Biodiesel board announces sustainability principles
The National Biodiesel Board has completed it's annual conference meeting in San Francisco and one of the larger announcements are new rules for sustainable biodiesel. A Sustainability Task Force met during the event and developed and passed the principles that demonstrate their claimed commitments to climate change mitigation, human rights, food security, and respect for natural resources. Much different than soy-sourced biodiesel, sustainable biodiesel needs to meet the following long list of principles: it's made legally, it's manufactured under transparent processes, it really reduces global greenhouse gas emissions, it protects human rights, it's manufactured to promote local communities, it helps food security, it promotes sustainable management systems, it respects water and and land rights, and that all these conditions are subject to improvement. The EU has been struggling to find an equivalent legislation that would also apply to imported biofuels.
[Source: National Biodiesel Board]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jharlan 3:16PM (2/05/2009)
This gives one a vision of decentralized regional fuel production, even that of large farms producing all of their own bio diesel and ethanol from agricultural waste products, possibly with enough production to provide fuel to surrounding communities. Completely free from petroleum imports and oil companies, and the case can be made that using agricultural waste products is carbon neutral. It is a vision of a sustainable future. It may not be the final evolution of the future, but It certainly is an improvement to our present situation.
Reply
noz 4:02PM (2/05/2009)
I agree..it's better than what we have now...but we need carbon free fuels and these won't cut it. This is an interim.
Chris M 6:27PM (2/05/2009)
Noz, why exactly do we need fuels to be "carbon free"? If it is a concern over carbon monoxide or unburned hydrocarbons, that can be greatly reduced or eliminated with the right technologies. If it is a concern over carbon dioxide, I must point out that biofuels could be produced in a "carbon neutral" fashion that does not increase the amount of CO2 in the air. Granted, it doesn't reduce the CO2 in the air, but neither does any of the "carbon free" fuels.
Ah, but I suspect, based on your past postings, the real reason is that you want everyone to fall for the hydrogen hype and assume H2 is the only "carbon free" fuel. Sorry, but there are several other potential "carbon free" fuels available, like:
Ammonia - Unlike H2, it liquifies under pressure without requiring cryogenic cooling, has a high energy per liter, and is easily detectable even at low concentrations. Biodegradable, can be used as fertilizer.
Boron - Has a fairly high energy per gram, and as a solid, has a much higher energy per liter compared to H2. Safe, easy to handle and nearly fireproof (self-extinguishing under normal conditions), the "ash" is an easy to handle glassy solid.
Zinc - Safe, easy to handle solid fuel, can be used in "zinc-air" fuel cells and batteries that costs considerably less than any H2 fuel cell. Zinc is abundant and relatively inexpensive.
Aluminum - Like zinc, a safe, easy to handle solid, can be used in inexpensive "aluminum air" fuel cells and batteries, even more abundant and cheaper than zinc.
Lithium - Used in batteries, it is much less expensive than H2 fuel and 3x more efficient than H2 for storing electrical energy.
Granted, none of them are perfect, but then, neither is H2, and they are more cost effective than H2.
harlanx6 8:55PM (2/05/2009)
In the end game, I see electric vehicles charged with solar, wind power or other completely clean sources of power. I see complete decentralization of the production of power. To be perfectly honest, I don't see hydrogen. Hydrogen takes a lot of energy to produce, deliver, and store, and probably would leave us at the mercy of Exxon and BP or some governmental agency. I am sure many have a stake in hydrogen, but the consumer is not one of those. To be fair, I have nothing against hydrogen, but I doubt it can compete.
noz 9:16PM (2/05/2009)
Chris M...
We need carbon free fuels because if we want to reduce pollution....not just CO2...but the stuff that directly harms us...carbon based fuels won't do it. It's that simple.
You keep talking about efficiency. But you STILL don't want to see the big picture as a system. And you probably never will. Hydrogen is still the cleanest fuel to produce if the methods of production are clean. And that exists today.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that storage issues and cost issues are resolved over time? Just like all other technological advancements you take for granted today? Is it really, truly THAT difficult for you to see beyond the next 10-20 years? It really does seem like it is for you.
Ammonia? Ammonia requires you first make hydrogen and then tie it to nitrogen, making it a much heavier fuel.
Boron? We don't need collectors to clean up our toxic waste...we need process change...and concept you are not familiar with apparently.
Zinc? Zinc is very highly prone to oxidation...a leak to air can potentially ruin an entire stock of fuel. Zinc air batteries are not electrically rechargeable, but recycling can reduce the zinc oxide back to zinc metal for use in new batteries. Still energy intensive and probably done in convention ways which use carbon based fuels.
Lithium? It may be less expensive than hydrogen NOW but that does not exclude the reality and possibility that as progress is made, currencies change value. Always have always will. And Lithium does not come close to storing as much energy as hydrogen..or releasing.
I will state this again...to no avail. The future will include hydrogen. It will also include electricity.
A perfect example of increased use of hydrogen content in currencies is in heating. We went from coal, to oil, to natural gas, to electricity. Coal's energy comes from 80% from carbon, the rest hydrogen. Oil- 65% from carbon, the rest hydrogen. Natural gas, 45% from carbon, the rest hydrogen. None of the energy in electricity comes from carbon. And the source that creates it, were it to be nuclear or hydraulic, would eliminate all carbon use altogether...in and out.
The trend is there.
I never said batteries and other fuels won't have their place in time and use. They will. Because we need to do whatever it takes to get to a carbon-free currency. Biofuels are not the answer long-term. And batteries will be limited in use. They've been around thousands of years without much luck until now..and even now they are limited in use, re-use, and capacity.
The directly result of using carbon-free fuels is reduced pollution. This is a direct product of improved efficiencies times the effect of cleaner currencies.
Process changes will take us to a cleaner future, adding collectors and using the same concepts to catch or reduce pollution only won't. So you need to start looking at things at a system level too...not just individual use level.
Chris M 3:51AM (2/06/2009)
Noz, you fell for a simple misdirection in "Smelling Land", where the author points out that some carbon containing fuels are accompanied by potentially hazardous substances, then makes the unwarranted assumption that carbon in fuels is somehow a marker for hazardous substances, therefore we should avoid all carbon containing fuels. Wrong. Methane and alcohols burn cleanly. Yes, I know that burning ethanol produces trace amounts of acetaldehyde, but so does your liver, all the time.
Another flaw with "smelling land" is the assumption that only H2 can solve our future transportation energy needs, all other possibilities are either ignored or casually dismissed, and all the problems with H2 are either ignored or trivialized.
As for those other "non-carbon fuels" I mentioned - yes, NH3 is heavier than H2, but with lower pressure and smaller lighter tanks, the overall weight of tank and fuel could actually be less. There are companies making zinc fuel cells powered by zinc pellets, oxidation really doesn't seem to be much of a problem. It is possible to make a rechargable zinc-air battery, the only problem is the growth of zinc dendrites that short out the battery after a few hundred recharge cycles - but if future research could solve all of the H2 fuel problems, why couldn't it solve the "zinc dendrite" problem?
Speaking of future research, I find it hilarious that you blithely assume that research will eventually solve all of the cost and efficiency problems with H2 fuels, yet somehow assume there can be no further progress on batteries whatsoever. Sorry, but we're already seeing dramatic battery improvements demonstrated in the lab, potentially 5x to 25x times the energy storage of current LiIon batteries, which would lead to reduced costs and/or dramatically increased driving range. But the breakthroughs needed to make H2 fuelcells and H2 storage affordable and cost competitive to current LiIon batteries? Not a hint yet. When it comes to affordability, Lithium is far ahead of H2, and its lead is increasing all the time.
jharlan 9:36PM (2/05/2009)
I live where the sun shines most of the time during the day at least 300 days a year, and the government and PG&E are having a very difficult time putting a meter between me and the sun. That,s why solar is so appealing. You are absolutely right. Technological advances are coming in all aspects of energy production and storage, but solar energy is free once your capital costs have been amortized. Noz, you can use solar power to split water so you can put H2 in your car. I think I'll just skip that step and put the solar produced electricity into the car. I won't be doing it just yet, but I could, and lots of people already are.
Reply
noz 2:03AM (2/06/2009)
JHARLAN:
I agree with you. I think solar can be used in many aspects and areas for energy supply. I like solar applications very much. And they need to be used more so everywhere.
Hydrogen cannot and should not be used in every application. That's why different currencies need to be used for different applications. But regardless, your idea of solar points out the necessary breaking away from carbon based fuels by using electricity that is generated from non-carbon based sources...in this case sunlight.
Good show.
jason burroughs 10:34PM (2/05/2009)
It should be noted that the NBB's Sustainability Task Force is one of three emerging Sustainability organizations, and by far the most conservative. The others are the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance (I am a member) and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels.
The SBA takes a harder position on things like GMO soy. The STF does not mentions GMO, and keeps it real high level so as to not alienate their 100MMGY producers using such products. The RSB is an international organization of which biodiesel is one component.
I know key people in all the organizations and am glad to see everyone talking about these issues, and hope that SBA's influence will be greater in the marketplace.
Reply
Rain 2:49AM (2/06/2009)
It is good to see the beginnings of an accord on the production of Bio-Diesel.
One thing that must not be allowed to happen is the neo-conservative approach to
dominate the worlds agriculture market at the risk of endangering the food supply and the delicate balance of the regional eco-metrics to extend to the production of food as fuel.
My misgivings stem from this summary:
The aforementioned approach in the early nineties was to patent certain crops many of which have been around since the first Mesopotamian farmers and then insert terminator genes so that the child crops would then be sterile and not produce viable seed stock.
I would insist on an international review of the patenting and patents of pre-existing food sources
Here is a page that explains in much more clarity than I ever could the wrongs and the rights of GURTS or Genetic Restrictor Use Technology:
http://www.adonline.id.au/terminatorseeds/
The second phase was the passing of trade bills primarily in the US, Canada, Brazil,India and Argentina under NAFTA,GATT,WTO and the Non Proliferation Treaty, through which it became illegal to plant crops with Family or seedbank seeds.
Farmers were required to buy their seeds from Monsanto,ADM and Fermi through retailers like Walmart in the case of India through the NPT.
This link is a heart-breaker from a frontline article:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html
Happily citizens in Europe, Africa and Asia have with varying degrees of success mobilized to force their governments to resist the importation of American “Frankenfood”.
I noticed in another post that ADM was pursuing more ethanol plants for AE-85 production despite the drop in demand,this is a double-edged sword that I would prefer to reserve judgement on.
The added capacity to refine the Ethanol surely is a good thing but I just don't have any faith left in the Executive Officers with their morals taught at the knee of the culture of corruption fakirs to trust in what their ultimate aims actually are.
Reply