# Diesels as Green Engines



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

RUDOLF'S REVENGE Feb 9th 2007
From Economist.Com
Diesels are the smart green choice

LAST week this column pondered the potholes ahead for plug-in hybrid cars
and hydrogen fuel-cells, and foresaw long delays. This week we turn to one
of the less glamorous, but more plausible, candidates for the lean, clean
machine of the immediate future: diesels. Yes, diesels. They are poised to
make a comeback, at least in America where they have been absent for a while

After an initial flurry of interest following the oil shocks of the 1970s,
most Americans dismissed diesels as noisy, smelly and sluggish, with too few
(if any) savings at the pump-when, that was, you could find a pump.
Not so in Europe, where petrol prices have traditionally been two to three
times higher than in the United States. With their 40% better fuel economy,
diesels have long offered big savings in Europe, and now account for half of
all new cars on the road there.
Those savings come in part from lower taxes on diesel fuel than on petrol in
many European countries. But diesel fuel is also 15% heavier than petrol,
and so packs a bigger energy punch to start with.
On top of that, the engine patented by Rudolf Diesel in 1892
is inherently more efficient than any petrol engine design. It has none of
the "pumping losses" caused by having to throttle the air-fuel supply to
make the engine run at anything less than flat out. And the way a diesel
engine ignites its air-fuel mixture inside the cylinder-using heat from
compression rather than a spark plug-helps it to scavenge more energy from
its hydrocarbon fuel.
Under the hood, the modern diesel car bears little resemblance to the
clunker of the 1970s. Back then motor manufacturers had plenty of experience
building lumpy diesel engines for trucks, buses and even locomotives, but
few of them knew how to make lightweight diesels for cars. To save money and
time they simply "dieselised" existing petrol engines that seemed up to the
job. Few were. Apart being smoky and smelly, they quickly earned a
reputation for being unreliable and for taking ages to start.
In the past 30 years diesel engines have been refined out of all recognition
With their high-pressure fuel injection, variable injection timing, better
combustion-chamber designs and efficient turbo-chargers, it is hard nowadays
to tell they're not petrol-powered cars-save for their lower fuel bills and
awesome shove when treading on the gas.
The name is familiar
But it's not only diesel-engine technology that has advanced further in
Europe. So has the fuel. American refineries have continued to produce
diesel with a lower cetane number-a measure of the fuel's ignition quality,
like the octane rating for petrol. The result has been poor starting in cold
weather and higher emissions. Add tougher air pollution standards in the
United States, and it's easy to see why the diesel car has remained a rarity
on American roads.
That's all about to change. Since October ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD)
has become available at pumps across America. Regular diesel will be phased
out in 2010. In pollution-conscious California, where ULSD arrived on the
forecourt last September, the regular variety has already been banned and
stiff fines have been introduced for selling it. That's important, because
taking the sulphur out of diesel is like removing the lead from petrol. It
eliminates the goo that poisons the catalyst and prevents the exhaust from
being cleaned up properly.
Ironically, despite a reputation for being dirty, diesel engines produce
one-third less greenhouse gases than their gasoline siblings do. But the
price for that is more smoke from the tailpipe. Hence all the work now going
into designing "particulate traps" for the microscopic particles of carbon
and other organic matter found in a diesel exhaust.
By 2009 the European Union's present standard for diesel particulates will
be lowered five-fold to 0.008 grams per mile-even lower than the 0.01 grams
per mile currently in force in California. The particulate traps now being
fitted to diesel cars in Europe handily meet the 2009 goal. By all accounts,
the diesel cars being prepared for the American market will do likewise.
Will that put the next generation of diesel cars in the same league as
petrol-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius? European carmakers reckon
they will be at least as good as hybrids in terms of fuel economy, and will
give them a close run for their money on emissions. On overall energy
consumption, diesels look like the outright winner.
The dirty little secret about hybrids is that their batteries and extensive
use of aluminium parts make them costly to build in energy terms as well as
financial terms. One life-cycle assessment claims that, from factory floor
to scrap heap, a Prius consumes more energy even than a Hummer H3. Diesels
are unlikely to consume anything like as much over their lifetime. That
could change, of course, if some bright spark decides to replace a hybrid's
petrol engine with a diesel-to launch a family car capable of 100mpg. Now
there's a thought.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

good article. as far as enviro friendly technolgy, biodiesel looks like the way to go. i wonder if the hold up in converting to them nation wide is because it can be produced in our own back yards. it sounds too easy to be able to make our own fuel, and make it last 100 mpg's. too much at stake for the corporate big boys.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

We need the tech to move,thats for sure.Count on the American version to be loaded with add on parts that dont work,poor economy and 100,000 mile lifespans.

Detroit thinking,doncha know.

At least thats what I think.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I may be wrong but I am thinking modern diesels don't burn bio-fuels, such as veggie oil, very well. Thus, suspect these newer models would need to run on strictly diesel.


----------



## TechGuy (Oct 25, 2006)

Ken Scharabok said:


> I may be wrong but I am thinking modern diesels don't burn bio-fuels, such as veggie oil, very well. Thus, suspect these newer models would need to run on strictly diesel.


Biodiesel is essentially a lost cause since it takes so much biomass just to produce a small about of oil. The boom is on from waste oil which was largely discarded in the past. But today there are lots of new companies now buying used oil and selling biodiesel. The era of something for nothing of biodiesel is just about gone. To produce significant quanities of oil from biomass on a small farm is impractical. 

A more pratical long term solution for powering diesels is gasification. Biomass of any kind (as long as it burns) can be partially oxidized into syngas (or water gas), which can power internal combustion engines. This method was used to power vehicles and equipment during WW II, when oil was largely unavailable to the public.


----------



## SolarGary (Sep 8, 2005)

Hi,
Some of the claims in the article seem doubtful to me.

I tried running a VW Jetta diesel and a Toyota Prius through the HybridCars.com calculator, and the Jetta comes out 5021 lbs CO2 vs 3418 lbs for the Prius for 10K miles -- so I wonder where this less CO2 claim comes from?

The stuff about the high embedded energy costs of building hybrids and more embedded energy than a Hummer is nonsense -- even the guy who originally wrote the article with those claims has admitted he was wrong.

Gary


----------



## SolarGary (Sep 8, 2005)

Hi again,

On the CO2 emissions of diesels vs gasoline hybrids -- this from the EPA site:

Calculating CO2 emissions

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Exit EPA disclaimer guidelines for calculating emissions inventories require that an oxidation factor be applied to the carbon content to account for a small portion of the fuel that is not oxidized into CO2. For all oil and oil products, the oxidation factor used is 0.99 (99 percent of the carbon in the fuel is eventually oxidized, while 1 percent remains un-oxidized.)[1.]

Finally, to calculate the CO2 emissions from a gallon of fuel, the carbon emissions are multiplied by the ratio of the molecular weight of CO2 (m.w. 44) to the molecular weight of carbon (m.w.12): 44/12.

CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon

CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm




Gary

CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

TechGuy said:


> Biodiesel is essentially a lost cause since it takes so much biomass just to produce a small about of oil.


I am not sure what you mean that biodiesel is a lost cause. Out here in the Pacific NW, a lot is being done with biodiesel. Several refineries have opened in the last few years. The ag universities have run many trials to determine yields, appropriate feedstocks etc. Canola and mustard seed is the choice out here instead of soybeans and the trials have show a much higher yield here than in other areas.

One farm in my area filed for a permit to grow canola to make biodiesel for their farm. The numbers were they were going to plant about 10% of their acreage(they have about 1700 acres) to canola, press and distill (don't know the proper term for making biodiesel) on farm to power all of their vehicles/equipment. They budgeted $12k for capital expenditures.The state Ag Dept denied the permit because a significant portion of the world's vegetable seed is grown in this valley and canola has the potential of devastating that industry.

Out in E. Oregon where it is legal to grow canola in most areas one farmer who has been growing canola for years is putting in his own biodiesel refinery to add value to his canola. He plans to make 1 million gallons of biodiesel/ year on farm and sell it to distributors. He is going to pay himself almost twice what he has been getting for canola, and sell the meal for animal feed.

These are just a couple of examples of what is being done on a grass roots level in the PNW.

Cover story of yesterday's Captial Press--Northwest's Ag Weekly. "Easterm Wash. farm to supply canola to westside biodiesel plant"

Natural Selection Farms will supply Seattle based Imperium renewables with enough canola oil to make 1 million gallons of biodiesel.

For Natural Selection, it represents an opportunity for the farm to diversify its crop base which owner Ted Durfey said "makes great agricultural and business sense."
One of the benefits is the meal produced as a byproduct of the crushing process. Durfey said farmers in the Yakima Valley spend about $25 million per year on canola meal produced in Canada. Durfey is hoping that local producers can step in and capture some of that market. He estimated that he will produce enough meal to feed 6-8000 cows.

Another benefit of growing canola is that it can be used as a rotational crop with wheat (E Wa/Or one of the great wheat growing areas in the world). Studies have shown that wheat yields actually increase when wheat follows a canola planting.

Thanks to canola's early harvest, additional planting of a short season forage crop can be made on the same piece of ground. Or it can be used to graze livestock.

In doing field trials of canola, Durfey discovered that canola doesn't require as much water as other crops. That savings in water allows him to spread the farm's water to its high quality organic crops--cherries, pears and grapes.

Durfey readily admits he took a risk in growing the crop and building the crushing facility, but with the anticipation tat "this would all come together".

"Ihad faith in it." he said. On Jan 30, Natural Selection made its 1st 6000 gallon delivery of canola oil to Imperiums Seattle facility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granted, Mr Durfey is only supplying enough oil for 1 million gallons of a 60 million gallon facility, but he is just the 1st one to get on board. If things go well for him you can bet that all of the other wheat growers are going to add canola to their rotations. What is missed in the biofuels argument that states "We won't have any food!!! All of the US crop land is going to be devoted to making biofuel!!!!! Mexicans are going to flood to the US because they won't have any corn for their tortillas!!!" What is missed is that the crops are grown in a rotation. All of the crop land in the US wil not be in biofuels at any given point in time.


----------



## TechGuy (Oct 25, 2006)

veggrower said:


> I am not sure what you mean that biodiesel is a lost cause. Out here in the Pacific NW, a lot is being done with biodiesel. Several refineries have opened in the last few years. The ag universities have run many trials to determine yields, appropriate feedstocks etc. Canola and mustard seed is the choice out here instead of soybeans and the trials have show a much higher yield here than in other areas.


Either it comes from waste oil (finite supply) or its heavily subsidied. 

How many arces does of mustard seed/canola, or soybeans does it take to make a single barrel of oil? A quick google search for soybean yield is about 12.5 gallons per acre. which would mean it would take about 3.3 acres just for a single barrel (42 gallons). How many million acres would it take to produce all US diesel for the entire year? And how many of acres used for food production would need to be displaced? I like eating more than I like driving!

The lastest tabloid is to use algae. But they don't discuss the water requirements for industial size production. They also don't discuss the energy inputs required to harvest,transport, and refine biomass into biodiesel (including crop and algae).

The bottom line is that beyond using waste oil, biodiesel is a dead end since it will never be economical. Thats also true for ethanol. Remember a few years ago the big boondangle over the "hydrogen" economy? After it was debunked, the lobbiest and politicans turned to biofuels as the new "hydrogen" economy boondangle. However since this time, more of the population is cut in for gov't money (instead of just a few chemists and engineers) this boondangle will probably go on for the next five or six years until food prices go up so high or we end up with food shortages.

Food is for eating not driving!


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

What is your solution and what are you doing about it. It is pretty easy to sit back and take pot shots at people who are trying to work things out. How is the farmer in the story I wuaoted being subsidized to grow canola?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Techguy... better get more technical your google-fu needs more work.

Each acre of rapeseed yields 100 - 200 gallons of oil.

Whereas the national average for the crop of soybean oil is 57 gallons per acre... 

But that's just what Oregon state said, they are probably being bought off by all those large "Green industries"

http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=618&ArticleID=25281&TM=48558.02


----------



## TechGuy (Oct 25, 2006)

ZealYouthGuy said:


> Techguy... better get more technical your google-fu needs more work.
> 
> Each acre of rapeseed yields 100 - 200 gallons of oil.
> 
> Whereas the national average for the crop of soybean oil is 57 gallons per acre...


Still doesn't matter, and I suspect that yields stated for rapeseed are based upon traditional farming with high energy inputs to achive high crop yields. IIRC Rapeseed is a poor choice for biodiesel since it requires nitrogen fertializer inputs (which come from natural gas). Soybean is better since its a Legume, and can self fix nitrogen.

Biodiesel is nothing more than the next "hydrogen" economy fanasty. Tractors and harvestors are still powered using fossil oil and the machinary used to extract the oil are still powered using fossil fuels. The fertializers and pesticides are either petroluem or natural gas based, and the pumps that put water into the fields for irrigation use fossil fuels. Biodiesel production from crops has very low energy return on energy invested. Meaning it takes almost as much energy to grow, harvest and refine biodiesel than it produces when its consumed. Add in distribution, labor, and other overhead it production is probably awash. 





veggrower said:


> What is your solution and what are you doing about it. It is pretty easy to sit back and take pot shots at people who are trying to work things out.


I did already state it. I sugguested using gasification. I am not just taking pot shots, I am working on putting this method into pratice. Attempting to institute a nation wide program with little scientific basis to produce fuel for cars using crops is a boondangle. During WW2 there was severe fuel rationing. Farmers didn't turn to Biodiesel to power thier equipment, they used gasification, even though knowledge of biodiesel was widespread.


----------



## RLMS (Mar 10, 2003)

Just to throw a little fire  into the fuel debate:

To REPLACE gasoline or diesel with biodiesel or hydrogen still seems a bit way out in the future.

BUT

SUPPLEMENTING gasoline or diesel on each vehicle is not only possible, it is being done now.

We are producing the hydrogen on-board and utilizing it effectively.

Example--On my Expedition a 16% fuel savings is NOW.

Baby steps-granted.

Subsidized by anyone--not a chance!

Still learning--of course.

Optimistic--You BYA!!!!! :hobbyhors :hobbyhors :hobbyhors


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"Biodiesel is nothing more than the next "hydrogen" economy fanasty. Tractors and harvestors are still powered using fossil oil and the machinary used to extract the oil are still powered using fossil fuels. The fertializers and pesticides are either petroluem or natural gas based, and the pumps that put water into the fields for irrigation use fossil fuels. Biodiesel production from crops has very low energy return on energy invested. Meaning it takes almost as much energy to grow, harvest and refine biodiesel than it produces when its consumed. Add in distribution, labor, and other overhead it production is probably awash,"

Perhaps, but what of the jobs within the U.S. created in the process. What of the farmers kept in business because of another cash crop.

Even if it was a wash it still comes down to lesser dependence on foreign oil - and all the strings which come with it.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

As for the economics,lets get the subsidies out of it and see were it stands,
While we're at it,lets get ALL the subsidies out of oil,including military costs,and see were it stands.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

TechGuy said:


> Still doesn't matter, and I suspect that yields stated for rapeseed are based upon traditional farming with high energy inputs to achive high crop yields. IIRC Rapeseed is a poor choice for biodiesel since it requires nitrogen fertializer inputs (which come from natural gas). Soybean is better since its a Legume, and can self fix nitrogen.
> 
> Biodiesel is nothing more than the next "hydrogen" economy fanasty. Tractors and harvestors are still powered using fossil oil and the machinary used to extract the oil are still powered using fossil fuels. The fertializers and pesticides are either petroluem or natural gas based, and the pumps that put water into the fields for irrigation use fossil fuels. Biodiesel production from crops has very low energy return on energy invested. Meaning it takes almost as much energy to grow, harvest and refine biodiesel than it produces when its consumed. Add in distribution, labor, and other overhead it production is probably awash.
> 
> ...


Do you now or have you ever farmed? My guess from reading your posts is no. I have farmed for 18 years, making all of my income solely from farming--never had any off farm employment in that time. I am in the PNW where biodiesel is really taking hold. I talk to farmers like Mr. Durfey in the article I quoted everyday. These are very intelligent and sophisticated businessmen. Mr. Durfey spent 3 years in trials and 18 months working with the owner of the biodiesel facility before he proceeded. I am inclined to trust what he says before I trust what some guy on the internet who has never been involved in the business has to say.

You say oil yields are only 12+ gallons/acre. John Plaza, the founder/president of Imperium Renewables says he needs 800,000 acres of canola to feed his 60 million gallon biodiesel facility. Do the math. As Zeal youth Guy said--the yields are 1-200 gallon/acre, 1 order of magnitude over what you stated. As I stated in my earlier posts, years of trials in the PNW have shonw that canola grown in this area has a much higher yield than soybeans and even canola grown in other areas.

You neglect to take into account all of the income streams and benefits from canola.

1) The value of the meal as animal feed. As I stated, Mr Durfey estimates he will be providing feed for 6-8000 dairy cattle with the meal from his crushing operation. So isn't he providing food and biofuel from the same crop? As stated, farmers in his little valley are already spending $25million/year on canola meal for their dairy cattle--that money is currently being exported to Canada.

2)Out here in the PNW, we still use an extended crop rotation typically 5-7 years, because we value our soils. As opposed to the short sightedness of a 2 year corn soybean rotation in other parts of the country.They are some of the richest in the world and we want to keep them that way. Our farmers are always looking for another crop to add into the rotation that will bring in more cash. After years of university and field trials, canola appears to be a good choice in the arid eastern parts of Or/Wa.

Have YOU ever grown rape? What do you actually know about it? I grow types of rape every year for fresh veg, and I can tell you that they require much less inputs than soybeans and they sprout and grow much faster that anything else I have ever seen including the weeds. This is 18 years of actual experience in the field not a Google search.

So, canola shows promise as another cash crop in the rotation. As stated earlier, it has other benefits in the rotation besides the value of the oil and the meal. It has a very short growing season which means the ground sown to canola can be doubled cropped--that is a very significant benefit.

3)Trials have shown that wheat following canola in the rotation show increased yields. So adding canola to the rotation increases the wheat yield without having to increase inputs.

4)Canola requires less water than other crops, so Mr. Durfey is able to redirect his precious irrigation water to high value organic fruit crops.


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

Mr Plaza and Mr Durfey aren't saying that they are going to solve ALL of the US's energy problem with their operations. Obviously 60 million gallons of biodiesel isn't even going to make Wa state independent from petroleum use, but does that mean they shouldn't do anything. What they are doing is a beautiful example of thinking globally and acting locally. They have put their money where their mouths are, what are you personally doing? How much money have you personally put into biomass gassification? How many vehicles do you currently operate using fuel generated from biomass gassification? When is your gassification plant coming on line to save us? Should Mr Plaza and Mr Durfey have just done nothing an said "I'll just continue business as usual because that "Tech Guy" is going to save us all with his biomass gassification." 

Using your logic, no one should ever try to conserve energy either because it won't solve all of our problems. No one should ever install solar or wind generation because it won't solve all of our problems. Microsoft should never have existed because it can't possibly meet all of our software needs. Intel and AMD should never have existed because they can't provide for all of our microprocessor or memory needs. Why don't we all just give up and die already? That is the only thing that would 100% fulfill our energy needs.

Biodiesel is just a good 1st cut at the problem. It is well suited to the PNW as is gassification. The Capital Press announced in a story last week, a gassification plant going in in S Central Oregon to generate electricity and sell excess steam to a neighboring sawmill. No one actually involved in biodiesel in the PNW is saying it is going to solve all of our regional energy problems let alone America's problems. As with any technology it has to evolve from humble beginnings. Look at Intel's 1st microprocessors compared to the Pentiums.


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

TechGuy said:


> I did already state it. I sugguested using gasification. I am not just taking pot shots, I am working on putting this method into pratice. Attempting to institute a nation wide program with little scientific basis to produce fuel for cars using crops is a boondangle.


Instead of just simply stating "I suggest biomass gassification. It is a more prattical long term solution." Outline your plan and your scientific basis. I may be just poor, dumb, dirt farmer who don't know much about nuthin, 'specially not your big city ways, but I'll do my best to keep up.

I am sure that you already have a business plan worked up and you are lining up investors.


Give us a one page executive summary of where gassification is now. Where you are going to take it over the next 10 years. Scientific trials that you have completed, are currently undertaking or have planned. Compare the efficiency of gassification to biodiesel.. Your plan for investors and when your plant is coming on line. What are your projected yields and what are the feedstocks to supply your plant?

Also, the 3 articles I have read in the last month all say that the most economically and technically feasible use of biomass is for the generation of electricity and the production of process heat. How I am supposed to run that in my diesel vehicles and tractors?

When the articles do discuss the generation of biofuels, it is ALWAYS ETHANOL! Do you know what ethanol does to a diesel engine???


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

I ran across this today and it contains some good information as well as advice.

1. Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels, vodka, used frymaxâ¢ oil, or cow ----). They are at the heart of the problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car. We have to make other arrangements for virtually all the common activities of daily life.

2. We have to produce food differently. The Monsanto/Cargill model of industrial agribusiness is heading toward its Waterloo. As oil and gas deplete, we will be left with sterile soils and farming organized at an unworkable scale. Many lives will depend on our ability to fix this. Farming will soon return much closer to the center of American economic life. It will necessarily have to be done more locally, at a smaller-and-finer scale, and will require more human labor. The value-added activities associated with farming -- e.g. making products like cheese, wine, oils -- will also have to be done much more locally. This situation presents excellent business and vocational opportunities for America's young people (if they can unplug their Ipods long enough to pay attention.) It also presents huge problems in land-use reform. Not to mention the fact that the knowledge and skill for doing these things has to be painstakingly retrieved from the dumpster of history. Get busy.

3. We have to inhabit the terrain differently. Virtually every place in our nation organized for car dependency is going to fail to some degree. Quite a few places (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami ...) will support only a fraction of their current populations. We'll have to return to traditional human ecologies at a smaller scale: villages, towns, and cities (along with a productive rural landscape). Our small towns are waiting to be reinhabited. Our cities will have to contract. The cities that are composed proportionately more of suburban fabric (e.g. Atlanta, Houston) will pose especially tough problems. Most of that stuff will not be fixed. The loss of monetary value in suburban property will have far-reaching ramifications. The stuff we build in the decades ahead will have to be made of regional materials found in nature -- as opposed to modular, snap-together, manufactured components -- at a more modest scale. This whole process will entail enormous demographic shifts and is liable to be turbulent. Like farming, it will require the retrieval of skill-sets and methodologies that have been forsaken. The graduate schools of architecture are still tragically preoccupied with teaching Narcissism. The faculties will have to be overthrown. Our attitudes about land-use will have to change dramatically. The building codes and zoning laws will eventually be abandoned and will have to be replaced with vernacular wisdom. Get busy.

4. We have to move things and people differently. This is the sunset of Happy Motoring (including the entire US trucking system). Get used to it. Don't waste your society's remaining resources trying to prop up car-and-truck dependency. Moving things and people by water and rail is vastly more energy-efficient. Need something to do? Get involved in restoring public transit. Let's start with railroads, and let's make sure we electrify them so they will run on things other than fossil fuel or, if we have to run them partly on coal-fired power plants, at least scrub the emissions and sequester the CO2 at as few source-points as possible. We also have to prepare our society for moving people and things much more by water. This implies the rebuilding of infrastructure for our harbors, and also for our inland river and canal systems -- including the towns associated with them. The great harbor towns, like Baltimore, Boston, and New York, can no longer devote their waterfronts to condo sites and bikeways. We actually have to put the piers and warehouses back in place (not to mention the sleazy accommodations for sailors). Right now, programs are underway to restore maritime shipping based on wind -- yes, sailing ships. It's for real. Lots to do here. Put down your Ipod and get busy.


----------



## chuckhole (Mar 2, 2006)

Thanks to Ken and VegGrower for your informative posts. My little 36 acre place has been a real eye opener for me and my DW. My level of respect for the knowledge and sophistication required for farming has been raised to the extent that I am embarrased by what I used to believe.

The new ULSD grade diesel uses only 15 PPM sulphur whereas the previous standard of "Lower Sulpur Highway Diesel" uses 500 PPM of sulphur. This is a significant decrease. The European/Australian standard for ULSD has been 50 PPM sulphur. Sulphur (like lead in gasoline) is the primary lubricant for diesel. I find it ironic that researchers in Australia (early adopters of the ULSD standard) have found that the best replacement for sulphur as a lubricant is BIODIESEL. Their sales at the pump is an 80-20 mixture of petroleum diesel and BioDiesel from vegetable oil.

They are not trying to totally replace the use of petroleum diesel, just reduce the requirements for it. A twenty percent reduction by subsituting biodiesel and gaining the lost lubricity from the reduction in sulphur content is a double bonus.

I am putting my money where my mouth is. Since purchasing our "country place", I have spent the last three years buying nothing but diesel. I expect a longer service life from diesel powered equipment over the same with gasoline engines.

+ Truck - 2006 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4X4 with 6.6L Duramax turbodiesel and Allison 6-spd transmission (better economy and performance over gasoline).
+ Tractor - 2004 Kubota L2800 with 29HP diesel
+ RTV - 2005 Kubota RTV900 with 21.5HP diesel

I find it ironic that the diesel powered vehicles sold in the UK and Europe are routinely getting fuel economies in the 30-40 MPG ranges. I guess when you buy petrol by the liter, you demand a little more. It is not fair for me to totally complain about my truck getting 15-17 MPG city and 18-19 MPG highway considering that it weighs in at about 6,600 pounds.


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

Explorer said:


> 2. We have to produce food differently. The Monsanto/Cargill model of industrial agribusiness is heading toward its Waterloo. As oil and gas deplete, we will be left with sterile soils and farming organized at an unworkable scale. Many lives will depend on our ability to fix this. Farming will soon return much closer to the center of American economic life. It will necessarily have to be done more locally, at a smaller-and-finer scale, and will require more human labor. The value-added activities associated with farming -- e.g. making products like cheese, wine, oils -- will also have to be done much more locally. This situation presents excellent business and vocational opportunities for America's young people (if they can unplug their Ipods long enough to pay attention.) It also presents huge problems in land-use reform. Not to mention the fact that the knowledge and skill for doing these things has to be painstakingly retrieved from the dumpster of history.


This is eaxactly what I have been doing full time, 3000+ hours a year for the last 18 years. In my spare time I have given over 50 seminars on marketing, sustainable/organic agriculture, small farms etc. When I started in 1989, there were 4 other people in the area doin what I am doing and all of the experts told us pretty much what Tech Guy is saying about biodiesel--won't work isn't sustainable, you'll be a flash in the pan. *18 years later, my business is still growing and there are over 1000 new small farmers just in this valley I live in*. Some of my competitors that were around when I started used to chide me for teaching others. They insisted that everyone is going to start doing it and the competition was weaken the market. They were right in that a lot of people got into it, but the market has grown exponentially because of the greater availability of local, fresh sustainably grown produce, meats, poultry, eggs, dairy, cheeses, wine.

Many restaurants and groceries are calculating the miles that their food has traveled to give themselves a score to track how green their food supply is.

While many areas of the country are losing farmers every year, we are adding more farms out here in the PNW. I can tell you from watching my fellow farmers who farm large tracts of land for cannery crops, that the land out here will not be left sterile. The big boys around here do an amazing job of managing their organic matter and fertility--and I am talking about the chemical growers!!! The large processors in the area all have sustainability programs including certification programs. It is a different world from what I see in the midwest of a straight 2 year corn/soybeans rotation. 

my website, check out what I do


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

chuckhole said:


> I am putting my money where my mouth is. Since purchasing our "country place", I have spent the last three years buying nothing but diesel. I expect a longer service life from diesel powered equipment over the same with gasoline engines.
> 
> + Truck - 2006 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 4X4 with 6.6L Duramax turbodiesel and Allison 6-spd transmission (better economy and performance over gasoline).
> + Tractor - 2004 Kubota L2800 with 29HP diesel
> ...


Chuckhole, well said, sir. I have 2 old '80s Ford diesel trucks that I put a total of $3000 into to prep them for biodiesel. I was concerned that the biodiesel may be incompatible with the old style rubber parts in the fuels system and injector pumps, so I paid my mechanic to replace them all. I need those rigs to deliver fresh produce 3 days per week, I can't take a chance on being stranded on the highway. I also spent $1200 on a fuel tank/stand so that I can have biodiesel delivered to the farm. I hope to have a 2nd one installed for off road biodiesel.

I also have a 24hp and a 62 hp diesel tractors running biodiesel. These are newer machines with modern fuel parts. Note, my oldest tractor is almost 10 years newer than my newest truck!!!  

To me, the $4200 I spent to run biodiesel was worth the price of admission. Now my fuel money is staying local instead of being shipped to a country that hates us and would like to see me and my whole family dead.

15 minutes from me is Willamette Valley Vineyards. Their preisident made the decision a few years ago to switch to biodiesel. He got a few large nurseries and farms nearby to get on board and now it is feasible for the local biodiesl refinery to deliver biodiesel. This biodiesel is refined from used oil from a local potato chip factory, and virgin oil shipped in.

Willamette Vineyards is so thrilled with biodiesel that part of their employee benefits plan is: the employee buys a diesel vehicle, they are then allowed to fill up thier diesel vehicle from the companies biodiesel tanks for free every week. There is a limit on the amount, but talk about putting you money where your mouth is!!!

I add a little Marvel Mystery Oil and Lucas fuel conditioner to each tank for lubrication and to keep the injectors clean. No mileage improvement but they run quieter and smoother.

At some point I want to upgrade my trucks to Sprinter vans. They are sold by Dodge and Freightliner, but are the same Mercedes vans used extensively in Europe. (Daimler-Benz owns both Dodge and Freightliner) They have a 5 cylinder Mercedes diesel that gets 27 MPG. What is frustrating to me is that, in Europe, they have a hybrid version that gets over 40mpg but they don't have the proper clearance from the EPA to import them. :Bawling:


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Interesting article on a farming family in WI who built their own soybean (and suitable to other beans) press in Vol 30, #5 fo FARM SHOW. They say they can get one gallon a soybean oil per bushel and notes canola yields about 2 1/2 gallons and sunflower seed almost three per bushel.

Process sounds fairly simply. They use two Chinese-built two-ton screw presses and a slow speed 1,750-rpm Listeroid 22-hp diesel engine - which they run on a 70-30 mix of soybean oil and kerosene.

Says unit can produce 55 gallon of soybean oil and 3,000 lbs of very high-quality protein (46%) meal a day while burning five gallons of fuel to produce it. The waste heat from the engine is used to preheat the beans before pressing. They get about 90 degrees for the first press and 225 degrees for the second.

Say the plant (which is portable by the way) operated six days a year. It appears to have the capacity to then produce about 17K gallons of soybean oil from 17K bushels of beans and provide some 470 tons of soybean meal.

They use a mix of 50/50 soybean oil/#2 diesel in their diesel farm equipment during the summer and plan to use 50/50 kerosene and soybean oil during the winter.

Their investment was about $5,500 and, using it, they figure they about double the value of the soybeans they run through it.

Article indicates they plan to sell complete units and well as are looking into providing a custom service to area farmers with perhaps an arrangement to where the farms keep the meal and they keep the oil as payment.

If you want a copy of the article send me a business-size self-address envelope with one first class stamp on it to: Ken Scharabok, 1645 West Blue Creek Road, Waverly, TN 37185.


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

Ken, that is way too cool! Here is what I like about biodiesel--you can actually do it grass roots. With ethanol, you have the ATF to contend with. With biodiesel you can raise your own feedstock, press your own oil, burn it in your diesel rigs with no govt interference and no gasoline taxes. It actually gives control back to us plain old commoners. We are no longer at the mercy of oil Co executives who feel the need to make $500 million a year.

Plus, the diesels are already designed to run on it. 

In my particular area, it is now illegal to grow canola because a large amount of the world's vegetable seed is grown in this valley. The canola readily crosses with any of the brassicas and can also become a weed problem and an insect/disease vector so it isn't allowed in the Willamette Valley.

Soybeans--just don't make it here, and I don't like the yield.

Sunflower!!! Thanks for posting that. Now I remember another story in the Capital Press about someone in NE Oregon who was trialing different sunflower varieties for oil yields. Very good.


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

Ken, 

Any insight as to why the opponents of biodiesel always ignore the value of the meal? 46% protein in the soybean meal--that is huge. I would like to have a rail car full of that just to fertilize my fields. That would be a relatively high Nitrogen organic fertilizer.

Any insight as to why the opponents of biodiesel can't comprehend that it isn't meant to be the whold solution, just a piece of the puzzle?

Any insight as to why they can't comprehend the critical concept of "crop rotation", and that because of crop rotation there could never be an instance where every acre of farmland is being used solely for biofuel production?

It just boggles my mind, they seemingly have no idea of what farming is or how it works yet they feel qualified to tell farmers how it should be done. :help: 

I can guarantee that the price of corn and soybeans will never get so high that they displace high value crops like citrus or lettuce or broccoli, etc. And then market growers like myself, we commonly do $15k+/acre. Even if you could get 300 bushels of corn/acre and the price went to $5/bushel, that's only $1500 gross per acre. Why in the world would I ever take land that generates $15k/acre and use it to grow $1500/acre corn?  

Have people in America really become that far removed from where their food comes from. Are people really that ignorant or are they just being contrary? :help:


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

The high protein value of their soybean meal is due to their two step process. They say only pressing it once (as is done everywhere else from they could tell) only gets about 55% of the oil out and they also preheat the beans here. The second pressing, at basically a boiling heat, gets out almost all of the useable oil.

"A feed consultant told us that heating the meal (from the first pressing) to 225 degrees or higher results in a super bypass protein test. He said the meal's bypass protein content is as good as if we had roasted the soybeans, although roasted soybeans will have more fat because fat is oil and we're getting rid of most of the oil."

They capture heat from the manifold to heat the beans and then blow the exhaust over heat-exchange plates.

Granted it is not totally biofuel based, but I would say 70 oil/30 kerocene ain't bad.

The article said they paid about $5,500 for the main parts. Say another 50% for odds and ends for $8,250. Now image if USDA worked with the Dept. of Energy and offer to pay half of the cost of this machine/technology to any farmer growing suitable oil beans in sufficient quantity.

Of course, there has to be a readily available market for any excess soybean oil and meal.

There is only one photo with article but I don't see anything mechanically challenging about it. In photo it is sitting on a two-axle equipment trailer. Even if they are on the high side with their figures it still looks promising due to low technology.

As noted you can send me a SASE for a copy of the article or:

(Walder Mfg., 1525 S. Cty. Rd. I, Wittenberg, WI 54499, [email protected].)


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

May not be THE answer,but a step to making some work is a good thing.

Pretty cool Veggman what you are doing,I agree on all your points.Your argument about them that arent doing it,vrs. those who are doing it,always amazes me.

Same as the whackos who say solar doesnt work either,when I see it!Or cant find enough reasons why windplants dont work,when we KNOW they do. Its eggheads who make a living writing reports that are our biggest hurdles.

Or have every excuse going why we can never have an electric economy,instead of oil.Yes,we can have it.Not rocket science,we have the tech.

We have the money,as Iraq has shown.

Lets use that money here for REAL SECURITY,instead of wasting it down a rathole.So keyboard commandos can swagger how big and bad they are on the net.Kill everybody,or build the greatest society ever.Not a hard choice for the thinking free minded person.

My biggie is if we can keep the money here,without harming food output,it is a good thing.

Money for Americans,vrs. Sheiks and Exxon and War,is just good for Americans.Canadians too.  

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

veggrower said:


> Are people really that ignorant or are they just being contrary? :help:


They are ignorant. Fully propagandized.The more ignorant they are,the harder they yell. Just read the forums here,sure you can find a forum to bear it out.

Ive heard it said,you will never learn anything with your mouth open. Look at all the 'my mind is made up,dont confuse me with the facts' folks you've seen.

Nothing like a closed mind.Add in ignorance and the lowest common denominator and you have your answer why they dont 'get it' on so many levels.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I sent this proposal to The White House, which likely means it is in someone's recently deleted messages file:

Impost a small additional federal tax on retail gasoline and diesel. Say $.02 gallon. Those funds would go to an independent federal agency whose sole purpose would be to provide R&D grants for promising alternate energy sources/technology. Production rights and such belong to the developer.

Overhead could not run more than 10% of annual revenue. Actually it would not need to have much of a full-time staff if they developed review sources.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Ken Scharabok said:


> I sent this proposal to The White House, which likely means it is in someone's recently deleted messages file:
> 
> Impost a small additional federal tax on retail gasoline and diesel. Say $.02 gallon. Those funds would go to an independent federal agency whose sole purpose would be to provide R&D grants for promising alternate energy sources/technology. Production rights and such belong to the developer.
> 
> Overhead could not run more than 10% of annual revenue. Actually it would not need to have much of a full-time staff if they developed review sources.


We just tried this with an oil extraction payment in state.

It was defeated.

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Ken Scharabok said:


> Those funds would go to an independent federal agency whose sole purpose would be to provide R&D grants for promising alternate energy sources/technology. Production rights and such belong to the developer.


My intent is not to poo-poo your idea Ken, but gov't involvement in alternative energy does not have a real good track record, possibly because of all the oversight it entails. Technology innovation is usually by the small company or individual. I think outright prizes for something works best, like the recently successful space plane.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Ken, I had to leave my comment incomplete at this time. Latter today I will post a example of what I was saying - it's about coal gasification.


----------



## dcross (Aug 12, 2005)

http://www.waldermfg.com/


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

How much energy is lost to the feed source as its pressed for oil extraction?

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

Back to gov't and technology development.

In the mid to late 70's I was working on the control system at a new coal power plant just north of Bismark, ND. About 75 miles away the gov't was funding a coal gassification demonstration plant. Anyway there was a problem in the controls and being I was the nearest person, I went. The problem was resolved and I got a short tour of the plant.

I remember how similar the plant was to petrochemical plants I had been in and a little about the process. No combustion flames were used in the process. The ground coal was heated in a digester under high pressure. The gas produced was a hydrogen - methane mixture and there was a small amount of residue. They called the residue 'fly ash', but it was not the same as produced in a power plant boiler. As I remember the plant and process worked just fine.

A few years later on a sales call for an upgraded control system at the power plant I asked about the gassification plant - closed. The funding had run out, the process was proven on a large scale and the gov't was no longer interested. If this had been a privately funded operation, it may still be in operation, but that was 30 years ago and the technology has changed drastically. Somewhere, as I recall, in the late 80's the gov't tried to sell that place for their investment - no buyers.

If it had some private funing and a private for profit motivation the plant technology would have been updated on a regular basis and possibly still in operation. As a sidelight, using a coal gasification process to fire steam electric plant is the most energy efficient (about 60%) and environmentally safe process known.


----------



## Ed K (Oct 24, 2003)

Veggrower.

Good for you for taking some positive action in a different direction. I'm a strong believer in fueling ourselves with the products of current sunshine rather than fossil fuels. 

The part I agree with Techguy on is that I doubt biodiesel is the magic bullet solution to our fuel problems.

I remember when Jimmy Carter put in the first set of Corporate Average Fleet Economy (CAFE) standards to force carmakers to produce ever more efficient automobiles. Those sensible regulations were quickly emasculated due to automotive industry pressure. Had we taken it seriously then Hybrid cars probably wouldn't be the dream technology of the future as they're regarded now. As we have seen in the last 5 years or so with the proliferation of Hummers and SUV's few people have been acting like conserving finite resources isn't very important. Just to keep the discussion from becoming partisan and political I recently heard that that Bush was promoting something like the CAFE standards again. Wouldn't it be nice to have the fuel that we could have saved then in our reserves now?

To paraphrase Wendell Berry the government has rarely asked us to make any sacrifice about excessive consumption other than the lives of our sons and daughters. 

We need to be working on using less fuel of any kind even those that seem more benign or currently popular. 

Just because a fuel is being hotly researched recently and is supported by some science doesn't guarantee that it's not riddled with problems that aren't currently included in the research. As an example, what effect will raising enough crops to produce fuels (in addition to what we raise for food) have on water quality (fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide runoff) soil erosion etc. 

As has been asked "what's your plan" and "what are you going to do about it" unfortunately for most of us (and I would say you would have to include yourself in that) won't have the option to produce a volume of fuels to meet our own needs so conservation may should play a bigger role in our lives until the government and big business get more serious about the topic. Until then the Popular Science news articles full of magic bullets seem to be ways for experts to express optimism while the masses still travel in the same rut.

My plan is to build a bike (recumbent trike) which I hope to use instead of a fuel powered car on shorter commutes. I happen to be carrying around a surplus of caloric energy about the midriff as do many of my Americans. I'd like to donate that stored energy to the cause. I'd also, when possible, like to try to purchase locally produced products or produce my own food to minimize the amount of fuel consumed in their production and transportation.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

My copy of Morrison's _Feeds and Feeding _ is now some 58 years old but it says soybean meal has a slightly higher percentage of digestible protein but a slightly lower percentage of total dig. nutrients than raw soybeans. However, today who soybeans would be fed roasted and there is not a line for them in this manual.

Thus, it would seem extracting the oil increases protein in the remaining meal, but takes out some of the nutrients in doing so.


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

Ed K,

I also agree that biodiesel is not the magic bullet. I don't believe in magic bullets. I think it is one piece of the puzzle. My problem with what Tech Guy is that he totally ignored the whole package of benefits of canola production in E Wa/Or wheat rotations, and he claims biomass gassification is the best way to create biodiesel when

1st, the biofuel to be derived from biomass is ETHANOL, NOT BIODIESEL! not gonn put ethanol in my diesel engines.

2nd the technology for biomass gassification doesn't currently support making biofuel, it is only ata stage where it can be used to generate electricity and process steam.  

My plan and what I am doing about it is that I own only diesel rigs/tractors and I am supporting the folks in my are who have made the considerable investment required to produce biodiesel and deliver it to my farm. Because I make deliveries 3 days/ week, I use an average of 75 gals/week of diesel. It seems I could get 2 weeks worth of biodiesel/ acre of sunflowers (soybeans don;t grow here and canola produciotn is illegal) so 26 acres would cover my consumption. Unfortunately I only have maybe 18 acres to grow it on! :shrug: 

Now, the farmers I described in one of my posts, who live about 40 miles from me. Have done the trials and the studies and believe that they can grow enough canola on about 10% of thier land to fuel all of their tractors, combines, spray rigs and trucks for a full year. They are more typical farmers and aren't doing direct sales with deliveries 160 days/year. So, many farmers will be able to supply their own needs.

Here is anew plan I have formulated after reading Ken's post about the press and visiting the website dcross linked to:

1)Buy a press set up for canola and sunflower seed. Power it off of 3phase electric motor as I have 3phase on farm. 

2) Source bulk canola and oilseed sunflowers, preferably in 1-ton tote bags as they are easy to move with my loader.

3)Hire a full time person dedicated to caring for poultry, including pressing canola or sunflower to make meal for them. I plan on pasturing 200+ geese and several hundred muscovy ducks this year, provided an inspected plant scheduled to open next to me does indeed open.

4)Mix the pressed, filitered oil with my purchased biodiesel and use it to run my trucks and tractors.

My goal would be to cut my fuel bill by up to 50%. Generated high quality feed for my patured poultry, reducing my feed costs over my current use of corn and rolled COB. 

Pay someone $12/hr so they can feed their family and still make a profit on the patured poultry. I will update on this plan as it develops.  

Ed, I would love to be able to make my deliveries on a recumbent bike and also donate my middleage stress induced belly fat. Actually, there is a company in Eugene, 70 miles S of me that makes bikes with large insulated storage compartments for making in city deliveries of perishables. I wonder how long it would take me to pedal that 180 mile round trip???Hmmmmmmm  

The US can certainly use your energy donation, althoug Tech Guy would say it is a dead end because it can't supply 100% of our energy needs


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

If it is illegal to grow canola in your area will it be legal to bring in canola seed? At least in TN Johnsongrass is considered to be a noxious weed and thus it cannot be sold within the state.

Problem I see with sunflower seed is so much of the weight is the hull, which would likely have a significantly reduced feed value as it has more fiber.

You may want to explore alternatives, such as possibly rape seed.

On hired labor it sounds like for much of their work time they would be sitting around watching the press slowly do its job. Tending stock likely isn't going to take long per day either. You might want to explore some type of product which would keep them gainfully employed when tending stock or running the press isn't required (but be aware some people simply aren't capable of multi-tasking).

In going to a couple of Google charts on weight per bushel:

Canola seed: 50
Oil-type sunflower seed: 28 (average from a low of 24 to high of 32)
Soybean: 60
Shelled corn: 56

(On the following bear in mind my math skills aren't the greatest.)

Thus, there appears to be 40 bushels in a ton of canola seed or about 70 bushels of oil-type sunflower seed.

If the figures cited in the FARM SHOW article are correct a bushel of canola seed yields about 2.5 gallons/bushel and OT sunflower seed 3 gallons/bushel.

If my numbers (and logic) is correct then a ton of canola seed should yield about 100 gallons of oil, while OT sunflower seed would yield about 200 gallons/ton.

(I found one source which said sunflower oil weighs 7.5 pounds/gallon. Thus, sounds like one ton of seed would produce about 1,500 pounds of oil and 500 pounds of meal.)

Thus, to be roughly equivalent you could pay about twice as much per ton for OT sunflower seed as canola seed.

Also to be taken into consideration is the number of bushels which can be processed per hour. Now the FARM SHOW article said they were about to process 55 bushels of soybeans in an 8-hour day using the two, two-ton press model. If press chamber size constrained, then you could process roughly a bit over a ton of canola seed (say about 2,200 lbs), but only about 1/2 ton of sunflower seed during the same period. Thus, oil production per day seems about equal.

Then there is the question of how much the pressed meal would be. Logic sort of says you would have about twice the volume/bulk for sunflower as for canola, but their feed value is likely different. Canola isn't in Morrison's_ Feeds and Feeding_ so I'll make the assumption it is about the same as soybeans at about 38% dig. protein. Table gives the same for unhulled sunflower seed at 16%, less than half. Thus, you would have to feed out about 2.5 times as much sunflower meal as canola meal for the same amount of protein.

Next question would be how much meal would you need for the poultry as it sounds like you are going to be a seasonal grower. What would you do with excess meal? Perhaps fattening out a couple of steers may be an option.

On the hired help aspect you have to, of course, consider them as a cost of production. Say you produced 50 gallons of oil per eight-hour day and you pay the labor $12 hours. Assuming no other utilization, each gallon would have a built-in labor cost of about $2.00. If you also have to pay for SS, unemployment, disability insurance and such, it might be more like $2.50. This would be over and above raw material cost and depreciation on equipment.

Bear in mind also you would be buying your input at retail, while farmers would be getting it at the equivalent of wholesale.

Unless I'm missing something here it sounds like you might be better off to just purchase diesel oil and feed.

Or consider setting up agreements to take used fryer oil off the hands of restaurants (as you make your rounds) and then using it as biofuel. As I have noted before I have a friend in Indiana who does this. In his diesel vehicles he runs a 50/50 mix of diesel and (twice I recall) strained used fryer oil during spring, summer and fall (and the exhaust really does smell like french fries cooking). During winter he just uses straight diesel. From the FARM SHOW article looks like it might be possible for him to run 50/50 kerocene/used fryer oil during winter. He has made no modifications to the admittedly older diesel engines.

(Unfortunately the only diesel I have is an old backhoe which doesn't get used often enough for me to consider going biodiesel in it.)

If you do press on with your plan please keep us periodically informed.


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

Possesing the seed to press isn't the problem in my area. The problem is that this is where a large portion of the world's vegetable seed is produced and it is 10s of millions of dollars for the seed growers in this area. Canola readily crosses with other brassicas. It also readily reseeds and can travel the maze of irrigation ditches from farm to farm. It is feared it will become a weed problem and that it will be a disease and insect vector. The veg seed growers say that the seed companies they contract to grow for have a history of pulling out of a region when canola comes in, therefore the state ag dept has outlawed growing canola in this valley.

Believe me, I have plenty of things to do for a hired hand. Pastured poultry has quite a bit of labor involved--watering, moving pens etc. I do have 17 acres intensly managed for high value fresh vegetable crops. If I think someone is sitting around being unproductive I have dozens of things thety can be doing to earn their keep. When planning a process, you need to make asssumptions as a starting point on which to make your proposed forecasts and budgets. My assumption is 1 full time person @ 12 /hour and I know what the workers' comp/SSI etc are, not a problem. Based on that assumption I can now work forward and see where the numbers.

If upon further research, the pressing is as easy as you describe it, I might just do it in the evernings/ mornings myself while I eat or drink my coffee etc.I always assume the worst case scenario when trying to plan these things. I have trouble with moving things so I figured someone would need to feed it and make sure the output isn't overflowing :help: . I did notice on the website that it has an auger. If it is possible to just put the auguer into a bin full of seed and tell the thing to shut off when the barrel is full of oil, that changesthings.

You are leaving out the value of the meal for feed in the cost equation. An Ore State U study I just read today showed the protien content of canola meal to be 32% which will give me a good weight gain on my birds., and I believe the cost will be much less than buying from a feed mill. Something I have to check out. Another factor is that a key part of my raising pastured poultry is for the fertilizer and insect control value. All of these things need to be accounted for to find the true cost:benefit.

All of my land is either in the homestead or in production no room to run any steers. I have neighbors who run cattle, others who run pigs, I am sure any excess feed won't go to waste.


I really do appreciate you taking the time to beat up my plan.  I will run it by some trusted advisors before doing anything and I can count on them to do the same thing--beat it up and then hand it back to me so I can answer their questions and think about it more.  These things have to evolve before they can be implemented


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

Hey everybody!

Cool website here: Oregon grown biodiesel 

Just an example of what I have been talking about. Grassroots level canola, canola oil and biodiesel production in E. Oregon. No subsidies, just good old American enterpreneurship.

According to Ore State U you get 4.2gals of biodiesel out for every 1gal of fuel put in during oilseed production/crushing/refining using PNW grown canola. Add in the value of the leftover meal at $200/ton.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

veggrower said:


> Hey everybody!
> 
> Cool website here: Oregon grown biodiesel
> 
> ...


When you say production,does that mean the whole growing cycle ,from the start to finished oil product?

BooBoo :gromit:


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

yes


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"According to Ore State U you get 4.2gals of biodiesel out for every 1gal of fuel put in during oilseed production/crushing/refining using PNW grown canola. Add in the value of the leftover meal at $200/ton."

And likely that one gallon a fuel could be biodiesel as well.

I went to the site. Couldn't find much information off of it.


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

Not a lot of info. I posted the link just to show the skeptics that there biodiesel is being done on farm in out of the way places. Echo, Oregon is pretty out of the way.

The beauty of biodiesel is that you don't need to have a huge central plant somewhere, it can be done on a local grass roots level. I think that worries some people. You could make a still in your garage for ethanol, bu then you have to worry about the revenoors breaking your door down.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I'm having difficult in understanding the economics of biodiesel.

In the FARM SHOW article it said the Walder family in WI doubled the value of $6.50 bushel soybeans doing so. If you start with a 60 lb bushel and extract one gallon of soyoil it should leave you with about 52 pounds of soymeal.

The value of the soyoil used as fuel would have to be significantly cheaper than straight diesel. For example, you mix one gallon a diesel at $2.50 gallon and one gallon of soyoil at $1.25 gallon you end up with two gallons of biofuel at a cost of about $1.88 gallon. With the cost and effort of producing the soyoil anything over a production cost of about half that of retail diesel would be questionably economics.

There is the value of the soybean meal. Say it is $200 tons retail. 52 pounds would then be worth about $5.20 at retail.

Now if the Walders are figuring soybean meal at wholesale (say $100 ton), then value comes down to about $2.60.

Still doesn't make sense. They can sell a bushel of soybeans for $6.50 or turn it into say a gallon of soyoil at $1.25 and 52 pounds of soybean meal at $2.60 for $3.85. Would seem to be better to sell the beans and use the proceeds to purchase diesel and soybean meal.

What am I missing here?

(P.S.: I've contacted FARM SHOW to ask the author of the particular article how they calculated a doubling of the value of soybeans by crushing them on the farm. As noted above, near as I can determine is more of a cost offset than actual value added. That is, they can buy in diesel and soybean meal or make it themselves at about the same cost.)


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

I don't know what you are missing. I know on their Walder website (a link is posted above in this thread) they said the big thing is the extra weight gain and quality on thier beef cattle that they feed their meal to. The Walders seem to be pretty bright, savvy business people to me, I am guessing they penciled out all of the numbers and are making this work. Us famers may have mud on our knees and manure on our boots, but that doesn't mean we can't analyze the financials.  I haven't read the article you keep referencing so I can't comment on what it says. I have only followed the link to their webiste and read the info there.

I am not even researching soybeans because it doesn't grow out here. I am looking at canola and sunflowers because those 2 crops grow out here.

Where did you get your wholesale and retail prices for soybean meal?

Canola meal FOB Portland Oregon last week in wholesale quantities, ie railcar loads, was right at $200/ton plus transportation from Portland to your site. I just checked the price of soybean meal, last week it was $233-245 in railcar quantities (Icall that wholesale, not retail) FOB Portland Oregon. Retail, meaning in 50lb bags I am GUESSING HERE would be over $500/ton.

here is a link with tons of info on all types of renewable energy in Oregon

energy


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"There is the value of the soybean meal. Say it is $200 tons retail."

$200/ton was a guess as noted.

$6.50 for a bushel of soybeans come out of the FARM SHOW article.


----------



## veggrower (Jan 13, 2007)

Ken,

The sun is shining so I gotta get outside, but just a couple thoughts. Your qustions of my thought to buy a press and press my own oil and canola/sunflower meal for my pastured poultry really mad me look at the process of economically justifying such an operation.

You are looking at it as just a straight process of producing biofuel. When I read your original post about the Farm Show article I intuitively knew it was an excellant application on my own farm. I have been asking myself questions,

What is the reason for an oil press? To press raw seeds and make a high protein meal to feed my pastured poultry

Why am I raising pastured poultry? 1st is for the fertilizer, organic matter, and the insect control benefits on top of which I make a profit selling the butchered birds at the end of the season. So by raising pastured poultry, I can eliminate my fertilizer requirements (about $6000/year), increase my soil organic matter in a very efficient way every year, and also make a little money at the same time--generate a new profit center for my business.

Buying whole raw oilseeds and pressing them on farm lowers my feed costs and gives me much more control over the quality, supply and price of the feed.

The oil coming out that I can burn in my rigs and tractors is a bonus byproduct of a system that is already profitable. The birds consuming the feed and distributing their fertilizer and organic matter on the field for me whild adding meat to their carcasses already not only pays for the oilseed and the pressing of it, but it already is profitable before figuring in the oil yield.

I just reread the Waldermfg website and they said basically the same thing--the main thing for them is that by pressing their own sowbean meal they were able get and increase of 100# average per finished beef while decreasing their feed costs by $1000. The meal is the primary product and the oil they burn in their equipment is just a bonus..

I can see how this is confusing for someone not in the business of farming, but this is the basics of how it works out. I'm not going to go in depth on the numbers as that is proprietary information but these are the basics.

You are looking at it from the standpoint of trying to produce cheap fuel when you need to look at it from the standpoint of making your livestock profit center more profitable and the oil is a byproduct tha can be used as fuel. The oil is incidental to the process.

Hope that helps


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Please provide periodic progress reports on how it works out for you.


----------



## dcross (Aug 12, 2005)

Keep in mind all the taxes avoided by not selling beans and buying diesel/meal.


----------



## chuckhole (Mar 2, 2006)

Everyone is posing such good arguments. I can't dispute your numbers but I do know one thing. If someone is willing to purchase Soy at $6.50 and not $3.50, then they are able to make a profit at $6.50.

I still have hope that the production of alternative fuel sources - whether it be Ethanol, Biodiesel or solar/wind electric - will all be profitable and help drive down our reliance on a diminishing fuel source.

I work for a petroleum drilling equipment manufacturer for subsea drilling. I am in the Information Technology field but I get to talk to some pretty smart people in the Oil business. They tell me that we (as in the world) are at 96% demand of our total capacity to produce. We can't keep up for long. Something has to help drive down our demands or you will see the price of fossil fuels go so high that it won't matter how much soy costs, it will be profitable.


----------

