Biofuel calculations…

I thought I would document my thought process on a biofuel-based product that I recently conceived of. This is the sort of economic analysis I use when I evaluate alternatives (for my take on alternatives in general, please see The Energy Bogeyman) and I thought some of my reader(s) might be interested…

Recently my lovely wife and I were taking a walk along the country roads near our retirement house (well, it wasn’t supposed to wait for our retirement, but events overtook our plans) past some of the apple orchards that surround the area. The ground under the trees are carpeted with apples that are now in advanced stages of decay and putting off a rather powerful perfume of fermented sweetness. I got to thinking as we were walking that surely it should be practical to collect all those apples and turn them into ethanol for fuel (once an apple has touched the ground it is no longer considered safe for human consumption, though many people argue that with the typical sterilization involved in processing there is no inherent danger in such contact). Apples are high in sugar, the raw materials are free for the picking up (presuming, naturally, the orchard owner is OK with such activity), how could it not be a huge money maker? I started out by making some assumptions (pulling numbers out of my butt) and figured that there would be approximately 25 apples per square foot under the trees. I presumed that ‘under the trees’ meant about 1/4 of the land surface (the trees themselves look like they take up no more than half the land), so each acre would have about 270K apples. If we assume each apple is on average 100 grams, that translates to 27,000,000 grams per acre and if each apple has 11 grams of sugar then the total amount of sugar is 2,970,000 grams. Looking at the biochemistry it appears that each molecule of sugar is converted into two molecules of ethanol and if sugar’s molecular weight is 171 and ethanol’s is 46, then the proportion of sugar that is turned into ethanol should be 53% ((46+46)/171). Thus, it should be possible to get around 1,574,100 grams of ethanol or, with the density of ethanol being 0.79 grams per cubic centimeter, around 1,243,539 cc’s or 1,243 liters or around 330 gallons of ethanol per acre. I found that several years ago (didn’t find any more recent numbers) that fuel ethanol’s wholesale price was in the range of $2 per gallon, for gross revenue of $660 per acre.

Using some reported figures I found for Virginia apple growing I estimated that there are around 3,000 acres under production between Shenandoah county (where our house is) and neighboring Rockingham county, so there is potential revenue of $1,980,000 per year, based on these admittedly made up numbers. I started to get second thoughts about this project at this point, because I was suspicious that the operating costs would eat up way too much of that potential, but decided to continue with my analysis for a while. I figured a substantial cost would be the capital to obtain the fermentation tanks because I estimate that the volume of mashed apples per acre to be 7,200 gallons and in general polyethylene tanks run about a buck a gallon (stainless steel way more than that!), so while conventional tanks don’t automatically eliminate the idea, cheaper tanks go directly toward the bottom line. As for amount of ethanol from each gallon of apple mash, I estimate that with 10% of the apple mash being sugar (11 grams of sugar per apple with each apple weighing 100 grams) and converting 50% of the sugar to ethanol, each gallon of mash produces only 5% of its volume in ethanol. Upon research it seems that yeast will convert all the sugar to ethanol in approximately a week and I figured that the harvest season would be about 8 weeks, so each fermenting vessel would get used 8 times per year, or would produce around 40% of its volume in ethanol (or, at $2 per gallon, about 80 cents per vessel gallon). Now clearly the fermenting vessels will be reusable, potentially indefinitely, so obtaining the vessels will be a capital cost and something that must be obtained from investors somewhere. I figured that since the fermenting vessel is just a big water tight box, I could build something much like our pool project we are currently working on, so thought of a wooden framed box lined with pond liner would be about the least expensive way to go. According to my quickie calculations, the material costs for a 145K gallon container (approximately 14×14, 100 ft long) are about $21K. I guestimate labor would run around $9K, so a total cost of around $30K per vessel. Each vessel would have the potential to produce 6,800 gallons of ethanol per batch or almost 55K gallons per season (with 8 batches) or, at $2 per gallon, around $110K per year. Give the capital cost of $30K, the return on capital looks like it ought to be promising, so worthy of continued analysis.

It would take around 20 such vessels to handle the processing of the estimated 3K acres of apples (we are, of course, presuming that the numbers I pulled out of my butt have some close relationship with reality, but with spreadsheets it is simple to update with real (or less unreal) numbers if the initial guestimates make it worth continued investigation) for an initial capital investment in the vessels of $600K. Of course, the vessels need to be put somewhere, but you could easily fit that many on a couple of acres and that amount of land can probably be had for less than $100K (clearly the land could be leased as well, thus reducing capital costs), so we are up to $700K initial investment. Some sort of machine would need to be produced to harvest the downed apples and based on some earlier research I did on a oil-from-grass project (if anyone is interested, please let me know, it seems practical to get an ROI of over 20%, potentially over 50%) I figured it would take one man on one machine to handle the 3K acres in the two counties in question over 2 months. I figured a prototype mower to be on the order of $250K, so I will assume this is a bit more expensive and call it $400K. Labor to do the apple collection is probably on the order of $30 per hour (fully loaded) so 40 hours times 8 weeks works out to a measly $10K, so clearly labor for apple collection isn’t going to be a show stopper. Someone is going to have to monitor the fermenting process and that someone needs to be educated in the art of fermenting, so I will assume that person will cost twice as much per hour and I doubt that person could be hired for only 8 weeks out of the year, so will figure a full-time cost for this person to be about $130K per year. There will probably need to be some additional laborers from time to time, so lets toss on another $40k for part-time labor and another $40K for operating expenses in general (total wild assed guess again). So at this point here is what we have:

Capital costs (for our putative 3K acres):
Fermenting vessels: $600K
Land: $100K
Harvester: $400K
Total: $1.1 million

Annual operating costs:
Harvesting: $10K
Fermenting: $130K
Labor: $40K
Operations: $40K
Total: $220K

Time for a quick check on the situation to see if it is worth continuing this analysis… If we are assuming we can get gross revenues of $660 per acre and there are 3K acres we could access then potentially get revenue of almost $2 million. With operating costs of $220K our net profits would be around $1.75 million for a return on capital of 160%. So far, this is looking like a really promising project, so lets continue the analysis.

Once we have fermented the apples and produced the ethanol there is the ‘tiny’ problem of separating the 5% ethanol from the 95% apple mash. The conventional approach is to distill the ethanol by boiling the mash, something that, according to my research, costs almost half the energy present in the final ethanol product. As such, it would seem to me that if you are basically throwing away half of your final product in order to produce it, you are now looking at revenues of $1 million. Remove operating costs and you get an operating profit of $780K for a return on capital of 70%. Seventy percent is still a very nice return, particularly when most investors are happy to get 20% (the long-term average of the stock market is 10-14%), so it would seem that even if we can’t develop a better way to extract the ethanol (there seem to be several with a lot of promise according to some reading I have done), this is still worth pursuing.

We also need to store the finished ethanol for some period until it can be sold. If we presume we have to store all that we produce for at least some period, we need to store about a million gallons. If we presume we are going to use the exact same means of storing as we do the fermenting (I am not sure, at this point, if the pond liner I would use for the fermenting would resist the full-strength ethanol), then we need 7 more vessels/tanks at an additional capital cost of $210K.

It is necessary to deal with the left over mash somehow. Simply dumping it into the waterways, while almost certainly illegal, is also a huge negative impact to the environment. It is necessary to treat it somehow prior to being released. Taking a cost of sewage treatment off the ‘net of $8 per 1,000 gallons we get a cost of around $170K to treat the waste.

There are some things I haven’t consider cost-wise, such as taxes, insurance, yeast, etc. Taxes, of course, only apply to net profits, so it is hard to set a solid value on that. Traditionally taxes are assumed to be 40% of profits, but since profits are so easy to manipulate and further there are all sorts of tax breaks that could be had (particularly in the area of biofuels), taxes might be substantially lower, possibly even as low as just a few percent. Insurance, I have no idea whatsoever, though clearly it will have to be factored in. Yeast, I presume, is not a significant issue and is probably in the range of a few hundred dollars a year. If anyone thinks of anything I missed (particularly large, expensive things), please let me know.

So, in final analysis, we have this:

Capital costs (for our putative 3K acres):
Fermenting vessels: $600K
Storage vessels: $210K
Land: $100K
Harvester: $400K
Total: $1.31 million

Annual operating costs:
Harvesting: $10K
Fermenting: $130K
Labor: $40K
Operations: $40K
Waste treatment: $170K
Total: $390K

Revenue @$2/gal: $1 million (note that we are using half our ethanol to distill)

Net profit: $610K
Net return on capital: 46%

So, to conclude: it seems that, as long as we can assume our raw material is free (indeed, it seems it is worth paying some small price for the raw materials), it is a worthwhile idea to consider pursuing. Clearly long-term agreements need to be made with the orchard owners so it is possible to amortize the cost of the capital investment and even more clearly it is necessary to test the assumptions built in here to see if they pan out, but it looks like it is worth doing on a percentage basis. The second thing to consider is the total amount of return in dollars. While $600K sounds like a lot, if you borrowed the $1.3 million at 10% for 10 years the annual payment would be around $200K leaving $400K. While that is a nice chunk of change for an individual, it isn’t a whole lot for a company and when you figure the growth has a pretty hard cap (meaning there are only the 3K acres of apple orchards), there isn’t much prospect of getting more. However, it might be quite practical to decrease the cost of separating the ethanol from the mash, so if we assume we can recover 80% of the ethanol energy equivalent (meaning whatever we use to get the ethanol costs us about 20% of the value of the ethanol, or in our example, about $400K) our revenues jump up to $2 million, but our costs also increase by $400K. Still, our net profit nearly doubles to $1.2 million and thus our return on capital jumps to over 100%. Now, while the growth is still quite limited, a company that is consistently bringing in over a million dollars a year has enough going for it to be worth pursuing. Add in further that the major expense of waste treatment could likely be decreased substantially since the input is a well defined product and thus should be simpler to process (no solids to remove, for instance), it would seem that through economies of scale and advances down the learning curve it is practical to consider initial improvements in the processing to the point where the income could be quite dependable. That said, it is a small niche, which both helps and hurts. It helps because there are likely to be few people interested in competing, it hurts because it is often difficult to get the attention of investors when the potential is so small.

I started this article because my preliminary calculations were showing such a tiny return as to not make it worth considering. I thought it might be interesting to show how such obvious ideas had serious flaws and in doing so I exposed my own flaws in my preliminary calculations and have now convinced myself that this is indeed worth pursuing. Of course, there are several hurdles to overcome, but if I continue to believe I have the potential to produce a million dollars a year in a few years, then I am almost obligated to investigate it seriously.

UPDATE:
http://sol-biotech.com/wordpress/2012/01/14/biofuels-are-hard/

Why use the banks at all?

How Banks Cheat Taxpayers
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/how-banks-cheat-taxpayers-20111227

Of course, the reason is because the banks own the politicians. But lets envision (fantasize), for just a second, that there was someone in charge not in the pockets of the oligarchy. What would be the best way to sell bonds for municipalities? How about the exact same way the Fed sells bonds? And how about in the exact same place to the exact same customers? Clearly some municipalities are going to have to pay higher interest rates, but at least those rates are open and obvious to anyone and not some back-room deal some corrupt politician made with some corrupt lending institution. However, I am sure the GOP would scream bloody murder because that is just plain socialism, clear as day. It is way better to let taxpayers cough up loads more money for the same result because, clearly, rich people don’t pay taxes so fuck the middle class!

Is morality chemical?

Can a molecule make us moral?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/27/opinion/zak-moral-molecule/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The author seems very sure of himself, but without doing a bunch of reading I can’t tell if it is justified or not. I think the article is worth a read and while I do believe we are the sum of our interacting parts, I don’t think anything is as simple as he makes out. Just like genes are not destiny, I doubt one single brain chemical can possibly have total control over our actions. High levels might predispose you toward (or against) certain behaviors, but I think there are way too many non-linear feedback mechanisms to allow for any sort of absolute prediction.

Turboparalysis

The age of turboparalysis
The world faces years of ineffective rebellion and enduring recession
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/27/the_age_of_turboparalysis/singleton/

A very nice way of putting our current situation of lots of activity without any progress. I also like the idea that we are in an interregnum, summed up here:

“Is it a revolt?” King Louis XVI asked the Duke de la Rouchefoucauld on July 12, 1789, only to receive the reply: “No, sire, it is a revolution.” Revolts by peasants and workers throughout history have fizzled out spontaneously or have been easily suppressed. Revolts turn into revolutions only when a section of the elite breaks away with and sides with non-elite insurgents. In doing so, the dissident members of the elite often wish to preserve as much of their status or property as they can, by leading and shaping a movement that would otherwise displace them. Joe Kennedy explained his support for the New Deal by saying that he would give away half his wealth if as a result he were allowed to keep the other half.

So, until some significant portion of the elite (and who, exactly, is this elite? If it is the wealthy and powerful, I think we have a very long wait) figures it is in their best interest to join in fomenting revolution, we got bupkis…

Until then, we may be stuck in a prolonged interregnum between an old system that cannot be re-created and a new system that cannot yet be built. We may have to endure years of activity without action and motion without movement — years of turboparalysis.

What came before the Cambrian period?

Precambrian fossils, once thought to be embryos, reinterpreted as… something else
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/precambrian-fossils-once-thought-to-be-embryos-reinterpreted-as-somethign-else.ars

Since the Cambrian period basically represents the first time organisms contained hard body parts (soft body parts very rarely fossilize), a lot less is known about the pre-Cambrian period. What fossils they do find tend to be light on detail and difficult to interpret, so the article mentioned above isn’t that unusual. Fortunately, this isn’t a politicized subject and academic investigators can be wrong without winding up being vilified on the front pages of magazines.

Another must read…

A Christmas Message From America’s Rich
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-christmas-message-from-americas-rich-20111222

I like this guy Matt alot. He doesn’t post as much as Glenn does, but I find his writing style quite direct and to the point. For instance:

What makes people furious is that they have stopped being citizens.

Most of us 99-percenters couldn’t even let our dogs leave a dump on the sidewalk without feeling ashamed before our neighbors. It’s called having a conscience: even though there are plenty of things most of us could get away with doing, we just don’t do them, because, well, we live here. Most of us wouldn’t take a million dollars to swindle the local school system, or put our next door neighbors out on the street with a robosigned foreclosure, or steal the life’s savings of some old pensioner down the block by selling him a bunch of worthless securities.

But our Too-Big-To-Fail banks unhesitatingly take billions in bailout money and then turn right around and finance the export of jobs to new locations in China and India. They defraud the pension funds of state workers into buying billions of their crap mortgage assets. They take zero-interest loans from the state and then lend that same money back to us at interest. Or, like Chase, they bribe the politicians serving countries and states and cities and even school boards to take on crippling debt deals.

I read something else today that said what is lacking in our oligarchy is shame. The total lack of shame allows these people to steal candy from babies mouths and then, like this article details, brag about it while complaining about the baby’s cries.

It isn’t that all the rich and powerful are useless parasites on our society, it is that so many of the rich and powerful are it is hard to generate the enthusiasm to sort them all out and makes one want to get rid of all of them. Unfortunately, I think a reaction (if it ever comes, I don’t think the sheeple will actually rise up) will tar too many of the beneficial rich and powerful and we could easily sink into a generation or more of idiocy (see the Cultural Revolution and a dewd named Mao).

An interesting take on the European crisis

How Bad Ideas Worsen Europe’s Debt Meltdown
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-22/bad-ideas-worsen-europe-s-debt-meltdown-commentary-by-john-h-cochrane.html

I admit I have not been following the European debt situation that closely (it took me days to figure out what PIIGS stood for) and have thought up to this point that in order to resolve the situation they needed to combine their governments into a US of Europe. Yes, that would mean countries giving up substantial control over their internal operations, but it would make them much more competitive. However, this article makes what I feel are excellent points that indicate that the real problem is that lenders are not required to carry collateral against sovereign debt, thus are incredibly over leveraged in the event of a default. If lenders were required to treat sovereign debt the same as corporate debt (meaning they have to assume some level of default and protect themselves by having cash reserves in the event of default) then while it would still suck to own the debt of the sovereign that defaulted, there would be no other ripples and life would go on. So clear the solution, so politically impossible to implement.

We need a fourth credit agency

The shady credit agencies that run your life
Your credit score affects everything from job offers to home loans — and the way it’s calculated is deeply flawed
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/02/the_shady_credit_agencies_that_run_your_life/singleton/

I highly recommend reading the entire article, but I was most interested in the final bit:

Or how about a credit-reporting agency of the people, for the people and by the people? Similar to the Move Your Money campaign, a Move Your Credit Score campaign might be an experiment worth running, if only to keep the topic in the minds of the public. The idea is that we would all volunteer to submit our information to our own agency, which would agree to sell its scoring to banks and other lenders at a lower fee that those currently charged by credit ratings bureaus. The banks would certainly try to squash it, but a national campaign would be a good way to expose the mess and gain the attention of the mainstream press, which has so far largely confined its reporting to “How to Improve Your Credit Score” pieces.

Taking back the control of our financial destinies is something the 99 percent can certainly rally around. Left, right and center, this is an issue none of us can escape.

Doing so would certainly not be without huge challenges, but clearly the ‘market’ needs competition. Ever since my wife was victim of an identity thief (which, btw, the police were totally uninterested in investigating; all they had to do was show up and put the cuffs on, my wife had done all the work for them!) I have closely monitored my credit. My report is full of all sorts of cruft and crap, none of them have the slightest idea where I currently work and most are confused about where I live. I would think that the actual users of the credit system would be happy to have a better report and if you were to offer the better report for less money, I think you could get a lot of business right off the bat. Of course, all sorts of new laws would be put in place (sort of like the breaks put on to credit unions as well as health care unions), so you would have to employ lots of the slimy lobbyists that the ‘bad guys’ hire, which, of course, needs deep pockets, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, if we were to re-create a society that simply excluded the 1% (of course, immediately replacing them with today’s current 2%, but such is life) and all stick together, we could dramatically transform our society in just a year or twain. Of course, since the majority of our population is made up of sheeple, it is inevitable that more than enough morons will believe the lies promulgated by the 1% to break the back of the movement.

Interesting thoughts on morality

Good Minus God
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/

The author interestingly seems to conclude that atheists have the potential to make more and better moral decisions because they are atheists when compared to theists because of theists belief in god as the arbiter of morality. I can see this easily in the justifications many promulgate for the focus on Muslims in this ‘war on terror’ (really, just an excuse to install a police state). Our actions are OK because we do them in the name of our god while their actions are evil because they do them in the name of their god.

Years ago I decided to write down my own thoughts on god and religion and put it here:

Essays on Faith

I put a lot of thought into the article in an attempt to communicate my belief system and had hoped to prompt some discussion with friends, but, alas, it was the beginning of my realization that no one ever bothers to read my stuff anyway. A very good friend of mine (good old Doug Cloud, may he rest in peace) and I used to have lots of philosophical discussions (some of them running right off the rails, but that was part of the fun) and I had sort of ‘leaked’ my beliefs over time and thought would codify them. Maybe this post will trigger some of my reader(s) to take a look at it.

Interesting, if it can be practical

Solar cell could be cheaper than fossil fuel
http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/60289-solar-cell-could-be-cheaper-than-fossil-fuel

I am not sure about this 114% efficiency number, it seems like gaming the system (meaning getting more than one electron per photon seems like unfair counting). However, if they can dramatically increase the overall efficiency of solar cells (the best are about 45%, but are really _really_ expensive; ‘ordinary’ ones run at 25-30%) and dramatically decrease the cost (as implied in the article) then we might be on the verge of a dramatic breakthrough (finally!). We still have to find an economical way to store the energy for use at night, quite a non-trivial thing to do, but at least we would have the incentive to develop such storage devices which is not quite at Manhattan project levels at this point.