bio banned in Texas
.
12-17-2006, 02:43 PM
#32
Chapter President
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Near Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the dirt police it sounds like the epa has all the money.....probably from payoffs from the auto manufacturers and the oil companies, anyhow, to pay someone to ride around looking for the menacing violator blowin up dust on a dirt road in the middle of Texas!! Maybe they should use their resourses(the money) to better serve the legal citizens of the country.....something like closing the border????.......ok....that's enough, I'm leaning to the right....
12-17-2006, 06:54 PM
#33
Registered User
I know the EPA was going to crack down on farming practices that produce dust in Washington's Columbia Basin, but in this case it's completely understandable.
The soil in the basin is very fine, makes for fine dust that gets hung up in people's lungs. The Basin has several dust storms per year that reduce visibility to zero, satellites have tracked the dust clouds all the way across the US.
Not such a big deal for farmers, they don't like their soil blowing away either. Only a inferior farmer uses practices that erode his soil and probably shouldn't be farming anyway.
The soil in the basin is very fine, makes for fine dust that gets hung up in people's lungs. The Basin has several dust storms per year that reduce visibility to zero, satellites have tracked the dust clouds all the way across the US.
Not such a big deal for farmers, they don't like their soil blowing away either. Only a inferior farmer uses practices that erode his soil and probably shouldn't be farming anyway.
12-17-2006, 08:00 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Royse City TX
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not seen a station in ny yet that sells bio, at least upstate. nyc may have bio but i have never been there 
12-17-2006, 08:56 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: illinois
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-18-2006, 11:03 AM
#40
Registered User
That's because the areas that grow the crops to produce BD don't have to ship it far to use it all. Transporting BD out of the areas where it's produced just adds to it's cost and is a stupid idea.
12-18-2006, 11:18 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fontana, CA
Posts: 5,776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-18-2006, 12:40 PM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are about to. They are planning to build a plant in Burleson county in the Brazos bottom area. Utilize all the cotton seed and soy beans this area grows or could grow. They already have a contract with the Texas A&M fleet, the CS school district, Bryan School district and the Burleson County school districts. Supposedly they will sell it locally as well.
12-18-2006, 08:11 PM
#45
Registered User
Sorry buddy but I've been working professionally in the research area of BD since almost it's commercial inception. Think I have a good idea of what makes BD economically feasible. BD can't be piped though the same pipelines used for petro fuels due to contamination issues and thus must be trucked = $$$.
When we first started working with BD it was never intended to be a replacement for petro diesel, just an additive used under a 20% blend.
There is absolutely no reason to use higher concentrations of BD unless you are making it yourself. Even if every square inch of farmland in the US was used to produce BD it could only produce 3% of the diesel fuel used in the US.
Another factor of BD production many folks fail to realize is that the "waste" is worth way more than the fuel as livestock feed. Our Ag economist's analysis is that first consideration in developing a BD plant is a close by feedlot for the pulp. That is what will make or break the operation, the BD fuel must be considered a byproduct. So unless the urbanized areas of our nation don't mind being intermingled with feedlots and farms they'll probably never see widespread availability of biodiesel that is even close to being economically competitive with petro fuels.
When we first started working with BD it was never intended to be a replacement for petro diesel, just an additive used under a 20% blend.
There is absolutely no reason to use higher concentrations of BD unless you are making it yourself. Even if every square inch of farmland in the US was used to produce BD it could only produce 3% of the diesel fuel used in the US.
Another factor of BD production many folks fail to realize is that the "waste" is worth way more than the fuel as livestock feed. Our Ag economist's analysis is that first consideration in developing a BD plant is a close by feedlot for the pulp. That is what will make or break the operation, the BD fuel must be considered a byproduct. So unless the urbanized areas of our nation don't mind being intermingled with feedlots and farms they'll probably never see widespread availability of biodiesel that is even close to being economically competitive with petro fuels.