Biodiesel -- the cleaner-burning vegetable-based oil that can be substituted for ordinary petroleum diesel -- is getting a lot of press these days. That's not too surprising: alternatives to oil tend to get a lot of attention when fuel prices are rising, which they're certainly doing right now.
Perhaps the biggest piece of recent policy news is Washington state's new renewable fuels standard, passed just last month, which mandates that 2 percent of the diesel sold in the state must be biodiesel by the end of 2008.
That got me thinking -- why just 2 percent? Couldn't we do better than that?
Well, maybe so. But perhaps not by a whole lot.
The problem is really one of scale: We use an awful, awful lot of petroleum in the Northwest. Huge amounts. So much, in fact, that there's just not enough cropland for biodiesel to make much of a dent in our petroleum habit.
The average Washington resident uses about 10 gallons of petroleum-based highway fuels each week. There are more than 6 million of us, so all together we burn about about 3.2 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel each year. And that doesn't include the petroleum we use for jet fuel, chemical feedstocks, road oil, asphalt, boats, etc.
How much of that demand could biodiesel meet? Between 2003 and 2004, national production (PDF) of biodiesel tripled, from about 25 million gallons to some 75 million gallons, largely because of a $1 per gallon federal tax credit. So the entire annual national output of biodiesel could have fueled the cars and trucks of Washington state for ... wait for it ... about 9 days.
Obviously, current biodiesel production is far lower than its potential. Still, the most optimistic estimate I've seen is that Washington state farmers could produce about 100 million gallons of canola-based biodiesel each year, or about 3 times as much as the renewable fuel standard would mandate. That much biodiesel could offset about 11 days worth of highway fuel use. And producing that much canola oil would take about 880,000 acres -- nearly one-fifth of the state's harvested cropland (PDF).
So clearly, as great as biodiesel is, it's just a small piece of a bigger puzzle.
Just to be clear: I'm not gunning for biodiesel here. I'm not a hater. I think biodiesel has clear global-warming benefits, and just as importantly can help clean up truck and bus exhaust in center cities.
And while I do think there are some concerns about using food crops to power rush hour -- a habit that may have some counter-productive effects over the long term -- experimentation with this sort of thing is nifty. And I'm all for R&D for even more productive biodiesel crops (algae, anyone?).
But mostly the biodiesel numbers reinforce my belief that there's no silver bullet that will solve our petroleum dependence. It's going to take a whole lot of strategies developed in parallel.
We should forge ahead with biodiesel -- but as we do so, we should be sure to keep the real scale of the task in mind.
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Comments
View as Threaded
Icelander Posted 1:00 am
23 Apr 2006
But I wonder how your math would change if you included all the land filled with McMansions that will be vacant soon?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:53 am
23 Apr 2006
Apparently you have been misinformed. Just like most of america. Propaganda will tend to do that.
Combustion is combustion, it is the cause of global climate disaster. Biodiesel is no cleaner than petroleum diesel.
Only biodiesel from recycled cooking oil actually helps at all, by reusung normally landfilled product it reduces the land area needed to produce fuel, saving a bit of natural carbon sink from the plow and chemical agriculture.
It is mainly a distraction (eco-political power and government subsidy sponge)from real solutions like plugin vehicles and renewable electric power.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
DrWark Posted 4:07 am
23 Apr 2006
I had to learn rigorous analysis of technologies in school and found many ideas that previously seemed obvious to me had serious physical limitations. The use of bio-fuels was one of them. Unfortunately, plug-in vehicles is another. Really effective solutions are out there, but none of them are silver bullets.
I'm not saying that everyone has to learn advanced system analysis, but everyone has to learn to be humble about touting "obvious" technical solutions.
BTW, I know of some poverty-stricken folks who see burning food for easier commutes as a short-term problem.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:22 am
23 Apr 2006
PLANTS TAKE UP CO2 TO GROW. BY PROCESSING PLANTS INTO BIODIESEL, YOU ARE CONVERTING THAT CARBON INTO COMBUSTIBLE FUEL, WHICH WHEN BURNED TURNS INTO CO2. THEN IT IS TAKEN UP BY PLANTS TO GROW AGAIN. THIS IS A CLOSED LOOP CYCLE.
Sorry, it just seems like you don't fully understand that plants take up co2 as the grow. And granted that biodiesel is not a silver bullet, it is just not true that combustion (by itself) causes global warming. Combustion of fossil fuel causes climate change.
Permalink
meander Posted 4:39 am
23 Apr 2006
There is a danger to minimum biofuel requirements that are higher than what the local region can provide. A few months ago there were reports that the EU's biofuel target would be met by fuel made from soybeans grown on recently-cleared Brazilian rainforest or palm oil from recently-cleared Indonesian rainforest. Fuel from these sources will have a significantly negative carbon balance (see EU must ensure that bioenergy is really green, for example). And once the big oil companies see a market in biofuels, they will go to the least-cost option, even if that means tearing down the rainforest or highly-industrialized, fuel-intensive farming.
Permalink
DrWark Posted 8:51 am
23 Apr 2006
Meander makes a great point: how would our bio-fuel production methods affect the atmospheric heat balance with everything from bare earth exposure to open irrigation to farm machinery operation taken into consideration?
The real combustion question is: how much does HOT CO2 and water vapor affect local and global climate. Remember, hot gases in the atmosphere rise, react, and return after cooling. Most thermo and fluid dynamics scientists understand that global warming models are inadequate because they do not correctly take into account local concentrations of H2O vapor being introduced into the atmosphere.
Human activity changes the atmosphere - the laws of thermodynamics say that it HAS to. There is no such thing as zero footprint.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:34 am
23 Apr 2006
Combustion of anything except hydrogen produces CO 2. And destruction of a natural carbon sink, like a jungle environment to grow sugar cane for instance (as in Brazil), releases far more CO 2 into the air than the sugar cane grown on chemically farmed sterile soil (actually nothing but a growing medium to gold chemicals is left after a few years)only holds a fraction of the carbon that the jungle did, and that is promptly burned as fuel.
I will however carefully consider these emmision stats in the other post.
Sorry my aproach is so exasperating at times. Will try to be more dialectic and less argumentative in future. ( the caps were funny though!)
Once again, I apreciate the discussion, don't give in! I actually hope I'm wrong, I like the idea of biodiesel from alfae in solar collectors.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:24 pm
23 Apr 2006
The key phrase here is net emissions. The implication is that since the CO 2 released in the combustion and production of biodiesel is partly from petroleum and partly from recently processed biomass, that there is less net CO 2 released.
This is the very same contention made by Atreyger, but with a long "sciencey" sounding report. Lots of technical jargon that seems to have been invented just for this report peppers the pages. Definitions and ratios that tend to hide the central flaw in the argument.
You admit this hidden problem here: "...fuel made from soybeans grown on recently-cleared Brazilian rainforest or palm oil from recently-cleared Indonesian rainforest.Fuel from these sources will have a significantly negative carbon balance"
Why would fuel from "recently cleared" land be any more negatively carbon balanced than fuel from land cleared for farming last year or 50 years ago. Global climate change from human CO 2 release has been ongoing since the industrial revolution started, by burning wood, then coal, then petroleum and clearing land for chemical agriculture.
The only way to restore that original carbon sink that the land contained is to return it to its former state. Changing from growing soybeans for animal feed to growing soybeans for biofuel does not do that.
All this net emissions argument does is claim that biofuel releases CO 2 recently contained in plant material that will again be absorbed in the next crop cycle. As I said before that amount of CO 2 is a small fraction of the total released when that land was turned into chemical agricultural land.
That is what in fact caused a large portion of the present problem, clearing of land and the resulting loss of the natural carbon sink that the soil and plant ecosystem provides. Along with of course the massive release of CO 2 stored in fossil fuel deposits acumulated from millions of years of biomass.
It does not take peer reviewed studies to spot the logical flaw in this analysis. An expert on life cycle energy balance is not needed. Only reason need be applied.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Stormbringer Posted 9:55 pm
23 Apr 2006
Regarding the question of 2% blend limits:
the 2% blend limit for biodiesel is for a couple of reasons.. According to the EPA's own documentation, biodiesel raises NOx, so the less you are combusting, the better.
2 - 5% blends are a compromise between industry, who can't tolerate equipment failure, and the farm lobby, who needs their subsidies.
I understand the need to "do something" about or dependence on crude oil, but we can't lose sight of the fact that biofuels have drawbacks when it comes to certain emissions and performance.
Permalink
ben Posted 1:23 am
24 Apr 2006
The US is moving to ultra-low sulfur diesel in Sept. Ultra-low sulfur diesel needs a lubricant, biodiesel is a great lubricant and that's why we're going to be seeing more biodiesel/diesel blends.
In 2004 ~25 million gallons of biodiesel was sold...if diesel fuel requires B2 as a lubricant, then that number could jump to 748 million gallons practically overnight.
- theWattPodcast.com
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:22 am
24 Apr 2006
Up here, willow has a conversion ratio of 1:16, which is lower for biodiesel, instead of just 'biofuel', but the ratio is still better than 1:1. Same seems to apply to the algae scenario, although I have not heard anything specific about the ratio.
Corn is clearly not the answer, unfortunately for the feasibility of biodiesel. Strong corn lobby is, tum tum tuum.
Land conversion is also an important cause of GHG emissions, however by most estimates that I have heard it only accounts for 25% of all the GHGs. If we let all the natural reforestation (or reprairization) to occur, it will probably be a relatively slow reabsorption process, and it will still leave 3/4 of GHGs in the atmosphere.
Soils in the tropics do not contain any carbon, all the carbon is in the biomass. Prairies have very little carbon in biomass, but contain a large amount in soils. However the carbon sequestration process is rather long (on the order of hundreds-thousands of years). That may be a little too long for our current goals. I'm not saying that we should not reconvert it and tropical forests, I am just looking at it from a climate change perspective. The major problem now is warming of northern peat lands and boreal forests, nothing short of a little or big ice age can really stop or reverse that now.
I do not know much thermo and fluid dynamics (as I am more of an ecosystem/landscape ecologist/forester - still struggling to figure out what to call myself), but my impression about heat produced by combustion is that it dissipates through a relatively long chain of events into outer space and GHGs are responsble for retaining the warmth.
Water is a highly important consideration, since water vapor is a GHG also, but it is hard to predict the effects due to increased albedo that are inherent to clouds.
Permalink
greenstork Posted 6:14 am
24 Apr 2006
According to an NREL and USDA study, biodiesel has a 3 to 1 net energy balance. For every 1 unit of energy that goes into production, we receive 3 units of biodiesel. This is not true of corn ethanol, which has a closer to 1:1 net energy balance, but it's unfair to lump them together, they are different fuels and have drastically different production methods.
Biodiesel feedcrops absorb about 3 times as much CO2 over their lifespan than is released through the burning of biodiesel derived from those same feedcrops. Of course, there is energy used in production, fertilizer, refining, etc. which bring the net CO2 emissions from 300% less to about 78% less. This is the very same NREL, USDA study I'm citing here.
In 2005, over 95% of U.S. biodiesel is domestically produced and it's closer to 99%. There are strong incentives in place to keep it produced domestically. Biodiesel distributed in the U.S. does not come from Malaysian palm plantations or Brazilian rainforests. While I recognize this as a concern as biofuels become increasingly commoditized, it is not currently an issue in the U.S. and subsidies for domestically produced fuel may indeed keep that way.
Of that domestically produced fuel, more than 95% of that is produced on existing farm land, not conservation reserve program land. If this land wasn't being used to grow biodiesel feedcrops it would likely be in agricultural production.
Amazingdrx,
So we can all wax poetic about turning U.S. agricultural land back into forests and creating a huge carbon sink but this is highly unlikely. In the U.S., no forests or native prairies were felled to start growing biofuel feedcrops, this land was converted to agriculture over 100 years ago and isn't likely to ever return to its native state until after humans die off. To argue that this land could become a significant carbon sink, never to be burned as fuel seems like a hypothetical impossibility. I am familiar with the Conservation Reserve Program but we're talking about less than 8% of the nation's farmland and new applications for reserve land have trended roughly the same for the past 5 years, despite the "boom" in the biofuels industry. All this info is available on the CRP website:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crp.htm
There is no central flaw in the 78% fewer CO2 emissions argument - plants absorb the CO2, the biodiesel is burned releasing it, and then plants reabsorb it.
Permalink
Stormbringer Posted 7:06 am
24 Apr 2006
the aspect of biodiesel that provides lubricity are the glycerides. The same contaminants that cause gelling in winter. refine the biodiesel so it's usable, lose the lubricity.. great tradeoff.
Also, the HFRR & SBOCLE methods used to determine lubricity have always been deemed inaccurate.. until this year, there's never been a standard for lubricity.. I guess they just needed to pick a testing method so they'd get their funding.
Tom
Permalink
rsmith02 Posted 7:30 am
24 Apr 2006
Mark Delucchi at the University of California found that while biodiesel had a postive energy balance, it had a 100% negative net greenhouse gas emissions impact. This means you'd be better off burning straight diesel. Until this is sorted out I wouldn't make the global warming case for biodiesel or take the above USDA or DOE studies as the final word (DOE and Clean Cities has promoting alternative fuels as part of their mission- kind of like the old AEC and nuclear power plants).
Read it for yourself:
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi/
Permalink
Karen Orr Posted 8:21 am
24 Apr 2006
The movement toward biofuels as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels is a greenscam with potentially disastrous consequences.
The Bush brothers, a cabal of giant agro businesses, their paid consultants and political cronies are behind a series of initiatives that involve massive taxpayer-funded subsidies to large environmentally destructive corporations. Sadly, they're aided by a number of well meaning but misguided groups and individuals.
Biofuels derived from corn, palm, soybeans and other crops are not only environmentally destructive, they can't be produced profitably without massive subsidies - subsidies that should be used for environmentally viable solutions such as conservation/efficiency initiatives and wind and solar energy.
Biofuels are an economic, environmental and humanitarian disaster:
# The production of biofuel from crops consumes more energy than it produces.
# The production of biofuels from crops will lead to more air pollution, irreversible soil depletion, water depletion and pollution, erosion, forest destruction, higher use of fossil fuels, pesticides, fertilizers and harm to animals.
# Crops to produce oils to meet the demand for biofuel are directly destroying tens of thousands of square miles of rain forest now.
# Fertilizer for biofuel production will lead to a massive increase in phosphate strip mining, destroyed wetlands, poisoned water and disturbed river systems.
# Conversion of U.S. farmland from food production to fuel crop production will lead to dependence on foreign nations for our food supply.
The subsidies required to make biofuel production "viable" are more corporate welfare to the same giant agro companies damaging the environment now. They divert funds from real solutions such as conservation/efficiency initiatives, public transportation systems, increased use of solar and wind energy, and sustainable small scale food farming vs. massive monoculture fuel crop production.
Government mandates of biofuels for transport will further hasten environmental destruction.
We can't grow our way out of the impending energy crisis with more destructive practices that fuel more cars for more people to drive on more roads to more parking lots to buy more junk.
The hard decisions can no longer be avoided. There must be a massive shift in our thinking, behavior and consumption. The biofuels scam must be stopped in its tracks. If it proceeds, we'll plunge further into debt, destroy irreplaceable natural resources and send another portion of the biosphere up in smoke.
If you'd like more information on biofuels, see the Energy Justice Network fact sheet (http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html), Feeding Cars Not People (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/) and Worse Than Fossil Fuel (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/ )
"The Real Biofuel Cycles" by Tad W. Patzek (March 2006)
http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/Materials/RealFuelCycles-Web.pdf
The Patzek report contains a thorough analysis of the recent net energy "balances" of the corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol cycles and the environmental impacts of corn and ethanol production and methane emissions from the cows fed with corn-ethanol byproducts.
Permalink
ben Posted 11:57 am
24 Apr 2006
Heya Tom, does B2 freeze? I always thought that's why people stay with the low blends. If not biodiesel, what will be the lubricant?
- theWattPodcast.com
Permalink
Stormbringer Posted 1:17 pm
24 Apr 2006
Heya Tom, does B2 freeze? I always thought that's why people stay with the low blends. If not biodiesel, what will be the lubricant?
Hi Ben!
If the glycerides aren't refined out, the biodiesel will gel in cold weather, regardless of the blend level. If you recall minnesota this past winter, their 2% blend caused all kinds of gelling issues.
As far as what will be the lubricant, the guy with the truck fleet is on his own. Engine manufacturers don't warranty parts that die from a lack of lubrication, so they don't have an incentive to really solve the problem. The fuel suppliers will be happy to charge for a petroleum based product that turns to goo when exposed to combustion temps, though.
Permalink
andrewb Posted 8:52 pm
27 Apr 2006
(First published in
One World Column)
A few weeks ago President Bush declared that America was "Addicted to Oil". Was this a new found honesty marking the death of "Climate Scepticism" in post-Katrina America?
Well, "Climate Scepticism" was never viable - it was a mirage cynically created by powerful Oil interests, an attempt to fool the public that there was an alternative scientific view on climate change.
But Bush's speech does mark a new era : "climate scepticism is dead, long live climate cynicism". Its message was we are oil addicted BUT we can develop brave, new techno-fixes - promoted by and protecting the same corporate interests. The opportunity to tackle the greater, deeper addiction at the root of Western life was not explored - the addict in denial never wants to explore the underlying causes, and face real change.
It is investigated in the recent documentary film "the End of Suburbia" which shows how car dependency is deeply woven into the fabric of American life. For seventy years, planners have developed vast networks of roads and associated services like shopping malls. America is unable to heal its addiction, because it has been structurally "built in" over many decades.
Instead, Opium dream like, a new mirage is needed to keep "business as usual".
Enter Bush's speech, part of a highly orchestrated campaign to promote a global, mega-scale biofuel commodity trade. The dream sweeping the world is that the global growth economy can continue "business as usual" by replacing endemic Oil consumption with massive bioethanol production and consumption.
Just weeks later, a media fanfare accompanied the opening of the first E85 pump in the UK at Morrisons in Norwich last week - E85 being mix of 85% bioethanol and 15% petrol. A Google search shows that Norfolk had 5 seconds of fame as far away as Auckland and Beijing as glowing press reports described how "Harvest BioEthanol E85" is delivered through "environmentally-friendly pumps" featuring a new butterfly logo and a blue filling hose.
However, we won't be seeing queues at Morrisons for a while, as only specially adapted cars or one new model can actually run on E85 - and this is an image conscious, "turbo" model. Such tokenism allows the better-off to salve their environmental conscience. Drivers really wanting to make a difference are better to dispense with image, and choose a conventional but economic model (ie Vehicle Excise Duty band A or B cars that generate less than 120 gms of C02 per km), and to keep to speed limits.
The hype breaks down further as:
the Norwich E85 is imported from Brazil requiring fossil fuels for its transport
recent research shows that there is only a 13% reduction in C02 emissions for sugar-based bioethanol compared to petrol (just 11% for E85), and
more fossil fuel energy is required to produce it than it generates.
Could the UK develop an E85 economy? No, as we could never produce enough home grown bioethanol. Instead, the mass biofuels route would take us to dependency on imports with significant ethical issues. Yet, across the world, ever-expanding areas of cash crops for vehicle fuels are displacing local food production and decimating the livelihoods of small farmers and local people. Enormous areas of forests (our life-support systems) are being destroyed, with untold loss of wildlife and entire species, and releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gasses.
What about the new technology that Bush spoke of being able to "deliver" within six years - "cellulosic ethanol"? Heralded because its raw physics is more efficient - greater C02 savings than current sugar based technology and it can deliver more energy output than is put in. Could this deliver a US ethanol economy?
Massive bioethanol burning could have unknown atmospheric effects - studies already show that it would increase atmospheric levels of the carcinogen acetaldehyde, and peroxyacetylnitrate (PAN - which damages genetic material, and an irritant to eyes and lungs). Increased use of ethanol in California has already caused significant increases in atmospheric ozone.
Studies suggest, even given the vast mid-West croplands, that US food production would be impacted, and it is doubtful that the copious supplies of water required for the thirsty fermentation process are available. The biotech processes are in their infancy - the economic viability of mega-scale production and its early delivery are not givens.
In attempting to solve one problem with mass scale biofuels, we may create a host of other problems. The energy climate crisis needs to be tackled at the roots. We must find ways to decouple prosperity from massive scale transport by localising and decentralising economies, and find happiness outside the unprecedented consumption cult and year-on-year economic growth.
I am indebted to independent researcher Sue Pollard for many discussions on Biofuels.
References
Hodge, C, 2002, Ethanol use in US gasoline should be banned, not expanded.
Oil & Gas Journal, September 9, p. 20-30.
Hodge, C, 2003, More evidence mounts for banning, not expanding, use of ethanol in gasoline.
Oil & Gas Journal, October 6, p. 20-25'
"Air Quality Impacts of the Use of Ethanol in Gasoline"
California Air Resource Board, December 1999.
Permalink
andrewb Posted 8:56 pm
27 Apr 2006
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/34590
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/35243
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2247
Andrew, Norwich, UK
Permalink
einsteinstoe Posted 11:03 pm
09 Mar 2007
Gut NAFTA CAFTA GATT and WTO so farmers in these countries would not be bullied and dominated by these international mega corps. And establish FAIR trade policies. All of which would eliminate unsustainable land use.
#2
HEMP
#3
Recycled vegtable oil from all of you food eaters out there.
#4
We dont need to power all of america and your little sports cars, SUV's and minivans with diesel.
18 wheelers, buses, construction industry vehicles,
tractors, park maintainence vehicles, snow cats, snow removal equipment.
#5
Its a local answer NOT a global answer. And its the ONE answer that fits with 100 year old technology RIGHT NOW.
Nice article,
cheers all.
Permalink
einsteinstoe Posted 3:24 am
11 Mar 2007
Regarding gelling. B-50 rates to -15 degrees F
I live in snow country and we do see long stretch's of cold temps (for now) during the winter. For colder conditions which we see and many others around North America see, a lower blend (<b-20) with additional additives for those specific cold snaps can solve those problems. <br>
The citing of "The end of Suburbia" is well placed. North America got SCREWED by big petro-oil. Our cities are totally disfunctional. Rapid transit got gutted and we are barely even started on the road to recovery. Now we have a society based on passenger vehicles. Mostly driven without passengers. In a country stretching for thousands of miles. Until a major dieoff begins I am taking the route of the medic. Try to stop the bleeding. Locally (regional) driven biodiesel production is a sterile dressing only. And only for specific and limited applications. As I mentioned in the previous post.
(I own a spray foam insulation business, hence my personal self intrest. ie, heavy spray rig I tow, scaffolding, ladders etc.)
Sadly I don't believe the average North American will change their ways fast enough until a "dieoff" and/or MAJOR lifestyle crisis happens. I wish I had more faith in my fellow citizens but I don't. Fox News syndrome? So I see biodiesel (not ethanol) as the quickest, easiest, redneck friendly method to TRY and stop "the bleeding" (for the SPECIFIC category of vehicles/consumer I am discussing)
Joe redneck can pull up to the station with ZERO modifications for rigs built after 1993 and fill from 5% to 100% biodiesel RIGHT NOW. Only having to change your fuel filter one or two times in the
fuel system cleanout phase in a truck that has been running petro-diesel for years. Trucks before that do have to change rubberized fuel line components. But they are rednecks and they can handle that! Or at least their mechanic cousin can.
Each micro region needs to identify which alternatives are the most sustainable for their communities. I am as nervous as everyone else commenting here regarding companies like archevil midland and daniels trying take this thing over. That is why I am involving myself in companies like Whole Energy
http://www.wholeenergy.com And taking a role in trying to help them make a presence in my community. Thats why I am invloved in local political sytems to help influence the legislature to stop this insane ban on HEMP. And to allow farmers to grow it on lands that soy wont grow on. Hemp and some other non food ag products reduce or eliminate fertlizer use. Drastically reduce water usage and naturally maintain soils. Once a system is in place the farmers will be making there own biodiesel, and the trucks delivering it would be using biodiesel etc.
I am a trained medic and triage is a skill I have been taught. I'll keep tring to stop the beeding to try and give the real smart ones more time to come up with the other answers.
cheers all
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:14 am
11 Mar 2007
Redneck-friendly, perhaps, but not taxpayer friendly. Each gallon of biodiesel produced from virgin agricultural sources (vegetable oils or tallow) benefits from a $1.00/gallon tax credit, and most biodiesel producers benefit from the additional $0.10/gallon small producers' tax credit. In addition, many states top up these subsidies with their own tax credits (e.g., North Dakota) or tax exemptions (e.g., Texas). These additional incentives can bring the subsidy to $1.50/gallon or more.
Now, if biodiesel were NOT subsidized and the government offered you $1.50 to reduce your consumption of diesel, what would you do first: go out and buy some expensive biodiesel, or do other, cheaper things, like pay for more-frequent engine tune-ups, inflate your tires, or any of a myriad of options to improve the efficiency of your vehicle and rationalize your journeys?
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:41 am
11 Mar 2007
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:10 am
11 Mar 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:34 am
11 Mar 2007
Now now. We can make the point that both parties are bad on subsidies without advancing the utterly pernicious myth that there's no difference between the parties. Surely the 21st century has put that notion to rest once and for all.
www.grist.org
Permalink
einsteinstoe Posted 5:36 am
11 Mar 2007
If the Govt. is offering me $1.50 isnt that out of tax payer funds? Sounds like another kind of subsidy. Personally I consider biodiesel subsidies in general, tax payer friendly because it directly benefits society. Something our tax dollars should do more of. The benefit increases exponentially of course if we can keep the money out of the hands of archevil midland and daniels et al.
Would I accept the $1.50 per gallon offer to reduce my consumption? Probably. Specifically if I believed the policy had a system that could track and enforce such a complicated concept. But if it wiped out the subsidy to the companies like whole energy etc. I would not be interested. These are the companies that I want to see tax dollors going to. The companies that have the courage and expertise to take on big oil and the myriad of other challeges running a ecosystem AND economically sustainable company creates. In the meantime for my spray foam business I will be passing the potential higher cost of biodiesel onto the customer. (maybe tens of dollars per job, I have a diesel generator that powers our operation) I'll let the consumer make that choice. For my own personal use I do the simple things that increase gas mileage. And the less simple and costlty ($500) things like efficiency chips that increase my mileage in a dodge cummins 2500 4x4 quad cab long bed to nearly 25 miles to the gallon. (I wish I could have purchased a diesel hybrid but nothing was available) And I will pay more at the pump because its worth it to me. If only to reduce my funding of these insane wars waged for our energy "needs". (though climate change is el numero uno for me.) When the snow melts I get back on my bike! Pedal power hooray! (though I do need to eat to fuel me..........GAWD.....it never ends!!)
cheers
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:13 am
11 Mar 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:16 am
11 Mar 2007
Rather than remove subsidies, the easier thing to do is just subsidize everything.
Which is what actually happens.
Including Solar and Wind.
_
But truely, I wouldn't cry "woe is me" just yet on the solar panels.
2008 thinfilm panels are likely to be 10x cheaper in terms of material and capital costs. And about as simple to manufacture as making T-Shirts.
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/EnergyandCapital.htm
The next advancement down the road for solar after that plans to double, triple, or seventuple the energy output of solar panels.
Via the use of Quantum Dots.
Just remember, for highly technical solutions.
The government isn't the only source of funding.
Green tech is recieving more venture capital funding than any other industry.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:36 am
11 Mar 2007
DOE Selects 13 Projects for Solar Technology Development
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:03 am
11 Mar 2007
As for ADM, they are the second-biggest producer of biodiesel in Europe, and are building one of the biggest plants in North America. (Note the size of the plant: just under the 60 million gallons per year limit for earning the additional "small" producer's credit.) So I'd be interested in hearing how you are planning to "keep the money out of their hands.
And David: I am not saying there is no difference between the two parties in other areas, but you'd have a hard time these days passing a sheet of paper between them when it comes to subsidies. Just look at the current debate over farm subsidies.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:24 am
11 Mar 2007
Permalink
einsteinstoe Posted 1:45 pm
11 Mar 2007
Did I validate your comment regarding letting my customers make the choice?
In terms of keeping the money out of ADM's hands. I am extremelly skeptical of successfully derailing ADM or them conforming to more sustainable methods. Ultimately, like so many multi nationals with all of their power and abuse. I am reduced to street level protest and local and state efforts sought out within the party of my choice. And other grass roots efforts. All of which leaves me feeling pretty useless some times. But like the salmon and steelhead I keep bumping my head against the fish ladder in the damn. And some times I have made it up a fish ladder. (we all all know whats up river)
For now I will make it a priority to support business's such as Whole Energy.
(wholeenergy.com) who are dedicated to recycled vegetable oils and regionally grown bio fuels. But most importantly the company stronlgy advises to reduce consumption. If they become closely affiliated with companies such as ADM I would then have to seriously reconsider supporting them.
But when the irresponsible mega corp's finally destroy a beautiful thing ill be ready. Luckily so many people just don't give a poop. So when I buy my biopro190(utahbiodieselsupply.com)Ill have enough feed stock from the local restraunts to fuel my personal equipment. Ill know thatI at least tried to help the community before I tried to only help my family and friends.
Selfish and insignificant? yep.
I support cafe legislation. I support forced conservation efforts. Voluntary efforts etc. It has taken along time to get very little from the u.s congress on efficiency and conservation. Fox news syndrome is strong. I so support rapid transit concepts. I love light rail, ferries etc. But North America is so behind the mass transit curve. I will still fight for mass transit. But I live in a beautiful place that 15 years ago tore up 30 miles of the only railroad line out!! And now its a bike path only? I support vehicles like the tango.(commutercars.com) Natural gas is finite but I love riidng in NG buses when I vist cities that run them.
I think solar energy is a giant piece of the answer pie. I cant wait to buy your product sunflower. Or maybe become a residential installer and rep in my mountain valley.
All of those things and many more are part of the pie. But I am having difficulty coming up with answers for the school buses, fire engines, dozers, garbage trucks, snow cats, diesel generators, snow plows, cement trucks, delivery trucks, construction pickups, dump trucks and tractor trailers. And how to operate them TomorroW in a more sustainable fashion with little to no personal overhead costs. I keep coming up with biodiesel.
At least for those industry vehicles. Rural and remote communities such as mine have vastly different priorities and resource needs. And less options. Climatic and economic conditions alone make my community vunerable. And that makes me want to act now. Peak oil, climate change and resource wars. Like Dr. Martin Luther King jr. said, "The time is now."
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:56 pm
11 Mar 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/yourmoney/11st ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:03 pm
11 Mar 2007
I know of several solar technologies that can make oil and gas from sunlight efficiently.
Huh?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:44 pm
11 Mar 2007
Biodiesel from algae grown in cO2 absorbing solar collectors.
Biogas methane plasma arc conversion to methanol, using wind or solar electricity.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:12 am
12 Mar 2007
Who are you going to invest capital in, companies that receive $100MMs in energy production subsidies, or companies with cleaner and more cost effective technologies that can not compete with subsidized energy? Smart investors will leverage the free government money. It is not that biofuels should be resisted. It is the subsidies. Biofuels would not happen without subsidies.
Permalink
einsteinstoe Posted 2:35 am
12 Mar 2007
Am I also to believe that immediate reduction in greenhouse gas emmissions is not critical? ie "liberating oil and gas for vehicles". apporx 223 million of these vehicles already in service. We are already behind the climate curve. Now is the time not 2009 for a prototype. Commutercars.com already has a vehicle ready. No one is interesetd. Maybe its because it costs $85,000...same with the tesla. I love it. Cant afford it. Doesnt work in the snow either. Where is the money going to come from for everyone to get a new emmission free vehicle to replace the vehicle they bought 1 to 30 years ago? Assuming they have a emmissions free vehicle available for purchase now that meets their needs and wants. I bought my first new vehicle ever recently. As mentioned before for my business needs diesel was the best choice. And it stretched me to the limit. And not bragging but I make more as a D.I.N.K. than 70% of my fellow citizens (which if you do the math isnt really a ton, we just have alot of lower income folks in the United States) Now is the time. Zero to limited modifications for ALL of our diesel vehicles in the North American fleet.
And finally I assume I am to believe that volotile up and down prices on petro oil and gas is somehow economically more beneficial than a product like biodiesel that actually has a stable price? And benefits, in many markets, local responsible small businesses instead of overseas tyrants that we then are told we need to destroy paying with the blood and treasures of our nation.
Permalink