Juicing crop feedstock for ethanol

C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Schweik,
Out of curiosity, have you investigated sugar mills as they would
appear to do exactly what you want - separate the juice from the
chaff, so to speak. Given that they have been developed of hundreds of
years it might be that they have already solved your problems.
Yes, Sugar Cane and Jerusalem Artichokes are very different plants,
Sugar Cane being shorter, squatter, and much tougher, the machines
designed to juice them are needlessly powerful for JA.

Curbie
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim,

The two roller machines are mostly for street beverage vendors and
always shown as a multiple pass operation that I'm not really
interested in.
I don't understand why the bearing blocks set a minimum spacing
that caused her to run two pieces through together to squeeze out
the last of the juice.
This seems to be a common practice for the operators, folding,
twisting, or stacking the feedstock to press more from later passes,
it seems to me that they're concerned with overloading and jamming the
machine, snuffing the engine. (a mess to undo)

These are screen-shots from the two three roller machine videos that
show a single pass operation that does interest me:
http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz177/Curbie_Pics/SugarcaneJuicer01_0420.jpg
http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz177/Curbie_Pics/SugarCaneJuicer02_09.jpg

The red machine shows (what I think may be) roller adjustments the
other shows none, neither machine shows springs of any type, and all
rolls and roll gears seem to be the same size and turn at the same
speed.

The roll pressure seems to be determined by the roll gap so I'm
thinking I could set both gaps with a combination of shims in the
upper roll (moving it down) and a couple screw stops to adjust the
upper roll horizontally, increasing the gap (decreasing the pressure)
between the front and center rolls while simultaneously decreasing the
gap (increasing the pressure) between the rear and center rolls.

I think sandblasting or sanding the rolls is a good suggestion and
along the same lines it seems the may be a feed relationship between
the diameter of the feedstock and a proper diameter of the rolls I
need to think about.

After reading your thoughts on gearing and safety I'm wondering if a
hydraulic drive may be a safer option with quick stops and reverse
capabilities, I know it would increase costs, but the safety and
operational benefits may be worth it?

I was looking for some options for a DIY machine to juice a JA
feedstock and I think I got them, I don't think I can determine which
is best at this point without first growing and testing the feedstock,
but at least now I feel I can deal with juicing with one option or
another.

Thanks Jim and everyone for your time and help.

Curbie
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
http://baileynet.com/index.php?id=31&productcategory=1000004
Great link, thanks.

I don't have much experience with hydraulics just a modified tubing
bender way back when, with ram, not a motor.
You still need gears connecting the rollers to make them turn at the
same speed in opposite directions. Hydraulics are fine if you get
everything right the first time but considerably more expensive to
modify than belts and gears if you don't. Be sure you get pumps and
motors with straight keyed or Woodruff shafts, SAE splines or tapers
are a nightmare to adapt to:
Off the top of my head, I would think gears, pulleys, or sprockets
seems best for roller linkage, and a hydraulic pump driven by an
engine to drive the hydraulic motor to turn the linked rollers seems
best for safety, better control, and clearing jams.
The control valve for a logsplitter requires constant pressure on the
lever to run in one direction, the other direction latches but pops
out when the pressure rises. On a log splitter the non-latching
position is to split, the latched one to retract while you grab
another log. You could swap them so it latches to squeeze stalks and
pops out on a jam, the non-latching position would reverse the rollers
to clear the jam.

Good stuff, thanks.

Curbie
 
M

Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds

Jan 1, 1970
0
<c6oms55s621pa15pbtprjg37jl94l9d3c6@4ax.
com>,
Mal,


This video (25 seconds):

... shows the spiral grooves in the rollers, which I believe acts
functionally like a tapered roller (wider gap, reduced pressure), but
most videos show the operators avoiding them opting to fold, twist, or
stack the feedstock in subsequent passes using the smooth part of the
roller instead.

Tapered rollers seem like a good idea, but it concerns me that the
operators that do this daily don't seem to use that option much.

These are the two videos I found that use the single pass three roller
design I'm thinking about on a much smaller scale.
(32 seconds)
(140 seconds)

It seems safety was not a heavy consideration.

Curbie

Okay, here are some more thoughts, based
on those videos.

As your feed stock in all likelihood
will not be uniform diameter, aside from
the cost factor, wouldn't it make more
sense to have more than 3 rollers, with
a fairly wide gap at the input with
decreasing gaps with each additional
roller (set)?

All I can say is that watching those
videos shows that this is going to be a
very labor intensive effort.

I'm also curious if you've figured out
how much energy is going to be required
to run this thing and are you going to
break even?

Do you have good insurance? Thoses
things look like accidents waiting to
eat you.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla
adipiscing suscipit, velit urna pharetra
neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo.
Vivamus lacinia scelerisque ultricies.
Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam
sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida ac
viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non
nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod
feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis
ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a
neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat
aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna,
molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed
dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet
scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros
rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium
metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.
 
S

Schweik

Jan 1, 1970
0
<c6oms55s621pa15pbtprjg37jl94l9d3c6@4ax.
com>,


Okay, here are some more thoughts, based
on those videos.

As your feed stock in all likelihood
will not be uniform diameter, aside from
the cost factor, wouldn't it make more
sense to have more than 3 rollers, with
a fairly wide gap at the input with
decreasing gaps with each additional
roller (set)?

All I can say is that watching those
videos shows that this is going to be a
very labor intensive effort.

I'm also curious if you've figured out
how much energy is going to be required
to run this thing and are you going to
break even?

Do you have good insurance? Thoses
things look like accidents waiting to
eat you.


A comment on the video.

It shows a Malaysian or more likely an Indonesian squeezing sugar cane
to make a drink. (sugar cane juice and water). she will have gotten
the cane cut to length and pretty much of the same size, if for no
other reason that is the way that cane grows. The bagasse will be
damp, in no way do these small machines approach the juice extraction
of the commercial plants.

You can see these machines in one form or another all over S.E. Asia,
both powered and hand cranked.

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildorcom)
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Schweik,

Thanks for the comments, but they're on the example of the street
vendor(s) video for the two roller presses I said I wasn't interested
in, I'm interested in the three roller press:
(32 seconds)
(140 seconds)

.... which seem to be circa 1900 commercial sugar cane presses. I'm not
sure what the commercial sugar cane producers are using today.

The criteria for this press is:
1 Get the best single pass separation (juicing)
2 In a reasonable time for a 1 - 2 acre crop
3 Of Jerusalem artichokes
4 Using DIY building techniques
5 For the lowest cost

Curbie
 
S

Schweik

Jan 1, 1970
0
Schweik,

Thanks for the comments, but they're on the example of the street
vendor(s) video for the two roller presses I said I wasn't interested
in, I'm interested in the three roller press:
(32 seconds)
(140 seconds)

... which seem to be circa 1900 commercial sugar cane presses. I'm not
sure what the commercial sugar cane producers are using today.

The criteria for this press is:
1 Get the best single pass separation (juicing)
2 In a reasonable time for a 1 - 2 acre crop
3 Of Jerusalem artichokes
4 Using DIY building techniques
5 For the lowest cost

Curbie


Ahh - I just looked at the first URL and the second (the cow powered).

About 15 years ago I built a small gas extraction plant in the middle
of an, approximately 100 sq. Km. cane field and while I did not visit
the actual sugar plant the same chemical supplier that supplied us
also supplied the sugar mill. From discussions with him it appeared
that a modern sugar mill uses pressures in the range of 1,000's of
pounds per sq. inch during the extraction process,. the chemical guy
was talking about special oils used to lubricate things that change
their composition under these pressures.

If a three roller (which I think the sugar mill was) I see no
difficulty in making one. A simple frame welded up from suitable steel
sections.

Probably the rolls would prove the most difficult to source and you
might have to have these made. The bearing blocks are available
commercially and if the press were designed with a variable gap, and a
slightly larger gap between the first roller and the upper then
between the second and the upper it would be progressive as well as
adjustable during the testing stages.

You use the term DIY but do it yourself might well mean a different
thing for one bloke then it does for another, so in a sense it is
meaningless.

Cheers,

Schweik
(goodsoldierschweikatgmaildorcom)
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Schweik,

This is the link I posted for a quick three roller design:
http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz177/Curbie_Pics/RollerJuicer02.jpg

… a quick patent search turned up this table top kitchen three roller
type machine:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Is...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
obviously not a machine to juice a 1-2 acre crop, but interesting
reading with some applicable information.

… searching for spur gears turn up this Boston gear catalog:
http://www.bostongear.com/pdf/upload/lit/P-1482-BG_50116_pg037-050.pdf

… not only gears, but a description of how to properly match gears to
input power. It seems that finding the proper gear will dictate the
diameter of the drive-shaft & key-way, the OD of pipe or tube used as
rollers, the OD of the drive-shaft & ID of the pipe or tube will
dictate the dimensions of the inserts to join the drive-shaft &
roller.

6 pillow blocks and some square tube for a frame and I think I have a
pretty good start.

Curbie
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Jan 1, 1970
0
Schweik,

This is the link I posted for a quick three roller design:
http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz177/Curbie_Pics/RollerJuicer02.jpg

… a quick patent search turned up this table top kitchen three roller
type machine:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Is...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
obviously not a machine to juice a 1-2 acre crop, but interesting
reading with some applicable information.

… searching for spur gears turn up this Boston gear catalog:
http://www.bostongear.com/pdf/upload/lit/P-1482-BG_50116_pg037-050.pdf

… not only gears, but a description of how to properly match gears to
input power. It seems that finding the proper gear will dictate the
diameter of the drive-shaft & key-way, the OD of pipe or tube used as
rollers, the OD of the drive-shaft & ID of the pipe or tube will
dictate the dimensions of the inserts to join the drive-shaft &
roller.

6 pillow blocks and some square tube for a frame and I think I have a
pretty good start.

Curbie


A couple of comments.

If you are aiming at dry baggasse I would start designing with the
rollers as they will need to withstand the most force as if you are
going to subtract a substantial percentage of the juice there is going
to be fairly high loading on the rollers. The rollers themselves can
probably be any logical diameter but the end shafts will need to be
large enough to support the load on the rollers without bending.
Bearings and gears then follow the roller design and sizes. I would
assume fairly low rotational speed so bearings can probably be
selected for load without regard to speed.

Incidentally, it shouldn't be mandatory to use gears as any lost
motion between the rolls is not going to hamper the operation,
assuming the differences aren't great, although gears would perhaps be
simpler.

I would make the gap between the first and top roller large enough to
feed the stalks and to do a preliminary crush. with the final juice
extraction done between the second roller and top roller. You could
then make only the top roller adjustable. The two lower rollers could
initially be mounted using clamps or other temporary fastenings until
you determined the optimum spacing and then either welded or through
bolted, leaving the upper roller adjustable - maybe using slots for
the hold-down bolts and some sort of adjusting jackscrew.

I would not use box sections as I do not believe that they are best
for this application. I would look at "I" beam or angle.

Finally, I don't think power is going to be a major problem as the
gear reduction between the prime mover and the rollers is going to be
substantial.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
John,

I'm fairly happy with the general design as laid out in this thread
with the exception of the frame in which I agree with you that the
square tube needs some more thought. I don't think the design has near
the frame needed to handle roller pressures.

Thanks for your comments and time,

Curbie
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim,

No one is responsible for my mistakes except me. Thanks for the axle
idea, but after CAD-ing it I think it is a step backwards for
construction simplicity and cost. Channel iron for the frame on the
other hand may have some potential.

Thanks,

Curbie
 
M

Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds

Jan 1, 1970
0
<7130fd3f-6427-4b97-975a-cb336f22a595@k4
1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Jim Wilkins said:
The axles become the ends of the rollers. The "wheels" could be a
short pieces of thick-walled tubing counterbored to take the bearings.
Weld them to the frame attachment plates to make DIY pillow blocks.
Mill lengthwise drive key slots in the axles and stack the gears on
outboard of the "wheels", which you make correspondingly thinner. The
axle nut holds the gear and bearings together.

That's if you can't find suitable roller-bearing pillow blocks. A
roller either turned as one piece or built up as a tube with end plugs
strung onto a long shaft is safer because it won't distort from
welding, if you have the money and a large enough lathe.

As for the frame, I can't be responsible for your structural
engineering calculations but IIRC the 12 Ton hydraulic press here uses
3" channel for the frame. The 20 Ton one uses 4" channel.
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=33497

I couldn't measure the weight (web thickness) of the channel. Rolled
steel structural shapes are sold by width and weight per pound,
controlled by the spacing when they are rolled. In my 1970 steel
construction manual 3" channel weighs 4.1 Lbs / foot, 4" weighs 5.4. I
think other weights are available now.

jsw

Gee, all of a sudden I'm thinking of
using two railroad "trucks" on top of
each other. I don't know how you would
power them, but they have the
axle/bearing issue pre-solved...and are
probably reasonably priced

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla
adipiscing suscipit, velit urna pharetra
neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo.
Vivamus lacinia scelerisque ultricies.
Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam
sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida ac
viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non
nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod
feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis
ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a
neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat
aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna,
molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed
dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet
scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros
rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium
metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Jan 1, 1970
0
John,

I'm fairly happy with the general design as laid out in this thread
with the exception of the frame in which I agree with you that the
square tube needs some more thought. I don't think the design has near
the frame needed to handle roller pressures.

Thanks for your comments and time,

Curbie


If and when you build this device it would be interesting, at least to
me, if you would report on any problems, solutions, and effectiveness
of the devise as, who knows? I might want to go into the crushing
business some day :)

Also some overall information on the feasibility of the project would
be nice. How many gallons in the tank from an acre, etc.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
John,

The idea stems from what in my view is the best DIY alternative-energy
"return on investment" which I think is solar domestic heating, and to
size a solar heating system it must be designed to provide enough heat
for your house in your location's coldest month.

A properly built DIY solar domestic heating system can break-even in a
fairly short time, which is great, but that investment only works at
100% capacity in the coldest months of the year, and produces excess
(unused) heat as the months get warmer.

So the goal was to find something of equal value to do with the excess
heat produced in the warmer months, and ethanol gets knocked for the
amount of energy (~20,000-40,000 BTU) it takes to make 1 gallon of
ethanol which in turn produces 76,000 BTU (36,000-56,000 net). So,
I've been studying the notion of solar ethanol which seems an
interesting pair.

The quality of heat (temperature) for ethanol is higher that what
collectors can deliver so I'm studying trough concentrators:
http://wims.unice.fr/xiao/solar/diy.html

There's a lot written on ethanol, some of the best stuff I've found
is:
"Mother Earth Alcohol Fuel" by The Mother Earth News (FREE)
http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meToC.html

"The Manual for the Home and Farm Production of Alcohol Fuel" by S.W.
Mathewson (FREE)
http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_manual/manual_ToC.html

"ALCOHOL DISTILLATION" by Purdue University (FREE)
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ae/ae-117.html

"The Compleat Distiller" by Nixon & McCaw ($25.00)
http://www.amphora-society.com/The-Compleat-Distiller_p_0-1.html

Tony Ackland's web-site has the best distillation theory, math, and
forum. Although it's a spirit site, due to the legal status of
distilling spirits it's also has a great DIY forum.
http://homedistiller.org/

Stills are the obvious and sexy part of distilling ethanol for fuel
but in my opinion people pay far too much attention on building large
stills (C803 because they're plans available, for example) and not
enough attention on either the amount of energy or feedstock it takes
to feed one, or enough attention on the principles they operate on.

Commercial farm yields for Jerusalem Artichokes are reported to be 750
- 900 gallons per acre, I'm hoping for 300 - 350 gallons per acre
following this 1983 patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Mr83AAAAEBAJ&dq=4400469

Good luck,

Curbie
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Jan 1, 1970
0
John,

The idea stems from what in my view is the best DIY alternative-energy
"return on investment" which I think is solar domestic heating, and to
size a solar heating system it must be designed to provide enough heat
for your house in your location's coldest month.

It is not "heating" per se, but solar hot water was a big thing in
Indonesia. The heaters are quite visible on roofs and one could see
them as you drove through the city. I would hesitate to guess numbers
but they were certainly well distributed through the middle class, and
perhaps surprising, through the "upper class" housings areas.

One house I lived in had the system and as installed in Indonesia it
consisted of a storage tank and a pump to circulate the water through
the solar panel.

Generally one would have one of the "instant hot water heaters"
connected to your shower so you could have a warm bath on cold days
but for much of the year it provided all the hot water my wife, I and
the house maid used.

My grand parents (in up-state New England) had hot water heat in
their house, "base board heating" I believe it was called, that worked
well. It doesn't take much imagination to connect the two systems :)
A properly built DIY solar domestic heating system can break-even in a
fairly short time, which is great, but that investment only works at
100% capacity in the coldest months of the year, and produces excess
(unused) heat as the months get warmer.

So the goal was to find something of equal value to do with the excess
heat produced in the warmer months, and ethanol gets knocked for the
amount of energy (~20,000-40,000 BTU) it takes to make 1 gallon of
ethanol which in turn produces 76,000 BTU (36,000-56,000 net). So,
I've been studying the notion of solar ethanol which seems an
interesting pair.

The quality of heat (temperature) for ethanol is higher that what
collectors can deliver so I'm studying trough concentrators:
http://wims.unice.fr/xiao/solar/diy.html

There's a lot written on ethanol, some of the best stuff I've found
is:
"Mother Earth Alcohol Fuel" by The Mother Earth News (FREE)
http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meToC.html

"The Manual for the Home and Farm Production of Alcohol Fuel" by S.W.
Mathewson (FREE)
http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_manual/manual_ToC.html

"ALCOHOL DISTILLATION" by Purdue University (FREE)
http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ae/ae-117.html

"The Compleat Distiller" by Nixon & McCaw ($25.00)
http://www.amphora-society.com/The-Compleat-Distiller_p_0-1.html

Tony Ackland's web-site has the best distillation theory, math, and
forum. Although it's a spirit site, due to the legal status of
distilling spirits it's also has a great DIY forum.

http://homedistiller.org/
Stills are the obvious and sexy part of distilling ethanol for fuel
but in my opinion people pay far too much attention on building large
stills (C803 because they're plans available, for example) and not
enough attention on either the amount of energy or feedstock it takes
to feed one, or enough attention on the principles they operate on.

Commercial farm yields for Jerusalem Artichokes are reported to be 750
- 900 gallons per acre, I'm hoping for 300 - 350 gallons per acre
following this 1983 patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Mr83AAAAEBAJ&dq=4400469

Good luck,

Curbie

I wonder whether some form of oil producing plant where the "juice"
can be directly used as fuel, oil palms, olives, corn oil, etc., would
be more energy economical, rather then the intricacies making alcohol,
and provide more BTU's of heat per unit also?

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
C

Curbie

Jan 1, 1970
0
John,

I wondered about the same thing, and this is what my research
kicked-up: you can run a diesel on Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) but
you can't start a diesel on SVO, you can start a diesel with either
Bio-Diesel (Transesterified VO), blended VO (RUG/VO) or 2# diesel
then switch to SVO after the diesel is running.

Vegetable Oil will cause carbon build-up problems in diesels if you
don't first equalize its viscosity and volatility to the same levels
as #2 diesel, there are a lot of people experimenting with blending
and equalization, but right now Bio-Diesel is the only sure-fire
replacement for #2 diesel.

The transesterification process requires either methanol or ethanol
and since methanol is currently a fossil-fuel derivative,
transesterified VO made with it is not really a bio-fuel and is still
tied to the fossil-fuel market, requiring ethanol for
transesterification of true bio-diesel. For me anyway, since either
process would require ethanol, there are other considerations that
just made ethanol a better option.

The EPA (in the US) has cracked down and banned the importation of
most listeroid type small diesel engines so finding engines to suit
particular purposes is difficult and more expensive. Still the diesel
route would make more sense for many, but at $1650 for just a small
screw-press http://www.woodnstuff.ca/oil_presses.html this option
isn't as simple as it first might seem.

Growing the feedstock are just about a wash, and the rough comparison
looks something like this:

Crop yields:
Sunflowers for oil, about 100 gallons per acre.
JA or sorgum for ethanol about 400 gallons per acre.

At 4 to 1 yield ratio it seems an easy choice, but next you need to
account for fuel value.

SVO about 125,000 btu per gallon.
Ethanol about 75,000 btu per gallon.

SVO 100 (gallons per acre) x 125,000 (btu per gallon) = 12.5 million
btu/per acre.
Ethanol 400 (gallons per acre) x 75,000 (btu per gallon) = 30 million
btu/per acre.

The gap narrows form 4 to 1 to 2.4 to 1 in favor of ethanol.

Next we need to account for production energy, any energy used in
production which is subtracted from the total.

SVO about 12,000 btu per gallon (screw press)
Ethanol about 40,000 btu per gallon (chopping, cooking, fermenting, &
distilling)

SVO 100 x (125,000 - 12,000) = 11.3 million btu/per acre.
Ethanol 400 x (75,000 - 40,000) = 14 million btu/per acre.

Again the gap narrows yet further form 2.4 to 1 to 1.25 to 1 in favor
of ethanol but SVO is getting close.

Lastly we look at the cost upgrades to the equipment and the learning
curve (mechanical vs thermal dynamics) and crop spoilage for both
seeds (which can be processed into oil for many months) and stalks or
grass (which must be fermented quickly, requiring larger
stills/equipment) so the decision has a lot to do with personal
variables.

In my view, that 40,000 btu bite for ethanol energy usage can be
reduced by solar to both eliminate cooking & fermenting energy usage
and augment distilling energy usage to bump
ethanol's advantage back up to a 2 to 1.

Curbie
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Jan 1, 1970
0
John,

I wondered about the same thing, and this is what my research
kicked-up: you can run a diesel on Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) but
you can't start a diesel on SVO, you can start a diesel with either
Bio-Diesel (Transesterified VO), blended VO (RUG/VO) or 2# diesel
then switch to SVO after the diesel is running.

Vegetable Oil will cause carbon build-up problems in diesels if you
don't first equalize its viscosity and volatility to the same levels
as #2 diesel, there are a lot of people experimenting with blending
and equalization, but right now Bio-Diesel is the only sure-fire
replacement for #2 diesel.

The transesterification process requires either methanol or ethanol
and since methanol is currently a fossil-fuel derivative,
transesterified VO made with it is not really a bio-fuel and is still
tied to the fossil-fuel market, requiring ethanol for
transesterification of true bio-diesel. For me anyway, since either
process would require ethanol, there are other considerations that
just made ethanol a better option.

The EPA (in the US) has cracked down and banned the importation of
most listeroid type small diesel engines so finding engines to suit
particular purposes is difficult and more expensive. Still the diesel
route would make more sense for many, but at $1650 for just a small
screw-press http://www.woodnstuff.ca/oil_presses.html this option
isn't as simple as it first might seem.

Growing the feedstock are just about a wash, and the rough comparison
looks something like this:

Crop yields:
Sunflowers for oil, about 100 gallons per acre.
JA or sorgum for ethanol about 400 gallons per acre.

At 4 to 1 yield ratio it seems an easy choice, but next you need to
account for fuel value.

SVO about 125,000 btu per gallon.
Ethanol about 75,000 btu per gallon.

SVO 100 (gallons per acre) x 125,000 (btu per gallon) = 12.5 million
btu/per acre.
Ethanol 400 (gallons per acre) x 75,000 (btu per gallon) = 30 million
btu/per acre.

The gap narrows form 4 to 1 to 2.4 to 1 in favor of ethanol.

Next we need to account for production energy, any energy used in
production which is subtracted from the total.

SVO about 12,000 btu per gallon (screw press)
Ethanol about 40,000 btu per gallon (chopping, cooking, fermenting, &
distilling)

SVO 100 x (125,000 - 12,000) = 11.3 million btu/per acre.
Ethanol 400 x (75,000 - 40,000) = 14 million btu/per acre.

Again the gap narrows yet further form 2.4 to 1 to 1.25 to 1 in favor
of ethanol but SVO is getting close.

Lastly we look at the cost upgrades to the equipment and the learning
curve (mechanical vs thermal dynamics) and crop spoilage for both
seeds (which can be processed into oil for many months) and stalks or
grass (which must be fermented quickly, requiring larger
stills/equipment) so the decision has a lot to do with personal
variables.

In my view, that 40,000 btu bite for ethanol energy usage can be
reduced by solar to both eliminate cooking & fermenting energy usage
and augment distilling energy usage to bump
ethanol's advantage back up to a 2 to 1.

Curbi

Once you get the ethanol, how are you going to utilize it? How are you
planning to utilize it? Burn it in a heater or power an engine with
it?

Your message headers do not show your posting location but I assume
from your messages that you must be somewhere with a pretty mild
climate. I can't imagine doing this in the far northern states :)

By the way, I have a 6,000 word e-mail from a guy in South Carolina
who, with his mates, is running several diesel trucks and cars on
cooking oil that they collect from restaurants. He uses both a heated
system, on one car, and a mix of fry-oil and mineral spirits in a
truck and apparently has been doing it for a while. If it is of any
interest I can either post it here, or...

The e-mail came about when the price of diesel made one of its
frequent jumps in price and since this is practically the home of the
palm oil business I thought about running the pick-up on palm oil.

Unfortunately, normal Thai cooking doesn't have much waste oil
involved. What goes in the pan ends up on your plate. I checked with
some of the fast food places and they all have someone who is buying
their used cooking oil. I ended up pricing the price of palm oil in 20
ltr. tins only to discover that diesel oil was cheaper :-(

I got a laugh over the "oil press" site. the "Chang Fa" motors he
talks about are simply one of God knows how many makers in Asia that
make copies of the old one cylinder Yanmar engines, that Yanmar still
makes. They are literally all over the place over here, powering
everything from fishing boats to garden tractors to home made trucks.

The home made trucks that the guy will sell you a pamphlet on how to
build? Home made trucks are all over N.E. Thailand powered by these
"Chang Fa" type engines. If you are interested here is a site that
shows one http://boingboing.net/2009/08/02/incredible-thai-etan.html

The poster type picture at the top of the site is an advertisement for
a shop that builds the bodies only. It says "Bring in your truck and
we'll fit one of the body styles shown" :)


John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
Top