By: John Nikoloff
Last month, Governor Rendell announced that initial biodiesel production targets had been reached and that the process would begin to require B2 blends be sold in Pennsylvania. And almost immediately, ERG received dozens of calls about what biodiesel is, what it means, how it will be handled, and a few calls asking if biofuels were really good for the environment. Over the next few months, ERG will try to provide some background on biodiesel as a means to "clear the air."
For now, we want to respond to some of the calls, which were apparently generated by comments in a wire story on the mandate which disputed the effects of alternative fuels like biodiesel. The "expert" quoted in the story claimed that biofuels' environmental and economic impacts are still unclear, and he went on suggest that biodiesel "seems to have some kind of impact on food prices since you're using some land that would be used for food."
These kinds of comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of agriculture, renewable energy production and biofuels. Having been lucky enough to work with agriculture and agribusiness for more than three decades, and to work daily in renewable energy sector, I was surprised and disappointed by the lack of basic knowledge of these industries. All biofuels can't be lumped in one basket - and any "experts" who do so, are only proving that they don't know apples from oranges, or ethanol from biodiesel.
For the record: Pennsylvania's biodiesel producers are manufacturing a sustainable fuel that is good for the environment. Biodiesel is nontoxic - ten times less toxic than table salt. It is the only alternative fuel to have a complete evaluation of emission results and potential health effects submitted to the EPA under the Clean Air Act.
Decades of independent testing show that ozone forming potential of biodiesel emissions is 50 percent less than that of diesel fuel. Biodiesel use virtually eliminates sulfur emissions, major components of acid rain. And using biodiesel results in significant reductions of particulate matter (47%), carbon monoxide (48%) and unburned hydrocarbons (67%), along with decreases in various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) of from 50 to 95%.
Biodiesel production and use reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 78 percent, from planting the feedstock beans to the pump. And every gallon of B100 that is used instead of petrodiesel reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions by between 16 and 18 pounds.
Almost 50% of biodiesel production in 2008 was made from feedstock other than soy oil - an industry building on wastes, animal fats and other oils. Several Pennsylvania manufacturers exclusively used animal fats and waste oils in their biodiesel production.
Sustainable production practices for biofuels are important. This week, in San Francisco, Dr. Rob Myers, a director of the Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute, and Roger Beachy, President of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, said "Biodiesel from a variety of feedstocks can meet contemporary needs for environmental stewardship, economic prosperity, and quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to meet these needs for themselves."
The Pennsylvania biodiesel industry supports these practices and is proactively engaged in this area, investing in second and third generation feedstocks, such as camelina, canola, jatropha and even algae.
Penn State has conducted years of research in Pennsylvania on canola, which is now being grown for biodiesel use. Lake Erie Biofuels has been working with Northwest PA farmers and Penn State's Extension Service to develop production and processing capabilities for camelina, an oilseed crop that does not compete with corn and soybeans for acreage, and can be grown on marginal lands, including reclaimed minelands.
Second and third generation feedstocks will result in less expensive biodiesel without impacting planting and production or prices for traditional commodities. The oil content of canola and camelina is double that of soybeans, and the oil output per acre is more than double that of soybeans. While an acre of soybeans would yield approximately 50 gallons of oil, canola produced in Pennsylvania the last two years has yielded more than 140 gallons per acre. And crops like jatropha (202 gallons per acre) and algae (15,000 gallons or more per acre) are coming in the near future.
Food Price Impacts?
The food vs. fuel argument is loaded with fallacies and assumptions, even in the case of corn based ethanol. But extrapolating those indefensible numbers about corn, to oilseeds and biodiesel is just plain bad science. Corn and soybeans, like ethanol and biodiesel are, to mix a metaphor, different animals, and subject to very different market pressures.
Soybean MEAL drives soybean demand - the oil is a byproduct. And soybean oil isn't the only product available to fill the position served by it in the food and industrial markets Other vegetable oils - sunflower oil, canola oil, etc. are often more beneficial in biodiesel use than soybean oil.
Historically, two things have driven soybean prices - the demand for soybean meal as protein in livestock rations has been the major driver, and the export markets have been the second. Last year soybean prices soared, but the major drivers were oil prices and speculative investing. The US has surplus soybean stocks and a 400 million gallon soybean oil surplus. Nearly 50 percent of the soybeans produced in the United States are exported in the form of whole beans, meal or oil.
Increasing production of soybeans should lead to a lowering of overall food prices. Soybean meal prices would be more reasonable, and therefore, expenses rearing feedlot cattle or dairy cattle, for example, would be less, and beef milk and butter prices, etc., would follow suit.
With biodiesel you're left with the oilseed cake after the oil has been pressed out. Depending on what seed is used, this is usually a highly nutritious, high-protein livestock feed.
With biodiesel, you CAN have your cake and eat it.
Comments