Choose Biofuels and Efficiencies, Not More Oil

Dr. Sergio C. Trindade, International Fuel Technology
July 06, 2010 | 13 Comments

The Gulf oil spill is the latest in a series of warnings that we must reduce our dependency on petroleum with an eye toward moving away from oil entirely. While "getting off oil" remains a distant goal, we can choose to halt oil expansion today. Technologies exist to improve the efficacy of biofuels and to stretch the availability of existing petroleum supplies through increased efficiency. Rather than choosing more offshore drilling, we can choose demand-side innovation to meet our current energy needs without the risks associated with further oil expansion.

Biofuel, and biodiesel in particular, can help mitigate the need for additional oil supply. According to Emerging Markets Online, total worldwide biodiesel production alone took off from 2.2 million tons in 2002 to an estimated 11.1 million tons in 2008. However, first generation biofuels will likely be limited to 10-20 percent of global liquid fuel consumption, largely due to constraints in feedstock and infrastructure. Therefore, we must make the most of every gallon of biofuel.

Successfully doing so requires addressing a number of problems. Biodiesel, for instance, presents several significant deficiencies when compared to diesel fuel. Most significantly, biodiesel contains less energy value than petrodiesel, leading to increased fuel consumption and reduced engine power output. Other problems include limited oxidation and storage stability, a tendency to form deposits, corrosion issues, cold flow problems and questionable stability from diverse feedstocks. These limitations are greatly exacerbated with the increasing content of biodiesel in fuel blends, from B5 to B30 and higher.

These negative characteristics reduce biodiesel’s overall green profile for efficiency and emissions. Yet as a green product, biodiesel can be made significantly “greener,” by improving the fuel so that it performs more like regular diesel. One way to help achieve this is through the use of already available fuel enhancing technologies.

International Fuel Technology, Inc., (IFT) for example, has developed a fuel efficiency enhancing additive that helps biodiesel blends to function similarly to diesel. It allows less biodiesel to be consumed compared to non-additized biodiesel for the same energy output. This technology not only improves the biofuel’s environmental footprint, but reduces the amount of biodiesel needed for a given power output, expanding biofuel capacity and further offsetting oil use. Another line of IFT additives provides oxidation stability to biodiesel and its blends. This is crucial to smooth operation of biodiesel blends and for long term storage stability.

As biofuels continue to expand and become more efficient, we must also take advantage of technologies that permit us to use less oil in the first place. The rail industry, for instance, is increasingly seeking to reduce costs and improve its environmental footprint with better fuel efficiency. Rail offers an excellent opportunity for employing such demand-side technology, as the industry is highly centralized among regional operators and is among the more predictable forms of transportation, allowing for reliable demonstration and fuel efficiency analysis.

Rail can help us reduce the need for expanded oil supply by increasing the fuel economy of petrodiesel, which is heavily used by trains around the globe. International Fuel Technology has developed an additive that “atomizes” the fuel injected into a train’s diesel engine combustion chamber, burning the fuel more completely and emitting less waste. The technology achieves 3-6 percent greater fuel economy and reduces atmospheric emissions.

If a 4.5 percent diesel fuel efficiency gain were extended beyond rail to all U.S. diesel fuel consumption, we would eliminate the need for over 2.2 billion gallons of diesel every year. When combined with other demand-side savings opportunities, the potential to reduce oil consumption is significant.

By making the most of biofuels and the petroleum we already have access to, we can reduce our need for continued oil expansion. Technologies for demand management, improved efficiency and conservation are available and expanding. The optimal choice for our fuel future is not to require any extra oil. We simply have to choose.

Dr. Sergio Trindade, International Fuel Technology’s Director of Science & Technology, is a globally recognized consultant and expert in sustainable energy and alcohol fuels. His experience within the international energy field is abundant, especially concerning alternative energies. Dr. Trindade is a Co-laureate of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as a member of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He also served as the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) for Science and Technology for five years and continues to provide consulting to the UN system, including the World Bank, and many other organizations regarding energy and environmental issues. He holds a PhD. in Chemical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a BS in Chemical Engineering from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

13 Comments

kent beuchert
September 30, 2010

Biofuels have proven to be either 1) useless means of providing
a meaningful alternative energy source or 2) forever on the horizon (since Jimmy the pill Carter's days). You get off oil via electric cars, not biofuels (which will never exist anyway). And the Gulf oil spill teaches us that trying to drill at such depths using current technology is not always a good idea. Don't blame oil because the Feds stupidly tried
to prevent offshore drilling by only opeing up sites way away from the coast (and therefore deep). Don't you just love the logic of Sen Reid
that it's safer to drill further from the coast? Guess what Harry? Water eventually comes ashore. Oceans have a bad habit of doing that. As for conservation, get real. This world will forever require more and more energy.

Fred Linn
July 15, 2010

John, the Fiat Siena Tetrafuel can run on gasoline, gasoline and ethanol mixtures, hydrous ethanol(straight from the still, unblended) or compressed natural gas(methane).

The Fiat Siena is being built, on sale and in use by consumer right now, and has been for three years in Brazil and Argentina.

http://www.goodcleantech.com/2007/08/new_fiat_siena_ttrafuel_runs_o.php

If all new vehicles sold in the US had this technology on them, we'd have no energy problems.

John Gregson
July 13, 2010

Biogas and Biofuel, most people have their own ideas about these. From cooking fat which after having been used, is recycled as a biofuel after removing any inpurities.

I sat through a full one day conference last year, with Brazilan expert explaining how they were now using ethanol fueled vehicles produced by all the big vehicle manufacturers.

The ethanol was produced in Brazil, from sugar canes waste which when you consider is recycling. In the UK food waste can be the feedstock required, or municipal waste which is bits and pieces of everything,

Derek Boyle
July 13, 2010

No more free rides for the Oil Drilling Industry while troops are dying in war zones.

All Oil Drilled in the Gulf should remain in the USA at a fixed price of $50~$60/barrel even if Global prices are higher or lower. At that Price Oil Companies will still make Hundreds of Billions off of USA Oil and Oil Drilled in the USA will be used in the USA, Improve USA Energy Security and Secure the USA from OPEC and Oil Industry Price Gouging.

Tax both Domestic and Imported Gasoline a Modest $.50/Gallon. A Modest $.50 cents a gallon to put Millions of Americans back to work and Maintain, Rebuilt and Expand the USAs Road and Rail Infrastructure while putting a greater emphasis on Conservation and Efficiency to Use Less Oil and make what we use go Further and Last Longer.

Seems like the only ones who remember the troops fighting in the Middle East and our lack of Jobs and our dependence on Oil are the Troops doing the fighting. Protecting Gasoline in War Zones costs over $400/gallon because of lost lives, trucks, equipment and casualties.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

A modest tax on Imported Gasoline to fund USA Jobs and Infrastructure is a lot easier than sacrificing an arm, leg, eye, or life as thousands of our military men and women have and are still doing.

A Modest $.50 cents a gallon to put Millions of Americans back to work, maintain roads and Infrastructure, create energy efficienct vehicles and investment. The benefits to the USA are tremendous and far outweigh cheap Oil to waste and pollute just because it's cheap. It's not cheap for those who have to die so others can profit and waste it.

Fred Linn
July 11, 2010

Oil palm has nothing to do with ethanol production---that is what I was saying.

As for conserving our rain forests and wildlife---I completely agree with you there.

However, from my point of view---biofuels are the best way we have to do that. We have come down to an either/or choice---either find a way to replace petroleum, or keep on using petroleum as we have been up until now even with environmental disaster looming.

If we continue to use petroleum, we do nothing to prevent the loss of rain forest---and the loss of other habitat is self evident, particularly marine environments.

With biofuels, we have a wide range of feedstocks to work with. In the case of biodiesel, we have sunflower, rape seed, grains, even algae we can work with besides palm----the only thing is, emphasizing sustainable and renewable.

The same with ethanol. We can even use ethanol in diesel engines, Scania has been doing it in Sweden and UK for years now.

I think we have a lot more room for habitat conservation and providing the energy and food we need if we work with biofuels than we do if we continue to use petroleum like we are now. One major benefit from biofuel use is that we do not need to replace all of our petroleum use all at once. Biofuels and petroleum can work together. Diversified sources and regional production using sources best suited to production regions will work best.

John Uphoff
July 11, 2010

Fred,

Deforestation of tropical rain forests for the cultivation of oil palm, has done enormous environmental damage in the equatorial Pacific islands. In Borneo, palm oil plantations are rapidly encroaching on the last remnants of primary rainforest (Wikipedia). Thomas Friedman (Hot, Flat, and Crowded): "A century ago there were over 300,000 orangutans living in the wilds of Indonesia and Malaysia. Since then, more than 90% of the population has been wiped out, many in the last decade and a half." " That is what we're doing. 'We need this money from our oil palm plantations--sorry about the great forest of Borneo and the orangutans."

The following lead paragraph is from an article on Mongabay.com dated July 9, 2008.
"Malaysia's Land Development Authority FELDA has announced plans to immediately establish 100,000 hectares (250,000) of oil palm plantations in the Brazilian Amazon." It goes on to say: "As the world's highest yielding mass market oilseed, palm oil will likely offer better financial returns than cattle ranching and mechanized soy farms, the dominant agricultural activities in Brazilian Amazon, and will employ larger numbers of people." and; "Oil palm producers may also benefit from a "logging subsidy" whereby timber harvested from a tract of land helps offset the cost of establishing a plantation."

I'm not against the development of biofuels, but the discussion has omitted many important concerns that must be addressed in any discussion of biofuels. What is the benefit of solving one problem by creating another one that may be irreversible . Industry, left unchecked, will not stop to save the orangutan or any other species in Borneo or the Amazon.

Fred Linn
July 11, 2010

John--in Brazil, ethanol is made from sugar cane. It is grown in the Mato Grosso region, the climatic equivalent to the Great Plains here. It is a Savannah grassland region, 1200 miles from the nearest rain forest.

Rain forest is being cleared mainly to provide pasture land for cattle ranches. The cattle are going to provide cheap beef for fast food chains. The rain forest is being cleared to make Big Macs and Whoppers.

John Uphoff
July 10, 2010

Dr. Trindade,
There are many concerns about the damage inflicted on world forests due to the cultivation of feed stocks for biofuel production. In many places, it is threatening plant and animal diversity. Extinction of many animals is a major concern. The destruction of world forests is also contributing enormously to the production of atmospheric CO2, as I understand, through the burn during the clearing of the forest in preparation for farming. You did not address this concern in your article. Thanks
John

Fred Linn
July 9, 2010

Burning fossil fuels raises atmospheric CO2 levels, not using biofuels.

----" Corn ethanol for example uses about ten units of fossil fuel energy to produce about 12 units of ethanol energy."-----

Ethanol is not the only product being produced. The same crop is also producing DDG, high protein animal feed. DDG contains energy. The crop also produces stover---all the non grain parts of the corn plant. Stalks, leaves, cobbs etc.---which are biomass that contains energy. Even the DDG contains energy after it has been fed to animals and produced food products. Gather up the manure and put it in an anaerobic digester---you get biogas----methane energy.

My feeling is that your nit picking is pretty lame, when the alternative is pouring a million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico every day.

And corn is only one source of ethanol from hundreds available. There is sugar cane, sugar beets, agave, sorghum, wood and agricultural waste for starters.

Russ Finley
July 8, 2010

Fred Said:

"It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 levels by burning biofuels."

Not true Fred. Corn ethanol for example uses about ten units of fossil fuel energy to produce about 12 units of ethanol energy. It produces less CO2 than gasoline on a life cycle basis, but not much less, and only if you discount land displacement and the latest findings for nitrous oxide release from fertilizers.

Fred Linn
July 7, 2010

Therese----" The main effort however should be to move away from fuels that burn because all such fuels will continue to produce CO2 as a byproduct during a time when we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere."---------

It is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 levels by burning biofuels. Biofuels are made from plants, that first must remove CO2 from the atmosphere by respiration. If no CO2 is removed by respiration, the plants are not living and carrying on metabolism to store the energy in sunlight as chemical energy. There are no plants to make biofuel from.

Nature operates on cycles---not linear models---carbon does not stay in the atmosphere in the natural cycle. It is removed, then returned to the atmosphere over and over.

In the natural carbon energy exchange system---driving a car using a biofuel is exactly the same effect on the cycle as riding a horse. Both take in energy stored by plants through photosynthesis(Biofuel, food) expend work, and return the carbon to the atmosphere to be recycled again.

Robert Fairchild
July 7, 2010

What if the Gulf "dead zone", caused mostly by fertilizer runoff from corn and soybean farming in the midwest, is larger and more persistent than the oil leak? What does that say about bio-ethanol and bio-diesel??
Tax carbon and let the market decide! If we use too much, the solution is obviously to raise the price! Economics 101!

Therese Shellabarger
July 7, 2010

Making diesel vehicles more energy efficient would certainly extend the viability of biodiesel and should be part of the overall effort to convert from oil-based fuels to other fuels. The main effort however should be to move away from fuels that burn because all such fuels will continue to produce CO2 as a byproduct during a time when we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how efficient we are in that respect, we have in effect "used up" our "quota" of CO2 emissions for the next several centuries. It's very dangerous to be messing up a planetary ecosystem as we should take heed of the fact that there aren't any other planets nearby to move to if this one should turn toxic.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Sergio Trindade, PhD.

Sergio C. Trindade , Director, Science & Technology at International Fuel Technologies, is a globally recognized expert in fuels and sustainable energy. Dr. Trindade served as Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations for Science...