BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/NetEnergy/WoodFischerTropsch.pdf

 would anyone argue with the #'s presented in this paper?

im looking for analysis on the FT process. comments, links and papers would be great.

 

Looks OK to me, but I'm no chemist.

In short, I don't know, but I know who to ask. You could contact (or look for publications from) the Chemical Engineering departments at Iowa State University and Michigan Tech. ISU is associated with the BECON research facilities, where, as I recall, they are doing research on thermal biomass conversions. Michigan Tech has a program called Wood to Wheels, which, as you can draw from the name, is directly related to your inquiry. Speculating, I'd assume that other researching universities associated with auto industry  (e.g. University of Michigan) would also be doing similar research.

Those numbers look a bit more realistic than many claims I've seen about biomass FT diesel (I've seen claims as high as 80% efficieny, which is outright absurd). It's one of those technologies where real world efficiencies have a history of not living up to the theoretical claims people keep making about how efficiently it can be done.

Mike Briggs:

Those numbers look a bit more realistic than many claims I've seen about biomass FT diesel (I've seen claims as high as 80% efficieny, which is outright absurd). It's one of those technologies where real world efficiencies have a history of not living up to the theoretical claims people keep making about how efficiently it can be done.

 lets move thru some numbers;

one can buy coal at these local prices. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html#spot 

10$/ton x 8000btu/lb = 16mbtu/ton x 40% efficiency = 6.4mBTU/130000btu/gal diesel = ~50gal/ton.

40$/ton x 12500BTU/lb = 25mBTU/ton x 40% efficiency = 10mBTU/130000btu/gal diesel = ~75gal/ton.

these #'s seem impressive enough. feedstock costs (gross margins) = less than 10%. that is a good margin to have. im curious why this isnt being done more if these basic #'s are true?

im also curious about the 'slag' or tailings.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/topicals/topical20.pdf        a gasification processing plant in Wabash Indiana claims to be running in the mid 40% range today. even tho they make e', they also have a # of 40% efficiency. i would think that these 2 processes compete for future funding in 'clean coal' technology, so kinda like apples to apples.  their 'slag' is buried in local landfills.

anyone have any links to some case studies on real world FT facilities?

 

 

 

froggy:

Mike Briggs:

Those numbers look a bit more realistic than many claims I've seen about biomass FT diesel (I've seen claims as high as 80% efficieny, which is outright absurd). It's one of those technologies where real world efficiencies have a history of not living up to the theoretical claims people keep making about how efficiently it can be done.

 lets move thru some numbers;

one can buy coal at these local prices. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html#spot 

10$/ton x 8000btu/lb = 16mbtu/ton x 40% efficiency = 6.4mBTU/130000btu/gal diesel = ~50gal/ton.

40$/ton x 12500BTU/lb = 25mBTU/ton x 40% efficiency = 10mBTU/130000btu/gal diesel = ~75gal/ton.

these #'s seem impressive enough. feedstock costs (gross margins) = less than 10%. that is a good margin to have. im curious why this isnt being done more if these basic #'s are true?

You're only looking at the feedstock costs. With FT fuels, the cost is primarily in the processing, not the feedstock (which is why people only look at using FT on very cheap feedstocks (in particular wastes)). South Africa has been making FT diesel from coal for a while, but it's because they were smart enough to realize that it would be a really bad idea to become dependent on foreign oil. If they had been really smart though, they would have gone for a renewable fuel option.

anyone have any links to some case studies on real world FT facilities?

The only real world ones I'm aware of are those in South Africa.

yes, as i mentioned, the feedstock ( the largest % of gross margins) comes up to less than 10%. which means that 90% of the $$$ made from the process goes to employees and machines, which should be another large selling point of the process. im not sure that many industries can claim those sorts of #'s (other than software companies that dont produce anything but ideas).

yes mike, i would absolutely agree with you that the fatal flaw in the whole deal is that coal is not a renewable resource and a net+carbon source for the ATM. plus its dirty full of 'stuff' like mercury,alkali ash, etc...   im not sure that its such a large step from plants to FT vs the existing coal to FT. moving that one extra step will close the C and other cycles much tighter.

another problem with going from plants to FT is that there is alotta good stuff like nitrogen, P, K, Mg, etc that is in the plants that get chewed up and spit out in forms that are pollutants to the system. a great process would be to strip out the nutrients within the plants before moving thru the FT process. this would offer instead of pollutants, a revenue stream.

still, given current technology, political and economic climate, it seems confusing that more FT processing plants arnt popping up. 

froggy:

yes, as i mentioned, the feedstock ( the largest % of gross margins) comes up to less than 10%. which means that 90% of the $$$ made from the process goes to employees and machines, which should be another large selling point of the process. im not sure that many industries can claim those sorts of #'s (other than software companies that dont produce anything but ideas).

I don't see how you can make any statements about what percent of the total cost the feedstock accounts for, without knowing exactly how much the processing costs (I didn't see any numbers on the processing costs in your post).

yes mike, i would absolutely agree with you that the fatal flaw in the whole deal is that coal is not a renewable resource and a net+carbon source for the ATM. plus its dirty full of 'stuff' like mercury,alkali ash, etc...   im not sure that its such a large step from plants to FT vs the existing coal to FT. moving that one extra step will close the C and other cycles much tighter.

On the processing end, I'd think that plants would be easier than coal, since you don't have to deal with some of the nasty stuff that you get with coal (mercury, uranium, thorium, etc.).

another problem with going from plants to FT is that there is alotta good stuff like nitrogen, P, K, Mg, etc that is in the plants that get chewed up and spit out in forms that are pollutants to the system. a great process would be to strip out the nutrients within the plants before moving thru the FT process. this would offer instead of pollutants, a revenue stream.

Yup.

still, given current technology, political and economic climate, it seems confusing that more FT processing plants arnt popping up. 

It is somewhat surprising. And unfortunately, the ones that are likely going to pop up soon will be running on coal rather than plants - yet various politicians and people from those companies are lobbying to get it labelled as "biodiesel", and eligible for the biodiesel tax credit, even though it's made from coal. Another reason I hate tax credits/subsidies.

Mike Briggs:

froggy:

yes, as i mentioned, the feedstock ( the largest % of gross margins) comes up to less than 10%. which means that 90% of the $$$ made from the process goes to employees and machines, which should be another large selling point of the process. im not sure that many industries can claim those sorts of #'s (other than software companies that dont produce anything but ideas).

I don't see how you can make any statements about what percent of the total cost the feedstock accounts for, without knowing exactly how much the processing costs (I didn't see any numbers on the processing costs in your post).

i dont know all the cost, hence the question in the post. and certainly these are 'back of the napkin' #'s...

the feedstock costs 10$/ton. 50gal of diesel sells for ~2.50g. for easy and safe #'s lets use 2$/gal. = 100$ of product for 10$ of feedstock. that means that the feedstock = ~10%. that leave 90% of the rest of the 2$ to be used for employees, machines, lights, transportation, pumps, profits, etc.

i have been told that the feedstocks for ethanol = ~40% of selling price. dino oil and coal both have a larger feedstock cost than 10% of selling price. the chemical industry has a ~40% feedstock cost/selling price.

i will admit that i dont know what all the production #'s are for FT, but it seems to me if one looks at the industry, 10% feedstock pricing/ selling pricing is clearly a number that should create some interests. even if one looks at some more expensive types of coals, the feedstock % still looks attractive.

i understand that the selling costs move around and this selling price isnt the best way to gage the system. coal does the same thing, they wait for prices to ramp up before they open mines. oil wells do the same thing. seems to me that everything is in place, which is why its curious that more arnt popping up...  ill even go one step further and say that USA has the cheapest coal in the world. so if it is going to happen anywhere, it should be in the USA.

again, im shooting outta the dark here but it wouldnt seem too hard to switch over a coal FT to a biomass FT. seems the important thing is to get the FT systems out there first.

that 'coal to biodiesel' is a bad idea, bastardizing the term. there should be a different subsidy on the stuff (if there is one at all, which i dont think there should). black energy should be taxed for what its worth, as should green energy.

froggy:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/NetEnergy/WoodFischerTropsch.pdf

 would anyone argue with the #'s presented in this paper?

im looking for analysis on the FT process. comments, links and papers would be great

There have been quite a lot of papers given over the last 5 or 6 years in Europe (and I guess the US also) on the Fischer Tropsch process for fuels from Biomass, there has been  some research done by the bigger petrochem companies over thelast few years.

Holland 2003 France 2002 Amsterdam 2002 2002

I have not read any of the details, however at the Biofuels conference in Budapest this year there where a couple of presentations about the feasibility and current applications of F-T and Biomass. Dr. Harold Boerrigter from Holland seems to have his name come up a lot in conjunction with F-T and Biomass related reasearch and this link is to the paper he gave there.

froggy:

Mike Briggs:

froggy:

yes, as i mentioned, the feedstock ( the largest % of gross margins) comes up to less than 10%. which means that 90% of the $$$ made from the process goes to employees and machines, which should be another large selling point of the process. im not sure that many industries can claim those sorts of #'s (other than software companies that dont produce anything but ideas).

I don't see how you can make any statements about what percent of the total cost the feedstock accounts for, without knowing exactly how much the processing costs (I didn't see any numbers on the processing costs in your post).

i dont know all the cost, hence the question in the post. and certainly these are 'back of the napkin' #'s...

the feedstock costs 10$/ton.

That's the rock bottom price one could possibly get the feedstock for - only one place in the world (I think) where coal is available at that price. $40-60 per ton IMO is much more reasonable (higher if outside the US).

 50gal of diesel sells for ~2.50g. for easy and safe #'s lets use 2$/gal. = 100$ of product for 10$ of feedstock.

$2.50/gal is including road taxes (around 50 cents per gallon), transport costs, and markups by multiple middlemen along the way.

that means that the feedstock = ~10%. that leave 90% of the rest of the 2$ to be used for employees, machines, lights, transportation, pumps, profits, etc.

Ok. From your previous post, I thought you were assuming that the other 90% was just for employees and machines (you didn't include transportation and other things), which isn't really accurate. Also you need to keep in mind that you are using a rock bottom price for the feedstock, which isn't really a good approach. In general coal costs considerably more than $10/ton.

i have been told that the feedstocks for ethanol = ~40% of selling price. dino oil and coal both have a larger feedstock cost than 10% of selling price. the chemical industry has a ~40% feedstock cost/selling price.

Sure, but the processing required for FT fuels is much more expensive. That's why you can't just look at it as it being a + that the feedstock cost is a lower percentage of the final potential price - how much it costs to process the feedstock into a usable produce is just as important. Petro refining is much cheaper and easier than making coal (or biomass) synfuels.

i will admit that i dont know what all the production #'s are for FT, but it seems to me if one looks at the industry, 10% feedstock pricing/ selling pricing is clearly a number that should create some interests. even if one looks at some more expensive types of coals, the feedstock % still looks attractive.

Again, you can't just look at feedstock costs.

i understand that the selling costs move around and this selling price isnt the best way to gage the system. coal does the same thing, they wait for prices to ramp up before they open mines. oil wells do the same thing. seems to me that everything is in place, which is why its curious that more arnt popping up...  ill even go one step further and say that USA has the cheapest coal in the world. so if it is going to happen anywhere, it should be in the USA.

The reason they're not popping up is because the processing is incredibly expensive. You are just assuming that the processing will cost little enough that they would be able to sell the fuel for a profit at $2 per gallon - which isn't necessarily correct.

BTW - it certainly isn't for lack of the US government throwing money at this and other "clean coal" projects that you aren't seeing coal FT synfuel plants popping up. The IRS just announced that it has allocated nearly $1 billion in tax credits to clean coal projects this year. That's billion, with a b.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=06BB7448FB13A8B8A00301D21149A9AC?id=46714

is that the 1b u mentioned Mike?

i use all my #'s from the EIA. here is a link if anyone cares to look at current pricing and costs for the energy industries in the USA (and they have some world stat's). http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html#spot

the ave price for coal in the usa = ~25$/ton delivered. most coals are in the 40-50$ range but wy. and montana have it for 10$/ton all u want for 100's of years. but also, as u get more expensive, your BTU/ton increase also. and as i tried to point out above, even with expensive coals, its still a good feedstock %/selling cost.

and as to my 'back of the napkin' calculations...its more of a guide post than a serious attempt to get at the nut. i still argue that the feedstock costs are considerably less that industry ave's on the face of it. as to middlemen and transportation and etc...ethanol feedstock = 40% of the selling price and they seem to be making a go of it (sure thru subsidies), i dont see how ethanol production can be all that much less than FT processing.

which brings me to my original conclusion, that its curious...

froggy:

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=06BB7448FB13A8B8A00301D21149A9AC?id=46714

is that the 1b u mentioned Mike?

No - that's $800 million to renewable energy proejcts. It's $100 billion to coal gasification projects. Note over 1,000 times as much. They're also slated to get another $70 billion or so again next year. Apparently coal companies don't feel it's fair that they only get 1,000 times as much money as all renewable energy projects combined, since now a few companies involved in coal synfuels, and politicians (such as the Montana governor) are trying to get coal derived diesel classified by the legislature as a renewable fuel, so they can also tap into the small amount of renewable energy funding.

and as to my 'back of the napkin' calculations...its more of a guide post than a serious attempt to get at the nut. i still argue that the feedstock costs are considerably less that industry ave's on the face of it.

Yes, I agree that feedstock costs for coal synfuels are cheaper than most/all other fuels. The issue is that the processing is much more expensive than that for other fuels. That's unavoidable when you're starting with something with a low energy density (and low H:C ratio) and trying to turn it into something with a high energy density (and higher H:C ratio).

as to middlemen and transportation and etc...ethanol feedstock = 40% of the selling price and they seem to be making a go of it (sure thru subsidies), i dont see how ethanol production can be all that much less than FT processing.

which brings me to my original conclusion, that its curious...

Ethanol processing is expensive, but it's still cheaper than FT processing.

Mike Briggs:

The issue is that the processing is much more expensive than that for other fuels. That's unavoidable when you're starting with something with a low energy density (and low H:C ratio) and trying to turn it into something with a high energy density (and higher H:C ratio).

and you would consider biodiesel different because the 'organism' is doing the work? so in essence you are not moving lower to higher but just extracting the higher after biosynthesis thru the organism. is that the thinking? i suppose ethanol would be simular thinking then?

the direct product of photosynthesis is sugar. that sugar then is turned into everything else, including oil. so then the question comes up again, can we mechanically/chemically/etc turn sugar into oil more efficient (and cheaper and cleaner) than the plant can? i suppose i would generally agree with you to let the plant do as much work as they can. but that is only true until we can find a more efficient (and cheaper and cleaner) way to do it mechanically/chemically/etc. why? because the plant systems already exist, we just need to exploit them.

 

 

froggy:

Mike Briggs:

The issue is that the processing is much more expensive than that for other fuels. That's unavoidable when you're starting with something with a low energy density (and low H:C ratio) and trying to turn it into something with a high energy density (and higher H:C ratio).

and you would consider biodiesel different because the 'organism' is doing the work?

Yes - tHe organism is doing the work of making the high energy density oil to start with for conventional biodiesel production, and using solar energy (so energy we're not responsible for) to do it. So with conventional biodiesel processing, you can do it cheaper with less energy input (for the processing), since you're starting with a nice high energy density feedstock (oil).

so in essence you are not moving lower to higher but just extracting the higher after biosynthesis thru the organism. is that the thinking?

Yes. 

i suppose ethanol would be simular thinking then?

Sort of. The problem though with enzyme based ethanol production is that the enzymes are eating up a lot of energy to do the conversion.

the direct product of photosynthesis is sugar. that sugar then is turned into everything else, including oil. so then the question comes up again, can we mechanically/chemically/etc turn sugar into oil more efficient (and cheaper and cleaner) than the plant can?

That's a valid question. But, you need to also keep in mind that the plant is doing the conversion using solar energy input. If *we* do it, where does the energy input come from? (not to mention the labor and materials to run processing plants, etc..) That's why I don't think you should look at it purely in terms of the efficiency of the process itself.

i suppose i would generally agree with you to let the plant do as much work as they can. but that is only true until we can find a more efficient (and cheaper and cleaner) way to do it mechanically/chemically/etc. why? because the plant systems already exist, we just need to exploit them.

Or until we can make a nice artificial photosynthesis system that more directly produces oil, and potentially in a non-living organism (think of an aqueous solar cell (with CO2 in the water) that uses the electrons excited by photon capture to split water and CO2, with other portions of the solar cell using the carbon and hydrogen (and some oxygen depending on what you want built) to synthesize exactly what we want. That would be sweet.