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

What about human fat?
By Digimonkey on 7/20/2010 8:16:13 AM , Rating: 5
Make liposuction more affordable since you can reuse the fat to make fuel. We appear to have a never ending amount of fat people in America, and selling someone their fat ass back to them would really bring out the brilliance of capitalism.




RE: What about human fat?
By mattclary on 7/20/2010 8:45:24 AM , Rating: 5
It would be a great way for the fat chick I saw buying a bag of chips with food stamps the other day to give a little back. ;)


RE: What about human fat?
By nafhan on 7/20/2010 8:54:20 AM , Rating: 5
I hear you can make some really nice soap from that stuff, too...


RE: What about human fat?
By Pirks on 7/20/2010 2:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
...if you get insomnia first


RE: What about human fat?
By callmeroy on 7/20/2010 9:01:31 AM , Rating: 1
A couple thoughts on this come to mind...

1) Seriously if we can/could make use of fat to use as an energy source for our vehicles...(we'd need some chemicals though to make it smell better though...since raw fat is a horrid smell...seriously...its nasty) ..I say go for it.

2) I'm not claiming any of you posting on this thread are fat yourselves, so don't mis-understand my comment here (on the hand maybe you are...) but doesn't it amuse you just a little bit knowing the stats like something like 1-in-6 adults in the USA are considered obese and I forget the stats for how many folks (kids included) are 30 pounds or more than their suggested healthy weight -- but its really high, like 80% or something. But yet on the Internet when Americans make comments about how our country is full of fatties...its NEVER the people talking on the board that are one of said fatties....

Isn't that just odd....statisically fat people are EVERYWHERE in this country, you go to a mall you see them, you go to the movies you see them...everywhere SOMEONE is at least noticeably overweight or ENORMOUS.....but once you talk about it on the Internet...everyone on your facebook, website forum or whatever are all perfectly fit with six pack abs and hard bodies? ....cracks me up.....


RE: What about human fat?
By FITCamaro on 7/20/2010 12:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
The 1 in 6 are obese figure uses the flawed BMI scale though. I'm not trying to say that a lot of people aren't fat, just not as many as that would imply. You can be a completely ripped person with barely any body fat and be considered obese according to BMI.


RE: What about human fat?
By FITCamaro on 7/20/2010 12:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and I'm no clothing model but at 6'1" and 215 lbs I'm not bad off. Since I bought a house haven't been able to go to the gym so put back on some of the weight I'd lost. Would like to get back to 205. Just gotta eat right and start doing cardio again. Will be shortly.


RE: What about human fat?
By Anoxanmore on 7/20/2010 2:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
Fatty. :P

I'm happy with my BMI of 23. :)

Also there aren't a lot of people the BMI isn't accurate for.

FIT you should be at most 189lbs. :)


RE: What about human fat?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2010 2:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't you a chick? How about listing your weight instead of an ambiguous BMI. If you are more than 95 pounds, you're fat, of course :)


RE: What about human fat?
By Anoxanmore on 7/20/2010 3:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
You of all people Relcaimer should know to not ask a woman her weight nor age, and 95 would be fine if I was like 4' 8"

However, I am not that short. In fact I am considerably taller than most average women (avg of US is 5'4")


RE: What about human fat?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2010 3:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
I require pictures for reference, of course :P hahah

You know, "trust but verify" and all :)


RE: What about human fat?
By Anoxanmore on 7/20/2010 3:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
LOL if you are serious about picture(s) I'd be happy to allow YOU and only YOU to view my public photobucket. :)


RE: What about human fat?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2010 4:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
Let's just say I'm sufficiently curious now. Sure, why not lol.


RE: What about human fat?
By Anoxanmore on 7/20/2010 4:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, then you need to give me 30 minutes from now so I can get home and work out how to contact you :)


RE: What about human fat?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2010 5:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
RE: What about human fat?
By alanore on 7/20/2010 5:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
a/s/l ;-)


RE: What about human fat?
By Anoxanmore on 7/20/2010 5:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ok sent the email with my url :)


RE: What about human fat?
By Spuke on 7/20/2010 6:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! Dude! Not here!

PS - Can you send some to DirkDiggler@longjohn .com?


RE: What about human fat?
By rcc on 7/20/2010 1:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
We, and the rest of the world, have a surfeit of stupid people too. Should we render then down and get them out of the gene pool?


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.


Horrible idea
By torpor on 7/20/10, Rating: 0
RE: Horrible idea
By mattclary on 7/20/2010 10:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is an alcohol, biodiesel is not.

http://www.sedona.biz/ethanol-vs-biodiesel0108.htm


RE: Horrible idea
By mattclary on 7/20/2010 10:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Horrible idea
By bobsmith1492 on 7/20/2010 10:28:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure you are confusing ethanol and biodiesel...


RE: Horrible idea
By teohhanhui on 7/20/2010 11:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
About time!
By Lord 666 on 7/20/2010 8:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
This is one direction, instead of the E85 push, that the US Government got right. Algae based biodiesel has been ready for a while, just need to scale it. Just hope there isn't meddling into home brewers making their own B5-100 via taxation or regulation.

Now only if they made a minivan in the US that used diesel. I don't count the R350 because its too small. Honda Oddessy CDI would be a slam dunk for Honda along with the Pilot and Accord. I'll even take a VW/Chrysler Frankenmobile with a TDI.




RE: About time!
By Shining Arcanine on 7/20/2010 9:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
It will be like ethanol unless the US government has all diesel in the US replaced by it. It is possible and economics of scale might lower prices to be competitive if they did that, but they are not going to do it and this will cause fuel prices to rise. :/


RE: About time!
By Lord 666 on 7/20/2010 10:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
I can see traditional diesel will be mandated to B5.

Any higher than that, Uncle Sam will have to cover VW and MB warranties since that is the highest those manufacturers cover.


self perpetuating
By tastyratz on 7/20/2010 2:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
This will be a renewable resource in another respect.
Using grease The exhaust will smell like french fries or Asian food, with market penetration this will be everywhere causing Americans to consume more fried food every time it "smells like a good idea" This in turn increases waste byproduct and supply subsidizing fuel costs.

Rue the day a fat person gets mocked again here.




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki