B100 is $3.50 around here. Is that normal...sounds high to me. What's the point of using it at that price? Aside from the feel good effect I mean?

I can join the local coop here for $50 which gives me biodiesel purchasing privileges. I might join it...then again, I might not.

I'd like to hear what you guys say first.

Our B10 is around $3 +/- but yea i hear ya whats the point here.

That was about the going rate for B100 when I left Baltimore. It's a niche product, and it will be priced at what the market will bear. Getting a bit cold to run it, especially as I assume most of the stuff in NC is tallow-based.

Regular ULSD (mostly B11 statewide in IL) is getting up into that price... pretty normal for winter, unfortunately. I don't like running B100 - it's too easy to make a bad batch. I stick to B20 or below so I get all of the benefits (lubricity, cetane & oxygenation) without most of the problems (gelling, hydrophillic).

There's always that 'supporting local fuel' feel-good move, but too often the basestock or processing supplies are trucked in anyway. And if you were concerned about fuel use, you'd walk or ride a second-hand bike instead of driving.

The B100 I can get is supposedly very high quality.

http://www.biofuels.coop/feedstocks/

I'm kinda thinking that they're using the global warming phenomenon to make money out of these products. If they're really serious about saving the environment, they should find ways to make the cost of these alternative fuels much less than fossil fuel, of course without sacrificing quality.

One of the primary problems with bio is that methanol, usually made from natural gas, is one of the primary ingredients. Guess what happened to the price of methanol when the demand for bio took off? I'm sure there's also some profit motive involved.

I've been disappointed also in the price of biodiesel... I get B50 at the local cardlock for $3.45/gal (ULSD B5 is $3.35) and mix it to get a B20 for the new Duramax.... but to be honest (and I love helping the environment), it's not economically viable... it IS however good to rune some Bio thru the engine to keep it clean..

The only benefit is the cleaning, cetane boost, and lubricity. You don't need more than B1 for most of the benefits. Since fuel quality varies, B2 seems to be what is recommended. Anything higher is equivalent to the FFV ethanol farce.

So, fill your jerrycan with some B100 and self treat your diesel. You need about 1/2 gallon B100 for every 25-gallon diesel truck/suv fill up. And, maybe a quart for every VW 12-gallon fill up.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm

I'm surprised that ethanol isn't used to make biodiesel. The preferred method, with methanol, seems a tad contradictory.

I think many states are already B5 anyway.. it's impossible to get B1/2 in Oregon.. I just run B20 since that's what the truck is rated for.

All the seller close by me in North Texas has gone under because they cannot compete.

David Pimentel is the only researcher who has found a net energy loss in his analysis of ethanol production. He does this by assuming that the most valuable by-product (distillers grains) are simply thrown away rather than used as livestock feed.

That's about as honest (and likely) as assuming oil refineries throw away all the diesel fuel they produce as a by-product of gasoline production.

Too bad he is full of something other than intelligence. I live out here in the cheap seats along side plenty of livestock producers, I have cropland, and I truck products. DDG is not thrown away as is suggested. It is a highly sought after product since it is more easily digestible and high in protein. Just what is needed for more effecient livestock production. And there are a lot of countries that have buyers here in the Midwest that are trying to get their hands on DDG as well for their livestock production. Even the Vietnamese are canvasing the corn belt for study sources of DDG to send back home. DDG is better for livestock than traditional low roughage grains as it also reduces the instances of subacute acidosis in cattle.

Because Ethanol is too water soluble. Methanol isn't. By using ethanol, and it being water soluble, it would create a situation where there would be too high a ratio of glycerin byproduct of biodiesel production. You would reduce the actual final biodiesel product you could get from the feed stocks. So, methanol is the prefered choice to keep glycerin levels low and maximize actual biodiesel. And, by keeping the creation of glycerin lower, you in fact get a better quality biodiesel product.

The only problem with his assumptions are that when an ag product is used for bio fuels, it has no other use. He states that it takes 29 percent more traditional fuel to produce bio fuel than the energy we get from the bio fuel. Could be, if the total use of the traditional fuel is calculated on a production basis of only bio fuel. However, the resulting DDG from ethanol production has a substantial higher food value in livestock production such that it takes only 30% of DDG to equal normal grain feeds to livestock. So the fuel used to produce that bushel of corn is in fact better utilized and more cost effective than traditional crop production that doesn't get used for bio fuel production.

Here is a good fact sheet for those interested in such things.... http://www.ksgrains.com/ethanol/DDGSFacts.pdf

Stick that in your Cornell research pipe and smoke it Mr. Pimentel.

Not quite, ethanol distillation produces an azeotrope of ethanol/water, which creates a soap (caustic, water, oil) when reacted as per biodiesel.

To get rid of the water, it needs an additional step to strip the azeotropic water, like using molecular sieve, or even corn grits to get it out...it's an additional step, and adds expense.

Most methanol is produced from fossil fuels...