Bio-Fuels

[JoshPlumSE]

Someone asked a question about "synthetic fuels" on another forum where we were talking about gas prices and such. I don't know much about this subject, so I thought I would ask this forum about it and see if I can learn anything from you guys.

I know that I've read about "bio-diesel" fuels that cost about the same as Diesel (on a per gallon basis). My impression is that these are made from vegetable oils and that these can be used in standard diesel engines. Does anyone know if that's true?

Is there any research being done on a "bio-gasoline" that could be used in 4 stroke engines?

Now, I also remember an article (see below) which talked about Ethanol as a fuel and how it would not be any more carbon friendly than gasoline. This is certainly debatable. But, I wonder if the idea of using the farmland for both bio-diesel and ethanol at the same time would significantly change that assessment. It's not difficult to see how this would be done, the sugars from the corn are used to produce ethanol, the fats from the corn are used to produce bio-diesel.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-corn-based-ethanol-worse-200000730.html

 

[JoshPlumSE]

The cow burps are a separate thing from this discussion. I only mentioned the cow poop because it's part of the "industrial farming" cycle. Plant waste (leaves, roots, steps) gets ground up and included in feed which is used for livestock. Livestock waste (unused body parts, poop and such) are used for other purposes (fertilizers, feed for other animals, etc).

Now, the amount of cattle that we raise and the amount of burps that they have is largely due to demand for their meat and milk. Right? Therefore, this doesn't change much (if anything) based on how the corn product is used (for food or for fuel).

I don't know enough about it to be certain. But, I suspect that the use of corn feed for cattle (as opposed to grass / hay) may contribute to more burping / methane. I know it's a big discussion in "organic" circles the difference between grass-fed cows and regular cow meat. Partly because of the types of fat in the cow. But, also because of the digestive problems of corn fed cows compared to grass fed.... meaning that you're more likely to get e-coli contamination from a corn fed cow.

 

[TugboatEng]

Should have posted this earlier, I didn't realize the confidentiality was green. It's Caterpillar's study on the use of HVO fuel.

 

[dik]

I couldn't find a mention of the carbon footprint... a really important thing these days...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Caterpillar isn't making any claims with regards to carbon footprint. They are only studying whether their engines can run the fuel. Some operators of Caterpillar engines are going to be mandated by powers outside of Caterpillar to run this fuel starting next year. The burden should be on the powers making the mandates to quantify the change in carbon footprint.

 

[dik]

Again I disagree... Should it not be the manufacturers doing the right thing.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

I don't follow?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Dik -

That's one of the problems with "regulations". All it takes is political power to create them and impose your will on a 3rd party. It doesn't mean that it's the "right" thing to do. It doesn't mean it benefits society in any way. It just means that the people who wanted the regulation had the power to enact it.

Now, one of the good things that Reagan did for the federal government (which may still be in effect) is that he mandated that before administering any new regulations, the federal government was responsible to calculation the "cost" of that regulation on the industries that it affected. Therefore, there is at least some effort made to look at the cost vs benefit of these regulations before they get implemented.

That being said, there are often unintended consequences to regulations in the real world. Look at "rent control". It's easy to say, "no one can ever raise rent in San Francisco again without following these strict rules". The politicians that pass those rules pat themselves on the back and tell everyone how they're looking out for the "common man" and sticking it to the fat cat landlords. The reality is that the landlords sell their properties off as condos instead and no one ever wants to build apartments in that city again. Supply for rental units crashes and makes housing even less affordable than it was before. This has been proven over and over again over the long term, wherever it has been tried.

Look at global warming. Western Europe pass all kinds of clean energy regulations that make it difficult to do any manufacturing in those countries. Therefore, other countries (without ANY clean energy regulations) start producing those same goods and shipping them around the world back to Western Europe. Leading to more CO2 emissions than we had before.

 

[dik]

Concur, Josh... I just don't have a clue about what's coming up and what's going to happen. There seems to be an absence of 'doing the right thing', not really knowing what that is. There are, however, a lot of wrong things done.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[CWB1]

The solution to climate change includes is drastically reducing the carbon footprint population and eliminating densely populated cities.

Fixed it for ya. Humans blaming engines for pollution is an interesting irony. Stateside, the air of many larger cities contains higher levels of the four regulated emissions than engines have been allowed to emit for a decade, IOW engines are cleaning our mess while we nitpick cow farts.

Biofuels are expensive, require significant energy and emissions to manufacture, and simply don't have the energy content of petroleum products, so take any comparisons thereof with a large grain of salt.

 

[TugboatEng]

The problem got muddled when CO2 was mislabeled as a pollutant which it is not.

High density brings up some interesting data manipulations. Here in recently less parched California, there is a constant push for high density. One of their claims is that high density uses less water than single family homes. Nobody ever asks how? How many high density units have built in laundry? That's a huge percentage of consumption for most. Instead we just shift the burden onto the third world, I mean laundromats.

 

[dik]

That's one of the real problems... the carbon footprint created by using fossil fuels, including petroleum products.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

CWB1, in the link I provided the biofuels were ~97% of the energy content of traditional. Let's do the world a favor and compare that 97% to the CO2 produced. Let's weaponize the eng-tips forum against climate change and shut down the woe is me crowd that provide nothing productive. Heck, even the sparkies know that polarization doesn't provide useful work, just volts. We're inundated with structurals that think increasing PE by building up is the best answer to everything. From the operations side, please just give me a path forward. I'm operating boats that were brought into compliance less than 3 years ago and will suddenly be out of compliance again in less rhan 4 years.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

the air of many larger cities contains higher levels of the four regulated emissions than engines have been allowed to emit for a decade, IOW engines are cleaning our mess while we nitpick cow farts.

Please cite a source for the first claim about the "four regulated emissions" if you would.

Also, I'd love to know what an IOW engine is? I tried to look it up. There appears to be an IOW centrifugal oil filter which sounds like it could be beneficial. But, I didn't find anything about an engine.

in the link I provided the biofuels were ~97% of the energy content of traditional.

I think the energy density is different issue from the 3% power loss. I think it's a matter of how many gallons of the HVO (biodiesel) are needed vs how many gallons of regular diesel. Essentially, you'd need a larger gas tank to run the engine for the same usage if you switched fuels..... At least that's how I interpreted CWB1's comment. I assume it's true because I've read about the incredible energy density in gasoline compared to just about all other sources.

 

[rb1957]

"surely" (if you were converting from regular gas to bio-gas) you'd use the same gas tank, and just get less output ?


"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

rb1957 -

Stop calling me Shirley....

 

[rb1957]

roger, roger

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[TugboatEng]

My local refinery is the largest producer of bio-fuels. This organization has a sign up in town.

https://rodeocitizensassociation.org/news-info/rodeo-deserves-one-cent-per-gallon/

They claim up to $3.22 in govt subsidies per gallon. In my experience, the cost of products, without scarcity, is directly linked to the energy required to produce it. If HVO requires $3.22 in subsidies to be cost competitive it likely has a substantial CO2 footprint.

 

[enginesrus]

So yeah no more food from the farmers fields because of bio fuels. Too much blindness. There is no carbon foot print, just more nonsense. The earth is a vessel of carbon from its beginning. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[dik]

enginesrus... hold on to your hat... things might be changing

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik