1600 liters of diesel per hectare per year, according to wiki. So, how many acres would i need to power 1 diesel new beetle 10,000 miles per year.

assume 40 mpg, so 250 gallons (950 liters) gives me 1.5 acres (.60 hectare). i could live with that, assuming the processing wasn't very energy intensive, which it sounds like all the necessary processing is squeezing and filtering, so that should be ok.

assuming you had no other profit channels from the plants and you could still make pretty decent bucks from totally wasted land that sells for pennies on the acre.

Then, DPFs don't exactly like biodiesel.
Still prefer DME -pathways for those compression ignition engines.

What is Jatropha's advantage over Palm oil?
A: Better suited to poor soil and to alkaline soils.
B: It stands up to drought well.
C: Suited for tropical and semiarid climates.
D: Poisonous plant; may be used to fence crops from wildlife.
E: Less capital needed, 3yrs/1st yields, 5yrs/maturity.

Rafael,

just a funny little difference between two editions of a recent text, I remembered:

http://www.ufop.de/downloads/Final_Report_SMDS.pdf
http://www.ufop.de/downloads/SMDS_Bericht_130206.pdf
( I expect you to understand the latter as well, by your name and written tongue... )

"The background behind the formulation of the premium fuel is the consideration that biodiesel
in its pure form can only be used in commercial vehicles or approved cars without a particle
filter (DPF). A maximum portion of 5 % RME in DF is today the probable upper limit for
compatibility with diesel particle filters. Maybe a B20 fuel (20% RME and 80% DF) will be
appropriate in the future."
vs.
"Hintergrund der Formulierung des Premiumkraftstoffs ist die Überlegung, dass Biodiesel in
reiner Form heute nur noch in Nutzfahrzeugen oder freigegebenen PKW ohne Partikelfilter
(DPF) einsetzbar ist. Ein maximaler Anteil von 20% RME in DK gilt heute als eventuelle
Obergrenze für die Kompatibilität mit Dieselpartikelfiltern."

Technically the limitations of current systems might of course well get
overcome, but regarding the perspective degrees of freedom and potentials of pathways exploiting biomass instead of just an oily content of selected seeds, I'm not sure, that's economically and ecologically rational to do.
( http://jungle-world.com/seiten/2006/17/7635.php , if I may insert one more recent foreign link, touching this, as an explanation. )
Especially if compared to fuels that can reduce PM a n d NxOy by themselves to an extent and, at the same time, guarantee excellent standardization - aftertreatment included.

Technologically we (europe, that is) are developing some nasty dinosaurs on this dino-fuel, in my eyes.
At the moment we're trying to push "Euro-VI".
We're not even c o u n ting ultrafine particles yet, just weighing particle mass. We're not even focussing on nitrous oxides, so far.
But we will do, some day, to continue having people replace their old tech with the "newest achievements".

In the end, with the reset in form of introducing DME or H2 or some sort of circular-CO2, a much broader base of classic internal combustion engines could stay with us, justifiable by the enthousiast.

An old diesel of 400000kms retrofitted with a future DME-CommonRail would do 400000 more kilometres, reconditioned perhaps, while retaining its ability to be driven across africa on the lowest quality fuels, where necessary.

( How many sequential generations of current and arising compact diesels in production, use and recycling that would equate to, some of which calculated to maybe 130000kms, hardly up to the task when sold to developing regions that used to buy ours fourth hand? )

I do want this reset now, but it's left to the market, not organization will.
Biodiesel is an additive in my eyes. Nothing to base development on. Local niches may rely 100% on it, but global tech needn't, mustn't, adapt to it.
Let's not waste ever more time and consumers' last resources on those dead ends. Let's optimize something else. Not industry's profits.

Mo -

thx for the links. Being Austrian, I do speak German. From what I've read, none of the DPF manufacturers have stated that high biodiesel blends represent a technical problem. It's strictly a CYA legal issue of warranty coverage by the carmakers, who at the time had not yet got around to testing vehicles equipped with DPFs with high biodiesel blends.

Wall-flow filters with platinum in the washcoat (to reduce the light-off temperature) are sensitive to acid formation during the soot build-up. However, since they can handle mineral diesel with traces of sulphur (which is converted to SO2 during ombustion and later, H2SO3 and H2SO4), chances are naturally sulphur-free biodiesel is if anything, less aggrssive. DPF that rely on consumable Cer additives to reduce the light-off temperature (Citroen PSA) make do without a washcoat anyhow. Retrofit DPFs don't accumulate soot at all. Therefore, I would not expect any type of DPF to be the limiting factor wrt the biodiesel blend that may be used. Still, get that in writing from your car dealer to be certain your warranty will remain in force.

Wrt low biodiesel blends, I agree. Most countries recognize that consumers are prepared to pay more only if their peers have to as well, i.e. no free riders. Given the quantities of renewable fuels that can be produced, that means a government mandate to deliver low blends everywhere. Setting up a new distribution infrastructure for a high blend grade appears to make little economic sense, for biodiesel or for ethanol (though some Americans may disagree with me).

Wrt H2, the best way to transport it is in liquid form, attached to carbon atoms. DME is a good example but expensive and not suitable as an additive. Gradually reducing the crude oil fraction of regular fuels by blending in suitable liquid renewable additives yields a more significant change in a shorter time. Changes to the fuel distribution infrastructure are a really high hurdle for the oil & gas as well as the auto industry (cp. CNG in Germany).

Whether biofuels make economic and ecological sense depends largely on how you calculate the cost of the alternatives, i.e. refined crude oil and xTL synthetic compounds. If you subscribe to the notion that any dictatorship sitting on huge oil reserves that you depend on (directly or via world trade) has the potential to become a threat (economic or via WMDs), the n you need to add the cost of military intervention to that of procuring the oil (incl. that from neighboring states). Iraq has cost the US taxpayer = US consumer over $250 billion so far - not including the human and ecological toll.

Of course, it would be wrong to bulldoze the remaining tropical forests for the sake of increased biofuel production. There is plenty of land in the tropics with less valuable vegitation. Consider, however, that vast tracts of the Amazon have already been deforested to make way for soybean crops. Most of this is used as cattle feed in the EU. Wouldn't it make sense to cut back on red meat in favor of a reduced dependence on oil from the Gulf and lower CO2 emissions?

Wrt NOx, perhaps it is worth noting that European carmakers are highly innovative on both the gasoline and the diesel front. Calling modern diesels dinosaurs is inappropriate considering the revolution they have undergone in the past 15 years. Diesels forced research on direct injection, stratified combustion and NOx reduction in the presence of oxygen (EGR, NOx store & SCR catalysts). The lessons learnt are now being applied to stratified spray-guided gasoline direct injection. HCCI combustion research has also benefitted greatly from such cross-pollenation.

Finally, the only organizations capable of mass-producing technologies that improve th situation are profit-oriented private companies. The trick is to slowly move the goalposts so they have a financial incentive to do the right thing. Profit is not intrinsically a bad idea!

Marcus,

Perhaps "reasoning of this kind" is not going to change people's eating habits, but if gasoline hits $5 in the U.S. and soybeans get diverted to biofuels, then the price of meat will go up, and behavior will change, without much change in reasoning. It happened in the 70's when the El Nino's cut anchovy supplies, forcing farmers to use soybeans for cattle. Hamburger doubled in price, and people screemed bloody murder. Same story, different generation.

You are probably correct JMartin. Hamburgers will get more expensive. But this just means that soybeans have become more valuable and thus the incentive to clear land for them will be greater as their selling price increases.

The question boils down to a balance between supply and demand and whether ecological considerations are going to limit supply in the face of considerable increases in demand (ie higher prices since people will now want soybeans for both beef and fuel).

With the price incentives so far there has been a high rate of deforestation. If the incentive for growing soybeans increases further I can't see things getting any better.

Vegetable Oil yields and characteristics

Jatropha information and links.

""Totally wasted land"? Turning millions of acres of wilderness into jatropha farms would be just another kind of ecological disaster, a further destruction of environments and reduction of biodiversity to serve the automobile culture."

This is why I think that environmentalists are people who do not want to solve problems.

Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way.

I wanted to add that harvesting costs make up 30 to 40% of the entire production cost. So they're absolutely crucial. That's why Jatropha might not become a widely used energy crop.

1600 liters of diesel per hectare per year, according to wiki. So, how many acres would i need to power 1 diesel new beetle 10,000 miles per year.

AND:
Now the oil palm pros.
- oil palm oil production is supreme to all oil crops, with up to 5000 litres per hectare, it is 10 times more then soya and >2 times more then coconut oil. 1 hectare can fuel 5 diesel beetles for a year :)
- it is a cash crop, there will always a market demand for oil palm.
- multiple uses for palm oil, compare to jatropha oil is poisonious to consume.
- high energy balance of 9.5:1 http://www.mpob.gov.my/html/05_pi/05_f1g.htm

which one?
Biodiesel from algae, ("NREL's research showed that one quad (7.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles, roughly 500,000 acres)" - http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html). In other words, 142,000 liter per ha per year, about 28 times what you can get from oil palm!

Of course, ponds would require a certain investment, but that can be overcome. I would suggest integrating biodiesel ponds with wastewater treatment (see http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44928). (If this works in frigid New Zealand, it works anywhere, excluding perhaps the poles.) This way you get your fertilizer for free, and you get clean water as a byproduct. You can potentially recover the nutrients from the byproducts of biodiesel production. Looks like a win-win-win proposal to me.

Seems like the first one is just starting up (see http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44928).

I guess algae-growers are not a politically important segment of the country. Or perhaps they neglected to pay their lobbyist enough money to take your Congressman to lunch. Maybe they donated to the wrong party in the last election.

But not to worry, once the New Zealanders perfect the technology, perhaps we can buy it from them...

Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and India might candidates to lead the way with algae oil. They all share the commonality of demand/growing demand for oil/energy from the Middle East. They also face the specter of a faceoff between the West and Iran. Japan, and Singapore are densely populated, and will benefit from their biotech to further increase the very high yields of algae oil. India might not want to run afoul with its newly warmed relationship with US, as well as not be held hostage by pipelines/supertankers running through/south of Pakistan. South Korea may want to restore their reputation with biotech, gain energy independence, and reduce risks with oil geopolitics with algae oil as well. Another fact that is that unlike H2, they may reasonably stand a chace to reduce net carbon emmisions. For the worlds climate, this will be a great boon.