Does Biodiesel Have a Future?
Victoria Marugg writes: Hello, Craig. I have a burning question for you that flared up again with today’s NY Times article which is off-handedly praising a new bio-diesel plant in Hawaii. Please clarify for me and others… Doesn’t the burning of biodiesel create “greenhouse gases?” Why is it approved as sustainable if it adds to the insulating layer of Earth’s gases? Or am I wrong? Is burning biodiesel pure? Or… the simple test: Can one kill oneself by breathing the exhaust from a biodiesel-burning car? Can you please point me to a previous article in which you may have addressed this issue, or take it on as a new subject, please?
Good question. The answer rendered by another reader is quite correct. To expand:
Yes, biodiesel is a hydrocarbon, and, as such, results in greenhouse gas emissions (and worse) when it is combusted. Its exhaust is toxic, though not as much so as gasoline and diesel created from fossil resources; relative to petroleum diesel emissions, biodiesel emissions contain less particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Biodiesel is generally deemed “clean” insofar as since it’s “carbon-neutral,” meaning that the plants that were processed into the biodiesel absorbed CO2 during their lives, and burning them releases the CO2 that had formerly been sequestered. There are a number of important caveats here, however.
First, although there are many sources of plants that can be converted into biodiesel, they all have their own environmental impact. Perhaps the most benign is reusing the vegetable oil that fast-food restaurants discard after making huge batches of French fries. Even here, however, there is no “free lunch,” insofar as there is a limited supply of such feedstock, and the oil needs to be collected and processed.
More commonly, certain plants are grown specifically to become biofuels. Here however, we have issues associated with irrigation, fertilization, pest control and manufacturing processes. We also have issues with land use. In particular, we have deforestation, demonstrated so tragically in Indonesia with the destruction of huge swaths of its rainforests to create room to grow palm oil.
It’s noteworthy that, in 2014, Chevron abandoned its biofuels efforts after investing decades of work and untold millions of dollars in R&D–a process than included testing over 100 different feedstocks and 50 different processes for converting them. The reason is that there is no way to scale biofuels in a cost-effective and eco-friendly manner. The whole concept has one inescapable flaw: plants evolved on Earth over four billion years ago to store the precise amount of energy they would need to enable them to grow and reproduce; they did not materialize here with huge amounts of extra energy so that we could harvest it and put it in our gas tanks.
By comparison, electric vehicles charged from renewable energy resources have almost no carbon emissions. The operative word here is “almost”; this figure will never be zero, as the deployment of solar PV and wind turbines has its own intrinsic carbon footprint. Having said that, EVs/renewables are a far better solution than liquid hydrocarbon fuels of any type.
So how is this coming along? Well, in truth, we’re getting there, and there are more indications of that each month. For instance, last week the Lower House of the Netherlands passed a resolution that no new automobiles with hydrocarbon-burning engines will be sold after 2025 (10 short years from now.) That’s pretty impressive, and it’s just the beginning. Stay tuned! Thanks, Victoria.
Here in PA most bio-fuel is in the form of combustible biomass. Either wood processing waste turned to pellets, or wood that is fast growing and repeatably harvest-able that can be burned to replace oil. The State Forestry Department Helps schools, hospitals and businesses do the math to see if conversion makes sense. Most often an old inefficient heating system is replaced with a much more efficient system that burns wood. The districts save money on heat, and there is a healthy business supplying the clients with biomass. This fast growing scrub also sequesters a great amount of carbon dioxide
We are fortunate to have a local biofuels cooperative in our area. They also sell urban farming supplies, like chickens, organic seeds, honey, etc. They collect waste cooking oil from restaurants in a 200 mile radius and refined into blends of between 20% and 99% biodiesel (B20-B99). From what I have read, biodiesel is the cleanest liquid fuel and has the additional advantages of giving what was essentially a waste product a useful second life. Of course, it is produced locally and can virtually eliminate fossil fuel use. I see this as a true transition fuel on the way to electric vehicles. It is a shame that there is so much disinformation surrounding biodiesel, and so little public acceptance. The other problem is that B99 biodiesel is expensive, currently running about $4.65/gallon. How many nutty people who really care about these issues (like me) are there who would be willing to pay that when they can get petro diesel for $2.49?
An excellent review of biofuels and their place in the renewable energy world.
There may be a few places situations where for bio-fuels are a good answer.
— As you suggested, they have potential as a way to recycle refuse rather than turn it into landfill with its potential methane gas leaks adding to greenhouse gases.
— Cleaning out scrub from forests may help to prevent forest fires.
— Bio-fuels are relatively easy to use on an individual basis. If the alternative is a fossil fuel it may be a better choice.
— Bio-fuels similar to other fuels are not only a source of energy but a means of energy storage. Concentrating renewable energy with bio-fuels can be done over time as well as area. The summer sun can be used for winter heat.
One of the major drawbacks for mass production of biofuels is the need for greater efficiency. Natural photosynthesis is about 1% to 5% efficient. We can do much better with solar PV cells. There are also “artificial leaves” that have reported greater efficiency. But to push a biological source to greater efficiency leads to bio-engineering. At that point we usher in a host of concerns that such bio-machines don’t play well with the natural environment.
Craig,
While I agree with most of your reply to Victoria (isn’t great to note her interest), I’m curious about your definition of bio-diesel exhaust toxicity. ?
Attempting to kill oneself by inhaling biodiesel fumes, would take a very, very long time. Bio-diesel doesn’t produce carbon-Monoxide in sufficient quantities, but does produce it’s own range of harmful emissions, including NOx, several carbonyls such as formaldehyde and other airbourne pollutants.
Bio-diesel comes in many types. Poorly produced bio-fuels can produce the same or greater levels of pollution as conventional diesel.
It’s interesting that you mention Chevron huge multi-billion dollar investment in Bio-diesel experimentation. It’s an excellent example of an oil major attempting to diversify, but being defeated by the logistics involved in a suitable feedstock.
(This would appear to dispel the myth of Oil companies conniving to frustrate any attempt to develop alternatives energy sources).
In the search for alternatives to fossil fuels, bio-fuels have proved to be an uneconomic cul-de-sac, except in specialized locations and applications.
It may eventuate that both Wind and Solar also prove to be similar minor players with only limited applications.
Compatibility with the power demands of modern civilization, is the biggest challenge for alternate fuels. It’s commonly accepted that the industrialized world is designed around fossil fuels because of their high energy yield and convenience.
Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Fossil fuels have always been incredibly difficult to source, process distribute and convert to usable energy. Only abundance and adaptability for massive scale usage made fossil fuels economically viable.
A single magic bullet to replace Fossil Fuels may not exist, instead it may involve a suite of evolving (and competing) technologies with specialized applications.
But large scale bio-diesel has no future.
I think you answered your own question re: biofuels.
Re: solar and wind, I would only point out that our civilization on Earth is on a path toward deriving its energy from its nearest star via these two technologies (and others), and that we’re astonishingly close to pulling this off.
Craig,
I wish I shared your optimism, but I guess time will tell
The energy independence day event I attended today was put on by this company.
http://www.wasteoilrecyclers.com/
They collect and process more than 5000 gallons of vegetable oil a week into fuel grade vegetable oil. They use diesel powered septic system pump trucks burning the vegetable oil they process. They heat the oil as part of their process with heaters that burn vegetable oil also. The oil is sold to a company in Maryland that makes biodiesel. There are many companies that do this although most used oil still is fed to cattle. As Marco says there is probably no silver bullet but I believe biofuels have their place if we could grow them from the right crops and process them in an energy efficient manner.
If we move the majority of our transportation to electricity then the rest can possibly be covered by biofuels.
The department of agriculture says it takes 5 gallons of fuel to farm an acre of land. Soy will produce 40 gallons of oil per acre for a 35 gallon per acre yield. Many crops will produce more. Hemp for example will produce 300 gallons per acre and can grow in land not suitable for crop farming. One place I think this should be grown is the sides and medians of highways where fuel is currently wasted cutting the grass they are growing there now. This ends up being a vast amount of land. Might was well soak up the carbon from the exhaust of vehicles with plants along the side of the roads they are driving on.
Love it. Thanks.
Hi Brian,
You appear to have a very optimistic view of agriculture !
Growing crops is a difficult, and expensive business with great variations of yields depending on the lands, weather and seasons.
Bio-diesel from low yield crops is difficult to produce, and higher yield crops such as Hemp and Jatropha don’t really yield the sort of figures frequently quoted by enthusiasts when commercial grown.
The US alone consumes nearly 160 billion gallons of oil (gasoline and diesel) per year. The Dept of Agriculture puts a best case scenario of 264,112,000 acres of land in the US suitable for agricultural production (including marginal land). Tillable land is only about 20% or 56,000,000 acres.
Even under the best conditions, and using the best land, ( 30 gal to an acre) you would need 5,400,000,000 acres ! The entire US is only 2.436 billion acres. The planet’s total arable land area is only 12,136,883,840 acres !
That’s the problem with bio-diesel, regrettably, the logistics just don’t work
I have seen the agricultural process first hand and am familiar with how it works. It happens all around me all the time. I would like better actual numbers from real farmers but I am forced to use department of agriculture numbers which are higher than what you state. You did indeed use the absolute minimum numbers you could possibly find. I have not found numbers that low yet. In fact the only crop that I have fount that makes less than 40 gallons per acre is corn at about 18 gallons per acre which, once again, reinforces my belief that this is the single biggest waste of acreage possible for any purpose. More than 90% of Corn and soy grown in this country goes to feed livestock. The crops I speak of will grow in marginal land and were a weed that took this country decades to eradicate with profound effort from places where farming in the manner you speak of is not generally done. This stuff was not growing in farm fields.
Once again you totally discount my statement I made that as much transportation should be moved to electric as possible. That amount has been estimated to be more than 90% meaning we might only have to come up with 16 billion gallons of liquid fuel. A fair portion of that can be made from waste oil which is already produced for food prep as the company I mentioned does. I also don’t advocate making biodiesel out of it. This is a waste of time, resources and energy as vegetable oil can be burned in a diesel engine with only moderate modification.
You have tried to discount the entire venture by claiming it can’t do it all by itself while claiming yourself previously that it will take a combination of things to get the job done.
Adding efficiency would also help a great deal. I read an article a long time ago stating that just keeping tires properly inflated would increase efficiency enough to save in 5 years as much oil as is estimated to exist off the entire Atlantic coast. I thought this was BS, did a little research, made a quick spreadsheet and sure enough the claim was absolutely right on the money. Just by keeping tires at correct pressure. I am sure we can do better than that. There are instances where we are going to need liquid fuel so one way or another we better figure out a way to make that happen.
As to the oil companies efforts in this area, they have a profit point they want to meet and share holders they are beholden to. Just because they can’t make as much profit as they want to declare the venture viable doesn’t mean they can’t make enough profit to still make money. The game is changing and if they want to stay in it they better figure out a way to make it work also.
Brian,
While I applaud your intentions, and I’m generally an advocate for smaller, more practical technologies. I’m also a realist.
I have many years experience in both biodiesel and EV production. I also own farming properties on two continents.
Biodiesel is only viable on a small scale, or hobbyist product.
Attempts to upscale production suffer from the same problems confronting all bio-fuels, environmental damage, lack of consistency , incompatibility with usage, all of which combine to make Biodiesel uneconomic.
Nor is bio-diesel all that environmentally friendly. (It’s certainly better than US ethanol which is arguably worse for the environment than gasoline or diesel).
Bio-diesel became fashionable a solution for “peak oil” and very high oil prices. Since the prospect of immediate “peak oil” lost impetus and the price of oil dropped with the advent of an oil glut instead of the predicted shortage, other superior renewable technologies have been developed, supplanting biodiesel.
I’ve no wish to offend, but farmers produce crops to make a profit. Some farmers may produce unprofitable farms products (I’m one) for altruistic reasons, but these are very few and have access to non-farming incomes.
Farming is a very risky business. Farmers face all kinds of adversities beyond their control. This makes crop yields inconsistent. That’s ok for food production, humans are adaptable and can eat different food products from different regions, but large scale economic fuel production must be reliable on an industrial scale.
Biodiesel is very difficult to store, tat adds to the cost ofdistribution and Biodiesel wastage. Disadvantages like a tenancy to Gel etc, also create logistical problems for large scale marketing and distribution.
But to address just three points you raise;
a) Crops grown on marginal land. Marginal land is marginal for a reason, usually poor soil or lack of water. While some plants can survive on this type of land, productive yields (as feadstock) drop dramatically.
B) Using your own estimates, at the most replacing only 10% of US fuel consumption with biodiesel would still require a vast area of prime agricultural land. US Dept of Agriculture estimates suggest roughly twice the size of all arable land in the continental US !
C) US production of waste vegetable oils is approx, 2.6 billion U.S. gallons. That statistic is for the total waste oil, it doesn’t address the problem of collecting, cleaning, processing and redistributing the oil. A peer reviewed paper written for the DOE estimates less than 8% of waste oil could potentially be used a biodiesel or in older diesel engines. (approx 200 million gallons nationally).
Recycling waste oil in some localities, may have some marginal benefits, but the logistics are simply uneconomic.( a factory maybe able to burn recycled waste veg oil etc as heating fuel)
Your proposition that biodiesel could supply 10% of demand, with 90% Electric, raises the question, why would anyone bother ? If EV ESD capacity had advanced to allow 90% of all vehicles to be EV’s, who would bother with biodiesel ?
I’m afraid biodiesel is just another cul-de-sac in the search for fossil fuel replacement. Biodiesel should, and will, remain small scale, hobbyist or specialist fuel. Commercially produced biodiesel is not economically viable, or particularly environmentally beneficial.
I’ve no wish to pour rain on the parade of biodiesel enthusiasts, (I used to be one) but in the search for fossil fuel replacements, it’s pointless to waste time and energy on “feel good ” but impractical technologies.
biodiesel CO2 is natural cycle carbon. The CO2 is taken up again from the next batch of plants capturing the sun’s energy. So, its combustion results in no NEW carbon being added to the atmosphere.
HOWEVER, transforming all of our farmland into biodiesel-destined canola plants would meet only 1% of our transportation fuel requirements.
The problem is that we consume way too much, pur vehicles are way too inefficient.
OK so once again I am not talking about biodiesel here. That is a waste if time and resources that is unnecessary. I am talking about straight vegetable oil.
This site says total cropland is 442M acres.
http://ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib14.aspx
This site says canola oil yield is 127+ gallons per acre.
http://articles.extension.org/pages/26629/rapeseed-and-canola-for-biodiesel-production
I think that makes 56B gallons. I only need 16B and remember the remainder, more than 50%, can still be used as animal feed so no loss there. We are not disturbing the human food chain.
I never said farmers didn’t farm for profit and I never suggested they should. Giving another outlet for their product and a reason to farm land that currently lies fallow should increase their profit. Also having the farmers work land they are currently being paid by the government not to farm would increase production and the farmers income.
I have had no problem storing biodiesel for more than 6 months. The place I got it from was storing it for longer than that. Considering how fast we go through fuel I don’t think storage will be an issue.
Crops that can grow on marginal land would probably do much better around the highways as I suggested. Judging by the way grass grows there those crops would do very well.
It would appear my estimates were low and so were yours.
Waste vegetable oils is collected whether it is used for fuel or disposed of so this activity is already occurring one way or the other. I am absolutely certain that the place I am familiar with is doing much better than 8%. I would be inclined to believe from what I have seen that they only lose 8% and the yield is 92%. Their method of processing the oil is continuous and very efficient. Every little bit helps so this should continue and be promoted.
Why bother with 10%? Because things like farm equipment, construction equipment, locomotives and other vehicles of that nature will probably not be able to run on batteries unless some kind of miracle breakthrough occurs.
I keep saying it is not the total solution but I am not convinced it is not part of the solution until something better comes along. Do you have a better option?
Yes Pierre, our vehicles are way to inefficient and we do consume way too much fuel much of the time for reasons that are unnecessary in vehicles that are way too big for that purpose. Part of the problem is we are trying to meet that unnecessary need instead of becoming more efficient.
I was once looking at an algae species that produces substantial quantities of long chain hydrocarbons and determined that it would basically require covering all of Louisiana in green sludge.
This is not to say the biofuels don’t have a place but they aren’t the whole answer.
One interesting idea might be marine biofuels.
It is worth noting that kelp forests are major carbon sinks and produce biomass quickly. The problem is that fur hunters nearly rendered sea otters extinct and without them the forests died. If we could restore sea otters this might be an important carbon sink and perhaps a source of biofuel feedstock.
It’s something we otter consider.