Large-Scale Biodiesel Refinery To Be Built in Alberta

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, that's a nice rant, but your math and a few of your assumptions are way off.

Firstly 114 million !=1,140000
Think about it, do you actually think anyone is dumb enought to build a plant that will produce 3000l of diesel per day?

114million = 310 000 l/d of diesel (a volume that is actualy worth producing)

Secondly, converting it to oil based on how much gasoline comes from a barrel of oil is a little problematic considering Gasoline and Diesel are not the same thing.

Do I believe that using food sources as an energy source is a good idea?
Of course not, but I also believe that before someone goes off about how stupid of a solution it is they should at least make sure their numbers and facts are straight.

You are correct, my math was way off and I apologize. I guess that is why you do not try to post intelligently on a subject matter after a night of drinking at 2AM in the morning

See if you can find any fault in this logic. Biodiesel is suppose to replace dependency on gasoline, provide an alternative that we can use in its place. It is generally accepted that Alberta uses about 220,000 barrels of oil a day, Canada using a little over 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. On average, a barrel of oil produces 75 litres of gasoline.

Based on those assumptions, Albertans use about 16 Million 500 Hundred Thousand litres of gasoline a day (16,500,000) (or 220,000 X 75)

This plant, which does produce 114,000,000 million litres of biodiesel a year produces a shade over 312,000 litres of gasoline a day. (114 million divided by 365)

Assuming that gasoline engines are approximately 85% as efficient as diesel engines in terms of fuel economy, the equation should be 16,500,000 X 0.85 = 14,025,000

Which basically means that given the same fuel efficiency this plant is effectively producing 2.2% of Albertans daily gasoline needs.

You would pretty much need 45 of these plants to completely replace gasoline dependency. When you add in the fact that a barrel of oil produces about 26 litres of diesel on top of the gasoline, and that this diesel is also in the amount of fuel that Albertans daily use, the numbers become somewhat even less compelling for biodiesel

Assuming 26 litres of diesel on average out of each barrel of oil, one gets 5.72 million litres of diesel a for use by Albertans. Given that diesel and biodiesel are similar in fuel efficiency (with traditional diesel still being more efficient) lets just add 5.72 to 14.025 which gives us 19.744 Million litres of combined gasoline and diesel use in the province of Alberta daily. 310,000/19.744 Million. This lowers the percentage that this massive plant will produce down to a bit below 1.6% of daily Alberta transportation fuel use. What this all basically means is that you would need 64 of these plants to replace traditional diesel and gasoline dependency.

Finally, Canada's ethanol goal is 650 Million litres a year by 2010 http://www.greenfuels.org/ethanol/canada.htm I am sure most would agree that that is a pretty friendly website. So, basically Canada is going to produce about 1.7 million litres a day if it meets its goal for production. Meanwhile, Canadians are currently consuming 197 Million litres a day of gasoline and diesel. Which basically means if we meet our ethanol targets at best it will be about 0.9% of the national gasoline and diesel needs.

After citing all those numbers, I still contend that the biodiesel is a huge waste of money and is a disguised government subsidy for farmers. And good on Harper for giving the subsidy out. A real leader in this country would look at nuclear power and fuel cells if you really wanted an alternative source for fuel

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

See if you can find any fault in this logic. Biodiesel is suppose to replace dependency on gasoline, provide an alternative that we can use in its place.

Didn't take long to find a fault in your logic. Biodiesel is not supposed to replace anything. It is there to suppliment the existing fuel source, not replace it. Same with ethanol. The idea is to become energy self-sufficient and move toward cleaner and more environmentally friendly products. Biodiesel is not the complete solution, but is part of the solution.

A real leader in this country would look at nuclear power and fuel cells if you really wanted an alternative source for fuel

You just finished hammering biodiesel and ethanol, and then use fuel cells as your fallback position? You are aware that fuel cells are no where near ready for market, the automobile industry is using fuel cells as stall and is not even close to bringing a product to market, and the infrastructure for fuel cells does not exist? I'm not saying we should not continue to explore that technology, but it is 20-50 years away from being a solution. Shouldn't we be exploiting technologies that already exist while we work on another alternative? If the patient is bleeding to death, isn't it wise for the doctor to pump plasma into the patient while he finds the right blood type? Plasma is not the solution, but it is part of the answer and will stretch out the patient's life. Its the same thing in the energy debate right now. We should be extending our supplies while we search for another source of power.

IMO, a real leader would push for a consumer energy standard, that being electricity. Everything we do as consumers can be done using electricity as the energy source. All devices that we could possibly use in a day should be electrical. We can heat and cool our homes using electricity. We can cook our food using electricity. We can use it to light our homes and streets. We can use it to propel the vehicles we need to travel in our daily lives. A single consumer standard would make our lives easier. It would also allow all other resources to be funnelled into industrial applications to generate the electricity to meet consumer demand. All of these fuel sources that we presently use in such wasteful applications, such as automobiles, could be shifted into higher efficiency industriual applications to squeeze out more energy in cleaner ways. That would be real leadership, and would allow us to maintain our existing industries, and then also allow us to continue to expand our systems that have long development times, like the aforementioned nuclear. The infrastructure for a consumer electrical based economy is already there, it is just going to need a push to wake people up to its potential.

[EddyBeers]

Well Lanny, I could have cut snippets from your argument and taken them out of context (see the first quote you use, which basically is a statement to set up my main argument that given the cost to government to set up this technology, without even going into the environmental costs) I will just try to respond to your general post.

Well it is arguable whether this "technology" already exists to exploit. If it takes a higher input cost to create the fuel then what you receive as output, you are not really exploiting anything. All you are doing is using the equivalent in gasoline to create biodiesel. At best biodiesel provides a marginal output vis-a-vis its inputs, at worst it pollutes more than if it did not exist at all.

Furthermore, Canada already could be energy self-sufficient without a single litre of biodiesel. We produce 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, and consume slightly above 2.2 million. So that idea is bunk. Maybe if you were trying to win the Iowa primary you would support biodiesel and ethanol subsidies, but in Canada we have more than enough traditional fuel sources to be self-sufficient

My point is that biodiesel, given the questions about whether it is even environmentally friendly, the cost to the taxpayer to subsidize biofuel, and the low percentage of daily usage that it supplements makes biodiesel a poor investment for any government to make.

You can find alot of scientists http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/...inforests.html that believe that biofuel will increase world carbon output, increase GHG and further pollute the earth. To be a proponent of this technology worldwide, one logically has to support chopping down the rainforest....which i guess is fine, the rainforest is kinda late 80's early 90's anyway

I do agree with you on the electricity thing though, that would be real leadership. And the cleanest way to get electricity is nuclear power.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

You are correct, my math was way off and I apologize. I guess that is why you do not try to post intelligently on a subject matter after a night of drinking at 2AM in the morning

See if you can find any fault in this logic. Biodiesel is suppose to replace dependency on gasoline, provide an alternative that we can use in its place. It is generally accepted that Alberta uses about 220,000 barrels of oil a day, Canada using a little over 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. On average, a barrel of oil produces 75 litres of gasoline.

Based on those assumptions, Albertans use about 16 Million 500 Hundred Thousand litres of gasoline a day (16,500,000) (or 220,000 X 75)

This plant, which does produce 114,000,000 million litres of biodiesel a year produces a shade over 312,000 litres of gasoline a day. (114 million divided by 365)

Assuming that gasoline engines are approximately 85% as efficient as diesel engines in terms of fuel economy, the equation should be 16,500,000 X 0.85 = 14,025,000

Which basically means that given the same fuel efficiency this plant is effectively producing 2.2% of Albertans daily gasoline needs.

You would pretty much need 45 of these plants to completely replace gasoline dependency. When you add in the fact that a barrel of oil produces about 26 litres of diesel on top of the gasoline, and that this diesel is also in the amount of fuel that Albertans daily use, the numbers become somewhat even less compelling for biodiesel

Assuming 26 litres of diesel on average out of each barrel of oil, one gets 5.72 million litres of diesel a for use by Albertans. Given that diesel and biodiesel are similar in fuel efficiency (with traditional diesel still being more efficient) lets just add 5.72 to 14.025 which gives us 19.744 Million litres of combined gasoline and diesel use in the province of Alberta daily. 310,000/19.744 Million. This lowers the percentage that this massive plant will produce down to a bit below 1.6% of daily Alberta transportation fuel use. What this all basically means is that you would need 64 of these plants to replace traditional diesel and gasoline dependency.

Finally, Canada's ethanol goal is 650 Million litres a year by 2010 http://www.greenfuels.org/ethanol/canada.htm I am sure most would agree that that is a pretty friendly website. So, basically Canada is going to produce about 1.7 million litres a day if it meets its goal for production. Meanwhile, Canadians are currently consuming 197 Million litres a day of gasoline and diesel. Which basically means if we meet our ethanol targets at best it will be about 0.9% of the national gasoline and diesel needs.

After citing all those numbers, I still contend that the biodiesel is a huge waste of money and is a disguised government subsidy for farmers. And good on Harper for giving the subsidy out. A real leader in this country would look at nuclear power and fuel cells if you really wanted an alternative source for fuel

Okay, I'll ignore the falts in assuming that Albertans use these 220,000 barrels of oil per day in the exact proportions that they come out of the ground (also ignoring that these proportions vary greatly based on where it comes from), and even if your numbers were correct does that mean that we should ignore alternative fuel sources?

Just becasue one plant is only going to reduce out dependance on oil by 2.2% does this mean it should be abandoned? And do we know for sure that this is infact a subsidy for farmers? I would definaly not argue that in the US where they are using corn, and it has been well documetned for YEARS that it costs more to grow corn than the price farmers get, but the US governement subsidises the hell out of it, is this true for Canola? Not that I've ever heard.

Finally, this 220000 bbl/d of oil that alberta uses, is this truely barrels of oil or is this barrels of oil equavalent, meaning does this value include natural gas which is used for electricy production, home heating, etc, not to mention that the petrochemical industry uses a fairly large quantity of oil that would not be included in your gasoline calcuations.

Is this single plant going to singlehandedly rid us of our dependance on oil?
Of course not.
Do I think that biodiesel is the best option?
Not while we are using food sources as a feedstock.
Do I think you're right in passing this thing off as useless based on some incredibly flawed assumptions and the fact that the impact will be relatively small?
Definatly not. Just becasue something isn't going to make an astronomical impact doesn't mean it should be abandoned.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

I once golfed with this guy who used to work on a nuclear sub in the US Navy. He said for the 20 year life of the sub the fuel was 200 kg of uranium and that kept it going for that long. That stuff is badass.

/ end aside

Yep. Subs have the ability to stay under-water for 6 months at a time simply because of nuclear power. Pretty amazing.

[mykalberta]

The whole point of alternative fuels is to reduce the North American dependency on the Middle East. Replacing gasoline for Uranium would just shift those same problems to the former USSR Republics.

I still believe using salt water as an energy source is the only way to reduce dependency on non renewable resources and fix climate change all at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KVM1UAPCzc

Also, even if alternative fuels arent as efficient as regular gasoline, I would rather subsidize farmers in North America rather than Sheiks who want to kill us in the Middle East.

MYK

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, I'll ignore the falts in assuming that Albertans use these 220,000 barrels of oil per day in the exact proportions that they come out of the ground (also ignoring that these proportions vary greatly based on where it comes from), and even if your numbers were correct does that mean that we should ignore alternative fuel sources?

Just becasue one plant is only going to reduce out dependance on oil by 2.2% does this mean it should be abandoned? And do we know for sure that this is infact a subsidy for farmers? I would definaly not argue that in the US where they are using corn, and it has been well documetned for YEARS that it costs more to grow corn than the price farmers get, but the US governement subsidises the hell out of it, is this true for Canola? Not that I've ever heard.

Finally, this 220000 bbl/d of oil that alberta uses, is this truely barrels of oil or is this barrels of oil equavalent, meaning does this value include natural gas which is used for electricy production, home heating, etc, not to mention that the petrochemical industry uses a fairly large quantity of oil that would not be included in your gasoline calcuations.

Is this single plant going to singlehandedly rid us of our dependance on oil?
Of course not.
Do I think that biodiesel is the best option?
Not while we are using food sources as a feedstock.
Do I think you're right in passing this thing off as useless based on some incredibly flawed assumptions and the fact that the impact will be relatively small?
Definatly not. Just becasue something isn't going to make an astronomical impact doesn't mean it should be abandoned.

And as far as faults go, it is established that Canada uses approximately 2.2-2.3 million barrels a day of oil. There are pretty standard proportions which come from a barrel of oil. You are right though, given the high level of economic activity, it is likely that Alberta uses more gasoline than the estimate I gave, and thus I was generous on the impact that this plant will make.

Those are averages. A barrel of oil produces approximately 160 litres of usable fuel. There is 42 gallons in a barrel of oil, but it produces 46 gallons of useable fuel. 46 Gallons works out to roughly 160 litres. The gasoline portion is the portion of a barrel of oil that is used for gasoline, the diesel is the diesel proportion, etc. (kerosene, jet fuel etc.). The average amount of gasoline that a barrel of oil produces is pretty standard, although I purposely used a low estimate. The percentage that I used for gasoline per barrel of oil takes into account all those other factors that you cite. This state of California website http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/wh...arrel_oil.html shows it at being approximately 25 gallons per barrel of oil, which would be about 95 litres per barrel of oil. I used 75 Litres because it is generally the accepted figure in the industry.

It is actually 1.6% when you factor in the amount of diesel that is produced from an average barrel of oil. It is indeed a subsidy when the government is spending 170 million dollars on it. Something should be abandoned when it costs to much money vis-a-vis the output, unless it shows incredible growth potential. Biodiesel does not show this, fuel cells and hybrid cars do show this potential, those are the alternative fuels that government should be focusing on. Governments focus on biodiesel because it is a disguised subsidy to farmers. When you are putting money into promoting biofuel, it naturally creates another market for farmers and thus the price of their commodities rises. That is simple economics.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

And as far as faults go, it is established that Canada uses approximately 2.2-2.3 million barrels a day of oil. There are pretty standard proportions which come from a barrel of oil. You are right though, given the high level of economic activity, it is likely that Alberta uses more gasoline than the estimate I gave, and thus I was generous on the impact that this plant will make.

Those are averages. A barrel of oil produces approximately 160 litres of usable fuel. There is 42 gallons in a barrel of oil, but it produces 46 gallons of useable fuel. 46 Gallons works out to roughly 160 litres. The gasoline portion is the portion of a barrel of oil that is used for gasoline, the diesel is the diesel proportion, etc. (kerosene, jet fuel etc.). The average amount of gasoline that a barrel of oil produces is pretty standard, although I purposely used a low estimate. The percentage that I used for gasoline per barrel of oil takes into account all those other factors that you cite. This state of California website http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/wh...arrel_oil.html shows it at being approximately 25 gallons per barrel of oil, which would be about 95 litres per barrel of oil. I used 75 Litres because it is generally the accepted figure in the industry.

It is actually 1.6% when you factor in the amount of diesel that is produced from an average barrel of oil. It is indeed a subsidy when the government is spending 170 million dollars on it. Something should be abandoned when it costs to much money vis-a-vis the output, unless it shows incredible growth potential. Biodiesel does not show this, fuel cells and hybrid cars do show this potential, those are the alternative fuels that government should be focusing on. Governments focus on biodiesel because it is a disguised subsidy to farmers. When you are putting money into promoting biofuel, it naturally creates another market for farmers and thus the price of their commodities rises. That is simple economics.

The main point of my objection wasn't your porportion of gasoline coming from a barrel of oil (I did mention it, but not as my main objection). The main objetion is your assumption that albertans use oil in the exact proporitons it comes out of the ground at, and this could very greatly affect your figure of 1.6%.

Regardless of what the actual number is, the fact remains that you seem to be opposed to this based on two factors

1) it will have a small impact
2) it is a subsidy to farmers

In respnse to 1.
Just because it has a small impact doesn't mean it warrents consideration. What do you expect, a magic bullet that will one day repalce 20% of gasoline used in the province? Small steps my friend, if this plant can become comercailly viable more like it will spring up and if we can get 10 or 20 of these plants then suddenly we've reduced our dependenc on oil by 15-30%.

In response to #2
Are farmers going to be paid by the government more for their conola due to this plant? I certainly haven't seen anything mentioning that. The subsidies the government is giving out is to the company that wants to build the plant and then buy the canola from the farmers (a product that as I understand it is not subsidised, and already in great demand). So the subsidy is to encourage the production of another fuel source, which is really no different than the royalty breaks companies get for producing from unconventional sources like the oil sands.

As I've said, I don't think using food sources for a fuel source is a good idea, but to say that you're opposed becasue it will only make a small impact, and that it is only a subsidy to farmers is 50% shortshighted, and 50% incorrect.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

And with the cost of the underlying commodity rising, even less will make it for transport.

Your right technically the planet may not be short food, but it is definately short economically feasable food. And this is a huge step back ... again because we buy big a$$ houses and now want to subsidize the cost of it.

It probably makes more sense on a global scale for biofuels to be produced in developing nations as opposed to western nations, and the UN has a huge initiative out there to help developing nations get biofuel programs.

Let's take a hypothetical typical sub-saharan nation. They've got plenty of farmland (though they get hit by drought every few years), but not a lot of natural resources. Their farming methods are fairly traditional, with most crops still harvested by hand. Typical yield is around 1.5 tonnes of wheat per hectare. The government (with UN and western assistance) is educating farmers on western agriculture techniques, and there is a willingness to adopt better crop management cycles, though this these more labour-intensive farming techniques are difficult without machinery to streamline production. And the problem with machinery is fuel: oil prices in sub-saharan africa are typically around 10% above western prices, and the supply chain can be easily disrupted: if your neighbour gets into a civil war right around harvest time, you could be left with a bunch of useless machines. Enter biofuel: you build a biofuel plant, and convert a portion of your land to a high-yield biofuel crop such as rapeseed.
I'll use rapeseed as an example: combining small grains and seeds takes about .86 L of diesel per hectare. You`ve got 10 million hectares of wheat in your country (roughly equivelent to Alberta`s total grain land). It currently provides 15 million tonnes of wheat per non-drought year, and you need about 12.9 million litres of diesel to power your harvest if done by machine.
From each hectare of rapeseed, you would get 1,190 litres of biodiesel. So to produce enough biodiesel that your entire agriculture sector is no longer dependent on outside oil, you would need to convert just ten thousand hectares to produce enough biodiesel to power your entire harvest, combined with one small processing plant with a capacity only a fraction of the one planned near Edmonton. And once implemented, along with other sustainable agriculture techniques, your agriculture industry is self-sufficient and now produces 4.5 tonnes of wheat per hectare, for a total of 45 million tonnes rather than 15 million. As well, the additional source of fuel makes distribution of food less expensive. Biofuels are only a small part of the big picture: it needs to go hand-in-hand with a complete sustainable agriculture system.