Re: United 98 octane ULP - with ethanol!

[Ext User(JD)]

John_H wrote:

> JD wrote:
>>
>>But it is likely that ethanol will become a partial substitute for oil,
>>although biodiesel looks more attractive as far as I can see.
>
> So, what will the biodiesel be made from if it's to be more than an
> irrelevent partial substitute for the fossil stuff?
>
> --
> John H

Biodiesel from oilseed crops is a simpler and less polluting step than grain
or sugar cane to ethanol, and the residue is more useful. You are right
about the partial, and maybe about the irrelevant. But what I really meant
was - I run a diesel, so ethanol is less attractive and irrelevant.
JD

[Ext User(John_H)]

JD wrote:

>John_H wrote:
>
>> JD wrote:
>>>
>>>But it is likely that ethanol will become a partial substitute for oil,
>>>although biodiesel looks more attractive as far as I can see.
>>
>> So, what will the biodiesel be made from if it's to be more than an
>> irrelevent partial substitute for the fossil stuff?
>
>Biodiesel from oilseed crops is a simpler and less polluting step than grain
>or sugar cane to ethanol, and the residue is more useful. You are right
>about the partial, and maybe about the irrelevant. But what I really meant
>was - I run a diesel, so ethanol is less attractive and irrelevant.

Biodiesel from oilseed crops isn't viable on a yield and value basis
alone -- you only need look at the commercial pricing for the whole
range of vegetable oils. Ethanol from grain or sugar would run rings
around it for cost effectiveness.

--
John H

[Ext User(JD)]

John_H wrote:

> JD wrote:
>
>>John_H wrote:
>>
>>> JD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>But it is likely that ethanol will become a partial substitute for oil,
>>>>although biodiesel looks more attractive as far as I can see.
>>>
>>> So, what will the biodiesel be made from if it's to be more than an
>>> irrelevent partial substitute for the fossil stuff?
>>
>>Biodiesel from oilseed crops is a simpler and less polluting step than
>>grain or sugar cane to ethanol, and the residue is more useful. You are
>>right about the partial, and maybe about the irrelevant. But what I really
>>meant was - I run a diesel, so ethanol is less attractive and irrelevant.
>
> Biodiesel from oilseed crops isn't viable on a yield and value basis
> alone -- you only need look at the commercial pricing for the whole
> range of vegetable oils. Ethanol from grain or sugar would run rings
> around it for cost effectiveness.
>
> --
> John H
Maybe - but not if your engine is diesel. Seriously though, you are right -
the problem with both biofuels is that they are far too expensive relative
to oil even at a much higher oil price than present prices. The reason for
using them will not be economics, but to reduce the amount of carbon
dioxide emissions.
JD

[Ext User(Bernd Felsche)]

JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> writes:
>John_H wrote:
>> JD wrote:
>>>John_H wrote:
>>>> JD wrote:

>>>Biodiesel from oilseed crops is a simpler and less polluting step
>>>than grain or sugar cane to ethanol, and the residue is more
>>>useful. You are right about the partial, and maybe about the
>>>irrelevant. But what I really meant was - I run a diesel, so
>>>ethanol is less attractive and irrelevant.

>> Biodiesel from oilseed crops isn't viable on a yield and value
>> basis alone -- you only need look at the commercial pricing for
>> the whole range of vegetable oils. Ethanol from grain or sugar
>> would run rings around it for cost effectiveness.

>Maybe - but not if your engine is diesel. Seriously though, you are
>right - the problem with both biofuels is that they are far too
>expensive relative to oil even at a much higher oil price than

Not true. USD$60 is about the break-even.

>present prices. The reason for using them will not be economics,
>but to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.

The advantage of biodiesel is that the CO2 produced from it was
fixed by the vegetable matter less 2 years before the fuel is burnt.
The greater the demand for biodiesel, the greater the fixing of CO2
into more vegetable matter that end up in the fuel cycle a little
later.

The CO2 generation is then "sustainable". Atmospheric CO2 levels
will not then have a nett increase. As fossil fuels are replaced and
the amount of vegetable matter increases, it's even possible to
decrease the levels as a higher proportion of available carbon will
be either in plants or in unburnt fuel.

Compare that to fossil fuel which fixed carbon hundreds of millions
of years ago.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Ext User(JD)]

Bernd Felsche wrote:

> JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> writes:
>>John_H wrote:
>>> JD wrote:
>>>>John_H wrote:
>>>>> JD wrote:
>
>>>>Biodiesel from oilseed crops is a simpler and less polluting step
>>>>than grain or sugar cane to ethanol, and the residue is more
>>>>useful. You are right about the partial, and maybe about the
>>>>irrelevant. But what I really meant was - I run a diesel, so
>>>>ethanol is less attractive and irrelevant.
>
>>> Biodiesel from oilseed crops isn't viable on a yield and value
>>> basis alone -- you only need look at the commercial pricing for
>>> the whole range of vegetable oils. Ethanol from grain or sugar
>>> would run rings around it for cost effectiveness.
>
>>Maybe - but not if your engine is diesel. Seriously though, you are
>>right - the problem with both biofuels is that they are far too
>>expensive relative to oil even at a much higher oil price than
>
> Not true. USD$60 is about the break-even.

I'd be interested to see the calculations on that - one of the errors
usually made is not to take into account the increased fuel and fertiliser
costs for the agricultural production, and the price increase of the
oilseed etc due to the increased demand if biofuels are used to any extent.
>
>>present prices. The reason for using them will not be economics,
>>but to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
>
> The advantage of biodiesel is that the CO2 produced from it was
> fixed by the vegetable matter less 2 years before the fuel is burnt.
> The greater the demand for biodiesel, the greater the fixing of CO2
> into more vegetable matter that end up in the fuel cycle a little
> later.
>
> The CO2 generation is then "sustainable". Atmospheric CO2 levels
> will not then have a nett increase. As fossil fuels are replaced and
> the amount of vegetable matter increases, it's even possible to
> decrease the levels as a higher proportion of available carbon will
> be either in plants or in unburnt fuel.
>
> Compare that to fossil fuel which fixed carbon hundreds of millions
> of years ago.

Yes - this was so obvious I didn't spell it out - but a slight correction -
not all oil is hundreds of millions of years old - generation is currently
occurring in areas such as the Gulf Coast and West Africa in sediments only
a few million years old, and although not a major fossil fuel, some peat
used as fuel is only tens of thousands of years old.
JD

[Ext User(John_H)]

Bernd Felsche wrote:
>JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> writes:
>>John_H wrote:
>>> JD wrote:
>
>>> Biodiesel from oilseed crops isn't viable on a yield and value
>>> basis alone -- you only need look at the commercial pricing for
>>> the whole range of vegetable oils. Ethanol from grain or sugar
>>> would run rings around it for cost effectiveness.
>
>>Maybe - but not if your engine is diesel. Seriously though, you are
>>right - the problem with both biofuels is that they are far too
>>expensive relative to oil even at a much higher oil price than
>
>Not true. USD$60 is about the break-even.

The farm gate price for vegetable oil (eg canola) is around A$600 per
tonne... pre processing. It's also a fairly balanced supply and
demand situation, where any increase in demand would see prices
esculate.

The current price would equate to a similar price per litre for the
raw product on a crude oil price of US$60 (a barrel of crude produces
around 150 litre of fuel) but doesn't take into account losses in
converting vegetable oil to esters, or any difference in processing
costs.... Nor does it take into account the likelihood of an
increased demand doubling oilseed prices overnight (which happens now
whenever there's production shortfalls).

Furthermore, oilseed crops are low yielding (especially when compared
to ethanol sources).... To the extent that I'd doubt if all available
farmland could put a dent in total diesel fuel requirements.

When the oilseed industry got underway in Oz in the early 1970's
growers also believed that they'd soon be providing their own fuel.
It didn't take them long to realise that the fossil stuff was vastly
cheaper and that view still holds. Their own industry representative
body is currently one of the main instigators for mandating E10... the
same organisation doesn't consider biodiesel as viable.

>
>>present prices. The reason for using them will not be economics,
>>but to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.

--
John H

[Ext User(Bernd Felsche)]

JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> writes:
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> writes:
>>>John_H wrote:
>>>> JD wrote:
>>>>>John_H wrote:
>>>>>> JD wrote:

>>>>>Biodiesel from oilseed crops is a simpler and less polluting step
>>>>>than grain or sugar cane to ethanol, and the residue is more
>>>>>useful. You are right about the partial, and maybe about the
>>>>>irrelevant. But what I really meant was - I run a diesel, so
>>>>>ethanol is less attractive and irrelevant.

>>>> Biodiesel from oilseed crops isn't viable on a yield and value
>>>> basis alone -- you only need look at the commercial pricing for
>>>> the whole range of vegetable oils. Ethanol from grain or sugar
>>>> would run rings around it for cost effectiveness.

>>>Maybe - but not if your engine is diesel. Seriously though, you are
>>>right - the problem with both biofuels is that they are far too
>>>expensive relative to oil even at a much higher oil price than

>> Not true. USD$60 is about the break-even.

>I'd be interested to see the calculations on that - one of the

I'll dig up some current references. A lot of my bookmarked URLs are
404.

>errors usually made is not to take into account the increased fuel
>and fertiliser costs for the agricultural production, and the price
>increase of the oilseed etc due to the increased demand if biofuels
>are used to any extent.

The whole economics change if you are an importer of the raw
material instead of a producer/exporter. That's why the equation
"works" for a number of European countries without any mineral oil
reserves.

The equation works better for ultra-low-sulphur diesel; which is
required in Australia from 2006. As a bonus, biodiesel has a CN of
56 or higher, so all the fuel stock can be used. Less waste.

Approx 11% oxygen content means less tendency to produce soot during
combustion.

Total costs are not just represented by the cost to produce the
fuel; but also in its use and the consequences of its use.

As for fertiliser costs; various oilseed crops can be used in
rotation with others for soil enrichment and weed/pest control.
Biodiesel can also be produced from crops other than traditional
oilseed.

>> The CO2 generation is then "sustainable". Atmospheric CO2 levels
>> will not then have a nett increase. As fossil fuels are replaced and
>> the amount of vegetable matter increases, it's even possible to
>> decrease the levels as a higher proportion of available carbon will
>> be either in plants or in unburnt fuel.
>>
>> Compare that to fossil fuel which fixed carbon hundreds of millions
>> of years ago.

>Yes - this was so obvious I didn't spell it out - but a slight
>correction - not all oil is hundreds of millions of years old -
>generation is currently occurring in areas such as the Gulf Coast
>and West Africa in sediments only a few million years old, and
>although not a major fossil fuel, some peat used as fuel is only
>tens of thousands of years old.

Peat is a fantastic fuel to burn if you don't want to be able to
breathe the air.

The point is that releasing the carbon stored from a long time ago
causes an "imbalance" in atmospheric CO2.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <4329e1c2@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au
says...
> Bernd Felsche wrote:
>
> > JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> writes:
> >>John_H wrote:
> >>> JD wrote:
> >>>>John_H wrote:
> >>>>> JD wrote:
> >
> >>>>Biodiesel from oilseed crops is a simpler and less polluting step
> >>>>than grain or sugar cane to ethanol, and the residue is more
> >>>>useful. You are right about the partial, and maybe about the
> >>>>irrelevant. But what I really meant was - I run a diesel, so
> >>>>ethanol is less attractive and irrelevant.
> >
> >>> Biodiesel from oilseed crops isn't viable on a yield and value
> >>> basis alone -- you only need look at the commercial pricing for
> >>> the whole range of vegetable oils. Ethanol from grain or sugar
> >>> would run rings around it for cost effectiveness.
> >
> >>Maybe - but not if your engine is diesel. Seriously though, you are
> >>right - the problem with both biofuels is that they are far too
> >>expensive relative to oil even at a much higher oil price than
> >
> > Not true. USD$60 is about the break-even.
>
> I'd be interested to see the calculations on that - one of the errors
> usually made is not to take into account the increased fuel and fertiliser
> costs for the agricultural production, and the price increase of the
> oilseed etc due to the increased demand if biofuels are used to any extent.
> >
If it was a viable alternative to grow your own diesel substitute
I guess the farmers would have done it years ago to power their
farm machinery.

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html

[Ext User(JD)]

Albm&ctd wrote:

> In article <4329e1c2@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au
> says...
>> Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>
>> > JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> writes:
>> >>John_H wrote:
>> >>> JD wrote:
>> >>>>John_H wrote:
>> >>>>> JD wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>Biodiesel from oilseed crops is a simpler and less polluting step
>> >>>>than grain or sugar cane to ethanol, and the residue is more
>> >>>>useful. You are right about the partial, and maybe about the
>> >>>>irrelevant. But what I really meant was - I run a diesel, so
>> >>>>ethanol is less attractive and irrelevant.
>> >
>> >>> Biodiesel from oilseed crops isn't viable on a yield and value
>> >>> basis alone -- you only need look at the commercial pricing for
>> >>> the whole range of vegetable oils. Ethanol from grain or sugar
>> >>> would run rings around it for cost effectiveness.
>> >
>> >>Maybe - but not if your engine is diesel. Seriously though, you are
>> >>right - the problem with both biofuels is that they are far too
>> >>expensive relative to oil even at a much higher oil price than
>> >
>> > Not true. USD$60 is about the break-even.
>>
>> I'd be interested to see the calculations on that - one of the errors
>> usually made is not to take into account the increased fuel and
>> fertiliser costs for the agricultural production, and the price increase
>> of the oilseed etc due to the increased demand if biofuels are used to
>> any extent.
>> >
> If it was a viable alternative to grow your own diesel substitute
> I guess the farmers would have done it years ago to power their
> farm machinery.
>
> Al

Yes - the margin of energy produced over energy used is small enough that no
ordinary farmer can do it on a large enough scale, even when the price of
the diesel is inflated by taxes to around double. Even at present prices
the farmer is much better off to sell the crop and buy diesel.
JD

[Ext User(JD)]

Bernd Felsche wrote:

> JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> writes:
>>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>> JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> writes:
>>>>John_H wrote:
>>>>> JD wrote:
>>>>>>John_H wrote:
>>>>>>> JD wrote:
>
>>>>>>Biodiesel from oilseed crops is a simpler and less polluting step
>>>>>>than grain or sugar cane to ethanol, and the residue is more
>>>>>>useful. You are right about the partial, and maybe about the
>>>>>>irrelevant. But what I really meant was - I run a diesel, so
>>>>>>ethanol is less attractive and irrelevant.
>
>>>>> Biodiesel from oilseed crops isn't viable on a yield and value
>>>>> basis alone -- you only need look at the commercial pricing for
>>>>> the whole range of vegetable oils. Ethanol from grain or sugar
>>>>> would run rings around it for cost effectiveness.
>
>>>>Maybe - but not if your engine is diesel. Seriously though, you are
>>>>right - the problem with both biofuels is that they are far too
>>>>expensive relative to oil even at a much higher oil price than
>
>>> Not true. USD$60 is about the break-even.
>
>>I'd be interested to see the calculations on that - one of the
>
> I'll dig up some current references. A lot of my bookmarked URLs are
> 404.
>
>>errors usually made is not to take into account the increased fuel
>>and fertiliser costs for the agricultural production, and the price
>>increase of the oilseed etc due to the increased demand if biofuels
>>are used to any extent.
>
> The whole economics change if you are an importer of the raw
> material instead of a producer/exporter. That's why the equation
> "works" for a number of European countries without any mineral oil
> reserves.

Yes, although security of supply, and social considerations affect this as
well - same reason EU pays several times world prices for most farm
produce.

>
> The equation works better for ultra-low-sulphur diesel; which is
> required in Australia from 2006. As a bonus, biodiesel has a CN of
> 56 or higher, so all the fuel stock can be used. Less waste.
>
> Approx 11% oxygen content means less tendency to produce soot during
> combustion.
>
> Total costs are not just represented by the cost to produce the
> fuel; but also in its use and the consequences of its use.

Yes - but this applies to biofuels as well

>
> As for fertiliser costs; various oilseed crops can be used in
> rotation with others for soil enrichment and weed/pest control.
> Biodiesel can also be produced from crops other than traditional
> oilseed.

You are obviously not a farmer - various oilseed crops do not enrich the
soil, although a proper rotation of crops will to some extent. The costs
go up and the yields go down if you go away from oilseeds of various kinds,
but certainly there are oilseeds that may well be better than current
oilseed crops which have been bred for taste among other things. For
example, oder varieties of rapeseed may well be better than its modern
cultivar canola.

>
>>> The CO2 generation is then "sustainable". Atmospheric CO2 levels
>>> will not then have a nett increase. As fossil fuels are replaced and
>>> the amount of vegetable matter increases, it's even possible to
>>> decrease the levels as a higher proportion of available carbon will
>>> be either in plants or in unburnt fuel.
>>>
>>> Compare that to fossil fuel which fixed carbon hundreds of millions
>>> of years ago.
>
>>Yes - this was so obvious I didn't spell it out - but a slight
>>correction - not all oil is hundreds of millions of years old -
>>generation is currently occurring in areas such as the Gulf Coast
>>and West Africa in sediments only a few million years old, and
>>although not a major fossil fuel, some peat used as fuel is only
>>tens of thousands of years old.
>
> Peat is a fantastic fuel to burn if you don't want to be able to
> breathe the air.
>
> The point is that releasing the carbon stored from a long time ago
> causes an "imbalance" in atmospheric CO2.

I am not sure what you mean by "imbalance" - it raises the proportion of CO2
in the atmosphere, but this raised level will be balanced by processes that
remove it from the atmosphere at this higher level. The question of course
is how high will it rise? And too little is known about this.
JD