I have been asked to answer a few questions about alternative fuels. I have developed multiple fuels and currently they are produced and marketed in the Midwest.
What is the difference between biodiesel and SVO?
We refine oils to separate the glycerin from the oil. SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) will when compressed ignite with the petroleum fraction of the fuel. Unfortunately, because it does not fully burn you increase your PM 10 emissions as well as creating mechanical problems for your engine including pumps, injectors, stuck compression rings are what we see most as far as major damage.Short answer the difference is glycerin a polymerized long chain alcohol C3H5(OH)3 a easy way to think of this is: glycerin is soluble in water and will not mix with petroleum diesel.The guys on the net that are advocating burning straight oils are advocating that you damage your engine and increase your emission profile and breaks Federal Law as an unregistered additive. Hope this helps
Monday, July 6, 2009
E 85
I have been asked to answer a few questions about alternative fuels. I have developed multiple fuels and currently they are produced marketed in the midwest.
Energy Secretary Chu: All American cars should be E85 capable
Although I am a proponent of alternative fuels and a manufacturer of alternative fuels, I would take exception with the position. Ethanol was intended from the beginning (I was there) as an additive to gasoline to help improve emissions profile of IC motors using RFG fuels. It did its job and lowered most of the emissions from gasoline of that era. Ethanol supplied O2 to the burn, to more completely burn the fuel in the cylinder before the exhaust valve opened, because it did this very satisfactorily it also used up more potential carbon compounds in the fuel and raised the exhaust temperatures which conversely raised the NOx emissions. You had a good thing but with a few problems this is where the story becomes interesting and our current attitude on alternative fuels was manipulated by both sides. Ethanol could see that they could get 10% of the market for their product without having to create an infrastructure they would be able to wholesale their EoTH at gasoline prices. The oil companies were asked to give up 10% of their sales and 10% of their profits. Here comes the greed on both sides.
Rather than work together ethanol started to try to legislate that all fuel had to have O2 in the blend by weight. Oil companies weren't going to take giving up 100's of millions of dollars in profits lying down. As a byproduct, off of the cracker, they had an alcohol they could use methanol, that they already owned. Unfortunately, methanol was a deadly poison and mutagenic and they new that they would never be allowed. They had a plan, take two moles of methanol and bond them to and oxygen molecule and wala you have a new product MTBE (methyl tert butyl ether) and by going to EPA and applying for time to evaluate and improve this product they were able to put into the environment. Ethanol legislated that all gasoline had to have an O2 content, it backfired. What should have been done was ethanol would be sold to the refiners at a cost competitive price and that gasoline reformulated the carbon content so that the NOx emissions would maintain at petroleum levels. Lots of games on both sides, one of my favorites is when EPA was petitioned to modify the clean Air Act they were asked to change the names of the volatiles from VPS (volatile petroleum solvents) to VOC (volatile organic compounds) this is what is emitted when you fill your tank the reasoning was surely alcohol would evaporate faster than gasoline, which by the way if you do an RVP test is just the opposite.
I have broken three fingers on my left hand and typing is slow, enough for today, if you would like some more historical perspective let me know. I enjoy the reading the forum but am somewhat awed by some of the assertions as fact. Ethanol is a great additive to reformulated gasoline but as long as greed enters into the discussion then finding solutions is difficult. Ethanol will work as a fuel E85 but there are issues, I would rather see it used as an additive at the refinery level to clean inherently emission heavy petroleum fuels.
Technology does exist to allow computer to know what fuel is being burned.
Ethanol has less BTUs per mole than gasoline thus less potential energy worse mileage but cleaner.
One of the questions was why alternative fuels use conventional fuels? You have to run the refinery, distillation columns and molecular sieves on something. No I am not getting into the energy balance question and start a lot of emotional post. Most ethanol plants don't co generate and it is a energy intense process but it allows lower energy gasoline to be sold and used by today's cars.
Remember for the 2.5 gallons of ethanol we get from a bushel of corn 32 lbs of cellulose to dispose of to the livestock market so eat beef, chicken and pork to keep the ethanol prices down (that last is a little truth and a little tongue in cheek)
Thursday, January 29, 2009
BioDiesel Emperor
The Bio Diesel Emperor Has No Clothes
What would you say if I told you every American farmer growing corn and/or soybeans is being systematically extorted to further a nation-wide fraud, the likes of which would make even the most accomplished con man green with envy? What would you say if I told you the fraud is being knowingly committed by ag organizations in concert with government agencies? What would you say if I told you that every effort is being made to cover up this fraud and to legislate it on a national level, putting in place a system that would be nearly impossible to circumvent and dismantle? It sounds like a conspiracy theory worthy of a best-selling novel or even a movie, doesn't it?
Now, what would you say if I told you that it is all true, and getting dangerously close to the point of no return? Unfortunately, it is the truth, and it’s called the American Bio Diesel initiative.
The systematic extortion is known as check-off. As any farmer will tell you, check-off is a mandatory levy paid on every bushel of corn or soybeans they produce. The money is supposedly paid to promote corn and soy, thus bettering individual farmers. Most would agree that, in theory, this is a good thing. The reality of it, when examining the Bio Diesel issue, proves sadly otherwise.
The American Bio Diesel initiative began with great and honorable aspirations. American agriculture would be revitalized by the creation and promotion of fuels and fuel additives made from domestically produced agricultural products. The EPA had already mandated cleaner burning fuels, opening the door for alternative fuel technology. If someone could find a way to clean up petroleum emissions using ag-based products, it would be a win-win-win situation.
The environment would benefit from cleaner exhaust emissions from cars, trucks and stationary sources. America would reduce dependence on foreign oil. Ultimately, the American farmer would benefit from being the supplier of the ingredients necessary to make it all happen. Had things come to pass in this manner, we, as Americans, and as members of American agriculture, would find ourselves in quite an enviable position.
However, this is not the case.
After more than a decade and expenditures in excess of $56 million, American farmers are now, and always have been, unknowingly promoting a Bio Diesel product that is everything but what it was intended to be. Instead of being made from domestic products such as corn-based ethanol and oil from soybeans, much of it is made from foreign products such as palm oil. Instead of being a clean burning fuel or additive for diesel, it is a product that has consistently failed to meet established emission mandates, including still stricter mandates that became effective in 2007.
Most shamefully of all, instead of returning money to farmers through increased commodity prices and/or production needs, it returns the majority of profits to the industrial chemical companies that made the product (called methyl esters) long before anyone considered burning it as a fuel and to the independent marketers falsely advertising and selling the product in collusion with the American Bio Diesel initiative.
The organizations responsible for this wholesale fraud knew from the very beginning what they were doing. They knew that methyl ester Bio Diesel had problematic emission characteristics. They knew it was made from foreign ag and petroleum products. They knew that nothing short of changing existing laws or legislating new ones would fix the problems they were facing. They knew all of this so well, that they began to disguise, cover up, and blatantly lie about what they were doing. The machine was in place, the funding was guaranteed, and by God nobody was going to stop them.
There were always options available that would allow them to achieve their original objectives. Alternative fuels and additives made from domestically produced feed stocks (and that met or exceeded mandated emission requirements) were theirs for the asking. For whatever reasons, not only did they fail to fully investigate these options, they also actively campaigned to discredit the alternatives through misinformation, slander and outright dirty tricks. Instead of addressing the problem by embracing (or at least exploring) alternative technologies, they decided to change existing laws to legislate their monopoly.
Saying that they are anti-competitive is a gross understatement. They have been so protective of their good-old-boy system that people seeking to market useful and functional alternatives to their Bio Diesel have been threatened with cease-and-desist lawsuits. In further efforts to quash alternatives, they have set ASTM guidelines defining “Bio Diesel” as methyl esters and enacted legislation prohibiting ethanol and soy oil from being used in the production of Bio Diesel. Further, civil servants working at the US EPA are to this day actively working on behalf of the NBB to discourage alternative products by abusing the registration system, losing critical data and dissuading inquiries of non-NBB “approved” processes and products.
Unfortunately, the Bio Diesel Beast continues to gain strength and propagate lies. The initiative rolls on, undaunted by glaring fact. Methyl esters remain a dangerous chemical when combusted- emitting, among other things, formaldehyde and formic acid into the atmosphere and waterways. The initiative continues to fight established scientific fact with new legislation. Official press releases and the http://www.biodiesel.org/ website continue to advertise that Bio Diesel is derived from domestically produced commodities, which is true only if you concede that “derived” means “funded by”.
The whole sad situation was summed up quite eloquently in an overheard conversation at the National Bio Diesel Brainstorming Workshop held in New Orleans in January 2003. When questioned candidly about the ethics of cajoling corn and soybean farmers into paying for the American Bio Diesel initiative, when it was patently against their best interests, a very highly-placed representative of the American Bio Diesel initiative said simply, “Just get over it, already.”
Get over it already.
Maybe they can... They had better hope the American farmer can too. Right now, there are at least 56 million plus reasons why they shouldn't.
What would you say if I told you every American farmer growing corn and/or soybeans is being systematically extorted to further a nation-wide fraud, the likes of which would make even the most accomplished con man green with envy? What would you say if I told you the fraud is being knowingly committed by ag organizations in concert with government agencies? What would you say if I told you that every effort is being made to cover up this fraud and to legislate it on a national level, putting in place a system that would be nearly impossible to circumvent and dismantle? It sounds like a conspiracy theory worthy of a best-selling novel or even a movie, doesn't it?
Now, what would you say if I told you that it is all true, and getting dangerously close to the point of no return? Unfortunately, it is the truth, and it’s called the American Bio Diesel initiative.
The systematic extortion is known as check-off. As any farmer will tell you, check-off is a mandatory levy paid on every bushel of corn or soybeans they produce. The money is supposedly paid to promote corn and soy, thus bettering individual farmers. Most would agree that, in theory, this is a good thing. The reality of it, when examining the Bio Diesel issue, proves sadly otherwise.
The American Bio Diesel initiative began with great and honorable aspirations. American agriculture would be revitalized by the creation and promotion of fuels and fuel additives made from domestically produced agricultural products. The EPA had already mandated cleaner burning fuels, opening the door for alternative fuel technology. If someone could find a way to clean up petroleum emissions using ag-based products, it would be a win-win-win situation.
The environment would benefit from cleaner exhaust emissions from cars, trucks and stationary sources. America would reduce dependence on foreign oil. Ultimately, the American farmer would benefit from being the supplier of the ingredients necessary to make it all happen. Had things come to pass in this manner, we, as Americans, and as members of American agriculture, would find ourselves in quite an enviable position.
However, this is not the case.
After more than a decade and expenditures in excess of $56 million, American farmers are now, and always have been, unknowingly promoting a Bio Diesel product that is everything but what it was intended to be. Instead of being made from domestic products such as corn-based ethanol and oil from soybeans, much of it is made from foreign products such as palm oil. Instead of being a clean burning fuel or additive for diesel, it is a product that has consistently failed to meet established emission mandates, including still stricter mandates that became effective in 2007.
Most shamefully of all, instead of returning money to farmers through increased commodity prices and/or production needs, it returns the majority of profits to the industrial chemical companies that made the product (called methyl esters) long before anyone considered burning it as a fuel and to the independent marketers falsely advertising and selling the product in collusion with the American Bio Diesel initiative.
The organizations responsible for this wholesale fraud knew from the very beginning what they were doing. They knew that methyl ester Bio Diesel had problematic emission characteristics. They knew it was made from foreign ag and petroleum products. They knew that nothing short of changing existing laws or legislating new ones would fix the problems they were facing. They knew all of this so well, that they began to disguise, cover up, and blatantly lie about what they were doing. The machine was in place, the funding was guaranteed, and by God nobody was going to stop them.
There were always options available that would allow them to achieve their original objectives. Alternative fuels and additives made from domestically produced feed stocks (and that met or exceeded mandated emission requirements) were theirs for the asking. For whatever reasons, not only did they fail to fully investigate these options, they also actively campaigned to discredit the alternatives through misinformation, slander and outright dirty tricks. Instead of addressing the problem by embracing (or at least exploring) alternative technologies, they decided to change existing laws to legislate their monopoly.
Saying that they are anti-competitive is a gross understatement. They have been so protective of their good-old-boy system that people seeking to market useful and functional alternatives to their Bio Diesel have been threatened with cease-and-desist lawsuits. In further efforts to quash alternatives, they have set ASTM guidelines defining “Bio Diesel” as methyl esters and enacted legislation prohibiting ethanol and soy oil from being used in the production of Bio Diesel. Further, civil servants working at the US EPA are to this day actively working on behalf of the NBB to discourage alternative products by abusing the registration system, losing critical data and dissuading inquiries of non-NBB “approved” processes and products.
Unfortunately, the Bio Diesel Beast continues to gain strength and propagate lies. The initiative rolls on, undaunted by glaring fact. Methyl esters remain a dangerous chemical when combusted- emitting, among other things, formaldehyde and formic acid into the atmosphere and waterways. The initiative continues to fight established scientific fact with new legislation. Official press releases and the http://www.biodiesel.org/ website continue to advertise that Bio Diesel is derived from domestically produced commodities, which is true only if you concede that “derived” means “funded by”.
The whole sad situation was summed up quite eloquently in an overheard conversation at the National Bio Diesel Brainstorming Workshop held in New Orleans in January 2003. When questioned candidly about the ethics of cajoling corn and soybean farmers into paying for the American Bio Diesel initiative, when it was patently against their best interests, a very highly-placed representative of the American Bio Diesel initiative said simply, “Just get over it, already.”
Get over it already.
Maybe they can... They had better hope the American farmer can too. Right now, there are at least 56 million plus reasons why they shouldn't.
This document was originally prepared in 2003 and was updated May 2007 and January 2009.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
