Biodiesel plant planned in North Dakota

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Acid rain is a naturally occuring phenomenon. It has always been and always will be. Man's SOX contributions are so miniscule it did not and does not significantly affect the pH of rain one way or another. The forced reductions in SOX is similar to the new****nic standards or the proposed carbon taxes - such actions measurably do nothing to make the world a better place, but they do make some of the "stuck on stupid" crowd feel good about themselves.

Or to put it another way: How much more pollution is being caused by the increase use in energy necessary to make biodiesel and ethanol over the energy used to crack petroleum or to liquify coal? It's one thing if you are using a biofuel feedstock that is a waste product or by-product of some other process, but it's altogether insane to grow crops and/or harvest trees specifically to make biofuels.

Right, and like REAGAN said ..."TREES CAUSE POLLUTION" and "Ketchup is A vegetable". What you just said in the first paragraph is one of the most ludicrous statements I 've heard in a long time. Acid Rain IS NOT a naturally occurring phenomenon. Without coal burning power plants there would be no other way for such large amounts of sulfur and sulfur dioxide (or mercury for that matter) to consistently be pumped into the atmosphere. Believe what you want, but you're wrong. I'll take the scientists word over yours, no offense.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Green Machine

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Acid rain is a naturally occuring phenomenon. It has always been and always will be. Man's SOX contributions are so miniscule it did not and does not significantly affect the pH of rain one way or another. The forced reductions in SOX is similar to the new****nic standards or the proposed carbon taxes - such actions measurably do nothing to make the world a better place, but they do make some of the "stuck on stupid" crowd feel good about themselves.

Or to put it another way: How much more pollution is being caused by the increase use in energy necessary to make biodiesel and ethanol over the energy used to crack petroleum or to liquify coal? It's one thing if you are using a biofuel feedstock that is a waste product or by-product of some other process, but it's altogether insane to grow crops and/or harvest trees specifically to make biofuels.

Right, and like REAGAN said ..."TREES CAUSE POLLUTION" and "Ketchup is A vegetable". What you just said in the first paragraph is one of the most ludicrous statements I 've heard in a long time. Acid Rain IS NOT a naturally occurring phenomenon. Without coal burning power plants there would be no other way for such large amounts of sulfur and sulfur dioxide (or mercury for that matter) to consistently be pumped into the atmosphere. Believe what you want, but you're wrong. I'll take the scientists word over yours, no offense.

No, I am right. The whole acid rain thing was one of the biggest overhyped incidences of ecofraud ever to occur. It should interest you that Northeast politicians are still playing the acid rain card 30 years after SOX emissions were limited. Turns out the Northeast still experiences acid rain even with SOX controls. I guess we'll have to shut down every single coal fired power plant in the world before you lefties will admit it was all a hoax.

And BTW, those so-called scientists you reference are actually academic lifers who will spread any sort of eco-hoax if it means getting their grubby hands on our taxpayer dollars. Those same "scientists" ignore all the evidence of solar activity as it relates to earth's climate (but will readily jump on the "solar-caused" bandwagon regarding the warming of the surface of the planet Mars).

It isn't science if the "scientist" in question selectively picks and chooses only those variables that support his/her predicated outcome.

[Anonymous]

Mark in Utah - There's a big difference with being located within rock throwing distance of a SOX emitter, and being located a nominal distance away. Your Camas WA example would tell you that the SOX concentrations from the paper mill did not even get a chance to get up in the atmosphere to disperse before percipitation brought it back to the surface. What the Northeasterns claim is that Midwest coal fired power plants caused (or are causing) acid rain in the Northeast. This is a fraudulent claim, because we all know that point sources of emissions will disperse a certain distance from the plant, and once the SOX has dispersed it's concentrations are such that measurements are insignificant.

And no offense, but the urban legend of cars eroding before one's eyes sounds more like a fish story.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Mark in Utah - There's a big difference with being located within rock throwing distance of a SOX emitter, and being located a nominal distance away. Your Camas WA example would tell you that the SOX concentrations from the paper mill did not even get a chance to get up in the atmosphere to disperse before percipitation brought it back to the surface. What the Northeasterns claim is that Midwest coal fired power plants caused (or are causing) acid rain in the Northeast. This is a fraudulent claim, because we all know that point sources of emissions will disperse a certain distance from the plant, and once the SOX has dispersed it's concentrations are such that measurements are insignificant.

And no offense, but the urban legend of cars eroding before one's eyes sounds more like a fish story.

Urban legend crap. This is FACT fella. Disbelieve all you want, but when a friends fender falls off, well, that's plenty of proof for me.

You FAIL to tell me WHY the Black Forest is dying. The ph of the soil is dropping, the needles are falling off, and there are acres and acres of dead trees.

How about lakes in the Northeast? Please try and explain WHY these lakes are becomming more and more acidic? Can't can you?

As for dispersing in the atmosphere to the point you can't measure it, I guess you've never seen a smoke trail from a power plant from 30 miles away? This was a pretty clean burning plant here in the west, that was virtually smoke-free a the stack, but when viewed from a mountain top you could see a brown haze proceeding from the plant all the way down a valley and off to the east. If such a clean burning plant can leave a visible trail at that distance, an older dirty plant in the east must leave quite the trail!

Haven't you ever smelled a camp fire out in the hills camping? How about a wild fire? I've smelled the smoke and SEEN the smoke from California wildfires, and they were close to 1000 miles away! Gee, I thought the smoke was supposed to disperse and not be detected.....

Scientists have traced smoke back to individual plants from over 100 miles away by knowing the chemical makeup of the coal its burning.

Acid rain has been detected in Washington state that came across the Atlantic they believe from China.

Sorry, just because you dump something up into the air and you don't see it after a while does NOT mean that it's disappeared. It's just gone down wind to crap on your neighbor.

Mark in Utah

[chad thomas]

Biodiesel plant moving forward

A proposed biodiesel plant in Minot, ND is moving forward with new investors and a spring 2007 target date to begin production.


A strategic planning committee met Wednesday morning in Minot to iron out details regarding the plant as well as revise the plant's business plan.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson, North Dakota Farmers Union president Robert Carlson, Minot Area Development Corp. president Jerry Chavez, Jeremy Dockter, representing a New York investment group, and Skip Hauth, who has laid the groundwork for North Dakota Biodiesel Inc., all participated in the discussion.

Conrad said European funding that wasn't transferred to the United States and last week's announcement of an Archer Daniels Midland plant near Velva prompted Wednesday's session.

"Since the announcement in Velva, questions came up about the Minot plant," Conrad said. "ADM is a material fact and we need a revised business plan."

According to Conrad, part of the delay in Euro monies funding North Dakota Biodiesel was that European investors wouldn't qualify for U.S. incentives under the new energy bill. Thus the leadership has changed.

"It would make sense for domestic investors," Conrad said. "It also opens opportunity for local ownership."

Enter Dockter, a North Dakota native now working as an investment banker in New York City. Dockter said the agency he works for, The Kinetic Group, has been in North Dakota looking at biodiesel opportunities.

He said there is dramatic interest in the investment community regarding biodiesel, primarily because of a federal mandate to phase out sulfur in diesel in the next couple of years.

Dockter addressed the announcement of the Velva plant as well. He said there is no doubt North Dakota - or more specifically north-central North Dakota - could support two processing plants.

"We feel the demand is there for multiple plants," Dockter said. "There's enormous export possibilities. We're bullish on this opportunity."

Carlson addressed the availability of canola. When North Dakota Biodiesel was originally announced last March, NDFU was slated to buy canola from producers and deliver it to Minot to a crushing plant, which would be transferred to the production facility.

Carlson said Wednesday that Farmers Union remains as interested today as it was in March of contracting with the state's canola producers. He said the fact that ADM is building a plant changes the economics, but there is room for both plants in a state that produces more than 90 percent of the nation's canola supply.

In fact, NDFU hired a company called Informa to do an analysis of the state's canola supply. Initially, North Dakota Biodiesel was to use about one-third of the state's annual supply. And with ADM in the mix using up another one-third, that leaves fewer acres of canola for food quality production.

However, the state's producers are expected to increase their acreage to meet the demand for fuel and food.

"We do know there's enough canola to supply two plants," Carlson said. "We remain optimistic. It's important to farmers in this area."

According to Johnson, biodiesel today is where ethanol was 15 years ago. He said North Dakota is trying to catch up in ethanol production, however, with two biodiesel plants. Johnson thinks this is a chance for North Dakota to be on the cutting edge of a renewable fuel.

"The energy bill kick-started the demand and it will help here and in Velva," Johnson said. "With biodiesel, we have a chance to get ahead of the pack."

Hauth, the president of BioEconomy Development Corp., has been in Minot since the beginning. He said he has been working behind the scenes and despite the setbacks, the plan remains in motion.

"This meeting is reinforcement that the project is coming together nicely," Hauth said. "There's still a very solid plan to have both plants (crushing facility and processing facility) built in Minot."

Chavez said MADC has been engaged all summer in annexations, platting and contracting.

"I'm still very optimistic and feel we're still on target," Chavez said.

Hauth added he has recently had talks with the railroad on setting track near Gavin Yard and the partnership with the Farmers Union is maturing.

"The message I want to leave you is this: The project is moving forward aggressively," Hauth said.

Hauth added there will probably be a three-month delay in the building of the plant and he expects production to begin by the spring of 2007. Originally, North Dakota Biodiesel was slated to begin full production in December 2006.

Conrad suggested there will probably be a 60-day delay in moving forward with the plant. He said the investors want all the details in the business plan so he is allowing an additional 60 days to have those details worked out.

"We are at the center of industry and in the middle of canola country," Conrad said. "We are moving forward." - Marvin Baker, The Minot Daily News, courtesy Larry W. Grant

[Anonymous]

Mark in Utah,

You're still providing anecdotal evidence. Acid rain is not a problem in Washington State, never has been. The local pulp mill here in Idaho uses the sulphuric acid method of bleaching, yet there has never been a reported incident of acid rain (or acid snow) in North Central Idaho.

The lakes in the Northeast are naturally acidic due to the makeup of the surface and subsurface geology. It should be noted that Florida is out of the alleged paths of acidic percipitation, yet it's lakes are far more acidic than those elsewhere in the nation. It is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

Power plant smoke does not necessarily translate into clouds of sulfuric and hydrocloric acid. Most of that smoke is dihydrogen monoxide and particulant matter.

In keeping with the topic title, it is of little use for our nation to take on biodiesel projects for the alleged excuse of reducing SOX. It is a huge waste of precious capital, money that should be spent on hydrocarbon exploration and production.

[Murphy Siding]

Did I mention that the earth was flat ? There's a lot of theories and controversy over that, too.[:-,]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Did I mention that the earth was flat ? There's a lot of theories and controversy over that, too.[:-,]

The earth is round, not flat. O.J. did knock off his wife and that other guy. Global climate change is caused by solar activity, not man's CO2 emissions. Mars is warming, and there are no coal fired power plants and SUV's on Mars. Acid rain and lake acidicness is a naturally occuring phenomenon. Man-caused acid rain is limited to close proximity to older (e.g. non-bagged) industrial sites, most of which have either been upgraded or shut down.

And the next cheapest alternative after petroleum for producing a diesel-compliant fuel is from coal, not crops. North Dakota has gigatons of lignite that could be converted to transportation fuels, they should focus their scarce investment resources on that instead of these illogical biodiesel plants.

[chad thomas]

You said it Murphy Siding.[8D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

You said it Murphy Siding.[8D]

Do you honestly believe that a few dozen biodiesel plants well have any effect on atmospheric SOX levels?

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

You said it Murphy Siding.[8D]

Do you honestly believe that a few dozen biodiesel plants well have any effect on atmospheric SOX levels?

You're now changing from yes or no to degrees of yes or no.[}:)] Would it have ANY effect? Yes. Will it have a great,big,fat effect? No. This is farm country. These projects are not meant to save the earth. They are meant to save the farmer.[:-,]

[Anonymous]

Forget the crap about acid rain and all the bio-fuels, ethanol, etc. The truth is that production of any of the bio-fuels from agricultural products requires MORE energy than it produces. This makes it a definite no-win for all the US public except for the farmers who receive top dollar for their crops.

Mark

[rrnut282]

The 100 Million gallon/year ethanol plant that is planning to locate outside by back window (across the tracks) has calculated that they will have a local net market effect of 5-10 cents per bushel. Not exactly big bucks for the farmer, as usual. Sometimes 10cents/bushel means the difference between a profit or loss for the year.

[domefoamer]

I shouldn't be surprised at the resistance to biodiesel expressed on this forum. Railfans (such as myself) and professional railroaders both cling to old technologies and distrust new ones, IMHO. Most of them might not realize that bio-based diesel is older than the petroleum variely, and was used to power Dr. Diesel's first engines.

Let me clear up a few misconceptions I've read here:

- to Green Machine: "Food or Fuel" is indeed a valid question, but nobody's anticipating that biodfiesel will supply 100% of transportation fuel requirements. Mostly, Biodiesel is used in blends, such as the 5% mandated by Minn. law and the 20% blend that's being used this season by Denver school buses. No, I don't want to drive starving by the fuel farms of Kansas, but we're nowhere near that point.

-to JOdom: Yes, a few intrepid home chemists do make their own biodiesel, but it's not such a clean, safe process as you might think. Essential ingredients include ammonia and lye. Combine that with the need to schlep around collecting used fry grease, filtering out its impurities, and you have a process that very few folks will find appealing, or even cheap once you factor in your own labor. And then you pour your homebrew into the tank of a car that's probably under warranty and not paid off yet? No thanks!

-to rvos 1979: On the cost issue, I'm buying factory-brewed 100% biodisel for under $3.10 a gallon. That's about 15 cents below the local price of conventional diesel. Recent tax cuts have given BD a break, and that's about the only positive energy policy I've seen from the Cheney/Bush administration.

--to futuremodal: Your dismissal of the acid rain problem is so ill-informed and baseless that I'll let someone else spend their morning refuting it. I will say, though, as a biodiesel-burning motorist, that there's nothing like the smell of NO sulfur in the morning when I start my car. You might think of BD as a premium fuel that doesn't make your diesel car stink like sharp cheese, and that's a benefit in itself! You should also know that sulfur is poison to various emission control equipment, current and future, that effectively cleans up modern diesel powerplants to levels that beat gas engines in every pollutant category but NOX. Sulfurous diesel fuel has held back the development and use of powerful and clean engines that already make up half the European motorcar market.

I speak as a driver who's used BD, mixed and mostly straight, in my VW TDI for two years. I've heard long presentations by the local BD producer, Colorado's Blue Sun, about the advantages of this fuel. I've tried and failed to light the fuel with a match, and thought about how much safer it is than carrying around a tank of explosive, volatile gasoline. And I've fueled my car from leaky fuel cans, dripping BD on my hands and shoes, then sat down at the dinner table with zero olifactory impact on my companions. This fuel is no more noxious or hazardous than the oil in my salad dressing.

In short, the stuff is clean, renewable, cheap as anything else, and it works. It's American-made, which counts, too. When I go driving without a drop of petroleum in my tank, it's nice to know that no arabs were enriched in the fueling of this vehicle. (Unless they own ADM by now?) I'd urge curious folks whose minds aren't completely made up about this subject to consult knowledgable sites like www.tdiclub.com for an informed discussion of this excellent alternative.

[Anonymous]

domefoamer,

In driving your diesel car, has the engine become louder over the two years of use?

I recall older diesel engines from years past became obnoxiously loud.

Thanks.

[jkeaton]

Quote
No, I am right. The whole acid rain thing was one of the biggest overhyped incidences of ecofraud ever to occur. It should interest you that Northeast politicians are still playing the acid rain card 30 years after SOX emissions were limited. Turns out the Northeast still experiences acid rain even with SOX controls. I guess we'll have to shut down every single coal fired power plant in the world before you lefties will admit it was all a hoax.
Unquote

Before and after SOx controls is a red herring - coal burning power plants built before SOx controls are grandfathered out in most of the USA and DON`T need to meet the newer SOx regulations - they continue to spew just as much SOx as before, and the acid rain from such plants in Ohio and Indiana continues to destroy rivers and lakes as far away as Newfoundland. The emissions from these plants can be tracked, and are being done so, as they cross international boundaries - and the damage they do is being measured by those industries (mostly forestry) whose livelihoods and profit margins are being affected who are doing the most accurate measurements. (Folks like Cascades Paper and Irving Paper).

It's interesting that the vertically integrated paper companies, whose mills used to spew the most noxious SOx over the landscape, are now among the leaders in not releasing sulfur into the environment - once they realise the damage that sulfur was doing to their own tree crop (and tree damage from acid rain in the Appalachians is measurable - growth records for the trees are kept) they got out of emitting sulfur pronto.

While the dinosaurs who run old coal-burning power plants got exemptions from Congress....

Jim in Ottawa

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

jkeaton is right, it's the older plants that were grandfathered that are continuing to cause problems. Illinois Power has a large plant in central Illinois that was grandfathered and is continuing to spew nasty crud into the atmosphere, no scrubbers or anything else to control emissions. It may be the filthiest power plant in the Midwest.

[domefoamer]

No, tomtrain, my ears don't tell me any difference when burning biodiesel, just my nose. A TDI is clanky and unpleasant when started up cold, but that improves within a few minutes. Acceleration brings on a deep, torquey moan. The remarkable thing is how silent the engine is when running at light loads and high speeds. At 75 mph, your engine speed runs 800 rpm lower than the 2 liter gas engine in the same car. With thr turbo supressing intake noise and smoothing out the power strokes, it's as quiet as any near-luxury car I've owned, such as a VR6 Passat or SAAB 9000. This calm, luxurious drive is a nice contrast to the Golf's standard buzzy gas engine.

The car just passed its 40K service with no problems. VW is still cautious about biodiesel, but the dealership's service rep was curious about my experience.

Back to trains-- When I was stuck on the CZ for a half-hour last Spring, before inching past a rockslide way up in the Tunnel District, the cars inside the short tunnels became stanky with diesel fumes. Thhat's when I was really wishing Amtrak was burning biodiesel!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by domefoamer
--to futuremodal: Your dismissal of the acid rain problem is so ill-informed and baseless that I'll let someone else spend their morning refuting it.

Strong words from someone who provides no counterargument. That in and of itself is an indication of someone who is ill-informed and whose retort is impotent. I will stand by my contention that the whole acid rain hysteria was and is way overhyped, as is typical of environmental issues in this day and age. And most climatologist admit that relatively high lake acidity on the East Coast is normal, and that acid rain in general is normal. The only disagreement is how much man's hydrocarbon fuel combustion activities have contributed to the prevalence of acidic precipitation.

QUOTE:
I will say, though, as a biodiesel-burning motorist, that there's nothing like the smell of NO sulfur in the morning when I start my car. You might think of BD as a premium fuel that doesn't make your diesel car stink like sharp cheese, and that's a benefit in itself! You should also know that sulfur is poison to various emission control equipment, current and future, that effectively cleans up modern diesel powerplants to levels that beat gas engines in every pollutant category but NOX. Sulfurous diesel fuel has held back the development and use of powerful and clean engines that already make up half the European motorcar market.

Whether your emisions smell like cheese or french fries is irrelevant to the argument of whether SOX emissions from individual vehicles is a cause for environmental concern. Specific to the topic subject, the production of biodiesel will do nothing to affect atmospheric SOX levels, and admittedly biodiesel NOX emissions will also be insignificant. The whole idea of making farm vehicles, et al, compliant with new SOX standards is a complete waste of time and money.

It is axiomatic at this point that the only avenue by which biofuels will have a useful effect on the nation's fuel options is if such biofuels are produced from byproducts and/or waste products of some other process. Here in the PNW they are promoting the cultivation of mustard seed, wherein the main product will be a pesticide, and the mustard seed oil a byproduct from which biodiesel can be produced. This allows the biodiesel to be produced from the lowest cost vegetable oil, since demand for mustard seed oil is low in the consumer markets compared to canola, soy, et al. However, there is still the question of having the main product of the mustard seed effectively subsidize the production of biodiesel.

And it still begs the question of why we need to spend precious capital on biodiesel plants when that money would be better spent on synthetic diesel plants that use coal as the feedstock, and can be produced at a lower cost than biodiesel.

[domefoamer]

future modal, I suspect you're still angry they took the lead out of your gasoline, right?

I'm not so worried about the direct emissions of sulfur dioxide from diesel engines, though I'm sure it's no good thing. The high sulfur content of US diesel is an obstacle to its widespread adoption by the motoring public, which might realize meanigful efficiency gains with this new generation of cleaner auto diesel engines. Sulfur makes the fuel stink, turning off many consumers. Once again, sulfur is incompatible with -- and destructive to-- modern emission controls that diesel engines need to match and improve on gas engine emissions performance. Perhaps you have special information that hydrocarbons, CO2, CO and hydrocarbon emissions aren't harmful either. If you believe that, just keep listenin' to Limbaugh and tokin' on that tailpipe.

Yes, some portion of the global warming we're observing probably is caused by natural forces beyond human control. And some part of acid rain may have natural sources, too. So what? If you don't want rising seas, intensifying storms (hurricanes into the Greek letters, for the first time ever?), runaway warming, if you don't want acid-killed lakes, this is what you do. You DON'T point at the portion of the problem that isn't a human responsibility and use that as an excuse to ignore the part of the problem that IS our fault. That's like a fire department refusing to fight a fire spreading through residential districts because it was originally caused by lightning, and it was "a natural process." As the capitain said, "Yes, we do have a hole in the boat, but you have to keep bailing anyway!"

Possibly we might agree on just one thing. My biodiesel supplier, a small local corporation, aims to phase in mustard (rapeseed, actually) as its main feedstock. It's grown in fallow years between grain crops. By buying about $100 worth of their current product per month, I feel I'm investing in local farmers, not skyscrapers in the Persian Gulf deserts. Don't worry, I'm sure we'll get around to burning your beloved coal, too.

[Anonymous]

domefoamer - I'll take that "lead in gasoline" quip as nothing more than an attempt at sarcasm. You evidently spend too much time listening to Air America.

BTW - hydrocarbons are not classed as gases, they are what the uninformed refer to as "fossil fuels" e.g. petroleum, coal, natural gas. I suppose you still cling to the theory that hydrocarbons are biotic in origin. I got news for you - that train left the station decades ago. The Russian-Ukranian theory of an abiotic origin of hydrocarbons is now the cutting edge theory.

CO2 is not harmful, otherwise all plant life would die out. The cold hard fact is that we may need to double atmospheric CO2 (to maintain cultivation of ag products) if we are going to feed an ever growing world population. CO2 is a minor player in the whole greenhouse effect, amounting to roughly 1% of the entire greenhouse effect (with man's CO2 contributions from the burning of hydrocarbon fuels amounting to less than 1/10 of 1% of the greenhouse effect). In case you forgot, dyhydrogen monoxide (e.g. water vaport) is the primary greenhouse gas, accounting for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is a good thing, not something to become hysterical about.

CO is a deadly poison if inhaled. CO is also useful as a combustable gas for the production of energy. CO and CO2 can be utilized to create synthetic natural gas (CO and CO2 combined with hydrogen are processed over a nickel catalyst to create the synthetic methane).

If you really want to help the farmers, start by supporting legislation to create competition among railroads for the hauling of ag products to market, and get the worthless econazis off their collective backs. Those two things would be worth far more than propping up pointless biofuels made from primary crops.

BTW - If you burn nothing but biodiesel in the entire production of biodiesel from the first tillage of the fields to the distribution of biodiesel to the fuel stations, you might not even break even in terms of the energy use equation. Biodiesel is truly a zero sum game.

[Murphy Siding]

I've always wondered why ethanol and biodiesel plants don't use coal for their heat source? By nature, these plants are on a rail line,in farm country,usually away from population centers. I t seems like you could work some pretty good numbers with the railroad in question, if they were bringing in hoppers of coal and grain at the same time.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

I've always wondered why ethanol and biodiesel plants don't use coal for their heat source? By nature, these plants are on a rail line,in farm country,usually away from population centers. I t seems like you could work some pretty good numbers with the railroad in question, if they were bringing in hoppers of coal and grain at the same time.

They don't use coal because it is still more of an EPA regulatory hassle to use coal instead of natural gas, and most of these LLC outfits are of the PC type - they are of the mindset of (no offense intended) domefoamer, who believe that coal is evil and using coal would defeat the whole eco-purpose of biofuels in the first place. And of course, if they start using coal to process biofuels, sooner or later some bright mind at the biodiesel plant would realize that the coal could be better utilized if it was used to make synthetic diesel, rather than trying to scrape together enough mustard or canola seed to make enough product per year to justify the investment in the first place. (And of course, what happens if there is a crop failure? Biofuels plants would have to shut down, while coal-based synthetic fuel plants would keep on chirping along. Hmmmm, which one do you think the savvy investor will take the risk on?)

We have well over 200 years worth of coal in the ground people. Let's use it and save the cropland to feed an ever growing world population.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm, come to think of it, a biodiesel plant in North Dakota might actually use coal indirectly to aid the process. The Great Plains synfuel plant is located near Beulah ND, and they use lignite for gasification, then methanization, to create synthetic natural gas, which they then sell on and pipe into the open market (and are currently making money hand over fist in the process). So it is likely that some of this synthetic natural gas made from lignite would end up powering up the proposed biodiesel plant.

Granted, it is still cheaper and more prudent to just make synthetic diesel from lignite, but when the subsidy fairies are a callin' it is hard to resist that Siren song.

[Anonymous]

Everything I have ever read and learned about the production of ethanol clearly states that it takes MORE energy to produce it than is contained in the resulting product!! Its subsidized production is just another example of our nonsensical farm policies that ranks right along with paying subsidies to keep farmland OUT of production. I expect the same is true of bio-diesel production.

With respect to cooking oil diesel, there wouldn't be enough fuel from the entire country's used cooking oil to run the locomotives of even a short line RR such as the WNY&P!!

Bio and cooking oil diesel and ethanol make fun topics of discussion but are totally impractical.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark Foster

Everything I have ever read and learned about the production of ethanol clearly states that it takes MORE energy to produce it than is contained in the resulting product!! Its subsidized production is just another example of our nonsensical farm policies that ranks right along with paying subsidies to keep farmland OUT of production. I expect the same is true of bio-diesel production.

With respect to cooking oil diesel, there wouldn't be enough fuel from the entire country's used cooking oil to run the locomotives of even a short line RR such as the WNY&P!!

Bio and cooking oil diesel and ethanol make fun topics of discussion but are totally impractical.

For the most part I totally agree, but of course there are exceptions. If a biofuel is produced from agricultural residues after harvest rather than from a crop specifically grown for biofuels, then that changes the whole dynamic:

1. For crops grown specifically for biofuels, you are correct that you must count the entire energy spectrum from first tillage in preparing for planting to the eventual distribution to fuel sellers. For ag residues, you only count the energy used from the collection of the ag residues to distribution of the fuel, and you can subtract the opportunity costs of having to dispose of the ag residues otherwise, e.g. if you leave ag residues in the field, you may have to plow the residues under, while if you remove the residues you can simply disk the field - plowing takes more energy than residue removal, and in both cases the field would have to be disked in the second step. Furthermore, if a grower is using no-till methods, excess residues must be removed anyway (by baling or burning) before the no-till drills will work, so why not make a use for these residues?

2. For crops whose primary purpose is not the production of biofuels, but where biofuels is a secondary purpose, the same energy accounting should hold true as well, e.g. you only count energy consumption for biofuels from the point of having to process the secondary usage.

That being said, in my opinion the only method of biofuel production that makes true economic sense is the production of higher chain alcohols from ag (and forestry) residues. The only process I have found that fits this model is the MixAlco process courtesy of a few bright minds at Texas A & M. The MixAlco process is multifunctional, in that more than just biofuels can be produced from the process. They can also make acetic acid, which often times is worth more than the fuel itself. And the higher chain alcohols that make up the MixAlco process (isopropanol, butanol, petanol) can be used in compression ignition engines as well as spark ignition engines, both at up to 15% blend with either diesel or gasollne. From a capital expenditure position, it certainly makes more sense to build one MixAlco plant to serve both diesel and gasoline customers, than it is to build one biodiesel plant and one ethanol plant.

[Tulyar15]

Digressing somewhat, I saw this article on the BBC news site to-day on how the Germans plan to get rid off Nuclear Power by 2020:-


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357238.stm

The article also includes a link to an article about Finland's new Nuclear Power station ( the first new one in Europe for 10 years) just to show the other side of the coin.

Evidentlly from the figures quoted Germany still relies heavily on coal so you wonder just how environmentally friendly their energy policy is compared with that of the Finns.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

Digressing somewhat, I saw this article on the BBC news site to-day on how the Germans plan to get rid off Nuclear Power by 2020:-


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357238.stm

The article also includes a link to an article about Finland's new Nuclear Power station ( the first new one in Europe for 10 years) just to show the other side of the coin.

Evidentlly from the figures quoted Germany still relies heavily on coal so you wonder just how environmentally friendly their energy policy is compared with that of the Finns.

This is stunning! It's one thing to replace hydrocarbon fuels with nuclear - that is economically sustainable, except in the transportation fuels sector. But to come up with an "energy plan" that aims to get rid of both hydrocarbon fuels and nuclear and replace them with "renewables" is nothing short of economic suicide. No industrialized nation can replace 75% of its energy portfolio with renewables, it is physically impossible. This German environment minister Jurgen Trittin seems like a loon to me it he thinks this can be done, and it is unfortunate for the German people that their new prime minister must continue to be saddled with these unsustainable policies.

Perhaps this Mr. Trittin is just blowing smoke for political feelgoodism, in which case Germany will still draw at least 50% of its energy from hydrocarbon fuels.

Again, it takes so-called "fossil fuels" to grow crops, and if those crops are meant for biofuel production, then you are simply using fuel to grow fuel in a zero sum conumdrum. (Oh cool! I made a rhyme![8D])

[rrnut282]

So, if I read between the lines correctly, you are saying that the only way bio-diesel and ethanol plants will be economically viable is the subsidies that politicians have enacted to create a feel-good pseudo-energy policy. As soon as someone pulls the plug on those subsidies, these plants turn into instant brown fields.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

So, if I read between the lines correctly, you are saying that the only way bio-diesel and ethanol plants will be economically viable is the subsidies that politicians have enacted to create a feel-good pseudo-energy policy. As soon as someone pulls the plug on those subsidies, these plants turn into instant brown fields.

Yeah, I guess that's about the gist of it.