BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS






Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  General Biodiesel Discussion    Biodiesel News
Page 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Biodiesel News
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
Producing hydrogen from electricity is a form of energy storage to use the output from an intermittent source like wind or solar. It's not much different than charging the battery in an electric car, or any other battery. It's a storage device not a 'source' of energy.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
3 ways to turn waste grease into biodiesel
http://www.futurity.org/biodie...waste-grease-918662/
National University of Singapore

May 12, 2015

One method employs whole-cell Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, producing a 97 percent biodiesel conversion yield in 72 hours.

Another involves specially formulated magnetic nano-sized solid acid particles. When combined with methanol, they efficiently catalyze waste grease, yielding up to 98 percent biodiesel in 24 hours.

The third is a recyclable magnetic nano-biocatalyst created using an enzyme derived from a fungus. This catalyses waste grease laden with methanol into biodiesel, achieving a remarkable 99 percent biodiesel yield in 12 hours.

Among the three techniques, the natural system of whole-cell E. coli shows the most potential as the biocatalyst can be produced in large amounts at low costs.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member

posted Hide Post
"Among the three techniques, the natural system of whole-cell E. coli shows the most potential as the biocatalyst can be produced in large amounts at low costs."

And by using the same methodologies the glycerine layer is turned into economically viable ethanol, making it almost a 100% eco fuel conversion rate.

E. Coli Fermentation of Glycerol from Biodiesel Waste into Ethanol



** Biodiesel Glycerine Soap - The Guide
- on 5 continents helping people make & sell soap from the Biodiesel Glycerine.


 
Location: :-) Great White North eh ? | Registered: December 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Researchers study benefits of double-cropping camelina, soybeans

http://www.biodieselmagazine.c...ng-camelina-soybeans
By The American Society of Agronomy | June 02, 2015

In the U.S., federal mandates to produce more renewable fuels, especially biofuels, have led to a growing debate: Should fuel or food grow on arable land? Recent research shows farmers can successfully, and sustainably, grow both.

Russ Gesch, a plant physiologist with the USDA Soil Conservation Research Lab in Morris, Minnesota, found encouraging results when growing Camelina sativa with soybeans in the Midwest.

Camelina is a member of the mustard family and an emerging biofuel crop. It is well suited as a cover crop in the Midwest. “Finding any annual crop that will survive the [Midwest] winters is pretty difficult,” said Gesch, “but winter camelina does that and it has a short enough growing season to allow farmers to grow a second crop after it during the summer.”

Additionally, in the upper Midwest, soils need to retain enough rainwater for multiple crops in one growing season. Gesch and his colleagues measured water use of two systems of dual-cropping using camelina and soybean. They compared it with a more typical soybean field at the Swan Lake Research Farm near Morris.

“We had greater soybean yields with the relay-cropping system than when double cropping,” said Gesch, referencing a previous study. The earlier planting date during relay cropping allows for a longer growing season and contributes to the higher yield, according to Gesch.

In addition, camelina plants flower early in the spring, providing a vital food source for pollinators, like bees, when little else is available to them. As a cover crop, camelina may also help prevent erosion and build soil carbon content. Gesch and his colleagues are working to measure these ecological benefits of dual-cropping.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
On the food or fuel debate, since North Koreans were starving from famine, and they need all their hard currency for military purposes and building nuclear weapons, the most food should be grown as possible, so the supply is high and prices low for food. We can afford to give more food to North Korea to feed all those nuclear weapons industry workers. If we make more biodiesel then there might be less food available for the North Korean military. So, you would vote on the more food side of the question?
 
Location: Texas | Registered: April 27, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ethanol and Biodiesel: Guilty as Charged
Paul Driessen | Jul 11, 2015


Two notorious crooks are helping us wrap up another sordid episode in the saga of the United States biofuel mandates, while further highlighting how bungled and long past its expiration date the program is.

Congress concocted the mandates over fears that US gasoline demand would rise forever and keep the United States dependent on foreign oil, as America’s supposedly limited reserves were depleted. The mandates currently require that we blend 15 billion gallons of ethanol with gasoline every year, and produce over a billion gallons of biodiesel. They hammer us consumers every time we fill our tanks.

Turning corn into ethanol requires vast amounts of land, fertilizers, pesticides, tractor and truck fuel, and natural gas for distillation. It enriches some farmers but raises animal feed prices and thus the cost of beef, pork, chicken, eggs, fish and international food aid. Biodiesel from restaurant waste oil makes some sense, but making it from palm oil or soybeans has similar negative ecological impacts.

The ethanol mandate encourages farmers to plow wildlife habitats and fallow fields to grow corn, releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide. Ethanol gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline, so motorists get fewer miles per tank and per dollar. It produces ozone, attracts water and corrodes car and small engine components, forcing us to spend billions on repairs.

The tale of Philip Joseph Rivkin (aka Felipe Poitan Arriaga) reveals an equally disgusting aspect of the mandate, resulting from the absurdly complex Renewable Identification Number (RIN) system devised by EPA bureaucrats. As Ron Arnold explains in our book, Cracking Big Green, EPA requires that every gallon of biofuel must also have its own unique 38-digit RIN. That’s billions of RINs per year!

“Dry” RIN paper credits are supposed to be associated with actual “wet” gallons of biofuel: corn-based ethanol, biomass-based diesel or nonexistent “advanced cellulosic” fuels. When fuels are not available, refiners can buy RINs from another party that was able to blend the fuel. This “tradable credits” market creates irresistible opportunities for “entrepreneurs” like Rivkin, whose Green Diesel company sold phony biodiesel RINs to oil companies and brokers.

Between 2011 and 2012, Rivkin sold $29 million worth of phony RINs, without producing a single gallon of anything. Secret Service agents arrested him last year in Houston, after he had been expelled from Guatemala, where he had falsely claimed to be a citizen. He plead guilty and now faces ten years in prison, millions of dollars in fines, and the forfeiture of his Lamborghini, Maserati, Canadair LTD plane, $29 million in cash, and an art collection valued in the millions.

His escapade copied what Rodney Hailey pulled off in Perry Hall, Maryland. He rented a garage, filled it with pipes, tanks and pumps (none connected to one another), registered his Clean Green Fuel company with EPA, put up a fancy website, and claimed he would produce 20 million gallons of biodiesel annually from recycled cooking oil. Through a network of traders, Hailey sold more than 32 million bogus RINs for $9 million, while still collecting unemployment.

Eventually, his fancy house, 20 luxury cars and lavish lifestyle attracted law enforcement. In 2013, he was sentenced to 12-1/2 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $42 million in restitution: his sleazy profits plus what his victims had to pay for valid replacement RINs.

The good news is that Rivkin and Hailey will have to pay for their fraudulent actions. (How many other biofuel crooks have not been caught we have no way of knowing.) The bad news is that the RIN system is still in place, under a misguided federal law that benefits almost no one outside the biofuel industry. The worse news is that the cost of their fraud pales by comparison to the lies and fraud perpetrated by EPA and its climate crisis, clean energy and ultra-pure air allies.

Since the biofuel mandate was imposed in 2005 and expanded in 2007 under the Renewable Fuel Standard, it has sent billions of taxpayer and motorist dollars to corn farmers and ethanol producers. It has cost consumers countless billions in reduced mileage, higher food prices, and repairs to their cars, trucks, boats, snowmobiles, chain saws and other small engine equipment. The corn converted into biofuel each year is enough to feed 412 million malnourished people in African and other countries.

Antique autos and other older cars are not compatible with fuels containing ethanol, especially E15 (15% EtOH). Gaskets and other rubber parts can fail, causing fuel leaks and even engine failure or fires. On boats, fiberglass fuel tanks deteriorate and outboard motors can overheat and stop functioning. On airplanes – well you don’t want to ponder what happens when your engine stalls at 10,000 feet.

Many consumers – even corn farmers with older tractors – prefer straight gasoline, which is increasingly hard to find. Nevertheless, in 2014, straight gasoline accounted for almost 7% of total US gasoline sales, double the 3.4% of pure gasoline sold in 2012.

Meanwhile, worries about “peak oil” and “over-dependence” on foreign oil have nearly evaporated. Thanks to fracking and other advanced drilling technologies, the United States is now the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. As consumers drive less and invest in more fuel-efficient newer vehicles, gasoline demand is moderating, after peaking in 2007. And the other justification for ethanol, “dangerous manmade climate change,” is steadily being exposed as just another über-expensive ecological scare.

If consumers want “alternative fuels,” natural gas presents more viable, environmental, free-market, cost-competitive choices. Compressed into high-pressure tanks, it can (and already does) power cars, trucks, taxis and buses. Converted into methanol, our abundant natural gas would enable Detroit to build light, powerful, low-pollution, high octane engines that get better mileage than ethanol-tainted fuels. Existing cars can be converted into “flex-fuel” vehicles for less than $100 – and producing the natural gas and converting it into methanol involves minimal land impacts, no food price hikes and no harm to engines.

Biofuels are guilty as charged. They do to motorists, taxpayers and consumers what wars and riots do to cities. Justifying legislative mandates by saying they create jobs for a few corn growers, biofuel producers and engine repairmen is akin to claiming mobs and warfare foster employment for insurers, firemen, carpenters and window repair companies. The perverse logic also ignores jobs destroyed and businesses destroyed or relocated, and the far better ways our billions of dollars could have been spent.

Politicians, bureaucrats and eco-activists clearly care little about the coal mine workers and communities they have destroyed. Why should biofuel producers be more sacrosanct and protected – based on false claims that these fuels ensure emission reductions, “home-grown” energy supplies and climate stability?

The Renewable Fuel Standard and biofuel mandates do more harm than good. They have outlived their usefulness and should not merely be “fixed,” as some suggest, but scrapped entirely.

Americans should no longer be forced to prop up biofuel companies and pay for expensive repairs under outdated congressional and EPA edicts.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



member
posted Hide Post
The mandated biofuel usage propping up the biofuel industry also is funding R&D into improving methods of manufacture and efficiency by those greedy little capitalists. The increase in the cost of corn due to corn being used to make ethanol to the North Koreans, who threatened to detonate a nuclear bomb in Austin, Texas, USA, is fine by me. Paul Driessen the author of this opinion piece believes in world communal property and might rob an evil capitalist bank in a minute if the communist had the chance.
 
Location: Texas | Registered: April 27, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member

posted Hide Post
Again, the single element never mentioned in all these so-called reports and articles which should be. were they serious in propagating truth instead of some agenda, is that used restaurant cooking oil is a VERY efficient use of a resource for biodiesel production, and it's by product, the glycerine layer has been PROVEN to be a viable foundation for economical ethanol production, eliminating corn as a base and freeing it for food.

So all these pundits who constantly point at inefficient corn for ethanol do so intentionally to push and agenda, when food crops do NOT have to make room for fuel production. They are being intentionally misleading, and that begs the question "who is paying them to do that?"



** Biodiesel Glycerine Soap - The Guide
- on 5 continents helping people make & sell soap from the Biodiesel Glycerine.


 
Location: :-) Great White North eh ? | Registered: December 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Legal Eagle:
Again, the single element never mentioned in all these so-called reports and articles which should be... is that used restaurant cooking oil is a VERY efficient use of a resource for biodiesel production...


Perhaps this wasn't understood in the article by Driessen above:
quote:
Biodiesel from restaurant waste oil makes some sense, but making it from palm oil or soybeans has similar negative ecological impacts.


Even if ALL the UCO is collected and made into biodiesel, it will only provide a small amount of biodiesel for use as a pollution reducing additive to diesel fuel.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Renewable energy push: India set to allow 100% bio-diesel for vehicles
http://economictimes.indiatime...cleshow/48298841.cms
By Rajat Arora, ET Bureau | 31 Jul, 2015

NEW DELHI: In a bid to push higher use of renewable energy, India is set to allow 100% bio-diesel for vehicles.

The decision will pave way for manufacture of new engines that can use this fuel. The compatibility of vehicle to level of bio-diesel blend will be defined by the vehicle manufacturer and the same will also be displayed on the vehicle, the ministry of road transport and highways said in a notification.

Vehicle manufacturers will submit the vehicle to the test agencies specified by the government for type approval.

The government has already sent the draft notification of the same to law ministry for vetting.

As per the government notification, the newly manufactured vehicles fitted with compression ignition engine compatible to run on diesel or mixture of bi-diesel up to 100% bio-diesel (B 100) will be type approved as per the prevailing diesel emission standards.

These standards have been long awaited by the industry especially those manufacturing bio-diesel and will provide alternate source of income to the farmers and the forest dwellers.

Large areas of degraded land in the country have a vast potential of producing bio-diesel which can be utilised as a source of fuel for transportation in the country.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member

posted Hide Post
quote:
Large areas of degraded land in the country have a vast potential of producing bio-diesel which can be utilised as a source of fuel for transportation in the country.


Finally, someone who gets it.We could do the same thing here or anywhere for that matter. Here we have vast areas of median that are grass covered and maintained by the MOT personnel several times during the summer. Now take the same personnel and get them to till the open areas, and then plant, say, mustard or canola, and then when ready harvest it and press it into oil for fuel. There is literally thousands of miles of useful land that could be used this way and the manpower is already in place to deal with it. The mulch from the pressing has a value added benefit as well. In the case of canola it can be added to animal feed and in the case of mustard the mulch is viable as a natural pesticide for organic farming.

On another note from this article; any car's fuel system that can handle B100 can handle any or no mix of diesel fuel, so to build them from the onset with a B100 capability is just plain smart. The pi$$er is that it has to come from the other side of the world where Big Oil doesn't rule government.



** Biodiesel Glycerine Soap - The Guide
- on 5 continents helping people make & sell soap from the Biodiesel Glycerine.


 
Location: :-) Great White North eh ? | Registered: December 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Glycerol-free strategy sweetens biodiesel synthesis
http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo...-biodiesel-synthesis
18 December 2015
Jamie Durrani

Scientists in the US have developed a new method for synthesising biodiesel that avoids making any unwanted glycerol byproduct.

Crude glycerol, usually contaminated with a mixture of fatty-acids, water, soaps and salts, is a major waste product from the biodiesel manufacturing process. Biodiesel production has contributed to a global oversupply of glycerol, with around 2.5 million tons generated in 2014. Aiming to tackle this problem is a team of researchers, headed by Tobin Marks of Northwestern University, Illinois, that has devised a pathway for generating biodiesel that bypasses glycerol altogether.

The process uses a tandem catalytic system, consisting of metal triflate and supported palladium catalysts, to selectively break down triglyceride esters into carboxylic acids, which can be converted to biodiesel, as well as propane and valuable C3-oxygenates. 'We are coupling two different reactions, using two different catalysts in the same pot. One catalyst opens or breaks the carbon–oxygen bond and the other catalyst hydrogenates the product, which is unsaturated. That helps drive the reaction thermodynamically,’ explains Marks.

While recent years have seen a considerable body of research into ways of converting waste glycerol into more valuable chemicals, this new approach avoids making it entirely. As Tracy Lohr who worked on the project explains, ‘The advantage of our system is that we don’t form any glycerol, instead we’re forming more useful products. Going from the triglycerides to those more useful precursors eliminates steps, it’s more cost-effective and you get your product easier and faster.’

Catalysis expert Alan Goldman, from Rutgers University in the US, applauds the new technique: ‘The application of these catalysts to the degradation of triglycerides represents an elegant approach toward the conversion of plant oils to high quality diesel fuel; this route is potentially very valuable as it yields C3 co-products more desirable than the glycerol obtained from traditional trans-esterification processes.’ Goldman also notes that while the technology is still in a development phase, it brings hugely encouraging implications for the future of biodiesel production. ‘While the system is not ready for commercialisation, it is certainly exciting to see progress toward such an important goal achieved through such fundamentally novel and well-characterised chemistry.’



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



member

posted Hide Post
quote:
Crude glycerol, usually contaminated with a mixture of fatty-acids, water, soaps and salts, is a major waste product from the biodiesel manufacturing process.


And yet there are hundreds of us who are successfully making top quality soaps from it. There are so many applications for this "waste product" that it begs the imagination, while at the same time demonstrates the complete lack of it coming from the author of this piece.

The process claims "no glycerol" but it does not say that the Di,Tri and mono glycerides have magically disappeared. They are still part of the whole, which will negatively affect the cold flow abilities of the fuel produced, IMO, but maybe I missed something.



** Biodiesel Glycerine Soap - The Guide
- on 5 continents helping people make & sell soap from the Biodiesel Glycerine.


 
Location: :-) Great White North eh ? | Registered: December 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Biodiesel’s become so cheap in the U.S. that some refiners are being paid to use it.

Midwest refiners are paying as little as 64.5 cents a gallon for the fuel after factoring in a $1-a-gallon tax subsidy and other credits. Add further incentives offered by California into the mix and some customers are effectively getting biodiesel for free in the Golden State.

Oil companies must use 1.9 billion gallons of biodiesel this year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...-free-in-some-places



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
An Edmonton biofuel company that turns animal fat and crop seed oil into “drop-in” fuels, chemically indistinguishable from petroleum-based fuel, has received $4.2 million to move forward on a production plant.

Forge Hydrocarbons is the company that hopes to use technology created by University of Alberta bioresource scientist David Bressler to make biofuels more cheaply.
...

While they’re far from the first company to make biofuels, Neil Vanknotsenburg, vice-president of projects for Forge, said Bressler’s technique is a simpler, and therefore cheaper, process.

At it’s most basic, the creation of biofuel means turning fats into hydrocarbons, a process that usually requires both hydrogen and a catalyst to get the reaction going, but Vanknotsenburg said their technique is unique in that it requires neither.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/e...-for-new-plant-.html



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Hi John,

quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
An Edmonton biofuel company that turns animal fat and crop seed oil into “drop-in” fuels, chemically indistinguishable from petroleum-based fuel,..
Chemically indistinguishable from petroleum based fuel- I find this claim extremely unlikely






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Tilly:

While not familiar with Breslers methodology, any hydro-carbon can be split using pyrolysis. If this is done under super critical conditions such as hydro-thermal liquefaction, where the hydrocarbon never goes through the gaseous state, than any of the nasties in the feedstock precipitate out of the mixture and you are left with essentially a pure hydro-carbon mix chemically similar or equivalent to crude oil. Further refining is accomplished using the same methodology, read cracking, as with crude feedstock.

Did extensive research on this using animal manure a couple of years ago. Puts a whole new meaning on the expression "my car runs like crap".

Bill


91 Buick Roadmaster wagon, GM 6.2 diesel conversion (gone but not forgotten
89 GMC 6.2 (Just got rid of the last pieces)
84 Mercedes 300D (gone to the great autobahn in the sky)
94 Cadillac Fleetwood (Sold before I could convert it)
 
Location: Manotick, Ontario Canada | Registered: July 02, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Using a microwave and catalyst-coated beads, scientists have devised a new way to convert waste cooking oil into biodiesel that could make it more affordable. They report how they did it in ACS' journal Energy & Fuels.

Biodiesel has many advantages over traditional fuels. ... However, producing biodiesel at a low cost remains a challenge. Waste cooking oil is currently the most appealing source because it doesn't compete with the demand for virgin cooking oil. However, the process to convert it to fuel is complicated and expensive. Aharon Gedanken and colleagues wanted to find a simpler and less expensive method.

The researchers developed silica beads coated with a catalyst and added them to waste cooking oil. Then, they zapped the mixture with a modified microwave oven to spur the reaction of the beads with cooking oil. In just 10 seconds, nearly 100 percent of the oil was converted to fuel. The researchers could also easily recover the beads and reuse them at least 10 times with similar results.

The authors acknowledge funding from the Israeli Ministry of Science, Technology and Space.

Journal Reference:

Alex Tangy, Indra Neel Pulidindi, Aharon Gedanken. SiO2 Beads Decorated with SrO Nanoparticles for Biodiesel Production from Waste Cooking Oil Using Microwave Irradiation. Energy & Fuels, 2016; 30 (4): 3151 DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00256



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Reply

Anything the Israeli government reports in science like a biodiesel reaction that produces almost a 100% biodiesel reaction product in ten seconds is another scam. I know some Israeli scientists and have read about their science information releases. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is and consider the source. Someone is probably trying to sell a novel new technology for a lot of money that actually doesn't work. It sounds like a set up for a bank robbery. There is something called a reaction rate. Ten seconds to produce a product that normally takes at least thirty minutes to produce is probably another lie and an attempt to steal money via a type of fraud. I am not anti semetic but I would not turn a blind eye to their bad behavior either.
 
Location: Texas | Registered: April 27, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Biodiesel  Hop To Forums  General Biodiesel Discussion    Biodiesel News

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014