[Biofuel] Saltwater Crops article and an Introduction

[Ernest Worley]

The article, found at:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/saltwatercrops.html
Discusses salt water crops, their potential as biomass fuel sources. Will it
settle the food vs. energy problem? I don't know.

Now me, I'm a 25 year old grad student, entrepreneurial florist and
biodiesel enthusiast in Texas. Yee-haw! Notice the picture in the article is
from a Texas beach.

Admittedly, I am a novice at making biodiesel - I've made a few small
batches using a regular kitchen blender, but I'm working to scale up. I'd
like to make something like the "Simple 5-gallon" Processor as described on
the Journeytoforever site during this winter break. After Obama's
inauguration and the commencement of the spring semester I'm hosting a
little DIY biodiesel tutorial for some interested classmates and colleagues.
Probably around January 24th.

I welcome your advice, and wonder if there are other Texans on the list
serve? If you live near Austin maybe we can meet.

-Ernest
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20081205/804ad572/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] 'Reality' Coalition: A dangerous game

[Keith Addison]

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_reality_coalition.081204.htm
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #988
Thursday, December 4, 2008

A dangerous game

[Rachel's introduction: A new "reality coalition" has challenged the 
coal industry to "live up to the promise of so-called clean coal." 
But how serious is this new coalition?]

By Peter Montague

Five big enviro groups have just launched a new campaign to force the 
coal industry to put up or shut up about "clean coal."

The Alliance for Climate Protection, League of Conservation Voters, 
National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council 
(NRDC), and Sierra Club this week launched the "Reality Coalition," 
an advertising campaign to -- in their own words -- "tell a simple 
truth: in reality, there is no such thing as 'clean coal.'

The first "Reality" print ad shows a solitary door labeled "Clean 
Coal Facility Entrance." Behind the door, though, lies a barren 
field. "In reality, there's no such thing as clean coal," the ad says.

Reality's first TV ad follows the same premise and can be viewed at 
http://www.thisisreality.org/.

The "reality coalition" is responding to the coal industry's own 
multi-million dollar ad campaign claiming that "clean coal" is the 
answer to global warming.

The coal industry defines "clean coal" as power plants that capture 
roughly 85% of their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, turn the CO2 
into a liquid, transport it via pipeline to a "suitable location," 
and bury it a mile or so below ground, hoping it will stay there 
forever (thus passing today's problem on to future generations).

Surprisingly, the "reality coalition" accepts the coal industry's 
definition of "clean coal" -- merely capturing most CO2 emissions and 
burying them in the ground. This is a very narrow definition of 
"clean."

How dirty is coal? Let me count the ways.

A new report from Greenpeace International discusses the following 
problems created by dependence on coal:


Effects of mining coal: Deforestation, soil erosion, water shortages, 
coal fires, greenhouse gas emissions, lower water tables, destruction 
of mountains, dust particles and debris in surrounding communities, 
destruction of surrounding plant life, pollution of nearby water 
bodies through runoff, displacement of communities due to mining, 
coal fires, landslides and contaminated water supplies, plus black 
lung disease.

Effects of burning coal: Water shortages from cooling of power plants 
and "washing" of coal, air pollution and smog, serious mercury 
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, acid rain, and widespread lung 
disease from fine and ultrafine particles.

Effects after burning: Abandoned mines, destroyed communities, 
altered landscapes, soil damage and water pollution from acid mine 
drainage, destruction of fish and aquatic animals, collapsing mines 
causing structural damage to nearby roads, bridges and buildings, 
kidney disease, and cancer, plus every year U.S. coal plants produce 
120 million tons of toxic coal combustion wastes laced with lead, 
arsenic and cadmium, most of which gets buried in the ground, 
creating toxic time bombs.

But the "reality coalition says only, "Coal cannot be considered 
clean until its carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored."

And: "No matter how much they say it in their advertising, coal can't 
truly be clean until the plants can capture the global warming 
pollution."

Surely a coalition of major environmental groups can see that there 
is more to cleaning up coal than merely burying CO2 in the ground.

The "reality coalition" seems to be playing a dangerous game. The way 
the "reality" campaign is framed, it invites the coal industry to 
meet the challenge by merely creating a few "demonstration" projects, 
which will then be used to claim that "clean coal" has arrived. 
Indeed, one small "demonstration" plant is already operating in 
Germany, and coal executives are already claiming it "demonstrates" 
that "clean coal" is real.

The "reality coalition" has not defined what would constitute an 
"adequate demonstration" of "clean coal." If the goal is to bury 
trillions of tons of CO2 in the ground and keep it there for, say, 
2000 years -- how could you demonstrate success? Yes, you can stick a 
pipe in the ground and pump liquid CO2 into it for five years. But 
the day you declare the demonstration a "success," leakage could 
begin the next day. So how can such a demonstration ever be declared 
a success?

And if a demonstration occurs under laboratory conditions for a few 
years, does that mean that trillions of tons of CO2 can then be 
"safely" pumped into the ground for the next 50 years in China, 
India, Russia and who knows where else? Are regulatory authorities in 
those countries even as vigilant as the sleepy agencies we tolerate 
in the U.S.?

Unless we specify what constitutes an adequate demonstration of 
carbon dioxide bur

[Biofuel] 'Reality' Coalition Launches Campaign Debunking 'Clean Coal' Myth

[Keith Addison]

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/12/04-4
December 4, 2008
12:11 PM
CONTACT: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Julia Bovey, 202-289-2420

'Reality' Coalition Launches Campaign Debunking 'Clean Coal' Myth
Calls on Coal Industry to Live up to the Promise of So-Called 'Clean Coal'

MENLO PARK, Calif. - December 4 - Today, the Alliance for Climate 
Protection, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife 
Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club 
launched the "Reality" Coalition, a national grassroots and 
advertising effort to tell a simple truth:  in reality, there is no 
such thing as "clean coal."

Environmental experts agree that coal is the dirtiest fuel America 
uses to produce electricity. The "Reality" Coalition, then, is 
challenging the coal industry to come clean - in its advertising 
andin its operations. Coal cannot be considered clean until its 
carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored.  

"The reality is that there's not a single home or business in America 
today powered by clean coal," said Brian Hardwick of the Alliance for 
Climate Protection. "If coal really wants to be part of America's 
energy future, the industry can start by making a real commitment to 
eliminating their pollution that is a leading cause of global 
warming."  

Hardwick continued: "It is high time for the coal industry to come 
clean and admit to the American people that today clean coal is not a 
reality. No matter how much they say it in their advertising, coal 
can't truly be clean until the plants can capture the global warming 
pollution. With so much at stake, we can't afford to hang our hats on 
an illusion."  

Beginning today, the "Reality" Coalition will launch a multi-million 
dollar ad campaign, running in print, broadcast and online media and 
supported by the website, www.ThisIsReality.org. The ads were 
designed and produced by Boulder, Colorado-based Crispin Porter + 
Bogusky, the agency responsible for the ground-breaking "Truth" 
anti-tobacco campaign.  

The first "Reality" print ad shows a solitary door labeled "Clean 
Coal Facility Entrance." Behind the door, though, lies a barren 
field. "In reality, there's no such thing as clean coal," the ad 
states.   

The ad continues: "Coal is one of the leading causes of global 
warming.  But that hasn't stopped the coal industry from advertising 
clean coal. Yet, the truth is there isn't a single commercial coal 
plant in America today that captures its global warming pollution. 
Learn more about what the coal industry is not telling you ..."  

Reality's first TV ad follows the same premise and can be viewed at 
www.thisisreality.org.  

"The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions promoting 'clean 
coal' technology, but in reality, there is not a single large-scale 
demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely 
burying all of coal's CO2 emissions," Vice President Gore said. "The 
industry must make good its promise if they truly want to do their 
part to solve the climate crisis. Until that happens, coal cannot be 
called 'clean'."  

The "Reality" Coalition today echoes the call made by former Vice 
President and Alliance for Climate Protection Chairman Al Gore in a 
recent New York Times op-ed that until coal is truly clean, there 
should be no new coal-fired power plants built in America.  

"The coal industry is running a cynical and dishonest campaign to 
mislead the American people, while they stand in the way of real 
solutions," said Gene Karpinski, President of the League of 
Conservation Voters. "The 'Reality' Coalition is aimed at holding 
them accountable for their outlandish claims."  

Added Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke: 
"Big coal is spending millions to make us think that coal use today 
is 'clean.' But all their dirty money can't hide the truth -- coal as 
it's used today is the dirtiest climate-killing fuel on earth."  

"Everyone has a role to play in creating our clean energy future," 
said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "It's time for the 
coal industry to stop fighting against efforts to bring about a green 
economy and instead start living up to its clean coal rhetoric." 

"We need to clean up coal, not spend billions on a scheme to market 
coal as clean," said Larry Schweiger, President and CEO of the 
National Wildlife Federation. "It's time to build a better energy 
future with existing clean sources like wind and solar that will 
create jobs, boost our economy and confront the climate crisis 
head-on." 

About the "Reality" Coalition
The "Reality" Campaign is sponsored by the Reality Coalition, a joint 
project of the Alliance for Climate Protection, League of 
Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, National 
Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club. The Reality Campaign tells the 
truth about coal today -- it isn't clean. We are challenging the coal 
industry to come clean -- in its advertisin

[Biofuel] Efficiency Is Our Best Untapped Energy Source

[Keith Addison]

Efficiency Is Our Best Untapped Energy Source

By Carole Bass, Yale Environment 360

Posted on December 5, 2008, Printed on December 5, 2008

http://www.alternet.org/story/109550/

The world's biggest untapped energy source, according to energy 
expert Amory Lovins, is efficiency. But don't call it "conservation."

In an interview conducted by science writer Carole Bass for Yale 
Environment 360, Lovins, the co-founder and chairman of Rocky 
Mountain Institute, says that word connotes "privation, discomfort 
and curtailment." By contrast, "efficiency" means "doing more and 
better with less energy and money, but with more brains and 
technology," he says.

The longtime renewable energy advocate and author says retooling for 
energy efficiency will require "barrier-busting" at many levels. And 
government, Lovins says, "should steer, not row."

Carole Bass: You have called energy efficiency "the largest, 
cheapest, safest, cleanest, fastest way to provide energy services." 
How do you quantify that claim? For example, how large, how cheap, 
how fast?

Amory Lovins: Oh, for example, in the United States we could save at 
least half the oil and gas and three-quarters of the electricity we 
use, and that efficiency investment would cost only about an eighth 
[of] what we're now paying for those forms of energy. Š

CB: How fast could we do that?

AL: To get completely off oil -- half from the supply side and half 
by redoubling the efficiency of using oil -- would take 'til the 
2040s, if we did it about a third slower than we saved oil from 1977 
to '85, when we were last paying attention. Saving half the gas could 
be a good deal faster, probably about 20 years. And saving 
three-quarters of the electricity would take several decades, because 
we would need both to build new things in a much smarter way and to 
retrofit existing buildings and factories -- bearing in mind that 
about 70 percent of our electricity goes to buildings and 30 percent 
to factories.

Now, there are ways to speed this up, like mass retrofits. The most 
important way to speed it up would be to reward utilities for cutting 
our bills, not selling us more energy. That reform is adopted in a 
handful of states but pending in about another two dozen. And there's 
a lot of barrier-busting needed at all levels of government as well 
as firms and households.

By barrier-busting, I mean enabling people to respond to the price 
signals they see, and use energy in a way that saves money, by 
turning into a business opportunity each of the 60 or 80 well-known 
obstacles or market failures in buying efficiency. [You'll find the 
taxonomy of those on pages 11 to 20 of our 1997 paper Climate: Making 
Sense and Making Money, which is in the climate publications library 
of rmi.org.] And another important way to make retrofits much cheaper 
is to coordinate them with retrofits and renovations you're doing 
anyway for other reasons. We published an example where that 
coordination would enable you to save three-quarters of the 
electricity used by a typical 20-odd-year-old glass office tower at a 
slightly lower cost than the regular 20-year renovation you have to 
do anyway, that saves nothing.

CB: Now, you mentioned that barrier-busting is needed at all levels 
of government. It seems as though your work focuses very much on the 
private sector.

AL: Well, barrier-busting is needed in the public and private 
sectors, and in fact many of the biggest obstacles are at the level 
of the firm. For example, a company or an individual hiring an 
architect or an engineer would do well to pay that designer for -- 
or, pay those designers for what they saved, not for what they spend, 
which is the traditional method of compensation. Or, there's the 
well-known split incentive. Why should I fix up the building if the 
landlord owns it, and why should the landlord fix it if I pay the 
bills? You need to drop in a lease rider to share equitably the costs 
and benefits of the retrofit.

CB:You do focus mainly on the business side, is that right?

AL: Yeah. We work in all sectors, but most of our work is with the 
private sector, because we actually want to get things done.

CB: How far can the private sector take us, and at what point do we 
need to bring the general public along as well?

AL: I think government should steer, not row. The rowing, the heavy 
work, will and should be done by the private sector in its 
co-evolution with civil society. The government should get the rules 
right. And I think the broad framework that makes the most sense for 
energy policy would be to let all ways to save or produce energy 
compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which kind they are, what 
technology they use, how big they are, where they are, or who owns 
them. And let's see who's not in favor of that. I would predict that 
those not in favor will include all the incumbents, who are quite 
happy with the present arrangements they paid a lot of money for.

CB:What

[Biofuel] Climate Activists Invade DC Offices Of Environmental Defense Fund

[Keith Addison]

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_reality_coalition.081204.htm
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #988
Thursday, December 4, 2008

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_climate_activists_invade_ed.081201.htm

From: Rising Tide North America

December 1, 2008

Climate Activists Invade DC Offices Of Environmental Defense Fund

[Rachel's introduction: Climate activists took over the Washington 
D.C. office of Environmental Defense Fund earlier this week. The 
activists said they had targeted EDF, one of the largest 
environmental organizations in the world, because of its key role in 
promoting the discredited approach of carbon trading as a solution to 
climate change.]

By Matt Wilkerson

As the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change opened today in 
Poznan, Poland, grassroots climate activists took over the Washington 
D.C. office of Environmental Defense. The activists stated that they 
had targeted ED, one of the largest environmental organizations in 
the world, because of the organization's key role in promoting the 
discredited approach of carbon trading as a solution to climate 
change.

Dr. Rachel Smolker of Global Justice Ecology Project 
 and Global Forest Coalition 
 read a statement, 
 which 
said in part, "My father was one of the founders of this 
organization, which sadly I am now ashamed of. The Kyoto Protocol, 
the European Emissions Trading Scheme and virtually every other 
initiative for reducing emissions have adopted their market 
approaches. So far they have utterly failed, serving only to provide 
huge profits to the world's most polluting industries. Instead of 
protecting the environment, ED now seems primarily concerned with 
protecting corporate bottom lines. I can hear my father rolling over 
in his grave."

The activists rearranged furniture in the office, illustrating how 
marketing carbon is "like rearranging the deck chairs on the 
Titanic." Others held signs reading "Keep the cap, ditch the trade" 
and "Carbon trading is an environmental offense."

Leo Cerda, an indigenous activist with Rising Tide Ecuador said, "ED 
wants to turn the atmosphere and forests into private property, and 
then give it away to the most polluting industries in the form of 
pollution allowances that can be bought and sold. Not only is this an 
ineffective way to control emissions, it is also a disaster for the 
poor and indigenous peoples who are not party to these markets and 
are most impacted by climate change."

ED has been key in establishing the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, 
a business consortium advocating for a cap and trade system with 
extremely weak emissions reductions. US CAP allows polluters like 
Duke Energy, Shell, BP, DuPont, and Dow Chemical to claim they are 
green while continuing with business as usual. In recognition, 
activists awarded ED the "Corporate Greenwash Award," a three foot 
tall green paintbrush. "We think this award is appropriate since 
Environmental Defense spends more time painting polluters green than 
actually defending the environment," said Matt Wallace of Rising Tide 
North America.

Opposition to carbon trading is growing as it becomes apparent that 
market based schemes do little to fight climate change while helping 
corporations rake in profits. Earlier this year, over 50 groups came 
together in the US to denounce carbon trading in a Declaration 
Against the Use of Carbon Trading Schemes to Address Climate Change. 
 Globally, hundreds of 
environmental, social justice, and indigenous groups have come 
together to oppose such market based initiatives as inherently 
unsustainable and ineffective in creating a just transition away from 
fossil fuels.

See the full statement from Rachel Smolker, daught of Environmental 
Defense founder Robert E. Smolker

See more photos and information at Rising Tide North America.

Read a first-hand account of the invasion of EDF's D.C. office.



http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_edf_step_aside.081201.htm

From: Global Justice Ecology Project


December 1, 2008

Time To Shape Up Or Step Aside, Environmental Defense Fund

[Rachel's introduction: The daughter of Environmental Defense Fund 
(EDF) founder Robert Smolker occupied the offices of EDF earlier this 
week and delivered a speech saying, in part, 

Re: [Biofuel] Small Farmers Key to Combating Climate Change

[Keith Addison]

Hello Ana

>Thank you for posting this article.

You're welcome.

>Simulataneously I found this article in Time magazine

Thankyou. Maybe he's right, it's too soon to tell - and too late to 
quibble about it!

>Why people, lobbyists, groups of all kind decry biofuels, my reply 
>has been that it is the method of farming that is destructive not 
>the fuel source.

Quite so. "Small is beautifuel." Same as food. Maybe you'll find this useful:

Food vs fuel? The anti-biofuels controversy


Grow biofuels, not agrofuels.

Best

Keith


>http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841779_1841796,00.html
>
>--- On Wed, 12/3/08, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [Biofuel] Small Farmers Key to Combating Climate Change
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 2:28 AM
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/02-8
>Published on Tuesday, December 2, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
>
>A Message for Climate Change Negotiators: Small Farmers Key to
>Combating Climate Change
>
>by Annie Shattuck
>
>As world leaders meet in Poznan, Poland this week to work out a
>foundation for a new international climate change treaty, they would
>do well to seek the council of some unconventional advisors: peasant
>farmers. Agricultural policy has been virtually ignored in "official"
>
>discussions of climate change. One place it hasn't been ignored is by
>farmers themselves. In October hundreds of small farmers from all
>over the world met in Maputo, Mozambique for the fifth international
>conference of La Via Campesina, a global movement of peasant farmers.
>A sense of urgency around climate change featured prominently in
>their final declaration.
>
>It's little wonder. The Via Campesina Declaration casts small farmers
>in the developing world as both global warming's victims and a
>potential solution. They are right! While industrial agriculture is
>one of the world's biggest climate culprits, small-scale farmers
>actually cool the planet.
>
>Agriculture is responsible for 13.5% of global greenhouse gas
>emissions - largely from synthetic fertilizers and large animal
>operations. GHG emissions-soil carbon loss, methane, and nitrous
>oxide-are largely results of large-scale agricultural operations in
>which soil carbon is depleted, methane from large animal feedlot
>operations is released unchecked, and synthetic fertilizers release
>nitrous oxide-a gas with 300 times the warming power of CO2.
>
>The agricultural sector, including land use change for agriculture,
>has been estimated to make up anywhere from 28-33% of global
>emissions. Combined with the emissions created transporting food in
>our increasingly globalized food economy where the average bite to
>eat travels 1200 miles from field to fork, the industrial food system
>may be the largest single contributor to global warming.
>
>In small-scale organic farming systems however, carbon is actually
>stored in the soil at a rate of about four tons per hectare. The
>Rodale Institute estimates that if the U.S. converted to organic
>agriculture on all its farmland, 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
>could be saved.
>
>Small-scale sustainable agriculture is also vastly more resilient to
>climate change. After Hurricane Mitch devastated much of the Central
>American countryside, a study of over 1800 conventional and
>sustainable farms showed that farmers using sustainable practices
>suffered less "damage" than their conventional neighbors. Diversified
>
>plots had 20% to 40% more topsoil, greater soil moisture, less
>erosion, and experienced fewer economic losses than their
>conventional farm neighbors. Not only can small-scale sustainable
>agriculture help cool the planet, it can provide a buffer against the
>worst effects of global warming.
>
>The small farmers of La Via Campesina know this. They are calling for
>an international shift towards food sovereignty - the right of all
>people over the resources to produce and consume abundant, culturally
>appropriate food. Their vision is one of agroecologically balanced,
>sustainable, family farms supported by local markets. Not only will
>this vision confront the injustices of a world food system where one
>billion people will go hungry this year while another billion are
>obese-it could help stave off climate disasters.
>
>Any "vision" that may emerge from negotiations in Poznan, Poland this
>
>week must include creating a food system that is more resilient, less
>polluting, and ultimately more just. Peasant farmers, who comprise
>more than half of all farmers worldwide, have much to offer a warming
>world. The fact that greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture was on
>the agenda of farmers themselves before it is talked about on the
>world policy stage should send a strong message to Poznan: It is time
>we opened the climate debate to the ills of industrial agriculture,
>and th

[Biofuel] EPA Rolls Out Environmental Manual for Biodiesel Facilities

[Bruno M.]

FYI:

http://nbb.grassroots.com/09Releases/Manual/
NEWSFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
Contact: Jenna Higgins/NBB
800-841-5849
Nov. 13, 2008 

 

EPA Rolls Out Environmental Manual for Biodiesel Facilities 
Agency’s Guidelines Align with Biodiesel’s Environmental Goals 

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – As the biodiesel industry continues to grow, the National 
Biodiesel Board welcomes a new Environmental Protection Agency guide that will 
help the industry navigate existing environmental regulations. EPA Region 7 
today released the user-friendly manual that identifies environmental 
regulatory rules and requirements for the construction and operation of 
biodiesel production facilities. 

Region 7 Administrator John B. Askew said, "We are taking steps to provide 
useful tools to help biodiesel facilities comply with environmental 
regulations. The manual serves as a road map of federal environmental 
information. EPA is addressing our nation's growing energy demand in a way that 
supports our goals for a clean environment, supports farmers and rural America, 
and supports greater energy security." 

As in other parts of the nation, the Midwestern states of EPA Region 7 are 
active on America's renewable fuels frontier. Through the long-term efforts of 
the agricultural and biodiesel community, rural residents are seeing growth in 
the construction of biodiesel plants and the supporting infrastructure. 

The manual provides practical examples to ensure compliance with environmental 
regulations. EPA includes a contact directory of key federal and state 
officials. EPA Region 7 staff members are available to answer questions about 
the applicability of environmental requirements to renewable fuel facilities. 

Joe Jobe, NBB CEO, commended EPA on developing the manual for the industry. 

“We appreciate that the document includes EPA’s recognition that biodiesel 
contributes to the wellbeing of the environment by ‘significantly reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions’ and other pollutants,” he said. “Biodiesel use is a 
viable part of protecting the environment, and we look forward to working 
closely with the agency on future mutual goals.” 

The manual also cites research that shows “the production of biodiesel compared 
to the production of petroleum fuels generates 78% less carbon dioxide, 79% 
less wastewater, and 96% less hazardous waste.” 

An EPA Region 7 biofuels team of engineers, scientists, and environmental 
protection specialists developed the manual after seeking input from a variety 
of stakeholders. The biodiesel manual is available at the following Web site: 
www.epa.gov/region07/priorities/agriculture/index.htm#biofuels  .

Biodiesel is a domestically produced, renewable alternative to diesel fuel and 
can be made from plant oils, animal fats, recycled restaurant grease or new 
sources such as algae. As of September 2008, there were 176 biodiesel plants in 
operation nationwide with an annual production capacity of 2.6 billion gallons 
per year. 

The NBB is the national trade association of the biodiesel industry and is the 
coordinating body for biodiesel research and development in the U.S. 

# # # 
For more details on biodiesel's benefits, visit www.biodiesel.org  .
==


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/