Life on the Road – Trucking News Blog

Nope, I’m not dispensing any answers in this post; I’m just asking questions. Asking questions, though, as Martha would say, is a good thing. Questions demand answers, answers require thought, thought requires critical analysis and critical analysis can lead to the revelation of both problems and the solutions to those problems.

In Part 1 of this post I asked several general questions but only detailed a few of them. In this final installment I’ll do my best to detail the remaining questions and sum up. Don’t think, by any stretch, I’m asking all the questions though.

I’m not even asking all the questions I’ve thought of let alone all the questions that could, and probably have been, asked by others who are far more informed than I am ever likely to be.

How will global economies deal with a growing demand for diesel?

The sharp-eyed among you will recognize this as the first question I asked in the first part. I ask it again for a different reason. With companies like Safeway, Dominick’s, Dole, Corporate Express and others making efforts of varying magnitude to increase their use of biodiesel it seems that a growing demand for biodiesel will continue. That could bode well for biodiesel producers but there are other considerations.

Diesel fuel, whether bio or petro, exists in a global market and the pressures of supply and demand must be considered globally. In the U.S., diesel power is heavily used in the freight transportation and construction sectors while other demands are limited. This isn’t the scenario in Europe, and elsewhere, as significant demand for diesel power exists across the board.

Outside of the U.S., every major manufacturer of autos produces and sells significant numbers of diesel powered cars; often accounting for more than 50% of overall sales. Additionally, if racing achievements precede general trends, it should be noted that Audi has won the last two 24 Hours of Le Mans (and many other races) with their diesel powered R10; last year beating a diesel powered Puegeot 908. This year, the Audi R10 will be fueled with biodiesel.

Since petro-diesel has historically been produced as a derivative of gasoline production, I’m curious as to how the increased demand for diesel will be dealt with by both petro- and biodiesel producers. I’m curious, as well, as to how governments will choose to structure tax and fee regulations.

As I stated in the earlier post, tax structures seem to figure significantly in biodiesel production. I cited one article outlining the difficulties faced by Germany’s biodiesel producers, due to tax structure, and Everitt came up with several more. As it now stands in the U.S., petro-diesel producers are big taxpayers and biodiesel producers are big tax takers. This doesn’t seem to be a recipe for success; does it?

What’s the best biodiesel feedstock source?

If you read the first post, you know there were a couple of questions I asked prior to this one: “Can worldwide biodiesel production be standardized?” and “Is biodiesel production truly “green”?” I think it’s entirely possible that those questions, and, quite probably, others are contained within the wider question of feedstock sources.

In North and South America, soybeans are the leading biodiesel feedstock source. That’s all well and good but using soybeans as an energy source creates a serious conflict; because soybeans are a key source of nutrition. Employing a single crop as a provider of both energy and food is a recipe for disaster if I ever did see one.

Sure, the situation will make farmers happy – in the short-term. In conjuring up visions of the long-term consequences, however, all I can think of are scenarios best left to sci-fi writers. That means an ideal biodiesel feedstock must, in my opinion, not create serious competition to food or food production; it shouldn’t be a significant source of nutrition or require large amounts of farmland.

Fortunately, there happen to be a few candidates meeting those criteria. But wait! I think a couple other criteria should be considered, as well; now is the time to incorporate the question of standards and ecological considerations.

I’m not sure everybody or, for that matter, anybody will agree with me but I’m going to set the following as criteria needing to be met in order for a biodiesel feedstock to be considered acceptable:

• No food source conflict: Meaning the biodiesel feedstock isn’t used for food and won’t replace food crops on farmland.
• Ecologically friendly: Palm oil, for example, has come under attack as a feedstock source because forests are being knocked down so that Palm trees can be grown.
• Provides consistent oil quality/quantity: Something that will make it both economically feasible and easily standardized.
• Easily harvested: In other words, if it can’t be machine harvested, or if harvesting machines can’t be manufactured, it’s not what I’d call “easily harvested”

I’m sure others can either add to the list or come up with sound arguments against some of that which I’ve included but, at least, it’s a point from which to start. Surprisingly, there are quite a few biodiesel feedstock sources that come pretty close to meeting the above criteria. For example:

• Jatropha curcas: I’ve written about Jatropha before and it’s gaining support among a variety of heavy hitters, like BP, Daimler, ADM & Bayer, and even Uganda. The level of oil contained in the seeds can vary greatly (that’s being researched) and efficient harvesting machinery is yet to be built; but he fact that it can be grown on marginal land makes further investigation worthwhile.
• Algae: Reportedly, it’d take 3 billion acres of soybeans or 1 billion acres of rapeseed (canola) to produce enough biodiesel to meet current petro-diesel usage. Unfortunately, there are less than 450 million acres of farmland in the U.S., but only 95 million acres, which could be located anywhere, would be required to produce enough algae to meet our needs. Here’s a good start to your algae investigation: read this, this, this and this.
• Canola: Produced from a variant of Rapeseed, canola is currently grown in Canada and the U.S.; with North Dakota leading all other states. While canola can’t be counted on to replace petro-diesel, it’s high oil content (approaching 50%) makes it an interesting biodiesel feedstock candidate.

Summary

Honestly asking and searching for the answers to questions, without regard to bias, is a tenet of the Scientific Method. I don’t pretend to have asked all the questions about biodiesel that need to be both asked and answered. What I’ve tried to do, though, is get us all started down a path that’ll lead to good solutions. Bias, whether political, economic, or otherwise, will taint the process.

Good answers to good questions do exist but they won’t be found if we’re unwilling to hear and accept what might seem to be bad news. No good will come from artificially propping up a bad technology, no matter the reason.

Investigations of technologies and methods must be open and honest and when answers are attained they should be accepted at face value; even when they differ from that which might be desired.

This post, for example, assumes that biodiesel is the probable fuel of the future. What if it’s not? What if LNG or CNG or something else altogether is our future fuel? I’d like to think I’d remain open to the possibilities.