Awake at the Wheel

ASTM, the global leader in fuel specifications, has approved biodiesel standards for B5 and B20. B5 was approved under the current ULSD diesel fuel specification.The specifications were approved with support from vehicle OEMs and petroleum suppliers.

“It is quite remarkable that the big oil companies and engine makers on the committee have now joined forces with the biodiesel industry to help approve these standards,” said Steve Howell, chairman of the ASTM Biodiesel Task Force. Howell was presented with an award of appreciation from ASTM for his dedication in leading the effort.
More than five years of research and consultation with the ASTM fuel experts went into the new standards. “We addressed the issues and concerns with solid, scientific research,” said Joe Jobe, chief executive officer of the NBB. “Without the tremendous amount of scientific data provided by independent organizations like Southwest Research Institute, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Coordinating Research Council and others, and the cooperation of the petroleum and engine communities, this would not have been possible.”

Green Car Congress is reporting on a new study released by PIW.

This week articles in Science and Scientific American blasted the use of crops as biofuel feedstocks. The studies question the environmental benefits of ethanol, forecasting gloomy scenarios based on corn-ethanol  farming technologies as they exists today. They do so by effectively changing the way the carbon footprint of the fuel is calculated by directly linking global forest and land depletion to biofuels.

However, the real driver of forest depletion is not biofuels, its people. Population growth across the globe is increasing demand for agricultural land for food, clothing, etc. If biofuels production stopped altogether, the deforestation outlined in the study would not change. It’s erroneous to link agriculture expansion solely to biofuels, when all agriculture products make up the demand for land. Past studies have singled out organic farming practices, animal feed, and coffee – to name a few. This study has opted to ignore all other agricultural sectors, see here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate

Propel is providing access to the cleanest low carbon fuels available. Fuels that solve the problem, not add to it. Our feedstocks come from sustainable sources that do not deplete our essential forest lands. The world’s current fuel, petroleum – is not sustainable. And while a few scientists focus on calculating worst case scenarios, there are scientists and businesses actively working on second generation, low impact feedstocks, like algae, that have huge potential to provide truly sustainable biofuels.

So what are other experts saying? Here’s a sample…

NRDC
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/biofuels_not_quite_dead_yet_th.html
There are no easy solutions to a low-carbon transportation sector that do not require a significant contribution from biofuels. The challenges facing vehicle efficiency, electrification, VMT reductions, smart growth are different from those facing biofuels (they lessen the benefits we can get instead of risking costs), but for me, they do mean that the just-say-no approach to biofuels is irresponsible.

25x’25 Responds to Media Coverage of Studies Published in Science Magazine

http://www.25×25.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=379&Itemid=57

Studies recently detailed in Science magazine address the possible consequences of a faulty approach to utilizing lands to produce biofuel feedstocks. Unfortunately, mainstream media coverage of the studies failed to report that they also identified ways to avoid these problems and insure that future biofuels give us both a new renewable energy source and greatly reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Comment from Tim Raphael of Pac Ethanol

from Grist article: http://www.grist.org/news/2008/02/08/biofu/index.html

Land Use Impacts Analysis Flawed
Why should US-based corn ethanol, other crop-based biofuels, or advanced cellulosic fuels take a carbon hit for international land use changes for food or housing or other non-fuel related production?  By that logic:
*    Any US farmland not growing food crops is creating a carbon debt by increasing demand for international food production–What are the “secondary land use impacts” of US grass seed farmers? Or tobacco farmers?  Or nursery owners? Or cotton, tomatoes grapes and a myriad of other non-food related agricultural acreage in the US?
*    Every new subdivision and greenfield commercial, industrial or residential development creates a carbon debt by taking potential food-producing land out of production and shifting that demand to sensitive, international native ecosystems; and
*    Any effort in the US to protect ancient forests or native ecosystems creates a carbon debt by increasing demand for international sources of wood products.

Any analysis that shifts away from a life cycle analysis of the carbon potential for a single product or fuel and attempts to distribute carbon potential to “secondary” or “tertiary” impacts will create a dead-end, through-the-looking-glass scenario that is inaccurate and unworkable.

The real implication of accepting “secondary land use impacts” is an on-going dependence on CO2 intensive, polluting, imported fossil fuels.  Inclusion of secondary impacts is the wrong approach–each product should stand on its own.

It’s Not Acre for Acre - Productivity Gains Means We Get More From Less

The analyses of land use impacts assume that for every acre of land dedicated to renewable energy feedstocks, another acre of land must be put into production elsewhere in the world.  This assumption is flawed for several reasons:

*    It fails to account for advances in seed and processing technology that are providing greater yields for each acre of feedstock.
*  Corn acreage in the US peaked in 1917 with 116 million acres planted, compared to 93 million acres in 2007.  During that period yields have increased by more than 1 bushel/acre/year, from 29 bushels/acre to 200 bushels/acre.  This year the US will harvest more than 10 billion bushels of corn, and exports are rising, so certainly US corn ethanol production is not causing a need for increased grain production in the world.

*    It ignores the value of the feed co-products that are produced at today’s biorefineries.
*    The food value of corn is not lost in ethanol production–distillers grain is a high protein, high nutrient co-product that is sold back into the food market.

*    It inappropriately assigns all of the impact to growth in renewable fuels, ignoring the effects of a growing world economy, increased demand for food, and urban sprawl.

The Environmental Impacts of Fossil Fuels are Increasing
The reports fail to account for the fact that every gallon of biofuel produced today requires less land, requires less water and is less energy intensive than a decade ago, while the opposite is true for oil production.  Every new gallon of oil produced is more energy intensive and requires much more water than before. 

The “easy” sources of oil have been found and are being depleted.  What is left are more remote, costlier and more environmentally damaging nontraditional sources like Canadian tar sands or Rocky Mountain oil shale.  By failing to capitalize on the opportunity renewable fuels offer to begin breaking our adherence to the oil standard, the world would be forced to develop these nontraditional sources of oil that carry significant environmental price tags.

Even traditional sources of oil have steep environmental costs that are not accounted for in the land use reports.  Where is the accounting for oil drilling in the Amazon?  Oil spills in San Francisco Bay?  Or asthma deaths from air pollution?

The biodiesel sticker: a creature of a thousand faces that is becoming easier to spot on vehicles throughout the country. It comes in many forms from your basic “Powered By Biodiesel” to the more creative “Go By Grease,” and almost always it crops up on the bumpers of European passenger vehicles like VWs, Mercedes and Volvos. But while the average biodiesel user is depicted as a more socially conscious, urban dweller, biodiesel is slowly gaining traction with commercial diesel powerusers. And if you have any interest in seeing biodiesel become a mainstream alternative to petroleum fuels, you’ll want to read this article that describes a unique field study being led by the Iowa Soybean Association. The two-year study, called the “Two Million Mile Haul,” is examining the benefits of using biodiesel blends in the trucking industry. The results–as anyone familiar with biodiesel might assume-support the use of biodiesel in long haulers which represent “the largest single users of diesel fuel” in the country. Such a study–and others like it–should be considered a boost to the biodiesel industry. Though many Volkswagens and small diesel passenger vehicles will pepper the freeways in the next few years, a challenge for biodiesel proponents is to get light-duty truck owners to trust biodiesel. Now, with opinion leaders in the farm belt stumping for biodiesel, you can bet more Duramax’s, Cummins’ and Powerstrokes will have biodiesel running in their veins. And as light duty diesel trucks outnumber passenger diesels in the U.S. by roughly 10 to 1, it would be nice to see them join the party.

A comprehensive independent peer reviewed study of Canadian canola for biodiesel has determined the emission reductions to be even more compelling than previously known.

Link to PDF 

From Science Daily

“Our research found that the particulate matter from diesel exhaust stimulated a ‘death pathway’ response that the body uses to dispose of damaged cells. This response caused the airway cells to fuse together and die.

“We saw hardly any cell death after treatment with biodiesel particulates.”

Associate Professor Ackland said that the results of the study provide support for calls to move towards replacing petrol and diesel with cleaner biofuels.

“It is clear that breathing in diesel fumes is going to have a far more detrimental effect on our health than biodiesel. Given the level of cell death we have found, diesel exhaust could be the cause of respiratory disorders such as asthma and could even be implicated in cancer,” she said

 From The Economist Via AutoBlogGreen

Domestic Fuel Reports:

US Agriculture Secretary points to petroleum and weather, not agricultural energy crops, as the causes behind the small rise in some food prices.

Ethanol continues to get more than its fair share of blame for higher food prices, but Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns urges people to look at the whole picture.Speaking to farm broadcasters in Washington D.C. recently, Johanns said that he hates to pick out one item in the food chain and start blaming it for rising costs. “Look at how much diesel fuel has gone up recently,” he said. “What’s a significant piece of the food chain? It’s moving that commodity from farm to table.”

The latest forecast for food price increases this year is between three and four percent. Beef and poultry are up already over 4.5% from last year. But the largest increases are in fresh fruits and vegetables, which are up six to eight percent over 2006. According to USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag, “Part of this is due to weather damage, but also we just have seen higher production costs overall and higher costs of transportation coming into the system more fully.”

So, when it comes to reports that increased ethanol production is the cause of increased food prices, Johanns said, “Again, I would just urge people to be very cautious about this story. It tends to be an interesting story but it may not have the significance that one would argue. We need to tell the whole story.”

 Report: The Real Price of Gasoline (.pdf)

Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to
$1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail
price of gasoline, results in a per gallon price of $5.60
to $15.14. 

This report by the International Center for
Technology Assessment (CTA) identifies and
quantifies the many external costs of using motor
vehicles and the internal combustion engine that are not
reflected in the retail price Americans pay for gasoline.
These are costs that consumers pay indirectly by way
of increased taxes, insurance costs, and retail prices in
other sectors. The report divides the external costs of gasoline
usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of
the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies;
(3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and
Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health,
and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other
Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use.
Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to
$1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail
price of gasoline, results in a per gallon price of $5.60
to $15.14.

One day’s CO2 produced by typical gasser car. A big charcoal briquette. (click to enlarge)

Based on 12k miles/year and standard EPA CO2 emissions by fuel:_
7,510 pounds/CO2/Year: Gas VW Jetta at 31 mpg. 19.4 pounds CO2/gallon x 12,000 annual miles/31
6,498 pounds/CO2/Year: Diesel VW Jetta at 41 mpg. 22.2 pounds/gallon x 12,000 annual miles/41
4,565/pounds/CO2/Year: - Toyota Prius at 51 mpg. 19.4 pounds CO2/gallon x 12,000 annual miles/51
1,430 pounds/CO2/Year: Diesel Jetta on at 41 mpg. b100 Biodiesel
(78% reduction vs diesel, 69% reduction vs Prius, 81% reduction vs gas)

Most cars to still use petro in 2015, say Frost & Sullivan

Despite the focus on developing and promoting environmentally friendly
engine types, 69 percent of vehicles globally will still run on conventional
gasoline in 2015, say industry analysts Frost & Sullivan.

Of those, 26 percent of vehicles are likely to use diesel, while only about
6.0 percent will be gas-electric hybrid vehicles, the company predicts.

As concern about climate change and backlash against biofuels increase exponentially together, choices need to be made. Debates making news this week:

Vinod Khosla on “Environmentalists versus pragmentalists” The problem with exponential growth of electric vehicles:

Our least-cost electric power options–coal-fired power plants–are by far our most destructive and dangerous ones. Coal burning directly kills hundreds of thousands of people worldwide in particulate, sulfate and mercury releases, thousands of tons of radioactive emissions yearly, and emits over twice as much carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (kWh) as any other form of power generation. The coming costs from worsening droughts from Africa to Indiana, intensified storms, and rising sea levels will bring misery to billions. (ed: Not to mention the destruction of vital habitats as hydropower expands)

Coming soon: alternative fuel rollups and acquisitions?
From Inside Greentech

“The world’s desire for environmentally-friendly energy sources appears to be rising faster than global temperatures. This is a growing risk to all energy producers – one that goes well beyond a fire at a plant, or a tanker that runs aground. What’s important for you as large producers of hydrocarbons is to view this risk honestly and address it strategically,” said Brian Storms, Chairman and CEO of Marsh Inc., at the opening of the Marsh National Oil Company conference in Dubai.

Exxon CEO Lee Raymond retired with a $500M package. Photo credit: CommonDreams.org

CNN reports

The world’s leading climate scientists, in their most powerful language ever used on the issue, said global warming is “very likely” man-made, according to a new report obtained today by The Associated Press.

Meanwhile, business has never been better for ExxonMobile

After ringing up the biggest annual profit in U.S. corporate history in 2005, Exxon Mobil on Thursday announced that it topped that number in 2006. Riding the wave of high crude-oil and gasoline prices, and despite depressed fourth-quarter earnings, the company reported a $39.5 billion profit, up more than 9 percent from the previous year. Its revenue of $377.6 billion exceeded the gross domestic product of all but 25 countries.