This is from our local newspaper:
Local News | Biofuel backlash: High prices, pollution worries hit consumers | Seattle Times Newspaper

Some quotes:
I guess it's time to realize that while renewable fuels look good on paper, not all created equal, especially if they compete with food or livestock feed.

 

That's the thing, Biodiesel doesn't compete with food or feed that much, nuless they make it strictly from soybean oil. It can be made from many sources. Restaurants used to have to pay to get rid of their used cooking oil, now they are whining because people are stealing it out of their tanks, a waste product that just a few years ago they had as an expense that now they are crying because some people are clearing them out on it. Thinking like that is part of the problem. Animal fats, which used to be a waste product are also becoming a source. Algae is yet another source that is being researched for use.

 

I just purchased our second diesel vehicle in the face of the supposed diesel scare. Did Fox or CNN have some special last month?

Diesel was supposed to be "Palm oil diesel" almost 100 years ago before the Rockefeller's pulled their shenanigans and got the US hooked on dino-gas and dino-diesel. We were already supposed to be running 'bio-diesel'.

Two years ago we did a search for bio-diesel stops for a cross country trip from the west coast. Out of 30 or so stops, only 1 in Boulder, CO was available for retail purchases.

99% of the other stops were for "US Govt vehicles ONLY"! So our own govt. (remember, we pay for it?) is running bio-diesel in a big way. So I don't buy the excuse that bio-diesel isn't regulated by the US govt enough to be used confidently.

 

I am so fed up with the oil situation. Biodiesel will be available in Phoenix next month and my truck will be running 100%. I am waiting on a good plug in electric vehicle. Then I will NEVER buy ANY fossil fuels EVER again! I will buy biodiesel if it costs the same as diesel! And if diesel goes down (yeah right) I will STILL use biodiesel.

 

Keep us posted with the price when it becomes available.

And BTW, people tend to be a bit more rational when paying in comparison to posting.

 

Synthetic diesel from coal or natural gas is viable. Biodiesel is another "feel good" farm-lobby boondoggle with unintended consequences, like ethanol. There is no way a significant part of our fuel oil supply can be replaced with bio fuels. As was stated above, the waste fryer oil is supply is already used up, there just isnt that much of it.

Jim

 

I hate to tell you this, but depending on what area of the country you are in, they could be using fuel to generate electrical output. Plug in electric cars are not as "clean" as people would make you believe. Until the inputs for electricity are "green", eletric cars are not the answer. I truly believe in about 5-10 yrs(once storage is figured out) solar power would help with eliminating that concern, but until then, it's not green.

 

While that is true, you still use a lot less fuel that way, plus around here all our electricity comes from hydroelectric plants. Not like in Hawaii, they use DIESEL generators.

 

As it is here, I think fuel usage is less then a percent thanks to TVA.

 

<!-- END Header -->Producing Oil from Pig Manure

Bio Diesel from Down on the Farm


By Mark Whittington, published May 24, 2006




Researchers at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, led by Dr. Yuanhui Zhang, have developed a system that converts pig manure into crude oil on an industrial scale. This development is the culmination of a ten year research and development project that, in effect, makes a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

The technology works by a thermochemical process that uses heat and pressure to break down the pig manure hydrocarbon chains. The end product consists of methane, water, carbon dioxide, water, and oil. The new pilot plant allows the conversion of pig manure in a continuous process, rather than a batch at a time, making the production of “pig oil” more feasible.

Pig manure has advantages over raw materials, like wood sludge, because the pig has already done most of the work. The pig has already biologically done most of the necessary processing.

A typical hog on a modern American farm produces about six gallons of body waste per day. While some of this product is used for fertilizer, the storing and processing of the stuff has been a major environmental problem on modern hog farms. When manure leeches into a water supply due to runoff it harms aquatic life by decreasing the oxygen available to fish, water plants, and other organisms. And, of course, the smell can be just overpowering.

If Dr. Yuanhui Zhang is correct, a typical hog would be able to produce 3.6 gallons of crude oil per day using his process. With a hundred million hogs on American farms, it takes very little math to determine that “pig oil” could make a significant dent in the energy needs of the United States. And a farmer could add up to ten dollars of profit per pig.

Dr. Yuanhui Zhang and his team now propose to build a pilot plant to test the conversion system, to make sure that his numbers in the lab can be replicated on the farm. Research is also ongoing to find out if other farm animal manure, cow and chicken for instance, could be used in the process. Human waste is already chemically similar to pig manure and could be used in the process without too much trouble,---------------------------------------I have a "GREAT IDEA", if they build this plant right next door to "CONGRESS" we will be energy free for ever with all the BS comming out of CONGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 

Those numbers just don't seem right. 3.6 gallons a day time 100 million pigs would be 360 million gallons a day. There are 42 gallons in a barrel of crude, so that would be just over 8.5 million barrels of crude in a day. Considering we import just over 10 million barrels of crude a day, you're proposing that we could basically eliminate all importing of crude oil using pigs. I doubt that very much.

 

From Pig Manure Converted to Crude Oil
This is believable, and note, it's "up to".

And here's an analysis of the pig oil: Chemists Get Scoop On Crude 'Oil' From Pig Manure

 

Here's a rather long analysis on biofuels. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/po...ient_truth.pdf

It should be clear ( unless you're from an area that financially benefits from biofuel production ) that with the current crops and technologies available here in the US, biofuels are either niche products, or dead ends. (note, this don't include biofuels made from waste products!) It might take a few more years until people and lawmakers wisen up enough to end the non-sense, and invest in technologies that are sustainable, and are capable of replacing crude. Solar panels, nuclear plants, or algae 'farms', just to name a few.

Here's a paragraph from the aforementioned paper:

 

First and foremost only 20 percent of an individual plant is used for biofuel production the other 80 percent goes back into mainstream production. Second your forgetting about cellulose biofuels(mainly diesel as that is where the technology is now) which is a part of the plant that only cheap farmers feed their livestock and we can't eat because we don't have a cecum it would only be a colon cleaner for us. Then you have biofuel that is made from grasses, which are not waste products and the breed of grasses used are not ones consumed by livestock, unless once again your dealing with a cheap farmer. Your also forgetting that we are improving the yield that we get from an acre of land. An acre of land even just 5 yrs ago is less then what we get per acre of land that we get now.

Also like most people that are against biofuels your are creating a false dilemna. In other words it's either one thing or it's another, why can't we have a little bit of this, mixed in with a little bit of that, and a little bit of the other that way we aren't beholding to one type of fuel(something that has gotten us into this mess in the first place).


Nothing that you have mention in the next quotation after this one has the ability to replace crude any more then what you are against if your trying to replace one thing for another thing. Energy diversity is what we should be focusing on, not what single energy source can replace one single energy source. We will just be back in the same boat again in 30 yrs.


Solar panels aren't sustainable at this time because it's either use it or lose it. Until we figure out how to duplicate the storage abilities of photosynthesis and apply that to batteries or other storage mediums panels won't work. Technologies for algae farms aren't there either. With today's tech in order for a gallon of fuel made from algae to be competitive a gallon of petro, petro would have to be 20 dollars. Not to mention the problems that algae farms are having with producing on a large scale(100 barrels a day scale). Also fuel made from algae is considered biofuel. Nuclear plants don't help with the way we have transportation set it. We have to gradually make it to a fuel type other then liquid, a drastic change like that would be very costly and hurtful to the average person as well.

 

I still uses land, water, fertilizer, fuel, etc., and competes with feed and food.

I wrote for a good reason "this don't include biofuels made from waste products!"

As before, it still uses land that could be used for other crops.

Yes, and as a result, millions of tons of nitrates goes into the Gulf of Mexico creating a dead zone.
2008 Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone Could Be Largest Ever


First and foremost, I'm not against biofuels. But I'm against those that are worse than fossil fuels, and against those whose main purpose is to be a vehicle for corporate welfare.

Electricity is the Holy Grail. It can be used directly (electric car), or one can make hydrogen that can either be used as a fuel directly (either in an IC engine or in a fuel cell) or with coal, it can be used to make synthetic fuels.

I never said or implied a single source, and I actually listed 3 items.

In any case, as of now, I can think of 6 main sources of energy
a) fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil, shale, etc.)
b) solar (includes everything -- wind, sunlight, renewable plant material, etc.)
c) nuclear (fission)
d) fusion
e) geothermal
f) tidal
Of these, fusion is still TBD, geothermal and tidal are very dependent on location or still under development, so I won't discuss them any more.

Of the rest, since we look for a replacement for oil, we left with solar and nuclear energy. France is getting like 80% - 90% of its electricity from nuclear reactors (and it is a major electricity exporter), and so regardless of opposition based on various beliefs, it is a workable alternative, though it takes years to build that many reactors.

Wrong in both counts. While converting or storing energy always have some inevitable losses, when the energy itself is free, that shouldn't matter too much. It is pretty normal for people with solar panels on their roofs to sell back excess electricity to the utility company. Alternatively, they can generate hydrogen and store it until it is needed. Photosynthesis is about 6.6% efficient, but plants need water, fertilizer, harvesting, etc. Once a PV (hotovoltaic) system is put in place, they don't really need anything aside from some occasional low key maintenance.

It's still in the development stage, but it has the capability to be much more efficient than traditional crops, it doesn't use much water or fertilizer, (because it can be a closed loop system) plus it can be deployed in places that can't really support other crops. (i.e. in the desert, or out in the ocean as floating plant)

You're not a careful reader. I wrote: "with the current crops and technologies available here in the US, biofuels are either niche products, or dead ends." 'current' is a key word, and I personally believe algae oil could be competitive within 5 - 15 years.