Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

New Uses for Old Staples: Butter and Coffee As Biodiesel Feedstocks

By Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor
January 13, 2009   |   66 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"Our farmers have always been stewards of the land, and have made our standard of living possible. Agriculture today provides not only for food, feed and fiber needs, but makes a significant contribution to our fuel needs through renewable products like biodiesel."

-- Michale Noble, President, Lake Erie Biofuels
66 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 66
January 14, 2009
Let's put these numbers into perspective. One thousand pounds of butter will yield about 140 gallons of biodiesel -- about enough for one of the Pennsylvania National Guard's tanks to drive about 140 miles.

To obtain 340 million gallons of biodiesel from the "spent" grounds left over from brewing the world's total coffee production of 16 billion pounds would require a monumental collection effort. It is not going to happen. A more likely maximum is that 1/10th of the grounds could be recovered (i.e., mainly from coffee houses). That 34 million gallons (130 million litres) a year would represent 0.02% of global annual consumption of diesel fuels.

Moreover, to avoid a net energy loss from transporting the coffee grounds, there would have to be biodiesel plants in the neighborhood with the equipment to press and process it. For any one diesel plant, the amount it would likely produce from used coffee grounds would be a tiny fraction of its annual output.

In short, coffee-ground biodiesel, while a nice sounding idea, is unlikely ever to be more than a boutique fuel.
Comment
2 of 66
January 14, 2009
Call it Spin if you want but any move away from conventional thought about fossil fuels is a good move. By the way we currently measure costs, petroleum is 'cheaper' than any other fuel. Making people aware of alternative fuel sources is important.
Comment
3 of 66
January 14, 2009
The "cheaper" oil was, the motive of moving away from naturals or renewable fuels and sources in the first place, the Diesel engine was a dream to power the country using farmers produced oils, this would push the economies, doesn't matter where or if the country was rich or poor, everybody had his share, but, this doesn't go with the egocentric domination international policies of big countries who want to keep the control of all the others countries. fdiazdiaz@yahoo.com
Comment
4 of 66
January 14, 2009
Renewable, sustainable, non-toxic energy alternatives to oil-based fuels is the goal. Butter, corn, coffee, cooking oils, etc. All good out-of-the-box ideas to supplement or replace petroleum fuels for diesel engines. The engine itself was borne from 19th century energy sources. Perhaps it's time to seriously consider a stronger hybrid diesel engine. Coffee ground collection may be difficult at first. So was recycling plastics, paper and metals. So was going to the moon. So is birthing a child. The birth of our energy future will be as difficult as any other transition from legacy thinking and beliefs. There will be debates, battles, wastes, scandals and politics until a commercially viable solution is identified, capitalized and distributed to the mass population of consumers.
Comment
5 of 66
January 14, 2009
"Coffee ground collection may be difficult at first. So was recycling plastics, paper and metals."

The volume of coffee grounds generated by a typical household is a fraction of the weight of the plastics, paper and metals that it discards. Steel can be mixed with other waste and easily separated out with magnets.

Saying that "anything and everything is difficult at the beginning" is no answer. We, as a society, can not afford to embrace every hare-brained idea just because it sounds good, and ignore the economics. Different ways of saving or producing energy vary enormously in terms of cost and cost-effectiveness. In the case of coffee grounds, if it takes more energy to collect and process their oil than the biodiesel that one gets out of them, it is not worth doing from the get go.

I don't know about you all, but I throw my coffee grounds into my compost pile.
Comment
6 of 66
January 14, 2009
Industrial Scale - Waste Veg Oil Biodiesel feedstock comes from the collection of big producers ie Institutions, Restaurants, Food Manufacturers etc. The collection of coffee grounds could be made on the same basis. Stability of grounds overtime would determine how long they could be accumulated to have econoimies of scale.

Regions can ban or require tipping fees for waste oils in landfills - this leads to secondary industries developing to benefit from the opportunity. Compost is good. If the grounds were dry, burning would be good as well.
Comment
7 of 66
January 14, 2009
It's certainly not unexpected, but oh so disappointing to continually encounter the naysayers, especially in a forum like this, and especially at a time when new ideas will, in aggregate, provide the solutions we urgently need. Yes, granted, we KNOW coffee grounds alone will not power the U.S. transportation sector. Got it, thank you. I believe the story was about its potential CONTRIBUTION to same and was not meant as another hype piece, "Hey, we've got the total solution to all our woes right here!"

I believe we must leave off all-or-nothing, bureaucracy-based, behemoth solutions thinking and recognize that the greatest challenge presented by our current circumstances is the very fact that is CANNOT be addressed by enormous, solitary solutions that meet traditional international corporate standards for scalability and profitability.

Though I am not of that generation, I am these days frequently reminded of recent history's (arguably) most amazing story of successfully meeting an urgent national challenge: no, not Apollo (that's a great one, too), but the WWII war effort. It was a truly phenomenal, multi-faceted and all-encompassing effort across all sectors and involved essentially everyone doing whatever they could do, from individuals scavenging for scrap metal to giant airplane factories churning out B-24s. Was there inefficiency? Sure. Was there profiteering? Absolutely. But there was also success. That history can be very instructive to us now as we face potentially more devastating problems and must make all possible efforts, great and small, to meet the challenges.

I, for one, am looking to the small scale, the "guy with an idea" and the coordinated efforts of many hands, to carry us to success.

~Ben
Comment
8 of 66
January 14, 2009
Who is advocating "all-or-nothing, bureaucracy-based, behemoth solutions"? Ever see a supply curve? The one put together by Vattenfall expresses the idea nicely.

http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2007/06/vattenfall.JPG

Though one may argue about the hight or width of Vatenfall's "solutions", the idea is that, as a society, we should concentrate our efforts on things at the left-hand side of the graph, not far out on its right-hand side (which is where, on more-detailed graphs, biodiesel lies).

If somebody wants to make a go at collecting coffee grounds from their local Starbucks and build a business selling pressed oil from those grounds, and soil amendments (or fuel) from what is left over, fine. All power to them. But we're not talking rocket science here: don't expect major technological breakthroughs to reduce production costs.

My point is that we should put this kind of thing into its proper perspective. In many cases, the laws of thermodynamics will prevent coffee-ground biodiesel from being viable. You may wish it otherwise, but wishing does not negate the basic laws of nature.

It would take hundreds of thousands of such "solutions" to replace America's fossil-fuel use. Meanwhile, there are plenty of practical things that people can do now: keep tires properly inflated and reduce gasoline and diesel consumption by 5%; buy a vehicle with a manual transmission, which will improve your fuel economy by 10% in some cases. (A vehicle with a manual transmission even costs less than one with an automatic transmission, to boot). Walk or ride a bicycle. Take a tram or the bus.

This kind of article falls into the "feel good" category. Is that bad? Not per se. But if people are lulled into thinking that solutions that at most could replace a tiny fraction of a percentage of the nation's fossil-fuel consumption is something to get excited about, I fear that they will not pay attention to the real size of the challenge that confronts us.
Comment
9 of 66
January 14, 2009
The statistic of 340 million gallons of biodiesel is included in the article for effect. Unfortunately in this case the effect was fodder for nitpickers. If rendering companies can be profitable collecting used fryer oil and processing it into soap, biodiesel and animal feed, then there is no reason the same can't be done with spent coffee grounds.
Comment
10 of 66
January 14, 2009
Andre Reaves writes, "The statistic of 340 million gallons of biodiesel is included in the article for effect."

Effect? The article says, "scientists estimated, however, that spent coffee grounds can potentially add 340 million gallons of biodiesel to the world's fuel supply."

That is not "for effect", that is irresponsible exaggeration. There is no way, no how, that the world is going to collect 100% of all the used coffee generated across the world, and turn it into biodiesel.

I would be happy to see companies profitably collecting spent coffee grounds and turning it into biodiesel. But it depends on what you mean by "profitable". Currently, U.S. producers of biodiesel produced from waste oils benefit from the federal $0.50/gallon blenders credit, plus in many states an additional subsidy -- $0.75/gallon in Pennsylvania, for example, and $1.00/gallon in Kentucky. That is to say, the subsidies available to producers in some states now exceed the market value of the fuel itself. Many producers make money only by then exporting the biodiesel to Europe where, thanks to exemptions from high excise taxes on transport fuels, biodiesel commands a higher price.

With those kinds of subsidies available, it may be profitable for some companies to consume more energy collecting and processing the coffee grounds than the energy they extract from the coffee-bean oil. Is somebody here going to argue that would still be good for the environment?

Again, I have no quarrel with somebody truly making a profit turning coffee grounds into fuel. But I think readers would be better served if the editors of these articles dispense with the exaggeration and adopt a more dispassionate tone towards developments such as the ones being reported on here.
Comment
11 of 66
January 15, 2009
Using a thousand pounds of food to make a sculpture strikes me as being a very American thing to do. Can't speak for anyone else but I was taught not to waste food. You could argue that using food to fuel a war to protect our oil supply isn't a waste but I would disagree. If the unobtainable dream of liquid fuel independence floats your boat, the most patriotic thing you can do is drive a car that cuts average American fuel use in half by doubling average gas mileage. Very few people out there reading this have bothered. All hat no cattle. Replacing the diesel in your SUV or pickup truck with biodiesel subsidized to the tune of a buck a gallon is welfare for farmers and does not make a dent in our liquid fuel supply.

"….Our farmers have always been stewards of the land, and have made our standard of living possible. Agriculture today provides not only for food, feed and fiber needs, but makes a significant contribution to our fuel needs through renewable products like biodiesel…."

Stewards of the land? A modern industrial farm is a giant sterilized swath of dirt. It is one species away from being as biologically impoverished as a mall parking lot. By plying that dirt with petroleum-derived pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers they grow commodities. If by standard of living you mean low food prices, you can't thank our farmers for that. They want higher food prices because they aren't stupid and are getting them thanks to successful lobbying efforts by the biofuel industry and subsidies from fellow citizens. Significant contribution? Biodiesel provides a fraction of a percent of our liquid fuel.
Comment
12 of 66
January 15, 2009
"…Lake Erie Biofuels has partnered with Penn State and Pennsylvania farmers in the state to expand the kinds of crops, including camelina and canola, available for the state's farmers…."

"Partnered with" means they are interested in local oilseed crops. As is the case in Washington State, they will buy whatever is cheapest regardless of who grows it or where they grow it. What they fail to tell us is how much biodiesel was actually made from these experimental cover crops. Was it 0.1% or 0.001% making the rest of the biodiesel made from food crops? Biodiesel refiners across the country are starting to use this tactic. Blend a tiny amount of locally grown canola oil into the supply and then use that fact to market the fuel as locally grown from cover crops when in reality 99% is from conventional food crops brought in by rail or tanker ship from wherever the cheapest stock can be found. It's all about the cost of feedstock.

Source: http://www.ebw-expo.com/conf/camelinaproject_hunter.pdf

"…Spent coffee grounds contain between 11 and 20 percent oil by weight..."

To put the coffee grounds idea into perspective, take a look at your can of coffee. Picture 10% of it becoming oil. Picture the gallon of oil your grounds would produce in a year. Picture the 30 miles you could travel out of the 12,000 the average American drives a year. Picture how much effort and energy it would take to make.

"…That's about as much as traditional biodiesel feedstocks such as rapeseed, palm and soybean oil…"

That above statement is nonsensical. These crops all produce radically different amounts of oil per acre.
Comment
13 of 66
January 15, 2009
"….To verify it, the scientists collected spent coffee grounds from a multinational coffeehouse chain and separated the oil. They then used an inexpensive process to convert 100 percent of the oil into biodiesel…."

How expensive was it to create this oil? And this "inexpensive" process used to make the oil into biodiesel was the same process everybody uses to make biodiesel from vegetable oil. You warm it and mix it with a catalyst. This sentence is also nonsensical. Most of this article is unsubstantiated gibberish.


"…Solids left over from the conversion can be converted to ethanol or used as compost, they noted in their report,…"

The solids could have been used as compost to displace a petroleum derived fertilizer from the start and in theory, any cellulose can be made into ethanol, you just can't do it and make a profit.

"...The scientists estimate that the process could make a profit of more than US $8 million a year in the U.S. alone. They plan to develop a small pilot plant to produce and test the experimental fuel within the next six to eight months...."

Get back to us when you turn a profit. Until that happens, this is just another goofy idea along with the millions of others we all read about every day.
Comment
14 of 66
January 15, 2009
"…Biodiesel is a growing market. Estimates suggest that annual global production of biodiesel will hit the 3 billion gallon mark by 2010. The fuel can be made from soybean oil, palm oil, peanut oil and other vegetable oils; animal fat; and even cooking oil recycled from restaurants. Biodiesel can be added to regular diesel fuel or can be a stand-alone fuel, used by itself as an alternative fuel for diesel engines…."

All true but missing from this factoid are all of the latest studies showing that biodiesel made from food crops are worse for global warming than oil and also exacerbate food prices. World population is expected to increase by three billion people. It's a dead end idea picked by our politicians at taxpayer's expense. Energy efficiency is the only way out of this mess, not attempting to replace gas with biofuel in our SUVs.
Comment
15 of 66
January 15, 2009
The practical implimentation here would be to add 'waste' products containing oils as feedstock into an existing oil extraction plant. This approach could reduce the cost of the oil. IF this makes economic and environmental sense to do this than what's the issue?

If you have to engage in long-haul trucking and expensive handling of the coffee grounds, it does not make sense to go this way - So Don't. It is very interesting to consider alternative feedstocks for biofuel production.
Comment
16 of 66
January 15, 2009
Wow, it seems almost as though some posters here have an emotional stake in decrying biodiesel as an alternative fuel. Why the fury? It will take many small efforts to reach the goals of energy independence, fossil fuel reduction (perhaps eventual elimination), and per capita energy consumption drops without standard-of-living decreases.

And government action and spending has a place on that road, But, curiously, while mention was made above of current subsidies supporting profit-minded biodiesel companies, none was made of the massive, entrenched subsidies that are part and parcel of the fossil oil industry. Is that because we take them so much for granted that they seem to disappear? I think so. But they're still there!

Government SHOULD promote alternative fuels (and conservation and efficiency improvements) with subsidies to help them compete in the marketplace. Our unfortunate implementation of government, however, (with massive lobbying and public offices for sale to the highest bidder) managed to retain the subsidies which put oil into its present omnipotent position. Those subsidies should be removed via the Carbon Tax.

With respect to seemingly insignificant efforts, Mr. Steenblik correctly notes that "It would take hundreds of thousands of such 'solutions' to replace America's fossil-fuel use." Hear, hear. Let them begin and let's help them to flourish. Those with the strength to survive will do so, even in niche markets. There's plenty of room at the huge energy table.
Comment
17 of 66
January 15, 2009
Mr. Gorman, you did not answer the question:

With the kinds of subsidies available for biodiesel, it may be profitable for some companies to consume more energy collecting and processing the coffee grounds than the energy they extract from the coffee-bean oil. Are you arguing that that would still be good for the environment?

As for subsidies to petroleum, nobody here is defending them. Let's get rid of them. But two wrongs don't make a right. And, just for the record, even if one takes the higher end of the estimates of annual subsidies to petroleum ($39 billion), divided over the 317 billion gallons of petroleum consumed in the United States each year that comes to $0.123 per gallon -- a lot less than the current rate for cellulosic ethanol ($ 1.01/gallon, or $1.51 per gallon of gasoline equivalent) and biodiesel made from virgin agricultural materials ($ 1.00/gallon). The country simply cannot afford to take a supply side approach and subsidize the replacement of its petroleum consumption.
Comment
18 of 66
January 16, 2009
There are a couple things the wet blankets of this site are not considering. Ronal STEENBLICK writes, "Moreover, to avoid a net energy loss from transporting the coffee grounds, there would have to be biodiesel plants in the neighborhood with the equipment to press and process it. For any one diesel plant, the amount it would likely produce from used coffee grounds would be a tiny fraction of its annual output."
The energy to truck the coffee grounds to the biodiesel plant is irrelevant. The coffee grounds are not currently being teleported to the landfill so that is a push provided these plants are set up near population centers with many coffee houses.
Secondly SUVs do not use diesel, commercial trucks do. Regardless of the habits of American car buyers (by the way dealerships can't give SUVs away right now) solutions need to be found to replace petroleum based diesel. And since this site is not alternativeevergysilverbullet.com or coldfusionholygrail.com I would like to read about many possible contributions to the solution even if they would play a small part.
Comment
19 of 66
January 16, 2009
I do not agree that "the energy to truck the coffee grounds to the biodiesel plant is irrelevant." Yes, often coffee grounds are currently trucked with unseparated organic waste. But there are economies of scale in that. If the grounds had to be separated, and trucked to a separate biodiesel plant, there could be additional transport involved. If the grounds are separated and transported to a biodiesel plant at the normal disposal site, the amounts involved for any one plant are going to be very small, and unit costs high.

Take 16 billion pounds of coffee consumed in the world each year and assume that the United States consumes 1/6 of that. The theoretical maximum biodiesel yield from those grounds is 57 million gallons a year. Divide that by around 400 metropolitan areas with 100,000 or greater population (accounting for somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% of the population), and you end up with plants that produce, on average, little more than 100,000 gallons per plant per year. That, in the biodiesel business, is boutique scale.

If, as John Houk suggests, one could arrange some land-fills to separate a stream containing all vegetable-oil-containing waste, great. I'm looking forward to the first commercial application.

By the way, the original U. of Nevada authors of the study estimated the biodiesel prodution would be profitable at a biodiesel price of $4.50 per gallon and a pellet price of $225 per ton. The current retail price (the producer's price would be lower) of biodiesel is $2.50 (it would be even lower without the blenders credit), and a more typical price for wood pellets is $150. At these prices, the economics of their theoretical coffee-ground biodiesel & pellet plant fall apart. And, in their case, they were assuming only that coffee grounds woould be collected from big coffee houses (yielding less than 3 million gallons annually). The extra costs of keeping household coffee grounds separate from other wastes would not be insignificant.
Comment
20 of 66
January 16, 2009
Some SUVs (and pick-up trucks) certainly do run on diesel, especially in Europe. (The article talks about world potential, not just the United States). But point taken: the major demand for diesel fuel around the world is for fueling large trucks. Currently, there are many techniques (including better routing, add-ons to improve aerodynamics) for reducing their consumption that are much more cost-effective than biodiesel.
Comment
21 of 66
January 18, 2009
Aso of September last year, the National Biodiesel Board listed one (1) commercial biodiesel plant in the 100,000 gallons-per-year size in the United States: Gortman Biofuel in Winston-Salem, NC:

www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/producers_marketers/Producers%20Map-Existing.pdf

Gortman Biofuel's web site (www.gortmanbiofuel.com) appears no longer to be in operation.
Comment
22 of 66
January 21, 2009
From Benjamin Gorman:
------"Wow, it seems almost as though some posters here have an emotional stake in decrying biodiesel as an alternative fuel. Why the fury? It will take many small efforts to reach the goals of energy independence, fossil fuel reduction (perhaps eventual elimination), and per capita energy consumption drops without standard-of-living decreases."--------

You hit the nail squarely on the head with that one Ben!

Here's the real kicker about biofuels for all you naysayer gloom and doom it cann't replace all of our energy needs bauble heads. With biofuels, we don't NEED to replace ALL of our energy needs. We can begin today and replace any amount of our oil consumption we choose. If it is only 1%, we can blend biofuels to do that, 10%, 20%, 30%-----we can blend biofuels with current petroleum to do that with no problem. We can end up replacing all or any amount of petroleum usage that we need and choose to. And we can do it with little or no change the existing manufacturing, vehicle, storage, distribution and repair/maintance system.
Try doing that with electric, natural gas, rubber band, or kiddy pedal cars you all seem to be so in love with.
Theodore Roosevelt said, "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." With biofuels we can do SOMETHING, right here, right now, and we can build on that to whatever level we need to.

Compared to what we can do with biofuels, other technogies are just wishful thinking and procrastination. Dogs that lay in the road eventually get run over----probably by a truck running on biodiesel.
Comment
23 of 66
January 22, 2009
From Ron S.-------" That, in the biodiesel business, is boutique scale."-----

What is wrong with that? Putting a fuel in your vehicle that makes the exhaust smell like coffee brewing or french fries cooking doesn't sound any sillier to me than scented bathroom tissue. In fact----go stand around in a parking garage, or a bus transfer terminus sometime and breathe the air a little while-----you'll probably be ready for some botique biofuel in the tanks. You wouldn't have to have all the oil from used coffee grounds, just enough to impart the scent.
Comment
24 of 66
January 22, 2009
As usual, Fred Linn completely ignores economics.

Governments, and people, are subject to budget constraints. Fred, and several other commentators here, seem to think that the way to approach problems is to do everything at once, relying on the magic of OPM (other people's money). How many of you commentators here are planning to use your own time and money to produce coffee-ground biodiesel, eh? Come on, don't be shy!

My point here is that the economics of coffee-grounds biodiesel do not add up (see my previous comment about the price assumptions in the original article), and that the authors have grossly exaggerated its potential. Nobody looks at the sun shining on America and claims that the total potential for all of the country is the energy that would be produced if every single square meter of land and water were covered with a solar collector. But that is, essentially, what the authors of the study have done by claiming that the world potential for coffee-ground biodiesel is 340 million gallons a year.

The scale of the biodiesel plants matters, Fred. There are fixed costs -- like those related to laboratory testing, accounting, building maintenance, etc. -- that drive up unit costs tremendously as one gets down to the scale of plants that produce only 100,000 gallons per year. If you are a producer operating at that scale, you are going to have a hard time competing with producers operating plants 1,000 times that size. That's the reality, folks.

If somebody wants to go out and try to make a business of producing and selling coffee-ground biodiesel, all power to them. (I look forward to smelling the aroma of roasted coffee in the morning.) But if you expect the government to underwrite your efforts, I should hope that it would weigh your application against other options. If it does, I doubt it would conclude that coffee-grounds biodiesel is cost-effective, and thus worth wasting taxpayers' money on.
Comment
25 of 66
January 22, 2009
-------"As usual, Fred Linn completely ignores economics."--------

Economics is only important to you Ron. People want what they want. There is nothing "economic" about suburbs that spread for miles and miles and miles with yards and fences---but everyone wants their own piece of the American dream and a fortress against the world. There is nothing "economic" about that. People want hot sports cars that go from 0-60 in 4.9 seconds and can do 150 miles per hour---even though there is no concievable place or situation to ever need that kind of power. People want SUV's that can pull boats larger than navy ships. People want luxury cars that have everything to announce their coming except a police escort.

The only thing that matters about overhead costs---is what you can sell any particular item for. If you can sell your product for more than it costs to produce it, you will show a profit. When any item is profitable to produce, it will be produced, regardless of whether YOU think it is "economic" or not. If people want SUV's able to pull a small ocean liner over the mountains----and they can and are willing to pay for it----then to THEM it is "economic"----they will pay for it because that is what they want. It does not matter in the least what YOU think of them or their decisions---it is THEIR decision based on what they want. Nobody cares what you think about what they want---they want it anyway. In fact, usually, the more you tell them they cann't have something, the more they will want it.

The secret to saving the environment, the social structure, the economy, and the political systems of the world is to find ways to provide people what they want, in ways that do no harm, and are sustainable and renewable.

Biofuels are one way of doing that. Wind, solar and geothermal power are too.
Comment
26 of 66
January 23, 2009
I nominate Fred Linn for Santa Claus. A chicken in every pot! A Ferrari SUV in every driveway!

Fred: I have said again and again, if somebody can produce biofuels from watses, without creating greater harm to the environment than the petroleum fuels the biofuel would displace, and without subsidies, I'm all for it. (However, as soon as subsidies or mandates are involved, you have moved beyond a scenario in which "it is THEIR decision" alone.) If somebody can create biodiesel from earwax, and make a profit, great.

But this blog is supposed to provide hard facts, not fantasies. And it is highly unlikely that we will ever see profitable coffee-grounds biodiesel (unless heavily subsidized) for the reasons I have outlined above.
Comment
27 of 66
January 23, 2009
---------"And it is highly unlikely that we will ever see profitable coffee-grounds biodiesel (unless heavily subsidized) for the reasons I have outlined above."----------

Profitable has NOTHING to do with your idea of economic. There is nothing "economic" about buying a designer sweatshirt with a name emblazoned on it and walking around being a human billboard for $40 when you could buy exactly the same sweatshirt with nothing on it for $6. But people do it anyway----and it is HIGHLY PROFITABLE for the designer and his company.

I thought you were supposed to be an "expert" on subsidies and mandates. You don't seem like much of an expert to me if you cann't tell the difference between a tariff and a subsidy.

------"I nominate Fred Linn for Santa Claus. A chicken in every pot! A Ferrari SUV in every driveway!"----------

I accept the nomination. And when elected, the chickens will be fed with DDG and the SUV's powered with ethanol that is left over from making the DDG.

So, what is YOUR plan?
Comment
28 of 66
January 24, 2009
Well, Fred, I concede that if Starbucks can find people willing to buy little 8-oz vials of coffee-grounds biodiesel (CGB) for the equivalent of $20/gallon, it might be able to turn a tidy profit. But if CGB has to compete with biodiesel made from vegetable oils in much, much larger plants, and sold as a bulk commodity on the basis of (quality-adjusted) price, I doubt it will be profitable. If somebody ends up proving me wrong, I'll shake their hand in congratulations.

"You don't seem like much of an expert to me if you cann't tell the difference between a tariff and a subsidy." -- Fred Linn

If you're going to engage in name calling over who is an expert, and who is not, Fred, I should think a healthy dose of humility on your part is in order. I gather that you haven't yet read my comment on your preposperous assertion that ethanol is a byproduct of DDGs production (rather than the other way around).

www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=54447

(Hint: one does not invest tens of millions of $$s in a plant to create a product [DDG] that sells for little or no more than the price of its raw material [corn].)

But since you raised the issue of tariffs and subsidies (from a previous conversation), I'll try once again to explain. Tariffs and subsidies (e.g., government grants) are different in how they are administered, of course. The former creates transfers from consumers to producers, the latter from taxpayers to producers. But their effects on stimulating production can be similar if not identical. The WTO refers to "support" being confered by both tariffs and subsidies. People will often simply say that an industry (like corn ethanol) is subsidized (rather than "supported") by tariff protection and subsidies. Their semantics may be wrong, but they understand that tariffs and subsidies are both forms of industry assistance. Both are incorporated into metrics such as the Producer Subsidy Equivalent and the Effective Rate of Assistance.
Comment
29 of 66
January 24, 2009
The difference is where the money comes from.

In the case of oil, the money would come from retailers bringing the oil into the country. As you pointed out, this would have the effect of increasing the price of petroleum. However, consumers could choose to substitute biofuels instead of petroleum. Those who do choose to use biofuels would not pay a tax. There is nothing wrong with politicians who protect the interests of their constituents(taxpayers). That is what they are supposed to do. Reducing petroleum use with biofuels would have the effect of reducing pollution caused by petroleum use and lowering government costs to limit pollution effects, thus lowering taxes to everyone.

-------"If you're going to engage in name calling over who is an expert, and who is not, Fred, I should think a healthy dose of humility on your part is in order. I gather that you haven't yet read my comment on your preposperous assertion that ethanol is a byproduct of DDGs production (rather than the other way around)."-------------

If you want to impress me with your lofty intellectual superiority, learn to spell. It is preposterous. I may be a country boy who whose only experience is feeding animals----but I can spell.

So, what is YOUR plan?
Comment
30 of 66
January 24, 2009
So, Fred, you NEVER make typographical mistakes, eh?

And I don't understand to what your first paragraph refers. Are you picking up from another conversation?
Comment
31 of 66
January 24, 2009
So, what is YOUR plan?
Comment
32 of 66
January 24, 2009
Fred: I am not a politician, so I don't have "a plan", only ideas and opinions. But if I were making policy, I would certainly start by eliminating all production-related (and consumption-related) subsidies for transport fuels (petroleum AND biofuels), and the import tariff on ethanol, and biofuel mandates.

I would I would phase in a carbon tax of $50 per tonne of CO2-equivalent (a bit over $0.50/gallon of gasoline), say over five years, on top of the current excise taxes (the revenues from which are already earmarked for the Highway Trust Fund). This carbon tax would be introduced in a revenue-neutral way, as is being done in British Columbia:

www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2008/bfp/default.html#5

I would continue to support research into alternative transport options, including biofuels made from non-food crops, but endeavor to ensure that this R&D support was not crowding out R&D support from other viable options. I would also support research into ways to reduce the accidents between bicycles, light personal vehicles, and heavy goods vehicles. (Many of the world's most fuel-efficient cars are fuel efficient because they are made with light materials.)

I would also help fund increased education on energy conservation, including "eco-driving".

www.ecodrive.org
Comment
33 of 66
January 24, 2009
--------"I would I would phase in a carbon tax of $50 per tonne of CO2-equivalent (a bit over $0.50/gallon of gasoline), say over five years, on top of the current excise taxes (the revenues from which are already earmarked for the Highway Trust Fund)."---------

Raise taxes. Always a popular move. And one that will not address the problem of greenhouse gas effect because it taxes ALL carbon fuels---greenhouse effect is caused by fossil fuels, not biofuels. It also does not address the problem of economic damage caused by petroleum imports. It would simply make any energy use more expensive.
A tariff on petroleum products is still a tax. However, with biofuels taxpayers would have an option of usng a biofuel and not paying a tax. Something that would have a much more likely chance of success in passing. The import tax on ethanol is not likely to change. It was put into place to protect US farmers from cheap ethanol from Brazil made from sugar cane flooding the market and undercutting US production capacity as happened with beef. This assumes a limited market size. When market demand is expanding, this consideration is less important. As biofuel production expands and availability becomes more widespread, demand will increase-----people cann't buy or use biofuels if they are not available. When biofuels are available in sufficient quantities to be widely available, they can be blended with petroleum in any proportion necessary to meet consumtion needs. Given a tariff tax on petroleum, and an alternative fuel that does the same thing and does not have a tax, I think drivers for the most part will choose to use the blend. And they will choose to use the blend with the lowest % of petroleum they can get. Biofuel markets will expand, imported petroleum market will contract(domestic petroleum market will expand---no tariff). Good for taxpayers, environment, and government.
Comment
34 of 66
January 24, 2009
Fred, will you read up on carbon tax proposals, for cripes sakes. Biofuels would only be taxed proportional to the GHG emissions they generate in their PRODUCTION, not from their combustion (on the standard assumption that the CO2 released is proportional to the CO2 absorbed by the plants from which they are made). Under a carbon tax, cellulosic ethanol would hardly be taxed, or not taxed at all. Corn ethanol would probably pay a tax at least half of the tax on gasoline.
Comment
35 of 66
January 24, 2009
That is getting better. It is still too complicated. It would make tax rates subject to complicated formulas, conjecture, confusion, and make objective measurement of results impossible.

I think that a straight foward import tariff on imported oil is best. It would decrease import deficits, increase tax reveues, not affect domestic oil production(if anything, it would increase domestic production by making it more profitable), results would be easily measurable and quantifiable by import and production statistics-----and consumers can avoid paying taxes if they wish to by switching to biofuels or a blend of petroleum and biofuel.

Natural gas is another matter. It would raise prices on natural gas. Natural gas is the perfect fuel to replace coal. Clean, efficient, and easily extracted---no stripmining to destroy the earth and water sheds. It is still a fossil fuel---but it is exactly the same thing as biomethane. Since methane absorbs 17X as much heat as CO2---using natural gas with as little as 6% biomethane added would reduce greenhouse gas effects in the atmosphere.
Switching from coal to natural gas would eliminate stripmines, water pollution from mines---one of the largest causes of pollution, particulate pollution(methane is a gas), and the problem of ash and cinder disposal. Ask people in Tennesse if that is important. Using natural gas with anything over 6% biomethane mix will go a long way to solving multiple environmental problems, AND the more biomethane we mix in, the more we reduce atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Comment
36 of 66
January 25, 2009
"It [a carbon tax] is still too complicated. It would make tax rates subject to complicated formulas, conjecture, confusion, and make objective measurement of results impossible." -- Fred Linn

I'm afraid it's too late to worry about that, Fred. The Renewable Fuels Standard already sets minimum values for how much various biofuels reduce greenhouse-gas emissions on a life-cycle basis if they are to count against the standard:

www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/standard/

And fuels sold in California, under its low-carbon fuel standard, will also have life-cycle GHG values determined for them (in order to know how much of a reduction fuel suppliers can count from using biofuels).

All of these determinations will require "complicated formulas", as you describe them.

The beauty about a carbon tax, however, is that the tax would be paid at source. So most of the tax paid on biofuels would already be incorporated into the diesel used to run the tractors, and the natural gas used to distill the ethanol (or the methanol used in making biodiesel). The only complication comes in dealing with N2O emissions from fertilizer use, and carbon loss (or sequestration) related to cultivation and land conversion (including indirect land conversion).

I am surprised that you are still sticking to your idea of an crude-oil import tariff (actually, import tariffs, since presumably petroleum products would also be subject to a stiff tariff). As I have argued before, it would be nigh impossible without provoking a major trade war (especially with countries with which the United States has bilateral free-trade agreements), if not the collapse of the WTO. If you are one of those people who believe that other countries should honor their international commitments, but that the United States is somehow special and need not, then you should say so.

You should also acknowledge that a $50/barrel import tariff would create a $90 billion/year windfall for U.S. oil producers.
Comment
37 of 66
January 26, 2009
Tractors can run on biodiesel just fine, exactly the same as petroleum.
Any source of heat can be used to distill alcohol, it can be electrical, solar, even wood or grass. In Brazil the baggasse that the sugar syrup has been extracted from(crushed cane) is used to fuel the distillation process.

------"The only complication comes in dealing with N2O emissions from fertilizer use, "----------

Then don't use petroleum based fertilizer. There are two leftover products from biofuel production, ash(thermal, Fischer-Tropsch) or compost(enzymatic) or animal feed(which eventually becomes compost). These are all fertilizers that nature has used for billions of years to enrich the soil. Long before man came along. We also do not need fossil fuels to produce ammonium nitrate. It is produced from methane---and we can produce methane from biologic sources.

-------"I am surprised that you are still sticking to your idea of an crude-oil import tariff (actually, import tariffs, since presumably petroleum products would also be subject to a stiff tariff). As I have argued before, it would be nigh impossible without provoking a major trade war (especially with countries with which the United States has bilateral free-trade agreements), "-----------

If we use biofuels, and we have no need to import oil---exactly how would a major trade war hurt us? You think we should go bankrupt and continue to destroy our economy, our environment and our security because Nigeria or Lybia might get mad and boycott US goods? I don't think that would hurt us much.

------"You should also acknowledge that a $50/barrel import tariff would create a $90 billion/year windfall for U.S. oil producers."--------

Why should I acknowledge that? If it were true---oil lobbyists in Washington would have been CLAMORING for a crude oil import tariff LONG ago----and I'm sure the Bush administration would have been MORE than happy to oblige.
Comment
38 of 66
January 27, 2009
"Then don't use petroleum based fertilizer." -- Fred Linn

That's the point, Fred: if there were a carbon tax that took account of ALL greenhouse-gas emissions, then producers of biomass feedstock would have an incentive to use fertilizer judiciously, and in a way that minimized emissions of N2O. Producers of biofuels using municipal waste would not be penalized for N2O emissions at all.
Comment
39 of 66
January 27, 2009
"Why should I acknowledge that [a $50/barrel import tariff would create a $90 billion/year windfall for U.S. oil producers]? If it were true, oil lobbyists in Washington would have been CLAMORING for a crude oil import tariff LONG ago. And I'm sure the Bush administration would have been MORE than happy to oblige." -- Fred Linn

Fred, just do the math: 1.84 billion barrels of oil production a year x $50/barrel = $92 billion/year.

The reason lobbyists in Washington have NOT been clamoring for a crude-oil import tariff, I suspect, are twofold:

[1] They know that it would require the United States to abrogate all its trade commitments and would likely provoke a major trade and diplomatic war -- not just with Nigeria and Libya, but with friendly countries like Canada (No. 1 supplier of crude oil to the United States), Mexico (3), Ecuador (8), Brazil (10), Colombia (11) and the United Kingdom (12). The imports from the lower-ranked countries may seem like small potatoes for the United States, but the loss of a market worth $4 billion per year to a country like Ecuador is not. The EU, which is a major supplier of diesel to the United States, would also be pretty pissed off.

[2] They know that such a move would be EXTREMELY unpopular with the public, who would grasp its implications faster than you seem to have. Let me say it again: it would create a HUGE transfer of money from American consumers to domestic oil producers. The public backlash would probably force Congress to either abandon the idea or slap on a windfall profits tax, leaving the industry no better off than it was before.

It is not the Bush Administration or indeed any administration that changes the general tariff, but Congress. The Executive Branch can only levy temporary countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties (against specific goods from specific countries).

You treat these problems with your proposal lightly, Fred. But, I can assure you, responsible people in government would not.
Comment
40 of 66
January 27, 2009
----"You treat these problems with your proposal lightly, Fred. But, I can assure you, responsible people in government would not."--------

If we use biofuels, we have no need to import oil.

If there is no market, there can be no trade war.

If we use biofuels, domestic oil producers will have to either get into the biofuel market, or go bankrupt. They won't be able to sell oil in a market that does not use oil. There might be windfall profits at the begining of the transition, but the wind will blow those profits away just as fast as they blew them in when the transition gains momentum.

I don't see any of the dire consequences you postulate happening, at least not for very long.

What I do see happening though, is a way to get our troops home. Without the need for oil, there is very little reason for us to maintain a large presence in the Middle East. If we switch to biofuels, and have no need for oil and the income it generates, we remove the most potent weapon terrorists have against us. They cann't attack us if we aren't there.
Comment
41 of 66
January 28, 2009
Fred, are you changing the subject again, or just fantasizing?

"If we use biofuels, we have no need to import oil. If there is no market, there can be no trade war."

Now you're sounding like the stereotypical economist -- problem solved: "assume a can opener".

www.callipygia600.com/callnugget/alljokes/econmist.htm

Here you are assuming instant, unlimited supplies of biofuels.

Just to bring you back to reality, one would have to use a HUGE amount of biofuels available to forgo importing oil (and oil products) -- not just to replace gasoline, but also diesel fuel and jet fuel. U.S. oil consumption is 317 billion gallons a year, of which about 75% is imported. Ignoring imbalances among products, that means that biofuel use is not going to get anywhere 240 billion gallons -- let's even reduce that target to 180 billion gallons, assuming aggressive conservation and (gasp!) increased use of hybrid vehicles -- any time soon.

Indeed, the EIA has forecast that it doubts that the United States could produce all that is required to meet the Renewable Fuels Standard for 2022 (36 billion gallons). Obviously, imports of ethanol from Brazil and elsewhere could help bridge that gap. So are you now for dropping the import tariff on ethanol?

So, unless you know of a magic wand somewhere, the capacity to provide biofuels to U.S. customers will be nowhere near enough to obviate the need for oil imports for many years. So imposing a significant import tariff on crude oil and products (e.g., $50/barrel), WOULD disrupt trade in oil, and WOULD risk provoking a trade war.

By the way, in case you were under the delusion that a $50/barrel import tariff (or, indeed, a $0.50/gallon carbon tax) would make biofuels cheaper than petroleum products, it wouldn't. (Mainly it would make them more profitable.) There might be the occasional time and place where biofuels would be cheaper, but not for long: their prices would be bid up to that of the marginal supplier.
Comment
42 of 66
January 28, 2009
"What I do see happening though, is a way to get our troops home. Without the need for oil, there is very little reason for us to maintain a large presence in the Middle East."

There would be less reason, but the United States and its allies are not in Afghanistan because of oil. And there is the little issue of Israel that keeps U.S. troops in the area. Not to mention Iran (see below).

"If we switch to biofuels, and have no need for oil and the income it generates, we remove the most potent weapon terrorists have against us. They cann't attack us if we aren't there."

First, see my comment above about the time frame for "switching to biofuels".

If your theory (shared by many, for sure) that if we stop buying oil we'll stop terrorism, then how do you account for the danger posed by Iran? How much oil is the United States buying from Iran? Answer: zilch.
Comment
43 of 66
January 28, 2009
------"Here you are assuming instant, unlimited supplies of biofuels."-------

It has been done before. Germany ramped up production of synthetic and biofuel production in the middle of a world war using Fischer-Tropsch process in less than two years, under continuous Allied bombing, the US by day, and British by night. We already have diesels that require no changes, we already have Flex Fuel in production and have had for years, and even conventional gas only vehicles can run on a blend of up to E-30. The only changes needed needed to storage and distribution are cleaning out tanks and pipelines that are contaminated with sludge and varnishes from petroleum, and replacing cheap gaskets that are not suited to the added solvency of biofuels. If Germany could do it---we can do it.

Not only that, we already have a large supply of ethanol in the pipeline. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 9-10 bilion gallons. We have somewhere over 200 paper pulp mills producing liquor from paper pulp production from which ethanol was produced commercially over 100 years ago in both the US and Germany. Not only that, paper mills are being closed down due lack of demand for paper---Weyerhauser is closing two in Washington state near putting something like 3400 workers out of jobs was in yesterday's paper. I'd rather keep 3400 American workers on their jobs and put 3400 Iranians out of jobs in oilfields. If Iran cann't sell oil because the market has collapsed because America has switched to biofuels and no longer needs oil---where are they going to get the money to build nuclear reactors.
Comment
44 of 66
January 28, 2009
---------"The pulp and paper industry is uniquely positioned to immediately produce significant amounts of biofuels, bioenergy and bioproducts. With a mature, operating infrastructure capable of delivering double-digit billions of gallons of biofuels annually, generally without adding any new fiber processing capacity, many pulp and paper mills around the world are only a one-step investment away from becoming major renewable energy producers. Especially important, paper industry capacity that can be re-aligned and re-purposed toward bioenergy co-production would be 100% cellulosic feedstock based, with no agricultural attachments at all. "----------

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53239#readercomments

Ron, why don't you quit whining about all the things we cann't do.........the truth is, there is nothing we cann't do. If we cann't do something one way, we can do it another way.
Comment
45 of 66
January 28, 2009
BTW---oil is a very inefficient means of producing energy. It has to be transported vast distances because of growing scarcity and difficulty to extract---and it is getting more and more expensive to produce all the time. Cheap, easy to get at oil is gone.
Considering increasingly distant supplies, greater difficulty of extraction, and increasing refining costs because quality is declining----it now takes 1.23 MBTUs of crude oil production to produce 1MBTU of product. In other words, to put 10 gallons of gasoline in your car's tank requires producing 22.3 gallons of crude oil.
Comment
46 of 66
January 28, 2009
Fred, it is a full-time job correcting your erroneous comments.

"[I]t now takes 1.23 MBTUs of crude oil production to produce 1MBTU of product. In other words, to put 10 gallons of gasoline in your car's tank requires producing 22.3 gallons of crude oil."

You misunderstand what the people who produce life-cycle analyses of the energy balances mean by their figures. Here is the numbers produced by Farrell et al. (2006).

http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/summary.html

I am not quibbling here over whether the MJ of fossil energy needed for each MJ of gasoline is 1.19 or 1.23 -- I'll accept the latter figure as more representative of today. But it does not mean that "to put 10 gallons of gasoline in your car's tank requires producing 22.3 gallons of crude oil." What it means is that when you consume 10 gallons of gasoline, you are, in a sense, consuming 12.3 gallons of gasoline-equivalent worth of fossil fuels -- the 10 that you consume as gasoline, plus another 2.3 in the form of fossil energy used to explore for, drill, transport and refine the crude.

Look also at the Net Fossil Ratio: the MJs of fuel produced for each MJ of fossil input required. According to Farrell et al. it is 0.84, which means that for every 10 gallons of fossil fuels you start out with, you get 8.4 gallons of gasoline. It is the inverse of 1.19. The Net Fossil Ratio corresponding to your 1.23 ratio is thus 0.81.
Comment
47 of 66
January 28, 2009
"If Iran can't sell oil because the market has collapsed because America has switched to biofuels and no longer needs oil--where are they going to get the money to build nuclear reactors." -- Fred Linn

Fred, how about doing some good-ol' web research before making statements like this? Here's a handy reference:

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Oil.html

Note: U.S. persons may not directly or indirectly trade, finance, or facilitate any goods, services or technology going to or from Iran, including goods, services or technology that would benefit the Iranian oil industry. U.S. persons are also prohibited from entering into or approving any contract that includes the supervision, management or financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran.

In short, the United States has ALREADY cut itself off from Iranian oil. Last time I looked at the news, that fact had not softened Iran's belligerent stance towards the West.

But don't worry about Iran's ability to finance its nuclear plants: it seems to have found plenty of other buyers for its oil, led by Japan, China, India, South Korea, Italy and Turkey.

The market for liquid transport fuels is a global one, Fred. Get used to it.
Comment
48 of 66
January 28, 2009
The ratio is 1.23 : 1---if as you claim, it only takes 2.3 gallons of oil to produce 10 gallons of gas, the ratio would be .23 : 1 ( 1.23 X 10 = 12.3 gallons to produce the 10 gallons consumed, a total of 22.3 gallons of crude oil needed to produce 10 gallons, the 10 gallons consumed, plus the 12.3 gallons needed to produce it)
Comment
49 of 66
January 28, 2009
"It has been done before. Germany ramped up production of synthetic and biofuel production in the middle of a world war using Fischer-Tropsch process in less than two years, under continuous Allied bombing, the US by day, and British by night."

Yes, it was impressive that Germany could produce fuels during war-time conditions, though their feedstocks were coal and lignite, fuels which are more energy dense, and less complex and costly to produce syngas from than biomass. But even at its hight, the country was only producing at an annual rate of 36.2 million barrels (1.52 billion gallons) -- a tiny fraction of current U.S. demand (317 billion gallons/year).

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

Interestingly, according to the above article,

"In the spring of 1942, the Agency for Generators was established to effectuate the conversion of vehicles from liquid to solid fuels. A conversion to such fuels as wood chips, anthracite coal, lignite coal, coke, gas, and peat moss was expected to yield substantial savings in gasoline. During 1942, the saving amounted to 5 million barrels, and in 1943 it reached 8.2 million barrels. Thousands of cars and trucks were converted and equipped with devices shaped like water heaters, which graced trunks and truck beds."

In other words, even the Germans recognized that it was often more efficient to combust biomass and solid fossil fuels directly than to turn them into liquids.
Comment
50 of 66
January 28, 2009
"The ratio is 1.23 : 1"

Agreed.

"[I]f, as you claim, it only takes 2.3 gallons of oil to produce 10 gallons of gas, the ratio would be .23 : 1 ( 1.23 X 10 = 12.3 gallons to produce the 10 gallons consumed, a total of 22.3 gallons of crude oil needed to produce 10 gallons, the 10 gallons consumed, plus the 12.3 gallons needed to produce it)"

No, Fred. Again, you are misinterpreting what the life-cycle analyses are saying. They are contrasting the total fossil fuels consumed with each gallon of gasoline (1 gallon in the gasoline itself, and 0.23 in the form of various fossil fuels, mostly oil, to produce and deliver it) with that of biofuels (e.g., none in the ethanol itself, and 0.774 gallons of fossil energy to produce and deliver it).

If you don't believe my interpretation of LCA, look at the relative prices. The current price of gasoline is $1.1855/gallon.

www.nymex.com/index.aspx

That is equivalent to $49.80 per barrel (= 42 x $1.1855). The current price of crude oil is $42.14. The ratio between those two values is 1.18, largely reflecting the energy inputs (and some return on capital) to turn a barrel of crude oil into a barrel of gasoline. If it took 22.3 gallons of fossil energy to yield 10 gallons of gasoline, an oil company would be loosing money -- big time -- unless it was selling the gasoline for at least $94/barrel ($2.24/gallon).
Comment
51 of 66
January 28, 2009
The nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers were 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanesse and 2 from United Arab Emirates.

No Iranians.

No Iraqis.

George Bush justified attacking Sadddam Hussien because he possessed weaponso of mass destruction. No WMDs were ever found.

George Bush wanted to justify attacking Iran because they are working on building a nuclear reactor and they are a terrorist threat. No evidence of any Iranian terrorist activity has ever been presented. The US, and UK both have numerous nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons---on what moral grounds is the US and the UK vindicated for threatening to attack Iran for doing something within their own borders that the US and UK openly flaunt in excess(maintain nuclear reactors and arsenels)? THAT is terrorism.

At the same time that Bush is making terrorist like demands on Iran---he is offering Saudi Arabia 25 nuclear reactors to increase oil production. How is it OK give nuclear reactors to the country that 15 of 19 911 terrorists came from, and is Osama bin Laden's home country.
Comment
52 of 66
January 28, 2009
Fred, I never called Iran a terrorist nation, though the common allegation is that they fund terrorists:

http://terrorism.about.com/od/iran/p/Iran2.htm

It was YOU who asked, "If Iran can't sell oil because the market has collapsed because America has switched to biofuels and no longer needs oil--where are they going to get the money to build nuclear reactors?"

I was merely trying to answer that question, which seemed to imply that if America switched to biofuels ("assume a can-opener") Iran would not have anybody to sell its oil to.

And as for the Bush Administration's policies, don't look to me to explain them, much less justify them!

So, Fred, do you finally accept my explanation of the fossil-energy ratio for gasoline?
Comment
53 of 66
January 28, 2009
-------"No, Fred. Again, you are misinterpreting what the life-cycle analyses are saying. They are contrasting the total fossil fuels consumed with each gallon of gasoline (1 gallon in the gasoline itself, and 0.23 in the form of various fossil fuels, mostly oil, to produce and deliver it) with that of biofuels (e.g., none in the ethanol itself, and 0.774 gallons of fossil energy to produce and deliver it)."--------

I'm not confusing anything. It takes 1.23 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of gasoline. If you use 10 gallons of gasoline, it took you 12.3 gallons of oil to get it out of the ground, transport, it refine it, transport it again and get it into your tank. 10 + 12.3 = 22.3 The ratio is 1.23 : 1.

Use biofuels to produce biofuels and it takes no fossil energy to produce and deliver it. Farm equipment is diesel---it runs just fine on biofuel with no modification. There is nothing complicated about filling a tank up with biodiesel on a tractor or truck---you do it exactly the same way as you do with petroleum oil. Why do you present it as some insurmountable problem? Things change.
Comment
54 of 66
January 28, 2009
Fred, I am going to quit arguing with you on the question of energy ratios. One can lead a horse to water, you can splash it on their face, you can stroke their throat .... but if, in the end, they don't want to drink, you can't make them drink. Policy makers, at least understand what the 1.23 : 1 ratio means, and that is the important thing.
Comment
55 of 66
January 29, 2009
Well, I hope they do undrerstand---it takes more energy to get energy from petroleum than you get in return. And it takes more and more as time goes on. Petroleum is getting harder to get at.

It's like building a campfire and piling on the wood to build a big fire. Pretty soon, you have walk further and further from the camp to gather firewood. Same thing with petroleum.
Comment
56 of 66
January 30, 2009
"It takes more energy to get energy from petroleum than you get in return."

That is true for ALL energy production, except for renewable electricity plants. Ethanol requires more energy to produce than you get out (counting the same way as for oil), but much more of the energy is biomass.

As I said: the 1.23 : 1 ratio means that when one consumes a gallon of gasoline, 1 gallon of fossil fuel disappears from the system through consumption, and another 0.23 because of the energy used to produce it.

If one counted ALL the energy from corn ethanol, including that embodied in the corn itself, the energy ratio would be more than for oil. It's just that for the purposes of the life-cycle analyses, the energy in the corn is considered renewable, and so it doesn't count.

"And it takes more and more as time goes on. Petroleum is getting harder to get at."

That is generally true.
Comment
57 of 66
January 30, 2009
----"Conclusions
We conclude that the NEV[net energy value] of corn-ethanol is positive
when fertilizers are produced by modern processing
plants, corn is converted in modern ethanol facilities,
and farmers achieve average corn yields. Our NEV
estimate of over 21,000 Btu per gallon could be
considered conservative, since it was derived using the
replacement method for valuing coproducts, and it
does not include energy credits for plants that sell
carbon dioxide. Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as
indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every
Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34-
percent energy gain. Furthermore, producing ethanol
from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a
more desirable form of energy, which helps the United
States to reduce its dependence on imported oil.
Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy
feedstocks, such as coal and natural gas, to convert
corn into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17 percent
of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from
liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every
1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a
6.34 Btu gain."-----


This is the conclussion of the Argonne National Laboratory. It does not even consider ethanol produced from sugar cane, sorghum, or beets which utilize sugars directly rather than starches and have much higher ethanol/acre yields than corn.
The CO2 use by plant capture refered to is capturing CO2 released during fermentation, and compressing/cooling it to produce dry ice. This dry ice is then used to refrigerate cargos such as trucks and railroad cars--obviating the need for diesel powered refrigeration units. This saves diesel fuel----and the CO2 released from the dry ice is non-greenhouse effect because the original source carbon was removed from the atmosphere by the corn plants.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
Comment
58 of 66
January 31, 2009
I'm not sure what your point is, Mr. Linn, but I suggest you read the fine print: the standard assumption of life-cycle energy and GHG analyses is to IGNORE the energy value of the renewable biomass feedstock itself. Basically, the energy value of the corn (or of sugar cane, or whatever) is considered as coming "free" from nature, and therefore not counted in the net energy balance calculations.

If one's focus is on reducing fossil fuel consumption, that assumption is understandable. But of course there is an opportunity cost to that biomass: even corn kernels can be burned in home heaters, for example:

www.bucknercornstoves.com

By contrast, the energy in the feedstock (crude oil) for making gasoline IS counted in the net energy balance calculations, which is why one gets a Net Fossil Ratio (MJ of fuel produced for each MJ of fossil input) below 1.

http://rael.berkeley.edu/ebamm/summary.html

If the energy value of the corn were counted, along with the fossil-fuel inputs, the net energy ratio (MJ of fuel produced for each MJ of energy input) for corn ethanol would be worse than for oil. But, as we all know, in terms of greenhouses gases, pollutants and costs, MJs of fossil fuels and of biomass have different worth.

So when Argonne National Laboratories says that, for every BTU dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34% energy gain, people should understand that the only BTUs they are counting on the input side are those provided by fossil fuels.
Comment
59 of 66
January 31, 2009
That is the point. Solar energy is free. Solar energy is available on all over the planet. The only problem with using solar energy is that the sun is only available during during daylight hours, it needs to be stored. Plants store solar energy. Biofuels made from plants store solar energy. We can use solar power anytime we wish using biofuels. We can do all of the same things we can do with petroleum using biofuels, with very few changes to what we have now, unlike all other energy schemes where we would have to build entirely new manufacturing, vehicle, storage and distribution systems from the ground up----switching to biofuels would cost less than continueing to use petroleum.
Petroleum use is destroying the economy and causing increasing poverty, politcal strife, wars and terrorism world wide. Petroleum use is destroying the environment. Biofuels do not cause greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere, and are much safer in case of accidents, and in the case of spills cause no long term damage to the environment because they are naturally occurring substances that will dilute and biodegrade even without human intervention.

-------"If one's focus is on reducing fossil fuel consumption, that assumption is understandable."---------

Well, this IS a renewable energy forum. OF COARSE my focus is on reducing fossil fuel consumption. I have hundreds of reasons for wanting to reduce fossil fuel consumption. I have yet to see even one good reason for your rabid support of continueing fossil fuel consumption.
Comment
60 of 66
January 31, 2009
"OF COARSE"? "continueing"? And you told me you never make spelling mistakes! Come on, Fred: admit you're human, along with the rest of us.

"I have yet to see even one good reason for your rabid support of continueing [sic] fossil fuel consumption." -- Fred Linn

Man, you are jumping to conclusions. I have NEVER supported continuing the current level of fossil-fuel consumption, much less increased fossil-fuel consumption. If you think otherwise, please provide a quote.
Comment
61 of 66
January 31, 2009
-----" If you think otherwise, please provide a quote."----

OK

--------"The country simply cannot afford to take a supply side approach and subsidize the replacement of its petroleum consumption."---------

If we do not replace petroleum---that means that we continue to use petroleum.

Status Quo---the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It would appear to me that you are on the side of the rich---status quo.

Let's pass out some more money to banks so they can redecorate offices, that should stimulate the economy.
Comment
62 of 66
January 31, 2009
How do you spell "of coarse"?

You must be thinking of "off course". I don't think we should be off course. You go ahead off course if you want, I'd rather change directions to the right course.
Comment
63 of 66
February 1, 2009
Fred, get yourself a dictionary. Or consult one of the one's on the web. (They're free.).

www.thefreedictionary.com/course

The phrase is "of course", not "of coarse". "Off course" is where you're taking this discussion.

This is stupid, Fred. You are not engaging in informed debate, you are shooting from the hip and making yourself look more and more ridiculous with each new comment.

I suggest that you follow the advice posted at every railroad crossing: STOP -- LOOK -- LISTEN. Stop and count to 10 before posting; look up some facts rather than making them up; and listen to what other people are saying and not just what you THINK they are saying.

Yes, indeed, I have written "[t]he country simply cannot afford to take a supply side approach and subsidize the replacement of its petroleum consumption." I stand by that statement. Does it mean I want to maintain the status quo? Hardly.

Subsidizing liquid fuels (which the USA is doing for both petroleum and biofuels) increases supply in the short run, but hides price signals from consumers, thus delaying the inevitable restructuring of transport options that needs to take place. Can I say with certainty what the transport system will look like 40 years hence, what alternatives to oil will win the race? Not and all. Nor can anybody else. That is why I (and many other people) favor something like a carbon tax, which does not involve the government trying to pick winners.

When faced with a carbon tax, consumers of transport fuels would respond in a 1000 different ways to avoid it paying it, and providers of alternatives to carbon-rich fuels would all be able to compete on an equal footing.

A $50/bbl import tariff on petroleum (as you have proposed) would artificially stimulate domestic production of oil, and slow the transition away from it. Given finite resources, however, increasing output in the short term would mean that the decline in oil production in the future would be even steeper.
Comment
64 of 66
February 1, 2009
-------"....... increasing output in the short term would mean that the decline in oil production in the future would be even steeper."-------

Good. Then it HAS to be replaced. So you oppose subsidizing biofuels to hide the fact that oil is running out to continue selling oil at record profits and delay bringing any competition into the market that would give people a choice? Oil company stooges are very crafty. Did you think that up yourself---or did they tell you what to say?
Comment
65 of 66
February 1, 2009
"So you oppose subsidizing biofuels to hide the fact that oil is running out to continue selling oil at record profits and delay bringing any competition into the market that would give people a choice?"

Huh? Are you as loony as you look in print, Fred? Or just an argumentative curmudgeon?
Comment
66 of 66
February 2, 2009
Good lord, Fred

You are not doing the Renewable Fuels Association any favors with this kind of debate.
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

Jennifer Runyon

View Jennifer Runyon's Profile
About: Jennifer Runyon is managing editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com and Renewable Energy World North America magazine, coordinating, writing and/or editing columns, ... more »

Advertise With Us

Schiller Nextek Power Systems, Inc. Solmetric Corporation Solectria Renewables LLC AltE Intertek Second Wind Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters