Posted on Jan 22, 2008 - 1:59pm by E. Phil Haley in Alternative Fuels, Biodiesel
Over the last few weeks I’ve been reading an awful lot of stuff regarding the method and means by which the future will be fueled and one thing keeps popping up: diesel. And every time diesel is mentioned as a “progressive” fuel you can be sure that biodiesel will be touted somewhere in the article as a prominent player.
I’ve written several biodiesel related posts and, in general, I like the idea of a fuel that, unlike petroleum based fuels, is derived from a renewable source. Additionally, I’m not at all in favor of completely eliminating a power-train component as reliable as the internal-combustion diesel engine from the truck-transport equation. Yeah, hybrids, especially “series hybrids” like those Everitt has written about, are not only promising, they offer possibilities unavailable with current designs. But even the series hybrids often incorporate diesel power.
With diesel and biodiesel being pushed by the media as a so-called “fuel of the future” I’ve really got to wonder what the ultimate impact will be on truck transport. In fact, I’ve got a lot of questions.
Since petroleum products are globally traded commodities it’s just not possible to limit a discussion of their economic impact, either positive or negative, to specific geographic regions. If the worldwide demand for diesel powered vehicles, etc., continues to increase, even if North American demand were to remain stable, the price can’t help but be driven upward. Increased supply can mitigate or, if supply can be sufficiently increased, even offset the pressures of demand. Biodiesel seems to be the answer many are giving to the “how will we increase supply” question.
This question has a lot of interrelated permutations. For example, can biodiesel entirely replace petro-diesel? Can biodiesel production and distribution stand on its own two feet? Can worldwide biodiesel production be standardized? Is biodiesel production truly “green”? What’s the best biodiesel feedstock source?
I, most certainly, do not have the answers to these questions but, I fear, neither does anyone else; regardless of their stance toward biodiesel. Nevertheless, let’s give ‘em a quick look.
This is an important question because, after all, petroleum-based diesel is in limited supply. It’s unlikely that supplies will be depleted within the next hundred years or so but debate rages regarding just how long after that it’ll be before it’s no longer economically feasible to pull remaining oil reserves from their subterranean resting places.
If biodiesel can eventually meet all needs then it makes sense to continue to look at the diesel engine as a source of transport power now and in the future. If, however, biodiesel can’t meet the needs then it only makes sense to begin looking elsewhere. Hydrogen, for example, can be used as an internal-combustion energy source. Should we be looking there? Should we be looking at an entirely different type of engine? What about magnetic levitation?
This question illustrates the interrelated nature of the viability issue. Right now, it seems, biodiesel production facilities can’t manage to survive without government subsidies. But that’s not the half of it. With each earnings report released by Exxon-Mobile, for example, there’s an almost instantaneous media response lamenting the “obscene profits of Big Oil”. What you don’t hear, though, is that (still using Exxon-Mobile as an example) Big Oil profits are dwarfed by the corporate taxes paid to state and federal governments. Additionally, those “obscene profits” produced by oil companies are used to fuel growth, R&D, or returned to investors through dividends.
How can biodiesel be expected to replace petro-diesel if it can’t pay its own way? There’s no long-term future in propping up a profitless industry.
Since this is a blog post and not a magazine article I’m going to stop here; for now. I’m not out of questions yet so I’ll write another post on the subject in a day or two. What about you? What questions are you asking yourself and others regarding the future of energy? Let me know.
RSS feed for comments on this post | Trackback URI
I think biodiesel could be a part of the solution of becoming energy independent if they used something besides corn. By using corn they are messing with the corn markets and causing havoc that may be worse then the cure.
Bio’s won’t be able to be the sole solution but they can play a big part.
I’m going to discuss the biodiesel feedstock issue in the next post. Corn is an ethanol feedstock while soybeans are the most common feedstock used in the U.S.; but there are others. Your point is well taken, though, because using a food source for energy production will create a huge problem. There has to be another answer and, fortunately, I think there is.
I agree that biodiesel has high potential but if they continue to push corn-based rather than cellulose-based ethanol then it’s doomed to failure.
Not going into the biochemistry of the matter, but what I’ve read seems to indicate that BioDiesel has all the benefits of petro diesel with none of the drawbacks. Assuming that biodiesel provides more energy than is required to make it then that main drawback is sulphur. Sulphur is apparently a “BAD THING” tm…….it also gums up the works of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells..
Consequently, not having sulphur, biodiesel is superior to petro diesel . SO Fuel cells are one of at least two options for use in a hybrid electric. The other being an ICE (internal combustion engine)….of which there are several flavors.
Regarding feed stocks? Tricky. I think the dread phrase “genetic engineering” will be used more frequently and soon… As will the terms “algae” and “nanotech”
Yep, it seems that, of all the potential renewable energy sources, biodiesel is the most practical. As far as feedstock sources go, there are a few that don’t compete with food crops and, you’re probably right about the “dreaded phrase” being uttered often in conjunction with any biodiesel feedstock source. And, yeah, algae and nanotech certainly seem to have possibilities.
The issue that has me most concerned at this time is that of profitability apart from government subsidy. Biodiesel production plants will need to become taxpayers rather than tax-takers if they’re going to be a true petroleum alternative. I’ve got some ideas about how that can come about but I’m afraid the push to bio-fuels is being driven by groups that see government intervention as a good thing. They’re ignoring, though, the fact that at least some of the subsidies now being paid are coming from taxpayers, i.e. Big Oil, that they’re trying to eliminate.
You’re right.
Look at what happened in Germany.
http://www.reuters.com/article/GlobalAgricultureandBiofuels08/idUSL1589672020080115
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40634
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/30/german-biodiesel-producers-must-become-efficient-facing-tough-t/
and in summation.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=German+Bio+Diesel%2C+tax&btnG=Google+Search