It's a world market for Biofuels too

[TOM4CWB]

JD4ME;

at 25 cent/lb veg oil, 1.8lb/L... does this convert to around $.55/L biofuel?

[ianben]

We have a plant like you describe I think. http://www.argentenergy.com/.

Built next to a rendering plant and tankers deliver Biofuel and return with used cooking oil for max efficency.

No acres taken out of production though only possible plus for farmers may be cooking oil changed more frequently now it does not cost to disspose of it.

[TOM4CWB]

Ianben;

This is what I see @http://www.handsontv.info/series6/04_Energy_Matters_reports/report4.html

"The Process

The feedstock is pre-treated to ensure that protein and insoluble materials are removed. It is then subjected to a chemical process known as esterification at a high temperature, in an extremely acidic environment, followed by a double trans-esterification process in an extremely caustic environment.

As well as biodiesel, another biofuel oil is produced during the distillation process. This renewable fuel is used as a fuel source for the plant, substantially reducing the environmental impact of the manufacturing process. A further by-product is glycerine which has a wide variety uses, such as in the paint and resin industries."

What do you think Ianben, doesn't look like it uses the new process?

[JD4ME]

Tom

I think Glycerin is still produced I will look into it further but you might also find this interesting




Aug 11 2005


Contact: Jeffrey Neu
Sr. Information Specialist
573-882-3346
NeuJ@missouri.edu

New Process Developed to Make Biodiesel Production Cheaper for Manufacturers
Developed by MU Researcher, New Method Also Creates NonToxic Antifreeze
By Jeffrey Neu

COLUMBIA, Mo. -- In recent months, President Bush has pushed an energy plan that calls for an increase in the production of alternative fuels like biodiesel. In 1999, biodiesel producers sold only 500,000 gallons of fuel, but last year, 30 million gallons were sold. Still, that represents only a fraction of fuel used in the United States. Now, a researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia is working to make biodiesel manufacturing more profitable for producers and more attractive to consumers.

Galen Suppes, an MU chemical engineering professor and chief science officer of the MU-based Renewable Alternatives, has developed a process for converting glycerin, a byproduct of the biodiesel production process, into propylene glycol. Propylene glycol can be used as nontoxic antifreeze for automobiles. Currently, ethylene glycol is prominently used in vehicular antifreeze and is both toxic and made from petroleum. Suppes said the new propylene glycol product will meet every performance standard, is made from domestic soybeans and is nontoxic. While other research groups are involved in this topic, Suppes said his process works at a lower pressure and temperature than the other groups, and this process creates a higher yield.

"At best, right now biodiesel production is only part of the solution," Suppes said. "Current biodiesel production in the United States is about 0.03 billion gallons per year as compared to distillate fuel oil consumption of 57 billion gallons per year. We believe this technology will encourage and attract more companies and plants to produce propylene glycol, a cheaper and environmentally safer product."

Suppes said this technology can reduce the cost of biodiesel production by as much as $0.40 per gallon of biodiesel. The market for propylene glycol already is established, with a billion pounds produced a year.

"The price of propylene glycol is quite high while glycerin¿s price is low, so based on the low cost of feed stock and high value of propylene glycol, the process appears to be most profitable," Suppes said. "The consumers want antifreeze that is both renewable and made from biomass rather than petroleum from which propylene glycol currently is produced, as well as nontoxic."

Right now, Renewable Alternatives is licensing this technology to three biodiesel plants, with a fourth one in the works. The National Science Foundation and Missouri Soybean Farmers are helping fund the research.
-30-
I Note another technology from a University based research environment.

[ianben]

Hi Tom Looks like you are right and our plant does not use new process.

It is up and running though.

I think we are about to see huge advances in the processes involved in biomass uses. Global warming and higher fossil fuel prices will send more and more resourses into R&D. What may seem uneconomic today may only need an alternative high value use for a biproducct as in JD's example. I think in 5yrs there will be plants producing things we havent even thought of.

Wheat I am told has the most possibilities for value added products in an industrial process.

It should make those long haul places in Canada ideally situated to take advantage of these opertunities.

Will the your goverment and farmers pull out all the stops the make it happen

[TOM4CWB]

Ianben;

You are right for sure!

We must concentrate on value added... which leaves a great deal of uncertainty with the CWB... as crossovers into non-feed uses is quite extensive.

Only feed wheat/bly for livestock use is specifically exempt domestically from the CWB "single desk monopoly" which leaves many of us with a very bad taste in our mouths... about being blind sided after spending $$$Millions and finding out after commitments and contracts are in place.

Vader;
Can the CWB request a change to the CWB act to allow value added processing of new innovative projects non-board outside the "single desk monopoly?

Or

Are we supposed to just trust the CWB... after reading the fine print of the CWB act... and finding we are NOT exempt from the "single desk monopoly"!

If we are exempt from the "single desk monopoly" where can you point to the exemption specifically in the CWB Act?

Since I have studied it... the words "Human Consumption" are not even in the CWB Act or Regulations... how can you claim biofuel/products are exempt when they are consumed by humans and not animals?

[Vader]

I can only refer you to what is in practice today. API in Red Deer, AB diverts a portion of its fractionation products into the "human consumption" market. As such they are obligated to purchase that same percentage of their raw material from the CWB. For the balance of their "non-food" production they are free to purchase wheat directly from farmers.

I think that you are correct in that the words "non-human" consumption do not appear in the CWB act but for quite some time now that has been the operating principal.

I inquired specifically about ethanol and was told that the best interpretation is that ethanol is not a "wheat product" as defined in the CWB Act and therefore is not subject to the conditions of the Act either. If you do fractionation and the gluten or the wheat germ find their way into either the domestic human consumption market or into the export market then that portion of the grain would be considered subject to the Act.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

I don't understand why the byproducts portion as a % of milling yeild that enter the feed market for animal consumption wouldn't be exempt from the buyback for that portion ending up as feed.

Why would API be different from Robin Hood on these animal feeds created from the wheat?

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

COnversly:

If I set up a processing plant that produces no animal feed at all, Ethanol, frac. components that are not gluten or germ any more... but new products...

What would stop the CWB from forcing my venture to buy back the wheat going in... if the CWB Board of Directors decided to do so?

I need a specific exemption before spending millions upon millions... and if I were at the Lloyd Husky plant I would be really nervous right now!

Has the CWB specifically given a letter of exemption to this plant?

[JD4ME]

Actually it's a good point Vader, perhaps next time I see a director or an FBR I may ask them to bring it forward for clarification. I do agree with Ianben as absurd as it is if you stop and think about it I'm afraid we may eventually see better value in research into alternative uses for our products than the dollars that we could invest in new food based products.

[ianben]

Looks like you guys do need to sort out this conflict with CWB and show farmers and government are both pulling in the same direction.

These potential investors and customers will be looking for the best place in the world to build their plants not one which is bugged with red tape and silly rules.

Our HGCA which is conpulsary levy funded does at least try to encourage investment and inovate new uses and products both food and non food from our grain.

The multi nationals also will invest and inovate Cargills are about to use 700,000 tonnes of wheat in a starch plant from next year. This a totally new market for my wheat.

Canada has more and cheaper wheat than us.Canada has a better bio-fuels process
but UK has two plants producing the goods.

I cannot understand why your governments/CWB seems to discourage instead of welcoming and making it easy for inovative investment in value added grain products what ever there end use