Triangle Biofuels Blog

So The Guardian is at it now.  This time with a double whammy bashing biodiesel and ethanol by saying in two different articles that there is a “secret World Bank study” that was leaked claiming that it was indeed the biofuels industry that caused food prices to spike 75%, and now, we should “put the brakes on biofuels” because they are bad for the planet.

Yet again, the media sees fit to take sensationalism over the truth, and pubslished complete rubbish about the industry.  At least in this country, and I’m assuming that’s what The Guardian was aiming at since it’s in vogue to hate the U.S. these days, we don’t use food grade crops to make biofuels (especially ethanol).  Most ethanol plants are using corn typically used to feed livestock, and form Dry Distillers Grains (DDGs), during the process, which are still fed to livestock.  Hmmm.

And as far as putting the brakes on biofuels as an alternative fuel because they are so evil, just what exactly do you propose instead?  Horse and Buggy?  Steam power?  Water wheels?  Slaves?  I just don’t get where these folks are coming from.  Biodiesel and ethanol are not alternative fuels people, they are the next fuel.  We are running out of petroleum. The Saudi’s are estimating their supplies ending around 2030, and the last 70% will be twice as expensive to get out than the first 30% was.  That’s why the gasoline is so expensive!  Why can’t the media seem to get that through their thick skulls? 

It’s a shame.   The only accurate articles I’ve read in the media lately about biofuels are either from biofuel trade journals, or articles from the press where they have actually interviewed someone from a biofuels plant.  Our own Wilson Daily Times seems to do a better job than most of the national publications I read out there.  Why? Because they actually try to get the story right, instead of just selling advertising.

Update: May 3, 2008 -

Having just put down the Triangle Business Journal article which reads  ”Biodiesel may be North Carolina’s next energy hedge”, I see the “No Journalist Left Behind” paradox continues.  (Read the full article here: http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2008/05/05/story2.html)   Apparently Frank Vinluan didn’t take chemistry in high school or college, nor did he bother to have anyone check his article.  The photo caption, which clearly shows a man standing in front of tanks clearly labeled as Methanol and Potassium Hydroxide, reads “David Thornton shows methane tanks at a biodiesel plant he is working on as design-builder in the Chatham County town of Pittsboro.”  Okay, last I checked, Methane (CH4) is a gas, while Methanol (CH3OH or MeOH) is a liquid.  You don’t use Methane to make biodiesel, period. 

Starting to get why I’m so irritated with the media? 

———————————————————————————————————————- 

I just finished watching “Modern Marvels” on the History channel, where they did a special on truck stops and truckers.  They finished the show talking about biodiesel and Willy Nelson.  “Great,” I thought, “some good press about biodiesel in the media”.  Except, once again as happens way too many times, the reporter equates straight vegetable oil with biodiesel.

To the layman, I can see why it’s easy to confuse.  Rudolf Diesel first invented his engine to run on Peanut oil, as the reporter accurately claimed.  However, for a reporter, who is suppose to research things before he reports them, even an extra 10 minutes using Google or Wikipedia in his investigation would have told him that the modern engine looks almost nothing like Rudolf Diesel’s engine, and that while it’s true that they can run straight vegetable oil, almost none do because it’s harmful for the engine. 

The other thing he would have found, as posted other places on this blog and our corporate website, is that straight vegetable oil (SVO) and Biodiesel are not the same thing. 

I’ll say it once more in more simple format: “Vegetable Oil Is Not Biodiesel“. 

So, what do biodiesel and straight vegetable oil have in common?  Biodiesel is usually made from vegetable oil.  But, in truth, biodiesel can be made from animal fats too, or people fat, for that matter.  Through a process called transesterification, vegetable oil is stripped and converted into Biodiesel (which is technically called a mono-alkyl ester).  This new chemical, trade named “Biodiesel”, is now more chemically similar to petroleum diesel, and has many of the same characteristics of it’s petroleum cousin.  It is even accepted by the EPA as an approved fuel and fuel addative, and has an ASTM standard (D-6751).  Vegetable Oil doesn’t have any of that.

See, Vegetable Oil is food, Biodiesel is fuel.

I bet I’ve heard this mistake seven or eight times in the media over the last two years.  Is there some kind of “No Journalist Left Behind” policy in the university system that I’ve not heard of?  Seems like there isn’t much pride or professionalism left in that industry.  So, get it right next time, Mr. Reporter.  Do the homework, research, confirm, THEN publish.

You’re not helping our industry by adding to the confusion that the average consumer already has about biofuels.    

Biodiesel has been around since the 1930’s (Yeah, really.  Check out the patent filings for it online). It is accepted by the EPA as a registered fuel for on-road use, mandated by law for use in all federal and state government vehicles, has been well tested and documented by dozens of universities and public transportation systems, has been used in Europe for over 12 years, and is now readily available in all 50 states.  Yet, every single diesel engine manufacturer that exists today will not endorse using B100 in their engines.  Why?

I bet we get 20 calls a week from people asking us if they can burn biodiesel instead of petroleum diesel in their car or truck.  The answer is typically a groaning “well, you can, but your vehicle engine warranty may be in jeopardy, so we can’t officially recommend it”.   Even though most of us at the plant run it in our vehicles, and all our trucks run pure B100. 

Since April of 2008, Biodiesel has been cheaper than petroleum diesel by at least 10 cents per gallon.  In some cases, it’s been as much as 50 cents cheaper. 

 Yet, diesel engine manufacturers, all of them, can’t seem to figure out how to make their engines run on B100.  Or can they?  Today (June 9th, 2008) just about every engine manufacturer I’ve researched will at least endorse B5.  In fact, some companies are SHIPPING their engines with a tankful of B5.  Yet, very few of them will support their engine running biodiesel blends over B20. 

I can accept part of the reason being that the fuel still isn’t in the petroleum mainstream and there are some specific handling requirements about it that differ from dinodiesel (gel points higher, oxidation, mild solvent characteristics, etc.).  But these are fuel handling problems that the petroleum industry and the retailer need to deal with, not the engine manufacturer. 

I find it interesting that we just made a shift to ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD), which also wasn’t in the petroleum mainstream and has different handling and performance requirements (less lubricity, sulfur contamination issues, oxidation), yet there was no reluctance from the diesel engine manufacturers regarding ULSD.  Why?  Because it wasn’t an option.  The EPA mandated it, and everyone had to follow. 

Did the engine manufacturers change anything in their engines to accommodate ULSD?  No.  

Is there any fallout to using ULSD?  Yes.  Many mechanics we talk to are telling us of premature injector failure because of the lack of lubricity in ULSD.  Ironically, this is one of the major benefits to biodiesel (biodiesel has outstanding lubricity), and a beautiful case for why we should be using it in ULSD.  Instead, it’s barely mentioned by the diesel engine companies or the petroleum industry.

Why is that?  I can only assume it’s because the petroleum industry doesn’t make biodiesel. Yet.

So, how about it Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Volvo, Volkswagen, Mercedes, International, Mack?  When are you going to get off your collective asses and start supporting B100 for use in your engines? I can’t think of a better time to get an edge on your competition by producing an engine that was “Certified for B100″ and putting it in a high MPG 1/2 ton pickup or minivan.  Imagine a truck or minivan that could run on B100 and get 35MPG.  You could charge $40,000 per unit and not be able to keep up with demand.