The Vermont Fuel Dealers Association has requested the legislature to consider a two part proposal for changing diesel fuel content. A draft resolution spelling out support for these proposals may be presented in Washington at an oil heat summit next month.
One part of the plan would change the refining process to lower the sulfur content. This would require regional market pressure to change the refining process. Therefore several states would have to pass similar requirements.
The second part is to mandate the amount of biofuel added to diesel. The hoped for goal is to have 5% content by 2013. This part may prove controversial as some studies are showing that biofuel production is taking grain out of the…well I guess it’s taking it out of the food chain and perhaps driving up the cost of grains. Vermont biodiesal would likely rely on soy, canola and sunflower crops:
No one knows exactly how much biofuel was produced in Vermont last year, but educated estimates put the number at about 76,000 gallons. Netaka White, biofuels director for the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, estimates total production capacity, however, likely exceeds 4 million gallons. Getting there, he said, would require the kind of mandate the oil industry is seeking.
According to a report based on United States Department of Agriculture information one quarter of all US grain crops now go into manufacturing ethanol based bio-fuel. This is a result of bio fuel programs and incentives started in the Bush administration. The impact is now showing up in world food supplies and costs.
Studies show that the grains grown in 2009 and used for fuel was enough to feed 300 million people for one year at average world consumption levels.
"Continuing to divert more food to fuel, as is now mandated by the US federal government in its renewable fuel standard, will likely only reinforce the disturbing rise in world hunger. By subsidizing the production of ethanol to the tune of some $6bn each year, US taxpayers are in effect subsidizing rising food bills at home and around the world," said Lester Brown, the director of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington think-tank that conducted the analysis.
…in the context of using resources that would otherwise be wasted. I.e., using used cooking oil as a fuel, recycling crops that aren’t going to be sold as food. I’m not as much of replacing large tracts of agricultural lands with large tracts of biofuel land.
I’m also concerned about GM foods in this context, because even if we’re forced to label food items which have been genetically modified, I’m not clear that we need to label non-food items which are GM, and if we allow GM fuel foods on open land, it could end up cross-pollenating with other non-GM foods, corrupting the natural food chain beyond repair.
As Julie points out, biofuels made from waste are a good idea; but using precious food production to generate biofuels is just plain crazy. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that growing food crops and then immediately converting them to biofuels is an inefficient process from an energy consumption standpoint, quite apart from the fundamental immorality of reducing world food capacity that this practice brings about.
Sounds to me like the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association must have some input from Monsanto!
Great piece BP! Thanks!
I run my diesel truck mostly on waste vegetable oil, and yet I realize that biodiesel is a niche market at best and unsustainable on a national scale.
I have done some calculations and concluded that if it involves:
-Growing a crop
-Converting it to liquid fuel
-Pouring that fuel into the tanks of 250 million vehicles, all of which weigh over a ton and are driven at 40+ mph with one passenger…
Then there isn’t enough land, water, or nutrient flow to make it possible. Even the much vaunted algae. If we made ethanol out of all the corn we now produce we would meet maybe 8% of our motor fuel needs. And we wouldn’t have any corn chips.
There is one half-way reasonable source of biofuel, and that’s biogas/methane from animal manure. It is a low energy input process using a waste product that leaves the nutrients in its “waste”. The energy return approaches 40:1, which is about 10 times better than biodiesel. A diesel engine can run on 85% methane and 15% diesel fuel, which would be an application for Vermont farmers. Right now some are making electricity with it, which gives them about a third the financial return compared to replacing diesel.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations are non-sustainable, and just a bad idea, but as long as we have them we should be biodigesting all that manure and using the methane. It would amount to the equivalent of tens of billions of gallons of gasoline every year.
But yeah, growing grain for the gas tank is nuts. What we really need to do is to 1) Travel less, and 2) Travel in more aerodynamic vehicles that have less mass per passenger.
I work at Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund (VSJF) and I helped to write H-549, the bill referred to in this thread and currently in the House Committee of Natural Resources & Energy. If the new heating fuel standard becomes law, and similar bills have already been introduced throughout the region, (contrary to the prevailing attitudes expressed at GMD…) I think it can improve the way millions of people heat their homes and businesses in the Northeast.
Since 2004, VSJF has attempted to develop a market for biofuels that does justice to Vermont’s small-scale and our sustainable development mission. VSJF believes that biofuels should be produced and used as close to the feedstock source as possible, and that local ownership of the production and distribution matters. And we recognize that isn’t always the case, but it’s moving more and more in that direction.
No one claims that H-549 will solve our energy problems or the climate crisis, but it will help reduce CO2, sulfur, NOx and particulates in heating oil. It can help dwindling VT farm revenue by building the market for oilseed crops that grow in rotation with other grains and grasses, and it can provide an incentive to accelerate R&D into advanced biofuels in the region, like algae.
Several high profile articles in the last 18 months have a lot of people convinced (despite abundant contradicting data) that all biofuels are the same, they are all bad, people think biofuels are the #1 cause of food price increases, and that all biofuels take more energy to produce than they give in return.
The facts are, sometimes biofuel production practices negatively impact food production, other times they don’t. But to really understand each of these complex issues requires time and effort to sort through conflicting scientific evidence, yet there is no consensus even in the scientific community on any of these issues. These remain some of the ‘wicked problems’ of a heavily populated planet that must somehow heat and cool and move, feed, provide for and clean up after itself.
At VSJF, we are convinced that all biofuels are not created equal. We share the concern voiced by Time Magazine, WSJ, Lester Brown and other sources about the questionable contributions of corn-based ethanol and palm oil-based biodiesel. We do not believe that our chances of mitigating climate change are improved by deforestation and unsustainable land use changes, and we do not believe that conventional biofuels can produce anywhere near the volumes of liquid fuel necessary to address peak oil.
At the same time, we see how it is possible for biofuels to play a role in achieving GHG reduction goals, help the nation reach renewable energy production targets, and be produced in Vermont (and elsewhere) by adhering to principals of sustainable agriculture and sustainable economic development. VSJF believes that biofuels-including conventional biodiesel, methane digestion, cellulosic ethanol, algal biodiesel, grass pellets, and wood chips-are just one component of a larger suite of behavioral, technological, political, and economic transformations that will have to be made to prepare for, mitigate against, and adapt to peak oil and climate change.
In Vermont, for instance, more than two dozen farms that are already growing some form of oilseed crop, along with a diverse mix of other agricultural products, are also developing new processing and production capability. With oilseed presses they create a valuable livestock feed, instead of importing it from the Midwest. A few growers filter some of their oil to sell at market, but for the most part they produce biodiesel, or use the straight oil to heat their buildings or run their equipment; so more food can be grown in state without using petroleum. How can the use of petrodiesel be justified when there is a renewable and sustainable alternative? If one is uncomfortable with the idea of using crop-based oil, grown on the farm for fuel, then it’s probably time to take a closer look at this underlying contradiction.
For many involved in sustainable agriculture and/or renewable energy production on a full time basis, this model of local production for local use is seen as a way to take back the power we abdicated to the oil companies and the agrochemical conglomerates. For others, it’s simply a matter of being practical and efficient with the land and resources we have. It wasn’t that long ago, New England farmers had 20% – 30% of their cropland in rotation to grow the grass and grain to feed the animals that plowed and did the heavy lifting on the farm. The research VSJF has funded has shown that’s still all that’s needed to “feed” the tractor and the cows, without taking ANY land out of food production. How can we afford NOT to explore and cultivate this option?
H-549 is a policy tool that will improve air quality, improve heating system efficiency and reduce maintenance costs for those who have already “buttoned up” their buildings, and/or are unable to switch or still choose to use No.2 heating oil. And a heating fuel standard with 3%-5% biodiesel can also support farms and businesses by contributing to an energy platform that is not solely reliant on fossil fuels. There are going to be tradeoffs, because the only perfect Btu is the one we never use.
If you’re interested in learning more about the world of sustainable biofuels in Vermont: http://www.vsjf.org/biofuels/r…
Also recommended: http://www.vsjf.org/biofuels/r…
best,
Netaka White, Biofuels Director
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund
When, BP, you write:
what I hear is my mother telling me tio clean my plate because there are children starving in China, Africa, India … somewhere else.
Because the grains were grown does not mean that they would have — if not for [those evil makers of] bio-fuels — gone to feed those 300 million people. It’s more complicated than that. There are costs: storage, transportation, distribution, just to get that grain to the starving people. There’s no financial profit in feeding starving people, even if the costs were covered, just as there was no way my one-third share of a hard-boiled egg in a thin white sauce of margarine, white flour, and reconstituted powdered milk over half a lump of shredded wheat (one of our poverty dinners back when) was going to get to China.
I suspect biofuels are not a good idea for some economies at various times. But global guilt trips are not a good basis for your argument. As other commenters have shown, there are a lot of things to consider before just condemning biofuels as another way to rape the earth.
NanuqFC
In a Time of Universal Deceit, TELLING the TRUTH Is a Revolutionary Act. ~ George Orwell