Hey Keith,
Skepticism indeed. I am sorry to hear that the grassroots biodiesel
movement and the nascent industry have already grown so divided. My
own experience has been that biodieselers are more supportive of
commercial producers than your perspective but I am sure that your
view was developed after much discussion and consideration with
others. I am not speaking for World Energy but would like to provide
my personal observations. I entered the industry after having been
introduced to biodiesel by Josh and Kaia who are friends of friends.
I jumped into biodiesel with both feet because I concluded that
biodiesel is a huge improvement over petroleum diesel and I remain
convinced of this. RE: your post-
> Not so. I've just been looking at costings for a batch-processing
> set-up that includes everything, rents, utilitities, insurance,
> labor, maintenance and truck lease for collection, etc, for a 3,000
> gpd facility generating 1,050,000 gallons a year, cost of
production
> well under $0.60 a gallon.
I have not seen this happen yet but would consider it to be great
news. Please keep me up to date if you pursue this.
>
> >With notable exceptions, it generally does not result in ASTM-spec
> >commercial grade biodiesel.
>
> The other way round - there are a few people who use sloppy methods
> and bolster their confidence with spurious "tests", thoroughly
> debunked yet they persist, there may even be some of them here. But
> the idea that homebrewers can't make standard-spec fuel simply
isn't
> so, most of us can and do. That's an industry myth, and it's about
> time industry did a little bit of checking to see if it's still
true
> or not, if it ever was true.
>
> How is a commercial batch plant somehow superior to a well run
> homebrewer's batch plant? After all, that's where NOPEC and the
rest
> of the world started fifteen
> years ago and still primarily reside, with a few esterification and
> FFA recovery refinements here and there. They all use batch
> processors, so do we, so what's the difference? Economies of scale,
> and therefore of efficiency? Oft bandied about, but those are
> dangerous assumptions, industry myths. Big ain't beautiful - very
> often it only means flabbier, more wasteful, less efficient than a
> dedicated small, local operation would be. Same for quality - big
> operations will do exactly enough to meet minimum requirements, and
> no more, small operations are more likely to take some pride in
what
> they do and produce the best product they can. They're also more
> likely to know their customers personally, which makes a
difference,
> there are inter-personal and community-level obligations and
> responsibilities involved.
>
> Frankly I think we're all rather tired of this industry crap that
we
> can't make good fuel.
I expected this might draw some ire but it's a good point to
discuss. The big fear of the biodiesel industry is that homebrewers
are going to destroy the market. I have seen home-brewed biodiesel
cause problems in multiple locations and it has taken significant
efforts to undo the damage. One region of the country in particular
had large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel that was being sold
and distributed. The use of biodiesel was substantially delayed in
this area until trust for the fuel was re-established. The biodiesel
industry has gone to major efforts and expenditure to make progress
with the engine manufacturers and to establish the ASTM standard.
Frankly, I don't know what percentage of homegrown fuel is in spec
but I do read about a lot of goo being produced. Everytime off spec
fuel causes a problem, it causes a problem for everyone. I also am
aware of at least one prosecution for failure to pay road taxes on
homegrown fuel that was sold. I think it is in everyone's interest
to recognize that there are differences between homegrown and
commercial grade biodiesel. If homegrowers can hit spec and do
quality control and test to spec, then they should consider whether
they want to comply with the various legal requirements and go
commercial. Otherwise they should keep it at home.
>
> This was forwarded to me three years ago from a correspondence with
> an ex-President of the National Biodiesel Board:
>
> "Proponents of "make-it-yourself" fuel are not looked upon as
serious
> because there is no way to ensure consistent fuel quality. Of
course,
> these groups can be very helpful when approaching government to
> demonstrate community-wide support."
>
> We're a joke, but we can be quite useful, uh-huh. Both the NBB and
> Werner Korbitz of the Austrian Biofuels Institute still promote
this
> patronizing myth. Boocock also says that - though we see no signs
> that Biox can meet ASTM-spec, and other industry figures doubt it.
Sorry if you've been patronized. I was more interested in the fact
that biodieselers understand and support the use of biodiesel. I
don't think that the industry knows much about homebrewers who do a
good job of quality control and testing.
>
> >Commercial production has some significant differences. Even
yellow
> >grease feedstock has a collection cost plus production cost plus
> >margins plus marketing and transportation. Soybean-based
biodiesel
> >has all of these costs and typically a higher raw material cost.
> >Any commercial biodiesel must compete with petroleum diesel and
this
> >is the underlying problem. According to Norman Myers and Jennifer
> >Kent in Perverse Subsidies (see also the Sept/Oct. issue of
> >Ecolonomics in Action or the site without the article at
> >www.ecolonomics.org), taxpayers are subsidizing fossil fuels to
the
> >tune of $14 billion annually. I don't know the basis for their
> >numbers but do know that we don't pay at the pump the true cost of
> >petroleum fuel.
>
> "The national security cost of oil is in the area of $57 billion a
> year, or approximately $9.19 per barrel of oil used in the US." --
> "The National Security Costs of Petroleum", Energetics and NEOS
> corporation, 1994.
> http://www.ethanol-gec.org/natsec.pdf
>
> Friday December 5, 1997 1:38 pm Eastern Time
> Company Press Release
> SOURCE: Fuels for the Future
> 'True Cost' of Middle East Oil Exceeds $100 Per Barrel, U.S. Desert
> Storm Military Leader Says; Ethanol Cleans Air In Brazil
>
> NEW YORK, Dec. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Wall Street Journal readers have
> been straightened out on the benefits of domestic ethanol, and it
> took a former commander of the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Air
Command
> and principal air planner for Operation Desert Storm to do it:
>
> The true cost of importing oil from the Middle East "exceeds $100 a
> barrel," retired Air Force Gen. G. Lee Butler wrote the newspaper
in
> a published letter entitled "Fuel Grade Ethanol: Let's Clear the
Air."
>
> [more]
>
> >So the biodiesel industry, which has been rapidly growing and
> >primarily soybean based, is trying to hold onto its subsidy
program
> >to compete with Big Oil.
>
> We don't think soy is the best choice of oilseed crop, we don't
think
> the industrialized agriculture way of growing soy is the best way
to
> produce oilseed crops (nor anything else), and we much prefer
> decentralized, localized biodiesel production. We've discussed all
> this here quite a lot. Localized, micro-niche crop production and
> biofuels production can account for a very large amount of
biodiesel,
> has considerable advantages over centralized production from
> industrialized monocrops, and overturns all the estimates of how
much
> land would be needed to grow enough fuel to replace fossil fuels.
And
> we don't think mere replacement is what's required - it also needs
> overall reduction in use, greater efficiency of use, and a
diversity
> of technologies, as well as localization. On this basis, we
wouldn't
> be too bothered about how much fossil fuel is or isn't subsidized
or
> whether biofuels (or soy) were subsidized or not. Subsidies are for
> centralized producers, and I'm not sure how relevant they are.
>
> Wouldn't it be true to say that the US biodiesel industry's need
for
> subsidies has more to do with the need to maintain soy prices than
> with real production costs? Rather than the centralized solvent
> extractors and manufacturers, if soy farmers were to start milling
> their own beans, marketing the meal (hexane-free) to the livestock
> industry themselves and making their own biodiesel, would they need
> as heavy a subsidy for it? Or any subsidy? Doesn't the problem lie
> with all the middle-corporations between the farmer and the retail
> market?
>
> There's, what, 2.5 billion (billion) pounds of surplus soy oil
> currently in storage in the US (at whose cost? - the taxpayers?),
> it's only a by-product from seedcake feed production, and yet the
> price remains high - and the price paid to farmers low, and the
> farmers themselves have to be subsidized (exactly the kind of price-
> and market-rigging BS the US and the other OECD countries won't
allow
> the 3rd World to use, yet insist on using themselves).
>
> Shouldn't all this be examined in the clear light of day before we
> start supporting yet further subsidies? I think one thing that has
to
> happen before biofuel takes its rightful (essential) place in the
> economy is for the whole issue to be wrested away from agribusiness
> concerns. It's too important to be left to the likes of ADM,
Cargill
> and Monsanto. It's an ENERGY matter, not just a side-issue whereby
> bloated agribiz corps get to cosy up their nests a bit more. It
needs
> a rational energy policy, not just this ad-hoc stuff from Big Soy.
> Not to say that there's exactly a rational energy policy for
> fossil-fuels in the US, but that's a different issue.
> >I think the solar analogy is a good one. Solar bloomed on a large
> >scale during periods when it has received sound governmental
> >support. Does anyone who considers environmental costs believe
that
> >coal or other fossil fuel power generation is really more cost
> >effective or fiscally sound than solar power? We do need
additional
> >biodiesel feedstocks including yellow grease and these plants are
> >coming on line and will continue to grow if there is a market. We
> >also need as much mutual support within the industry and in the
> >burgeoning grassroots movement as possible.
>
> We've talked about mutual support between the industry and the
> grassroots movement before, and it doesn't work out well. What's
> happened each time is that the "mutual" bit turns out to be
strictly
> one-way - industry will be in charge, we'll be a useful resource
for
> them, to rally and utilize as needed. I'm not just saying so,
that's
> been the result of actual discussions I've had with industry people
> who said just what you've said. Such as this: "We are extremely
eager
> to get involved in the grassroots movement for biofuels. I would be
> highly interested in discussing further a collaborative effort to
> pressure the ultimate decision makers from the flanks." This was a
> telling bit: "We want to corral the efforts of these advocates."
> Corral. And this: "While we have the supply, we can only go as far
as
> demand will take us. We believe that a grassroots effort will
> generate this needed demand." You need us, but do we need you?
> Backyard biodieselers generate great publicity, at zero cost,
getting
> in the media all the time. Industry uses expensive PR groups and
gets
> stuff placed, though it's usually more corporate stuff, and gets
its
> lobbying done, but our stuff probably does more to reach the
general
> public.
>
> Sure, it's not an either-or question, or it shouldn't be, there's
> room and need for both. But that's not how it works out. In the
case
> above, after quite a lot of discussion with this person, some of us
> put together a good proposal on how we could best work with
industry,
> for mutual benefit, and for general benefit. The guy said he'd come
> back to us, he put it on the back-burner and we never heard about
it
> again. For one reason - it would have been truly mutual, but he
> wanted to be in control, and that was obvious. He thought he could
> get us for nothing. When he saw that he wasn't going to be able to
> co-opt us, he gave up. Wasted a lot of our time - he gets paid for
> his time, we don't.
>
> >If folks want to do more, the American Soybean Association's site
is
> >a good place to get more info and participate,
> >http://capwiz.com/soy/home/. The National Biodiesel Board also
has
> >updates and includes yellow grease producers as well as soybean
> >ones, www.biodiesel.org.
>
> I think we do better here, at these two groups, and other groups,
and
> at our various websites.
>
> Nobody speaks for the biodieselers, they're a completely
distributed
> network of independent individuals - networks, rather, both
> real-world and virtual. There is no central organization, hardly
any
> organization at all. It's like Open Source - even less organized
than
> that. I run these two groups and a major web resource, but I can
only
> speak for myself and many might disagree. However, Graham, I'd say
> that if World Energy really wants to collaborate with the
> biodieselers, you'd be welcome. But it would have to be real
> collaboration, two-way, mutual. We're not interested in being
> co-opted. We know what we could offer you, and you also know that,
> but what could you offer us in exchange? Why should we be
interested?
> For the general good of the biofuels issue? I think we already tend
> to that quite adequately, at least as well as you do. We've shown
> willing in the past, the fault lies on the industry side.
>
> I should say that I'm not volunteering for anything that may come
of
> this, we're overstretched, we don't have the time or resources to
> spare, and the main focus of our project is 3rd World rural
> development, not energy issues in the industrialized countries. But
> if it seemed worthwhile there might well be those among the members
> here who would be prepared to take it up and put the required time
> and effort into it, and if so we'd be prepared to help. If you do
> want to discuss it, this would be the right place.
>
> By the way, just to indicate that I might not be too far off course
> on what biodieselers think, I just received this from another
> biodieseler, part of a cross-correspondence that seems to involve
> several groups:
>
> >It is very well-documented, particularly in other countries not
> >dominated by US soy/agribusiness that many, many other oil crops
are
> >a better source of oilseed for fuel than are soybeans. Soy oil is
a
> >sort of 'waste' product of soy production is grown for
agribusiness
> >animal feed. commercial soy farming is also huge source of
pollution
> >in this country (and don' t believe any of the GMO corporations'
> >claims that GMO's will result in lower pesticide use, the only
> >currently commercially used GMO' crops have all been altered for
> >increased resistance to herbicides like Roundup, with the
exception
> >of bt crops which have their own massive problems in leading to bt
> >tolerance in damaging insects and the unintentional killing off of
> >monarchs and other 'useful' species .
> >
> > The National Biodiesel Board is dominated by the soy farming
> >interests, a very ugly consortium with Monsanto, Archer Daniels
> >Midland and Cargill written all over it. Unfortunately these folks
> >love all our efforts on behalf of publicising biodiesel. Not that
> >we should change it. We just need to be aware of who our 'allies'
> >are on the commercial/NBB side.
I appreciate your analysis of these issues but my approach is a
pragmatic one: I think biodiesel is better than petroleum diesel.
The biodiesel industry is targeting the mainstream fleet market which
is a conventional one. The users are not interested in a thorough re-
evaluation of our economic system but they are enthusiastic about an
American-made cleaner burning alternative diesel fuel. They want it
to meet the ASTM spec, be available via conventional petroleum
delivery and not require too much of their time. This may be more
incremental a change than you want to participate in and that's
fine.
I do think that the soy farmers have essentially created the
biodiesel market in the US and I think they deserve far more credit
than you suggest. The companies that have been the biggest producers
include a large number of farmer-based cooperatives that aren't the
ugly monolithic corporations that you describe. The people that I
have met from these businesses can't be pigeon-holed into one
category but generally have been what I consider to be good and
decent human beings who are trying to make a living from farming.
>
As far as where the mutual opportunities exist, I think we've hit a
few. I know the biodiesel industry does benefit from the PR and
interest in homemade veggie fuel. I think that at least some of the
grassroots movement shares my view that biodiesel is a change in the
right direction and that it is worthwhile to support it. The common
goals are sustainability, clean air, clean water, clean soil and less
dependence on foreign oil. I think biodieselers could benefit from
the standards and technical knowledge of the industry. The NBB is
the organization- most of their meeting in St. Louis next week could
be attended by anyone who wants to; perhaps biodieselers should
consider appointing an ambassador. At any rate, I think it's cool
that people are making their own fuel, envisioning better political
and agricultural systems for this country and working to help
developing countries reduce their petroleum dependence.
Happy Trails,
Graham
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
