Guilt-Free Biodiesel: a Global Perspective

by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 06.10.05
Cars & Transportation

biodiesel-01.jpgTreeHuggers have shown some skepticism toward biodiesel, fed in part, we might suppose, by the anti-green spinmeisters of US media, but also by diesel's dirty history. In a mood for a vegetarian car or truck? Redemption is here and getting better all over the world. Earlier posts in TreeHugger did a great job of pulling the facts and how-to's together. That's why this post is circumspect.

Diesel engines dominate in trucks world wide. And in trains. And in buses. We'll focus this discussion on passenger cars, however, as personal biodiesel (PBD) has caught TreeHugger's interest.

Petroleum fueled diesel engines emit SOX, NOX, and particularly nasty particulates. Among the worst are small particles called "PM-2" (size measured in testing equipment using "Particulate Matter, Method 2", meaning particles with average diameter of 2 micrometers or less). These diesel-emitted particles are hazardous because, once breathed in, the human lung is unable to eject the small particles from diesel engines as efficiently (cough cough) as it would eject larger particles that originate from other natural and manmade sources.

biodiesel-03.jpg

But it is not just the particles per se that are of concern: Oil-based diesel results in poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) condensing on the co-emitted particles, exposing the lung to irritating and potentially carcinogenic effects of the PAH's.

Biodiesel fuel has been reported to have a lower particulate emitting characteristic than petroleum diesel. No information was found on the difference between particulate emissions from pure veggy burning cars to refined biodiesel burning ones. Jury is out on that one: comments appreciated.

One might also expect less PAH's (of the hazardous type emitted from petro-based diesels) to be present and condensing on biodiesel emitted particles. Blends of petro and bio-diesels will of course be "in between" on the PAH spectrum.

A critical positive advantage of all biodiesel is that it has has very low, or virtually no sulfur. Getting the sulfur out of petroleum is feasible, but expensive. Blending biodiesel fuel with regular diesel offers a "cut" in average sulfur acid gas emissions per mile; but, it's only part way there. Burning neat biodiesel is always going be better with SOX. This is an important positive because SOX results in sulfuric acid aerosols that acidify natural waterways, corrode buildings and things, and cause lung disease. Until all petroleum diesel has sulfur removed, biodiesel has a health and environmental leg up. Its a net positive and will remain so for years.

Just as with petroleum diesel engines, and with gasoline fueled engines, pure biodiesel fueled engines now on the road will emit NOX, perhaps even more NOX than the other types, depending on the engine design. NOX is an acid forming gas bad for the environment and human health. Fortunately, this drawback will disappear in biodiesel-capable engines made in 2007 and after (see press release that follows).

To tackle the diesel engine's NOX emissions, regardless of fuel, engine designs needed to be modified, altering such things as compression temperature, fuel injection rates, and exhaust gas recycle rates. New, low NOX forming diesel engines are on the road now, testing such design changes. Besides reducing NOX, the improved engines are more fuel efficient and have reduced releases of stinky diesel exhaust smells. See the press release excerpt at the end of this post for details on how the redesigns and testing are planned.

biodiesel-02.jpg

Diesel emitted particulates can be a serious issue for any kind of diesel fuel. The agreed to solution by US diesel engine makers is to filter the particulate matter out with on-board equipment. As stated above, this equipment has been designed and is now being field tested for the deadline date of 2007 in the US. Because engine makers go after world markets, perhaps we'll be lucky to see an impact that benefits all biodiesel and petroleum diesel users.

In Europe, diesel cars are a big part of the fleet (up to half in many countries), they're everywhere, and very dirty indeed. Because diesel engines can last far longer than internal combustion engines (good for the environment from life cycle perspective), lowering the emissions in Europe is a real challenge, assuming you don't want to throw away those vehicles or replace the engines immediately. The sensible fix for European diesel cars is to retrofit the existing engines that have plenty of design life left with pollution controls and create incentives that get cleaner and more efficient ones on the market as soon as possible. There seems to be progress along these lines.

TreeHugger has learned that in Germany, a diesel particle filter...some of the smaller engines claim to meet the particle standards without filter...will be needed soon; and, if a new car design is offered without the option of particle filter, the car magazines give negative reviews. There is also, in Germany, serious discussion of a tax-credits for retrofitting existing cars with particle filters and a tax-break for new cars that come with one.

Engine designs and materials vary widely depending on country of sale; and so it is important to keep in mind that not all diesel engines are certified by the manufacturer to use biodiesel. There is a risk that biodiesel use in engines not so certified could plug injection ports or damage rubber hoses, and gaskets. If TreeHuggers promote biodiesel and it's adopted, uncritically, by people hoping to do the "right thing", then indvertantly causing damage, guess who will be blamed in the mainstream media? TreeHuggers of course.

TreeHugger has also learned that it may be illegal in Britain to put pure homemade biodiesel in existing cars because it is considered tax evasion and they have patrols scanning exhausts for traces of emitted the vegetable oil particles. Comments appreciated from anyone who knows more about this.

In the US, diesel powered cars are only a trivial part of the domestic fleet; and, therefore, anything biodiesel powered you might do is going to have a trivial impact on overall public health in the next few years. Trucks, buses and trains are logically the first targets for engine and fuel improvements. Once they have better engines, or at least retrofitted particle filters, biodiesel fuel can help lower emissions further.

Biodiesel shares a vulnerability with ethanol, in that it relies on energy intensive agriculture that, ironically, is based largely on diesel engines. Depending on the feedstock biodiesel source, the net energy balance for biodiesel could be negative, neutral, or positive. Caution: biodiesel burning engines outperform ICE engines in overall fuel efficiency. They have to be compared based on an analysis that takes that efficiency advantage and the lowered sulfur emissions into account. This is something that may or may not play well as a media sound byte. Take all comparisons, therefore, with a grain of salt until you learn how the efficiency differences were normalized.

Press Release from Diesel Engine Manufacturers follows.

---------------
Diesel Engine Manufacturers Will Begin Landmark Emissions Testing Program to Help

Assure Cleaner Air
June 6, 2005 12:00am

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 3, 2005--The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) today announced a landmark emissions testing program for heavy-duty diesel vehicles that will help assure lower emissions and cleaner air throughout the United States.

EMA's members, together with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), will implement an in-use testing program to provide information on how systems installed on the nation's new trucks and buses perform to control emissions.

"The voluntary agreement to develop, conduct, and fund a new in-use testing program demonstrates the continued strong commitment of diesel engine manufacturers to produce heavy-duty engine systems that reduce emissions and improve air quality in our cities and states," stated Jed Mandel, EMA President. "Together with the cleaner engines scheduled for introduction with the 2007 model year, the in-use testing program announced today will help assure that high emissions levels from diesel trucks and buses are truly a thing of the past. Clean diesel technology is here today and will provide real in-use emissions reductions."

Beginning with a pilot program for model year 2005 and 2006 trucks and buses, heavy-duty engine manufacturers will measure exhaust emissions on selected vehicles to determine how the emissions control system is working and to assure that emissions meet all applicable EPA and California standards.

The collected data will verify whether the emissions levels required when the engine is new remain at those levels for the useful life of the engine. The agreement also includes a jointly funded research program to simultaneously develop the procedures needed for accurate in-use emission measurements. Based on the results of the pilot program, the in-use testing program will become a regulatory requirement for model year 2007 and later engines and vehicles.

"This landmark agreement among EMA, EPA, and CARB to finalize an in-use testing program is the result of cooperation with focused attention on the end result of cleaner air," continued Mandel. "Each of the parties worked long and hard to address the technical issues and to develop an effective solution. We are pleased with the end result and the fact that EMA and its members were able to work with both agencies to develop and implement a practical and workable program."

The in-use testing program announced today was developed as a means to demonstrate compliance to EPA's and CARB's Not-To-Exceed (NTE) emissions requirements. The NTE standards impose strict controls over heavy-duty engines by establishing emissions limits throughout the range of an engine's operating conditions, rather than the traditional set of discrete compliance points. By measuring emissions under real-world conditions, the in-use testing program will provide a means for manufacturers to verify compliance with NTE standards.

In summing up the importance of today's announcement, Mandel concluded, "The agreement on an in-use testing program with EPA and CARB is truly a milestone for heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers and cleaner air because it moves emissions testing from the laboratory into real-world operating conditions. The program not only will verify that the near-zero emissions levels measured under laboratory certification conditions are being achieved on our streets and highways, but also will provide valuable feedback to engine manufacturers on any need to further improve and enhance emissions control systems. The clear winners here are our communities and our citizens who will benefit from cleaner air as a result of this program."

The Engine Manufacturers Association is a trade association representing worldwide manufacturers of internal combustion engines used in applications such as trucks and buses, farm and construction equipment, locomotives, marine vessels, and lawn, garden and utility equipment. EMA works with government and industry stakeholders to help the nation achieve its goals of cleaner fuels, more efficient engines and cleaner air.

CONTACT: The Engine Manufacturers Association Joe Suchecki, 312-827-8734 KEYWORD: ILLINOISINDUSTRY KEYWORD: AUTOMOTIVE ENVIRONMENTSOURCE: The Engine Manufacturers Association

<>

<< Copyright ©2005 Business Wire >>

by: Mike and John.

Tip-o-the hat to "Deep-Biodiesel" for tutoring us in European ways.

Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!

Comments (18)

do you have any idea how much land would have to used to grow crops for biodiesel to make any impact? and contrary to the hopes above, the agriculture production would be intensive and you have to burn more fuel (meaning regular old gasoline) and spend more energy producing biodiesel than you get in return. organic, low energy input generally only works on a small non-monoculture scale.

jump to top xdcdx says:

Agree its unsustainable if Brazil starts to clear rainforest to grow soybeans used to make biodiesel export revenues, for exmple. There are sustainable scenarios, however, where locally produced plant oils are used to fuel hyperefficient vehicles used by people who live work and play in a small community setting. The key is to getting to the second scenario after Peak Oil distrupts the economics of global trade but before climate change kills us.

jump to top John Laumer says:

I don't think that we *need* to have industrial agriculture monocultures to make biofuels. I know that here in Canada they are been making ethanol from cellulose, coming either from wood or fast growing weeds.

There is also the possibility of making biofuels from agro-business waste (either reuse otherwise waste methane or biomass to make fuels).

A lot of scenarios are not energy-negative.. But I also have read a lot of things about the "making biofuels is energy negative" argument being from the early 80s, and agriculture being more efficient now, that critique is not quite justified.

jump to top MGR says:

I think its important to understand that current USA biodiesel production is based on a *byproduct* of the cash crop of soy- which is grown primarily for soy meal. Is soy oil the ultimate biodiesel feed-stock? Of course not. Is there room to use available by-product now? Yes, there is. Perfection is the enemy of progress. While we type on our small computers and our petroleum based plastic keyboards, you must ask yourself: Would every household have a 200 square foot computer in their house to run family finances (as was the case of PC development) ? Well then, why bother with chip or software development? Was Henry Ford prepared to sell 200,000 cars/month when he developed the model T? Markets evolve and the idea of all USA farm land focusing on low yield oil crops for biodiesel is just plain ignorance. Nowhere are forests being cleared for biodiesel production. Are high yield, intensive feedstock sources for biofuels being developed that use waste water streams as inputs? Yes, they are. Biodiesel has the highest energy lifecycle output of any fuel based on multiple studies. It's time to set aside the fantasy and get down to the business of solving our petroleum problems. Hydrogen is prohibitively expensive and a net loser vs. petroleum for both lifecycle emissions and energy independence. My hope is the green movement will begin taking action and get out of the ivory tower of hypothetical and theories and potential. Potential is a privilege of youth, and we are facing a grown up energy crises. We need real solutions now.

jump to top Rob says:

xdcdx,

You are flat out wrong. Shame on you for attempting to spread your petro-positive agenda. Please cite your sources for your erroneous conclusions? Please read down:

The total fossil energy efficiency ratio (ie. total fuel energy/total fossil energy used in production, manufacture, transportation, and distribution) for diesel fuel and biodiesel shows that biodiesel is four times as efficient as diesel fuel in utilizing fossil energy – 3.215 for biodiesel vs 0.8337% for diesel. The study notes: "In terms of effective use of fossil energy resources, biodiesel yields around 3.2 units of fuel product for every unit of fossil energy consumed in the lifecycle. By contrast, petroleum diesel's life cycle yields only 0.83 units of fuel product per unit of fossil energy consumed. Such measures confirm the 'renewable' nature of biodiesel." The report also notes: "On the basis of fossil energy inputs, biodiesel enhances the effective utilization of this finite energy source."

"Biodiesel and petroleum diesel production processes are almost equally efficient at converting raw energy resources (in this case, petroleum or soybean oil) into fuels. Biodiesel's advantage is that its largest raw resource (soy oil) is renewable. So biodiesel requires less fossil energy (only 0.31 units) to make a 1 unit of fuel." NREL/TP-580-24772

"Because biodiesel production requires such small amounts of fossil fuel, its CO2 life cycle emissions are, not surprisingly, much lower than those of petroleum diesel. Displacing petroleum diesel with biodiesel in urban buses is an extremely effective strategy for reducing CO2 emissions. "

So, xdcdx, what do you offer as an alternative... what exactly? All bunk, you are.

jump to top Ivan says:

Ivan... why does biodiesel require any fossil fuel?

jump to top Ben Schiendelman says:

Making biodiesel from soybeans, in the US, to have a significant impact would require an excessive amount of land using current technology. At the present time using the land to produce ethanol makes more sense (http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/04/biomass_could_d.html). At the present time Fischer-Tropsch diesel from biomass or even, shudder, from coal is a better alternative. However the University of Wisconsin (http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/06/using_biomass_f.html) is developing a process to produce a synthetic diesel (not quite the same chemical formulation as biodiesel, but having the same characteristics) that can use any cellulosic feedstock to produce biodiesel. Using biofuels to reduce our dependence on oil combined with conservation,i.e., hybrids and plug-in hybrids, imports is essential to maintain our society.

also remember that diesel engines will easily run over 500k, double the lifespan of a gas engine, part of the reason trucks use these engines is because the engines go into the millions without much maintenance. see what happens when you add all that steel to your equations.

and you can't much compare fuel from perennial plants to things dug out of the earth, those things in the earth will eventually run out (esp oil) and markets will be forced to shift. as a bonus the grown fuels absorb alot of the exhaust in growing.

jump to top greencow says:

Greencow,

Yes, diesel engines last longer, but that's not just an advantage; all these old diesel engines are A LOT more polluting than the most recent ones and phasing them out is very hard.

Also, steel can be recycled, but in its life, an engine will emit dozens of times (if not hundreds) its weight in CO2 and NOx and so on.. That has a bigger impact than whatever the mass of steel and the energy used to make it used, I'm sure.

jump to top MGR says:

How about the land that is already being used to produce tobacco, to produce biodiesel plants? This land has already been out of the food producing cycle anyway. I'm sure there must be other situations like this.

jump to top Tom says:


Dear TH,, We have developed a Totally New Renewable Energy Crop/Process, that promises to produce abour 2 times the ethanol/acre as corn. and we can produce it at Near Zero Fossil Fuel Inputs, and the cost should be some less than
$0.50/gal -- the crop is widely adapted to all areas, also a
Univ of Hawaii study showed 3000+gal/A potential.
I have just discovered Your Site, and very impressed with the vast coverage..

jump to top Lee McClune says:

Lee McClune,

When you say "We have developed a Totally New Renewable Energy Crop/Process...", who do you mean? Links to info on your process, studies, papers etc. please. Thanks...

jump to top Jesse Jenkins says:

Regarding Lee McClune's "Totally New Renewable Energy" developments at the University of Hawaii, at first I thought he might be alluding to research using hemp as an oil feedstock. Technically viable in that it grows like a - ah - weed in Hawaii, politically not so much.

A wee bit o google leads me to believe he's talking up his sorgum/ethanol processing business. After reviewing papers by Patzek and Pimentel (see pdf #1, pdf #2), I see why ethanol might be considered a losing proposition.

On the other hand, planting biodiesel feedstock might work in Hawaii, what with the year-round growing season, an existing industrial agriculture base, and a desire to keep acreage currently planted in sugar and pineapple from sprouting housing tracts.
==== response of John Laumerr ===
The topic in general is controversial One of the cited authors reportedly may have had ties to the fossil fuel industry, and neither had expertise with life cycle inventory methodology or agriculture. Moreover, other researchers have stated that their data sources were out of date. One can find several other LCA studies of ethanol production which indicate either neutral or net positive energy outcomes. THe precision is low in otherwords.

jump to top Carl Holmberg says:

Hey all guys could anyone please let me know that any company around the world who can export bio-diesel wit ASTM standards to Asia Pacific.
We can be the sole distributor as we ahve ready market. but prices should be very compitive we have already been quoted with 400 USD , we need less .. please contact S.amrinder@gmail.com

jump to top Amrinder Singh says:

Hi, I am intrested to start bio-diesel plant in india, can some one advise me how to start.

jump to top umesh patil says:

How can I buy shares of Biodiesel?

jump to top Tim O"Hara says:

Hello my name is john and i am interested in staring a company in Miami,Fl and doing business internationally. If i can recive some assistance on biodiesel equipment ( filters/heaters) i can start and help others as well. I am already familliar with the process and how it works i just need the hard ware to get things started. I am also interested in a business affiliate.
Thanks you help is appreciated

jump to top john says:

I'm not sure about the NOX emission facts, I have read in quite a few places that NOX from biodiesel is higher than it is from petro diesel, but some of the more reliable sources have said that such is not the case...in any case, I guess this is something that needs a bit more research

A site you might be interested in seeing is Biodiesel Encyclopedia

Vic, BPO

jump to top Vic says:

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)