Sorry I did miss your post but you dismiss the report out of hand because we havent changed all internal combustion engines to diesel. Please remember that untill recently the price of all fuel was very low and there was little incentive to look for alternatives. Then consider that automotive sized diesels weren't widely accepted by the general public because they were noisy, smelly, and you couldn't win a drag race with one. As technology in injector systems, turbo chargers, and electronic control systems improves those arguments are being overcome. I predict that you will see more and more diesels on the road. Mercedes has recently re-introduced its diesel powered sedan in the US, VW's diesel powered vehicle is gaining market share, and now Jeeps diesel powered Liberty is becoming quite popular. Of course you cant forget the diesel powered pickups that are quickly becoming the norm for anyone that works their truck. I believe that BD is the best way to bridge the gap between current automotive power plants and those of the future. It is much better than the ethanol solution, which does have a negative energy balance and is costly to produce.

 

I think this is a great point- If the number is correct, then barring manipulation by outside forces, it is inevitable that bio diesel will supplant less efficient sources of energy. And remember, it is only a matter of time before big oil has to find an alternate source of energy to sell us. Their days of selling us (all) oil are numbered.


-Mike

 

Phydaxu88:

Damn good post. Let me think about it over dinner.

-Mike

 

A little chemistry lesson there are two nitrogen-oxygen radicals NO2 (nitrite) and NO3 (nitrate) they are often referred to collectively as nitrogen oxides or NOx .

In the quote above you mis-state (actually mis-paraphrase but I don't think that is a word) the report "the increase in NOx emissions with the small decrease (15%) in NO2 "

what it actually says is
"Typically, emissions of nitrogen oxides are either slightly reduced or slightly increased depending on the duty cycle of the engine and testing methods used. Increases in NOx can be effectively eliminated with the use of normal mechanical remediation techniques (e.g. catalysts or timing changes)."

The 15% comes from the sentance before which cites a reduction in particulate emissions of 15% (that might even pass Kalifornias air quality check)

 

Thanks- I could use a lesson. But I was not quoting the Bio Diesel interest group you cite. I read it and I think they are biased because of the faiurel to note any drawbacks to bio diesel.

Like anything else, everyone seems to have an agenda and very few are willing to lay out all the facts- both pro and con.

I lack the chemestry background to assess the harms posed by emissions properly. My only intention was to correct any impression I left with the earlier hypo in which I allowed bio D to be as clean as a mountain stream. And accoring to other research, it is not as clean as the interest group wants me to believe.

http://www.cecarf.org/Programs/Fuels...s%20Facts.html

But like I said- I will defer to others on this point. My interest is in an accurate accounting of the energy input/output ratio.

-Mike

 

I agree with your entire post with one caveat: Does the (positive) energy balance quoted all of the pertol inputs required to produce the bio mass?

And I think the answer depends upon how much of the plant's comversion is solar sourced and how much of it is nutrient sourced and how many of the real world commercial conversion inputs are included.

I know, I know, I'll find and read the damn book.... But in a free market with ready access to liquid capital, it does not make sense that with a 3/1 ratio, the money is not pouring into bio diesel faster than into mid east.



-Mike

 

Like I said before lack of earlier incentive played a big role then the publics unfavorable view of diesels added to it. All of a sudden we have sky high fuel prices and we have a general comitment to gasoline in place. Since there was not previously a big market for diesel autos and since the price of dino diesel was so low it will take time to make the switch. But watch as public knowlege of BD benefits increases diesel auto sales will increase, we are beginning to see the rumblings now with the increased sales of diesel autos. Additionally BD companies are starting to pop up all over the US, even Willie Nelson has jumped on the band wagon and is building a BD Plant near Austin TX.

 

Is USDA research good enough for you?
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

"What is the energy efficiency for producing biodiesel? Based on a report by the US DOE and USDA entitled "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus"5, biodiesel produced from soy has an energy balance of 3.2:1. That means that for each unit of energy put into growing the soybeans and turning the soy oil into biodiesel, we get back 3.2 units of energy in the form of biodiesel. That works out to an energy efficiency of 320% (when only looking at fossil energy input - input from the sun, for example, is not included)."

That's with soybeans, and canola or rapeseed are known to be far more efficient for biodiesel production than soy.

The reason investors aren't flocking to a 3:1 returnration is that the ratio from petroleum has historically been 25:1, and is currently probably in the 10:1 energy return on investment ratio.

I think with transgenic bioengineered crops, we will eventually be able to get into the 10:1 neighborhood with biodiesel. We are going to see amazing things happen in the next 20 years in the area of bio-engineered crops. But the money to do it for energy hasn't been there because petroleum has been so easy to produce.

But that will change.

 

This is the best answer to my point that I have recieved. The money has not been there, oil has been cheap (if you ignore the external costs associated with burning it) and bioengineering may well affect the ratio dramatically.

Thanks for the USDA link- I'll read through it this evening. Some USDA research has been really good- some less so. I am looking forward to reading it.

Thanks-

-Mike

 

That link is to a University of New Hampshire article. Here's the parent document (all 314 pages):
www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf

On Edit:

BTW, My credentials are: born, raised, and employed all my life in agriculture, BS Crop Science, graduate work in agronomy and ag economics, American Society of Agronomy Certified Crop Advisor (CCA), and currently employed as a field crop consultant.

And I think that the 3.2:1 ROI energy for soy biodiesel is pretty accurate.

 

The average soybean yield in my home state was 43.5 bushels per acre. (We are ranked 3rd in yield, total production and in total acres planted.) According to the nonprofit interest group “National Biodiesel Board” it takes 1.5 bushes of soybeans to produce a gallon of bio diesel. The cash price today at the closest elevator was 514. So, on a commercial scale, and using a non-waste product, we are looking at $3.43 in raw material per gallon. Plus transportation. Plus processing. Plus distribution. Plus transportation tax.

Now before the storm of hate mail begins from those who don’t want their favorite ox gored, these numbers do not mean that bio diesel is not viable. But it does explain why development is still at the fringes. (With all respect to *****.) In shorthand, the farmer who keeps his soybeans for use as bio fuel rather than selling his soybeans and buying diesel is losing money. And remember, that is $5.14 WITH government agricultural subsidies in place. Remove those subsidies, and the price will either rise or you will buy your soybeans from Brazil.

But we do not pay the true costs of pure petroleum products either. Transportation is subsidized, health costs and environmental impacts are externalized and we do not pay the costs of foreign policy at the pump. (Do that accounting along the lines of your own personal political biases and preferences – I’m not touching it).

My point that even because soy-diesel is not currently a cost-effective does not mean that other bio crops are not a better solution than where we are or that they will not one day be a solution. Others have posted comments on the capacity for bio engineered crops to make a better bio-cost return. I think the most intelligent post points out that bio diesel may be part of a transitional matrix (my word, not his) of energy supplies. (I hope I paraphrased his comment correctly- apologies if I did not.)

But what still concerns me is that (in the soybean example) almost $1 of the per bushel cost of production goes to petroleum-based products. I am talking about fertilizer, chemicals, fuel and lube but I am not including the fuel and lube consumed by custom operators.

That means that as the cost of oil goes up, the costs of producing bio fuels increase. So, though I think I earlier grossly underestimated the efficency of the plants’ solar to chemical conversion, I also underestimated the cost per bio-gallon of the petroleum based products necessary for production.

And before someone writes to tell me that their uncle gets 60 bu/acre on his organic farm- I am talking about national commercial production- and to date, regardless of how you may feel about ag chemicals, we are the most efficient agricultural producers because of chemical technology.

I need to do some more math before posting the rest. But recently someone calculated the gallons of oil required to produce a pound of beef. (Feedlot, not rangeland) I need to check my numbers, but it would be interesting to know the gallons of oil used to produce a bushed of soybeans.

I’ll address the Michael Briggs UNH promotional piece after I email the author some questions. I’ll address the viability of commercial Algae production Mr. Biggs proposes after he has had a chance to respond to my questions.

-Mike

 

clux:

I have never called your credentials into doubt and I never intend to do so. A lot of people have great credentials. And I am sure you will agree that there is many a farmer who can put the most credentialed crop scientist to shame. You make good points and I appreciate all that you have to say. So I see no point in engaging in a battle of letters.

-Mike

 

clux:

What do you think about the last para pp.98?

-Mike


www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf

 

Question: Do you know what else happens to the soybean after the oil is extracted? The remaining meal is made into feed for livestock since 1930, flour, soaps and hundreds of other uses. The oil is only one part of the marketing of the soybean equation.

 

Not sure what exactly were you are at.....
Are you talking about the capital equipment process flows?