Candace Heckman, writing for the Seattle P-I Big Blog, put up a brief post about the protest yesterday by Duff Badgley and his rag-tag group against local biodiesel-refiner Imperium Renewables. Imperium is getting downright defensive:
Imperium spokesman John Williams said this afternoon that the company is actively looking at "feedstocks" other than palm oil, and that for the next year-and-a-half, the City of Seattle would not be buying biodiesel made from palm.
This blog post "makes it sound like at some point we might sell palm biodiesel to the city. We haven't, we don't and we won't."
Get the violins and hankies out:
Williams said his company is being unfairly targeted ... [ahem] Although, Imperium is not in the position to completely swear off palm as the company grows into a global corporation.
Imperium has no choice. It has to make a profit. It has to try to pay back its investors. It is pointless to harp at Imperium. The power lies entirely in the hands of the consumer who can choose not to purchase food crop based agrodiesel.
The problem is with our local politicians. They have mandated its use, subsidized its profit margin, and to ice the cake, have allowed millions of dollars of retirement funds to be invested in Imperium. This was all done with money taken from consumers via taxes. Adding insult to injury, these same consumers have to buy back this environmentally destructive fuel from the government at whatever cost every time they take a bus or ferry.
Our politicians may have good intentions, but the road to hell is starting to look like a parking lot.
Learning how to count to 350
U.N. chief will pressure senators on climate bill
Friday music blogging: Here We Go Magic
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 7:10 am
21 Sep 2007
Permalink
Billhook Posted 7:40 am
21 Sep 2007
The options of taking farmland and planting Switchgrass,
or mixed prairie plants,
or minimum rotation input-dependent monoculture coppice,
or sustainable moderate rotation polyculture coppice & standards,
all share a crucial weakness:- that of removing farmland from food production.
Yet the last option, Coppice & Standards, as it does not require mechanized treatment or harvesting,
has traditionally been established on land too steep &/or too poor for agriculture.
Given this distinction, the diverse fuels that can be refined from Coppice feedstock
maybe warrant a new and distinct title, being:
"Sylvifuels" ?
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 11:19 am
21 Sep 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:38 am
21 Sep 2007
Olives, whose wood is usefull for spoons and tools, will grow on land that would be marginal for any other purpose. Oil used for industrial uses need not be of the first quality. Avacados grow wherever there is little frost and adequate water and soil for them to grow and are mostly oil in the fruits.
This chart might be helpful.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:38 am
21 Sep 2007
Olives, whose wood is usefull for spoons and tools, will grow on land that would be marginal for any other purpose. Oil used for industrial uses need not be of the first quality. Avacados grow wherever there is little frost and adequate water and soil for them to grow and are mostly oil in the fruits.
This chart might be helpful.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:26 pm
21 Sep 2007
Average prices in 2005 (US$ per metric ton):
Rapeseed (canola) ...... 669
Soybean oil ............ 545
Palm oil ............... 422
Latest prices (average for August 2007):
Rapeseed (canola) ...... 955
Soybean oil ............ 908
Palm oil ............... 821
Note that over this period the relative price of soybean oil has narrowed from 81% to 95% of the price of canola oil, and palm oil has narrowed from 63% to 86% of the price of canola oil.
So for a company like Imperium to now sound less keen on palm oil has as much to do with economics as with community relations.
I use the term "economics" advisedly, of course. Imperium would benefit from a federal tax credit of $1.00 per gallon, as well as a myriad of state-level incentives that benefit producers and merchants of biodiesel and biodiesel blends.
On the other hand, when the price of your feedstock has almost doubled in a year and a half (if you were basing your business on imported palm oil), it is difficult to imagine any biodiesel manufacturer making much of a profit these days.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:12 pm
21 Sep 2007
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:38 pm
21 Sep 2007
Rapeseed and maize [sic] biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.
"One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions," said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:19 am
22 Sep 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:13 pm
22 Sep 2007
It's the N2O factor they underestimated by more than a factor of 2x.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd- ...
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/09/study-n2o-emiss.h ...
http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?_rss=1&fuseacti ...
_
Also in other news, looks like the Institute for Policy Studies got around to publishing the official copy of the new Patzek/Pimentel policy paper.
http://ips-dc.org/reports/070915_biofuels_report.pdf
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:16 pm
22 Sep 2007
i.e. Practically all of them.
And that includes Jathropha. (Especially Jatropha)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:25 pm
22 Sep 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgcE8czaMR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpm3iJsls80
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:52 pm
22 Sep 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Billhook Posted 8:16 pm
22 Sep 2007
Hazel is an excellent coppice tree, and was traditionally the staple material for many vital rural artifacts -
While most deciduous trees will regrow from the stump, some, like Sweet Chestnut, Ash & Hazel do so really well and will gain wood about 20% faster than a normal specimen,
thus improving the methanol + TP-charcoal feedstock yield /acre /year.
We have many Ash & Hazel on the farm here in the Cambrian mountains of Wales,
but the very damaging Canadian Grey Squirrel invaded the UK so we eat rather more squirrel than Hazelnuts.
Hazelnut as a flammble oil source is a novel idea to me, and adds to the goal of eradicating the greys in favour of the native red
(not least to allow the production of Hazlenut butter, which puts peanut butter in deep shade).
It's very good to see that a scientist of Crutzen's renown makes the point of distinguishing between the best and the worst of biofuels :-
"...the production of commonly used biofuels, such as biodiesel from rapeseed and bioethanol from corn (maize), can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O emissions than cooling by fossil fuel savings. Crops with less N demand, such as grasses and woody coppice species have more favourable climate impacts."
Traditional coppice of course requires no chem fertilizer inputs.
Grey Flcn -
I can't follow your critique of nitrogen fixing plants -
As I understand it, the problem Crutzen addresses is particularly with agricultural fertilizer nitrogen ending up as NO2 outputs.
So how does atmospheric nitrogen being fixed naturally in the soil by plants,
thus greatly reducing or even ending fertilizer demand,
become a problem ?
Many thanks for the link to "Growing Solutions"
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:46 am
23 Sep 2007
thus greatly reducing or even ending fertilizer demand, become a problem ?
It's all the same chemical compound.
Why would the atmosphere treat one or the other differently?
For instance, the USDA model does not include N2O emissions from atmospheric nitrogen fixed by soybeans, while the UCDavis Model does, contributing to an almost order of magnitude greater estimated of Global Warming Impact for soybean biodiesel.
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
Permalink