Regional Forums » USA • Canada • Africa • Europe • China • India • Indonesia • Pakistan • Central/South America • Australia/NZ | Algae | Alternative EnergyBiodiesel » FAQ • Production • Cold Weather • Advanced Methods • Business • BioHeat • Vehicles • Marine | Classifieds » Vehicles • Equipment • Jobs • Oil
Just wondering why there isnt a huge push right now for CREDIBLE bio-diesel production here in the US with oil prices climbing?
This forum was a great place to discus and promote, what's happened recently? Do we need more marketing on the barter system to get this idea out to the general public more?
I know the economy is in the tank but I recently moved to Midland TX and the unemployment rate here is ZERO! every one is begging for employees here.
NOW is the time to push bio-diesel with a herd of elephants guys.
Im doing all i can on craigslist and my own site, www.barbadosnut.com
get the word out.
It could be that #1 - the modern diesel cars are not that friendly to higher blends of Biodiesel, and #2 - this website really really sucks now. Which is a big shame compared to what this site was 5 or 6 years ago. For example, where are all the USA state's forums?!? All that good archival information looks to be lost ... I was going to post on the Illinois site, but EVERYTHING IS GONE !!! boo hoo.
"#2 - this website really really sucks now. "
I agree! I have not been here for a while, and I see very little activity now, and it's mostly bitching about something. I've been making BD for 5 1/2 yrs. now. I learned a lot here and at the infopop forum. The infopop forum still is much better, well moniterd. I think the homebrew BD is ready for a big comeback. Only a few of us kept up the effort for the lower price duration. Now the gunk will hit the fan and we all need to be survivors and overcomers. Look for oil to go to $200.00/barrel. And the US Dollar will tank. Food will be the hit even harder.
Well there is no push for BD because it is not economical, and even if it were cannot meet demands.
The main issues have not changed
1= non algoil based BD production simply can not provide for more than a small percentage of the US's oil needs
2= algoil (or something like it) is embryonic enough that even those who believe in it like myself can not responsibly suggest it as a credible mass production method on the scale required to address #1 above at present.
Now the things we CAN and should be "making noise about" in the shorter run IMHO
3= ICE and vehicle manufacturers are not moving fast enough to make their products BD friendly or to certify them for > B20 use. Despite the fact that there are plenty of independents who have proven that the issues are non existent or trivial.
Every FO furnace in the USA should be able to use > B20
Every D trucks and busses in the USA should be able to use > B20
The vast majority, if not all, of the presently shipping D cars should be able to use > B20
POLITICS, not science or safety, is what is slowing things down here.
4= FINALLY, VW has a D/E hybrid in prototype stage that gets 268mpg.
A realistic vehicle of this type will get 160-200 mpg IMHO.
D+E are so synergistic (the worst driving conditions for the one is the best for the other) that there is no good reason to not fast track R & D on D/E hybrid systems.
(and this tech is much more mature than G/E hybrids since D/E has been used since the 1920's in trains and the 1930's in submarines...)
5= Generating electricity (or "e" as it used to often be labelled around here) via the burning of fuel, any fuel, is just plain stupid at this point in human history.
Simply put, there should be no fossil fuel power GP in any 1st world nation; and particularly in the USA.
(... and before the pot shots come in about clean coal, let's stomp on that: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN BURNING COAL. It's a marketing term. The proper words would be "=cleaner= coal, but still dirtier than just about any other fossil fuel when burnt.")
The USA needs more nuclear power. Lot's more. Enrico Fermi proved it was possible to build a NPP in which it was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A MELTDOWN. _In 1941_.
Every NPP accident the world has seen since then has been a product of some combination of poor design, greed, or poor maintenance.
There are real issues with NP, but we should be dealing with them rather than stupidity and FUD that we can avoid.
We should be pushing HARD for MD impervious NPP designs based on Thorium cycle fission in the shorter term.
Voltaire, what's a D/E hybrid?
Nate I think he means diesel electric hybrid vehicle.
Voltaire glad to see you post again. This may surprise you, but I actually agree with you on a few points 1, 2, 4 and nuke power.. Looks like you wised up in in the past couple of years. :)
On your other points, well you still need to do some work. For the most part BD is DOA. The huge demand for biomass or food crops as the fuel source has caused catastrophic price increases in underdeveloped countries all around the world, example Egypt and Libya. Burning food for fuel, or using productive land for fuel crops is just plain foolish.
Another sign BD is dead is just look around in the USA with all the BD plants shut down and 4-Sale. Even that GAS BAG MARK C. has given up and went under.
Yep, D/E hybrid means Diesel Electric
Sorry, but those are just about exactly the same PoV I have always had on this site.
I remain convinced we are not going to stop using liquid fuels, especially in transportation, for the foreseeable future.
In round numbers, a pound of BD stores ~ 167x as much energy as a pound of the best batteries we know how to make. (for gasoline, that number is ~127x)
(TBF let's bear in mind that a gas ICE is ~25% efficient, a diesel ICE ~35% (variable rpm) or ~60% (constant rpm) efficient vs an e' motor's ~98% efficiency. But the energy storage density difference just swamps this.)
Unless a truly Nobel Prize worthy breakthrough in physics occurs, pure e' vehicles are not realistic outside some specialized niches. All evidence suggests we will continue to need liquid fuels.
I remain bullish about algae or some other small lifeform fast life cycle based BD.
But like any other form of R & D, the work must be done and attempts at cutting corners or skipping steps just elongates the process (and raises the overall ultimate bill for the R & D)
As I have said repeatedly on this site and elsewhere,
IT IS STUPID TO USE CROPS WHOSE PRIMARY PRODUCT IS PROTEIN OR SUGAR AS OIL SOURCES
Burning food for fuel, or using productive land for fuel crops is indeed just plain foolish. (but it is not necessary)
My ancestors spent 1000's of years optimizing the protein and sugar output of maize / corn. As a direct consequence, corn is HORRIBLE at producing oil.
Crops designed to be good at producing food are never going to produce much oil.
Want fuel oil? Use a crop that specializes in making it. Not one that makes food.
The problem is not that we need huge quantities of biomass to make BD on a large scale. The problem is that we are using the wrong biomass to make BD and therefore forcing ourselves into a situation where we need huge amounts of (pessimal) oil stock to make oil.
Nor is it necessary, or even smart, to use land we want to put food crops on for growing oil crops.
The best place to grow oil crops is exactly where we do not want to grow anything else at the time.
To use an engineering phrase, the =idea= of BD production is sound.
Our current =implementation= of BD production is what is flawed.
En Garde! dereck ;-)
It is economical, and meets my demands, and those of a few friends. I understand what you mean on a large scale BD can't meet the demand.
Voltaire I disagree with you about batteries and BEV's. Batteries do not have to have the equal or even be close to the energy density as liquid fuels with respect to light passenger vehicles. BEV's make up lot in the lighter weight of the drive train system. You do not need transmissions and the motors are a fraction of the weight of a same in class ICE.
Currently there is no technical problem in making a 4 passenger BEV with 300 mile range and can be recharged in 15 minutes. Not a stripped down golf cart, a real vehicle with all the Bell's and Whistles with excellent performance.
Today Lithium Ion chemistry energy density ranges from 100 wh/kg to 300 wh/kg. a four passenger BEV depending on actual size efficiency runs 130 / wh /mile to 300 wh / mile. So we are talking about a battery with a storage capacity of 39 Kwh to 90 Kwh. Using the medium weight of 200 wh/kg comes out to 195 kg to 450 kg. in even less or about the same area a gasoline tank requires.
Those numbers are doable today and all technology is here now. I do concede the battery technology needs to be improved and cost brought down to make them mainstream, but the proto types are already being test. You can buy right now today from A123 Systems a lithium prismatic LFP with an energy density of 220 wh / kg. They have a charge rate of 5C which means can be recharged from 0% to 100% in 15 minutes or less, 5C discharge rates which is more then enough to supply the high current demands of a BEV, and 10,000 cycles to 80% rated capacity.
Realistically once the battery tech gets to 250 wh/kg for $0.20 / Kwh, BEV will be at parity with ICE. You can buy either a BEVV model or ICe model in th esame class for the same money. Difference is the BEV will have much lower fuel and maintenance cost.
Put it too you this way. Bet you battery tech and BEV's will be mainstream long before any BD can hit the market.
How do those batteries perform at or below 0 degrees F?
1= There is not enough lithium, nor any other good battery material (cadium, nickel, etc), on earth to make enough batteries to replace the ICE in use in the USA. Let alone the world.
Even if batteries were viable competitors to ICE, sheer supply constraints destroy their viability
2= This statement
"Currently there is no technical problem in making a 4 passenger BEV with 300 mile range and can be recharged in 15 minutes. Not a stripped down golf cart, a real vehicle with all the Bell's and Whistles with excellent performance."
Is simply wrong. NO ONE knows how to do this at present. At any price.
When economic constraints are included (since the resulting product must be affordable to a reasonably sized market), the above is even more out of reach.
See the recent MIT _Technology Review_ article on this.
3= Since you have a history of slamming ideas based on costs, I am going to fire that right back at you.
Because of the low energy density, operational constraints, and scarcity of materials issues,
VEHICLE BATTERIES ARE DAMN EXPENSIVE
4= Passenger vehicles and lighter duty trucks are one thing as potential use scenarios for e' vehicles.
Vehicles capable of hauling 10's of thousands of pounds of goods hundreds or thousands of miles is quite another.
So is aviation.
Pure e' vehicles have the proverbial tissue paper dog chasing the asbestos cat through hell chance of being viable in those last 2 usage domains.
We use far more energy, and the world economy is far more dependent on, those last two use cases compared to the first one.
Personally, I would love to be able to advocate pure e' vehicles. Neither the physics nor economics supports the idea or is ever likely to outside some specialized niches.
D/E hybrids, particularly ones that get all the motive power from e' and have a high efficiency constant rpm D engine charging the batteries, are the solution that stands up to rigorous analysis of the economics and physics involved.
No Voltaire I am not wrong. There is no technical obstacle to build a BEV with 300 mile range that can be charged in 15 minutes. It is high school level physics. At an efficiency or 200 wh/mile all it takes is a 60 Kwh battery. The Tesla Roadster has 250 mile range, and here is the good part to eat your words, Tesla just released the Model S Car. Care to guess how many miles it gets on a charge? 300 miles my friend.
Yes it is expensive right now, so were computers, VHS video, cell phones, ect... But like I said you will see BEV's become mainstream long before BD is forgotten about, there are already 5 BEV's on the market for sale right now..