Definitely biodiesel has to be sold at below the rate for dinodiesel. 1 the lower calorific value and 2 it's the new kid on the block we have to make it worth their while.
Interestingly one report showed that B20 blends gave a slighty improved mpg, presumably the bio oxygen improves combustion of the total mix. I really think that small scale operations should accept that high FFA feedstock is not suitable for 51606 fuel. It can make a lower grade product, but only use it in suitable engines or boilers. At present I have two options (1) Effectively scale up the "well known" batch process and hope to attract heavy duty funding when the market is demonstrated. (2) Go all out to get serious funding to buy in proven equipment for large scale production. (1) is not as simple as some would suggest and (2) needs considerable capital. But, from a business point of view I think (2) makes the most sense. Hopefully investors will agree. Thanks for the hint about acid burnt oil. However, with 1g per kg added after the methanol was mixed in and turbulent mixing I'm not sure how it could have been avoided. I wanted to raise the point that FFA treatment has no simple solution. Product quality is a serious issue. Dave --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Camillo Holecek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Again, may I add my own guessing on you results? > > BD has a lower caloric value because of oxigen content means less carbon and > hydrogen packed into 1 kg. We all know that. > If you don't want to be honest about that fact to your (trucking) clients > from the very beginning, I think better not enter the market at all. > That is why you have to be even some more percent cheaper than dinodiesel at > the pump, so they buy it AND they come back after checking their MPGs. (At > least that's what we are doing succesfully here since may, 1999) > > If your "acid brew" was dark, there is a good chance also that you simply > burned (carbonized) the fat with the acid and that damaged fat wount > transesterify neither in the second or third stage. Again, the possibilities > what may go wrong are numerous and without complete analysis we are just > shooting in the dark. Unhealthy sport. If you are considering commercial > scale production (as I understand from your postings), it may proove > nessesary to invest that few bucks in research at least. > > Camillo Holecek > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > m > [mailto:sentto-3381553-183-993635642- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > elist.com]Im Auftrag von [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2001 11:54 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: [biofuels-biz] Re: Bio- vs. Palm Oil? > > Alecs' comment is interesting, but I got less smoke on base/base > ester. I also got considerably more byproduct using less methanol > (15% instead of 20+%). I do not think there was much unreacted oil in > either product. > > For the record, I get less mpg than from 100% petroleum ultra low > sulphur diesel - it's down by 3 to 5% on bases base reacted and 10% > on my acid reacted ester. > > My "tests" were most unscientific, and the comments are mine alone. > I found the acid/base ester was more smokey and less calorific than > the base/base ester. The acid ester was also much darker than the > base ester made from similar quality used oils. > > Alecs has already said that darker ester can mean more glycerides. > But, if that means more energy, how does it square with the observed > power outputs? > > At constant moderate speed, the base methyl ester can be slightly > better than petroleum. When the power is used, it is definitely > worse. I think the reason is that the oxygen content improves > combustion so at low power you do better. At higher power the simple > maths of energy in - power out come to play. Blends with petroleum > bear that out. A B20 has been proven to give 1% to 2% better mpg than > 100% petroleum (can't remember the research body, but it might have > been TEAGASC of Eire). > > We do need some proper research using properly tested esters made by > both processes. Quite possibly my results were just an aberration. It > was not scientifically made or tested, but the results were > consistent enough to raise the question. > > In the mean time a commercial producer would be wise to keep high FFA > feedstock away from the better quality feedstock. Then the esters can > be separated and priced accordingly. Truck operators will notice > immediately if their mileage is down. > > One upset and they won't be back. :( > > Dave Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
