BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS






Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts

Closed Topic Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Net Energy Ratio of WVO
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted
What would folks conjecture the fugures to be for WVO, this is one number I came across.

2003 VW Jetta GLS TDI Wagon
 
Location: Moretown, Vermont | Registered: March 23, 2003Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Forgive my stupidity, but just what do these numbers mean?

Good Vegging and God Bless!! Smile

Kugel

1991 Ford F350 7.3LNA Diesel ZF5/5-speed tranny: Currently running unheated 80/20 Peanut Oil [WVO - 5 micron Cold prefiltered] and Gasoline Mix + Power Service Diesel Kleen Fuel Additive with 6pt. Cetane Booster; removed mechanical lift pump, added single electric fuel "push" pump, back near tanks, after fuel selector valve; looped IJP return line back to Fuel Filter inlet; Injector return lines still go to selector valve and tanks; Fuel Filter Air Bleed tees back into Injector return line. So far, she's running GREAT! 10,000 veggie/blend miles and counting!
 
Location: South Alabama, USA | Registered: October 20, 2002Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yes, I would like some background information as well. What assumptions are they using, etc. ?

Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler

--Albert Einstein
 
Location: Southington, OH | Registered: January 24, 2003Report This Post
member
posted Hide Post
I am not sure what the chart is saying.

It seems to be indicating that SVO (which usually indicates unused vegoil) has the same yeild in Btus as Biodiesel. This would be very odd since biodiesel has a loss of volume during manufacture (the glycerine laden byproduct) and uses a petroleum product (methanol) in volumes of up to 25%.

WVO on the other hand only has the fuel expended to collect and filter it as input (energy) "costs" since it has already served its' purpose and is for all practical considerations "spent".

So biodiesel made from WVO should logically have at least 20% more energy costs than its wvo conterpart.

What is the source of this info? Confused

Dana
danalinscott@yahoo.com
http://danalinscott.netfirms.com/
 
Location: Central MN..Brrrrrr! | Registered: November 06, 2001Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
What it seems to be saying is that it is greater than biodiesel, but by an unspecified amount. In other words an assumption has been made, but no sums have been done.

H

http://groups.msn.com/Pinzgauerdiscussiongroup/homepage
 
Location: Lancashire | Registered: December 05, 2000Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'm sorry, I forgot the cite:
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

I added in the SVO line, and put in the greater than symbol. Dana, you think it would be about 20%. That's what I was getting at, how much more net energy does wvo offer?

Net energy balance is used to try to analyze what the final output of btu's gallon is after all the inputs in its production.
Like any LCA or eco footpring analysis,
it's not an exact science.

2003 VW Jetta GLS TDI Wagon
 
Location: Moretown, Vermont | Registered: March 23, 2003Report This Post



member
posted Hide Post
OK.I understant he chart better now.

Thanks.

I think that using the same criteria as the study cited by the MN report WVO would have an energy efficiency much higher than biodiesel made from SVO..(which is what the report seemed to indicate the biodiesel was made from).

Much, much higher considering that the "petroleum energy inputs" would either be entirely "absorbed" by the initial use of the svo...(deep fat frying) or or at the very least shared with the end use as fuel.

Using the first criteria would indicate that wvo fuel has NO petroleum energy input...or that the input is entirely based on what petroleum might need to be used to "replace" the wvos more traditional "end use"...

Using the second criteria would indicate that wvo has half (or less) of the petroleum energy input as SVO since by usign the svo "twice" the energy input is shared equally by each use.



So if I use the "safe" second criteria..wvo would have a (220% + (20%x220%))x2=528% energy gain.

Does this make sense? Confused

Personally I think it would be more accurate to use the first criteria..but it would be very difficult to determine the energy required to replace the wvo "diverted" to fuel use from "traditional" uses for it.

Dana
danalinscott@yahoo.com
http://danalinscott.netfirms.com/
 
Location: Central MN..Brrrrrr! | Registered: November 06, 2001Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
This study is very misleading and needs to be examined closer. It only reinforces the saying "that their are lies, damn lies, and statistics!"

First off, it seems very much like propoganda from the ethanal industry so they can get their grubby little hands on more handouts, ie subsidies. It was commisioned by the USDA which is nothing but a mouthpiece quite often for the agribusiness industry.

The major flaw in the study appears to me to be that they do not take into account the specific energy of the fuels AFTER production. To put it simply, gasoline has a much higher specific energy than ethanol, so in practice on gallon of gasoline will get you much farther than a gallon of ethanol, which means that ethanol is NOT more efficient than gasoline.

http://www.vigyanprasar.com/comcom/definition.htm

There are some other minor things wrong with the study, IMO, but I don't have time to break them down. Take a look at the actual pdf linked in the article cited above, if you are really curious.

Of course, none of this adresses the place of WVO in comparison, but I just feel that these energy subsidies are bogus and need to be pointed out. I have read that Ethanol and Methanol are both Net energy LOSERS in other studies.

-Tony O
 
Location: Santa Cruz | Registered: September 12, 2003Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

Closed Topic Closed


© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014