Biofuels Update

[HoosierRon]

I have a particular interest in kicking the foreign oil habit, so I am always scouring the net for news on biofuels. I started this thread so that I have one place to post my findings. On today's menu: biodiesel news:

This sounds fascinating. While the article does not say, the process has to reduce the total cost of making biodiesel.

Researchers Use Ultrasonic Processing for Fast Biodiesel Production
26 February 2007

An example of inline ultrasonic processing for biodiesel production. Click to enlarge. Source: Hielscher.
Researchers at Mississippi State University report that ultrasonic processing used in biodiesel production delivers a biodiesel yield in excess of 99% in five minutes or less, compared to one hour or more using conventional batch reactor systems. The work is described in the current issue of the journal Energy & Fuels.

Ultrasonication can also help to reduce the separation time from 5 to 10 hours required with conventional agitation, to less than 15 minutes, according to Hielscher, a small German company providing ultrasonic processing equipment for a variety of sonochemical applications, biodiesel production being one.

The ultrasonication also helps to decrease to amount of catalyst required by 50 to 60% due to the increased chemical activity in the presence of cavitation. Another benefit is the increase in purity of the glycerol.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007..._use.html#more

While the U.S. experiments with B2 and B5 diesel, Renault is taking a more agressive route:

Renault has committed to making all of their diesel engines B30 capable by 2009.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/02...e-european-ma/ If all European manufacturers follow suit, it certainly will create a market for B30.



Meanwhile, Chevron has invested in one of the country's largest biodiesel plants. When Big Oil is putting Big Money into biofuels, you know there is a future:

GALVESTON — Next month, the world will get a glimpse of what Big Oil can bring to the fast-growing alternative fuels movement when a new biodiesel plant here, backed by a major U.S. oil company, opens for business.

The plant, which can produce 20 million gallons a year of diesel fuel made from soybean oil, is among the largest of its kind in the nation and is expected to soon grow bigger. But what's more notable is that it is partly owned by Chevron Corp., the San Ramon, Calif.-based oil giant.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4578216.html

[howpeculiar]

Hoosier,
Thanks for finding all this stuff. I am always interested, but don't really have time to go find out everything I want to know (which is everything).

[HoosierRon]

You're welcome.

To put the Chevron plant in perspective, if the typical diesel car gets 40 mpg (like the new C Class bluetec), that single plant will produce enough biodiesel that 222,222 cars could run on B30. Each car would get 57 miles per gallon of petroleum AND it would be less polluting.

[PhishPhood]

Yes, Ron, thanks. Like you I'm all for making the MidEast a real wasteland of economic activity. No money going there.

I'd be willing to pay a 50% premium if all of our fuel was replacable and home grown. Build a local biodiesel plant in our region and I'm out of my Prius and into a diesel in an instant.

[asim]

Thanks a lot Ron! I like when people compile information like this, so I can get many different news topics at one time, and it is easy to read!

That Chevron plant sounds very interesting, especially since it is going to be one of the biggest in the nation. Of course it isn't too far from my place, and I think it is cool that they are keeping the market in the Houston area.

[geozinger]

Another note of thanks, Ron.

I personally can't see a huge drawback to biofuels, if managed correctly.

I'm hoping for a Volt next time around, but maybe an E85 capable or diesel Malibu would do the trick. I'd be glad someday to fuel my current gasoline cars with bio-butanol.

[Bornfromparents]

Thanks Ron,

I do wonder were the Biofuels leave ethanol? I was reading somewhere and they were talking about bioethanol and how its less corrosive and has better fuel economy than e85. Also that cars today could run on Bio E100
and burn very clean with much less poluting. I too am very interested in getting into biofuels. So does GM push for E85 really make any sense.

[HoosierRon]

The term "biofuels" is generic. It referes to any fuel made from renewable resources: corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, biobutanol.

Ethanol production will continue to grow for a long time to come. Whether it comes from corn or cellulose, the final product is the same. And it is corrosive. Biobutanol, on the other hand, is not corrosive and gets better mileage than E85. But is is more expensive to make, so at this time, it is not commerically viable, but BP and BuPont have promised a biobutanol commerical scale plant in England by the end of this year. It will use sugar beets.

[akbar]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

Yes, Ron, thanks. Like you I'm all for making the MidEast a real wasteland of economic activity. No money going there.

I'd be willing to pay a 50% premium if all of our fuel was replacable and home grown. Build a local biodiesel plant in our region and I'm out of my Prius and into a diesel in an instant.

Like the majority here I too agree that alternatives to gasoline powered cars cannot come fast enough. If Oil were to become less of a geo-strategic resource it means less US involvement in the mid-east, less money for the ARabs with which to buy billions-upon billions of dollars worth of US arms (which they dont know how to operate anyways), which can lead to a severe impact on the US military industry which is always a good thing, and it will make the Arabs actually work for a living.
However, unless alternative fuels become a reality in the whole world and not just the US, importance of Oil will not diminish - atleast not until another strategic resource can take the place of Oil which can give a reason for nation states to arm up against each other.

[Havasavana]

Originally Posted by akbar

Like the majority here I too agree that alternatives to gasoline powered cars cannot come fast enough. If Oil were to become less of a geo-strategic resource it means less US involvement in the mid-east, less money for the ARabs with which to buy billions-upon billions of dollars worth of US arms (which they dont know how to operate anyways), which can lead to a severe impact on the US military industry which is always a good thing, and it will make the Arabs actually work for a living.
However, unless alternative fuels become a reality in the whole world and not just the US, importance of Oil will not diminish - atleast not until another strategic resource can take the place of Oil which can give a reason for nation states to arm up against each other.

Your racism is not welcome.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by Bornfromparents

Thanks Ron,

I do wonder were the Biofuels leave ethanol? I was reading somewhere and they were talking about bioethanol and how its less corrosive and has better fuel economy than e85. Also that cars today could run on Bio E100
and burn very clean with much less poluting. I too am very interested in getting into biofuels. So does GM push for E85 really make any sense.

It isn't like GM in the U.S. is designing engines specifically to run on E-85 and take advantage of its properties like the Saab 9-5 BioPower does. GM's "push" for E-85 in the U.S. requires minor modifications to already existing cars/engines and does not use E-85 to its optimum. Many of the arguments against E-85 are based on the experience we have with regular pushrod naturally aspirated engines tuned to run on E-85. The equivalent might be the V8's GM retrofitted to run on Diesel in the 1980s. Or the "twin cam" 3400 in the Lumina Z34.

Until I see an engine designed for E-85 use and to maximize the benefits of E-85, I'm not going to join the Ethanol-bashing bandwagon. To bash the fuel because the engines are inefficient in the way they utilize the fuel is backwards, I think.

Bring the Saab 9-5 BioPower to the States and lets see how it does.

That said, any efforts towards reducing dependency on the Middle East or Venezuela for oil is good in my book.

[HoosierRon]

Originally Posted by Havasavana

Your racism is not welcome.

It is not racism. It is fact:

For every one Saudi working in the private sector, there are four expatriates.

http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/...F_Essay_11.htm

Expatriate labor across all occupations and skills levels constituted around two-thirds of the total workforce and 95 percent of labor in the private sector. ...

While efforts at promoting Saudi workforce participation started as early as 1932, previous attempts at this program were not effectively enforced, and a large foreign worker population was maintained in the kingdom. ...

http://www.migrationinformation.org/...lay.cfm?id=264

Yet, unemployment is "officially" 25% http://www.airninja.com/worldfacts/c...employment.htmThis in a country that bars half the population from even applying for most jobs.

So I ask: why are 80%-95% of private sector jobs performed by foreigners when almost all Saudi women and at least 25% of Saudi men are unemployed?

[Bornfromparents]

Originally Posted by Ming

It isn't like GM in the U.S. is designing engines specifically to run on E-85 and take advantage of its properties like the Saab 9-5 BioPower does. GM's "push" for E-85 in the U.S. requires minor modifications to already existing cars/engines and does not use E-85 to its optimum. Many of the arguments against E-85 are based on the experience we have with regular pushrod naturally aspirated engines tuned to run on E-85. The equivalent might be the V8's GM retrofitted to run on Diesel in the 1980s. Or the "twin cam" 3400 in the Lumina Z34.

Until I see an engine designed for E-85 use and to maximize the benefits of E-85, I'm not going to join the Ethanol-bashing bandwagon. To bash the fuel because the engines are inefficient in the way they utilize the fuel is backwards, I think.

Bring the Saab 9-5 BioPower to the States and lets see how it does.

That said, any efforts towards reducing dependency on the Middle East or Venezuela for oil is good in my book.

Yes I totally agree. I'm very interested in a real engine that can maximize
E85 benefits, because right now I would not consider E85 a plus other than
reducing our dependency on forign oil.
This is a concern for GM being American, but not so much for say Toyota or Honda, they will follow this trend only if it will benefit them.

[vtbmann]

something that people seem to forget when talking about ethanol is that the CO2 realeased from burning ethanol is not from carbon that has been locked up for millions of years (like in oil). so even if it is less efficient, its impact on the total CO2 content of the atmosphere is much less. you still have to burn coal or whatever to make it, but the net CO2 emissions are less.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by vtbmann

something that people seem to forget when talking about ethanol is that the CO2 realeased from burning ethanol is not from carbon that has been locked up for millions of years (like in oil). so even if it is less efficient, its impact on the total CO2 content of the atmosphere is much less. you still have to burn coal or whatever to make it, but the net CO2 emissions are less.

That's not exactly true because to grow, fertilize, harvest and process the feedstock for ethanol it takes more than 1 gallon of dino fuel to get 1 gallon of ethanol.

It's sort of a 'You can pay me now or you can pay me later.' commercial.