More waste to biofuel news -- sewage to biodiesel

[Bitchkoma]

Have a look see --

NZ firm makes bio-diesel from sewage in world first (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10381404)It is believed to be the world's first commercial production of bio-diesel from "wild" algae outside the laboratory - and the company expects to be producing at the rate of at least one million litres of the fuel each year from Blenheim by April.

To date, algae-derived fuel has only been tested under controlled conditions with specially grown algae crops, said spokesman Barrie Leay.

Aquaflow's algae, however, were derived from excess pond discharge from the Marlborough District Council's sewage treatment works. Algae take most chemicals out of sewage, but having too many of them taints the water and produces a foul smell.

The future is now.

[MBF]

I have often wondered why we can't harvest algae from the Gulf of Mexico. The amount of algae there is causing lots of problems.

[/url]http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/DeadZone.htm

You could kill two birds with one stone. You could produce fuel and increase the fish population. I have a relative in Florida that is a seafood wholeseller that told me that it has been so bad the last few years that they had to import fish from Mexico.

[Bitchkoma]

Ironically (or perhaps by design), the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico has expanded and the algae/red tide situation there has gotten worse because people are focusing to much effort on producing biofuels from crops such as corn or soy.

Due to the rising demand for ethanol, farmers in the U.S. planted more corn this year than in any year since World War II. The corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer. An estimated 210 million pounds of those nitrates are not absorbed by the corn, run off into streams and rivers, and are carried to the Gulf of Mexico each year, where it causes a massive "bloom" of algae.

When the algae dies it sinks to the bottom, where it absorbs oxygen as it decays. In recent years that oxygen depletion has created an aquatic "dead zone" covering about 8,000 square miles in which shrimp, fish, oysters and crabs cannot survive.

Source: Trees, Grass May Produce Ethanol Without Poisoning Gulf (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116192108.htm)

I'm pretty sure it's possible to use the algae in the gulf for something. At the very least there's Agrichar (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/updates/issues/may-2007/soils-offer-new-hope)Agrichar is a black carbon byproduct of a process called pyrolysis, which involves heating green waste or other biomass without oxygen to generate renewable energy.

[..]

“When applied at 10t/ha, the biomass of wheat was tripled and of soybeans was more than doubled,” said Dr Van Zwieten.

“This percentage increase remained the same when applications of nitrogen fertiliser were added to both the agrichar and the control plots.

“For the wheat, agrichar alone was about as beneficial for yields as using nitrogen fertiliser only.

“And that is without considering the other benefits of agrichar.”

Two birds with one stone? Try an entire flock of birds.

[mojo]

Nice posts Bk, i hadnt heard of agrichar before. 8) its cool learning new shit, i should try it more often. :D

[MBF]

I'm a farmer so I understand the problems associated with the Gulf algae problem. It's not just a nitrogen problem, but other nutrients as well. With the price of nitrogen going up the way it is, you are going to see a drastic cut in its use this year. I have cut my rates the last two years because of the price, but now they have run the price sky high.

The algae only grows on the top couple of feet of the water because it needs sunlight to grow. I think it could be skimmed off to be used for the production of biodiesel. If it was harvested, it would not die and sink and suck up the oxygen and kill fish.

As for the agrichar, charcoal is not a fertilizer so the crops will not benefit from it, but I don't see a problem putting it in the soil unless it has something in it that could build up in the soil. Some people around here had a problem putting out fly ash one time because it was high in zinc and some crops do not react well to high zinc concentrations. Ten tons/acre is a lot to put out there at one time. The most we put out of just about anything is 2 tons/acre of chicken litter.

As for the claims of the increased production of the wheat and soybeans, don't even bother with trying to believe any of it. It don't happen that way. We hear these claims all the time, buy our product and greatly increase your yields...it never happens.

[mojo]

What i would like to know is why diesel fuel costs more than
petrol. I was under the impression that diesel was the by product
of petroleum conversion, why does it cost more. Conspiracy?

[Yo Mama]

I remember the prices of gas in the 1970's (vaguely) and it's true that diesel WAS cheaper than regular gasoline. By quite a bit, as I recall.

Maybe it is a conspiracy.

[MBF]

Check out this site.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining4.htm

If you look at the pic, you will notice that diesel comes off lower than gasoline. They will use any excuse to run the price of diesel up. The next time you see a cold front up north or a snow storm, you will see the price of diesel go up fast. I guess the price is set by supply and demand. Guess who decides what the demand is. What's this I keep hearing about record profits for oil companies? :roll:

[Occam]

I believe that the medium molecular weight oil used for diesal is sort of a byproduct of gasoline production. That means, when there isn't much call for it, they sell it cheaply to get rid of it. But now that there is more demand than the amount made automatically, they have to change the processes to make more of it, and that costs more.

There are a great many sources of energy. The problem is that to convert it into usable fuel, often takes more energy than it will supply. For example, the stupidity of converting corn to ethanol is beyond belief, however, ADM has contributed election funds to enough legislators that they voted it in and gave the company large subsidies.

I agree that there's a huge amount of algae available, but I would guess that it would be very energy intensive to harvest it, drive off the large amount of moisture, then convert it into a liquid fuel.

As far as it sinking to the bottom of the ocean, what will happen is that gradually thick layers of this will be covered over by dirt, sink deeper into the earth, be heated by the heat in the mantle and compressed by the miles of earth above it. It will slowly turn into hydrocarbons, and it will be pumped out for fuel by the entities who happen to exist on earth about ten million years from now.

K/O

[Yo Mama]

Well, THAT's a relief! At least the cockroach or rat people will be able to drive internal combustion engine vehicles and keep the cycle going once we're gone.

[MBF]

Basically, what they do if they need more gasoline is they take the heavier fuels and crank up the temperature and run it back through the same kind of system. It takes more energy to refine that way so it doesn't make a lot of sense for gasoline to be cheaper than diesel unless there is a glut of gasoline.