Thanks, realy a heartfelt lot of thanks, Edward, yours is the very first educated answer I was able to obtain so far on that matter.
Because of lack of time today I post a SHORT answer here, although I would like to enter this most productive discussion head long right now.... Both is way better than dinodiesel, RIGHT! So far I kept hearing this alert on possible endless exhaust gas poisions troubles and could not (and still can not) reach a final conclusion. I am very much prepeared to accept a lot of your points on the advanteges of SVO Camillo Holecek DonauWind GmbH&Co KG -----UrsprŸngliche Nachricht----- Von: Neoteric Biofuels Inc. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. April 2002 20:21 An: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Betreff: Re: [biofuels-biz] SVO? Camillo - Obviously, emissions results of acrolein, aldehyde etc. will vary widely depending on a large number of factors, including engine type, condition, load, operating temperature, characteristics of the oil, contributions from the engine lubricating oil, exhaust gas after-treatment, etc. Next, whatever level of emissions actually occur, has to be put into perspective. If you average all the above for a wide range of conditions, what is the amount and speciation of the emissions generated? Then, look at fates, exposure pathways and exposure levels. Acrolein, for example, does not persist or accumulate in the atmosphere, it has a half life of about 12 hours, and a lifetime of about 17 hours. (US EPA) The toxicological endpoint in humans for acrolein is the respiratory system. RfC (reference concentration) is 0.02g/m according to US EPA - exposure below that level, over a lifetime, would not be expected to result in occurrence of chronic, non-cancer effects. How many SVO diesels in what proximity for how many hours of operation per day does it take to get to that level of exposure? How might any risk, if it exists, be mitigated? These are the basics of toxicology and risk assessment, and they are often missed in exclamations and pronouncements of fitness for use of a particular substance in a particular application. Then shall we look at biodiesel and its emissions? Whose study will we look at? The Chalmers study? Biodiesel did not fare much better than rapeseed oil in that one. Perhaps the German Federal one that found biodiesel not worthwhile in general? No, I don't think so, that is not productive, is it? Should we discuss the glut of glycerine from biodiesel production, a problem in itself, and one other reason why the research on SVO options continues? Production, transport and use of methanol? It's usual source, non-renewable natural gas, produced often, in conjunction with fertilizer plants? Emissions from those plants? Emissions getting the methanol product to where it is needed, risk of spills, etc.? And this (methanol) is the least expensive and most commonly used alcohol in biodiesel production, and 95% or so does come from natural gas (which we have seen can quickly spike in price, which the individual cannot produce easily and cheaply, or have any control over) Emissions to transport the glycerine to market, processing? CO2 life cycle emissions reduction comparisons? Energy balance? Capital /labour requirements? Wastewater generated? Safety of the materials stored, used and handled? (exposures, spills) Ability of local, small producers to compete in biodiesel production against large interests or even to be able to be allowed to produce? Water hazard classification of biodiesel versus vegetable oil (disagreement there, even...on the relative toxicity of vegetable oil versus biodiesel). Other uses of the stored product, if needed (drastic and far-fetched, yes, but vegoil can be mixed and fed, or eaten, if need be - and nutrition derived from it - in an emergency) The relatively higher cost of production of biodiesel? On and on it goes. So, if biodiesel is too expensive and therefore will not be used in some places instead of petrodiesel, then the preferred option would be SVO, which is cheaper and often closer in price to petrodiesel - at least here it is. For the farmer, SVO is a simple and inexpensive option that makes sense - at least as much or more economic, technical, sustainability and emissions "sense" than biodiesel production. You say yourself that the amount involved is "(very little)" of these "very nasty poisons". How much is too much is little enough that the overall benefits outweigh any concerns in this regard? Look at the whole picture, and don't get caught up in fear-mongering and disinformation - the jury is still out on all of this, so don't cast SVO as if its any kind of foregone conclusion that its an "either/or" situation, with biodiesel being obviously vastly superior on all counts. This debate continues and will not be resolved any time soon. I believe actually that the outcome will be that both SVO and biodiesel will find support, depending on costs, available feedstock, and application. Either is better than burning petrodiesel, with the many emissions and other problems of that fuel. Regards, Edward Beggs www.biofuels.ca ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
