The crucial point of our fuel is this "Total Glycerine" issuewith regard to EN 14214/ASTM D6751 (all other specs being met). This term refers to "bound glycerol", that is "the glycerol component found in triglyceride (TG), diglyceride (DG) and monoglyceride (MG) compounds". Evidently, TG means the starting oil (= "SVO", that is "Straight Vegetable Oil", with its huge molecular mass, causing high viscosity, appr. 40 cSt in the case of rapeseed oil), whereas DG and MG indicate incomplete transesterification ("partially reacted oil") in the traditional BD processes (these latter causing all sorts of nasty problems afterwards, owing to their free OH groups). So EN 14214/D6751 very seriously limit their presence in the BD fuel, understandably. Now, TBK-Biodiesel itself is 60-70% TG,but a MODIFIED one, with amply reduced molecular mass, resulting in amply diminished viscosity (a drop from 40 cSt to 5-6 cSt, that is meeting EN 14214/ASTM D6751 viscosity standards), our other component being traditional biodiesel (fatty acid methyl ester, if we use methyl acetate as our transesterifying agent, and fatty acid ethyl ester if we use the 100% green ethyl acetate). So our TG is NOT the same TG as is "banned" in EN 14214/D6751. And as to DG and MG components: theyNEVER ever occur in our fuel, as they (being "partial" alcohols on account of presence of free OH groups in them) are only produced in the process of transesterifying a TG with an alcohol ("alcoholysis"), the alcohol liberating free OH groups from the starting TG, thus producing free glycerol/DG's/MG's. And as we transesterify TG with another ester, so DG and MG simply have no chances of formation. (Note: theoretically there may be some DG and MG present in the starting oil -- owing to spontaneous hydrolysis on contact with water during pressing/storage, this being the cause of presence of free fatty acids as well --, but such MG's and DG's are also esterified to modified TG's in our process with ethyl acetate, liberating free ethanol, which is removed via distillation of surplus ethyl acetate after completion of reaction).
Conclusion: a new standard (specifications) is required for TBK-BD in terms of "total glycerol" (modified TG's being the main component of this novel fuel) and also allowing for ETHYL esters of fatty acids (instead of methyl esters), once we are aiming at a 100% renewable fuel (the only one of its kind thus far). There is no harm in applying for standardization of a new combustible (only it costs money!), as in the course of time new and new materials are bound to appear on markets.
To convince you for good in this regard here are some data:
You may have heard of "Cuphea oil", produced by an indigeneous plant in the US (see my attachment, three slides). This oil (TG) has medium long carboxylic moieties (C8-C10), that is of low molecular mass as compared to "usual" oils, and with a viscosity of 10-12 cSt. Accordingly, thus almost meeting viscosity demands in its unaltered form (usable as SVO).
However, as there are practically no unsaturations in the carboxylic chains -- the more unsaturations you have, the more "liquid" is your TG --, this oil is rather "fatty", that is semi solid at room temperature. So genetic experiments are under way to alter this plant "unsaturation-wise", to make it a perfect "natural" combustible. It will take time to achieve this, there is public resistance to all sorts of genetic manipulations, etc. Now, once this cuphea stuff will be introduced (if ever), a new standard has to be created for it, as it is 100% triglyceride! So: I see no reason why our TBK-BD could not be standardized with its (modified) TG content in no time accordingly, once we have raised funds for the process.
And please calculate: the three medium long chains of cuphea oil approximately add up to the same molecular mass as that of our modified TG (mTG) with its 35-45% long (original) chains and the 55-65% very short ones (introduced, e.g. C2).And add to this, that in the original (retained) chains there is ample unsaturation tobeneficially influence viscosity values of thismTG, that is why our viscosity is just the half (5-6 cSt) of that of cuphea oil !! So, to be a bit immodest, we are ahead of our time with this new stuff of ours! And once we get BD producers (or any investor for that matter) understand this, we will be "unbeatable" and destined to success. So to that end would we require a helping hand in the USA (on strictly business grounds, naturally) to promote the thing. The best solution to my mind would be to win over to our side an active BD producer, experiencing the serious drawbacks of conventional BD manufacture, such as the glycerol issue, and grasping at once the numerous merits of our stuff -- and thus willing to invest into its advancement.
2/. Algal oil extraction: it seems you have sold this problem in an unique way. However, if there is any residual oil adheredto the cell walls, etc. it can well be removed (extracted) with ethyl acetate, our transesterifying reactant, once you choose our process for producing fuel (this oil extraction you cannot perform with methanol of the conventional biodiesel processes, as methanol is immiscible with algal oil).
3/. Geothermal sites: Hungary is especially well endowed with such gifts of nature. Once youinform us on required parameters for algae production (in temperate zones of Central Europe), we might enquire locally to that end. However, it would be best if we could couple this withthe simultaneous introduction ofour TBK-BD fuel. So again, if you could arouse the attention of a US BD producer/investor concerning our stuff that would be a real win-win situation.
4/. Please note that the threeof us (inventors)are private individuals with respect to TBK-BD, with no common company. However, if need be we could form one in no time, to promote the thing. As regards "lack of funds", you are quite right: we would need some covering the costs of completely specifying TBK-BD, preferably by the US-based ASTM, as their data are accepted world wide. (As a matter of fact, this step is indispensable for promoting our stuff/process, to demonstrate to potential investors the viability of the fuel. Economics-wise we have made our calculations, and we are 8-10% "better" (that is, with that muchlower production costs) than conventional BD producers (not to mention now the glycerol/sewage, etc. issues/attached costs)
5/. Syn gas/biochar: can be well produced from biomass, but at what cost? They are both energy-intensive processes, with many technological steps, significantly raising construction/operational costs.
6/. Cooperation: it seems we both need demonstrating to the world the viability of our respective processes, both economically and technologically. Fund raising to such ends is quite onerous here in Hungary (hardly any venture capital available, so we are applying for all sorts of small grants from the state, etc. Not the real thing.) As conventional BD production is down in the EU owing to the "fuel versus food" debate, as long as algal sources are not abundantly available, the BD issue is not likely to improve. But once we have the algal oil, the advantages of TBK-BD over traditional BD may become quickly evident for the players.
7/. If it is in your interest to link your process with ours --since your algal oil could well be used by traditional fuel producers as well -- only thenshould we work out means and ways of cooperation. Of course, we would also be glad if you could promote our invention quite independently from yours with US fuel producers/investors, etc., on business grounds, naturally. Ideally, the procedure would be like this: finding a willing partner over there for reproducing our process on a lab-scale, then scaling-up for producing that much volumes of TBK-BD asare required for specifications, motor-tests, field tests, etc. Then erecting a pilot plant for demonstration purposes and fixing technological parameters,and so on.
8/. Similarly, to promote your method here in the EU we would need specs of your oil, a running pilot plant, a feasibility study concerning economics, farming/harvesting parameters, side-product/waste disposal methods, etc.
9/. Your background would certainly suffice for managing both projects and related enterprises. I am also attaching my resume (and also those of my co-inventors) for your kind attention, and also our brochure on TBK-BD, which you may use for constructing a wikiwebsite, along with the contents and attachments of my messages to yourself. (Please note: the "Cuphea" attachment is not our property as I downloaded it from the net.)
Well, please think the thing over and kindly inform us of your ideas.
With regards,
J. Thesz