life of an engine by decreasing internal wear (probably also has a + effect on repairs).

Only negatives we have found so far,being unbiased:

When stored it has to have additives to keep bacteria from growing, much like diesel (Biobore) only more so.

The possible economic disruption to our oil based global economy if it were to be suddenly used extensively. And that is not a joke, it is what's holding it back.

[This message has been edited by bill hersey (edited 04-17-2001).]

bill hersey
04-17-2001, 05:28 PM
We are in the middle of production on a new TV series, ENERGY MATTERS. One of the subjects we have been involved with is biodiesel. Here's what we have learned:

It is meant to be used alone as a fuel -- not mixed. Although it can be mixed, that's when the smell gets bad.

The creation of biodiesel uses 75% less non-renewable resources (petroleum, etc.) in its creation and shipment than diesel or gasoline, which are produced in highly polluting refineries, and also shipped by tanker ship, train and truck -- which COULD burn biodiesel.

It has no evaportive emnissions (those gases given off by petrochemicals when they are stored or moved around, accounting for over 1/3 of fuel- caused air pollution).

It is made from soy, easily and inexpensively grown in most areas of the world.

It increases the life of an engine by decreasing internal wear (probably also has a + effect on repairs).

Only negatives we have found so far,being unbiased:

When stored it has to have additives to keep bacteria from growing, much like diesel (Biobore) only more so.

The possible economic disruption to our oil based global economy if it were to be suddenly used extensively. And that is not a joke, it is what's holding it back.

[This message has been edited by bill hersey (edited 04-17-2001).]

bill hersey
04-17-2001, 05:28 PM
We are in the middle of production on a new TV series, ENERGY MATTERS. One of the subjects we have been involved with is biodiesel. Here's what we have learned:

It is meant to be used alone as a fuel -- not mixed. Although it can be mixed, that's when the smell gets bad.

The creation of biodiesel uses 75% less non-renewable resources (petroleum, etc.) in its creation and shipment than diesel or gasoline, which are produced in highly polluting refineries, and also shipped by tanker ship, train and truck -- which COULD burn biodiesel.

It has no evaportive emnissions (those gases given off by petrochemicals when they are stored or moved around, accounting for over 1/3 of fuel- caused air pollution).

It is made from soy, easily and inexpensively grown in most areas of the world.

It increases the life of an engine by decreasing internal wear (probably also has a + effect on repairs).

Only negatives we have found so far,being unbiased:

When stored it has to have additives to keep bacteria from growing, much like diesel (Biobore) only more so.

The possible economic disruption to our oil based global economy if it were to be suddenly used extensively. And that is not a joke, it is what's holding it back.

[This message has been edited by bill hersey (edited 04-17-2001).]

ken mcclure
04-17-2001, 06:04 PM
Bill, what's the cost as compared to diesel? Cost to produce, that is.

ken mcclure
04-17-2001, 06:04 PM
Bill, what's the cost as compared to diesel? Cost to produce, that is.

ken mcclure
04-17-2001, 06:04 PM
Bill, what's the cost as compared to diesel? Cost to produce, that is.

Frank Wentzel
04-17-2001, 10:38 PM
I find it hard to believe that biodiesel could have much of an impact. I use about 20 gallons of gasoline per week, about 120 pounds of fuel. It would take at least that weight in dried soy to make that much fuel. I estimate my family consumes no more than 30 pounds (dry weight) of food per week. To provide biodiesel for us the amount of foodstock required would increase by a factor of five. I don't think the United States could quintuple its food crop production to cope with this requirement. In addition, considering the recurring famines worldwide and the subsistence-level existence that much of the rest of the world maintains, it seems that a food-based fuel is not likely to concern the oil companies any time soon.

Frank Wentzel
04-17-2001, 10:38 PM
I find it hard to believe that biodiesel could have much of an impact. I use about 20 gallons of gasoline per week, about 120 pounds of fuel. It would take at least that weight in dried soy to make that much fuel. I estimate my family consumes no more than 30 pounds (dry weight) of food per week. To provide biodiesel for us the amount of foodstock required would increase by a factor of five. I don't think the United States could quintuple its food crop production to cope with this requirement. In addition, considering the recurring famines worldwide and the subsistence-level existence that much of the rest of the world maintains, it seems that a food-based fuel is not likely to concern the oil companies any time soon.

Frank Wentzel
04-17-2001, 10:38 PM
I find it hard to believe that biodiesel could have much of an impact. I use about 20 gallons of gasoline per week, about 120 pounds of fuel. It would take at least that weight in dried soy to make that much fuel. I estimate my family consumes no more than 30 pounds (dry weight) of food per week. To provide biodiesel for us the amount of foodstock required would increase by a factor of five. I don't think the United States could quintuple its food crop production to cope with this requirement. In addition, considering the recurring famines worldwide and the subsistence-level existence that much of the rest of the world maintains, it seems that a food-based fuel is not likely to concern the oil companies any time soon.

John Laurino
04-18-2001, 01:39 AM
So awhile ago i was listening to Car Talk on NPR and the caller of the moment lived in a comune where they were running one of their trucks on SOME kind of alternative diesel which the car talk guys guessed might be disintagrating some rubber tubing and causeing recuring engine problems that didn't occur when they (the comune-ists) ran the truck on regular fuel. I seem to remember that they were making their own fuel, so its probobly something different, but... just some brain candy.

John Laurino
04-18-2001, 01:39 AM
So awhile ago i was listening to Car Talk on NPR and the caller of the moment lived in a comune where they were running one of their trucks on SOME kind of alternative diesel which the car talk guys guessed might be disintagrating some rubber tubing and causeing recuring engine problems that didn't occur when they (the comune-ists) ran the truck on regular fuel. I seem to remember that they were making their own fuel, so its probobly something different, but... just some brain candy.

John Laurino
04-18-2001, 01:39 AM
So awhile ago i was listening to Car Talk on NPR and the caller of the moment lived in a comune where they were running one of their trucks on SOME kind of alternative diesel which the car talk guys guessed might be disintagrating some rubber tubing and causeing recuring engine problems that didn't occur when they (the comune-ists) ran the truck on regular fuel. I seem to remember that they were making their own fuel, so its probobly something different, but... just some brain candy.

G. Schollmeier
04-18-2001, 08:59 AM
In this area we have a guy that is running and old Benz on used deep fryer oil. He gets it free from the burger joints. He has to do some processing and it looked like a lot of
work. But I don't see anything negative here. Work on alternative fuels is making tiny steps forward. And that's a good thing.

John, a commune is a great place for a young person to start life away from home. You should have seen my first methane generator. What a mess. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif
Gary

[This message has been edited by G. Schollmeier (edited 04-18-2001).]

G. Schollmeier
04-18-2001, 08:59 AM
In this area we have a guy that is running and old Benz on used deep fryer oil. He gets it free from the burger joints. He has to do some processing and it looked like a lot of
work. But I don't see anything negative here. Work on alternative fuels is making tiny steps forward. And that's a good thing.

John, a commune is a great place for a young person to start life away from home. You should have seen my first methane generator. What a mess. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif
Gary

[This message has been edited by G. Schollmeier (edited 04-18-2001).]

G. Schollmeier
04-18-2001, 08:59 AM
In this area we have a guy that is running and old Benz on used deep fryer oil. He gets it free from the burger joints. He has to do some processing and it looked like a lot of
work. But I don't see anything negative here. Work on alternative fuels is making tiny steps forward. And that's a good thing.

John, a commune is a great place for a young person to start life away from home. You should have seen my first methane generator. What a mess. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif
Gary

[This message has been edited by G. Schollmeier (edited 04-18-2001).]

Scott Rosen
04-18-2001, 09:34 AM
Gary,

I'm still using my first methane generator, the one I was born with, and its output increases with age. Trouble is, I've never figured out a way to use the gas for any purpose other than annoying the people sitting near me.

Scott Rosen
04-18-2001, 09:34 AM
Gary,

I'm still using my first methane generator, the one I was born with, and its output increases with age. Trouble is, I've never figured out a way to use the gas for any purpose other than annoying the people sitting near me.

Scott Rosen
04-18-2001, 09:34 AM
Gary,

I'm still using my first methane generator, the one I was born with, and its output increases with age. Trouble is, I've never figured out a way to use the gas for any purpose other than annoying the people sitting near me.

G. Schollmeier
04-18-2001, 09:54 AM
ROTFLMAO!!!! http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif

G. Schollmeier
04-18-2001, 09:54 AM
ROTFLMAO!!!! http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif

G. Schollmeier
04-18-2001, 09:54 AM
ROTFLMAO!!!! http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif

Art Read
04-18-2001, 12:04 PM
Scott... First thing that popped into my head was a potato cannon with an "unusual" adaptor for reloading... Let me finish my coffee rations and maybe this will gell into a patentable design... I'll split the royalties with you...

Art Read
04-18-2001, 12:04 PM
Scott... First thing that popped into my head was a potato cannon with an "unusual" adaptor for reloading... Let me finish my coffee rations and maybe this will gell into a patentable design... I'll split the royalties with you...

Art Read
04-18-2001, 12:04 PM
Scott... First thing that popped into my head was a potato cannon with an "unusual" adaptor for reloading... Let me finish my coffee rations and maybe this will gell into a patentable design... I'll split the royalties with you...

Ed Harrow
04-18-2001, 12:36 PM
Ahhhh, I don't want to rain on your parade, Art, but when push comes to shove, methane don't cut it.

Ed Harrow
04-18-2001, 12:36 PM
Ahhhh, I don't want to rain on your parade, Art, but when push comes to shove, methane don't cut it.

Ed Harrow
04-18-2001, 12:36 PM
Ahhhh, I don't want to rain on your parade, Art, but when push comes to shove, methane don't cut it.

Scott Rosen
04-18-2001, 01:04 PM
ROTFLMAO!

Art, I think you're on to something. Ed, methane alone may not "cut it" (pun intended?), but a blend of methane and, say, atomized lighter fluid, might be quite potent. You could design a carburation system that uses the force of the expelling methane to atomize the lighter fluid in to the chamber of the potato canon. You'd need a rig that would create a good, airtight seal on the methane discharge hose. You'd also need a good supply of lighter fluid, beans and hot chili peppers. If you run out of lighter fluid, you can use the methane alone as a back up. It would be easy to sneak this weapon anywhere. You could put the canon in a brown grocery bag and cover it with the potatoes, beans and peppers. If you get stopped, just tell them you're on your way to a chili-making contest.

Scott Rosen
04-18-2001, 01:04 PM
ROTFLMAO!

Art, I think you're on to something. Ed, methane alone may not "cut it" (pun intended?), but a blend of methane and, say, atomized lighter fluid, might be quite potent. You could design a carburation system that uses the force of the expelling methane to atomize the lighter fluid in to the chamber of the potato canon. You'd need a rig that would create a good, airtight seal on the methane discharge hose. You'd also need a good supply of lighter fluid, beans and hot chili peppers. If you run out of lighter fluid, you can use the methane alone as a back up. It would be easy to sneak this weapon anywhere. You could put the canon in a brown grocery bag and cover it with the potatoes, beans and peppers. If you get stopped, just tell them you're on your way to a chili-making contest.

Scott Rosen
04-18-2001, 01:04 PM
ROTFLMAO!

Art, I think you're on to something. Ed, methane alone may not "cut it" (pun intended?), but a blend of methane and, say, atomized lighter fluid, might be quite potent. You could design a carburation system that uses the force of the expelling methane to atomize the lighter fluid in to the chamber of the potato canon. You'd need a rig that would create a good, airtight seal on the methane discharge hose. You'd also need a good supply of lighter fluid, beans and hot chili peppers. If you run out of lighter fluid, you can use the methane alone as a back up. It would be easy to sneak this weapon anywhere. You could put the canon in a brown grocery bag and cover it with the potatoes, beans and peppers. If you get stopped, just tell them you're on your way to a chili-making contest.

bill hersey
04-18-2001, 02:35 PM
Frank,

First of all, I have to try and keep an unbiased approach on this stuff -- even though I am a big proponent of infusing alternate energies into the system to take the pressure off and help with the air.

What we know is that biodiesel can be made from other vegetable matter. It's cost is slightly less than diesel, which has just jumped another 8 censt/gallon out here. Soy is the top choice because it is easy to grow. What we understand is -- simply put -- that there is a lot of agricultural land in the U.S. and around the world that is worn out, not being used because of the grain markets, duties, whatever. But it's suitable for soy. It has been gigured that there is enough land for enough soy to at least greatly augment the diesel requirements. Another component: the positive economic impact on countries where they are chopping down hardwood to raise cattle, or have little skill in crop rotation. Easy and fast to grow, they say.

Some stuff from the show research teams, for gripping human interest:

-- Diesel exhaust (soot) was just named the #1 health hazard in California. It lingers at a bus stop, or wherever a truck stops, or over a road, for fifteen minutes, lodges in the lunges and is not absorbed.

The air INSIDE one of those big yellow school buses contains 9 times the pollution of a Stage 3 smog alert.

And yep, I've got a nice diesel sitting down in the bilges, which we try to keep as clean-burning as possible. But I am about to try the biodiesel myself. I'll let y'all know what happens.

Bill

[This message has been edited by bill hersey (edited 04-18-2001).]

bill hersey
04-18-2001, 02:35 PM
Frank,

First of all, I have to try and keep an unbiased approach on this stuff -- even though I am a big proponent of infusing alternate energies into the system to take the pressure off and help with the air.

What we know is that biodiesel can be made from other vegetable matter. It's cost is slightly less than diesel, which has just jumped another 8 censt/gallon out here. Soy is the top choice because it is easy to grow. What we understand is -- simply put -- that there is a lot of agricultural land in the U.S. and around the world that is worn out, not being used because of the grain markets, duties, whatever. But it's suitable for soy. It has been gigured that there is enough land for enough soy to at least greatly augment the diesel requirements. Another component: the positive economic impact on countries where they are chopping down hardwood to raise cattle, or have little skill in crop rotation. Easy and fast to grow, they say.

Some stuff from the show research teams, for gripping human interest:

-- Diesel exhaust (soot) was just named the #1 health hazard in California. It lingers at a bus stop, or wherever a truck stops, or over a road, for fifteen minutes, lodges in the lunges and is not absorbed.

The air INSIDE one of those big yellow school buses contains 9 times the pollution of a Stage 3 smog alert.

And yep, I've got a nice diesel sitting down in the bilges, which we try to keep as clean-burning as possible. But I am about to try the biodiesel myself. I'll let y'all know what happens.

Bill

[This message has been edited by bill hersey (edited 04-18-2001).]

bill hersey
04-18-2001, 02:35 PM
Frank,

First of all, I have to try and keep an unbiased approach on this stuff -- even though I am a big proponent of infusing alternate energies into the system to take the pressure off and help with the air.

What we know is that biodiesel can be made from other vegetable matter. It's cost is slightly less than diesel, which has just jumped another 8 censt/gallon out here. Soy is the top choice because it is easy to grow. What we understand is -- simply put -- that there is a lot of agricultural land in the U.S. and around the world that is worn out, not being used because of the grain markets, duties, whatever. But it's suitable for soy. It has been gigured that there is enough land for enough soy to at least greatly augment the diesel requirements. Another component: the positive economic impact on countries where they are chopping down hardwood to raise cattle, or have little skill in crop rotation. Easy and fast to grow, they say.

Some stuff from the show research teams, for gripping human interest:

-- Diesel exhaust (soot) was just named the #1 health hazard in California. It lingers at a bus stop, or wherever a truck stops, or over a road, for fifteen minutes, lodges in the lunges and is not absorbed.

The air INSIDE one of those big yellow school buses contains 9 times the pollution of a Stage 3 smog alert.

And yep, I've got a nice diesel sitting down in the bilges, which we try to keep as clean-burning as possible. But I am about to try the biodiesel myself. I'll let y'all know what happens.

Bill

[This message has been edited by bill hersey (edited 04-18-2001).]

Keith Wilson
04-18-2001, 02:45 PM
Another advantage - little if any impact on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (although after the past winter, I'm beginning to wonder if a little global warming might not be a good thing). The plants absorb CO2, convert it into hydrocarbons, we burn the hydrocarbons and release the carbon dioxide. There is at least a small chance that the stuff could be very important in a few years, (or maybe a few hundred).

Keith Wilson
04-18-2001, 02:45 PM
Another advantage - little if any impact on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (although after the past winter, I'm beginning to wonder if a little global warming might not be a good thing). The plants absorb CO2, convert it into hydrocarbons, we burn the hydrocarbons and release the carbon dioxide. There is at least a small chance that the stuff could be very important in a few years, (or maybe a few hundred).

Keith Wilson
04-18-2001, 02:45 PM
Another advantage - little if any impact on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (although after the past winter, I'm beginning to wonder if a little global warming might not be a good thing). The plants absorb CO2, convert it into hydrocarbons, we burn the hydrocarbons and release the carbon dioxide. There is at least a small chance that the stuff could be very important in a few years, (or maybe a few hundred).

Ed Harrow
04-19-2001, 12:18 PM
Scott, puns are always intentional, intended or not.

Ed Harrow
04-19-2001, 12:18 PM
Scott, puns are always intentional, intended or not.

Ed Harrow
04-19-2001, 12:18 PM
Scott, puns are always intentional, intended or not.

thechemist
04-19-2001, 02:41 PM
Ed, Scott........further patentability aspects would include a miniaturized version [for those little bitty potatoes, eh?] with articulated fuel coupling, designed to be stored in front, thus in a new and non-obvious way performing the dual functions of potato cannnon and codpiece.

thechemist
04-19-2001, 02:41 PM
Ed, Scott........further patentability aspects would include a miniaturized version [for those little bitty potatoes, eh?] with articulated fuel coupling, designed to be stored in front, thus in a new and non-obvious way performing the dual functions of potato cannnon and codpiece.

thechemist
04-19-2001, 02:41 PM
Ed, Scott........further patentability aspects would include a miniaturized version [for those little bitty potatoes, eh?] with articulated fuel coupling, designed to be stored in front, thus in a new and non-obvious way performing the dual functions of potato cannnon and codpiece.

Ed Harrow
04-19-2001, 04:53 PM
ROTFLMHO. (I wonder how many know the function of a codpiece.) In one of my less- controlled moments I used a piece of tygon tubing as a bean shooter. Hitting anything was by luck, of course, but the source was never sufficiently obvious so as to get caught.

Ed Harrow
04-19-2001, 04:53 PM
ROTFLMHO. (I wonder how many know the function of a codpiece.) In one of my less- controlled moments I used a piece of tygon tubing as a bean shooter. Hitting anything was by luck, of course, but the source was never sufficiently obvious so as to get caught.

Ed Harrow
04-19-2001, 04:53 PM
ROTFLMHO. (I wonder how many know the function of a codpiece.) In one of my less- controlled moments I used a piece of tygon tubing as a bean shooter. Hitting anything was by luck, of course, but the source was never sufficiently obvious so as to get caught.

Gresham CA
04-20-2001, 03:24 PM
Ed, try here: http://www.onr.com/user/steveh/cods.htm .

Enjoy, Charles G.

Gresham CA
04-20-2001, 03:24 PM
Ed, try here: http://www.onr.com/user/steveh/cods.htm .

Enjoy, Charles G.

Gresham CA
04-20-2001, 03:24 PM
Ed, try here: http://www.onr.com/user/steveh/cods.htm .

Enjoy, Charles G.

Peter Sibley
04-22-2001, 05:18 AM
There is research going on at the Engineering Dept at the University of Queensland in Australia into the use of coconut oil on Pacific Islandds for use in stationary diesels in things like refridgeration ,gen sets and fishiing boats.this is real stuff as imported fuel in the islands is horribly expensive.The alternative is to export the coconuts and buy oil with the money,not a very good deal or very smart given the price of coconuts v the price of diesel.The process is relatively simple...basically heating then pressing .

Peter Sibley
04-22-2001, 05:18 AM
There is research going on at the Engineering Dept at the University of Queensland in Australia into the use of coconut oil on Pacific Islandds for use in stationary diesels in things like refridgeration ,gen sets and fishiing boats.this is real stuff as imported fuel in the islands is horribly expensive.The alternative is to export the coconuts and buy oil with the money,not a very good deal or very smart given the price of coconuts v the price of diesel.The process is relatively simple...basically heating then pressing .

Peter Sibley
04-22-2001, 05:18 AM
There is research going on at the Engineering Dept at the University of Queensland in Australia into the use of coconut oil on Pacific Islandds for use in stationary diesels in things like refridgeration ,gen sets and fishiing boats.this is real stuff as imported fuel in the islands is horribly expensive.The alternative is to export the coconuts and buy oil with the money,not a very good deal or very smart given the price of coconuts v the price of diesel.The process is relatively simple...basically heating then pressing .

Ed Harrow
04-22-2001, 01:52 PM
Charles, thanks for the tip, I did not know the history. Perhaps Mae West was not a one-of-a-kind original. Kind of like the scene in Glass Menagerie when Mum outfits Laura with "gay deceivers".

[This message has been edited by Ed Harrow (edited 04-22-2001).]

Ed Harrow
04-22-2001, 01:52 PM
Charles, thanks for the tip, I did not know the history. Perhaps Mae West was not a one-of-a-kind original. Kind of like the scene in Glass Menagerie when Mum outfits Laura with "gay deceivers".

[This message has been edited by Ed Harrow (edited 04-22-2001).]

Ed Harrow
04-22-2001, 01:52 PM
Charles, thanks for the tip, I did not know the history. Perhaps Mae West was not a one-of-a-kind original. Kind of like the scene in Glass Menagerie when Mum outfits Laura with "gay deceivers".

[This message has been edited by Ed Harrow (edited 04-22-2001).]

Ariane
04-25-2001, 07:44 PM
For what it's worth, the following was in our last club newsletter...

SOY DIESEL:
Jim Shubin is an MMBA member who previously owned two Farallone Clippers, first Mistress and then #7 Stella Z. He has been using soy diesel in his boats for years. First with Stella Z, which had a Perkins engine, and now with his new boat which has a Volvo engine. Jim notes that "Boat US" did an article on soy a while back that talked about soy use in boats. Dr. Rudolf Diesel promoted the benefits of agricultural fuel. In a speech given at a technical institute in Germany in 1911 he said, "The Diesel engine can be fed with vegetable oils and would help considerably in the development of agriculture and the countries which use it." According to Joshua Tickell, www.veggievan.org, (http://www.veggievan.org,) "Biodiesel fuel is very lubricating, which makes it better for Diesel engines than diesel fuel. The best part about biodiesel is that it requires absolutely no engine modifications. To use it, you just pour it into the fuel tank."

Jim has not had any problems with this alternative diesel, and would be happy to discuss his experience, and answer any questions, with anyone who has an interest in making the switch. Please contact him at:
shubin(at)sirius.com

Ariane
04-25-2001, 07:44 PM
For what it's worth, the following was in our last club newsletter...

SOY DIESEL:
Jim Shubin is an MMBA member who previously owned two Farallone Clippers, first Mistress and then #7 Stella Z. He has been using soy diesel in his boats for years. First with Stella Z, which had a Perkins engine, and now with his new boat which has a Volvo engine. Jim notes that "Boat US" did an article on soy a while back that talked about soy use in boats. Dr. Rudolf Diesel promoted the benefits of agricultural fuel. In a speech given at a technical institute in Germany in 1911 he said, "The Diesel engine can be fed with vegetable oils and would help considerably in the development of agriculture and the countries which use it." According to Joshua Tickell, www.veggievan.org, (http://www.veggievan.org,) "Biodiesel fuel is very lubricating, which makes it better for Diesel engines than diesel fuel. The best part about biodiesel is that it requires absolutely no engine modifications. To use it, you just pour it into the fuel tank."

Jim has not had any problems with this alternative diesel, and would be happy to discuss his experience, and answer any questions, with anyone who has an interest in making the switch. Please contact him at:
shubin(at)sirius.com

Ariane
04-25-2001, 07:44 PM
For what it's worth, the following was in our last club newsletter...

SOY DIESEL:
Jim Shubin is an MMBA member who previously owned two Farallone Clippers, first Mistress and then #7 Stella Z. He has been using soy diesel in his boats for years. First with Stella Z, which had a Perkins engine, and now with his new boat which has a Volvo engine. Jim notes that "Boat US" did an article on soy a while back that talked about soy use in boats. Dr. Rudolf Diesel promoted the benefits of agricultural fuel. In a speech given at a technical institute in Germany in 1911 he said, "The Diesel engine can be fed with vegetable oils and would help considerably in the development of agriculture and the countries which use it." According to Joshua Tickell, www.veggievan.org, (http://www.veggievan.org,) "Biodiesel fuel is very lubricating, which makes it better for Diesel engines than diesel fuel. The best part about biodiesel is that it requires absolutely no engine modifications. To use it, you just pour it into the fuel tank."

Jim has not had any problems with this alternative diesel, and would be happy to discuss his experience, and answer any questions, with anyone who has an interest in making the switch. Please contact him at:
shubin(at)sirius.com

Pam P
08-30-2002, 12:47 PM
Hi folks, just evesdropping on your discussion about biodiesel. Just wanted to add a couple of things and verify/not verify some others.

Biodiesel can be made from lots of sources, the source I find the most interesting right now is used fryolater oil. Peter Arnold at the Chewonki Foundation here in Maine has been making it (and using it for heating, motor fuel etc.) for the last few years with great success using only "used" oil. He has figures on how much used oil Maine generates every year (incredible large), and I suspect one could extrapolate that to the rest of the country pretty easily. Along with soy and corn another oil wideley eyed for biodiesel is canola (rapeseed). In Maine this is particularly interesting becuase canola will grow well in "the county" (northern Maine) and is a good rotator with potatoes. Mr. Diesel (the man who invented the engine) designed his engine to run on unrefined peanut oil.

Anyway, it is a pretty easy process to "refine" the new or used oil to run well in modern engines. The costs being some basic utensils, transportation, methanol, lye and a little heat and electricity. Obviously, refining it close to the source and distributing locally is the key as transportation costs raise the price substantially. A person in my office is making it himself to use in his new car (Jetta) and has the cost down to $.40/gallon.

It will deteriorate old natural rubber seals and gaskets, but will not bother sythetics like nitrile. It does have a higher "lubricity" and has been shown in truck fleets to extend the time between major rebuilds by 20-30%. It will jell in freezing temps, so has to be mixed with #2 to avoid this problem. The exhaust of straight biodiesel is essentially non-toxic (other than asphixiation) and not offensive when made/burned properly. Because it does not have quite the same amount of energy, on average you will burn a little more biodiesel than regular and you will have a small decrease in power. Peter reports that the Chewonki van (big Ford econoline), gets a about 2 mpg less on biodiesel but the power drop is almost imperceptible.

Finally, the reason I will run it in my boat after I repower (this year) is that if you spill a little (or a lot) it is not a big problem as it does not have the toxic compounds that standard diesel does. I had a fuel leak a couple of years ago and between the smell, the bilge cleanup and the potential impact to the environment from the spilled fuel, I swore off it as soon as I could make the change. You can switch back and forth with no adjustments though.

If you want more information, please e-mail Peter Arnold at Chewonki parnold@chewonki.org or visit the biodiesel page http://www.biodiesel.org .

PS I hope to run my house on it this winter.

Pam P
08-30-2002, 12:47 PM
Hi folks, just evesdropping on your discussion about biodiesel. Just wanted to add a couple of things and verify/not verify some others.

Biodiesel can be made from lots of sources, the source I find the most interesting right now is used fryolater oil. Peter Arnold at the Chewonki Foundation here in Maine has been making it (and using it for heating, motor fuel etc.) for the last few years with great success using only "used" oil. He has figures on how much used oil Maine generates every year (incredible large), and I suspect one could extrapolate that to the rest of the country pretty easily. Along with soy and corn another oil wideley eyed for biodiesel is canola (rapeseed). In Maine this is particularly interesting becuase canola will grow well in "the county" (northern Maine) and is a good rotator with potatoes. Mr. Diesel (the man who invented the engine) designed his engine to run on unrefined peanut oil.

Anyway, it is a pretty easy process to "refine" the new or used oil to run well in modern engines. The costs being some basic utensils, transportation, methanol, lye and a little heat and electricity. Obviously, refining it close to the source and distributing locally is the key as transportation costs raise the price substantially. A person in my office is making it himself to use in his new car (Jetta) and has the cost down to $.40/gallon.

It will deteriorate old natural rubber seals and gaskets, but will not bother sythetics like nitrile. It does have a higher "lubricity" and has been shown in truck fleets to extend the time between major rebuilds by 20-30%. It will jell in freezing temps, so has to be mixed with #2 to avoid this problem. The exhaust of straight biodiesel is essentially non-toxic (other than asphixiation) and not offensive when made/burned properly. Because it does not have quite the same amount of energy, on average you will burn a little more biodiesel than regular and you will have a small decrease in power. Peter reports that the Chewonki van (big Ford econoline), gets a about 2 mpg less on biodiesel but the power drop is almost imperceptible.

Finally, the reason I will run it in my boat after I repower (this year) is that if you spill a little (or a lot) it is not a big problem as it does not have the toxic compounds that standard diesel does. I had a fuel leak a couple of years ago and between the smell, the bilge cleanup and the potential impact to the environment from the spilled fuel, I swore off it as soon as I could make the change. You can switch back and forth with no adjustments though.

If you want more information, please e-mail Peter Arnold at Chewonki parnold@chewonki.org or visit the biodiesel page http://www.biodiesel.org .

PS I hope to run my house on it this winter.

Pam P
08-30-2002, 12:47 PM
Hi folks, just evesdropping on your discussion about biodiesel. Just wanted to add a couple of things and verify/not verify some others.

Biodiesel can be made from lots of sources, the source I find the most interesting right now is used fryolater oil. Peter Arnold at the Chewonki Foundation here in Maine has been making it (and using it for heating, motor fuel etc.) for the last few years with great success using only "used" oil. He has figures on how much used oil Maine generates every year (incredible large), and I suspect one could extrapolate that to the rest of the country pretty easily. Along with soy and corn another oil wideley eyed for biodiesel is canola (rapeseed). In Maine this is particularly interesting becuase canola will grow well in "the county" (northern Maine) and is a good rotator with potatoes. Mr. Diesel (the man who invented the engine) designed his engine to run on unrefined peanut oil.

Anyway, it is a pretty easy process to "refine" the new or used oil to run well in modern engines. The costs being some basic utensils, transportation, methanol, lye and a little heat and electricity. Obviously, refining it close to the source and distributing locally is the key as transportation costs raise the price substantially. A person in my office is making it himself to use in his new car (Jetta) and has the cost down to $.40/gallon.

It will deteriorate old natural rubber seals and gaskets, but will not bother sythetics like nitrile. It does have a higher "lubricity" and has been shown in truck fleets to extend the time between major rebuilds by 20-30%. It will jell in freezing temps, so has to be mixed with #2 to avoid this problem. The exhaust of straight biodiesel is essentially non-toxic (other than asphixiation) and not offensive when made/burned properly. Because it does not have quite the same amount of energy, on average you will burn a little more biodiesel than regular and you will have a small decrease in power. Peter reports that the Chewonki van (big Ford econoline), gets a about 2 mpg less on biodiesel but the power drop is almost imperceptible.

Finally, the reason I will run it in my boat after I repower (this year) is that if you spill a little (or a lot) it is not a big problem as it does not have the toxic compounds that standard diesel does. I had a fuel leak a couple of years ago and between the smell, the bilge cleanup and the potential impact to the environment from the spilled fuel, I swore off it as soon as I could make the change. You can switch back and forth with no adjustments though.

If you want more information, please e-mail Peter Arnold at Chewonki parnold@chewonki.org or visit the biodiesel page http://www.biodiesel.org .

PS I hope to run my house on it this winter.

Scott Rosen
08-30-2002, 01:26 PM
And if you run out of food, you can always drink the diesel.

Scott Rosen
08-30-2002, 01:26 PM
And if you run out of food, you can always drink the diesel.

Scott Rosen
08-30-2002, 01:26 PM
And if you run out of food, you can always drink the diesel.

Jon Agne
09-01-2002, 08:19 AM
Pam,

I'm glad you brought this topic back to the top as I missed it the first time around......must have been too busy rebuilding cockpit.

I switched over to Biodiesel this season in the Yanmar 3GM and am completely satisfied. I made the plunge as it was the perfect time, due to the new fuel tank and lines (remember the cockpit rebuild?)

I'm happy to report that Biodiesel leaves virtually no soot on the transom, and there is very little odor to the exhaust. When you do smell it, it reminds you of a hot wok before you put in the vegetables. It's also easy to clean up when you spill it on the deck.

Yes, it is pricey up here in Maine as I buy it in 5 gallon pails, but when you only use 35 gallons a season, it really is not a factor.

Jon Agne
09-01-2002, 08:19 AM
Pam,

I'm glad you brought this topic back to the top as I missed it the first time around......must have been too busy rebuilding cockpit.

I switched over to Biodiesel this season in the Yanmar 3GM and am completely satisfied. I made the plunge as it was the perfect time, due to the new fuel tank and lines (remember the cockpit rebuild?)

I'm happy to report that Biodiesel leaves virtually no soot on the transom, and there is very little odor to the exhaust. When you do smell it, it reminds you of a hot wok before you put in the vegetables. It's also easy to clean up when you spill it on the deck.

Yes, it is pricey up here in Maine as I buy it in 5 gallon pails, but when you only use 35 gallons a season, it really is not a factor.

Jon Agne
09-01-2002, 08:19 AM
Pam,

I'm glad you brought this topic back to the top as I missed it the first time around......must have been too busy rebuilding cockpit.

I switched over to Biodiesel this season in the Yanmar 3GM and am completely satisfied. I made the plunge as it was the perfect time, due to the new fuel tank and lines (remember the cockpit rebuild?)

I'm happy to report that Biodiesel leaves virtually no soot on the transom, and there is very little odor to the exhaust. When you do smell it, it reminds you of a hot wok before you put in the vegetables. It's also easy to clean up when you spill it on the deck.

Yes, it is pricey up here in Maine as I buy it in 5 gallon pails, but when you only use 35 gallons a season, it really is not a factor.

Dave Carnell
09-01-2002, 09:56 AM
Biodiesel from soy beans is as fraudulent as ethanol from corn. Both use more energy to produce than they can supply. If you used your bodiesel to fuel your tractors, make the oil, etc. the process wouldn't be self-sustaining, let alone running any other diesel consumers.

Besides, we are in no danger of running out of petroleum for at least a century, probably more. Then there will be coal reserves that could make fuels, expensively.

Both Julian Simon and Bjorn, the Dane, refute the doomsayers like Paul Ehrlich. Julian took his money in a famous bet.

Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

Dave Carnell
09-01-2002, 09:56 AM
Biodiesel from soy beans is as fraudulent as ethanol from corn. Both use more energy to produce than they can supply. If you used your bodiesel to fuel your tractors, make the oil, etc. the process wouldn't be self-sustaining, let alone running any other diesel consumers.

Besides, we are in no danger of running out of petroleum for at least a century, probably more. Then there will be coal reserves that could make fuels, expensively.

Both Julian Simon and Bjorn, the Dane, refute the doomsayers like Paul Ehrlich. Julian took his money in a famous bet.

Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

Dave Carnell
09-01-2002, 09:56 AM
Biodiesel from soy beans is as fraudulent as ethanol from corn. Both use more energy to produce than they can supply. If you used your bodiesel to fuel your tractors, make the oil, etc. the process wouldn't be self-sustaining, let alone running any other diesel consumers.

Besides, we are in no danger of running out of petroleum for at least a century, probably more. Then there will be coal reserves that could make fuels, expensively.

Both Julian Simon and Bjorn, the Dane, refute the doomsayers like Paul Ehrlich. Julian took his money in a famous bet.

Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

Bill Dodson
09-01-2002, 10:01 AM
Biodiesel is available now in Easton, MD on the Eastern Shore, but unfortunately it's a pretty long haul from southern Maryland.
"Public Biodiesel Pump Opens in Maryland" (http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/pressreleases/gen/maryland_B100_pump_070202.pdf)

Bill Dodson
09-01-2002, 10:01 AM
Biodiesel is available now in Easton, MD on the Eastern Shore, but unfortunately it's a pretty long haul from southern Maryland.
"Public Biodiesel Pump Opens in Maryland" (http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/pressreleases/gen/maryland_B100_pump_070202.pdf)

Bill Dodson
09-01-2002, 10:01 AM
Biodiesel is available now in Easton, MD on the Eastern Shore, but unfortunately it's a pretty long haul from southern Maryland.
"Public Biodiesel Pump Opens in Maryland" (http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/pressreleases/gen/maryland_B100_pump_070202.pdf)

thechemist
09-01-2002, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Dave Carnell:
Biodiesel from soy beans is as fraudulent as ethanol from corn. Both use more energy to produce than they can supply. <snip>.What's your data source for that assertion, Dave?

The soybean plant makes the triglyceride from sunshine , water and carbon dioxide. By reacting that soybean oil with methanol [obtained by controlled oxidation of natural gas, among other methods] one gets the soybean fatty acid methyl esters, which are "biodiesel", as I understand it. One also gets glycerine as a by-product, which could easily be burned to supply process heat.

Where's the fraud?

thechemist
09-01-2002, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Dave Carnell:
Biodiesel from soy beans is as fraudulent as ethanol from corn. Both use more energy to produce than they can supply. <snip>.What's your data source for that assertion, Dave?

The soybean plant makes the triglyceride from sunshine , water and carbon dioxide. By reacting that soybean oil with methanol [obtained by controlled oxidation of natural gas, among other methods] one gets the soybean fatty acid methyl esters, which are "biodiesel", as I understand it. One also gets glycerine as a by-product, which could easily be burned to supply process heat.

Where's the fraud?

thechemist
09-01-2002, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Dave Carnell:
Biodiesel from soy beans is as fraudulent as ethanol from corn. Both use more energy to produce than they can supply. <snip>.What's your data source for that assertion, Dave?

The soybean plant makes the triglyceride from sunshine , water and carbon dioxide. By reacting that soybean oil with methanol [obtained by controlled oxidation of natural gas, among other methods] one gets the soybean fatty acid methyl esters, which are "biodiesel", as I understand it. One also gets glycerine as a by-product, which could easily be burned to supply process heat.

Where's the fraud?

thechemist
09-02-2002, 06:51 PM
Let me help you, Dave. Go look here:

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/Production.PDF

It's really quite simple.

thechemist
09-02-2002, 06:51 PM
Let me help you, Dave. Go look here:

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/Production.PDF

It's really quite simple.

thechemist
09-02-2002, 06:51 PM
Let me help you, Dave. Go look here:

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/Production.PDF

It's really quite simple.

Jon Agne
09-02-2002, 10:48 PM
Thank you chemist!

Jon Agne
09-02-2002, 10:48 PM
Thank you chemist!

Jon Agne
09-02-2002, 10:48 PM
Thank you chemist!

Dave Carnell
09-04-2002, 08:11 AM
When I was a kid, over 70 years ago, National Geographic had a feature article in which DuPont chemists made a silk purse out of a sow's ear-a real chemical tour de force.

Biodiesel isn't that farfetched, but by the time you use the product to fuel the machinery used to grow the crop, transport it, extract it, and process it, you will have little, if any, net gain.

Cost is the best measure of resource and energy use. When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.

When I was managing economic evaluation of alternative energy and chemical production for a DuPont department, our vice-president asked me one day about agricultural products as a source. I calculated for him that an acre of a 6' thick seam of low-grade lignite coal in TX would yield would produce as much energy as an acre of prime farmland for 150 years, without charging the farmland for the fuel required for growing the crop.

This was when we were in the oil crisis and worrying about running out of petroleum and natural gas. All of the economic assumptions we made back then were grossly in error. Petroleum and natural gas are cheaper in current dollars and more available than 20+ years ago. William Simon, who won a bet with Paul Ehrlich back then, and Bjorn Lomborg are still right. Natural resources are increasingly available at lower cost since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Dave Carnell
09-04-2002, 08:11 AM
When I was a kid, over 70 years ago, National Geographic had a feature article in which DuPont chemists made a silk purse out of a sow's ear-a real chemical tour de force.

Biodiesel isn't that farfetched, but by the time you use the product to fuel the machinery used to grow the crop, transport it, extract it, and process it, you will have little, if any, net gain.

Cost is the best measure of resource and energy use. When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.

When I was managing economic evaluation of alternative energy and chemical production for a DuPont department, our vice-president asked me one day about agricultural products as a source. I calculated for him that an acre of a 6' thick seam of low-grade lignite coal in TX would yield would produce as much energy as an acre of prime farmland for 150 years, without charging the farmland for the fuel required for growing the crop.

This was when we were in the oil crisis and worrying about running out of petroleum and natural gas. All of the economic assumptions we made back then were grossly in error. Petroleum and natural gas are cheaper in current dollars and more available than 20+ years ago. William Simon, who won a bet with Paul Ehrlich back then, and Bjorn Lomborg are still right. Natural resources are increasingly available at lower cost since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Dave Carnell
09-04-2002, 08:11 AM
When I was a kid, over 70 years ago, National Geographic had a feature article in which DuPont chemists made a silk purse out of a sow's ear-a real chemical tour de force.

Biodiesel isn't that farfetched, but by the time you use the product to fuel the machinery used to grow the crop, transport it, extract it, and process it, you will have little, if any, net gain.

Cost is the best measure of resource and energy use. When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.

When I was managing economic evaluation of alternative energy and chemical production for a DuPont department, our vice-president asked me one day about agricultural products as a source. I calculated for him that an acre of a 6' thick seam of low-grade lignite coal in TX would yield would produce as much energy as an acre of prime farmland for 150 years, without charging the farmland for the fuel required for growing the crop.

This was when we were in the oil crisis and worrying about running out of petroleum and natural gas. All of the economic assumptions we made back then were grossly in error. Petroleum and natural gas are cheaper in current dollars and more available than 20+ years ago. William Simon, who won a bet with Paul Ehrlich back then, and Bjorn Lomborg are still right. Natural resources are increasingly available at lower cost since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Sailing-Randy
09-04-2002, 10:41 AM
Okay, new question - if the product is not economically profitable, why do we make biodiesel? And how is it that I hear of new biodiesel plants in the news here in the midwest?

Also, is the same true for ethanol? I thought I heard that Brazil went to all ethanol several years ago. Was this an urban myth?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just bewildered - though not the first time! :rolleyes:

Sailing-Randy
09-04-2002, 10:41 AM
Okay, new question - if the product is not economically profitable, why do we make biodiesel? And how is it that I hear of new biodiesel plants in the news here in the midwest?

Also, is the same true for ethanol? I thought I heard that Brazil went to all ethanol several years ago. Was this an urban myth?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just bewildered - though not the first time! :rolleyes:

Sailing-Randy
09-04-2002, 10:41 AM
Okay, new question - if the product is not economically profitable, why do we make biodiesel? And how is it that I hear of new biodiesel plants in the news here in the midwest?

Also, is the same true for ethanol? I thought I heard that Brazil went to all ethanol several years ago. Was this an urban myth?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just bewildered - though not the first time! :rolleyes:

thechemist
09-04-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Dave Carnell:
When I was a kid, over 70 years ago, National Geographic had a feature article in which DuPont chemists made a silk purse out of a sow's ear-a real chemical tour de force.

Biodiesel isn't that farfetched, but by the time you use the product to fuel the machinery used to grow the crop, transport it, extract it, and process it, you will have little, if any, net gain.

Cost is the best measure of resource and energy use. When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.

When I was managing economic evaluation of alternative energy and chemical production for a DuPont department, our vice-president asked me one day about agricultural products as a source. I calculated for him that an acre of a 6' thick seam of low-grade lignite coal in TX would yield would produce as much energy as an acre of prime farmland for 150 years, without charging the farmland for the fuel required for growing the crop.

This was when we were in the oil crisis and worrying about running out of petroleum and natural gas. All of the economic assumptions we made back then were grossly in error. Petroleum and natural gas are cheaper in current dollars and more available than 20+ years ago. William Simon, who won a bet with Paul Ehrlich back then, and Bjorn Lomborg are still right. Natural resources are increasingly available at lower cost since the beginning of the industrial revolution.Well, Dave thank you for that reply but those are still generalities, and I don't see one specific number, just opinion.

How many gallons of soybean oil does an acre of soybean-plants yield?

How many gallons of diesel are required to plow, pump water harvest and process an acre's worth of soybean?

Those two numbers will tell whether it takes more oil than the plant gives back.

Further, where you said this: Cost is the best measure of resource and energy use. When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.,

you introduced false data.

Twice.

Cost is the measure of what someone who owns one commodity, natural resource or other, is willing to sell it for while maximizing their profit and keeping out competition by selling it for less than a competitor can afford to produce a competing, even technically superior product.

That is an observable fact, and examples abound in our society, right down to how Microsoft actually GAVE AWAY their browser to destroy Netscape by providing a commidity to the consumer for a lesser price than their competition.

Saving resources has nothing to do with cost. Is it a renewable resource or a non-renewable one and which is to be "saved"?

thechemist
09-04-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Dave Carnell:
When I was a kid, over 70 years ago, National Geographic had a feature article in which DuPont chemists made a silk purse out of a sow's ear-a real chemical tour de force.

Biodiesel isn't that farfetched, but by the time you use the product to fuel the machinery used to grow the crop, transport it, extract it, and process it, you will have little, if any, net gain.

Cost is the best measure of resource and energy use. When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.

When I was managing economic evaluation of alternative energy and chemical production for a DuPont department, our vice-president asked me one day about agricultural products as a source. I calculated for him that an acre of a 6' thick seam of low-grade lignite coal in TX would yield would produce as much energy as an acre of prime farmland for 150 years, without charging the farmland for the fuel required for growing the crop.

This was when we were in the oil crisis and worrying about running out of petroleum and natural gas. All of the economic assumptions we made back then were grossly in error. Petroleum and natural gas are cheaper in current dollars and more available than 20+ years ago. William Simon, who won a bet with Paul Ehrlich back then, and Bjorn Lomborg are still right. Natural resources are increasingly available at lower cost since the beginning of the industrial revolution.Well, Dave thank you for that reply but those are still generalities, and I don't see one specific number, just opinion.

How many gallons of soybean oil does an acre of soybean-plants yield?

How many gallons of diesel are required to plow, pump water harvest and process an acre's worth of soybean?

Those two numbers will tell whether it takes more oil than the plant gives back.

Further, where you said this: Cost is the best measure of resource and energy use. When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.,

you introduced false data.

Twice.

Cost is the measure of what someone who owns one commodity, natural resource or other, is willing to sell it for while maximizing their profit and keeping out competition by selling it for less than a competitor can afford to produce a competing, even technically superior product.

That is an observable fact, and examples abound in our society, right down to how Microsoft actually GAVE AWAY their browser to destroy Netscape by providing a commidity to the consumer for a lesser price than their competition.

Saving resources has nothing to do with cost. Is it a renewable resource or a non-renewable one and which is to be "saved"?

thechemist
09-04-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Dave Carnell:
When I was a kid, over 70 years ago, National Geographic had a feature article in which DuPont chemists made a silk purse out of a sow's ear-a real chemical tour de force.

Biodiesel isn't that farfetched, but by the time you use the product to fuel the machinery used to grow the crop, transport it, extract it, and process it, you will have little, if any, net gain.

Cost is the best measure of resource and energy use. When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.

When I was managing economic evaluation of alternative energy and chemical production for a DuPont department, our vice-president asked me one day about agricultural products as a source. I calculated for him that an acre of a 6' thick seam of low-grade lignite coal in TX would yield would produce as much energy as an acre of prime farmland for 150 years, without charging the farmland for the fuel required for growing the crop.

This was when we were in the oil crisis and worrying about running out of petroleum and natural gas. All of the economic assumptions we made back then were grossly in error. Petroleum and natural gas are cheaper in current dollars and more available than 20+ years ago. William Simon, who won a bet with Paul Ehrlich back then, and Bjorn Lomborg are still right. Natural resources are increasingly available at lower cost since the beginning of the industrial revolution.Well, Dave thank you for that reply but those are still generalities, and I don't see one specific number, just opinion.

How many gallons of soybean oil does an acre of soybean-plants yield?

How many gallons of diesel are required to plow, pump water harvest and process an acre's worth of soybean?

Those two numbers will tell whether it takes more oil than the plant gives back.

Further, where you said this: Cost is the best measure of resource and energy use. When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.,

you introduced false data.

Twice.

Cost is the measure of what someone who owns one commodity, natural resource or other, is willing to sell it for while maximizing their profit and keeping out competition by selling it for less than a competitor can afford to produce a competing, even technically superior product.

That is an observable fact, and examples abound in our society, right down to how Microsoft actually GAVE AWAY their browser to destroy Netscape by providing a commidity to the consumer for a lesser price than their competition.

Saving resources has nothing to do with cost. Is it a renewable resource or a non-renewable one and which is to be "saved"?

Jim H
09-04-2002, 01:00 PM
So, what is the cost per gallon at the pump or per 5 gallon can??

[ 09-04-2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: JimH ]

Jim H
09-04-2002, 01:00 PM
So, what is the cost per gallon at the pump or per 5 gallon can??

[ 09-04-2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: JimH ]

Jim H
09-04-2002, 01:00 PM
So, what is the cost per gallon at the pump or per 5 gallon can??

[ 09-04-2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: JimH ]

imported_Steven Bauer
09-04-2002, 02:14 PM
Don't ya just love when Dave and thechemist have at it. :D

Here is some more bio-diesel info. It looks like it's $2.45 a gallon in small quantities with price breaks for larger amounts.

Solar Market's bio-diesel page (http://www.solarmarket.com/products/biodiesel/biodiesel.html)

imported_Steven Bauer
09-04-2002, 02:14 PM
Don't ya just love when Dave and thechemist have at it. :D

Here is some more bio-diesel info. It looks like it's $2.45 a gallon in small quantities with price breaks for larger amounts.

Solar Market's bio-diesel page (http://www.solarmarket.com/products/biodiesel/biodiesel.html)

imported_Steven Bauer
09-04-2002, 02:14 PM
Don't ya just love when Dave and thechemist have at it. :D

Here is some more bio-diesel info. It looks like it's $2.45 a gallon in small quantities with price breaks for larger amounts.

Solar Market's bio-diesel page (http://www.solarmarket.com/products/biodiesel/biodiesel.html)

Jeff Evans
09-04-2002, 02:34 PM
I worked at Chewonki for a couple of years (with Peter Arnold, who is a great guy) and used to drive the biodiesel van, tractor, and other fry-oil vehicles they run. Actually, I went for a ride in the van on monday. It starts and runs as smoothly on biodiesel as on reg. diesel. I particularly miss the smell of french fries when driving the tractor.

Anyway, as Pam has suggested, Peter has a wealth of knowledge on renewable energy, and sharing it publicly is a large part of his job description. I imagine he'd be happy to speak with anyone on the subject. Check out the Chewonki's website for info on their public workshops www.chewonki.org (http://www.chewonki.org). Also, I know someone who converts diesels to run on straight, unprocessed used fry oil. His web site has some info on what has to be done to do the conversion (mostly extra fuel filters, i think). grease monkey conversions (http://www.greasemonkeyconversions.com/). These might help.

Oh, if you go to the Chewonki site you'll see photos of the boats I used to live/teach on. Traditional pulling boats, build in Maine.

Jeff Evans
09-04-2002, 02:34 PM
I worked at Chewonki for a couple of years (with Peter Arnold, who is a great guy) and used to drive the biodiesel van, tractor, and other fry-oil vehicles they run. Actually, I went for a ride in the van on monday. It starts and runs as smoothly on biodiesel as on reg. diesel. I particularly miss the smell of french fries when driving the tractor.

Anyway, as Pam has suggested, Peter has a wealth of knowledge on renewable energy, and sharing it publicly is a large part of his job description. I imagine he'd be happy to speak with anyone on the subject. Check out the Chewonki's website for info on their public workshops www.chewonki.org (http://www.chewonki.org). Also, I know someone who converts diesels to run on straight, unprocessed used fry oil. His web site has some info on what has to be done to do the conversion (mostly extra fuel filters, i think). grease monkey conversions (http://www.greasemonkeyconversions.com/). These might help.

Oh, if you go to the Chewonki site you'll see photos of the boats I used to live/teach on. Traditional pulling boats, build in Maine.

Jeff Evans
09-04-2002, 02:34 PM
I worked at Chewonki for a couple of years (with Peter Arnold, who is a great guy) and used to drive the biodiesel van, tractor, and other fry-oil vehicles they run. Actually, I went for a ride in the van on monday. It starts and runs as smoothly on biodiesel as on reg. diesel. I particularly miss the smell of french fries when driving the tractor.

Anyway, as Pam has suggested, Peter has a wealth of knowledge on renewable energy, and sharing it publicly is a large part of his job description. I imagine he'd be happy to speak with anyone on the subject. Check out the Chewonki's website for info on their public workshops www.chewonki.org (http://www.chewonki.org). Also, I know someone who converts diesels to run on straight, unprocessed used fry oil. His web site has some info on what has to be done to do the conversion (mostly extra fuel filters, i think). grease monkey conversions (http://www.greasemonkeyconversions.com/). These might help.

Oh, if you go to the Chewonki site you'll see photos of the boats I used to live/teach on. Traditional pulling boats, build in Maine.

thechemist
09-05-2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Steven.Bauer:
Don't ya just love when Dave and thechemist have at it. :D

Here is some more bio-diesel info. It looks like it's $2.45 a gallon in small quantities with price breaks for larger amounts.

Solar Market's bio-diesel page (http://www.solarmarket.com/products/biodiesel/biodiesel.html)Well.

To summarize, we have sunlight captured by plants and some of that energy used to turn carbon dioxide from the air into oil. Our cost to plant, irrigate, fertilize and process the harvested soybean crop into oil is some number.

On the other hand, we have that same sunlight captured by long-ago plants and converted into vegetable matter, buried under a lot of rock and sand, eventually drilled into and some small portion pumped out and processed into a variety of petroleum products, some of which is gasoline, some jet fuel, some diesel oil, some gas and some asphalt, and quite a bit spend in desulfurizing the fossil-origin diesel so we don't have acid rain in addition to the soot. The refinery does not have a lot of choice as regards yield of diesel or jet fuel or whatever they get from their crude oil. Soybean oil [or, for that matter, any triglyceride oil] can be converted into methyl esters at quite high efficiency and yield.

It almost seems to be an issue of whether or not you want to burn a renewable fuel, or whether you want to use the fossil-fuel, which is not renewable, for fuel.

Selling biodiesel at twice the price of petroleum diesel ensures that the oil companies will not to crush it the way Microsoft went after Netscape, and ensures that the biodiesel producers can make enough of a profit to pay for marketing and expansion costs.

They should correctly not try to compete with petroleum diesel on a cost basis, since the product is technically superior and fuel cost is a very small part of the total operating cost of many systems. If they compete, as they are, on a performance basis they will remain viable and can expand.

In the long run our economies will make transitions from oil to gas to hydrogen and solar-electric, just as the early energy-production transitions were from wood to coal to oil.

thechemist
09-05-2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Steven.Bauer:
Don't ya just love when Dave and thechemist have at it. :D

Here is some more bio-diesel info. It looks like it's $2.45 a gallon in small quantities with price breaks for larger amounts.

Solar Market's bio-diesel page (http://www.solarmarket.com/products/biodiesel/biodiesel.html)Well.

To summarize, we have sunlight captured by plants and some of that energy used to turn carbon dioxide from the air into oil. Our cost to plant, irrigate, fertilize and process the harvested soybean crop into oil is some number.

On the other hand, we have that same sunlight captured by long-ago plants and converted into vegetable matter, buried under a lot of rock and sand, eventually drilled into and some small portion pumped out and processed into a variety of petroleum products, some of which is gasoline, some jet fuel, some diesel oil, some gas and some asphalt, and quite a bit spend in desulfurizing the fossil-origin diesel so we don't have acid rain in addition to the soot. The refinery does not have a lot of choice as regards yield of diesel or jet fuel or whatever they get from their crude oil. Soybean oil [or, for that matter, any triglyceride oil] can be converted into methyl esters at quite high efficiency and yield.

It almost seems to be an issue of whether or not you want to burn a renewable fuel, or whether you want to use the fossil-fuel, which is not renewable, for fuel.

Selling biodiesel at twice the price of petroleum diesel ensures that the oil companies will not to crush it the way Microsoft went after Netscape, and ensures that the biodiesel producers can make enough of a profit to pay for marketing and expansion costs.

They should correctly not try to compete with petroleum diesel on a cost basis, since the product is technically superior and fuel cost is a very small part of the total operating cost of many systems. If they compete, as they are, on a performance basis they will remain viable and can expand.

In the long run our economies will make transitions from oil to gas to hydrogen and solar-electric, just as the early energy-production transitions were from wood to coal to oil.

thechemist
09-05-2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Steven.Bauer:
Don't ya just love when Dave and thechemist have at it. :D

Here is some more bio-diesel info. It looks like it's $2.45 a gallon in small quantities with price breaks for larger amounts.

Solar Market's bio-diesel page (http://www.solarmarket.com/products/biodiesel/biodiesel.html)Well.

To summarize, we have sunlight captured by plants and some of that energy used to turn carbon dioxide from the air into oil. Our cost to plant, irrigate, fertilize and process the harvested soybean crop into oil is some number.

On the other hand, we have that same sunlight captured by long-ago plants and converted into vegetable matter, buried under a lot of rock and sand, eventually drilled into and some small portion pumped out and processed into a variety of petroleum products, some of which is gasoline, some jet fuel, some diesel oil, some gas and some asphalt, and quite a bit spend in desulfurizing the fossil-origin diesel so we don't have acid rain in addition to the soot. The refinery does not have a lot of choice as regards yield of diesel or jet fuel or whatever they get from their crude oil. Soybean oil [or, for that matter, any triglyceride oil] can be converted into methyl esters at quite high efficiency and yield.

It almost seems to be an issue of whether or not you want to burn a renewable fuel, or whether you want to use the fossil-fuel, which is not renewable, for fuel.

Selling biodiesel at twice the price of petroleum diesel ensures that the oil companies will not to crush it the way Microsoft went after Netscape, and ensures that the biodiesel producers can make enough of a profit to pay for marketing and expansion costs.

They should correctly not try to compete with petroleum diesel on a cost basis, since the product is technically superior and fuel cost is a very small part of the total operating cost of many systems. If they compete, as they are, on a performance basis they will remain viable and can expand.

In the long run our economies will make transitions from oil to gas to hydrogen and solar-electric, just as the early energy-production transitions were from wood to coal to oil.

Sailing-Randy
09-06-2002, 10:42 AM
Okay, I'll ask again...

The Wausa Gazette, Sept 4, 2002 issue has an article entitled "County men making plans for Knox Co. soybean plant"

3rd paragraph
"Bloomfield Soy Products was formed in May to work toward building the proposed 1.2 million-bushel plant. The plant would produce about 500 tons of meal a week and about 16,000 gallons of soy oil with the potential of expanding for future demand"

Antepenult paragraph
"Other uses for the oil include hydraulic oil, machine lubricants, transformer oil, concrete release agents, soy ink and bio-diesel fuel."

So, how is it that bio-diesel is not profitable? How is it that it takes as much energy to harvest and process as it produces?

Sailing-Randy
09-06-2002, 10:42 AM
Okay, I'll ask again...

The Wausa Gazette, Sept 4, 2002 issue has an article entitled "County men making plans for Knox Co. soybean plant"

3rd paragraph
"Bloomfield Soy Products was formed in May to work toward building the proposed 1.2 million-bushel plant. The plant would produce about 500 tons of meal a week and about 16,000 gallons of soy oil with the potential of expanding for future demand"

Antepenult paragraph
"Other uses for the oil include hydraulic oil, machine lubricants, transformer oil, concrete release agents, soy ink and bio-diesel fuel."

So, how is it that bio-diesel is not profitable? How is it that it takes as much energy to harvest and process as it produces?

Sailing-Randy
09-06-2002, 10:42 AM
Okay, I'll ask again...

The Wausa Gazette, Sept 4, 2002 issue has an article entitled "County men making plans for Knox Co. soybean plant"

3rd paragraph
"Bloomfield Soy Products was formed in May to work toward building the proposed 1.2 million-bushel plant. The plant would produce about 500 tons of meal a week and about 16,000 gallons of soy oil with the potential of expanding for future demand"

Antepenult paragraph
"Other uses for the oil include hydraulic oil, machine lubricants, transformer oil, concrete release agents, soy ink and bio-diesel fuel."

So, how is it that bio-diesel is not profitable? How is it that it takes as much energy to harvest and process as it produces?

Sailing-Randy
09-06-2002, 10:47 AM
Okay, I'll ask again...

The Wausa Gazette, Sept 4, 2002 issue has an article entitled "County men making plans for Knox Co. soybean plant"

3rd paragraph
"Bloomfield Soy Products was formed in May to work toward building the proposed 1.2 million-bushel plant. The plant would produce about 500 tons of meal a week and about 16,000 gallons of soy oil with the potential of expanding for future demand"

Antepenult paragraph
"Other uses for the oil include hydraulic oil, machine lubricants, transformer oil, concrete release agents, soy ink and bio-diesel fuel."

So, how is it that bio-diesel is not profitable? How is it that it takes as much energy to harvest and process as it produces?

Sailing-Randy
09-06-2002, 10:47 AM
Okay, I'll ask again...

The Wausa Gazette, Sept 4, 2002 issue has an article entitled "County men making plans for Knox Co. soybean plant"

3rd paragraph
"Bloomfield Soy Products was formed in May to work toward building the proposed 1.2 million-bushel plant. The plant would produce about 500 tons of meal a week and about 16,000 gallons of soy oil with the potential of expanding for future demand"

Antepenult paragraph
"Other uses for the oil include hydraulic oil, machine lubricants, transformer oil, concrete release agents, soy ink and bio-diesel fuel."

So, how is it that bio-diesel is not profitable? How is it that it takes as much energy to harvest and process as it produces?

Sailing-Randy
09-06-2002, 10:47 AM
Okay, I'll ask again...

The Wausa Gazette, Sept 4, 2002 issue has an article entitled "County men making plans for Knox Co. soybean plant"

3rd paragraph
"Bloomfield Soy Products was formed in May to work toward building the proposed 1.2 million-bushel plant. The plant would produce about 500 tons of meal a week and about 16,000 gallons of soy oil with the potential of expanding for future demand"

Antepenult paragraph
"Other uses for the oil include hydraulic oil, machine lubricants, transformer oil, concrete release agents, soy ink and bio-diesel fuel."

So, how is it that bio-diesel is not profitable? How is it that it takes as much energy to harvest and process as it produces?

thechemist
09-06-2002, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Sailing-Randy:
Okay, I'll ask again...

The Wausa Gazette, Sept 4, 2002 issue has an article entitled "County men making plans for Knox Co. soybean plant"

3rd paragraph
"Bloomfield Soy Products was formed in May to work toward building the proposed 1.2 million-bushel plant. The plant would produce about 500 tons of meal a week and about 16,000 gallons of soy oil with the potential of expanding for future demand"

Antepenult paragraph
"Other uses for the oil include hydraulic oil, machine lubricants, transformer oil, concrete release agents, soy ink and bio-diesel fuel."

So, how is it that bio-diesel is not profitable? How is it that it takes as much energy to harvest and process as it produces?Hi, Randy

Your post gives added weight to discrediting the statement that biodiesel is not profitable, nor that it takes as much energy as it produces.

The term "False Data" means a bit of information that is not true; that-is-to-say, a lie.

The methyl esters of soybean oil cannot be made by any profitable means from fossil-fuel raw material. It is FAR cheaper to make THAT material from natural triglyceride oils.

Our civilization uses various means to place energy in various forms at physical locations where it is needed.

It may cost six gallons of jet fuel to provision a diesel/electric generator at the South Pole with one gallon of diesel, to provide standby power when needed. That does not mean that diesel oil is not a profitable or efficient fuel to use.

It costs some amount of energy to produce, refine, purify and place at the physical-universe location where it is needed to be utilized energy, which may be stored in some form, usually chemical. A higher-performance fuel may be worth a small increment of cost, as added-value delivered to a consumer.

That, sold at a profit to the producer, is by definition profitable.

thechemist
09-06-2002, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Sailing-Randy:
Okay, I'll ask again...

The Wausa Gazette, Sept 4, 2002 issue has an article entitled "County men making plans for Knox Co. soybean plant"

3rd paragraph
"Bloomfield Soy Products was formed in May to work toward building the proposed 1.2 million-bushel plant. The plant would produce about 500 tons of meal a week and about 16,000 gallons of soy oil with the potential of expanding for future demand"

Antepenult paragraph
"Other uses for the oil include hydraulic oil, machine lubricants, transformer oil, concrete release agents, soy ink and bio-diesel fuel."

So, how is it that bio-diesel is not profitable? How is it that it takes as much energy to harvest and process as it produces?Hi, Randy

Your post gives added weight to discrediting the statement that biodiesel is not profitable, nor that it takes as much energy as it produces.

The term "False Data" means a bit of information that is not true; that-is-to-say, a lie.

The methyl esters of soybean oil cannot be made by any profitable means from fossil-fuel raw material. It is FAR cheaper to make THAT material from natural triglyceride oils.

Our civilization uses various means to place energy in various forms at physical locations where it is needed.

It may cost six gallons of jet fuel to provision a diesel/electric generator at the South Pole with one gallon of diesel, to provide standby power when needed. That does not mean that diesel oil is not a profitable or efficient fuel to use.

It costs some amount of energy to produce, refine, purify and place at the physical-universe location where it is needed to be utilized energy, which may be stored in some form, usually chemical. A higher-performance fuel may be worth a small increment of cost, as added-value delivered to a consumer.

That, sold at a profit to the producer, is by definition profitable.

thechemist
09-06-2002, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Sailing-Randy:
Okay, I'll ask again...

The Wausa Gazette, Sept 4, 2002 issue has an article entitled "County men making plans for Knox Co. soybean plant"

3rd paragraph
"Bloomfield Soy Products was formed in May to work toward building the proposed 1.2 million-bushel plant. The plant would produce about 500 tons of meal a week and about 16,000 gallons of soy oil with the potential of expanding for future demand"

Antepenult paragraph
"Other uses for the oil include hydraulic oil, machine lubricants, transformer oil, concrete release agents, soy ink and bio-diesel fuel."

So, how is it that bio-diesel is not profitable? How is it that it takes as much energy to harvest and process as it produces?Hi, Randy

Your post gives added weight to discrediting the statement that biodiesel is not profitable, nor that it takes as much energy as it produces.

The term "False Data" means a bit of information that is not true; that-is-to-say, a lie.

The methyl esters of soybean oil cannot be made by any profitable means from fossil-fuel raw material. It is FAR cheaper to make THAT material from natural triglyceride oils.

Our civilization uses various means to place energy in various forms at physical locations where it is needed.

It may cost six gallons of jet fuel to provision a diesel/electric generator at the South Pole with one gallon of diesel, to provide standby power when needed. That does not mean that diesel oil is not a profitable or efficient fuel to use.

It costs some amount of energy to produce, refine, purify and place at the physical-universe location where it is needed to be utilized energy, which may be stored in some form, usually chemical. A higher-performance fuel may be worth a small increment of cost, as added-value delivered to a consumer.

That, sold at a profit to the producer, is by definition profitable.

thechemist
09-06-2002, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Dave Carnell:

<snip> When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.

<snip>About that point of saving resources.....that is illogical in and of itself.

It is a false datum.

People save resources when they do not use the resources.

If people decide it is worth a little more money to them to not generate the polution of burning coal and instead to burn a low-pollution oil which has maybe half its energy content as clean-burning hydrogen instead of carbon, and which generates essentially NO soot........then those people have voted with their pocketbooks to voluntarily pay for a cleaner environment.

Those people are thereby saving resources.

thechemist
09-06-2002, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Dave Carnell:

<snip> When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.

<snip>About that point of saving resources.....that is illogical in and of itself.

It is a false datum.

People save resources when they do not use the resources.

If people decide it is worth a little more money to them to not generate the polution of burning coal and instead to burn a low-pollution oil which has maybe half its energy content as clean-burning hydrogen instead of carbon, and which generates essentially NO soot........then those people have voted with their pocketbooks to voluntarily pay for a cleaner environment.

Those people are thereby saving resources.

thechemist
09-06-2002, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Dave Carnell:

<snip> When (if) biodiesel is produced commercially on a large scale cheaper than petroleum diesel fuel, it will be saving resources.

<snip>About that point of saving resources.....that is illogical in and of itself.

It is a false datum.

People save resources when they do not use the resources.

If people decide it is worth a little more money to them to not generate the polution of burning coal and instead to burn a low-pollution oil which has maybe half its energy content as clean-burning hydrogen instead of carbon, and which generates essentially NO soot........then those people have voted with their pocketbooks to voluntarily pay for a cleaner environment.

Those people are thereby saving resources.

Tomcat
09-08-2002, 04:00 PM
The part I like about this trend is that inevitably we will have Roundup resistant triffids leading to a humans-free biosphere of eden...

When costing Biodiesel, are we talking with or without gigantic government agri-subsidies?

Biox corporation has a new process that promisses to reduce the energy required to produce biodiesel. This was getting a lot of covereage recently, in Canada, sounds interesting, but whether there are already competitive US processes I don't know:
http://www.bioxcorp.com/process.htm

Interesting:
http://www.biodiesel.org/

Tomcat
09-08-2002, 04:00 PM
The part I like about this trend is that inevitably we will have Roundup resistant triffids leading to a humans-free biosphere of eden...

When costing Biodiesel, are we talking with or without gigantic government agri-subsidies?

Biox corporation has a new process that promisses to reduce the energy required to produce biodiesel. This was getting a lot of covereage recently, in Canada, sounds interesting, but whether there are already competitive US processes I don't know:
http://www.bioxcorp.com/process.htm

Interesting:
http://www.biodiesel.org/

Tomcat
09-08-2002, 04:00 PM
The part I like about this trend is that inevitably we will have Roundup resistant triffids leading to a humans-free biosphere of eden...

When costing Biodiesel, are we talking with or without gigantic government agri-subsidies?

Biox corporation has a new process that promisses to reduce the energy required to produce biodiesel. This was getting a lot of covereage recently, in Canada, sounds interesting, but whether there are already competitive US processes I don't know:
http://www.bioxcorp.com/process.htm

Interesting:
http://www.biodiesel.org/

thechemist
09-08-2002, 06:31 PM
That's a good process. One could also possibly use a surfactant to emulsify the ingredients instead of a cosolvent. Either way, it really is not difficult to make biodiesel.

I think it entirely appropriate that fossil fuels be taxed a buck a gallon or so. We can easily afford it.

The oil companies would not like it, because that tax gives an economic incentive for competition to develop. The oil companies have seen to it that consumer fuel prices are kept as low as possible and we consumers have benefited.

In the long run energy will move more out of their control and into new technologies. This is one of the areas in whihc a government can guide and reinforce technological development, namely by creating economic incentives.

If we remain dependent on a technological monopoly indefinitely, simply because it is cheap, we will be following a path Mr. Carnell seems to advocate. That will lead to severe economic and technological dislocation of our society in a hundred years or two or three, when we have burned all the oil and burned all the coal and poisoned the atmosphere.

thechemist
09-08-2002, 06:31 PM
That's a good process. One could also possibly use a surfactant to emulsify the ingredients instead of a cosolvent. Either way, it really is not difficult to make biodiesel.

I think it entirely appropriate that fossil fuels be taxed a buck a gallon or so. We can easily afford it.

The oil companies would not like it, because that tax gives an economic incentive for competition to develop. The oil companies have seen to it that consumer fuel prices are kept as low as possible and we consumers have benefited.

In the long run energy will move more out of their control and into new technologies. This is one of the areas in whihc a government can guide and reinforce technological development, namely by creating economic incentives.

If we remain dependent on a technological monopoly indefinitely, simply because it is cheap, we will be following a path Mr. Carnell seems to advocate. That will lead to severe economic and technological dislocation of our society in a hundred years or two or three, when we have burned all the oil and burned all the coal and poisoned the atmosphere.

thechemist
09-08-2002, 06:31 PM
That's a good process. One could also possibly use a surfactant to emulsify the ingredients instead of a cosolvent. Either way, it really is not difficult to make biodiesel.

I think it entirely appropriate that fossil fuels be taxed a buck a gallon or so. We can easily afford it.

The oil companies would not like it, because that tax gives an economic incentive for competition to develop. The oil companies have seen to it that consumer fuel prices are kept as low as possible and we consumers have benefited.

In the long run energy will move more out of their control and into new technologies. This is one of the areas in whihc a government can guide and reinforce technological development, namely by creating economic incentives.

If we remain dependent on a technological monopoly indefinitely, simply because it is cheap, we will be following a path Mr. Carnell seems to advocate. That will lead to severe economic and technological dislocation of our society in a hundred years or two or three, when we have burned all the oil and burned all the coal and poisoned the atmosphere.

Scott Rosen
09-08-2002, 07:40 PM
The oil companies have the economic resources to conduct the leading edge development of alternative energy sources, and thereby keep the profits for themselves. I don't understand why they don't invest in the alternative energy sources.

Scott Rosen
09-08-2002, 07:40 PM
The oil companies have the economic resources to conduct the leading edge development of alternative energy sources, and thereby keep the profits for themselves. I don't understand why they don't invest in the alternative energy sources.

Scott Rosen
09-08-2002, 07:40 PM
The oil companies have the economic resources to conduct the leading edge development of alternative energy sources, and thereby keep the profits for themselves. I don't understand why they don't invest in the alternative energy sources.

thechemist
09-08-2002, 08:37 PM
I seem to recall it was Exxon that bought Solarex, a solar-cell manufacturer. They make stuff, but not in any big way. The parent doesn't want that sort of competition. It took Energy Conversion Devices to come up with a continuous-sheet process for manufacturing amorphous solar cells.

The oil-owners and oil-producers and oil-sellers [who may be less separate than you might think, remember Aramco?] don't want to introduce alternative energy means and methods until they sell all their fossil fuel reserves. They already own those reserves. Why buy more when you already have all you need in inventory? Buy up the competition instead, and see to it that they do not become effective competition. It's nothing personal. It's just business.

They are mindless corporations run by individuals who cannot afford to take a long view of anything, for they are employees of corporations publicly traded, having quarterly earnings targets, with said employees having stock options.

Our elected representatives [and make no mistake about it, we have the finest elected representatives that money can buy] create legislation that protects the status quo and gives some minor but adequate [not too much, mind you. we don't want big changes. big change is expensive. people get upset.] improvement in the near-term. Everyone lives comfortably and those representatives get reelected, or move to a cushy job in [some] industry.

Heck, Scott........it seems clear to me. What, exactly, don't you understand?

thechemist
09-08-2002, 08:37 PM
I seem to recall it was Exxon that bought Solarex, a solar-cell manufacturer. They make stuff, but not in any big way. The parent doesn't want that sort of competition. It took Energy Conversion Devices to come up with a continuous-sheet process for manufacturing amorphous solar cells.

The oil-owners and oil-producers and oil-sellers [who may be less separate than you might think, remember Aramco?] don't want to introduce alternative energy means and methods until they sell all their fossil fuel reserves. They already own those reserves. Why buy more when you already have all you need in inventory? Buy up the competition instead, and see to it that they do not become effective competition. It's nothing personal. It's just business.

They are mindless corporations run by individuals who cannot afford to take a long view of anything, for they are employees of corporations publicly traded, having quarterly earnings targets, with said employees having stock options.

Our elected representatives [and make no mistake about it, we have the finest elected representatives that money can buy] create legislation that protects the status quo and gives some minor but adequate [not too much, mind you. we don't want big changes. big change is expensive. people get upset.] improvement in the near-term. Everyone lives comfortably and those representatives get reelected, or move to a cushy job in [some] industry.

Heck, Scott........it seems clear to me. What, exactly, don't you understand?

thechemist
09-08-2002, 08:37 PM
I seem to recall it was Exxon that bought Solarex, a solar-cell manufacturer. They make stuff, but not in any big way. The parent doesn't want that sort of competition. It took Energy Conversion Devices to come up with a continuous-sheet process for manufacturing amorphous solar cells.

The oil-owners and oil-producers and oil-sellers [who may be less separate than you might think, remember Aramco?] don't want to introduce alternative energy means and methods until they sell all their fossil fuel reserves. They already own those reserves. Why buy more when you already have all you need in inventory? Buy up the competition instead, and see to it that they do not become effective competition. It's nothing personal. It's just business.

They are mindless corporations run by individuals who cannot afford to take a long view of anything, for they are employees of corporations publicly traded, having quarterly earnings targets, with said employees having stock options.

Our elected representatives [and make no mistake about it, we have the finest elected representatives that money can buy] create legislation that protects the status quo and gives some minor but adequate [not too much, mind you. we don't want big changes. big change is expensive. people get upset.] improvement in the near-term. Everyone lives comfortably and those representatives get reelected, or move to a cushy job in [some] industry.

Heck, Scott........it seems clear to me. What, exactly, don't you understand?

Scott Rosen
09-09-2002, 08:33 AM
I see your point Chemist.

Here's what I don't understand. The oil companies could be competing with government when it comes to the development of alternative energy. Government has even more money than the oil companies. Heck, our government justs makes more money when it feels the need. You'd think the oil companies would do everything in thier power to prevent government from becoming a competitor.

The valuable part of alternative energy won't be the production capacity; it will be the ideas, the technology. The stuff a small company can patent for its own.

If I were a big oil company, I'd go all guns blazing to develop and corner the market on alternative energy. Then I'd produce it and sell it, but at a cost high enough such that I could continue to demand a high price for my oil stocks. Assuming I could one day produce and sell alternative energy for a greater profit than oil, I would phase out the oil.

I don't see that happening. Probably, as you say, because this quarter's profits are more important to the shareholders than next decade's survival and success.

[ 09-09-2002, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Scott Rosen ]

Scott Rosen
09-09-2002, 08:33 AM
I see your point Chemist.

Here's what I don't understand. The oil companies could be competing with government when it comes to the development of alternative energy. Government has even more money than the oil companies. Heck, our government justs makes more money when it feels the need. You'd think the oil companies would do everything in thier power to prevent government from becoming a competitor.

The valuable part of alternative energy won't be the production capacity; it will be the ideas, the technology. The stuff a small company can patent for its own.

If I were a big oil company, I'd go all guns blazing to develop and corner the market on alternative energy. Then I'd produce it and sell it, but at a cost high enough such that I could continue to demand a high price for my oil stocks. Assuming I could one day produce and sell alternative energy for a greater profit than oil, I would phase out the oil.

I don't see that happening. Probably, as you say, because this quarter's profits are more important to the shareholders than next decade's survival and success.

[ 09-09-2002, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Scott Rosen ]

Scott Rosen
09-09-2002, 08:33 AM
I see your point Chemist.

Here's what I don't understand. The oil companies could be competing with government when it comes to the development of alternative energy. Government has even more money than the oil companies. Heck, our government justs makes more money when it feels the need. You'd think the oil companies would do everything in thier power to prevent government from becoming a competitor.

The valuable part of alternative energy won't be the production capacity; it will be the ideas, the technology. The stuff a small company can patent for its own.

If I were a big oil company, I'd go all guns blazing to develop and corner the market on alternative energy. Then I'd produce it and sell it, but at a cost high enough such that I could continue to demand a high price for my oil stocks. Assuming I could one day produce and sell alternative energy for a greater profit than oil, I would phase out the oil.

I don't see that happening. Probably, as you say, because this quarter's profits are more important to the shareholders than next decade's survival and success.

[ 09-09-2002, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Scott Rosen ]

WWheeler
09-09-2002, 09:02 AM
Speaking of the cost of oil, chemist, that $1/gal tax might also go to cost of maintaining a massive defence budget, propping up corrupt Middle Eastern regimes etc. Under the current pricing structure, there's a massive subsidy that flows from the US taxpayer to oil companies.

WWheeler
09-09-2002, 09:02 AM
Speaking of the cost of oil, chemist, that $1/gal tax might also go to cost of maintaining a massive defence budget, propping up corrupt Middle Eastern regimes etc. Under the current pricing structure, there's a massive subsidy that flows from the US taxpayer to oil companies.

WWheeler
09-09-2002, 09:02 AM
Speaking of the cost of oil, chemist, that $1/gal tax might also go to cost of maintaining a massive defence budget, propping up corrupt Middle Eastern regimes etc. Under the current pricing structure, there's a massive subsidy that flows from the US taxpayer to oil companies.

thechemist
09-09-2002, 12:47 PM
Well, gentlemen, you both have good points. It seems the strategy the oil companies have elected to pursue is to stifle new technology development whilst using their political influence to bring as much government money and profit protection their way as they can. Again, nothing personal, just business.

There are many reasons to not develop new technology, and they all seem to come down to protection of an existing monopoly.

As to the method elected, consider that if they develop something new and patent it, it becomes public knowledge and they have a twenty-year monopoly. After that it is in the public domain.

OOooops. Bad.

thechemist
09-09-2002, 12:47 PM
Well, gentlemen, you both have good points. It seems the strategy the oil companies have elected to pursue is to stifle new technology development whilst using their political influence to bring as much government money and profit protection their way as they can. Again, nothing personal, just business.

There are many reasons to not develop new technology, and they all seem to come down to protection of an existing monopoly.

As to the method elected, consider that if they develop something new and patent it, it becomes public knowledge and they have a twenty-year monopoly. After that it is in the public domain.

OOooops. Bad.

thechemist
09-09-2002, 12:47 PM
Well, gentlemen, you both have good points. It seems the strategy the oil companies have elected to pursue is to stifle new technology development whilst using their political influence to bring as much government money and profit protection their way as they can. Again, nothing personal, just business.

There are many reasons to not develop new technology, and they all seem to come down to protection of an existing monopoly.

As to the method elected, consider that if they develop something new and patent it, it becomes public knowledge and they have a twenty-year monopoly. After that it is in the public domain.

OOooops. Bad.

Nicholas Carey
09-09-2002, 08:30 PM
One thing nobody talks about...really...is the cost of production (biodiesel and/or ethanol). The cost analyses showing that production of these products is a net energy sink (eg, requires more energy input than output from the system) all contain the underlying assumption that the farm producing the base crop(s) use that which passes for 'conventional' agriculture -- heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

These chemicals are, by and large, petrochemical products. They are produced from our old friend, Mr. Crude Oil. The cost of fertilizer and pesticide forms a large component of the costs in modern agriculture.

Another large piece of the cost pie comes from farmer's reliance on patented seedlines (and now, genetically engineered seedlines.) Since the farmer can't, legally save seed from one year to the next, they are forced to buy seed anew each year.

The cost of producing the base crops used in the production of ethanol and bio-diesel goes down considerably if the farmers revert to more traditional forms of agriculture (and no Stan, I'm not suggesting they ditch the tractors and combines, although that's not necessarily a Bad Thing[1]), without incurring significant reductions in yield[2].

[1] Some studies show that farming with draft animals rather than modern equipment can be cheaper and more efficient on 160-acre or smaller operations. Capitol costs are minimal; Operating costs are lower. And best of all, you seldom if ever go out to the barn in the morning and find that your old tractor has finally come thorugh and produced the new baby tractor you were expecting. Furthermore, draft animals produce valuable fertilizer.

[2] Amish farmers produce per-acre yields that equal or exceed those of their English (non-Amish) neighbors. A UC-Berkeley paper http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html says

</font> Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems project (SFAS) at UC, Davis.</font>An ongoing long-term comparison study, SFAS is an interdisciplinary project that compares conventional farming systems with alternative production systems that promote sustainable agriculture.
The study examines four farming systems that differ in crop rotation design and material input use: a 2-year and a 4-year rotation conventional system, an organic and a low-input system.

Results from the first 8 years of the project show that the organic and low-input systems had yields comparable to the conventional systems in all crops which were tested - tomato, safflower, corn and bean, and in some instances yielding higher than conventional systems (Clark, 1999a). Tomato yields in the organic system were lower in the first three years, but reached the levels of the conventional tomatoes in the subsequent years and had a higher yield during the last year of the experiment (80 t/ha in the organic compared to 68 t/ha in the conventional in 1996). Corn production in the organic system had a higher variability than conventional systems, with lower yields in some years and higher in others.

Both organic and low-input systems resulted in increases in the organic carbon content of the soil and larger pools of stored nutrients, each of which are critical for long-term fertility maintenance (Clark, 1998). The most important limiting factor in the organic system appeared to be nitrogen availability (Clark 1999b). The organic system relied mainly on cover crops and composted poultry manure for fertilization. One possible explanation for a lower availability in the organic system, is that high carbon inputs associated with nitrogen to build soil organic matter, thus reducing nitrogen availability for the organic crops. During the latter 2 years of the experiment, soil organic matter levels appeared to be stabilized resulting in more nitrogen availability. This was in agreement with the higher yields of organic crops that were observed during those last two years. The organic systems were found to be more profitable in both corn and tomato among the 4-year rotations mainly due to the higher price premiums (Clark, 1999b).

Nicholas Carey
09-09-2002, 08:30 PM
One thing nobody talks about...really...is the cost of production (biodiesel and/or ethanol). The cost analyses showing that production of these products is a net energy sink (eg, requires more energy input than output from the system) all contain the underlying assumption that the farm producing the base crop(s) use that which passes for 'conventional' agriculture -- heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

These chemicals are, by and large, petrochemical products. They are produced from our old friend, Mr. Crude Oil. The cost of fertilizer and pesticide forms a large component of the costs in modern agriculture.

Another large piece of the cost pie comes from farmer's reliance on patented seedlines (and now, genetically engineered seedlines.) Since the farmer can't, legally save seed from one year to the next, they are forced to buy seed anew each year.

The cost of producing the base crops used in the production of ethanol and bio-diesel goes down considerably if the farmers revert to more traditional forms of agriculture (and no Stan, I'm not suggesting they ditch the tractors and combines, although that's not necessarily a Bad Thing[1]), without incurring significant reductions in yield[2].

[1] Some studies show that farming with draft animals rather than modern equipment can be cheaper and more efficient on 160-acre or smaller operations. Capitol costs are minimal; Operating costs are lower. And best of all, you seldom if ever go out to the barn in the morning and find that your old tractor has finally come thorugh and produced the new baby tractor you were expecting. Furthermore, draft animals produce valuable fertilizer.

[2] Amish farmers produce per-acre yields that equal or exceed those of their English (non-Amish) neighbors. A UC-Berkeley paper http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html says

</font> Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems project (SFAS) at UC, Davis.</font>An ongoing long-term comparison study, SFAS is an interdisciplinary project that compares conventional farming systems with alternative production systems that promote sustainable agriculture.
The study examines four farming systems that differ in crop rotation design and material input use: a 2-year and a 4-year rotation conventional system, an organic and a low-input system.

Results from the first 8 years of the project show that the organic and low-input systems had yields comparable to the conventional systems in all crops which were tested - tomato, safflower, corn and bean, and in some instances yielding higher than conventional systems (Clark, 1999a). Tomato yields in the organic system were lower in the first three years, but reached the levels of the conventional tomatoes in the subsequent years and had a higher yield during the last year of the experiment (80 t/ha in the organic compared to 68 t/ha in the conventional in 1996). Corn production in the organic system had a higher variability than conventional systems, with lower yields in some years and higher in others.

Both organic and low-input systems resulted in increases in the organic carbon content of the soil and larger pools of stored nutrients, each of which are critical for long-term fertility maintenance (Clark, 1998). The most important limiting factor in the organic system appeared to be nitrogen availability (Clark 1999b). The organic system relied mainly on cover crops and composted poultry manure for fertilization. One possible explanation for a lower availability in the organic system, is that high carbon inputs associated with nitrogen to build soil organic matter, thus reducing nitrogen availability for the organic crops. During the latter 2 years of the experiment, soil organic matter levels appeared to be stabilized resulting in more nitrogen availability. This was in agreement with the higher yields of organic crops that were observed during those last two years. The organic systems were found to be more profitable in both corn and tomato among the 4-year rotations mainly due to the higher price premiums (Clark, 1999b).

Nicholas Carey
09-09-2002, 08:30 PM
One thing nobody talks about...really...is the cost of production (biodiesel and/or ethanol). The cost analyses showing that production of these products is a net energy sink (eg, requires more energy input than output from the system) all contain the underlying assumption that the farm producing the base crop(s) use that which passes for 'conventional' agriculture -- heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

These chemicals are, by and large, petrochemical products. They are produced from our old friend, Mr. Crude Oil. The cost of fertilizer and pesticide forms a large component of the costs in modern agriculture.

Another large piece of the cost pie comes from farmer's reliance on patented seedlines (and now, genetically engineered seedlines.) Since the farmer can't, legally save seed from one year to the next, they are forced to buy seed anew each year.

The cost of producing the base crops used in the production of ethanol and bio-diesel goes down considerably if the farmers revert to more traditional forms of agriculture (and no Stan, I'm not suggesting they ditch the tractors and combines, although that's not necessarily a Bad Thing[1]), without incurring significant reductions in yield[2].

[1] Some studies show that farming with draft animals rather than modern equipment can be cheaper and more efficient on 160-acre or smaller operations. Capitol costs are minimal; Operating costs are lower. And best of all, you seldom if ever go out to the barn in the morning and find that your old tractor has finally come thorugh and produced the new baby tractor you were expecting. Furthermore, draft animals produce valuable fertilizer.

[2] Amish farmers produce per-acre yields that equal or exceed those of their English (non-Amish) neighbors. A UC-Berkeley paper http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html says

</font> Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems project (SFAS) at UC, Davis.</font>An ongoing long-term comparison study, SFAS is an interdisciplinary project that compares conventional farming systems with alternative production systems that promote sustainable agriculture.
The study examines four farming systems that differ in crop rotation design and material input use: a 2-year and a 4-year rotation conventional system, an organic and a low-input system.

Results from the first 8 years of the project show that the organic and low-input systems had yields comparable to the conventional systems in all crops which were tested - tomato, safflower, corn and bean, and in some instances yielding higher than conventional systems (Clark, 1999a). Tomato yields in the organic system were lower in the first three years, but reached the levels of the conventional tomatoes in the subsequent years and had a higher yield during the last year of the experiment (80 t/ha in the organic compared to 68 t/ha in the conventional in 1996). Corn production in the organic system had a higher variability than conventional systems, with lower yields in some years and higher in others.

Both organic and low-input systems resulted in increases in the organic carbon content of the soil and larger pools of stored nutrients, each of which are critical for long-term fertility maintenance (Clark, 1998). The most important limiting factor in the organic system appeared to be nitrogen availability (Clark 1999b). The organic system relied mainly on cover crops and composted poultry manure for fertilization. One possible explanation for a lower availability in the organic system, is that high carbon inputs associated with nitrogen to build soil organic matter, thus reducing nitrogen availability for the organic crops. During the latter 2 years of the experiment, soil organic matter levels appeared to be stabilized resulting in more nitrogen availability. This was in agreement with the higher yields of organic crops that were observed during those last two years. The organic systems were found to be more profitable in both corn and tomato among the 4-year rotations mainly due to the higher price premiums (Clark, 1999b).

Pam P
12-03-2002, 03:50 PM
Wow, it is really interesting to see where these discussions go. Thank you all!

The environmental cost of petroleum has never been accuarately assessed by the market, the oil companies, or the government. So it is really hard to put a REAL price tag on oil as the cost of global climate change (it IS REAL folks), increased health care costs (asthema, skin cancer) are not factored in. We don't pay enough to deal with our garbage either . . .

Anyway, the big thing for me is the carbon balance, as the chemist noted, the plants that formed the basis of fossil fuel took carbon out of the atmosphere a long time ago, it was essentially locked away, when you use petroleum products you are releasing it back into the environment. Add that to deforestation and you get too much carbon, global climate change etc.

By using a plant based fuel you recycle the carbon without dredging a whole bunch up from the distant past. The carbon that you release in the combustion is equal to that the plant took out.

There is research right now on how to put carbon dioxide back into the ground to take it out of circulation (again!).

My new engine is going in as I type this, and we are going to run biodeisel.

Pam P
12-03-2002, 03:50 PM
Wow, it is really interesting to see where these discussions go. Thank you all!

The environmental cost of petroleum has never been accuarately assessed by the market, the oil companies, or the government. So it is really hard to put a REAL price tag on oil as the cost of global climate change (it IS REAL folks), increased health care costs (asthema, skin cancer) are not factored in. We don't pay enough to deal with our garbage either . . .

Anyway, the big thing for me is the carbon balance, as the chemist noted, the plants that formed the basis of fossil fuel took carbon out of the atmosphere a long time ago, it was essentially locked away, when you use petroleum products you are releasing it back into the environment. Add that to deforestation and you get too much carbon, global climate change etc.

By using a plant based fuel you recycle the carbon without dredging a whole bunch up from the distant past. The carbon that you release in the combustion is equal to that the plant took out.

There is research right now on how to put carbon dioxide back into the ground to take it out of circulation (again!).

My new engine is going in as I type this, and we are going to run biodeisel.

Pam P
12-03-2002, 03:50 PM
Wow, it is really interesting to see where these discussions go. Thank you all!

The environmental cost of petroleum has never been accuarately assessed by the market, the oil companies, or the government. So it is really hard to put a REAL price tag on oil as the cost of global climate change (it IS REAL folks), increased health care costs (asthema, skin cancer) are not factored in. We don't pay enough to deal with our garbage either . . .

Anyway, the big thing for me is the carbon balance, as the chemist noted, the plants that formed the basis of fossil fuel took carbon out of the atmosphere a long time ago, it was essentially locked away, when you use petroleum products you are releasing it back into the environment. Add that to deforestation and you get too much carbon, global climate change etc.

By using a plant based fuel you recycle the carbon without dredging a whole bunch up from the distant past. The carbon that you release in the combustion is equal to that the plant took out.

There is research right now on how to put carbon dioxide back into the ground to take it out of circulation (again!).

My new engine is going in as I type this, and we are going to run biodeisel.

new2this
12-03-2002, 06:19 PM
I don't know anything technical aboutthe stuff, but I do know that the area where I live is a liberal community with a strong Green leaning and that the city and county fleet diesels(i.e. city buses, school buses, fleet trucks) run on biodiesel. The local paper said the fuel only costs about 4 more cents per gallon than petroleum based diesel and as stated ahs a much less toxic exhaust and burns cleaner. I would pay 4 cents more per gallon for tha if I knew it wouldn't hurt my engine(that is if I had a diesel in the first place). Some people use used fryer oil to make biodiesel? Ewww! Can you believe we eat food cooked in that stuff?

new2this
12-03-2002, 06:19 PM
I don't know anything technical aboutthe stuff, but I do know that the area where I live is a liberal community with a strong Green leaning and that the city and county fleet diesels(i.e. city buses, school buses, fleet trucks) run on biodiesel. The local paper said the fuel only costs about 4 more cents per gallon than petroleum based diesel and as stated ahs a much less toxic exhaust and burns cleaner. I would pay 4 cents more per gallon for tha if I knew it wouldn't hurt my engine(that is if I had a diesel in the first place). Some people use used fryer oil to make biodiesel? Ewww! Can you believe we eat food cooked in that stuff?

new2this
12-03-2002, 06:19 PM
I don't know anything technical aboutthe stuff, but I do know that the area where I live is a liberal community with a strong Green leaning and that the city and county fleet diesels(i.e. city buses, school buses, fleet trucks) run on biodiesel. The local paper said the fuel only costs about 4 more cents per gallon than petroleum based diesel and as stated ahs a much less toxic exhaust and burns cleaner. I would pay 4 cents more per gallon for tha if I knew it wouldn't hurt my engine(that is if I had a diesel in the first place). Some people use used fryer oil to make biodiesel? Ewww! Can you believe we eat food cooked in that stuff?

Don Maurer
12-03-2002, 06:23 PM
You may not be able to get bio-diesel for long. The Bush Administration is changing the subsidy rate on the soybean oil used to make it. Instead of calculating the subsidy on the raw soybeans, they are calculating it on soybean oil. This will raise the cost of biodiesel to about $2.00 a gallon, making it economically unfeasible. Changing the subsidy will in effect kill off the industry.

http://www.kcrg.com/article.aspx?art_id=45038&cat_id=123

Don Maurer
12-03-2002, 06:23 PM
You may not be able to get bio-diesel for long. The Bush Administration is changing the subsidy rate on the soybean oil used to make it. Instead of calculating the subsidy on the raw soybeans, they are calculating it on soybean oil. This will raise the cost of biodiesel to about $2.00 a gallon, making it economically unfeasible. Changing the subsidy will in effect kill off the industry.

http://www.kcrg.com/article.aspx?art_id=45038&cat_id=123

Don Maurer
12-03-2002, 06:23 PM
You may not be able to get bio-diesel for long. The Bush Administration is changing the subsidy rate on the soybean oil used to make it. Instead of calculating the subsidy on the raw soybeans, they are calculating it on soybean oil. This will raise the cost of biodiesel to about $2.00 a gallon, making it economically unfeasible. Changing the subsidy will in effect kill off the industry.

http://www.kcrg.com/article.aspx?art_id=45038&cat_id=123

skuthorp
12-04-2002, 06:51 AM
A local trucking company has started using biodiesel, specificly the cast offs of a couple of local fish shops. You begin to smell fried fish and hamburgers in the strangest of places and at all hours. It can be quite funny in traffic watching drivers looking around their cars for the source of the smell!

skuthorp
12-04-2002, 06:51 AM
A local trucking company has started using biodiesel, specificly the cast offs of a couple of local fish shops. You begin to smell fried fish and hamburgers in the strangest of places and at all hours. It can be quite funny in traffic watching drivers looking around their cars for the source of the smell!

skuthorp
12-04-2002, 06:51 AM
A local trucking company has started using biodiesel, specificly the cast offs of a couple of local fish shops. You begin to smell fried fish and hamburgers in the strangest of places and at all hours. It can be quite funny in traffic watching drivers looking around their cars for the source of the smell!

thechemist
12-04-2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Don Maurer:
You may not be able to get bio-diesel for long. The Bush Administration is changing the subsidy rate &lt;snip&gt;[/URL]Actually what the article said is that the Department of Agriculture wants to change the subsidy.

What that really means is that some federal clerk got a really good job offer in the oil industry if he could make it happen. I really think public pressure will block it before it does happen. After all, we still pay tobacco farmers a subsidy to grow tobacco, don't we? This is an equal-opportunity country........subsidies for one and all, regardless of industry affiliation.

thechemist
12-04-2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Don Maurer:
You may not be able to get bio-diesel for long. The Bush Administration is changing the subsidy rate &lt;snip&gt;[/URL]Actually what the article said is that the Department of Agriculture wants to change the subsidy.

What that really means is that some federal clerk got a really good job offer in the oil industry if he could make it happen. I really think public pressure will block it before it does happen. After all, we still pay tobacco farmers a subsidy to grow tobacco, don't we? This is an equal-opportunity country........subsidies for one and all, regardless of industry affiliation.

thechemist
12-04-2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Don Maurer:
You may not be able to get bio-diesel for long. The Bush Administration is changing the subsidy rate &lt;snip&gt;[/URL]Actually what the article said is that the Department of Agriculture wants to change the subsidy.

What that really means is that some federal clerk got a really good job offer in the oil industry if he could make it happen. I really think public pressure will block it before it does happen. After all, we still pay tobacco farmers a subsidy to grow tobacco, don't we? This is an equal-opportunity country........subsidies for one and all, regardless of industry affiliation.

Figment
12-04-2002, 02:59 PM
biodiesel and veggie oil aren't exactly the same thing.

biodiesel runs an engine just like "ordinary" diesel.

the fish fry smell comes from the trucks burning used frying oil, which is a bit trickier because the oil needs to be at a certain minimum temperature to combust, so you need to start the engine on conventional diesel, and then once the engine and veggie oil are warm, a fuel solenoid switches the engine over to the veggie oil. You also need to switch back to normal diesel before shutdown to purge the injector pump of the veggie oil if you want it to start next time. It's a modification I plan to make on my wife's VW beetle in the spring, though it means spending a few hundred less on the boat this year.

www.greasecar.com (http://www.greasecar.com) is a good read on the topic of fry oil as diesel fuel.

Figment
12-04-2002, 02:59 PM
biodiesel and veggie oil aren't exactly the same thing.

biodiesel runs an engine just like "ordinary" diesel.

the fish fry smell comes from the trucks burning used frying oil, which is a bit trickier because the oil needs to be at a certain minimum temperature to combust, so you need to start the engine on conventional diesel, and then once the engine and veggie oil are warm, a fuel solenoid switches the engine over to the veggie oil. You also need to switch back to normal diesel before shutdown to purge the injector pump of the veggie oil if you want it to start next time. It's a modification I plan to make on my wife's VW beetle in the spring, though it means spending a few hundred less on the boat this year.

www.greasecar.com (http://www.greasecar.com) is a good read on the topic of fry oil as diesel fuel.

Figment
12-04-2002, 02:59 PM
biodiesel and veggie oil aren't exactly the same thing.

biodiesel runs an engine just like "ordinary" diesel.

the fish fry smell comes from the trucks burning used frying oil, which is a bit trickier because the oil needs to be at a certain minimum temperature to combust, so you need to start the engine on conventional diesel, and then once the engine and veggie oil are warm, a fuel solenoid switches the engine over to the veggie oil. You also need to switch back to normal diesel before shutdown to purge the injector pump of the veggie oil if you want it to start next time. It's a modification I plan to make on my wife's VW beetle in the spring, though it means spending a few hundred less on the boat this year.

www.greasecar.com (http://www.greasecar.com) is a good read on the topic of fry oil as diesel fuel.

Rocky
12-05-2002, 06:07 AM
Gentlemen, please let me know when your new potato cannon is ready, I need a new deck gun. Here is a device that is just begging for refinement.

Rocky
12-05-2002, 06:07 AM
Gentlemen, please let me know when your new potato cannon is ready, I need a new deck gun. Here is a device that is just begging for refinement.

Rocky
12-05-2002, 06:07 AM
Gentlemen, please let me know when your new potato cannon is ready, I need a new deck gun. Here is a device that is just begging for refinement.

thechemist
12-05-2002, 12:23 PM
Use the oil to lubricate the barrel. With high enough launch velocity the potato will generate enough frictional heat in traversing the barrel that it emerges with a nice, crispy, oil-impregnated outer shell, not unlike french fries.

thechemist
12-05-2002, 12:23 PM
Use the oil to lubricate the barrel. With high enough launch velocity the potato will generate enough frictional heat in traversing the barrel that it emerges with a nice, crispy, oil-impregnated outer shell, not unlike french fries.

thechemist
12-05-2002, 12:23 PM
Use the oil to lubricate the barrel. With high enough launch velocity the potato will generate enough frictional heat in traversing the barrel that it emerges with a nice, crispy, oil-impregnated outer shell, not unlike french fries.

Pam P
12-11-2002, 12:45 PM
Hmmm potato guns . . . sounds like a good use for the culls from "the county" (Aroostook County, Maine, lots of potatoes).

BTW, you don't need to start en engine on conventional diesel if it is warmer tan about 35 degrees, biodiesel works fine. Some fleets run an 80/20 mix in the winter (diesel fuel/biodiesel) with no issues.

There is a little difference in processing between "virgin" (my term) biodiesel made from new soy or flaxseed oils and "recycled" biodiesel made from fryer grease. Obviously more contaminants in the fryer grease. The great thing about fryer great is that many restaurants are currently paying to have it hauled away, so the raw product can be "free" except for transportation. Some engines can run on straight vegetable oil (mostly antique), as I think I noted in my very first post, Mr. Diesel intended for his engine to run on peanut oil.

I am going to try to convince my gas dock to stuck a small amount of the stuff, if not I'll just get it in 5 gallon pails.

Pam P
12-11-2002, 12:45 PM
Hmmm potato guns . . . sounds like a good use for the culls from "the county" (Aroostook County, Maine, lots of potatoes).

BTW, you don't need to start en engine on conventional diesel if it is warmer tan about 35 degrees, biodiesel works fine. Some fleets run an 80/20 mix in the winter (diesel fuel/biodiesel) with no issues.

There is a little difference in processing between "virgin" (my term) biodiesel made from new soy or flaxseed oils and "recycled" biodiesel made from fryer grease. Obviously more contaminants in the fryer grease. The great thing about fryer great is that many restaurants are currently paying to have it hauled away, so the raw product can be "free" except for transportation. Some engines can run on straight vegetable oil (mostly antique), as I think I noted in my very first post, Mr. Diesel intended for his engine to run on peanut oil.

I am going to try to convince my gas dock to stuck a small amount of the stuff, if not I'll just get it in 5 gallon pails.

Pam P
12-11-2002, 12:45 PM
Hmmm potato guns . . . sounds like a good use for the culls from "the county" (Aroostook County, Maine, lots of potatoes).

BTW, you don't need to start en engine on conventional diesel if it is warmer tan about 35 degrees, biodiesel works fine. Some fleets run an 80/20 mix in the winter (diesel fuel/biodiesel) with no issues.

There is a little difference in processing between "virgin" (my term) biodiesel made from new soy or flaxseed oils and "recycled" biodiesel made from fryer grease. Obviously more contaminants in the fryer grease. The great thing about fryer great is that many restaurants are currently paying to have it hauled away, so the raw product can be "free" except for transportation. Some engines can run on straight vegetable oil (mostly antique), as I think I noted in my very first post, Mr. Diesel intended for his engine to run on peanut oil.

I am going to try to convince my gas dock to stuck a small amount of the stuff, if not I'll just get it in 5 gallon pails.