Photo Credit: Ecoblog
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (8) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
January 8, 2007

Texas Biodiesel Ban Delayed

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality seeks more evidence in debate over nitrogen oxide emission levels.
Austin, Texas [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

The Texas biodiesel industry avoided a major setback on December 23 when the Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) delayed a decision to ban sales of B20 in several major cities because of concerns over nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx). TCEQ said it needed more scientific evidence on the level of NOx emitted from burning biodiesel before it ruled on the issue.

"We are looking at this potential decision very seriously. To be very blunt about it, if Texas follows through then we will immediately move toward Louisiana and Mississippi and we won't build any more facilities in Texas."

-- Brent Kartchner, Co-owner and Director of GeoGreen Fuels

TCEQ wants to halt sales of B20 -- a blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum-based diesel -- because of worries that the fuel will increase levels of NOx in parts of the state. However, it is still unclear how much NOx is actually emitted from B20.

"Because of conflicting reports on the levels of NOx from B20, the commission felt it was in the best interests to hold off and find an answer to this problem," said Morris Brown of the Chief Engineers Office at TCEQ.

Now the biodiesel industry and state regulators await a report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on NOx emission levels from B20. The study, which will take a year or more to complete, could affect the Commission's decision to ban or allow the biodiesel mix.

NOx is a serious problem in certain areas of Texas. In order to help control NOx levels, the Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) program was created. The TxLED program regulates NOx and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions that help form ozone and create smog in populated areas. 110 counties are covered under TxLED, including cities such as Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

The TxLED program has a required composition that diesel fuel must meet. There is currently no biodiesel fuel that is TxLED-certified. Now that the decision has been delayed, the industry has another year to develop a fuel that can meet TxLED requirements.

Pure biodiesel (B100) is not regulated by TxLED because it does not meet the program's regulatory definition of diesel fuel. B100, though, makes up only a small part of the market thus far.

If B20 cannot be used in the areas identified by TxLED, it could paralyze the Texas biodiesel industry, said Brent Kartchner, co-owner and director of GeoGreen Fuels, a Houston-based company that produces 8,000 gallons of biodiesel a day.

"We are looking at this potential decision very seriously. To be very blunt about it, if Texas follows through then we will immediately move toward Louisiana and Mississippi and we won't build any more facilities in Texas," said Kartchner.

Texas will consume around 7.5 billion gallons of diesel fuel this year. Current production capacity for biodiesel in the state is around 98 million gallons a year. Even if that production capacity doubles by the end of 2007 as projected by the National Biodiesel Board, it will only provide a fraction of Texas' diesel needs. But, said Kartchner, the industry is growing extremely fast and it needs every incentive to keep growing.

"Texas is very respected because it's the leader in the biodiesel business and one of the leading producers. What this says is 'it's not good for us, but we'll go ahead and ship it to you other uneducated states -- and good luck.' I think this will be very detrimental to the entire biodiesel industry across the whole country."

But CTEQ's Brown said that Texas is looking out for its environmental interests just like any other state.

"We are looking at this issue because areas of Texas have such bad NOx problems. Other parts of the country may not have the same ozone chemistry that we have -- that's why we are going after the problem," Brown said.

This is the second time a ban on the fuel has been proposed by TCEQ and then been delayed. Because of contradictory government studies looking at NOx emissions from B20, TCEQ has decided not to finalize a decision.

A 2002 EPA study found that NOx levels from B20 were higher than what the current TxLED program allows. However, a study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in 2006 found that "B20 has no net impact on NOx." Robert McCormick, principal engineer for non-petroleum based fuels research at NREL, said that differences in methodology produced different results.

"If you look at the data that [EPA] analyzed, almost half are from studying one engine model. In 2002, knowing what we knew then, that didn't sound like a bad idea," McCormick said. "But in our study we looked at eight types of engines and found a wide variation in emissions of NOx. Some engines showed an increase, but others showed no change or decrease. For the vehicles we tested the average change was zero. Because of the variability, it doesn't make sense to base your conclusions on data sets that are biased toward one engine."

Now the EPA is conducting another study with some assistance from NREL. By reviewing more engine types, the new study may produce results consistent with the 2006 NREL report. If so, the commission could decide that B20 is acceptable under the TxLED program.

"NREL only tested eight engines, which is hardly a representative sample. So we are continuing to test vehicles as opportunities arise. We are also engaged with the EPA to help out with their testing efforts. The TCEQ has essentially said they will hold off until they get more conclusions from the EPA and other studies," said McCormick.

It could be another year or more before a final decision is made. In the meantime, biodiesel producers are continuing operation and many are cautiously looking at expansion. For now the industry can do nothing but move forward and hope that the new EPA study concludes in their favor.

"This limbo is affecting our decision to aggressively expand. But we're excited for the new study and we believe it will find that B20 meets the current standards," said Kartchner.
Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (8)
 
No image available
January 10, 2007
Regarding the first writers comments:
The EPA's own research shows the airborne exhaust emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines burning bio-diesel, made from agricultural and other solid waste, are dramatically reduced. Carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions are both reduced 12% using B20 (20% bio/petro mixture) and 48% using B100 (pure) bio-diesel. Reductions of hydrocarbons are 20% and 77% respectively.
The only thing keeping bio-diesel from being a perfect fuel is that nitrogen oxide emissions (Nox) slightly increase to 3% and 10% respectively. An EPA/NREL report states there is "no increase in ozone levels" from burning bio-diesel.
Jim Duncan
Comment 1 of 8
No image available
January 10, 2007
Simply the fact that the TCEQ is trying to ban bio-diesel in the same state where it is fast-tracking construction of 12 coal-fired electric power plants displays the bias and hyprocity of that agency. Their opinions deserve to be be considered in that light.
Jim Duncan
Comment 2 of 8
No image available
January 10, 2007
...hydrocarbon emissions are 35% higher on a life cycle assessment.

Emissions are 35% higher than what?
Comment 3 of 8
January 10, 2007
In addition to removing 15 acres worth of soybean oil off the futures food market to run your average American car annually, biodiesel has pollution concerns as well. B-100 releases 10% more NOx than diesel at the exhaust and hydrocarbon emissions are 35% higher on a life cycle assessment. Overall, it is cleaner than regular diesel, but people who replace gasoline cars with cars that burn biodiesel are creating a lot of unnecessary air pollution.
Comment 4 of 8
No image available
January 11, 2007
NOx emission directly relates to combustion temperature. Combustion temp is easily controllable to obtain low NOx. NOx is reduced by 50% for each 150 deg F reduction in combustion temp. 2.0#NOx/MBTU at 3400F, 1.0 at 3250, 0.5 at 3100 deg F, 0.25 at 2950 deg F, etc. rule of thumb all else equal.
Why did the EPA test a limited number of high temp engines that emit high NOx? Why did the EPA not test a representative number of well tuned engines?
Big Petro is appeased, Authorities are puzzled, the public is duped once again by accurate but misleading EPA data.
Check and Find EPA listing better mileage in town than on the highway for any one specific Electric Vehicle. Granny knows better. Granny knows the faster you walk the more distance covered & the sooner you arrive. Commuting in heavy traffic or stopped at a traffic light is near zero mpg unless coasting. EPA data may be accurate but extremely misleading.
Comment 5 of 8
No image available
January 11, 2007
Nitrous Oxide in biodiesel specially made thru esterification, could cetainly hazadous to the atmospher, more so, if it is only used as an additive to petro-diesel.

Esterification:
In organic chemistry, transesterification is the process of exchanging the alkoxy group of an ester compound by another alcohol. These reactions are often catalyzed by the addition of an acid or base.

Redox (Redirected from Oxidation)
Redox reactions include all chemical processes in which atoms have their oxidation number (oxidation state) changed.

Combustion of hydrocarbons, e.g. in an internal combustion engine, produces water, carbon dioxide, some partially oxidized forms such as carbon monoxide and heat energy. Complete oxidation of materials containing carbon produces carbon dioxide.

visit: http://www.enkocogreengold.zoomshare.com
Comment 6 of 8
No image available
February 12, 2009
Seems like folks are mixing terms here, nitrous oxide, nitrogen oxide, maybe I even read nitric oxide...

Weren't catalytic converters implemented on gasoline cars to reduce these types of nitrogen compound emissions in mid-70s? weren't exhaust gas recirculation valves implemented as well to cool the combustion chambers as Mr. Clift pointed out. Again, the EPA tested on one engine with no "fuel-specific" tuning and decides a ban is appropriate?!?

Mr. Diores says the nitrous oxide(?) is in biodiesel produced through esterification, wouldn't the nitrogen compound provide oxygen to the combustion process and catalysts could modify the exhaust as gasoline cars are now?

How would hydrogen/oxygen enrichment affect these numbers using B100?
Comment 7 of 8
No image available
February 12, 2009
@Mr. Finley: Food isn't required to make biodiesel unless you are eating palm, rapeseed and/or jatropha.

Would please cite the source for the empirical data to support this statement:

"B-100 releases 10% more NOx than diesel at the exhaust and hydrocarbon emissions are 35% higher on a life cycle assessment. Overall, it is cleaner than regular diesel, but people who replace gasoline cars with cars that burn biodiesel are creating a lot of unnecessary air pollution."
Comment 8 of 8
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Bella Energy ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialties Europe Blue Sky Energy, Inc. GeoGenix LLC Energy Storage Summit KACO new energy, Inc.
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo