Blog Archive
Subscribe in a reader
Responding to those who see no future for biodiesel
Posted: September 2, 2009 at 11:03 AM CST
It can be stressful at times, heading up a magazine exclusively dedicated to an industry many people believe will fail. To this business, the feeling of “biodiesel against the world” is not new. But add in the dismal state of finance and the lingering recession, and uncertainty in this industry abounds. I’m asked all of the time, can you tell me something positive about the outlook for biodiesel? My response is usually, how much time do you have? Of course I can. I believe in it, even when others have thrown in the towel far too prematurely.
I’m a big boxing fan, and it really upsets me when I’m watching a fight and then, all of a sudden, a fighter gets stunned by an unseen punch, his legs get a little rubbery and the referee stops the match even though the shaken boxer never lost the Will to fight. It was a premature stoppage. His hands were up. He was dodging punches and throwing back. He wasn’t given a fair chance to come out of it. A true fighter possesses the special drive to pull through either brief moments or prolonged bouts of uncertainty, and never takes a knee or quits on his stool in the corner. Fighters who do this should find another profession. I’m not real big on sports analogies, but the biodiesel industry is that pure-hearted fighter with the Will to go on despite what everyone else believes.
Biodiesel has made tremendous strides in quality and has thus become a successfully accepted blendstock for diesel fuel. I don’t need to tell you all this—it’s like preaching to the choir—but when people ask me to tell them something good about the outlook of biodiesel, I point to several things.
Allowance of up to 5 percent bio in the diesel fuel spec, ASTM D 975, is a major milestone that speaks to the validity of it as a fuel and its acceptance by OEMs and the distribution chain.
I point to the fact that there’s a pending mandate that only biodiesel can fulfill at this time. Sure production capacity is far greater than the 1 billion gallon standard, but the ethanol industry didn’t sit back and rest on its laurels when the first renewable fuel standard was passed. That first RFS was only like 7.5 billion gallons passed in 2005, and at that time ethanol production capacity was close to that volume. But the precedent was established. It was a foot in the door. And look at the volume of ethanol in the RFS2—double the volume of corn ethanol compared to the first RFS, in addition to a large quantity of cellulosic ethanol, or ethanol made from biomass rather than starch. So the 1 billion gallon mandate is a foot in the door and if anyone thinks the biodiesel lobby will be satisfied with that and that alone, then they are delusional.
I point to all of the businesses and families dependent on the industry’s success.
I remind them that biodiesel is a globally traded fuel, while at the same time it is a product farmers can make on their own to fuel their fleet of tractors, tandem trucks, and generators. And while biodiesel is a globally traded fuel, it’s one with grass roots appeal. Businessmen, hippies, yuppies, environmentalists, researchers, farmers, writers, councilmen, legislators, bureaucrats—the appeal crosses all walks of life.
I point to all of the stellar research underway. But this R&D ought to not detract from the reality of biodiesel’s existence as a fuel that is in production today and is commercially ready, not waiting for some big technological breakthrough to become viable in the market—like many advanced fuels are.
I tell them about the environmental benefits…the list goes on and on.
What I really want to know is how do you all respond to those referees who want to stop the fight prematurely, those who see nothing left in the eyes of the biodiesel industry? What do you say when people ask you to tell them something positive about the outlook for biodiesel?
I am really interested in your comments on this one.
-Ron Kotrba
Comments
A big thing that most people don't consider is energy independence for out country and the cost of keeping Middle East oil available. We are like the old story of the bird trading feathers for worms to the fox. All people seem to care about is the price at the pump today. I think that anything (and everything) that we can do to help our country become energy independent is good; even if it costs more in the short run. All the people who have lost loved ones in Iraq would probably agree with me.
Posted by: Curtis Dyle | September 2, 2009 at 02:12 PM CST [Report Abuse]
Excellent points. And while nothing is more precious and irreplaceable than life itself, the cost and energy consumption our military expends to keep the oil flowing is unconscionable. Thanks for your comments Curtis.
Posted by: Ron | September 2, 2009 at 05:49 PM CST [Report Abuse]
Biodiesel, like all biofuels, is the bridge to a world without petroleum fuels. We will run out of petro at some point. So, why not build an industry that can grow to be a true replacement. Next, spending $700 Billion dollars overseas for a one-time use product - fuel when the overseas suppliers do not buy our products in trade is fatal economics. That $700 Billion dollars, if spent here for fuel made here becomes $1.4 Trillion dollars in less than 6 months as it stays here and circulates here bringing value and opportunity to millions of AMERICANS. Biofuels can help KEEP a big part of that $700 Billion here for our children to use and grow. And, if you work in governments, would bring in a significantly large amount of tax dollars as well, and even that gets spent here in the USA. Biofuels are economic Freedom - economic slavery!
Posted by: Larry White | September 2, 2009 at 07:11 PM CST [Report Abuse]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Posted by: Scott Gordon | September 3, 2009 at 09:30 AM CST [Report Abuse]
I see biodiesel right now as a transitional technology - kind of like a hybrid car. There will be other technologies that come later (like nuclear fusion...NOT nuclear fission) that will be real game changers. Until then, we need to develop a more sustainable path forward, and quick!
It is important to realize a couple of things. Most of the world doesn't even have clean water to drink, let alone 2 SUV's, a vacation home and a bunch of energy gobbling appliances. Whether anyone is quite ready to admit it or not, the days of cheap energy are drawing to a close. Within the realm of modestly priced energy I would strongly suggest that choosing wisely among the various energy alternatives is essential for three pretty simple reasons. 1) Global warming is no joke 2) Exhaustable resources will ultimately all be exhausted - then what? 3) robbing from the future to pay for the present in all forms is a bad idea...what I'm really talking about in pt 3)is pollution, equity of future generations, resource depletion, debt and an infuriating complacency about the widespread practice of externalizing the true costs to society at large and internalizing the benefits to a handful of the rich and powerful...need I point further than to our recent financial debacles. Since points 1)-3) describe coal, natural gas, petroleum and nuclear FISSION to a T, then I would say anyone with ethics and/or morals and/or a conscience and/or an ounce of common sense and/or even a single thought for future generations that goes beyond padding your own pocket now - might want to seriously think about what biodiesel in particular, and biofuels in general, wind, geothermal, tidal, osmotic, superconducting storage rings and transmission lines, advanced battery technology, solar - specifically dye sensitized, traditional semi-conductor type, passive and active actually have to offer - minus the hype and just plain fictions being hoisted on the general public by big oil, big coal, big politics, and every other special interest that wants to rob from the common till now, and leave a big bill for later for future generations to pick up e.g. nuclear waste, global warming, ozone hole, brownfields, cancer, asthma, and the rest.
So get with the reality check.
Get off your ass and go do something positive for the world.
Posted by: Scott Gordon | September 3, 2009 at 09:34 AM CST [Report Abuse]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 3, 2009 at 01:49 PM CST [Report Abuse]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 3, 2009 at 03:14 PM CST [Report Abuse]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 3, 2009 at 03:14 PM CST [Report Abuse]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 3, 2009 at 03:15 PM CST [Report Abuse]
I do not agree with the notion that we are going to "run out of petroleum" or that "biodiesel being homegrown prevents our military from being used as cannon fodder" ... and I most certainly do not agree that biodiesel is a "transitional technology".
When "biodiesel" became "soybean oil" it was doomed ... The referee should call the fight because soybean biodiesel is a fighter with both hand tied behind his back and being beat to death by reality.
"Biodiesel" should have never been marketed as a replacement to petroleum diesel. Only someone wanting to sell soybean oil would view that as a positive.
Biodiesel's value/strenght is in its lubricity and cetane!
Instead of biodiesel being marketed to its strenghts - it is being dumped off on the markets petroleum dominate.
What if the biodiesel industry targetted dual fuel consumption solely. Where the biodiesel supplied the ignition and lubricity - and gasoline or ethanol supplied the power. Every diesel engine could have been easily retrofitted to run dual fuels.
The biodiesel refinery goes into operation with a fleet of diesel trucks or similar use vehicles.
An additional gas tank, heated diesel fuel tank - and all the issues with biodiesel are minimized. Dedicated users in a less-volatile market.
Soybean's advocacy hurts biodiesel. They are a "retarded" player in the energy market. Their "willingness" extends only to soybean oil's value added commodity price.
A diesel engine's efficiency is the best - biodiesel's lubricity can increase that advantage as much as 20%. So B5 should be in all diesel - merely because it improves the efficiency.
Ethanol is more efficient than gasoline (gallon to gallon) in high compression engines even though its energy content is lower.
Ethanol and Biodiesel together as a dual fuel could realize engine efficiencies as high or higher than 65%. Compared to gasolines 30% and diesel's 40% - that is a significant savings!
Ben Franklin said that a penny saved is a penny earned - Biodiesel should have been marketed all along to the smart consumer of energy - and that is not farmers, or patriots, or college professors seeking grant money.
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 3, 2009 at 03:16 PM CST [Report Abuse]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 3, 2009 at 03:16 PM CST [Report Abuse]
[Comment removed by moderator]
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 3, 2009 at 03:32 PM CST [Report Abuse]
Sorry for multiple posting
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 3, 2009 at 03:35 PM CST [Report Abuse]
I removed the duplicates. I'm looking into why that's happening. But I like where you were going with your comment...
Posted by: Ron | September 3, 2009 at 04:48 PM CST [Report Abuse]
Thanks Ron
It is hard to argue that we are running out of petroleum when BP announce that it just hit a 3 billion + reserve in the Gulf of Mexico.
I believe a "carbon tax" is biodiesel's best friend. Biodiesel and ethanol are smart fuels if used in the right application. Biodiesel's lubricity can improve normal diesel efficiency by 20%. Ethanol and biodiesel molecules both carry oxygen which decrease their energy content against petroleum fuels - but that oxygen provides better combustion. That advantage yields more power and less pollution.
Ethanol is not the only dual fuel that biodiesel can be used with. T Boone Pickens wants us to use natural gas but natural gas is not very efficent because the heat and friction loss. But natural gas and biodiesel (diesel engine operation - biodiesel used to ignite) becomes very efficient.
Biodiesel has its niche market as B100. It is a premium fuel.
The problem is that we live in a world that is "turbo-charged" - everyone is trying to find a mechanical technology that can perform a task that biodiesel can do naturally.
The ability to heat biodiesel is not "high tech" nor in-efficient ... melting point as a limitation to use is retarded. To get a natural fuel that is "golden" in its lubricity and cetane becomes limited by melting point (something so easy to design around)
We have to improve the viscosity - and this improve product should be known as "biodiesel".
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 3, 2009 at 05:39 PM CST [Report Abuse]
Ron, biodiesel has a very bright future! However, I don't know if it will be the same future we envisioned in years past. I used to think we could push B100 as a transportation fuel, and that everything else (B2, B5, B20) would be a step in that direction. However, after seeing the OEM's ignore B100 in favor of B5 and B20 in their engine testing for 2008+ vehicles, I'm forced to conclude that pushing for B100 may be counterproductive. The biodiesel industry may need to reposition itself as an additive and not as a "fuel" per se.
I think the real question is - will the biodiesel industry ever decide on what blend it wants? I've spent the last 4 years (feels like a lifetime!) aiming for B100, but am more and more inclined to push for B20, with the other 80% being renewable diesel.
I will say that IF the biodiesel industry fails, it will be because it doesn't meet the D975 diesel specification.
Posted by: Jason Burroughs | September 6, 2009 at 10:38 PM CST [Report Abuse]
I agree with you about the B100 being marketed wrong Jason. I agree that B5 to B20 engine testing is a positive for biodiesel.
But are you not contradicting yourself when you expect biodiesel to meet the D975 specification?
IF biodiesel falters (it can't really fail) it is due to the unrealistic expectation that biodiesel should be an energy commodity. First and foremost you should expect biodiesel to be a premium fuel - for the smart consumer of energy.
The biodiesel industry reminds me of the Texas "wildcatters" in the 1920's - 1930's. Most people do not realize how progressive Texas was in keeping refining apart from exploration. The "wildcatter" mentality is alive in the biodiesel industry - but it cannot compete.
Biodiesel's is suffering at the feedstock level - not in its application.
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 7, 2009 at 06:23 AM CST [Report Abuse]
Without meeting the specification for the fuel it's designed to replace, no OEM will support it, it will never get into the pipeline, and will never be taken seriously by the majors. I agree that it really can't "fail", but if it is seen as a failure by the public and business community, I believe it will be because of the technical challenges that exist. I will qualify that by saying that there are technical solutions to these challenges, but that we lack the political will to change them. For example, the OEMs don't have to use a last post injection combustion method to regen the DPF, but they do because it's cheaper. Because of that, high blend biodiesel is even more of a problem in the 2008+ vehicles. I believe that B20 will wind up being fully supported by all the OEMs eventually - which makes biodiesel as a great *additive*, not a fuel. This distinction is subtle, but significant.
Posted by: Jason Burroughs | September 9, 2009 at 09:07 AM CST [Report Abuse]
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/09/consortium-launches-britains-first-dual-fuel-biomethane-bus-emissions-cut-in-half.html#comments
I understand your point - but you are missing mine. I am "customer focused" - and not supplier driven. When I mention that "smart consumers of energy" will come to appreciate biodiesel's advantages - I know it because that is how economics has functioned for ages - just read Adam Smith.
Biodiesel doesn't have to be "pipelined" with the rest of the petroleum commodities - and why you would want them to have that much power escapes me. Just consider the practical application of biodiesel's detergency in an existing fuel system - on the pipeline scale!
The biodiesel industry has to learn from history. Petroleum did not start out centralized or standardized. If marine fleet applications did not create an avenue for petroleum - its evolution would have been extremely difficult. Biodiesel likewise has to have dedicated fleets/users of "smart energy consumers". It could be muncipal bus fleets, or trucking companies - but probaly the best consumer would be railway users.
If rail would consider dual fuel applications (biodiesel and ethanol) they could realize 20-30% more fuel efficiency. Currently one gallon of fuel hauls one ton about 400 miles - that would be increase to 600 miles.
Currently everything about energy is "obese" - and very little is "smart". The politics is simple - call stupid and cheap - "stupid and cheap".
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM CST [Report Abuse]
Solazyme signs U.S. DOD contract to develop fuel from algae ...
Here is a company that learns from history. DOD is a customer - the same customer that allowed petroleum to evolve its energy infrastructure.
Solazyme is junk biodiesel and junk technology - but so was/is soybean biodiesel. One step forward and two steps back or two steps forward and one step back?
Posted by: Robert Strickland | September 9, 2009 at 11:41 AM CST [Report Abuse]