"Special Report: Setting the Record Straight with the New Times article 4-17-08"
The New times recently wrote an article where they had some very misleading information regarding biodiesel fuel. We wanted to set the record straight and dispel these myths, that way you can be better informed about this clean burning fuel.
NEW TIMES: From a Valley perspective, alternative fuels have been irrelevant when it comes to pollution, says Lindy Bauer, environmental director for the Maricopa Association of Governments. Gasoline engines have become so much cleaner, when it comes to emissions, in the past few years that alternative fuels just aren't much better, she says. "In the old days, when they were dirtier, then you saw alternative fuels having an impact," Bauer says. "Now they're more on a level playing field." Vehicle exhaust is only part of the air-pollution problem. Even if alternative fuels were much cleaner than gasoline, which they apparently aren't, the effect on our air would still be modest.
Truth: This is a totally bogus argument. Here's why: there isn't a solution for our petroleum addiction. If you dismiss biofuels as a fantasy-land panacea, you're right, because it's going to take a combination of improved fuel economy, massive reinvestment in public transportation, new technology, new fuel sources like non-food based biofuels and electricity, and other factors to move us into transportation 2.0.
As they say, don't make perfect the enemy of the good. Biodiesel has already had major impacts in offsetting diesel fuel usage and reducing pollution, impacts that could not be realized if we just gave up on it because it will never meet our total fuel demand. For example, biodiesel made from waste cooking oil that would otherwise be discarded or shipped to China for processing is displacing 1 million gallons of diesel fuel in Oregon each year. In total, 450 million gallons of biodiesel was produced in the United States in 2007, amounting to an emissions reduction of approximately 1,102,399,500 lbs. of carbon dioxide*.
(*My estimation assuming all soybean biodiesel, based on 40% lifecycle GHG reduction and 6 lbs of CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel).
NEW TIMES: Much hope is staked on bio-diesel these days, which can be made from fryer grease, among other things. Whether straight up or blended with normal diesel, bio-diesel fuel runs cleaner as far as some pollutants go, but adds more ozone-forming chemicals to the air. Unmodified diesel engines can run on B20, a mixture of 20 percent bio-diesel and 80 percent diesel, though extra maintenance problems crop up.
Truth about more chemicals in the air: According to the University of Minnesota in 2006 (1), the production and use of soybean biodiesel decreases life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 41% over regular diesel (NREL says 78%, page 4), and also decreases other pollutants like Carbon monoxide, PM10, and SOx. In fact, pure biodiesel reduces air toxics by 90% when compared to diesel fuel. As an aside, according to the same Minnesota study, the life-cycle of corn-grain ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 12% and actually increases emissions of five major pollutants. Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel that has completed all the testing requirements of the Clean Air Act. Biodiesel contains oxygen and it burns more completely than diesel fuel, resulting in reduced emissions. All major pollutants are reduced dramatically in biodiesel exhaust (most of them at least 50% for B100), except one-nitrogen oxides (NOx)-and that's only for blends over B20 (see my post on the subject). The most common report when users switch to biodiesel is the noticeable decrease in diesel smoke (the black, sooty clouds). B20 reduces air toxics (the most damaging pollutants for human health) by 20-40%, while B100 reduces them by as much as 90%. Sulfur oxides and sulfates (major contributors to acid rain) are almost completely eliminated. The only caveat is that nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions can increase up to 10% with B100. If you would like to evaluate this for yourself, see the National Biodiesel Board's emissions fact sheet. New diesel technology like the Mercedes BlueTec eliminates this problem by reducing NOx emissions by 80%.
All-in-all, biodiesel offers such a substantial reduction in emissions that it's frequently used in sensitive areas like national parks and marine habitats. School districts all over the country have also turned to biodiesel as a way to reduce children's exposure to toxic diesel exhaust.
Truth about maintenance problems: This is completely false. There have been reports of biodiesel damaging gasoline engines (just like diesel would), and I've heard that's why some mechanics rail against using the fuel-they've had to deal with these hapless folks. While original engine manufacturers (OEMs) are especially cautious about new fuels, some of biggest names in the diesel world (like Cummins, Caterpillar, John Deere, and others) have cleared B20 or higher from doing any harm. Biodiesel and diesel fuel are similar in chemical structure and have similar properties, so they burn similarly in diesel engines. But biodiesel has some specific advantages. Biodiesel adds significant lubricity to the fuel (something that sulfur formally did in diesel fuel, but has since been reduced, hence ultra-low-sulfur-diesel or ULSD), reducing engine and fuel pump wear and reportedly extending engine life. Adding just 1% biodiesel to ULSD will restore lubricity to the fuel.
Biodiesel has a higher cetane number (higher ignitability) and combusts more completely due to higher oxygen content. Biodiesel is also a good solvent and will clean out diesel fuel residue left in the fuel tank and lines. Over time, because it's such a good solvent, biodiesel can degrade rubber fuel lines and gaskets. Most post-1990 vehicles don't have rubber lines and gaskets, but some older vehicles do.
NEW TIMES: When Rudolf Diesel first fired up the engine that bears his name, it ran on a bio-fuel - peanut oil. That was more than 100 years ago. So why isn't bio-diesel everywhere? Because it costs more than petroleum products, it reduces fuel mileage, it's relatively scarce, and environmental benefits are uncertain.
Truth about it costs more: Unfortunately, biodiesel is tied to petroleum prices because of diesel use on the farm (you'd think the first thing farmers would do is to switch to biodiesel). But in areas where biodiesel is made from non-food sources and looking to the future when we hope all of it is made from non-food sources, biodiesel can be cheaper. Sequential Biofuels of Oregon makes biodiesel out of 1 million gallons of recycled vegetable oil each year. In any case, biodiesel is nearly price competitive with premium gasoline, and probably won't seem that expensive in the middle of summer.
That being said, we could probably argue about the real price of petroleum for hours. Americans don't see the real price of petro-diesel at the pump, which should probably include the cost of climate change (in the form of a carbon tax) and some of the most expensive aspects of US foreign policy (I'll let you fill in the blank). It also doesn't include the health care and societal cost of the estimated 15,000 premature deaths attributed to diesel exhaust each year.
The US will export an estimated $440 billion dollars in 2008 to satiate its oil demand, which represents something like half of the nation's trade deficit. Supporting US biodiesel injects some of that money back into local economies, as opposed to say, the economy of Saudi Arabia.
So which is really more expensive? I'll let you decide for yourself.
Here is a link to the new times article:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-04-17/news/alternative-fuels-aren-t-solving-phoenix-s-air-pollution-problem-and-it-s-doubtful-that-they-will-anytime-soon/
Here is the link to write a letter to the editor regarding this article:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/feedback/EmailAnEmployee/?department=letters
Also below is an informative page of 22 BioDiesel Myths Dispelled.
http://gas2.org/2008/04/10/biodiesel-mythbuster-20-twenty-two-biodiesel-myths-dispelled/
