Hi Todd This is very interesting. MM, you get your answer at last, if not from Mr Noyes.
>Keith, > >I appreciate your addressing the major, periphery and subsurface >issues that you have with Mr. Noyes, bringing them to the front. >I've seen few able to put the issues in such concise perspective. >Certainly short-windedness is not always a demonstrated virtue >here. > >My personal assessment of your response is that Mr. Noyes should >be either slightly taken aback or not exactly pleased with a >rebut of such dynamic proportions, or both. I guess so. I'm certainly not trying to annoy him, but I would like some answers and haven't had very many, just more things to question. Now I really want some substantiation of his allegations that large quantities of poor-quality homebrew have caused problems that have given biodiesel a bad name and so on: "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." Etc. Has anybody here heard any hint or inkling of this? Anything at all to add? Or is it just an apocryphal tale, an industry myth, as I suspect, based on ignorance and prejudice? If industry holds and puts about such myths, then they're even more responsible than I thought for the division between industry and the "grassroots biodiesel movement" that Mr Noyes decries, and for biodieselers' distrust of them. Yes, I think Mr Noyes was a bit taken aback. I get the impression that industry, or at least some within the industry, tend to stereotype us somewhat, and the stereotype way misses the mark. We're not the sloppy bunch Mr Noyes apparently expected. I do hope he takes it to heart and takes the opportunity to educate himself a bit now on the "informal sector" rather than withdrawing, prejudices intact. But I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, Todd, if he's annoyed with me I don't think he's going to be exactly delighted with you. Well, he should be able to defend himself, eh? Thanks for this information. Should World Energy even be referring to itself as part of the biodiesel industry? Just a trading company, no? "Capitalism, not Corporatism" - yes, indeed! And an END to the second dressing itself up as the first. Regards Keith >Unfortunately, there is a bit more to the entire realm of market >forces and structural fabric behind oilseed production, and the >largely similar forces that impede the acceptance and expedited >distribution of biodiesel into a market with a curiously >insatiable appetite, than a simple farm or fuel subsidy can >redress. > >Perhaps someone should make mention of how his own firm has in >the recent past attempted to manipulate and take advantage of >small producers or firms preparing to go into production. Last >year World Energy extended to us an "offer" of $0.85 per gallon >once we were in production. The pipeline price for >petroleum diesel that week was $0.92 a gallon.. > >At the very same moment, World Energy was brokering biodiesel to >markets 2,600 miles distant, where the end user price was $2.50 - >$3.00 a gallon. > >During the same conversation the attempt was made to sway us away >from self-distribution of biodiesel, as the "paperwork and >legalities of such a practice are enormous and it would be a >considerably burdensome task in comparison to aligning with an >established distributor" (paraphrased). What the representative >from World Energy did not know during his >"presentation" was that we were already aware of the outside >costs of the regulation/paperwork that accompanies the >distribution of biodiesel, whether for on-road and off-road use. > >Using only the >$0.07 difference between the pipeline price of petroleum diesel >at the time and World Energy's offer of $0.85, the increased cost >of distributing on-road biodiesel ourselves could be quickly >covered within 30 - 45 days. The remainder of the year would >yield profits going to our coffers rather than theirs, not to >mention another $80,000 and more in annual profit derived from >local bulk and retail distribution at a price less than or equal >to market price for petroleum diesel, rather than selling all >inventory to such a distributor. > >It's rather easy to put the disparities that came out of that >conversation into a few simple points. > >1) World Energy at that time was less interested in paying a fair >market value for biodiesel than in garnering exceedingly high >margins. > >2) World Energy was at that time more interested in acquiring >inexpensive product to distribute than representing honestly the >relative ease with which biodiesel can be distributed. > >3) World Energy did not and does not hesitate to distribute >market wide (nation wide) in an energy inefficient manner if a >profit can be >made. > >While Mr. Noyes may not be privy to such practices or may not >perceive them for the detriment that they represent, the rest of >the market is not so easily hoodwinked. > >Granted, it will take some time for biodiesel to make much of a >dent in a 57,000,000,000 gallon per year market in distillate >fuel oils. And biodiesel could use all the help it can get. But >the practices exhibited by many of the "major players" in >biodiesel do nothing but support exhorbitant end user prices and >a slower market acceptance and uptake of biodiesel. > >If Mr. Noyes, World Energy and the soy councils really want to >see biodiesel become capable of going head to head with petroleum >diesel, the long term answer does not lay in strengthened >subsidies of oilseed or finished fuel product. The answer lays >with streamlining or removing costs resulting from too many >opportunists in middle-marketing, focusing on regional markets >rather than distant markets that increase distribution and end >user costs, and removal of petroleum fuel subsidies so that all >players in the field of liquid fuels are operating from a >free-market, true-cost foundation >(the "level playing field"). > >Energy subsidies under present and traditional practice are a >con. They're a shell game. One way or another consumers pay for >all fuel that is introduced into the market, through the combined >sum of the end-user price and a myriad of tax appropriations >initiated from every conceivable angle. > >Just because this activity keeps the pump price of liquid fuels >fictitiously low in the public's eye does not mean that consumers >don't ante up the entire balance of the cycle costs and more, as >administrative costs to collect and distribute those tax dollars >which effectively subsidize petroleum interests are seldom >included in true cost calculations. > >Energy subsidies for liquid fuels are patent efforts on the part >of both industry and government which effectively deceive the >public as to the realities of their personal energy costs and the >true contribution of energy to material production costs in >general. All the while the public is enticed into consuming >energy (and other products) at faster rates and with less >attention paid to personal cost than they probably would >otherwise due to the perception of comparative inexpensiveness >and affordability. > >And of course, once the illusion has been created it is mandatory >that it be propagated from year to year, if not generation to >generation. While subsidy may serve a valid and constructive >purpose short term, used to bolster instability and inequity, it >is the inequity created through repeatedly irresponsible misuse >and abuse of "perpetual subsidies" that gives rise to the "need' >for agricultural and finished biofuel subsidies in order to give >the illusion of a "level playing field" when competing with >liquid fossil fuels. > >In such a world, falsely deflating the cost of bioidiesel or >ethanol at the pump via subsidies is at best a near-sighted >policy, little better in the near term than falsely deflating the >cost of fossil fuels via subsidies, and virtually no different in >the long term. > >The brutal fact of the matter is that virtually no government >administration has addressed or cares to address the deception >effected by subsidies in energy markets. Rather than gradually >deflating fossil fuel subsidies over time to achieve as near to >true cost as can be achieved under present world circumstances, >politicians continue with what is politically expedient - >colluding with industry to keep liquid fossil fuel subsidies in >place and prices artificially deflated, while occasionally >creating seldom-long-stable subsidies for "alternative energy," >temporarily appeasing that sector of their constituencies. > >Unfortunately even "table scraps" are stripped away from >agricultural producers (farmers), as is evident in the welfare >status of big agri-businesses which suck up the vast majority of >liquid biofuel subsidy dollars, filtering relatively little down >to the farmers who provide them their life's blood in the form of >feedstocks. > >It's no wonder why so many in agriculture (and elsewhere) are >being forced to abandon developed and "traditional" methods of >production and distribution before they are driven into >bankruptcy - too much greed in middle marketing and virtually no >concept of not biting the hand that feeds them, unless of course >it comes in the form of a government (taxpayer) subsidy. > >"Capitalism, not Corporatism." > >Todd Swearingen >Appal Energy ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/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/
