SOURCE: UNITED SOYBEAN BOARD
Reprinted in Biodiesel magazine:
http://biodieselmagazine.com/a....jsp?article_id=3500

An ongoing effort asking scientists from around the world to pledge their support for biodiesel is getting quick results. Roger Beachy, Ph.D., president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, and Rob Myers, Ph.D., founder of the Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute in Columbia, Mo., serve as co-chairs of the campaign, which invites all members of the scientific community to visit www.biodieselsustainability.com/scientists.html and add their names to the list of biodiesel supporters.

“The soybean checkoff has a long-term investment in researching sustainable, renewable biodiesel,” said Vanessa Kummer, United Soybean Board (USB) communications chair and a soybean farmer from Colfax, N.D. “So it’s good to see the scientific community coming out in support of biodiesel. It’s important to increase awareness of the science behind using soy biodiesel as an answer to decreasing our dependence on petroleum while still providing food, feed and fiber for the world.”

Scientists who sign the petition are agreeing that biodiesel can reduce dependence on petroleum, help address climate change and boost domestic economies. Additionally, by signing the declaration, the scientists pledge their support for further investment and research, which will enhance biodiesel’s status as a sustainable fuel for transportation and other uses as well as its ability to meet the world’s food, feed, fiber and energy needs of the future.

More than 80 scientists have signed up since Myers and Beachy announced the declaration at the National Biodiesel Board Conference and Expo earlier this year.

As a consistent source of funding for the research and promotion of biodiesel, the soybean checkoff has been a major force in increasing biodiesel production from 500,000 gallons in 1999 to nearly 700 million gallons in 2008. Checkoff-funded research, for example, has found that soybean oil is the superior biodiesel feedstock due to the improved lubricity, cold-flow properties and other diesel-engine benefits provided by soy biodiesel.

According to Myers, biodiesel is an obvious choice as a fuel of the future.

“Biodiesel is such a good fit with our goals for domestically produced, renewable energy sources,” said Myers, who grew up on a corn and soybean farm in Illinois. “Soybean, as the predominant crop currently used for biodiesel, is an environmentally friendly crop from the standpoint that it produces its own nitrogen and doesn’t need nitrogen fertilizer.”

I posted this because there might be some real, certified scientists on this forum who might want to sign the petition. The oil companies have done a good job lumping domestic biodiesel from soy oil in with ethanol and bd made on clear cut land in rainforest nations, which of course happens largely due to unfair trade or something like that.

Anyway, several of our trollish members have seemingly dropped off this forum so maybe we can start up an intelligent conversation on this topic.

Sorry, I don't want to harsh your buzz here, but isn't this just a PR thing from the soy folks?

quote:

a good job lumping domestic biodiesel from soy oil in with ethanol and bd made on clear cut land in rainforest nations, which of course happens largely due to unfair trade or something like that.

..something like that. If soy in the US is used for fuel and not used for food, then other countries such as Brazil will clearcut rainforest to grow soy to fill the market. Biodiesel from waste oil and fat makes good sense environmentally and economically. Growing oil fuel crops by traditional agricultural cultivation may be counterproductive. The soy lobby in the US has a significant influence on the perception of the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by john galt: If soy in the US is used for fuel and not used for food, then other countries such as Brazil will clearcut rainforest to grow soy to fill the market.

I'm sure you meant soy oil, since the rest of the soybean is used for food. Almost all of the additional soybeans that are grown in the U.S. use land that has already been cleared. If farmers in South American countries clear cut their land to grow oilseed crops that seems like their problem, not ours. If they are growing soybeans on this land then they are especially foolish since you only get about 20% oil and need a lot of water.

The environmental impact concerns are laudable. However, I think it is also quite cynical that the oil and finance interests that were oh so happy to profit from clear-cutting for other purposes are now crying over the clearing of land for crops that not only compete with petroleum, but also provide additional food to the peasant folk they have been trying to starve to death for so long.

quote:

Biodiesel from waste oil and fat makes good sense environmentally and economically. Growing oil fuel crops by traditional agricultural cultivation may be counterproductive.

I'd love to see the day when all post-consumer veggie oil is made into fuel versus being fed to animals. It's the low-cost alternative because it is inferior feed, and it helps produce inferior meat. And besides it produces superior biodiesel (according to the renderers not just this forum).

Though as I'm sure you'd agree, John, (and welcome back to the board by the way) the more WVO that is used for fuel, the higher the price will go and the higher the price for the products it replaces, tallow, lard, soy oil, etc., will go. So the South American farmers will still have a price incentive to cut down land for soybean (or whatever) production.

quote:

The soy lobby in the US has a significant influence on the perception of the situation.

It's a sticky issue with a lot of bad data and strong, well-funded opinions to be sure. Let's not be tricked into thinking that those organizations such as possibly the ASO that may be on the defensive, are actually on the offensive. The mother lion that shows its fangs does so more often out of fear than aggression.

quote:

Originally posted by clean and green:
If farmers in South American countries clear cut their land to grow oilseed crops that seems like their problem, not ours.

Ummm... no. This view of the earth being mutually exclusive areas is absurd, and I'd like to credit you with already knowing this. If the rest of the world decided to clear cut all their land while the U.S. didn't, we'd still be on the same chunk of rock, bearing the same results. Sovereignty has been countries' boon & bane throughout civilization, and that's not changing.

This is why both sides of the argument have untenable positions. Regardless of where production takes place, there's a tradeoff that someone else rightfully deems unacceptable.

Other than that, I pretty much agree w/ the prior posts...

With the possible exception of Jatropha, NO oil crops are grown exclusively for oil. Sale of the oil is important, but doesn't come close to paying for the crop. Neither does any one product that comes from any of the major oil crops (although corn is arguably close, being a cost-effective cattle feed without having its oil extracted first). A farmer in Iowa or Mexico or Brazil may grow soy or corn or cotton that gets its oil extracted for fuel, but the income from the oil is only a small part of the proceeds. The major value of soy is the high protein meal. In the US, most of that high protein meal gets fed to cattle, although quite a bit is used for human food. The purpose of the ASO is to find markets for soy products, so that soy farmers can make enough money to stay in business. They've been pretty successful so far.

No Brazillian farmer will grow soy or any other crop exclusively for oil. They grow the crops for FOOD. As long as the human population keeps growing, there will be pressure to clearcut and plant FOOD crops. Extracting the oil is part of the method used to make farming pay.

Cheers,
JohnO

quote:

the Clean Energy Biofuels Act requires diesel suppliers to mix not just any biodiesel but "advanced biodiesel," meaning that it's proven to generate 50 percent less greenhouse gas compared to its petroleum counterpart, according to Dwayne Breger, director of renewable and alternative energy development at the state Department of Energy Resources.

Fuel made from virgin feedstock, such as palm and soy, doesn't appear to meet the criteria because the energy used for fertilizing the plants, transporting the crop and the land cleared to make room for growing it are all part of the equation when calculating carbon footprints, Breger said. http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/...09/06/08/4216447.htm

quote:

Berkeley to reverse policy on biodiesel
8 June 2009

The city of Berkeley, California, has decided to abandon its pro-biodiesel policies after six years amid concerns of production increasing worldwide greenhouse gases and exacerbating hunger.

In 2003 the city started using 100% biodiesel in more than 100 cars and trucks that ran on diesel fuel. Initially the biodiesel was derived from recycled frying grease, but gradually the supply changed to a crop-based biofuel.

The city stopped receiving shipments of biodiesel derived from soyabean crops last month, and have pledged to consider formalising its policy on the matter in September.

Although biodiesel pollutes less than regular diesel when it comes out of an exhaust pipe, the farming involved to produce crop-based biofuels actually increases pollution worldwide, city officials claimed. http://www.biofuels-news.com/i...news.php?item_id=912

quote:

Fuel made from virgin feedstock, such as palm and soy, doesn't appear to meet the criteria because the energy used for fertilizing the plants, transporting the crop and the land cleared to make room for growing it are all part of the equation when calculating carbon footprints, Breger said.

Yes, but the problem is that the calculations in some studies aren't entirely fair. As Johno points out, the main product from these plants is FOOD. Nothing I've read indicates that life cycle analysis was done including some methodology of weighting or percentage basis to account for the distribution of products from soy, palm, or otherwise. While fuel from used oil, et al is a no brainer, it would be nice to see how virgin oil fairs from an unbiased standpoint.

quote:

Clean Energy Biofuels Act requires diesel suppliers to mix not just any biodiesel but "advanced biodiesel," meaning that it's proven to generate 50 percent less greenhouse gas compared to its petroleum counterpart,

This is a good idea in principle, the question is how it's calculated.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw08/sl080206.htm

quote:

Manufacturers and wholesale distributors of diesel substitute fuel doing business in the commonwealth who wish to have their fuel classified as eligible diesel substitute fuel shall provide documentation satisfactory to the department that such fuel yields at least a 50 per cent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per unit of delivered energy, in comparison to the petroleum-based diesel fuel displaced.

In determining the percentage lifecycle greenhouse gas reductions achieved by particular fuels, the department, in consultation with the department of environmental protection and the executive office of energy and environmental affairs, shall use information and best practices available from other sources, including other states, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, foreign governments, academic research and private and non-profit organizations.
If the department, in consultation with the department of environmental protection and the executive office of energy and environmental affairs, determines through an initial review that a particular waste feedstock will clearly yield at least a 50 per cent lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction, is free of hazardous materials and hazardous waste, and meets any other conditions set by regulations promulgated by the department, the department may exempt fuel produced from such a material from a full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis.

The conclusions published by most scientists will match the agenda of the agency funding them.

quote:

Ummm... no. This view of the earth being mutually exclusive areas is absurd, and I'd like to credit you with already knowing this. If the rest of the world decided to clear cut all their land while the U.S. didn't, we'd still be on the same chunk of rock, bearing the same results. Sovereignty has been countries' boon & bane throughout civilization, and that's not changing.

Well said. If it is our giant SUVs and trucks (diesels) that create demand for BD that affects markets and leads to more clear cutting, then we are affecting them. When they cut, it affects all us in terms of O2 etc. The world is getting smaller and more crowded all the time.

quote:

it would be nice to see how virgin oil fairs from an unbiased standpoint.

Good luck with that. If you find it, let us know. I figure anyone with the knowledge and time to work that up in any kind of complete way will have some agenda. No?

quote:

the department, in consultation with the department of environmental protection and the executive office of energy and environmental affairs, shall use information and best practices available from other sources, including other states, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, foreign governments, academic research and private and non-profit organizations.

In other words, we haven't the slightest clue...

quote:

Good luck with that. If you find it, let us know. I figure anyone with the knowledge and time to work that up in any kind of complete way will have some agenda. No?

Well, not necessarily knowledge & time, but definitely $$$$$.

Proposed EPA rules penalize ethanol, biodiesel
http://www.brownfieldnetwork.c...82A-D0D4EDA8C7920CC0
Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 4:32 PM

by Ken Anderson, Tom Steever and Bob Meyer

An Environmental Protection Administration hearing Tuesday on the proposed rulemaking for the Renewable Fuels Standard focused on the controversial theory called indirect land use change. Proponents of corn-based ethanol and soybean oil-based biodiesel say the proposed rules penalize those fuels for greenhouse gas emissions that result from land use changes around the world and years into the future.

Dr. Mark Stowers, vice president of science and technology for POET got right to the point in his testimony, saying the proposed rule is “flawed and has no basis in law or science.”

Models used by EPA in calculating indirect land use changes have severe problems and limitations, including “failure to make apples-to-apples comparisons with gasoline,” and an underestimation of corn and ethanol yields, he said.

Stowers urged EPA officials to visit a modern ethanol plant to “obtain real data about the industry, rather than relying on unproven models, hypotheses and assumptions,” Stowers testified.

The proposed rules also confound what will and will not qualify under the proposed rules as the raw materials from which to make renewable biodiesel.

Biodiesel “is the only game in town” when it comes to bio-based diesel, said Manning Feraci, vice president of federal affairs for the National Biodiesel Board, who was another of those who testified at the hearing.

National Biodiesel Board CEO Joe Jobe, in an interview at National Biodiesel Board Headquarters in Jefferson City, maintained that the EPA’s interpretation of RFS-2 will disqualify more than 60 percent of the feedstock for biodiesel, leaving only animal fats and restaurant grease that qualify as useable feedstock under the rule.

Jobe told Brownfield during the interview that biodiesel has about 80 percent less lifecycle CO2 than diesel fuel, except when indirect land use changes are applied.

“The EPA has interpreted this indirect emissions from land use changes decades into the future and carbon that’s created from decisions that may or may not be made on other continents and assign those backwards to U.S. biodiesel now,” Jobe told Brownfield.

That, says Jobe, takes biodiesel’s direct emissions benefits from 80 percent down to 22 percent, which is too low to suit the EPA. Jobe refers to the EPA interpretations as faulty science.

“They look at third and fourth iteration indirect emissions for biodiesel, but the EPA assumes that imported petroleum, foreign petroleum has no indirect emissions,” said Jobe. “They make no attempt whatsoever to look at indirect emissions for petroleum.”

Feraci told the group that while he recognizes the statute requires EPA to consider significant indirect emissions when calculating a renewable fuel's emission profile, "It does not require EPA to rely on faulty data and to fabricate unrealistic scenarios which punish the U.S. biodiesel industry for wholly unrelated land use decisions in South America." Feraci cited as an example the assumption than an increase in biodiesel production would lead to an increase in soybean acreage in Brazil. The noted that from 2004 through 2008, while biodiesel production in the United States grew from 25 million gallons to 690 million gallons, soybean acreage in Brazil declined.

Feraci also took issue with the EPA methodology pertaining to nitrogen emissions from soybeans arguing that nitrogen fixed in the soil by soybeans should not be considered greenhouse gas emissions.

Feraci closed his testimony imploring the EPA to address the proposal's glaring shortcomings.

This is a really fair assessment.

I love how those who would attack biodiesel from soybeans (however flawed) will come up with 'projections' based on current data, such as land use etc. Haven't the last 2 years taught us anything about projecting out from how things are now? We're living in topsy-turvy land - the market is broken, soybeans are at $12 per bushel (!), Brazilian farmers who want to grow beans need to get loans from the IMF and are going broke because of all the GM seeds with terminator genes, and on and on.

Joe Jobe at the NBB has always seemed to me to be a straight-shooter. It's easy to say that the soybean lobby is big and can twist numbers however they like. However compared to big-oil, which is hyper-paranoid about any competitor they don't directly control (like the emerging algae industry), soybeans are peanuts (there's a joke in there somewhere).

Best option: Take a deep breath, relax, take a step back from the situation and look at it logically and without emotion based on climate change or what have you. Look at basic facts: Big oil criticizes water usage for soybeans but they expend millions of gallons of water to expel petroleum from deep rock deposits. Big oil points out the slight increase in NOx emissions that contribute to smog and discount the reductions in particulate matter, sulphur compounds etc. Big oil uses their uncountable connections in media to attack biodiesel and confuse it with corn ethanol, while Little soy is forced to play defense which, naturally, makes them look guilty since they are always having to defend themselves from attacks. Why would they be attacked if they were innocent? Bad logic but good psychology.

By the way, google the name Lindsay Williams to learn about how the U.S. has more oil than Saudi Arabia ever had just sitting in Alaska which will never get touched thanks to agreements made by Big Oil in the 1970's. If big oil really cared about us and loved us so much, wouldn't they be tapping into this resource? Remember that song Drill Here, Drill Now from a little while back? As annoying as it was, unfortunately it was too true.

Ron Paul 2012

quote:

the U.S. has more oil than Saudi Arabia ever had just sitting in Alaska which will never get touched thanks to agreements made by Big Oil in the 1970's. If big oil really cared about us and loved us so much, wouldn't they be tapping into this resource?

It's heavy crude which will be more expensive to recover and refine than the cost of light crude from Saudi Arabia at this time. These vast deposits of heavy oil were set aside as a Naval Petroleum Reserve back in the 1930s. It's not "more oil than Saudi Arabia ever had" but that probably makes it sound more 'newsworthy'.

I was actually referring to another deposit of lighter sweet crude, easily accessible, which the oil executives decided not to touch because it would have tanked the price. Their loyalties are to the shareholders, not the American people. Google Lindsey Williams to learn more.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just a simple conspiracy.

quote:

the U.S. has more oil than Saudi Arabia ever had just sitting in Alaska which will never get touched thanks to agreements made by Big Oil in the 1970's. If big oil really cared about us and loved us so much, wouldn't they be tapping into this resource?

There's the spirit! One should never let oneself get sidetracked with thoughts of " How can we save/ conserve/ downsize/ make the most of the diminishing oil resources we have?" Keep the focus clearly on " How can we get more cheap oil to squander and waste just the same as we are doing now!" and " Stuff leaving any bit of the world untouched and as a pristine environment for future generations, there's oil there and we want it now! Most of the worlds environment is trashed so best we don't leave a job not completely finished!"

That's the kind of thinking that got us where we are today and who would want to change that "eh?

^^^ Well said DCS. Amen.

quote:

Sustainability is not a new concept for German agriculture. The International Sustainability and Carbon Certification project, supported by the Agency for Renewable Resources in the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture, began a pilot project in late 2006 to develop a system to certify sustainable biofuel production, documenting the bioenergy path back to the field. For the agricultural component, the ISCC is building on EU cross-compliance regulations. Cross compliance was part of the 2003 reforms in the EU Common Agricultural Policy that decoupled direct payments from production. To qualify for subsidies, farmers must comply with various regulations regarding the protection of ground and water quality, careful use of fertilizers and pesticides and species diversity. Under the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive, there will be new requirements for documentation, accounting for GHG contributions and direct land use change. Biodiesel feedstocks will have to be certified as not coming from converted forests, wetlands or permanent grasslands.

Interestingly, given the current debate in the U.S., the ISCC says that, while it is incorporating direct land use change into the GHG balances during certification, “It would be unjustified to blame indirect changes in land use on biofuels only. The main driving force behind the expansion of agricultural area is the growth of population and the increased prosperity in many developing and transition countries.”

Perhaps the most dramatic difference in the German biodiesel industry compared to that of the U.S. is Germany’s large number of crushers. The country has more than 540 small, local, crushing plants with a combined crush capacity of 800,000 metric tons. That is dwarfed, however, by the dozen large crushing facilities with their combined capacity of 10 million metric tons. That puts the crushing capacity at more than double the amount needed to supply the biodiesel capacity of 5 million metric tons in 2009. That 5 million metric tons (1.5 billion gallons) of biodiesel capacity would, in turn, supply 17 percent of the country’s total diesel consumption of around 29 million metric tons per year. Considering that Germany is just slightly smaller than the U.S. state of Montana, the numbers portray a German biodiesel powerhouse.

http://www.biodieselmagazine.c..._id=3534&q=&page=all

Testimony of Manning Feraci National Biodiesel Board Vice President of Federal Affairs Before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RFS-2 Public Hearing June 9, 2009

I appreciate having the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National Biodiesel Board, the national trade association for the U.S. biodiesel industry.

Our membership produces a high-quality, low carbon renewable diesel replacement fuel that is readily accepted in the marketplace. As EPA moves forward with the RFS-2 rulemaking, it is important to remember that the U.S. biodiesel industry is the only game in town when it comes to commercial scale production of Biomass-based Diesel as defined in RFS-2.

Congress clearly recognized the value of displacing petroleum diesel fuel with renewable fuel when it passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. RFS-2 for the first time requires a renewable component in U.S. diesel fuel, and provides a readily attainable schedule for the use of Biomass-based Diesel that increases from 500 million gallons in 2009 to 1 billion gallons in 2012. To qualify for the program, renewable fuel must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% compared to the conventional diesel fuel it is replacing, and the Administrator has the authority to reduce the greenhouse gas emission target to 40%.

We recognize that statute requires the EPA to consider significant indirect emissions when calculating a renewable fuel’s emission profile. This does not require the EPA to rely on faulty data and to fabricate unrealistic scenarios that punish the U.S. biodiesel industry for wholly unrelated land use decisions in South America. Make no doubt about it - this is what the EPA’s proposed rule does. Biodiesel produced from domestically produced vegetable oils are disqualified from the Biomass-based Diesel program, making it all but impossible to meet the volume goals established by statute.

Let me provide a few examples of the glaring deficiencies in this proposed rule. As a general principle, the EPA assumes that increased U.S. biodiesel production will lead to land conversion in South America. If this basic assumption is correct, Brazilian soybean acreage would have increased from 2004 through 2008 – a time period that saw U.S. biodiesel production increase from 25 million gallons to 690 million gallons.

In fact, acreage in Brazil dedicated to soybean cultivation actually decreased from 2004 through 2008. The proposed rule’s inability to accurately backcast recent, concrete experience not only draws into question the legitimacy of EPA’s methodology, it also clearly highlights that there are factors unrelated to U.S. biodiesel production, such as logging, cattle ranching, and subsistence farming that are actually driving land use decisions in South America.

The EPA’s greenhouse gas emission methodology also contains a huge error pertaining to nitrogen emissions. As any farmer can tell you, soybeans add nitrogen to the soil. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which I might add won a Nobel Prize for its work in this area – in its 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories determined that nitrogen fixed in the soil by soybeans should not be considered greenhouse gas emissions. However, the EPA’s methodology relies on outdated data that does not incorporate the IPCC’s updated nitrogen findings, and thus inaccurately attributes excess nitrogen emissions to soybean cultivation. This error alone reduces the greenhouse gas emission score for soy-based biodiesel by more than 20 points.

Because the proposed rule relies on dubious land use assumptions and inaccurate data, the EPA’s proposed rule restricts feedstock for low-carbon diesel replacement fuel to only animal fats and restaurant grease. Vegetable oils account for more than sixty percent of the feedstock that is available to meet the RFS-2 Biomass-based Diesel targets, and the RFS-2 volume goals simply cannot be met if vegetable oils are disqualified from the program. Even under the so-called pathway for biodiesel that is briefly outlined in the proposed rule, there will not be enough feedstock available to meet the RFS-2 volume goals for Biomass-based Diesel. This outcome is not consistent with either sound science or sound energy policy.

The U.S. biodiesel industry wants the RFS-2 program to succeed, and the EPA has ample authority under statute to implement a workable program. The proposed rule does not achieve this goal, and it is imperative that the EPA address this proposal’s glaring shortcomings in the rulemaking process.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: clean and green,