|
Triglycerides |
+ |
Methanol |
>>> |
10%
Glycerol |
+ |
90% "BioDiesel" FAME
Fatty Acid Methyl Esters |
As we all (should) know, traditional BioDiesel
(BD, "FAME") is NOT a totally green fuel on account of its "methanolic"
part, as methanol is fossil-derived (produced via oxidation of methane).
Nor is the so-called second generation biodiesel (according to e.g. the
Finnish "NExBTL" process) a really renewable fuel, as the hydrogen of
the process is manufactured industrially through the oxidation of
propane/butane, again fossils, whose very replacement should be the sole
concern of a really green economy.
TBK BioDiesel
Process
|
Triglycerides |
+ |
Methyl Acetate |
>>> |
Modified Triglycerides (Partially Acetylated) |
+ |
Fatty Acid Methyl Esters
FAME |
or
TBK Biodiesel made from 100% Renewable green chemicals
|
Triglycerides from
Plant Oil or Algae Oil |
+ |
Ethyl Acetate from Cellulosic Ethanol |
>>> |
Modified Triglycerides (Partially Acetylated) |
+ |
Fatty Acid Ethyl Esters
FAEE |
What we do is a partial transesterification
("interesterification") of naturally occurring triglycerides with alkyl
(ethyl) esters of short-chain fatty acids (acetic), whereby we get a
mixture of modified triglycerides with reduced molecular masses (that
is, with reduced viscosities) and the alkyl esters of displaced fatty
acids:
(Our patent is pending. Application no.: PCT/HU 2008/000013,
publication
no.: WO2008096187).
The scheme depicts a 33 1/3 % exchange of long chains for short ones,
but depending on the viscosity to be attained, further replacement of
long chains is to be effected. So there is no glycerol formation, no
washings, no sewage, but each and every atom of the biomass is utilized
for fuel purposes.
We get an extra 10% mass of fuel out of a given
amount of feedstock after the exchange of each third of the original
(long) chains (that is, we require 10 or so % less arable land to
produce a given amount of fuel than in the case of traditional BD).
The internal oxygen content of our fuel is about
30% higher than that of present biodiesel, affording better combustion
properties, better emission profile, less soot, etc.
Moreover, in every case our product has a lower
iodine-number than the corresponding biodiesel (owing to "dilution" of
double-bonds), yielding greater resistance to oxidative degradations.
We have improved cold-properties (on account of
the presence of a reduced molecular mass triglyceride), our volumetric
energy density is 4-5% higher than that of present biodiesel, and so on.
Our production costs are lower, we can utilize
glycerol-wastes of traditional BD processes as feedstock, we can work in
traditional BioDiesel plants, etc.
So our stuff has half a dozen or so such merits,
which considered even individually, should call for the immediate
replacement of traditional "Biodiesel". And to top it all, our
transesterifying agent ethyl acetate is a 100% green reagent --
manufactured for example through dehydrogenation of fermentation
ethanol.
So such being the case, our combustible is the only real 100% bio
(green) substitute of petrodiesel to date, and as such may I draw your
kind attention to it, as your esteemed company has been a vanguard in
the introduction of biofuels. We have some preliminary motor test
results, but the complete evaluation and subsequent standardization of
our fuel would require sources we do not possess at the moment, so we
are thinking of cooperating with a long-time player in the field, aiming
at mutual benefits.
I am attaching some data on the economics of our fuel as compared to the
well-known German "Lurgi-process" for traditional Biodiesel.
Restpectfully yours,
J. Thesz
