Hi Hakan, On the note of "Socitial Acceptance", it is more than just a Big vs. Small issue, it is a usage issue by the public. If a consumer 'perceives' some sort of limitation in the acceptance and usage of a alternative fuel, then the business case will have to overcome and be able to sustain that perception for a period of time. Ethanol and Biodiesel are still somewhat stigmatized, although there is push to overcome this at many levels. Last year ADM was running ads on television for ethanol, which I can only assume is priming the market. Quite effective for prepairing folks to make a switch to an alterantive fuel. By the time they do sell E85 in a market, there will be enough interest to sustain that market until the economies of scale come into play. This actually benefits the small producer as his product is locally produced and sold, thus lowering his overhead. The small producer benefits from the blanket media infusion of a "Big Alternative Fuels". The only thing the "Big AF" has to do is void the credability of the small producer to maintain the market. And the only thing the small producer has to do is secure enough local contracts to maintain the business. It then becomes more of a niche market for the local producer, which can also be very lucrative.
Lots of niche markets survive out there and do extreemely well. If I was a small producer, I would try to distinguish my product from "Big AF", maybe in utilizing an all organic feedstock, or maybe emphasizing my local community connections, or even the nature of my feedstock source such as using WVO as opposed to using GMO crop residue, etc. A great amount of marketing leaway here. ;-) James Slayden On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: > > Hi James, > > Very good, a lot in a short message. This idea about biofuel business > start > to be more work than I originally thought. Taking the idea of a business, > does put some real sustainable demands on the thoughts. Every time I get > a > few moments to think about it, several new ideas pops up in my mind, > nearly > as frequent as the irritating pop-up ads on Internet. > > 1. Crops and trees give some burnable residues for BD also. > 2. Good point about WVO, so a sustainable BD business need to be based on > SVO. > 3. I see more and more recycling plants for WVO to BD. Large Spanish > interests are putting up 4 of them and are starting to pay for WVO. This > supports your thoughts. > 4. "Social acceptance" is a good one and touch very much the table > (presentation) "big vs. small" that I still thinking about. How do you > present and evaluate this kind of things. > > Hakan > > At 08:36 PM 12/6/2002 -0800, you wrote: > >Hi Hakan, > > > >The net energy in Cellulose based ethanol might be higher if the lingin > is > >burned for processing. Since there is issues burning the Glyc from BD > it > >wouldn't add to the BD net energy. > > > >The window of opportunity is really dependent on feedstock availability > >which really isn't decreasing. It might be that with WVO as the > feedstock > >a baseline commodity pricing structure will occur, but again as Keith > just > >posted again that the average collection of WVO runs around 10% there is > a > >good lead in period before pricing structures begin (in general). > > > >With Ethanol, the perception barrier to opposition and acceptance is the > >utilization of Cellulostic feedstock vs. food crop feedstock. Not that > in > >the real world this is an issue, just a hyped perception issue by the > >media. As we well know that most of the grains in this counrty go to > >animal feed anyway. But acceptance will be based on this false > >assumption. > > > >Looking at the table, you might want to put a catagory like "Socitial > >Acceptance" to define some possible inhibitors. > > > >James Slayden > > > >On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: > > > > > > > > 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.ht > > ml#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_En > > > rgy_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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > >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/ > > > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > 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/
