backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by quiksilvr.. on Jul 21 at 2:14 PM


  (Source: Alternative Resource Energy)
Could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 86 percent

Keeping in line with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed that it will need 800 million gallons of biodiesel in the United States domestic market in 2011.

The EISA "expanded" the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2), which has volume requirements for Biomass-based Diesel, undifferentiated Advanced Biofuels and Cellulosic Biofuels. Biodiesel is the only commercially accepted U.S.-made Advanced Biofuel that fits the description of an undifferentiated Advanced Biofuel and Biomass-based diesel, and it can cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 86 percent when made from animal fats, agricultural oils, and waste greases. 

The EPA, under the RFS2 program, must determine applicable percentage standards "for each compliance year prior to November 30" of the year before, and then publishes it. Today's published document from the EPA has initiated the finalization of this rule and will kickstart the 2011 volume requirements provided by the RFS2.

"We applaud EPA for this announcement and for reaffirming the common sense notion that we should displace petroleum diesel fuel with Advanced Biofuels like biodiesel," said Manning Feraci, Vice President of Federal Affairs for the National Biodiesel Board. "This notice demonstrates to all actors in the fuels marketplace that the volume goals for Biomass-based Diesel provided for by law in the RFS2 program will be met and that 800 million gallons of biodiesel must be used in 2011."

The EPA hopes to mix 13.95 billion gallons of biofuels into the fuel supply, which is a total of 7.95 percent of all fuel used by U.S. vehicles. This is an increase of 1 billion gallons from the 2010 target of 12.95 billion gallons, and of this total, 800 million gallons of biodiesel must be mixed into the United States' overall diesel supply. 

Biofuel producers are concerned with whether these production levels can be reached due to biodiesel prices being much more expensive than regular diesel. Producers would like to see Congress pass a $1 per gallon biodiesel tax once again, since it expired last year, in order to make biodiesel more affordable. 





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

eh
By beep on 7/20/2010 7:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 86%? really?




RE: eh
By mattclary on 7/20/2010 8:43:15 AM , Rating: 2
That might actually be true. If you think about it, all that waste would probably produce CO2 and methane when it decomposed in a land fill, but if you can convert it to fuel, your net gain is not having produced the same emissions from already sequestered carbon (in fossil fuels).

I'm no tree hugger, but sure, why not, if it's economical.


RE: eh
By quiksilvr on 7/20/10, Rating: 0
RE: eh
By chunkymonster on 7/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: eh
By FITCamaro on 7/20/2010 12:14:18 PM , Rating: 5
Not really sure why this post and the one above it were rated down.

I'm 100% on board with biodiesel. Just not government mandates that don't pay attention to market feasibility. I don't care what the biodiesel is made of. Hemp works just as well as anything else. Of course my favorite way is algae. Or out of hippies who think there needs to be less people on the planet.


RE: eh
By Uncle on 7/20/2010 8:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is just another way to pay the farmers to grow some more surplus corn, or not surplus corn, to take the surplus off the food chain to keep the corn prices high, and to make sure Monsanto gets their share because they produce the seeds.


RE: eh
By quiksilvr on 7/21/2010 2:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
I think we need less stupid people on the planet. I'm an intellicist. The first step is admitting it.


RE: eh
By ebaycj on 7/20/2010 12:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
Lumber/Logging companies are also against it. They like cutting down trees to make paper.


RE: eh
By Ammohunt on 7/20/2010 2:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
And we all know what happend to Jamestown..panama red


RE: eh
By mattclary on 7/20/2010 9:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
Corn is used to make ethanol, not bio-diesel. Although, corm waste probably could be used. Husks and such...


RE: eh
By quiksilvr on 7/20/2010 11:22:16 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Research has been done on using algae and some form of wheat as well, but I would rather we don't use food as fuel.


RE: eh
By nafhan on 7/20/2010 8:52:23 AM , Rating: 4
I'm guessing that would only be for 100% bio-diesel rather than the mixture of bio and normal diesel that will actually be sold. Since the "greenhouse gas" emmssions from the vehicle would be the same as with regular diesel, it's probably taking into account the amount of greenhouse gases pulled from the atmosphere by whatever plant or animal went into making the fuel.
However, as with a lot of green stuff they're almost certainly overstating the actual impact since there are likely emmissions obscured behind the additional production layers for biofuel. I would think the only way they could get close to the 86% number is if they made it completely from stuff that would otherwise be trashed, which doesn't seem to be the case(i.e. no plants specifically grown for biofuel).


RE: eh
By Exodite on 7/20/2010 9:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
Actually estimates may be on the low side depending on what exactly goes into the production.

Studies here in Sweden have shown than synthetic fuels created from rotting animal feces as well as slaughterhouse and food waste reduce greenhouse emission by as much as 146%.

The greater than 100% number is due to the fact that processing the waste to fuel actually significantly reduces greenhouse emissions over doing nothing at all with it. On top of reducing transports as well as not re-introducing fossilized materials into the biosphere.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that synthetic diesel is the future, it's very likely going to be there here-and-now and immediate future however. Diesel engines are generally more efficient than petrol engines and offer significantly better filtering. Add to that the ability to use processed waste as fuel instead of fossil fuel and it's win-win.


RE: eh
By MrTeal on 7/20/2010 10:09:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The greater than 100% number is due to the fact that processing the waste to fuel actually significantly reduces greenhouse emissions over doing nothing at all with it. On top of reducing transports as well as not re-introducing fossilized materials into the biosphere.


That seems hard to believe. I can understand that the processing sequesters the carbon in the fuel that would have normally just rotted and escaped to the atmosphere. When you burn the fuel though it just releases the GHG back into the atmosphere.

Is the effect because the biofuel burns to produce CO2 whereas the feedstock would normally produce methane?


RE: eh
By Exodite on 7/20/2010 5:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is the effect because the biofuel burns to produce CO2 whereas the feedstock would normally produce methane?

I believe that's a major part of it, yes.

Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and filtering the burned fuel through the engine and exhaust system actually reduces the amount of greenhouse gas introduced into the biosphere.

Anyway, it's not like our modern societies have any real lack of waste to process into fuel.


RE: eh
By nafhan on 7/20/2010 11:51:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it'll just depend on the mixture. The higher the ratio of plant and animal derived trash to other stuff, the better. Mostly pointing out that there are likely energy consuming steps left out of the analysis.


RE: eh
By mattclary on 7/20/2010 9:33:09 AM , Rating: 3
I could be wrong, but I think the great thing about bio-diesel is you just use it, unlike ethanol which is just used to dilute real fuel.


RE: eh
By mattclary on 7/20/2010 9:34:39 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

"Biodiesel can be used alone, or blended with petrodiesel"


RE: eh
By nafhan on 7/20/2010 11:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I think the article more or less said that bio-diesel is just diesel.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki