Re: [Biofuel] A Norwegian alchemist
Ove, Sorry I'm a bit slow to respond. I'm juggling a number of projects at the moment. It is not unusual to have some problems with test batches. It is also common to achieve success and then run into problems scaling up to larger batch size. It invariably turns out to be a simple mistake that must be corrected or a simple adjustment to the process. The biggest danger is over-thinking. Let's not, for the moment, be concerned with other methods or tricks. Let's get the simplest, tried-and-true method to work, and then you can, if you like, move on to other methods. When you ultimately meet with success you will look back and say: It was all there. The instructions at JtF were all I really needed. First: 0.5L - 1.0L test batches using NEW, UNUSED veg oil. Have you done this?Did you have success? The reason for starting with new, unused veg oil is that you eliminate the need for titration. This allows you to focus on the process. If you achieve a good split, pass the wash test, and the Jan Warnqvist quality test, you are ready to move on to test batches w. used (WVO) veg oil. Success with new, unused veg oil resolves any questions about agitation, temp, quality of caustic, methanol and reaction time. You can proceed knowing that you have these variables under control. Second: 0.5L - 1.0L test batches with used (WVO) oil. Success with step one gives confidence and brings a number of variables under control. Step two (WVO) allows you to focus on titration. It also allows you to see the effect of Free Fatty Acids (FFAs), present in WVO, on soap formation, and hence, on the appearance of the wash tests. Note: (This may make sense now; will help answer one of your questions later) - Little soap should be formed when processing new, unused veg oil. What little soap is produced is due to the inevitable, though small, amount of water in the ingredients. - More soap will be produced when processing WVO due to the presence of FFAs which, in the single stage base method, are converted to soap. *** By starting with new, unused veg oil we not only avoid titration in processing the oil, we minimize soap production which can make for problems in the wash. My questions: 1. Have you succeeded with test batches using new, unused veg oil? 2. -If yes, have you done the solubility in methanol quality test (Jan W. test described at JtF), or only the wash test? You must do both. Together they form the basis for answering some of the questions you have. -If not, return to step one and let us know how you progress ... you can't fill a glass from the middle up. --- If you have successfully done test batches using new, unused veg oil, keep reading. Regarding your questions: 1. I'm using the recipe of JtF: 1 ml of oil, 10 ml of isopropyl, 2 drops of phenolphthalein - Good. but I'm having the same incomprehensible results. Is this after you made fresh titration solution? (1 g NaOH per Liter of distilled water) Is your balance accurate to tenths of a gram? Some digital scales are only accurate to whole grams. I'm concerned that your titration solution may be the problem. 2. I've tested the isopropyl alcohol: pH = 6 I would test it using phenolphthalein and add titration solution one drop at a time. In other words: 10ml isopropyl alc + 2 drops of phenolphthalein. Then add titration solution drop-by-drop. It should change color on the first drop, otherwise you will have to factor the amount of titration solution used to produce a change in the isopropyl when you do titrations on your WVO. 3. As to questions about agitation (Paul Winson) and the two stage base process (Mike Pelly): With all due respect to these distinguished gentlemen, I would strongly urge you to ignore, for the moment, anything other than the directions for producing BD using the single stage base method found at JtF. Step one: test batches using new, unused veg oil Step two: test batches using WVO 4. *** I'm not sure I understand what you mean by a failed wash test Successful Wash Test: 3 distinct layers form in less than 30 minutes: cloudy wash water on bottom, thin white line (soap), then a creamy, amber liquid on top. Failed Wash Test: Too much soap between the water and BD layers? OR Emulsion forms and the separation fails to happen within 30 minutes? Which is occurring in your failed wash tests? 5. I have tried to find information in the mail archive about the visible result in the waste test of too little and too much lye. To me it seems as if there is no obvious distinction. Good for you. Too little lye an incomplete reaction. Unreacted glycerides can produce emulsions. Too much lye soap produced
[Biofuel] Globalization reversing?
Mr. Rubin says that these forces may reverse the impact of globalization. This quote caught my attention in the recent CIBC World Markets report. Full item at: http://micro.newswire.ca/release.cgi?rkey=1605274619view=92835 Text below: Attention Business Editors: Get ready to pay more for everyday items, especially imported ones Exploding transport costs are driving up prices and could force some manufacturing to move closer to home, says CIBC World Markets TORONTO, May 27 /CNW/ - CIBC (CM: TSX; NYSE) - The soaring price of oil has dramatically increased the cost of moving goods around the globe, posing a major threat to price stability and overseas manufacturing, finds a new report from CIBC World Markets. Exploding transport costs may soon remove the single most important brake on inflation over the last decade - wage arbitrage with China, says Jeff Rubin, Chief Economist and Chief Strategist at CIBC World Markets. Not that Chinese manufacturing wages won't still warrant arbitrage. But in today's world of triple-digit oil prices, distance costs money. The report finds that the cost of shipping a standard 40-foot container from East Asia to the North American east coast has already tripled since 2000 and will double again as oil prices head towards US$200 per barrel. These soaring energy costs are threatening to offset decades of trade liberalization and force some overseas manufacturing to return closer to home. Unless that container is chock full of diamonds, its shipping costs have suddenly inflated the cost of whatever is inside, adds Mr. Rubin. And those inflated costs get passed onto the Consumer Price Index when you buy that good at your local retailer. As oil prices keep rising, pretty soon those transport costs start cancelling out the East Asian wage advantage. Mr. Rubin says that these forces may reverse the impact of globalization. Higher energy prices are impacting transport costs at an unprecedented rate. So much so, that the cost of moving goods, not the cost of tariffs, is the largest barrier to global trade today. The report notes that it currently costs US$8,000 to ship a standard 40-foot container from Shanghai to the North American east coast, including in-land transportation. That's up from just US$3,000 in 2000 when oil was US$20 per barrel. At US$200 per barrel of oil, the cost to ship the same container is likely to reach US $15,000. The impacts of these rising costs are already being seen in capital intensive manufacturing that carry a high ratio of freight costs to the final sale price, such as steel production. Soaring transport costs, first on importing coal and iron to China and then exporting finished steel overseas, have more than eroded the wage advantage and suddenly rendered Chinese-made steel uncompetitive in the U.S. market. Underscoring this is the fact that China's steel exports to the U.S. are falling by more than 20 per cent year over year, while U.S. domestic steel production has risen by almost 10 per cent. That's great news if you are the United Steelworkers of America, says Mr. Rubin. Long lost jobs will soon be coming home. And the more that oil and transport costs rise for Chinese steel exporters, the more that North American steel wage rates can grow. But if you're a steel buyer, your costs are going up regardless of whether you're sourcing from China or Pittsburgh. Converting transport costs into tariff equivalents shows how disruptive soaring energy prices can be. Mr. Rubin notes that oil at US$150 per barrel equates to an 11 per cent tariff rate - a level last seen in the 1970s. At $200 per barrel of oil, we are back at tariff rates even prior to the Kennedy Round GATT negotiations of the mid-1960s, he says. Even at US$100 per barrel of oil, transport costs outweigh the impact of tariffs for all of America's trading partners, including Canada and Mexico. Mr. Rubin points to history to show how higher energy and transport costs serve to dampen trade and force markets to seek shorter, and cheaper supply lines. Global exports have soared in all periods over the last 50 years when trade barriers were reduced and oil prices were low, his analysis shows. But he says exports went absolutely nowhere during the oil and energy crises of the 1970s, and for several years after despite reductions in global tariffs and healthy recoveries from recessionary periods. It's relatively easy to see why North American importers shifted to regional trading during that time, says Mr. Rubin. Trans-oceanic transport costs literally exploded during the two oil price shocks. The cost of shipping a standard cargo load overseas almost tripled, just as it (has) over the past few years. Ultimately, soaring transport costs were borne by consumers and markets responded accordingly, substituting goods that could be sourced from closer locations than half way around the
Re: [Biofuel] Globalization reversing?
maybe the greedy oil barons will help accomplish what we should have done a long time ago: abolish free trade. Or at least mitigate it in a little... Bernard ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] A Norwegian alchemist
Thanks Keith, - I was tempted by the fact that NaOH is cheaper to use than KOH - so now I am stuck with a 25 kg sack which I have to use up. It will take approximately 5 years if I drive 15.000 km a year, won't it ... As for the question about the two-stage method: I was asking out of curiosity. The biodiesel subject fascinates me; I am full of questions. - But yes, I do realise that I have to make all the necessary newbie steps; I understand the problem with the increasing number of variables. Kind regards - Ove - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:00 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] A Norwegian alchemist Hello Ove Why are you using NaOH and not KOH? A question to ask your alchemist friend too. KOH is a better catalyst than NaOH and it's easier to use. Some comments... re turbulence, most of the reaction happens quite quickly (less than 20 minutes), but it will happen anyway, more turbulence might make it happen faster, with less turbulence it might take a bit longer. It's not really important, for optimum results you have to adjust the reaction time to fit a full-scale processor anyway, and it's not the bit at the beginning of the process that matters so much, it's the bit at the end, process completion. IMHO you're still a long way from using the two-stage methods, you'll have problems and you won't know how to deal with them because there'll be too many variables. Focus on producing 1-litre test batches that pass the quality checks using the single-stage base method. Depending on your oil supply, it might be all you ever need. Best Keith Tom, I had bad luck with this letter: I sent it after only two lines. Here is the rest of it: I have followed your 3 point list: fresh 0,1% solution, I've tested the isopropyl alcohol: pH = 6, and I'm using the recipe of JtF: 1 ml of oil, 10 ml of isopropyl, 2 drops of phenolphtalein - but I'm having the same incomprehensible results. - I'll try to find a chemist who can tell me what I am doing wrong. - May I ask you a couple of other questions? The leader of the laboratory of BVEnergi in Norway, Paul Winson (- a factory that prodused biodiesel from new rapeseed oil until 6 weeks ago, when they went bankrupt because USA is dumping the prices on biodiesel in Europe), recommended me to make as much turbulence as possible during the first 20 minutes of a reaction - as crazy as possible - to break up the molecules. After 20 minutes it was OK to reduce the agitation, he said. - Would you agree in that? Isn't it, in case, also logic to do it this way in (at least) the second stage of the foolproof method (which I haven't practiced)? - Or is this method based upon exactly this (less efficient?) type of turbulence? About settling, - Mike Pelly says: An alternative method is to allow the reactants to sit for at least an hour after mixing while keeping the brew above 100 deg F (38 deg C), which keeps the glycerine semi-liquid (it solidifies below 100 deg F). Then carefully decant the biodiesel. - I suppose this means that a wash test can be performed immediately afterwards? - And that the prosessing time can be shortened down this way also for the two-stage method? I have tried to find information in the mail archive about the visible result in the wast test of too little and too much lye. To me it seems as if there is no obvious distinction. In both cases there is something like skimmed milk + café au lait - and I can't tell wether the reason is too little or too much lye. - Am I right, or is it possible to make a more or less precise diagnosis? Finally: Why is there a high content of water in WWO with a high content of FFA? And why is it difficult to get rid of the water? - Is there any other method than boiling it off? Best regards, Ove - Original Message - From: Thomas Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] A Norwegian alchemist Ove, You wrote I've had serious titration difficulties. .. Titration always gave too low values. I have a couple of suggestions: 1. Prepare fresh titration solution using careful, accurate measurements. If titration solution is not 0.1% NaOH, you will get inaccurate results. 1 gram NaOH per Liter of distilled water 0.1% NaOH titration solution. 2. Test you isopropyl alcohol. Unlikely, but it could be alkaline --- inaccurate titration. 3. Next time you titrate, post the numbers: ml of oil, ml of isopropyl, drops of phenolphthalein, ml of (new) titration solution needed to change color to purple. Good Luck, Tom - Original Message - From: Ove Steen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
Re: [Biofuel] Company is buying WVO
I doubt that higher petroleum prices would mean, an appreciable increase in amount waste oil is recycled, but higher prices may increase the demand for what of what waste oil is collected. I would love to have a transport tanker full of it to sell at the crude oil reclaiming plant a mile South of me. :) Other than burning it in their diesel engined motor vehicles some silly people may would like to recycle it to heat buildings. What is and isn't practice depends on the cost of the refined products from petroleum to be stating the obvious. Anyway the tanker full is a daydream, but in some places those using recycled oil for heating purposes could be competition for the diesel driver. Doug Original Message From: Keith Addison Anyway, why would the price/value of waste lube oil be soaring? Do high oil prices really mean more waste oil is being recycled? More silly people burning it as fuel in their diesels? Just because the price of everything else is soaring? And nobody's even blaming biofuels? :-) Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
