Why not collecting ALL of the used cooking oil and transform it into biodiesel?

[estro]

I know biodiesel could be made from used cooking oil.
Also I know that we use a lot of cooking oil. [fast food industry for example]

Why not collecting ALL of the used cooking oil and transform it into biodiesel?
What are the shortcomings?

Relevant Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel"

 

[estro]

Why not making it on large scale?
As far as I know biodiesel is usable on standart diesel motors?

 

[Evo]

Why not collecting ALL of the used cooking oil and transform it into biodiesel?
What are the shortcomings?

Scarcity of used cooking oil.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/21/news/economy/vegetable_cars/

 

[Ms Music]

What are the shortcomings?

$$$

IMHO, it isn't popular because no fuel company knows how to make big profits off of it.

Also, are you talking about the blends, or what the veggie van runs on?

http://veggievan.org/veggievan/

 

[estro]

Scarcity of used cooking oil.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/21/news/economy/vegetable_cars/

Indeed this will never replace oil products, but not taking full advantage of it, is a waste in my opinion as 0.07 of US gas is not something you can neglect.

 

[Evo]

Indeed this will never replace oil products, but not taking full advantage of it, is a waste in my opinion as 0.07 of US gas is not something you can neglect.

It's also a problem of distribution, that is all oil from the entire United States. Did you read the reasons provided in the article?

 

[estro]

It's also a problem of distribution, that is all oil from the entire United States. Did you read the reasons provided in the article?

Yes, I guess I forgot this [important] factor...
Thanks for clearing this for me.

 

[Ms Music]

as 0.07 of US gas is not something you can neglect.

It is to the oil industry. There is not enough profit to justify trying to save (in their opinion) that small percentage.

I can buy biodiesel locally (although very expensive), but not veggie oil.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A few comment here.

Firstly, vegetable oil makes a terrible fuel. And while the laws are not typically enforced, vegetable oil is not legal to run [at least, it's not legal to sell as s fuel]. When one makes biodiesel from vegetable oil, however - the good stuff - the transesterication process removes the glycerin from the oil and converts the oil molecules to ones virtually identical those found in diesel fuel.

Biodiesel is a legal and viable fuel. And it doesn't require engine conversions and a spare tank to use.

Next, many companies like McDonalds are capturing their oil and converting it to fuel for their delivery trucks.

All in all, biodiesel is not a good fuel option unless it can be produced from algae. When taken from standard crops like soybeans, cotton, palm, etc, the return per acre-year is almost as bad as ethanol, which is ridiculously low. The key is to pursue the algae option and similar technologies that offer twenty times the yield per acre year, or more, as compared to ethanol. Then biodiesel could virtually eliminate the need for petro. And best of all, it is carbon neutral.

Vegetable oil will never be a good fuel option for the foreseeable future.

For the sake of perspective when it comes to yields, we once estimated that, in order to replace all US energy sources with ethanol from corn, the corn fields required would have to be twice the land area of the US! Unfortunately, most biodiesel crops don't produce much better than corn. For those that do, the yields are still far too low to be practical.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Vegetable oil will never be a good fuel option for the foreseeable future.

I should specify this to mean typical vegetable oils. There are some hybrid oil-fuels being considered. The Boeing 737 test flight used, I believe, a mix of jatropha oil, algae oil, and something else...not sure now. The exact mix and forumulation is likely proprietary information, but the engine was run on pure oils. And there are some algae oils that may be appropriate as a direct fuel. In particular, some algae oils cannot be used to make biodiesel. IIRC, the transesterfication reaction won't proceed because there are no glycerides to react. So there may be some exotic oils that will prove to be practical as a direct fuel option. Oils having a low saturated fat content tend to burn the cleanest. Oils high in saturated fats tend to have the highest energy density.

 

[klimatos]

My oldest daughter has her PHD in Mineral Economics and makes her living as a biodiesel consultant. Since both she and Ivan Seeking obviously know more about biodiesel than I do, I am not about to get technical. She spends a lot of time telling entrepreneurs that they are not going to get rich off of biodiesel.

From what she has said on numerous occasions, you cannot economically make biodiesel without three things: 1) Massive and reliable quantities of feedstock in very close proximity to 2) concentrated markets, and with the assistance of 3) Substantial subsidies.

She does not see any single alternative fuel or any foreseeable combination of alternative fuels cutting into the dominance of coal and petroleum.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My oldest daughter has her PHD in Mineral Economics and makes her living as a biodiesel consultant. Since both she and Ivan Seeking obviously know more about biodiesel than I do, I am not about to get technical. She spends a lot of time telling entrepreneurs that they are not going to get rich off of biodiesel.

From what she has said on numerous occasions, you cannot economically make biodiesel without three things: 1) Massive and reliable quantities of feedstock in very close proximity to 2) concentrated markets, and with the assistance of 3) Substantial subsidies.

She does not see any single alternative fuel or any foreseeable combination of alternative fuels cutting into the dominance of coal and petroleum.

I would be curious to know her thoughts on the algae option; as a future option. I would assume that someone in her position just takes a wait and see approach, but the algae people and the classic biodiesel crowd don't seem to talk much. I tend to assume this is because algae cuts the traditional farmer out of the loop, and traditional farmers have been the main drivers of the biodiesel option.

 

[estro]

Little bit off-topic, but couldn't resist:

What do you think is the future of personal transportation?
1. Electric motor based cars.
2. Some sort of biodiesel powered cars.
3. Other?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Little bit off-topic, but couldn't resist:

What do you think is the future of personal transportation:
1. Electric motor based cars.

Would be brilliant if the following criteria were met;
- Batteries that are as efficient at holding energy/power as petrol
- Green alternatives to making that energy i.e. renewable, nuclear otherwise you just move the problem

2. Some sort of biodiesel powered cars.

As long as it avoids the problem of farmland being converted to biodiesel cash crops and remained unpolluting.

3. Other?

Other alternatives could be effective city planning to include a very good and very efficient public transport network. I was shocked once to hear from an American that when they were growing up in a small town the nearest grocery store was 5miles away and there were no buses. Apparently this is fairly normal in the US. I grew up in a small town (UK) and there were dozens of different bus services running to different parts of town, local villages/towns, nearby train stations, airports etc. And that is fairly normal yet horrifically bad compared to large cities with pervasive public transport.

 

[Evo]

Would be brilliant if the following criteria were met;
- Batteries that are as efficient at holding energy/power as petrol
- Green alternatives to making that energy i.e. renewable, nuclear otherwise you just move the problemAs long as it avoids the problem of farmland being converted to biodiesel cash crops and remained unpolluting.Other alternatives could be effective city planning to include a very good and very efficient public transport network. I was shocked once to hear from an American that when they were growing up in a small town the nearest grocery store was 5miles away and there were no buses. Apparently this is fairly normal in the US. I grew up in a small town (UK) and there were dozens of different bus services running to different parts of town, local villages/towns, nearby train stations, airports etc. And that is fairly normal yet horrifically bad compared to large cities with pervasive public transport.

When I lived in upstate New york, the nearest grocery store was 8 miles away. Except in a handful of large cities, public transportation is scarce to almost unheard of, you get in a car and drive. You might find buses "downtown" in some large cities, but there is no bus or other transportation to the city from the suburbs. They recently put a few metro buses here a few years ago, but they don't even come to where I live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States

 

[Ryan_m_b]

When I lived in upstate New york, the nearest grocery store was 8 miles away. Except in a handful of large cities, public transportation is scarce to almost unheard of, you get in a car and drive. You might find buses "downtown" in some large cities, but there is no bus or other transportation to the city from the suburbs. They recently put a few metro buses here a few years ago, but they don't even come to where I live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States

"Suburbs" is a word I understand to be something completely different on either side of the pond. I've been informed that the population density of a suburb in the US would resemble that of a hamlet or isolated village in the UK. To us a suburb is the less densely packed edge of a settlement that isn't really much less dense.

To be so far from a shop just sounds alien. Even in villages in the UK a shop would be less than a mile away and over the past several years there's been a massive change in the big chain shops wherein they are replacing their large out of town shopping centres with a multitude of inner city "express" shops*. A personal example of this is that as I type this I'm in a suburban detached house in a county shire on the edge of a countryside and I still have within a mile radius two express shops. Where I usually live in London is very residential and there are still over a dozen of such shops in a mile or two radius.

Things like this really reduce the need for a car. Rather than driving to the out of town shopping centre several miles away it's much easier to get off the bus/train after work and nip into an express shop on the way home to buy a couple of bags of shopping. With rising fuel prices (and greener regulation) I can see this becoming the norm in Europe over large weekly shops with a car.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesco#Tesco_Express
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainsbury's_Local

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I lived in upstate New york, the nearest grocery store was 8 miles away. Except in a handful of large cities, public transportation is scarce to almost unheard of, you get in a car and drive. You might find buses "downtown" in some large cities, but there is no bus or other transportation to the city from the suburbs. They recently put a few metro buses here a few years ago, but they don't even come to where I live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_United_States

That is partly because we have so many square miles per capita, as compared to Europe. Nevermind rail, we still can't even get cable TV where we live! They can't justify stringing the lines for the small population serviced.

Back in the early part of the 20th century, we had rail systems for public transit. And most cities have good bus services with light rail being common as well now. But back in the 1950s, cars were glamorized and won the transportation battle here in the US. So, generally speaking, we built highways instead of rail systems.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If have often thought that vehicles like this coupled with public transportation designed to accept these, might be a good option. You just drive to your local station and then drive right onto the train.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If have often thought that vehicles like this coupled with public transportation designed to accept these, might be a good option. You just drive to your local station and then drive right onto the train.

Well with the burgeoning technology behind self-driving cars it may not be that far from reality. All it would take is to build some isolated roads like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus" as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well with the burgeoning technology behind self-driving cars it may not be that far from reality. All it would take is to build some isolated roads like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus" as well.

Here in the US, we could convert many many miles of bicycle pathways to personal vehicles pathways. And we already have public transportation and rail systems, we just don't use them; in many cases, because they're not practical. It seems to me that a hybrid system comprised of personal vehicles and public transportation, could work, and without the need for huge projects, less the need for specialized rail cars and access points.

 

[estro]

Our main problem is oil dependency, and I don't think this problem could be solved by improving public transportation, in fact the problem is so big that it can't be solved by focusing our attention on single idea, we should have several ideas and push all of them forward.

We already have very good ideas that should be pushed forward.
1. Electric/Biodiesel cars - I think governments should be more aggressive in pushing automotive industry towards alternative fueled cars. [taxes?]
2. Alternative fuels research - Governments should stimulate academia, solution will come from here.
Examples:

2.1 Electricity making roads are now tested in Haifa [pilot project from Technion with cooperation with Haifas municipality] (I'm trying English speaking link)
2.2 Geothermal electricity? [I'm sure there are experts here who can shed light on this.]
2.3 Nuclear Energy - Despite what happened in Japan I still think nuclear energy is integral part of our future.
2.4 Other?​

There is another problem, todays agriculture is super oil dependent. Oil prices will only go up so are the food prices. I think people underestimate this problem.

In short we should push on all fronts go get appropriate alternative.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Our main problem is oil dependency, and I don't think this problem could be solved by improving public transportation, in fact the problem is so big that it can't be solved by focusing our attention on single idea, we should have several ideas and push all of them forward.

We already have very good ideas that should be pushed forward.
1. Electric/Biodiesel cars - I think governments should be more aggressive in pushing automotive industry towards alternative fueled cars. [taxes?]
2. Alternative fuels research - Governments should stimulate academia, solution will come from here.
Examples:

2.1 Electricity making roads are now tested in Haifa [pilot project from Technion with cooperation with Haifas municipality] (I'm trying English speaking link)
2.2 Geothermal electricity? [I'm sure there are experts here who can shed light on this.]
2.3 Nuclear Energy - Despite what happened in Japan I still think nuclear energy is integral part of our future.​

There is another problem, todays agriculture is super oil dependent. Oil prices will only go up so are the food prices. I think people underestimate this problem

Here in the US, better transportation system could siginificantly reduce the demand for transportation energy, per capita. It wouldn't solve the problem, but as you say, there are many fronts on this battle.

I suggest that you learn more about the work being done with algae to produce biodiesel and other fuels. Exxon just put about ~ $500 million into this, along with BP, Shell [IIRC], DARPA, and a few other players who have dedicated lesser amounts of money, but still tens of millions each. I personally spent two years investigating the options as a business venture but found the development costs are still too high for small companies. This is a billion-dollar problem but a multi-trillion-dollar solution. It [and similar technologies, possibly including work with bacteria] is the only carbon-neutral, non-nuclear option, to my knowledge, that could completely eliminate the need for petroleum.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Our main problem is oil dependency, and I don't think this problem could be solved by improving public transportation, in fact the problem is so big that it can't be solved by focusing our attention on single idea, we should have several ideas and push all of them forward.

Agreed, it will take an interdisciplinary and varied approach. Improving city planing and public transport would make a massive difference (far fewer cars to the shop, more people per commuting vehicle) especially if they run on mature electric technology supported by a very green energy infrastructure. I.e. very efficient, very aesthetically, varied electric public transport in a country where the majority of energy is nuclear and renewable (with substantial carbon offsetting schemes).

 

[klimatos]

I would be curious to know her thoughts on the algae option; as a future option. I would assume that someone in her position just takes a wait and see approach, but the algae people and the classic biodiesel crowd don't seem to talk much. I tend to assume this is because algae cuts the traditional farmer out of the loop, and traditional farmers have been the main drivers of the biodiesel option.

She has been involved in two algae-to-biodiesel operations, one of the open pond type and one of the closed loop type.

The major problem is that both have extremely high start-up costs and fairly high operating costs. While it is true that one acre of algae produces far more usable oil than does one acre of soybeans, the capital costs are overwhelming. She says that petroleum would have to be over $600 per barrel to make algae-biodiesel competitive.

As for the open-pond operation, the investors could not get anyone to live on site or even close to the site. It reeks!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"Suburbs" is a word I understand to be something completely different on either side of the pond. I've been informed that the population density of a suburb in the US would resemble that of a hamlet or isolated village in the UK. To us a suburb is the less densely packed edge of a settlement that isn't really much less dense.

To be so far from a shop just sounds alien. Even in villages in the UK a shop would be less than a mile away and over the past several years there's been a massive change in the big chain shops wherein they are replacing their large out of town shopping centres with a multitude of inner city "express" shops*. A personal example of this is that as I type this I'm in a suburban detached house in a county shire on the edge of a countryside and I still have within a mile radius two express shops. Where I usually live in London is very residential and there are still over a dozen of such shops in a mile or two radius.

Things like this really reduce the need for a car. Rather than driving to the out of town shopping centre several miles away it's much easier to get off the bus/train after work and nip into an express shop on the way home to buy a couple of bags of shopping. With rising fuel prices (and greener regulation) I can see this becoming the norm in Europe over large weekly shops with a car.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesco#Tesco_Express
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainsbury's_Local

There is far greater population density in the UK from what I understand. My grandparents live in a relatively "well" populated desert area in California but they are still a half mile or more from their closest neighbour. The population in the US is rather spread out.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There is far greater population density in the UK from what I understand. My grandparents live in a relatively "well" populated desert area in California but they are still a half mile or more from their closest neighbour. The population in the US is rather spread out.

Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density" that the population density of the US is 32 people per km2 whereas in the UK it's 255!

 

[estro]

She has been involved in two algae-to-biodiesel operations, one of the open pond type and one of the closed loop type.

The major problem is that both have extremely high start-up costs and fairly high operating costs. While it is true that one acre of algae produces far more usable oil than does one acre of soybeans, the capital costs are overwhelming. She says that petroleum would have to be over $600 per barrel to make algae-biodiesel competitive.

As for the open-pond operation, the investors could not get anyone to live on site or even close to the site. It reeks!

While I do understand why algage at this moment can't economically compete with conventional diesel/petrol but for me it is hard to believe that biodiesel can't compete, can you please explain this point?

Global biodiesel production reached 3.8 million tons in 2005. Approximately 85% of biodiesel production came from the European Union.[citation needed]
In 2007, in the United States, average retail (at the pump) prices, including federal and state fuel taxes, of B2/B5 were lower than petroleum diesel by about 12 cents, and B20 blends were the same as petrodiesel.[36] However, as part as a dramatic shift in diesel pricing over the last year, by July 2009, the US DOE was reporting average costs of B20 15 cents per gallon higher than petroleum diesel ($2.69/gal vs. $2.54/gal).[37] B99 and B100 generally cost more than petrodiesel except where local governments provide a tax incentive or subsidy.

 

[estro]

She has been involved in two algae-to-biodiesel operations, one of the open pond type and one of the closed loop type.

The major problem is that both have extremely high start-up costs and fairly high operating costs. While it is true that one acre of algae produces far more usable oil than does one acre of soybeans, the capital costs are overwhelming. She says that petroleum would have to be over $600 per barrel to make algae-biodiesel competitive.

As for the open-pond operation, the investors could not get anyone to live on site or even close to the site. It reeks!

While I do understand why algage at this moment can't economically compete with conventional diesel/petrol but for me it is hard to believe that biodiesel can't compete, can you please explain this point?

In 2007, in the United States, average retail (at the pump) prices, including federal and state fuel taxes, of B2/B5 were lower than petroleum diesel by about 12 cents, and B20 blends were the same as petrodiesel.[36] However, as part as a dramatic shift in diesel pricing over the last year, by July 2009, the US DOE was reporting average costs of B20 15 cents per gallon higher than petroleum diesel ($2.69/gal vs. $2.54/gal).[37] B99 and B100 generally cost more than petrodiesel except where local governments provide a tax incentive or subsidy.

 

[MarcoD]

The major problem is that both have extremely high start-up costs and fairly high operating costs. While it is true that one acre of algae produces far more usable oil than does one acre of soybeans, the capital costs are overwhelming. She says that petroleum would have to be over $600 per barrel to make algae-biodiesel competitive.

As far as I know, at the moment it is such that algae produce high-quality biofuel but at a tremendous investment in energy. I.e., the numbers look great until you look at how much energy must be pumped into produce it. Sugarcane greatly outperforms it when looked at it from that perspective.

It's not a solution to anything so far, except for maybe converting electric energy to a liquid mass at break even cost.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

She has been involved in two algae-to-biodiesel operations, one of the open pond type and one of the closed loop type.

The major problem is that both have extremely high start-up costs and fairly high operating costs. While it is true that one acre of algae produces far more usable oil than does one acre of soybeans, the capital costs are overwhelming. She says that petroleum would have to be over $600 per barrel to make algae-biodiesel competitive.

As for the open-pond operation, the investors could not get anyone to live on site or even close to the site. It reeks!

We determined very quickly that open ponds are not a viable option, but mainly due to the lack of control, invasive species, bacterial and other forms of contamination, and mutations. And there are some absolutely ridiculously expensive approaches being used that could never be cost competitive. In particular the high-end bioreactor designs are absolutely impractical unless we want to pay $12 a gallon. That is precisely why I got involved in the first place. There is no doubt that this situation can be greatly improved.

Much of this cost can be eliminated. Hopefully Exxon, DARPA and others can bring this down to a competitive price. DARPA expects to produce biodiesel from algae, in the battlefield, for $3 a gallon.

Truthfully, after two years of work and research, I had a plan that landed on the same production costs as DARPA estimates [and I came up with my number two years before they did!]. I just couldn't get anyone to give me $500 million to try it! From my point of view, the problem is the development cost, not the inherent production costs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Klimatos, after giving up the effort due to the excessive development costs, I spent about eight pages [intermittantly] explaining the concept and reasoning used in our approach. In my opinion we made a number of gains, not the least of which is possibly eliminating the need for a nitrogen source. If you, she, or anyone else is interested, I summarized some of our efforts and findings beginning approximately on page 14 of this thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274&highlight=algae+rescue&page=14

 

[DoggerDan]

All in all, biodiesel is not a good fuel option unless it can be produced from algae.

Now you're talking.

When taken from standard crops like soybeans, cotton, palm, etc, the return per acre-year is almost as bad as ethanol, which is ridiculously low. The key is to pursue the algae option and similar technologies that offer twenty times the yield per acre year, or more, as compared to ethanol.

Now you're really talking! Any mention of wide-spread use of ethanol tends to drive food prices way up, even though our government still pays many farmers not to grow things on their land.

Algae biodiesel is also known as oilgae (http://www.oilgae.com/), at least by one company's reckoning.

Couple of quotes from Wikipedia:

"The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map. This is less than 1⁄7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000."

I wonder if that's less than the area of corn which government pays farmers not to grow.

"According to the head of the Algal Biomass Organization algae fuel can reach price parity with oil in 2018 if granted production tax credits."

Since tax credits come out of the taxpayers pockets, let's skip this step and simply pay for what you use.

Then biodiesel could virtually eliminate the need for petro.

Only if you own a diesel. Looks like I'll be going diesel sometime in the future.

And best of all, it is carbon neutral.

Not really. You're still producing more carbon to grow, harvest, transport, and burn it as a fuel than it sequesters.

Unfortunately, most biodiesel crops don't produce much better than corn.

You're saying the DoE's figures are out to lunch? Wikipedia's source on that was: Hartman, Eviana (2008-01-06). "A Promising Oil Alternative: Algae Energy". The Washington Post.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not really. You're still producing more carbon to grow, harvest, transport, and burn it as a fuel than it sequesters.

How does that happen if the system is effectively closed - self-powered? I think you are assuming the general model in place now, and not a more practical model like the one I describe in the thread linked.

You're saying the DoE's figures are out to lunch? Wikipedia's source on that was: Hartman, Eviana (2008-01-06). "A Promising Oil Alternative: Algae Energy". The Washington Post.

I was referring to options other than algae. At about 500 gallons of fuel per acre-year - at most 20% of the yield of algae - palm is I believe the next best producers. Soy and rapeseed are down around 100 gallons per acre-year.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, over a total of 9 months of testing - 3 months indoors and then 6 months indoors and outdoors - my algae water never acquired an odor. When it was harvest time, the stuff looked like pea soup, but at most there was a slight odor of vitamins due to the nutrients used. The unpleasant odor klimatos mentioned indicates the presense of bacteria, which immediately means reduced yields or even the death of the algae bloom. This goes back to the point that the problem of contamination makes open ponds impractical.