Hi Keith,
Thank you for the help, it is very useful. At 07:36 PM 12/6/2002 +0900, you wrote: ><snip> > >Possible bi-products: > >The same as for previous point. Veg. oil do opens up for a larger number of > >replacement applications, among those are many in the lubrication field. > >The main by-product of each is stockfeed - DDG and seedcake, not much >to choose between them. > >Ethanol's use as an oxygenate additive to gasoline is comparable to >the use of B5 as a lubrication booster for ULSD. > >Lubricants made from vegoils are not for backyard operations - centralized. > >I think the major difference is perhaps the heating oil application, >and power generation. ><snip> > > >Energy for production: > >I read a lot and I seems that ethanol is the most energy demanding process, > >oil pressing definitely is the least. Biodiesel as I understand the > >process, is much less energy demanding than alcohol. On producing raw > >material they are all similar, but distilling is a very energy demanding > >process. > >See above. See also Butterfield still references above. >Plant Performance Data >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/Butterfield/butterfield1.html#perf > Any process that uses a change of state i.e. solid to liquid to gas, uses a lot of energy at boiling temperature. This even if you have a recuperating system. I also read the link, http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/ceic/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html carefully and it says about Btu per gallon, Corn based, Industry average : net energy gain = (energy ethanol) 81,400 + (energy undefined co-products) 27,579 - (used energy) 81,090 = 30,589 (38% gain) Corn based, Industry best : net energy gain = (energy ethanol) 81,400 + (energy undefined co-products) 36,261 - (used energy) 57,504 = 62,857 (109% gain) Corn based, State of the Art Industry : net energy gain = (energy ethanol) 81,400 + (energy undefined co-products) 36,261 - (used energy) 47,948 = 62,857 (151% gain) Cellulose based, Industry : net energy gain = (energy ethanol) 81,400 + (energy undefined co-products) 115,400 - (used energy) 76,093 = 122,407 (162% gain) What are the co-products? Do they go in the tank? How do you use Gluten meal, Protein feed and Carbon dioxide in the tank? Read for Biodiesel that for 1 unit energy used it goes 3.2 units in the tank. If you do not mind, I will keep my evaluation for this. >Sugar ethanol production tends to use the bagasse as an energy >source. I think there are many such possibilities. Also there's the >relative value of using non-mobile fuel to produce mobile fuel, which >puts a different sort of value on it. (Same with biodiesel perhaps.) Yes, bagasse can be used as heating source or as feedstock, this is the same as they do for fossil fuel. Since we have not done comparable evaluation for Biodiesel, the byproducts energy values are missing. I suspect that this and the less use of fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, more manual labor etc. are the reasons why Ethanol from sugar cane are a definite positive energy producer in Brazil. > >Net energy gain: > >The fossil fuel processes are also very energy demanding and not very > >effective, but it is mostly conversion processes to marketable products. > >Some of the raw material for ethanol, do contain more or less veg oil. We > >can maybe add this aspect also, but as I see it, it becomes a part of raw > >material evaluation. > >It's hardly explored - as I keep saying, what about the oil in the >maize? And so on. See previous point. > >Cost to produce: > >See energy for production. > >See Butterfield refs. See Energy for production. > >End use efficiency: > >Needed clarification and I changed heading to "End use efficiency for > >fuel/technology", this to clarify that a change in fuel/technology will > >achieve substantial energy savings. I do not think we will disagree with > this. I suppose that you agree with this. > > > >Needed quantity to replace fossil fuel: > >Water can be added to gasoline also, with similar energy savings. The > >difference is that the water/air have to be added at injection. > >You don't use much water that way, though it does improve efficiency. >You can use as little as 160-proof ethanol with the water in >solution, which saves on energy in distillation and the need for the >zeolyte step. Compare with the 20% alcohol you'll be using to make >biodiesel (if you don't recover the excess). SVO doesn't require >alcohol and isn't really comparable on this basis, but it's not a >proven fuel either. > >See also injection here: >Ron Novak's Do-It-Yourself Water Injection System >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me3.html Do not forget that I am talking about quantities of fuel here. All testimonies and technical adjustments point to more quantity use with replacement of gasoline with ethanol and unchanged quantities with replacements of diesel. >All > >testimonies and technical adjustments point to more quantity use with > >replacement of gasoline with ethanol and unchanged quantities with > >replacements of diesel. > >"A loss of engine power of about 8% is measured with neat biodiesel, >fuel consumption penalty as high as 13% and more was reported with >heavy-duty engines over the U.S." (it says here). If you're burning >160-proof ethanol that would quite largely offset the extra 30%-odd >economy you get with a diesel (less the loss of economy with >biodiesel and, I think, SVO). ><snip> > >I do not cover combined production of ethanol and veg oil from the same > >source and it would be very useful to discuss this. Maybe it is not a > >biodiesel or ethanol business, it could be that you need to combine both > >for a good business. > >Ideally, if possible. > >I'm a bit suspicious of the whole exercise, in a way. As with >proposing the "best" technology, comparisons like this to find which >is better don't really reflect the real world and can do damage when >imposed on the real world. They're a bit like the energy and >life-cycle studies above, doing a lot of averaging-out and ending up >with conditions on, say, an "average" farm, or even "the" average >farm, which is not something that exists. So I find it hard to make >comparisons out of context: in any given situation there are a lot of >factors to be considered to see which fits best, or which combination >fits best. But here there isn't a given situation. The subject is Biofuel Business and I have full understanding of what you say about "best" technology. The question is what would be the best bio fuel business? Taking costs, energy returns, process, political road blocks etc. in consideration, I do think that Biodiesel/SVO has some definite advantages and a window of opportunity. I think that you also understand me very well, since you did not expanded it with producer gas, hydrogen etc.. You are testing my case and I am very grateful for this. >I know that's not your aim, it's to shed some light on what a >would-be enterprise needs to consider, the potentials and >constraints. But that's my constraint! I think of villages. I fully understand this and it is also a different case. Villages must use the best for local conditions, Brazil is a good example of this. Reading about their investigation of experiences in the link you provided in another posting, I am very positive about their social and economic benefits from the ethanol program. Hakan Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
