The Diesel Tree

Naturally, something like a “diesel tree” is going to catch my attention. (The scientific name for the tree, as best as I can ascertain, is Copaifera langsdorfii, and is native to South America). I have been intrigued by this plant since I first heard about it, but haven’t run across a wealth of information. Thanks to Bob Rohantensky for bringing the following story out of Australia to my attention:

Qld farmers invest in diesel-producing trees

Farmers in North Queensland are doing their bit to be environmentally friendly by investing in a tree that produces diesel.

Over 20,000 trees have been sold to farmers in the tropics by the man who introduced the diesel tree from Brazil.

The tree produces an oil that can be extracted, filtered and used to power vehicles and farm machinery.

It is estimated a one-hectare crop could produce enough fuel for an average-sized family farm.

That’s promising if true. Of course questions are going to abound. Here are some of the preemptive answers from the article:

Mr Jubow says one hectare can produce around 12,000 litres of fuel per year.

“Last year we sold around about 20,000 of these trees. This year we’ll sell probably similar figures, but we could sell more except that we can’t get enough seed out of Brazil,” he said.

He says the trees need a lot of water to grow.

So, there’s the yield (at least one man’s opinion of yield) and the fact that they take a lot of water. So, not a good option for areas that don’t receive a lot of rainfall.

“There is a world-wide database on plant species that have been known to become pests. This plant is not on that list.”

For reference, Australia has placed jatropha on its invasive species list.

He says farmers who want to grow the trees need to know what they are doing.

“It is a very difficult tree to grow from the point of view of a nurseryman like myself - it is not something where an amateur could just grab a handful of seeds and go and grow them,” he said.

“It is not that simple. They are a very difficult seed to germinate.”

So the average person is unlikely to grow and produce their own diesel. Of course the average person doesn’t do this now, so that’s not necessarily a problem.

So, what do you do when the tree has reached the end of its life?

“Not only that, when the tree reaches its use-by date, you’ve got plantation-grown timber which is a very high-grade timber that is suitable for cabinet-making. It is a very ornamental timber.

“You are still keeping it out of the CO2 system by harvesting the timber and milling it and putting it into high-quality furniture.

That all sounds quite interesting. I wonder what the range of the tree is? The biggest disadvantage, though, is that it requires the kind of long-range energy planning that society has been so poor at:

“If I’m lucky enough to live that long enough - I’m 64 now - it is going to take about 15 to 20 years before they are big enough to harvest the oil so that I can use them in a vehicle,” he said.

We can’t even plan 5 years ahead, so it is going to take some real long-term thinkers with a lot of patience to get this idea going.

What are some other options? I think soybean, rapeseed, and palm oil are all out because of land usage issues, and competition with food. What is needed is a high oil producing crop that can be grown on marginal land. Of course that’s what they say about jatropha.

Unfortunately, jatropha seems to have been exaggerated. When I went to India, everyone had heard of it, but nobody knew where any was actually being grown. So there has been a nagging concern in that back of my mind that some other plants mentioned as potential options - Chinese tallow, for instance - may also have had their potential exaggerated. I want to know what’s likely, not some best case scenario.

LCA on Renewable Diesel

Thanks to a reader for this tip. Argonne National Laboratory has just published a Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) of biogasoline, biodiesel, green diesel, and petroleum diesel:

Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Soybean-Derived Biodiesel and Renewable Fuels

I have just skimmed the report so far, but noted a few items of interest. Table 2-1 shows “Current and Planned Renewable Diesel Facilities.” If I had time, I would convert to a table, but I don’t:

Company Size (bpd) Location Online Date

ConocoPhillips 1,000 Ireland 2006
ConocoPhillips 12,000 United States To be determined
British Petroleum (BP) 1,900 Australia 2007
Neste 3,400 Finland 2007
Neste 3,400 Finland 2009
Petrobras 4 × 4,000 Brazil 2007
UOP/Eni 6,500 Italy 2009

In Table 3.3, they list the energy inputs into soybean farming from three different sources. The lowest input? Surprisingly, it came from Pimentel and Patzek.

Also, note this very important note on Page 4 that could throw all of these results out the window:

Note that this study does not consider potential land use changes. Increased CO2emissions from potential land use changes are an input option in GREET, but it was not used in the current analysis since reliable data on potential land use changes induced by soybean-based fuel production are not available. Furthermore, the main objective of this study is to concentrate on the process-related issues described above.

I presume this is in response to the recent Science articles that looked at land use changes from ethanol, and concluded the carbon footprint was worse than for gasoline. For soybeans, it is likely to be worse, because soybean farming is reportedly encroaching into the Amazon.

One thing that would have been a lot more reader-friendly would have been an actual energy balance equation. That is, for 1 BTU of energy input, X BTUs of energy is returned for the various fuels.

Off to Switzerland tomorrow until Friday evening, but I will post something if I get a chance.

Unintended Consequences

The Politics of Biofuels

In response to a recent query from an independent student newspaper in the UK, I wrote up this editorial piece on the politics of biofuels. The original can be found here.

One of the intentions was to explain for European readers why the U.S. and the EU have begun to diverge on their biofuel policies. In the U.S. this is mostly a political issue, because our primary biofuel is home grown. In the EU, biofuels are mostly imported, so the EU can take a more objective view.

Introduction

Government policies often generate unintended consequences. This has turned out to be the case with the aggressive biofuel policies pursued over recent years by the European Union and the United States. While the EU was developing action plans and setting targets to promote biofuels, many states in the U.S. - especially those with high levels of corn (maize) production - were enforcing mandates to turn that corn into ethanol.

Superficially, this may sound like a great idea. The world obviously can’t continue forever down the path of fossil fuels. Global Warming is a serious concern worldwide. Much of the remaining fossil fuel resources are located in areas hostile to the West. What better way to address these concerns than a movement toward renewable fuels? Furthermore, if the market won’t encourage that move because of poor economics, wouldn’t it make sense for governments to be proactive and force a move to biofuels? Of course this is the path we have taken, but we didn’t sufficiently consider the potential consequences before doing so.

Criticisms

While corn farmers and palm oil plantation owners have been elated by the policies, critics have warned all along about the short-sightedness of these policies. Some, like Cornell Professor David Pimentel and Berkeley Professor Tad Patzek, argued that a full life-cycle analysis showed that most biofuels are actually net energy negative - that is it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce biofuels like ethanol than is returned in the process. This assertion, if true, would imply that expansion of biofuels would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. However, Professors Pimentel and Patzek have their own critics, who assert that their studies made flawed assumptions.

But the criticisms of the rush into biofuels didn’t stop there. Some argued that the diversion of grains and edible oils away from food and toward biofuels had the potential to starve the poor. The United States Department of Agriculture, longtime staunch supporters of the biofuels expansion, published a study that concluded that the policies of the U.S. and the EU would raise prices across the food sector. Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute - a group that advocates environmental sustainability - famously noted in a Washington Post opinion piece that “the grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol would feed one person for a full year.” Brown further wrote:

“Plans for new ethanol distilleries and biodiesel refineries are announced almost daily, setting the stage for an epic competition. In a narrow sense, it is one between the world’s supermarkets and its service stations. More broadly, it is a battle between the world’s 800 million automobile owners, who want to maintain their mobility, and the world’s 2 billion poorest people, who simply want to survive.”

Thus, at best the critics suggested that the impact of biofuels policies would increase food prices. Worse, biofuel mandates may be mandates for starving the poor.

Additional criticisms emerged. It soon became clear that the new policies were resulting in land usage changes. Grassland was turned into farmland, and tropical forests into palm plantations. As a result of EU-fueled demand for palm oil, Indonesia was destroying peat bogs to make room for new plantations, and this greatly increased their greenhouse gas emissions. This move reportedly made Indonesia the third largest greenhouse gas polluter.

In the U.S., former ethanol proponents such as Dan Kammen and Alex Farrell of the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley have recently abandoned their position that corn ethanol is environmentally beneficial. In a January 12, 2008 memo to California regulators attempting to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector, they wrote:

“Simply said, ethanol production today using U.S. corn contributes to the conversion of grasslands and rainforest to agriculture, causing very large GHG emissions. Even if only a small fraction of the emissions calculated in this crude way [through land use change] are added to estimates of direct emissions for corn ethanol, total emissions for corn ethanol are higher than for fossil fuels.”

A pair of studies in the current issue of Science was apparently the basis for their change of heart. The Wall Street Journal reported on the studies:

While the U.S. and others race to expand the use and production of biofuels, two new studies suggest these gasoline alternatives actually will increase carbon-dioxide levels.

A study published in the latest issue of Science finds that corn-based ethanol, a type of biofuel pushed heavily in the U.S., will nearly double the output of greenhouse-gas emissions instead of reducing them by about one-fifth by some estimates.

“Even if we’re dramatically wrong, it’s hard to get to a result that says you get a benefit over 50 years,” said Timothy Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton University and a co-author of the paper on corn-based ethanol.

In the second study, researchers found that . . . draining and clearing peatlands in Malaysia and Indonesia to grow palm oil emits so much CO2 that palm biodiesel from those fields would have to be burned for more than 420 years to counteract it.

I made my own criticisms, on several fronts. I criticized what I felt were misleading energy balance studies, which inflated the attraction of corn ethanol. I criticized the morality of using food for fuel. I challenged venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who was promising the world something I didn’t feel that he could deliver, and in the process wasting taxpayer money and precious time. I also challenged the hype of cellulosic ethanol, pointing out issues that the critics were ignoring. As I was warning about the folly of U.S. ethanol policy, I also cautioned over the irrational exuberance of ethanol investors. (I should also note that I wrote several essays in favor of certain ethanol applications. See here, here, and here.)

The World Responds

The criticisms didn’t go unnoticed. The Chinese recognized the threat to their food supplies, and put a halt to new corn ethanol projects, noting that “the current maize-ethanol production capacity has far surpassed what the corn output can provide as an important grain resource.” The European Union began to recognize the dangers. EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said that “the EU had initially underestimated the danger to rainforests and the risk of forcing up food prices from its policy of setting binding targets for the use of biofuels.” The EU further announced that they would be issuing a certification scheme and promised a “clampdown on biodiesel from palm oil which is leading to forest destruction in Indonesia.”

The U.S. government continued to show short-sightedness, however, and mandated an enormous expansion of the ethanol program. To understand this, one has to understand that ethanol policy in the U.S. is dictated almost entirely by politics, and not by science. Because the source of U.S. biofuels is largely domestic, the issue impacts upon a large segment of voters. Former presidential candidate Bob Dole once explained the issue to oilman T. Boone Pickens: “Bob Dole once told me that there are 42 senators from farm states and that pretty much means the government is going to be into ethanol.”

The prominence of the Iowa presidential caucuses also plays a major role. The Iowa caucuses are held prior to the elections in most other states, and presidential candidates hope to do well there and gain momentum going into the rest of the campaign season. Since Iowa is the heart of ethanol production country in the U.S., candidates pander to the voters there who have greatly benefited from U.S. ethanol policies. In order to win Iowa, you must support ethanol policy. Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and John McCain provide perfect examples of the Iowa influence. Longtime critics of U.S. ethanol policy - both changed their positions during the most recent presidential campaign. In 2003, McCain had come out strongly against U.S. ethanol policy:

“Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn’t create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality.”

Contrast that with his statements in 2006 as he prepared for a presidential run:

“I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects.”

Thus, while the world wakes up to the overall social and environmental ramifications of a broad expansion of ethanol policy, the U.S. is unlikely to deviate from the current policy. If there was a major Midwestern drought that caused the corn crop to fail, it might cause a reevaluation of the policy as corn supplies disappeared. But barring some sort of catastrophe that impacts ordinary Americans, the policy of turning food into fuel will continue unabated in the U.S.

Lessons Learned

The consequences from these biofuel policies was foreseen by a number of scientists. However, their criticisms were often shouted down, and their motives were questioned by some proponents. In the U.S., proponents cast the ethanol debate in terms of national security, energy independence, and the benefits to farming communities. Opponents were cast as being anti-farmer and un-American. This had the unfortunate effect of largely quelling the public debate as these policies were being unveiled and expanded.

Yet these debates must take place, preferably before a well-intentioned policy begins to have such undesirable consequences. Our political leaders need to carefully consider not only the arguments of proponents, but they also need to give the critics a fair hearing. Had this been done, we may have been able to focus our attention on renewable options that do not compete with our food supply.

The NYT on Food versus Fuel

The New York Times weighed in today with an article on the food versus fuel issue, with emphasis on what’s going on in the 3rd world:

An Oil Quandary: Costly Fuel, Costly Calories

Definitely worth a read. Some excerpts:

KUANTAN, Malaysia — Rising prices for cooking oil are forcing residents of Asia’s largest slum, in Mumbai, India, to ration every drop. Bakeries in the United States are fretting over higher shortening costs. And here in Malaysia, brand-new factories built to convert vegetable oil into diesel sit idle, their owners unable to afford the raw material.

This is the other oil shock. From India to Indiana, shortages and soaring prices for palm oil, soybean oil and many other types of vegetable oils are the latest, most striking example of a developing global problem: costly food.

No category of food prices has risen as quickly this winter as so-called edible oils — with sometimes tragic results. When a Carrefour store in Chongqing, China, announced a limited-time cooking oil promotion in November, a stampede of would-be buyers left 3 people dead and 31 injured.

Cooking oil may seem a trifling expense in the West. But in the developing world, cooking oil is an important source of calories and represents one of the biggest cash outlays for poor families, which grow much of their own food but have to buy oil in which to cook it.

American farmers have been planting more corn and less soy because demand for corn-based ethanol has pushed up corn prices. American soybean acreage plunged 19 percent last year, producing a drop in soybean oil output and inventories.

The growth of biodiesel, which can be mixed with regular diesel, has been controversial, not only because it competes with food uses of oil but also because of environmental concerns. European conservation groups have been warning that tropical forests are being leveled to make way for oil palm plantations, destroying habitat for orangutans and Sumatran rhinoceroses while also releasing greenhouse gases.

The European Union has moved to restrict imports of palm oil grown in unsustainable ways. The measure has incensed the Malaysian palm oil industry, which had plunged into biofuel production in part to satisfy European demand.

I do not foresee a happy ending here. No doubt some of the reason for increased food costs is because energy prices have gone up. That’s primarily because of a very tight supply/demand balance. But the mandates that we use fuel made from food rest squarely on the shoulders of our political leaders. Shouldn’t they have seen this coming? And will they act to reverse their actions? In Europe, they are starting to see the light. In the U.S., we seem determined to expand upon this insane policy.

Update on Book Publication

Nate Hagens at The Oil Drum just wrote a review of a paper by Professor Charles Hall, who like Nate and myself also contributed a chapter to the renewable energy book that will be published later in the year. Many have written to ask about the book, and I haven’t said anything, as I wasn’t sure how much was public information. Nate made most of it public in his post:

At $100 Oil - What Can the Scientist Say to the Investor?

Nate wrote:

This paper, along with 16 others (including 2 by theoildrum.com contributors), will be part of an upcoming book edited by Professor David Pimentel, “Renewable Energy Systems: Environmental and Energetic Issues“. (I’ll provide links when published). The paper by Professor Hall et al. is a thoughtful preliminary treatise on the impact that projected lower net energy for petroleum might have on the economy and investments.

So, there you have the title and publisher. Later on, Nate lists the Table of Contents:

RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS: ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGETIC ISSUES

Authors and Titles of Chapters

1) David Pimentel, College of Agriculture, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York: RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS; BENEFITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
2) Tad Patzek, College of Engineering, University of California (Berkeley): CAN THE EARTH DELIVER THE BIOMASS-FOR-FUEL WE DEMAND?
3) David Swenson, Department of Economics, Iowa State University: A REVIEW OF THE ECONOMIC RISKS AND REWARDS OF ETHANOL PRODUCTION
4) Doug Koplow, Earth Track, Inc., Cambridge, MA and Ronald Steenblik, Research Director, Global Subsidies Initiative International Institute for Sustainable Development, Geneva: SUBSIDIES FOR ETHANOL PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES
5) Charles Hall, Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, College of Forestry and Environmental Science, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY: PEAK OIL, EROI, INVESTMENTS AND THE ECONOMY IN AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE
6) Andrew Ferguson, Optimum Population Trust, Manchester, England: WIND POWER: BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS
7) Robert Rapier, [RR comment: affiliation deleted], Aberdeen, Scotland: RENEWABLE DIESEL
Mario Giampietro, International Nutrition Institute, Rome, Italy, K. Mayumi, Tokushima University, Japan: COMPLEX SYSTEM THINKING IN RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS
9) Marcelo E. Dias de Oliveira, The Brazilian Alcohol Programme, Brazil: SUGARCANE AND ETHANOL PRODUCTION AND CARBON DIOXIDE BALANCES
10) Tom Gangwer: BIOMASS FUEL CYCLE BOUNDARIES: CURRENT PRACTICE AND PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
11) Edwin Kessler, Department of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman: OUR FOOD AND FUEL FUTURE
12) Nathan Hagens, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, Kenneth Mulder, Green Mountain college: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: NET ENERGY, LIEBIGS LAW AND MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS
13) Robert M. Boddey, Embrapa-Agrobiologia, Rio de Janeiro, BR: ETHANOL PRODUCTION IN BRAZIL
14) Roger Samson, Resource Efficient Agricultural Production Canada (REAP-Canada): CELLULOSICS FOR THERMAL ENERGY
15) Maurizio Paoletti, Department of Biology, University of Padova, Italy, Tiziano Gomiero, (please provide affiliation and location): ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND ENERGY CONSERVATION
16) Sergio Ulgiati, Department of Chemistry, Sienna University, Italy: BIODIESEL PRODUCTION IN ITALY: BENEFITS AND COSTS
17) Kenan Unlu, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA: CURRENT RESEARCH ON NUCLEAR ENERGY

I deleted my affiliation, because I have indicated I won’t publicly divulge that here. Nate did divulge it, which is fine as it is out in the public domain anyway. But I deleted it here, because as I have indicated before I don’t discuss the identity of my employer here.

I will provide another update when the book has actually been published, and will provide some extended excerpts from my paper. I think my paper was definitely balanced and objective (and easily readable even for someone who doesn’t know anything about these issues). In fact, Professor Pimentel thought I was too generous on several of my arguments, and was the person who pointed me to the toxicity issue that caused the Australian government to ban jatropha. Up to that point, I hadn’t really come up with anything negative on jatropha.

But in the paper I was pretty upbeat on 2nd generation renewable diesels, and first generation renewable diesels that can be produced at low cost by hobbyists. But I did clearly lay out pros and cons.

Jatropha in NYT

An interesting jatropha story in today’s New York Times:

Mali’s Farmers Discover a Weed’s Potential Power

It will be archived pretty soon, but here are a couple of excerpts to chew on:

But now that a plant called jatropha is being hailed by scientists and policy makers as a potentially ideal source of biofuel, a plant that can grow in marginal soil or beside food crops, that does not require a lot of fertilizer and yields many times as much biofuel per acre planted as corn and many other potential biofuels.

When I was working on my renewable diesel chapter, it was pretty clear to me that jatropha has significant potential as a source of renewable diesel. I did some calculations examining potential yields of a massive jatropha effort. It is still not a silver bullet, but could be one of the better silver BBs.

The only major down side, pulled straight from my chapter:

Jatropha has one significant downside. Jatropha seeds and leaves are toxic to humans and livestock. This led the Australian government to ban the plant in 2006. It was declared an invasive species, and “too risky for Western Australian agriculture and the environment here” (DAFWA 2006).

A bit more from NYT:

Jatropha’s proponents say it avoids the major pitfalls of other biofuels, which pose significant environmental and social risks. Places that struggle to feed their populations, like Mali and the rest of the arid Sahel region, can scarcely afford to give up cultivable land for growing biofuel crops. Other potential biofuels, like palm oil, have encountered resistance by environmentalists because plantations have encroached on rain forests and other natural habitats.

But jatropha can grow on virtually barren land with relatively little rainfall, so it can be planted in places where food does not grow well. It can also be planted beside other crops farmers grow here, like millet, peanuts and beans, without substantially reducing the yield of the fields; it may even help improve output of food crops by, among other things, preventing erosion and keeping animals out.

Jatropha is worth a long, hard look. In my opinion, it is one of few sustainable options we currently have with significant long-term potential.

Reference

DAFWA, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia. (2006). Jatropha Banned in WA. Retrieved August 3, 2007 from http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/sust/biofuel/191006jatrophe.pdf

Biodiesel Misconceptions

Sometimes I am astonished at the misconceptions people have. Take this article:

Old cars become green machines

The story is about a woman who has a number of cars that have been modified to run off of biodiesel. The cars include gas guzzlers like a Lincoln Continental Mark V, a Chevy Tahoe, and a Cadillac. But because she is running them on biodiesel, she thinks she is neither using oil nor polluting:

Colette Brooks’ sprawling ocean-view property* is dotted with tricked out cars — from a low-rider Lincoln Continental to a Cadillac with plush leather seats. The petite 49-year-old business owner might be a car junkie, but she’s indulging her obsession without polluting the air by running her rides on biodiesel and other alternative fuels.

“I feel so superior driving next to a Hummer and going, ‘Dude, yo, look at this, this is what you should be doing,’ ” Brooks said.

While I sincerely appreciate her intent, someone walking, riding a bike, or even driving a Prius running entirely on gasoline could say the same to her. She does not recognize that her fossil fuel footprint is still very high. The problem with these sorts of perceptions is that they end up shaping policy. People may not recognize the critical need for conservation if they think they have eliminated their fossil fuel usage by switching to biodiesel (or corn-ethanol).

Today, at least 10 vehicles are parked on her property in Malibu. They include the Lincoln Continental Mark V designed by the late fashion designer Bill Blass. The gold luxury coupe has tinted windows to give it a “gangsta” look, Brooks said.

Her Chevy Tahoe demonstrates that it’s possible to drive a jumbo SUV without fouling the air. And with an increasing number of filling stations in Southern California selling biodiesel, motorists don’t have to go too far out of their way to feed their green machines.

A Los Angeles architect who got his 1980 Mercedes coupe from Biobling boasted that he hasn’t bought gasoline in nearly a year. Though he spends about $3.29 per gallon for biodiesel, Warren Wagner said he didn’t mind paying more for fuel that’s produced domestically.

“I’m not supporting big oil,” Wagner said. “When I’m driving it around, my car is an ambassador for alternative transportation.”

I wonder where they think the gasoline and diesel that the soybean farmers use comes from. How was the biodiesel transported to the filling station? Where did the plastics and rubber in all of those vehicles came from? Where did the methanol come from that is used to make the biodiesel? Biodiesel is certainly better than corn ethanol in this respect, but don’t kid yourself that you aren’t using oil or polluting if you are using biodiesel.

So, while I applaud the effort, I think a better recognition of the actual embedded fossil fuels might lead to more informed decisions about which actions are more environmentally responsible. When the oil starts to run scarce, some people are going to have a rude awakening to the fact they are far more dependent upon oil than they think. This article provides a perfect example of people who suffer from such oil delusions, and it is the same kind of delusional thinking displayed by our political leaders. “Renewable fuels” with heavy fossil fuel inputs are not truly renewable, nor are they non-polluting.

I can’t help but be reminded of the article I read regarding the Hummer owner who was “kicking the oil habit” because his Hummer ran on E85. A Prius running on 100% fossil fuels is going to have a lower fossil fuel footprint than a Chevy Tahoe running on biodiesel or a Hummer running on ethanol. A Prius running on biodiesel (or green diesel); well that’s potentially a different matter.

* For the purposes of this essay, I shall not discuss the possible energy footprint of that sprawling property. I will presume it is not powered by coal.

Biodiesel’s Green Diesel Nightmare

I have been saying this for months, and others are starting to realize the same thing:

Renewable Diesel: Biodiesel’ s Nightmare

I first heard of this process last October at an NREL presentation (they called it “Green diesel” and could not identify COP as the oil company they were dealing with,) but details remain sketchy. The fact that it refers to the process as a “proprietary thermal depolymerization production technology” and the fact that it is using existing refinery infrastructure should cause alarm to biodiesel firms, and investors.

Why should this cause alarm? Because COP claims its “renewable diesel” is chemically equivalent to conventional diesel. If this is true, it’s quite possible that it has a lower cloud point than biodiesel, and so could be used at a broader range of temperatures. In addition, since COP is using conventional refining equipment, they may also be achieving higher energy yields.

According to NREL’s Overview of Petroleum and Biodiesel Lifecycles, Biodiesel conversion requires 80 kJ of energy for every 1000 kJ of energy in the biodiesel, while petro-diesel requires only 64 kJ to produce an equivalent amount of fuel.

With the exception of small biodiesel producers using local and distributed biodiesel feedstocks such as waste vegetable oil from restaurants, I expect that petroleum refineries will end up having an economic advantage making renewable diesel in comparison to conventional biodiesel producers. This means that commodity oils, and fats available in large enough quantities to interest refineries will be bid up in price to a point where less efficient biodiesel producers will be unable to operate profitably.

I have said it before, and I reiterate: Biodiesel’s days are numbered.

Disclosure: I do own ConocoPhillips stock. As does Warren Buffet. And Jim Cramer. Must not forget about Mad Jim Cramer.

Biodiesel’s Green Diesel Nightmare

I have been saying this for months, and others are starting to realize the same thing:

Renewable Diesel: Biodiesel’ s Nightmare

I first heard of this process last October at an NREL presentation (they called it “Green diesel” and could not identify COP as the oil company they were dealing with,) but details remain sketchy. The fact that it refers to the process as a “proprietary thermal depolymerization production technology” and the fact that it is using existing refinery infrastructure should cause alarm to biodiesel firms, and investors.

Why should this cause alarm? Because COP claims its “renewable diesel” is chemically equivalent to conventional diesel. If this is true, it’s quite possible that it has a lower cloud point than biodiesel, and so could be used at a broader range of temperatures. In addition, since COP is using conventional refining equipment, they may also be achieving higher energy yields.

According to NREL’s Overview of Petroleum and Biodiesel Lifecycles, Biodiesel conversion requires 80 kJ of energy for every 1000 kJ of energy in the biodiesel, while petro-diesel requires only 64 kJ to produce an equivalent amount of fuel.

With the exception of small biodiesel producers using local and distributed biodiesel feedstocks such as waste vegetable oil from restaurants, I expect that petroleum refineries will end up having an economic advantage making renewable diesel in comparison to conventional biodiesel producers. This means that commodity oils, and fats available in large enough quantities to interest refineries will be bid up in price to a point where less efficient biodiesel producers will be unable to operate profitably.

I have said it before, and I reiterate: Biodiesel’s days are numbered.

Disclosure: I do own ConocoPhillips stock. As does Warren Buffet. And Jim Cramer. Must not forget about Mad Jim Cramer.

Biodiesel’s Green Diesel Nightmare

I have been saying this for months, and others are starting to realize the same thing:

Renewable Diesel: Biodiesel’ s Nightmare

I first heard of this process last October at an NREL presentation (they called it “Green diesel” and could not identify COP as the oil company they were dealing with,) but details remain sketchy. The fact that it refers to the process as a “proprietary thermal depolymerization production technology” and the fact that it is using existing refinery infrastructure should cause alarm to biodiesel firms, and investors.

Why should this cause alarm? Because COP claims its “renewable diesel” is chemically equivalent to conventional diesel. If this is true, it’s quite possible that it has a lower cloud point than biodiesel, and so could be used at a broader range of temperatures. In addition, since COP is using conventional refining equipment, they may also be achieving higher energy yields.

According to NREL’s Overview of Petroleum and Biodiesel Lifecycles, Biodiesel conversion requires 80 kJ of energy for every 1000 kJ of energy in the biodiesel, while petro-diesel requires only 64 kJ to produce an equivalent amount of fuel.

With the exception of small biodiesel producers using local and distributed biodiesel feedstocks such as waste vegetable oil from restaurants, I expect that petroleum refineries will end up having an economic advantage making renewable diesel in comparison to conventional biodiesel producers. This means that commodity oils, and fats available in large enough quantities to interest refineries will be bid up in price to a point where less efficient biodiesel producers will be unable to operate profitably.

I have said it before, and I reiterate: Biodiesel’s days are numbered.

Disclosure: I do own ConocoPhillips stock. As does Warren Buffet. And Jim Cramer. Must not forget about Mad Jim Cramer.