General Biodiesel

Biodiesel Processor review

2011-05-27T14:36:27Z

When investigating what Biodiesel Processors I could afford, I was surprised at the very wide variety of equipment available. Prices range from many thousands of dollars (out of my league) for high-volume processors to a few thousand dollars for small “shed” based production. I would like to ask members of our forum if they have any experience of the following processors – or if they have their own setup and if they can give us all more information.

This is a round-up of the Biodiesel Processors that are worth investigating:

Springboard Biodiesel

This manufacturer sells through a number of US-based east and west coast dealers – they can ship overseas – ask for a shipping quotation.

Their BioPro™ range are all 50 Gallon batch processors with different processing times between 48-hour down to 13-hour. All are fully automated, producing fuel to ASTM-D675 specification. Springboard Biodiesel choose a stainless steel chassis instead of cheaper polymers – this adds to safety where cheaper polyethylene containers are always at risk of wear and puncture.

All internal hoses are stainless steel and all ports from the lid into tank are sealed. The pump motor and methoxide mixing propeller are Explosion Proof rated. This all adds up to a CE marked machine complying with all the applicable health and environmental directives.

Their prices start at $9,995.00 for the BioPro™ 190, $13,990.00 for the 190 EX, and $18,950 for the 190EX plus SpringPro™ T76.

Above: BioPro™ 190

Here’s actress Daryl Hannah getting to know the SpringBoard BioPro 190:

Springboard Biodiesel and Daryl Hannah at the World Ag Expo in Tulare

EZBiodiesel

Colorado –based EZBiodiesel offer pre-assembled processors or kit-based which you self assemble.

Their Gold Models (assembled) are in 4 models, all based on the batch production quantity.

240 gallon (EZ240) $7,395.00
160 gallon (EZ160) $5,195.00
80 gallon (EZ80) $3,995.00
40 gallon (EZ40) $3,195.00

Their self-assembly range are two models:

80 gallon (EZ80) KIT $2,595.00
40 gallon (EZ40) KIT $1,995.00

They also offer a whole catalog of accessories such as drywash, tanks, pumps, ASTM test kits and hoses.

Click here to visit EZBiodiesel.

Home Biodiesel Kits

This is their 4 Gallon Biodiesel Starter Kit at $395.00. Comes with an EZ Titration Kit, Safety First Kit (Gloves, goggles, etc.) and a complete operating manual. They’ll credit this kit price if you then buy a processor.

This is their Freedom Fueler Biodiesel Processor at $3,495.00. Built-in oil filtration system. In-line Static Mixer. 1500 Watt In-Tank heater. Steel plumbing with brass/stainless valves. Mist washing system. 720 GPH turbine pump. Processes 160 gallons of biodiesel – they claim 30 minutes hands-on to generate 40 gallons of juice. Includes couple of books to get you started.

This their 150 Gallon Deluxe with Drywash at $8,495.00 comprising:

Freedom Fueler with Steel Plumbing
BioKleen 350 Drywash System
Exclusive 1500 Watt In-Tank Heating System
One-Piece Powder Coated Steel Frame
New Built-In Oil Filtration System with 200 Micron Screen and Steel Barrel.
Fueling Station

Their 75 Gallon Deluxe version sells for $6,495.00

US Freedom Biofuels

US Freedom Biofuels provide two capacities of processors including 250 gallon and 450 gallon with an otpional animal fat processor.

Range:

BD40 Low Profile Processor 250 Gallons/day at $7,625.00

BD 40 Biodiesel Processor 250 G/d at $7,625.00

BD 65 Biodiesel Processor 450 G/d at $8,695.00

BD 65AF Animal Fat Biodiesel Processor 250 G/d at $10,815.00

They also offer a range of Chemical, Biodiesel and Engine heaters supplies.

Biofuel Processor

Just two products on offer from biofuel processor:

60 Gallon Premium Biodiesel Processor at $1,399 and free shipping.

40 Gallon Standard Biodiesel Processor at $1,299 and free shipping.

Azure Biodiesel Company

Azure sell the FuelMeister II™ range of processors.

FuelMeister II™ Personal Biodiesel Processor:

US 110 Volt Version $2,995.00

International 220 Volt $3,295.00

Step-by-Step Manual & DVD
Processor Tank & Stand
Water Wash Lid
DCI Lye Dissolver Lid
Manual Alcohol Pump & Hose
Electrical Pump and Controller
Quick Disconnect Oil Drawtube
2 Digital Lye Scales
Oil Titration Test Kit
Mini-batch Kit and more
Operator Safety Kit

Expansion Tank $995.00

See the full catalog here.

Which Biodiesel Processor are you using or would recommend?

I would welcome your ideas and comments.

Nick

Jatropha curcas: poison shrub or environmental savior?

2009-05-12T13:40:00Z

Jatropha curcas is a plant that sounds like science fiction. Proponents’ claims describe it as a biofuel miracle shrub that out-produces corn 10-1, grows in marginal lands, and requires very little water. Its oil can also be used in a Diesel engine with no modifications to the engine or the oil (no transesterification needed). But this bush has a dark side: mildly poisonous seeds (1 or 2 are a laxative, 5 are deadly), the need for harvesting by hand, a propensity to die in the cold, and its perception by some as an invasive weed.

None of those problems have stopped Clint Cheek, a network engineer with biodiesel dreams, from doing everything he can to change careers from computers to curcas. “Jatropha will grow anywhere,” enthuses Cheek in his Texas drawl. “You can go to a parking lot, crunch up 14 tons of concrete, throw on some seeds, and it’ll grow!”

This “grow anywhere” propensity has led Western Australia to declare jatropha curcas an invasive species, making it illegal to grow jatropha for biofuel production. Ron Schwartz of Biosecurity Australia wrote that jatropha had been assessed as posing a significant weed risk in Western Australia. “Based on our information at present it definitely has weed potential,” opines Schwartz Yet, other Australian states have not followed suit in banning jatropha, and Queensland has discussed committing 100,000 hectares (386 square miles) to a model jatropha farm.

India also doesn’t buy into Western Australia’s caution. The Indian government has identified over 300,000 km² (an area larger than Arizona) of jatropha-ready wasteland and has committed 1.3 billion rupees (roughly $26.5 billion) in incentives for farmers to grow jatropha. India aims to replace 20% of its diesel fuel consumption with jatropha oil by 2011, and is already using jatropha extensively in its rail system. India clearly is willing to gamble on the fuel benefits outweighing the invasive weed danger.

Erring on the side of potential benefit over potential cost has burned Americans in the past. Southern residents are constantly reminded of the potential impact of invasive species as they stare at endless landscapes taken over by kudzu. Originally brought to the U.S. to combat soil erosion, kudzu became “The vine that ate the south.”

But Cheek is quick to dismiss the kudzu-to-jatropha comparison. For one, points out Cheek, jatropha’s bush-like qualities make it easier to control than a vine. “Careful management should make it simple to control,” says Cheek. “In addition,” added Cheek, “It can’t survive any extended temperatures below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, so it can’t grow anywhere that gets a frost.”

That temperature requirement isn’t scaring off Florida farmer Mark Dalton, of My Dream Fuel. For him, the advantages far outweigh the negatives. “Jatropha can go six months without a drop of water. You don’t have to harvest the tree. All you have to do is take the pods off the tree, take the seeds out of the pod, crush the seeds, and you have biofuels.” Claims Dalton, “This tree is incredibly hardy. It can go 6 months without a drop of water.”

In addition, jatropha shouldn’t factor into the “food vs. fuel” debate that has plagued biodiesel and ethanol. “Not being a food source, you’re not competing with corn or soybean or other products that are being used to feed this world’s population,” points out Dalton. Pair that with jatropha’s ability to grow in soil that would make a soybean cringe, and jatropha can be grown with no negative impact on food production.

According to its proponents, jatropha has another advantage: its potential has barely been scratched. “We’re still working with a wild plant. An undomesticated crop,” points out Roy Beckford of the University of Florida. “Even at its very lowest projections, jatropha gives you 200-300 gallons per acre, and soy gives you less than 100 gallons per acre.” Beckford points out a further jatropha advantage: it’s long life. Soy is an annual, meaning it has to be replanted every year. Jatropha bushes live 50 years on average.

One industry has pushed chips in on the jatropha oil card: airlines. Four airlines have conducted live flight tests with a jatropha blend since late 2008: Continental, Virgin Atlantic, Air New Zealand, and Japan Air. All four are banking on jatropha as a future mainstay source for their fuel-thirsty airplanes, and all four have successfully flown on a blend of jatropha and biodiesel in one engine of a multi-engine plane. “They did all the tests, emergency shutdowns and startups,” says Cheek.

“The airplane performed perfectly,” Continental test pilot Rich Jankowski told the Houston Chronicle newspaper. “There were no problems. It was textbook.”

But wait, there’s more! As a crop, jatropha has significant benefits. It plays nicely with other plants and can be planted alongside coffee, sugar, fruits, and vegetables. Jatropha produces a slight scent that dissuades animals from going near it, so it’s often planted as a fence to keep animals away from other crops and can even deter mosquitoes. Its drought tolerance and marginal soil preference makes it an ideal desertification fighter, and its seed cake makes an excellent fertilizer.

Cheek waxes poetic about the potential for other jatropha applications. He points out that in coastal Texas, dredging operations continually produce small islands of near-sludge from the silt. The islands aren’t particularly stable, and certainly not live-able. But, points out Cheek, “Put a small layer on topsoil, plant jatropha seeds, harvest the oil and reuse the seed-cake to fertilize the land. 10 to 20 years from now, they’re viable little islands that you can put buildings on.” Cheek’s enthusiasm so evident that one can almost see his huge grin over the phone as he says ,“I just do not see why people aren’t going crazy about it over here. Every biorefinery in Texas is asking for feedstock: ‘How many millions of gallons per day can you send me,’ they ask. It’s ridiculous.”

Jatropha’s hand is still being dealt, like that of most alternative energy concepts. But with enthusiasts like Cheek and Dalton evangelizing on its behalf, airlines getting on board, and even companies like British Petroleum getting on board (they recently partnered with D1 Oils of London on Indian Jatropha), the potential for jatropha cannot be ignored. It’s a gamble that more and more organizations are taking.

Can I use biodiesel in my Volkswagen TDI?

2009-01-05T18:29:00Z

In the last issue of Volkswagen’s DasAuto Magazine, the “Ask Volkswagen” segment answered one of the most common questions I hear Volkswagen TDI owners ask. This as to do with how their TDI diesel vehicles run alternatives to petroleum, be it be SVO, WVO (Straight or Waste Vegetable Oil) or biodiesel. The “Can I use biodiesel in my Volkswagen vehicle?” is a popular question. The answer has always been ‘yes’ with a but …

Volkswagen only recommends a 5% blend of biodiesel to petroleum diesel fuel.

Of course this is the official “company who has to stand behind the warranty” answer. A more appropriate answer has to do with just how well VW TDI engine tolerate biodiesel long term and what potential risks can be minimized. For example, there are many example of older Volkswagen TDI have used high percentage “quality” biodiesel for thousands and thousands of miles. The key word is “quality.” Biodiesel that is properly manufactured, washed and filtered has little ill effect even in higher percentage blends in all but the Pumpe Duse TDIs. (mid-2005 and newer TDIs had higher pressure PD injection systems that “could” see problems with high percentage biodiesel — this is speculative opinion) Also the new ‘clean diesel’ 2009 and newer TDIs might also have emission control issues with higher percentage biodiesel … their particulate filter exhaust system might not be able to handle high percenage biodiesel exhaust?

That said, biodiesel is still being successfully used in many VW TDIs. Here’s a list of a few items to consider as you increase your percentage blends — but for the record, Arthur Daniels Midland and VWoA is said to be testing B20 (20% Biodiesel) in VW TDI diesel engines.

Unblended and untreated biodiesel begins to gell near freezing. Thickened fuel can starve the fuel injection pump, clog the fuel filter and atomize poorly when forced through fuel injectors.
Poorly washed fuel can contain contaminates including corrosive methanol, water and glycerin. Not only can this damage the injection system, but can prematurely damage fuel lines and gaskets.
Long term storage of biodiesel attracts water, so even a top quality BQ9000 fuel that is poorly handled and stored can end up with contaminates in the fuel.
And finally, Volkswagen determines your warranty coverage — if you use high percentage blends of biodiesel and have a fuel related problem, realized that they may be resistant to offer warranty coverage. (they’ll probably point to the above statement of “B5.”)

Times are changing and I suspect that it won’t be long before most manufacturers approve the use of a B10 or B20 fuel and warranty its use.

Waste coffee grounds turned into biodiesel

2008-12-12T01:58:00Z

A study in the online journal of the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, reports that waste coffee grounds can provide a cheap, abundant, and environmentally friendly source of biodiesel fuel for powering cars and trucks. The study by Mano Misra, Susanta Mohapatra, and Narasimharao Kondamudi note that the major barrier to wider use of biodiesel fuel is lack of a low-cost, high quality source, or feedstock, for producing that new energy source. Spent coffee grounds contain between 11 and 20 percent oil by weight which is almost as much as traditional biodiesel feedstocks such as rapeseed, palm, and soybean oil.

According to the article, growers produce more than 16 billion pounds of coffee around the world each year and the spent ground often wind up in the trash or find use as soil conditioner. The scientists estimated, however, that spent coffee grounds can potentially add 340 million gallons of biodiesel to the world’s fuel supply.

To verify it, the scientists collected spent coffee grounds from a multinational coffeehouse chain and separated the oil. They then used an inexpensive process to convert 100 percent of the oil into biodiesel.

The resulting coffee-based fuel — which actually smells like java — had a major advantage in being more stable than traditional biodiesel due to coffee’s high antioxidant content, the researchers say. Solids left over from the conversion can be converted to ethanol or used as compost, the report notes. The scientists estimate that the process could make a profit of more than $8 million a year in the U.S. alone. They plan to develop a small pilot plant to produce and test the experimental fuel within the next six to eight months.

Chicken-wing conspiracy against biofuels

2008-11-24T20:44:00Z

This excellent article has been reprinted with permission of Jim Lane of BioFuels Digest. The original is here.

A vast, chicken-wing conspiracy: a report on the forces aligning against biofuels

November 20, 2008

There are vast, right wing conspiracies and vast, left wing conspiracies, but what is facing the biofuels industry is a vast, chicken wing conspiracy.

The conspirators are drawn from groups that Daniel Gross, writing in Slate, described as “poverty activists, inflation hawks, efficiency freaks and environmentalists”, and are led by a coalition of processed food, meat and poultry producers.

Meat and poultry producers are defending their business model, and let’s give them credit for that. The processed food companies seem attracted to the idea of using the campaign to put through a price increase and blame it on a convenient scapegoat.

I have no idea what my brethren journalists and activist environmentalists are doing caught up in all this. So right on so much for so long, they seem to have lost the plot. Propping up the Big Food regime, still as well-funded and dangerous as they used to think it was, is strange work for environmentalists.

Working under names like Food Before Fuel, the conspirators include the Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Pork Producers, American Meat Institute, National Council of Restaurant Chains, the Environmental Working Group, American Bakers Association, National Restaurant Association, Citizens Against Government Waste, National Chicken Council, and the National Turkey Federation.

Earlier this year, they banded together to call for a waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard, expressing a belief articulated by Bob Goodlatte, ranking Republican on the House Agricultural Committee:

“There are many factors that have increased the price of corn, but the only factor that we can immediately control is the amount of the corn supply that must be dedicated to meet the RFS…Our livestock producers and the American consumer have been hit hard in the pocket books…A temporary waiver will offer immediate relief to those affected by the current shortage of the corn supply.”

Goodlatte was joined by 51 members of the House in his call. Separately, 24 members of the US Senate led by John McCain of Arizona called for a waiver. Two Republican governors, Jodi Rell of Connecticut and Rick Perry of Texas joined them.

It would be hard to enumerate the covey of environmental writers and bloggers who wrote something against biofuels or the Renewable Fuel Standard, or corn ethanol, but it would measure in the hundreds. From paid consultants shilling for industry in the guise of syndicated articles, to some of the most esteemed writers in the country, opining in well-regarded journals such as Grist, Scientific American and TIME. The phrase “anti-ethanol” turns up 14,400 web pages in a Google search. There are 42,000 pages with a reference to “food vs fuel”.

“Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change,” one article in Scientific American was titled back in February. TIME writer Michael Grunwald called it “the clean energy scam” in March.

As many readers know, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson declined to waive the Standard based on the evidence before him, in a decision handed down in August.

Famously, the corn market collapsed in September, and the ethanol market with it, in the market implosion of early fall. No RFS waiver required. Under market forces, corn futures price declined from a high of $7.85 to a level of $3.65 today. Ethanol fell from the $2.70 range to $1.65 today.

The “immediate relief” that the market provided did not, however, translate into lower food prices.

According to a Wall Street Journal article from October 17th: “Grain and soybean prices have fallen by about 50% since their summer highs. But don’t expect grocery prices to drop anytime soon. Food companies are typically quick to pass along higher commodity costs on the way up, slower to reduce prices on the way down…By September 30, corn and soybean prices had fallen dramatically, respectively. Yet, during this same month, grocery store prices increased nearly 8 percent.”

Here’s the bottom line of what this is all about. From Canadian Business: “Kraft said… Input costs are coming down, though they’ll still be above historic levels, and pricing is expected to remain in place, which will further pad profit margins.”

As Daniel Gross pointed out in Slate in July of 2007:

I find much of the anti-ethanol case to be unpersuasive. In each instance, the haters would have us look at ethanol, and the ill effects its greater use would assuredly produce, largely in isolation. Might the production of corn ethanol cause pollution? Of course. Is it worse than the sort of pollution created by other types of energy production—i.e., coal and oil? Probably not.

Does greater use of corn for ethanol help spur price increases for food? Sure, but so do many other factors, like, say, the transformation of China from a subsistence farming economy into a more modern one. Is ethanol more inefficient, and hence more costly, than gasoline? Yes. But our heavy use of gasoline imposes all sorts of other costs—from pollution to the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year in Iraq. Factor those in, and ethanol no longer seems like such an economic loser.

Gross makes a important point. It is important to compare biofuels to the fuel they replace, which is oil. Not just the cost in dollars, but the cost in emissions, security and lives. The tragedy of the Amazonian rainforest deserves attention, but the tragedy of the Nigerian Delta is no less awful.

Here’s how the conspirators work. Put up a website, selectively publish only favorable articles. Commissioning them where needed. Paying for advertising to fill gaps. Paying consultants to recruit allies in the environmental movement.

It’s a bad model, which some in the biofuels industry are adopting with tit-for-tat sites like Growth Energy, which do not offer a comprehensive and dispassionate view. Biofuels producers and advocates say that tit-for-tat is smart, that you have to throw mud at a mud-slinger. Unconvincing. But it is true that their livelihood is threatened by impressively-organized, cynical efforts efforts such as these, funded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “The truth shall set you free” is a less appealing strategy, it appears, then “Shields up, Mr. Spock.” Regrettable.

But there is more than grain prices at the heart of this. There is the ongoing “hate debate” over emissions.

The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page writers are among the “efficiency freaks” identified by Gross, recently ran an article by Stephen Power on the subject of indirect land use changes. It detailed efforts by “DuPont, ADM, GM and representatives of the biotechnology industry” to persuade the EPA to “hold off on quantifying the greenhouse-gas impacts of so-called indirect land-use change”. The move was opposed by the Clean Air Task Force, the EWG Action Fund, and Friends of the Earth in a letter to EPA Administrator Johnson and republished in the New York Times by Green Inc blogger Tom Zeller.

The Times opined in an editorial this week that “Environmentalists want an honest accounting, which the public deserves,” and notes that “it is the E.P.A.’s duty under the law to give the most unbiased, accurate accounting it can. The issue here is the fate of the planet, not the fate of a particular industry.” The argument advanced by numerous distinguished scientists that no generally-accepted model exists for measuring indirect land-use changes is attributed by the Times to “the industry”.

The controversy is being structured by the Times and others as a battle between the biofuels industry, its competitors for grain (including consumers and food producers), and environmentalists. That’s as convenient as it is untrue.

The opponents of biofuels are, generally, on an agenda rant and have long since parted company with the facts. The opposition to biofuels is tactical, not strategic: most opponents are upset about some way that the utterly mundane, utterly practical cultivation of energy crops blocks some Nirvana that they seek: usually profits, and other times a better, more just world written in terms of their choosing.

I have written here and elsewhere that critics of Amazonian deforestation should travel to Brazil and experience the culture and economy of that country before wading into geopolitics from the armchair. Poverty advocates should travel to Africa and Asia-Pacific and actually experience the culture and economies of those regions before wading into the complex issue of global food distribution. Eco-tourism, refugee camp visits, or staying at home and reading about it are not substitutes for real field experience. Go get some.

Here are the hard truths:

We do not have a food supply crisis, according to the hard data. We have a monetary distribution crisis participated in by anyone who has ever accepted higher wages for the same work that an African does. That means you and me.

We do not have a grain supply crisis, according to the hard data. We have a grain distribution crisis caused by rising meat consumption, participated in by anyone who has ever partaken of turkey at Thanksgiving dinner. That means nearly every American, myself included.

We do not have a fuel crisis, according to the hard data. We have a crisis of escalating demand in developing nations that have every right to the same lifestyle that Westerners enjoy, except for the embarrassing fact that there simply isn’t enough cheap energy around to provide an affordable Western lifestyle to all.

We do not have a crisis of subsidies and mandates caused by the emergence of ethanol. We live in a state-subsidized and state-directed economy in almost every corner of importance in the business of the Republic we love and serve. Food, aerospace, defense, banking, environment, oil exploration, drugs, pensions and yes, both farming and renewable energy. The argument from meat producers that they are subsidy free is a canard. They benefit from the same supports of the grain industry that biofuel producers do.

As Harper’s Magazine editor Lewis Lapham wrote in his 1990 essay “The Visible Hand” at the time of the S&L bailout:

The national economy depends not only on systematic price-fixing and noncompetitive bidding but also on the guarantee of government intervention. The theory of the free market works at the margins of the economy—among cabdrivers and the owners of pizza parlors, for small businessmen who make the mistake of borrowing $20,000 instead of $20 million—but the central pillars of the American economy rest firmly on the foundation stones of state subsidy…as with the subsidizing of the farms and the defense industry, so also with paying off the bad debt acquired by the savings and loans associations. Except for the taxpayers (who as always, didn’t know what was being promised in their name), nobody took the slightest risk. Always and whenever possible, the participants in the swindle adhered to the fundamental American principles of “no money down” and “something for nothing”.

We do not have a shortage of solutions to the emissions crisis, according to the hard data. We have a crisis of decreasing interest in paying for solutions to hard problems, preferring to direct our dollars to the purchase of SUVs and larger-screen televisions. The average American home is nearly 50 percent larger than homes built in the 1930s. Electricity-munching devices are proliferating, including the device I used to write this essay and the one you are using to read it.

We do not have a crisis of emissions and food supply in the Third World caused by biofuel development in the United States. We have a crisis of emissions and food supply caused by a growing population in Africa and Asia that is doing better, and wanting more. The large tracts of land in Africa and Asia that are being “converted” from “valuable carbon sinks” to cropland were, in fact, cropland before. They were abandoned, in some cases because of local farming and water practices, in other cases because Western food aid caused the local market for grains to collapse, creating the same massive migration to cities and cycle of dependency and political unrest that was the undoing of the Roman Empire.

Those lands are not “carbon sinks”, except in the calculations of cynical Westerners who conceive of the developing world as a toilet to flush away Western excess. Those lands are no more a “carbon sink” than the land under the home you currently occupy; or the land under mine.

“This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land” went the Woody Guthrie song. Not “Your Land is My Land”.

The critics of biofuels have their points. It is not even close to a perfect industry. It is turbulent, risky, unproven and yet promising. Critics who say that it has had thirty years to prove itself (and that’s enough) forget that our primary US transportation system, the railroads, took nearly sixty years to complete, and were massively subsidized by the US Government. 309 railroads went into receivership or bankruptcy during the period between 1884 and 1894, despite all the help. Yet who denies the importance of rail transport for freight, the very means of distributing cheap grain from the farms to the cities?

The second leg of our transportation system, the interstate highway system, was built entirely with tax dollars, and is 50 years now in construction and still we are spending our public dollars on it. But who disagrees on the vital importance of our highways? Or the military, or airport security? And so on.

The suggestion that a vital national strategic interest — the quest for energy independence, or something closer to it — should be funded entirely by the private sector is the first suggestion of that type since the old Jeffersonian party disintegrated over its opposition to federal funding of canals in the 1830s.

Biofuels are on the verge of a transformation from first- to second-generation. As BlueFire Ethanol CEO Arnold Klann points out, we have finally come to the point where we have more financing issues than technical issues. The era of 100 Mgy cellulosic ethanol plants, such as Coskata proposes in South Florida using sugar cane residues, 20-50 Mgy plants that use municipal waste, and 10-20 Mgy plants that use agricultural waste, is at hand.

The critics of biofuels would be best advised to stand down and let the future happen: a shutdown of biofuels development will affect next-generation fuels far more than the first-generation fuels such as corn ethanol that they are most concerned with. The future will be fine. Corn ethanol will not rule the world, or even Iowa.

Meanwhile, they would be well advised to revise their direct land use models before proceeding to indirect models.

Most data published from direct models assume a large percentage of farm inputs are coming from fossil fuels: diesel for trucks and equipment, plus petroleum-based fertilizers. This is changing with the growth of biofuel-based fertilizers and the approval of B20 and B100 biodiesel for farm equipment. Once that work is complete, let us indeed take up the question of indirect land use changes, and the true impact of biofuels on land use and food supply.

But let us not have the debate chaired by Kellogg’s, Sara Lee, or the National Chicken Council. Good organizations, but hardly disinterested. Their goal is cheap grain to fund their business models in an era where other inputs are rising quickly in price.

Let us also suggest that emissions studies, or indirect land use studies, be comparative in nature. Assessing the indirect land use impact of biofuels, let us compare it something aside from carbon neutrality. Carbon neutrality is a standard that human breathing can’t live up to. Let us compare it, instead, to that which it proposes to replace or its competitors in that replacement.

An end-to-end analysis of biofuels should be compared to an end-to-end analysis of oil. For example, is the war in Iraq an “indirect land use change” attributable to rising oil consumption?

An end-to-end analysis of hybrid cars, and plug-in hybrids, would also be useful. It would be interesting data. What is the social cost of open-mining for nickel and lithium to make batteries? What is the energy cost of the construction of solar PV?

Let’s get all the facts on the table, and thereafter form coalitions to compete for the federal purse.

If we get this right, we can make progress in our environmental goals and energy security. That is a more important priority than making the world safe for cheap chicken wings.

Jim Lane is editor and founder of Biofuels Digest. He does not own any biofuel stocks or bonds. A Sierra Club member since 1997, he began his career as an environmentalist setting up demo days for 1990s-era electric cars. Raised in the Asia-Pacific region, he has worked in Eastern Europe and Africa to develop locally-owned small enterprise. His commitment is to the truth rather than to a specific fuel, feedstock, or groupthink. Since the founding of the Digest he has published the voices of more than 50 writers who have something negative to say about biofuels.

Biodiesel Senate contacts

2008-08-27T22:55:00Z

Hi all. Below, we've listed all the United States senators. Please contact your senators to express your interest in biodesel and to let them know how much you support biodiesel.

Murkowski, Lisa- (R - AK)	Class III
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6665
Web Form: murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)	Class II
522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3004
Web Form: stevens.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Em...

Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)	Class II
335 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4124
Web Form: sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Constitue...

Shelby, Richard C.- (R - AL)	Class III
110 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5744
E-mail: senator@shelby.senate.gov

Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D - AR)	Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html

Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR)	Class II
255 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2353
Web Form: pryor.senate.gov/contact/

Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ)	Class I
730 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4521
Web Form: kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

McCain, John- (R - AZ)	Class III
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2235
Web Form: mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA)	Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact

Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA)	Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactU...

Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)	Class II
521 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5941
Web Form: allard.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Salazar, Ken- (D - CO)	Class III
702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5852
Web Form: salazar.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Dodd, Christopher J.- (D - CT)	Class III
448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130

Lieberman, Joseph I.- (ID - CT)	Class I
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041
Web Form: lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue

Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE)	Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
Web Form: biden.senate.gov/services/contact/

Carper, Thomas R.- (D - DE)	Class I
513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/contact/

Martinez, Mel- (R - FL)	Class III
356 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3041
Web Form: martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactIn...

Nelson, Bill- (D - FL)	Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)	Class II
416 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3521
Web Form: chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactU...

Isakson, Johnny- (R - GA)	Class III
120 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3643
Web Form: isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Akaka, Daniel K.- (D - HI)	Class I
141 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6361
Web Form: akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Inouye, Daniel K.- (D - HI)	Class III
722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3934
Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/abtform.html

Grassley, Chuck- (R - IA)	Class III
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3744
Web Form: grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.H...

Harkin, Tom- (D - IA)	Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/c/

Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)	Class II
520 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2752
Web Form: craig.senate.gov/email/

Crapo, Mike- (R - ID)	Class III
239 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6142
Web Form: crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Durbin, Richard- (D - IL)	Class II
309 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Obama, Barack- (D - IL)	Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/

Bayh, Evan- (D - IN)	Class III
131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

Lugar, Richard G.- (R - IN)	Class I
306 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4814
E-mail: senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov

Brownback, Sam- (R - KS)	Class III
303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
Web Form: brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm

Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)	Class II
109 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4774
Web Form: roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInf...

Bunning, Jim- (R - KY)	Class III
316 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4343
Web Form: bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co...

McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)	Class II
361-A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2541
Web Form: mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm

Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA)	Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Vitter, David- (R - LA)	Class III
516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4623
Web Form: vitter.senate.gov/?module=webformIQV1

Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA)	Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm

Kerry, John F.- (D - MA)	Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.html

Cardin, Benjamin L.- (D - MD)	Class I
509 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4524
Web Form: cardin.senate.gov/contact/

Mikulski, Barbara A.- (D - MD)	Class III
503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4654
Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/Contact/contact.cfm

Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)	Class II
413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...

Snowe, Olympia J.- (R - ME)	Class I
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenat...

Levin, Carl- (D - MI)	Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Stabenow, Debbie- (D - MI)	Class I
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm

Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)	Class II
320 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5641
Web Form: coleman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co...

Klobuchar, Amy- (D - MN)	Class I
302 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm

Bond, Christopher S.- (R - MO)	Class III
274 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5721
Web Form: bond.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

McCaskill, Claire- (D - MO)	Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6154
Web Form: mccaskill.senate.gov/contact/

Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)	Class II
113 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5054
Web Form: cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm

Wicker, Roger F.- (R - MS)	Class I
487 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6253
Web Form: wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EMa...

Baucus, Max- (D - MT)	Class II
511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Tester, Jon- (D - MT)	Class I
204 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
Web Form: tester.senate.gov/Contact/

Burr, Richard- (R - NC)	Class III
217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3154
Web Form: burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)	Class II
555 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6342
Web Form: dole.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInform...

Conrad, Kent- (D - ND)	Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

Dorgan, Byron L.- (D - ND)	Class III
322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov

Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)	Class II
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4224
Web Form: hagel.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Nelson, E. Benjamin- (D - NE)	Class I
720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Gregg, Judd- (R - NH)	Class III
393 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3324
Web Form: gregg.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Cont...

Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)	Class II
111 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2841
Web Form: www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html

Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)	Class II
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224
Web Form: lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/

Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ)	Class I
317 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM)	Class I
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521
E-mail: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov

Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM)	Class II
328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6621
Web Form: domenici.senate.gov/contact/contactform.cfm

Ensign, John- (R - NV)	Class I
119 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6244
Web Form: ensign.senate.gov/forms/email_form.cfm

Reid, Harry- (D - NV)	Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY)	Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/contact

Schumer, Charles E.- (D - NY)	Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm

Brown, Sherrod- (D - OH)	Class I
455 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2315
Web Form: brown.senate.gov/contact/

Voinovich, George V.- (R - OH)	Class III
524 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3353
Web Form: voinovich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact....

Coburn, Tom- (R - OK)	Class III
172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5754
Web Form: coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSena...

Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)	Class II
453 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4721
Web Form: inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)	Class II
404 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3753
Web Form: gsmith.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Wyden, Ron- (D - OR)	Class III
230 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5244
Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact/

Casey, Robert P., Jr.- (D - PA)	Class I
383 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324
Web Form: casey.senate.gov/contact/

Specter, Arlen- (R - PA)	Class III
711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4254
Web Form: specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co...

Reed, Jack- (D - RI)	Class II
728 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4642
Web Form: reed.senate.gov/contact/contact-share.cfm

Whitehouse, Sheldon- (D - RI)	Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2921
Web Form: whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/

DeMint, Jim- (R - SC)	Class III
340 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6121
Web Form: demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)	Class II
290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5972
Web Form: lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Em...

Johnson, Tim- (D - SD)	Class II
136 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5842
Web Form: johnson.senate.gov/contact/

Thune, John- (R - SD)	Class III
493 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2321
Web Form: thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email

Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)	Class II
455 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Web Form: alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact....

Corker, Bob- (R - TN)	Class I
185 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3344
Web Form: corker.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

Cornyn, John- (R - TX)	Class II
517 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2934
Web Form: cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX)	Class I
284 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5922
Web Form: hutchison.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT)	Class III
431 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5444
Web Form: bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.html

Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)	Class I
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5251
Web Form: hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Cont...

Warner, John- (R - VA)	Class II
225 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2023
Web Form: warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Con...

Webb, Jim- (D - VA)	Class I
144 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: webb.senate.gov/contact/

Leahy, Patrick J.- (D - VT)	Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

Sanders, Bernard- (I - VT)	Class I
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5141
Web Form: sanders.senate.gov/comments/

Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA)	Class I
511 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

Murray, Patty- (D - WA)	Class III
173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2621
Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI)	Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
Web Form: feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html

Kohl, Herb- (D - WI)	Class I
330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5653
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html

Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV)	Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html

Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)	Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
Web Form: rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Barrasso, John- (R - WY)	Class I
307 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6441
Web Form: barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs...

Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)	Class II
379A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3424
Web Form: enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInform...

SAE Congress: Environmental Issues Biggest Hurdle for Automakers

2008-04-14T21:57:00Z

A joint survey conducted by DuPont and SAE noted some rather common sense and some surprising results from the movers and shakers in the automotive world.

BioDiesel is the fuel predicted to be in highest use in this study released today.

DuPont and SAE say that environmental issues are the biggest challenge facing automakers

Posted Apr 14th 2008 4:33PM by Jeremy Korzeniewski

Seems like AutoblogGreen's been on to something these last couple of years as it relates to the greening of the automotive industry. For the first time in fourteen years, the annual DuPont Automotive/SAE survey of OEM and supplier designers and engineers, conducted by Consumer Insights, Inc, found that environmental concerns topped cost as the biggest hurdle automakers must overcome.

Other highlights:

Fifty-four percent of respondents say that fuel efficient vehicles with reduced environmental impact are important to consumers -- that number seems a bit low to us.
For the fifth consecutive year, alternatively powered vehicles are predicted to have the greatest impact on the industry.
Fifty percent of respondents see diesel engine technology as a key focus to help achieve 2020 efficiency regulations, compared with forty-six percent for hybrids
In 10 years, most people predict the majority of vehicles will run on bio-based diesel fuel (27 percent); petroleum-based diesel (20 percent) and E85 (20 percent). Only 18 percent predict gasoline will dominate.

Diesels look to make a strong impact on the American market, according to this survey. We see no real mention of electric cars here, which we believe could makea a big impact in the coming years.

Press Release:

Environment Tops Cost as Top Auto Industry Challenge According to 2008 DuPont Automotive/Society of the Automotive Industry Survey

DETROIT, April 10 -- A new survey conducted by DuPont (NYSE: DD) and the Society of the Automotive Industry (SAE) shows that environmental issues top the list of challenges facing the automotive industry, outranking cost reduction for the first time in 14 years.

A total of 53 percent of the respondents said that a basket of environmental factors such as fuel economy, CAFE and emissions or clean air regulations are the top challenges versus 32 percent who cited cost. The survey, released today, was conducted among automotive designers and engineers in advance of the upcoming SAE World Congress in Detroit.

"While cost reduction remains very important, the automotive industry's emphasis is on the environment and the demands that puts on innovation," said Chris Murphy, director -- Americas, for DuPont Automotive. "In the results, environmental considerations are driving system and vehicle design and development and are a differentiator in the consumer marketplace. Automotive designers and engineers are working with suppliers like DuPont to address these issues and to design and develop cost-effective, fuel-efficient vehicles with reduced environmental impact."

To support that drive, DuPont Automotive has launched several new material families and technology solutions, including:

-- MetaFuse(TM) nano-metal/plastic hybrids which offer the strength and stiffness of metal combined with the design flexibility and lightweight benefits of high-performance thermoplastics to help take the weight out of structural automotive components. This also helps improve fuel economy and contributes to reduced emissions.

-- DuPont(TM) Renewably Sourced(TM) Materials -- high-performance, bio-based materials and biofuels that are made in whole or in part from renewable agricultural feedstocks such as corn, soybeans, sugar cane and wheat, rather than petroleum. Today, nine product families have been launched, including DuPont(TM) Sorona(R) polymer, DuPont(TM) Sorona(R) EP thermoplastic polymer, DuPont(TM) Hytrel(R) RS thermoplastic elastomer and DuPont(TM) Zytel(R) long chain polyamides.

The annual DuPont Automotive/SAE survey of OEM and supplier designers and engineers was conducted by Consumer Insights, Inc Key findings include:

-- Fifty-four percent of respondents say that fuel efficient vehicles with reduced environmental impact are important to consumers. Forty one percent say enhanced safety and 37 percent say improved comfort and convenience are important to consumers.
-- For the fifth consecutive year, alternatively powered vehicles are predicted to have the greatest impact on the industry. Sixty percent selected alternatively powered vehicles in 2008, while 15 percent selected safety features and 16 percent selected electrical/electronic advances.

Future is Bright for Diesel
-- Fifty percent of respondents see diesel engine technology as a key focus to help achieve 2020 efficiency regulations (35-mpg in U.S. and sub-120g/km CO2 in Europe), while 46 percent say hybrid-electric powertrains and 42 percent say extensive use of lightweight materials.
-- Optimizing diesel and hybrid-electric engines will dominate engineers' work for the next 10 years, say 25 percent and 24 percent of respondents, respectively.
-- In 10 years, vehicles will run on bio-based diesel fuel (27 percent); petroleum-based diesel (20 percent) and E85 (20 percent). Only 18 percent predict gasoline will dominate.

Materials Matters
-- Cost reduction is still one of the top material selection criteria, say 91 percent, but weight reduction jumps to the top of the criteria list for 82 percent, up from 66 percent last year.
-- Poised to grow the most over the next 10 years are advanced composites, say 62 percent of respondents. Bio-based, renewable materials will grow the most, say 26 percent; the same number who predicts aluminum will grow the most.

[Source: DuPont]

Biodiesel proven to have a significantly positive net energy ratio

2008-02-07T21:57:00Z

Biodiesel is has an even better net energy ratio than we thought. Older studies said biodiesel had a 3.2 to 1 energy ratio, but a comprehensive study by the NREL and USDA have shown a positive net energy ratio of 3.5 to 1. This is big news and puts to bed the idea that it takes nearly as much energy to make biofuels as we get out of the biofuels. Corn ethanol? Yeah, not particularly efficient (1.3 to 1). Biodiesel? 3.5 to 1.

This means that for every one unit of energy (say, gallon of fuel) it takes to make biodiesel, we get 3.5 gallons of biodiesel. Where does the extra energy come from? That's easy: the sun. Plants take the sun's power and convert it to energy better than the best solar panels do.

Here's the National Biodiesel Board's press release.

Feb. 6, 2008

Biodiesel Yields Even Higher Energy Balance
New Study Shows 3.5 Units of Energy Gained For Every Unit Needed to Produce Biodiesel

ORLANDO, Fla.– A new analysis shows that the energy balance of biodiesel is a positive ratio of 3.5-to-1. For every unit of fossil energy needed to produce the fuel over its life cycle, the return is 3.5 units of energy, according to new research conducted at the University of Idaho in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The announcement of the increase—up from 3.2—was made today at the National Biodiesel Conference & Expo in Orlando.

The Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and USDA had produced the first comprehensive life cycle inventory for biodiesel in 1998. That landmark research found a 3.2 energy balance for biodiesel, while petroleum diesel yielded only 0.83 units of energy per unit of fossil energy consumed. The many changes that have occurred in the U.S. biodiesel and agricultural industries since the 1990s prompted researchers at the University of Idaho to update the study in cooperation with the USDA. Both the 1998 and 2007 study are based on biodiesel production from soybeans, which according to U.S. Census data is responsible for more than 80 percent of 2007 estimated biodiesel production. Biodiesel’s energy balance improved in the 2007 study even though the new analysis is more comprehensive than previous work, and even extends to the energy required to manufacture the farm machinery used to produce soybeans.

“The bottom line is that the energy balance of biodiesel has definitely improved in the last decade,” says University of Idaho Department Head of Biological and Agricultural Engineering Jon Van Gerpen, who credits Assistant Professor Dev Shrestha and graduate student Anup Pradhan for their work on the study. “The increase in soybean yields and a decrease in herbicide use greatly contributed to the increased energy balance. Meanwhile, energy used for crushing soybeans is significantly lower than what was reported in the NREL study.”

The researchers found national soybean yield data from 1975 to 2006 shows that the yield has increased at the rate of 0.6 bushels per acre per year. Yet, the fertilizer application rate has essentially remained the same and the herbicide application rate has declined to one-fifth of its rate in 2000. Reduced herbicide applications have the added benefit of requiring less diesel for field spraying.

At the processing level, technology improvements at soybean crushing facilities led to 55 percent less energy needed than what was reported in the NREL study. Although transesterification to convert soybean oil into biodiesel has also become more energy efficient, this process only contributes a small fraction of overall energy in the lifecycle analysis.

Today’s announcement came during a conference session highlighting promising feedstock developments, ranging from higher oil content in soybeans to new feedstocks, like algae. The NBB has launched a feedstock development initiative to help the market spur additional sources for biodiesel.

“As demand for biodiesel climbs, having enough feedstock available at a competitive price will continue to be an important issue,” said Ed Hegland, NBB chairman and a Minnesota soybean grower. “Soybean oil will continue to play an important role, but we are also excited about the prospect of algae and other feedstocks on the horizon. A rising tide lifts all boats.”

Biodiesel is a cleaner burning alternative fuel that can be used in any diesel engine. A domestically produced, renewable fuel, it can be made from animal fats or vegetable oil. The use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel engine results in a substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter.

What is biodiesel?

2007-12-05T18:28:00Z

Sometimes folks ask a simple question: "What is biodiesel?". Here's a short explanation:

Biodiesel is a vegetable oil-based fuel that runs in unmodified diesel engines - cars, buses, trucks, construction equipment, boats, generators, and oil home heating units. Biodiesel is usually made from soy or canola oil, and can also be made from recycled fryer oil (yes, from McDonalds or your local Chinese restaurant) or any other vegetable oil or animal tallow.

You can blend biodiesel with regular diesel or run 100% biodiesel. You can blend your percentages of biodiesel-to-diesel fuel at any ratio, at any time. This means you can be running b100 (100% biodiesel), get down to a quarter tank and add regular petroluem diesel and essentially be running b25 (25% biodiesel), then get down to near empty and add straight petroleum, straight biodiesel, or any percentage in between.

What are the benefits?
1) National security. Since biodiesel is made domestically, biodiesel reduces our dependence on foreign oil. That's good.

2) National economy. Using biodiesel keeps our fuel buying dollars at home instead of sending it to foreign countries. This reduces our trade deficit and creates jobs.

3) It's sustainable & non-toxic. Face it, we're going to run out of oil eventually. Biodiesel is 100% renewable... we'll never run out of biodiesel. And if biodiesel gets into your water supply, there's no problem - it's just modified veggie oil! Heck, you can drink biodiesel if you so desire, but it tastes nasty (trust us).
(Learn more)

4) Emissions. Biodiesel is nearly carbon-neutral, meaning it contributes almost zero emissions to global warming! Biodiesel also dramatically reduces other emissions fairly dramatically. We like clean air, how about you? Plus, the exhaust smells like popcorn or french fries!
(Learn more)

5) Engine life. Studies have shown biodiesel reduces engine wear by as much as one half, primarily because biodiesel provides excellent lubricity. Even a 2% biodiesel/98% diesel blend will help.
(Learn more)

6) Drivability. We have yet to meet anyone who doesn't notice an immediate smoothing of the engine with biodiesel. Biodiesel just runs quieter, and produces less smoke.

Are there any negatives?
Of course. There is no perfect fuel.
1) Primarily that biodiesel is not readily available in much of the nation, YET (click here for a map of locations), although availability has jumped considerably in the last five years. Commercial consumption of biodiesel jumped from 500,000 gallons in 2000 to 15 million gallons in 2001 to 75 million gallons in 2006. And there's no measure how much home-produced biodiesel there is.

2) Biodiesel will clean your injectors and fuel lines. If you have an old diesel vehicle, there's a chance that your first few tanks of biodiesel could free up all the accumulated crud and clog your fuel filter. But this is a GOOD thing... think of it as kicking up dust around the house when you clean.

3) Biodiesel has a higher gel point. B100 (100% biodiesel) gets slushy a little under 32°F. But B20 (20% biodiesel, 80% regular diesel - more commonly available than B100) has a gel point of -15°F. Like regular diesel, the gel point can be lowered further with additives such as kerosene (blended into winter diesel in cold-weather areas).

4) Old vehicles (older than mid-90s) might require upgrades of fuel lines (a cheap, easy upgrade), as biodiesel can eat through certain types of rubber. Almost all new vehicles should have no problem with biodiesel.

5) Finally, the one emission that goes up with biodiesel is NOx. NOx contributes to smog. We feel that a slight increase (up to 15%) in NOx is greatly offset by the reduction in all other emissions and the major reduction in greenhouse gasses.

The economics of biodiesel in 2007

2007-10-18T15:25:00Z

Susanne Retka Schill in the October 2007 issue of Biodiesel Magazine wrote and outstanding article, "Soybeans, Wheat and Corn compete for acres," that reviews 2007 biodiesel economics. It is helpful in understanding the confusing bio-fuel industry and the challenges biodiesel faces to stay competitive. It is an article well worth reading.

Soybeans, Wheat and Corn Compete for Acres

by Susanne Retka Schill

There’s a battle underway in the commodity sector—soybean, corn and wheat markets are all signaling for more acres to be planted. What’s unusual is that the wheat sector is the only one that should be sending strong signals because of a second year of poor worldwide wheat crops. In fact, wheat was setting new highs in early September, with Chicago December wheat contracts trading well over $8 a bushel. In the meantime, this year’s all-time record corn crop should have depressed prices far more than it did; and last year’s record soybean crop and healthy carryover forecast for this fall should have resulted in lower prices. Despite those market fundamentals, both soybean and corn markets—although not posting any records—remained strong the past several months. “Last year it was clear we needed more corn acres and the market signaled producers to do that,” says Darrel Good, University of Illinois agricultural economist. Farmers responded by planting more corn and less soybeans, planting 64.1 million acres of soybeans in 2007, down from the 75.5 million acres that produced last year’s record soybean crop. “Now we’ll need more acres of everything, and how do you do that?” Good says.

Read more at Biodiesel Magazine

Chrysler/NBB partnership & B20 national fuel standard

2007-09-26T03:33:00Z

Discuss this partnership and other diesel vehicles in the biodiesel vehicles section of our forums.

In a press release, Chrysler announced a special discount program for ‘members’ of the National Biodiesel Board to purchase or lease a Chrysler, Jeep or Dodge vehicle. The focus is on the company’s new diesels which means it only includes the Dodge Ram HD pick up truck and Jeep’s high end Grand Cherokee SUV. Although the effort Chrysler is making to team up with the NBB to promote clean, domestic, renewable biodiesel is to be applauded, their vehicle lineup is rather skimpy.

On a brighter note, Chrysler and the NBB are working together for a new national fuel standard for B20, a fuel composed of 80 percent conventional diesel and 20 percent biodiesel. A standard is anticipated in the next several months. “A B20 standard will enable us to support the use of B20 in all diesel vehicles – from passenger cars to the largest city buses and semi-tractor-trailers – further encouraging use of this clean, renewable, American-made fuel,” said Deborah Morrissett, Vice President – Regulatory Affairs for Chrysler.

Chrysler has already approved use of B5 (5 percent biodiesel fuel) in its diesel vehicles, and the Grand Cherokee and Dodge Ram pickups are delivered to customers running on the renewable fuel, Morrissett noted. And the company has approved use of B20 by its fleet customers who follow specifications for fuel quality.

Increased use of renewable fuels, including biodiesel, is needed if Americans are to achieve ambitious goals for greater energy security, less dependence on oil and a cleaner environment, Morrissett said. For example, a Dodge Ram diesel pickup or Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV running on B20 fuel would use nearly 40 percent less petroleum over its lifetime compared with a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.

“Like NBB, we believe that biodiesel has an important role to play in America’s energy future,” Morrissett said. “We look forward to continuing our work with NBB and its members on this important national priority.”

Reynolds, Indiana: Biotown USA experiment

2007-09-10T21:20:00Z

It is interesting to see what a small community can do to improve their green footprint on the planet. Folks in the rural farm town of Reynolds Indiana have that opportunity. While I pretend to make changes by trading out my incandescent light bulb for compact fluorescents and run little biodiesel in my efficient car, this community is making a bigger change. For Reynolds Indiana, known as BioTown USA, the goal is to create a model community that is energy self-sufficient. According to the Indiana Agriculture Director Andy Miller, “Our goal is to make Indiana a leader in the future of agriculture, and to do that, we must be progressive in advancing new uses for our products and finding more environmentally-friendly ways to dispose of our byproducts.”

Here’s a YouTube segment from Motorweek highlighting the BioTown USA project.

Royal Caribbean Cruises contracts for 5 years of biodiesel

2007-08-05T19:19:00Z

Cruise line signs biodiesel contract

Imperium Renewables said Friday it has a deal to provide Royal Caribbean Cruises with biodiesel. The Seattle-based biodiesel maker, which is scheduled to inaugurate its Grays Harbor plant this month, will sell the cruise line 15 million gallons of biodiesel in 2007 and 18 million gallons annually for four years after that. The Miami-based cruise line has four vessels that call in Seattle. “We believe this is the single-largest long-term biodiesel sales contract to an end user in the U.S.,” the company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Imperium also said it had reached an agreement to purchase Royal Caribbean Cruises’ 7 percent stake in the Grays Harbor facility.The company is pushing back the completion date of three planned biodiesel plants by one quarter. Its Hawaii and Argentina facilities are now scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2008, and a Philadelphia plant for the first quarter of 2009.

Seattle Times

EDIT: Adding an excellent video link here.

Biodiesel 'blending' loophole needs to be corrected

2007-06-12T13:43:00Z

A maneuver called 'splash and dash' cost US taxpayers perhaps $30 million last year, but the charges are rising fast.

Most Biodieselnow members share support for biodiesel and alternatives to imported petroleum. We appreciate the efforts being jointly put forth by our elected officials in Washington DC designed to encourage more domestic renewable fuel production and use in the U.S. ... but they seem to be slow to respond when loophopes in existing laws are discovered. That's unfortunate.

For those in our group that are politically active and support the use of cleaner, renewable and domestically produced fuels, I encourage you to make your voice heard to your representative. I'll offer up an article describing the current loophope in the 'biodiesel blenders tax credit' from the Christian Science Monitor -- perhaps a discussion of who to contact and what to say should appear in the comments section?

RichC

from the June 08, 2007 edition -

Biofuel boondoggle: US subsidy aids Europe's drivers

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Fast-rising worries over global warming have created a biofuel boondoggle.

Called "splash and dash," "touch and go," or an unfair trade practice, it features biofuels traders who exploit a US tax credit, European drivers who get cheaper diesel fuel, and American taxpayers, who are footing the bill.

It also illustrates a cautionary tale of how government incentives, no matter how well-intentioned, can sometimes be subverted into windfalls for the few.

"You have US taxpayers providing a very nice tax incentive, and they're not receiving any energy-security benefit or added fuel to the marketplace or benefits to US development in return," says Joe Jobe, chief executive officer of the National Biodiesel Board, which represents US biodiesel producers.

So far, the subsidies involved are relatively small – conservatively estimated at $30 million last year – but they're rising fast. And while efforts to close the loophole are under way in Congress, they're complicated by competing interests.

Created under the 2004 American Jobs Act, the "blenders tax credit" was supposed to boost US production of biodiesel by encouraging US diesel marketers to blend regular petroleum diesel with fuel made from soybeans or other agricultural products. It succeeded, perhaps too well.

Attracted by the $1-per-gallon subsidy, US diesel-fuel marketers mixed away, setting off a nationwide boom in biodiesel refinery building. But no one anticipated splash-and-dash.

The maneuver begins with a shipload of biodiesel from, say, Malaysia, which pulls into a US port like Houston, says John Baize, an industry consultant in Falls Church, Va. Unlike domestic diesel-biodiesel blends, which typically contain from 1 to 10 percent of biodiesel, the Malaysian fuel starts off as 100 percent biodiesel, typically made from palm oil.

Then, the vessel receives from a dockside diesel supplier a "splash" of US petroleum diesel. It doesn't take much to turn it into a diesel-biodiesel blend that is eligible for US subsidies.

If the ship holds roughly 9 million gallons, it takes only about 9,000 gallons of traditional diesel (0.1 percent of the total) to make the entire load eligible for the blenders tax credit.

The US importer of the load applies to the Internal Revenue Service for the credit – a dollar for each of the 9 million biodiesel gallons, Mr. Baize calculates. The next day the tanker can set sail – dash – for Europe. There, the US importer resells the biodiesel, taking advantage of European fuel-tax credits that, in effect, keep biodiesel prices above US prices.

"Splash-and-dash is something Congress never intended," says Baize. "It's bad for taxpayers and it ought to be fixed now."

Signs of splash-and-dash began to show up last fall. But efforts to fix the problem only began taking shape in Congress this spring after European biodiesel manufacturers complained in March about the subsidized imports and the US biodiesel industry also complained a month later.

"This [splash-and-dash] is something our people are aware of and that's on their radar screen," says a staff aide on the House Ways and Means Committee, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press. "It's one of the issues that's driving closer scrutiny."

European officials are also unhappy about the practice. Such "touch and go" maneuvers could quickly become a much larger problem, warned Raffaello Garofalo, secretary general of the European Biodiesel Board, in a March 19 letter to the European Trade Commissioner.

European manufacturers are worried about all US biodiesel imports – not just the splash-and-dash variety – because the subsidized fuel is flooding their markets, cutting into their domestic biodiesel business and lowering prices.

"We want really to get a fair trade and want this unfair subsidy to stop," says Mr. Garofalo in a phone interview. "The US products get subsidies in the US, and in Europe, a double subsidy."

The industry is calling for trade sanctions against the US.

So rich is the US subsidy, however, and awash in biodiesel is the European market at present, that a third form of imported biodiesel is now reportedly hitting European shores – at US taxpayer expense. European biodiesel producers themselves are shipping fuel to US ports to get the US blenders credit and then bringing it back to Europe for sale, according to British press accounts.

But US biodiesel manufacturers and Congress may not be in a hurry to close the loophole, some insiders say. That's because the blenders credit not only benefits splash-and-dash traders, it gives US producers of soybean-based biodiesel a distinct export advantage, industry insiders say.

"The US biodiesel producers talk out of one side of their mouth and then the other, because some of their members are clearly benefiting from this credit," says one veteran industry expert, who asked not to be named because such comments could harm his business prospects. "It's their own members importing a lot of that palm oil and biodiesel."

Indeed, congressional staffers say a legislative solution is snagged at present.

"There are trade issues involved in solving this problem," says a committee aide who asked not to be named because of the issue's political sensitivity. "The tax people want to go after it, but the trade people say you can't and I don't know precisely why that is."

Mr. Jobe, however, says his US biodiesel trade association remains committed to stopping abuse of the blenders credit loophole "to the extent that it is occurring."

So far, the amounts involved look relatively modest. Although there is no official IRS tally of how much US taxpayers have spent on this program, the US Department of Agriculture does track exports of US vegetable and animal oils, a category that is mostly biodiesel, experts say. In one year, those exports quadrupled – from about 9 million gallons in 2005 to 36 million gallons last year. If biodiesel accounted for 80 percent of the total, analysts calculate that taxpayers would have paid out about $30 million in 2006.

This increase is corroborated by the European Biodiesel Board, which has tracked 50-plus shipments from the US to Europe totaling about 60 million gallons in the first four months of this year. Most of those shipments originated in Houston; Savannah, Ga.; or New Orleans and arrived in the ports of Rotterdam, Netherlands; Bilbao, Spain; or Hamburg, Germany, Garofalo says.

Ultimately, this rise of US exports points to a larger American problem: a serious imbalance between domestic biodiesel production capacity and demand, some experts say.

Although biodiesel sales in the US soared to 250 million gallons last year – more than triple the level in 2005 – domestic biodiesel plants are still operating at just half their capacity, industry analysts say. That's because the industry, spurred in part by the blenders credit, has been on a tear building new plants. Another 1 billion gallons of capacity is expected to come on line this year.

Renewable-fuel standards that mandate biodiesel blending may one day boost US domestic demand. Until then, the US industry seems set to depend more on exports – and the blenders tax credit, industry experts say.

Biodiesel and U.S. Energy Consumption

2007-05-12T14:51:00Z

I generally try not to repost in whole someone else's work, but I liked Megan Murphy's post over on the Renewable Energy Access site enough that I didn't want it to get lost ... so I'm clipping so it will be archived here in case it disappears. There's also an algae biodiesel article is in the works; it may be worth reading too -- so I'll post a link to it when I see it.

How Does Biodiesel Affect U.S Energy Consumption? -- May 8, 2007

Q: I am a retired biochemist and worked as a rice farmer from 1945 to 1949. So I am concerned about supply of oil for food production, which is now completely dependent on oil-driven machinery in the U.S., Japan and others. I would appreciate it, if you could give me some information on biodiesel production. -- Hitoshi Maruyama, Kenmore, WA

A: I wish I could say biodiesel, a renewable alternative to diesel fuel, is produced in such a way that it could safeguard our food supply from the effects of declining oil reserves and permanently higher fuel prices. Unfortunately, biodiesel is not a silver bullet, able to eliminate American agriculture's dependence on fossil fuels. But biodiesel, produced sustainably and reducing our petroleum demand, can make the transition to a new energy economy less painful.

In 2005, America's farms spent $27.4 billion on energy-related expenses. That breaks down to $3.4 billion on electricity and $12.8 billion on fertilizers that along with pesticides create a significant, indirect source of fossil fuel-dependent energy consumption for agriculture. The fuels and oils required to operate equipment and machinery cost farmers $11.2 billion, and included the cost of about 3.5 billion gallons of diesel fuel used to plant, tend, and harvest our crops and raise our livestock (1).

It sounds like a lot but the total energy use by the agriculture sector peaked in 1978, and has decreased since then despite increased agricultural output (2). Farm equipment and practices have become more efficient as farmers stay competitive in the market by keeping their energy costs down.

In America, a common way to produce biodiesel is from virgin soybean oil. The oil is harvested from the plant and sold on the commodities market. A biodiesel producer purchases the oil and ships it to a biodiesel refinery, where the process of making biodiesel, a transesterification reaction, takes place. The large triglyceride molecules of vegetable oil are broken into the smaller and less viscous, long chain mono alkyl esters of biodiesel. The reaction requires a short chain alcohol (usually methanol) and a catalyst (usually sodium or potassium hydroxide) (3). Glycerin, a sugar, is also produced in the reaction and is often sold to industry for use in soap, cosmetics, and many other applications.

The American biodiesel industry is experiencing tremendous growth, from its humble beginning of less than 10 biodiesel plants in 2000 to 65 plants operating and 58 more under construction or expanding in 2006. Biodiesel production capacity is projected to reach 1.7 billion gallons by 2008 (4).

1.7 billion gallons of biodiesel would cover almost half of the 3.5 billion gallons of diesel we use on farms, but biodiesel is not just sold to farmers and 1.7 billion gallons is more of a drop in the bucket when it comes to the annual 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel consumed in America.

Making a dent in the total diesel consumed in the U.S. would require a lot of biodiesel. According to a white paper from John Deere & Company, use of a B2 (2% biodiesel, 98% petroleum diesel) blend nationwide is an attainable goal. "It would require 1.1 billion gallons of pure biodiesel... [and] consume all the soybean oil from 18 million acres, or about one-fourth of current U.S. soybean production (5)." (John Deere & Co. is forgetting about my favorite, sustainable feedstock, Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO). And are you wondering about algae? Stay tuned for my next column.)

Eighteen million acres of soybeans grown for fuel to meet 2% of our nation's diesel fuel demand, when my salad came all the way from California? Biodiesel cannot replace all or even close to all of the diesel fuel we consume here in the U.S. But there are simple and delicious ways to reduce our food supply's dependence on petroleum like buying local, organic produce.

I live on the East Coast and on average the produce available here is 3 to 4 days older than the produce available in California. I don't want to spend a lifetime eating old lettuce and wasting fuel. Fortunately, there is a growing movement towards Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in America, where small organic farms can provide enough vegetables to support 200 to 300 local families on 5 to 10 acres of land. Here in upstate New York, I can get almost all of my produce during the growing season from the local farmers' market or join a CSA and have a weekly share of what is in season. I can ride a bike (the chain greased with biodiesel) to where my beets are grown, instead of having them shipped to me from California. I find fresh vegetables and efficiency very appetizing.

So make your biodiesel sustainable and eat your locally grown kale and we might just make it out of this pinch.

Footnotes:
1. United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. "Adjusted Distillate Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales by End Use," 2005.
2. United States Department of Agriculture. "Energy and Agriculture," August, 2006.
3. United States Department of Energy. "Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines," March, 2006.
4. Borgman, Don. "Agriculture, Bio-fuels and Striving for Greater Energy Independence: A John Deere perspective on the realistic role US agriculture can play in satisfying America's increasing appetite for renewable fuels," January 4, 2007.
5. Ibid

-- Meghan Murphy