Soybean & Biodiesel Boards Dispel RFS-2 Misinfo
The biodiesel industry and the soybean checkoff have teamed up to try to dispel some of the misinformation being used that would basically disqualify soybean-based biodiesel, the bulk of the nation’s biodiesel, from the proposed federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS-2).
This United Soybean Board press release says the National Biodiesel Board’s (NBB) Sustainability Analysis and Awareness project, funded in part by the United Soybean Board and soybean checkoff, is building on the limited amount of information about biodiesel and Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC):
“It is necessary to use science-based research to help ensure people are well-informed and educated regarding soy biodiesel,” says Chuck Myers, USB Chairman and a soybean farmer from Lyons, Neb. “All Americans can benefit from soy biodiesel, not just soybean farmers. Soy biodiesel remains a critical part of our renewable energy solution this country badly needs.”
Since the soybean checkoff helped establish the biodiesel industry in the 90s, sales of the fuel have grown from two million gallons in the year 2000 to over 700 million in 2008. With the checkoff funding, NBB has put together a team of land use experts consisting of
economists, leaders in the field of life cycle analysis, commodity experts and environmental engineers to analyze the Environmental Protection Agency’s initial estimation of biodiesel Green House Gases (GHG) due to ILUC used in the RFS-2.
A few inaccuracies that have already been brought to the forefront include that the soybeans were not given a significant GHG credit for fixing nitrogen in soil and biodiesel production did not receive a GHG credit for the production of glycerin as a valuable co-product.
NBB also showed that the development of the RFS-2 did not account for the the value of 80 percent soy protein meal as a significant portion of the market value for the entire crop and did not allow for expected steep increases in soybean yield in coming years.
3 Comments
Daily News—08/05 - Blog - BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel
[...] Soybean-based biodiesel fights for survival in RFS-2 atmosphere [...]
Aureon Kwolek
EPA Using Junk Science
The Renewable Fuels Association says its experts are “unable to confirm” EPA science on indirect land use change theory. That’s because it’s Junk Science that can’t be scientifically proven and probably never will. The EPA is using substandard information to regulate our entire biofuels industry.
Upon request by the RFA, for the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute’s (FAPRI) model, the EPA was unable to release the actual model. That ought to tell you something. They don’t have one. In fact, there should be numerous FAPRI models, for different sources of ethanol and biodiesel. EPA has been caught in a lie, and from now on, their work will be closely scrutinized. We should now be requesting internal EPA documents through the Freedom of Information Act.
The root of the problem is that we put oil men in the Whitehouse, and consequently oil interests also became embedded in the EPA. This is an upper level, domineering faction that is distorting the image of petroleum to make it look better, and using outdated / inaccurate data, junk science, and gaping omissions, to make biofuels look worse. Give EPA an F for dereliction of duty.
EPA rules and regulations are based on a lifecycle comparison between petroleum based fuels and biofuels. The bases of that comparison should start with this key principle:
Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are derived from “recycled CO2” which is already in the air – Whereas burning petroleum based fuels continues to add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere.
The FABRI models, should begin by first charging petroleum with “newly mined” CO2 which accumulates in the atmosphere. And likewise, the model should credit biofuels for recycling existing CO2.
“Newly mined” CO2, brought up from deep underground and released by burning fossil fuels, has a far bigger environmental impact than burning cleaner biofuels made from “recycled” CO2.
Aureon Kwolek
EPA Using Inaccurate Information and Omissions:
Biofuels are regulated based on how they compare to the footprint of petroleum based fuels. According to “The Jacobs Study”, the EPA uses inaccurate and incomplete Green House Gas (GHG) rankings for how crudes and bitumens are produced and upgraded. Crude oil is also pumped and shipped long distance to the refinery, processed into fuel products, pumped and shipped to distributors and retailers, and then pumped into vehicles and burned by consumers. Compare this to a large percentage of biofuels that are produced and consumed locally. The Jacobs Report says that we have Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Unreliable information on the life cycle of crude oils, yet the EPA is using this faulty information as a measuring stick, to regulate the entire biofuels industry.
In its lifecycle comparison between petroleum based fuels and biofuels, the EPA makes numerous omissions:
Fossil fuels, such as coal, bunker fuel, heating oil, diesel fuel, jet fuel, kerosene, and gasoline – all produce massive amounts of Black Carbon Soot. In contrast, biofuels produce much lower levels. This black soot heats the air while temporarily suspended. Then it settles out on the surface of roofs, land, water, snow and ice – where it causes additional solar thermal absorption and acidity. This could be a much bigger climate change factor than CO2.
EPA models used to compare their lifecycles, should credit biofuels for lower levels of Black Carbon Soot, and debit petroleum based fuels for releasing much higher levels. Ethanol should also be credited for its role as an oxygenator, which cleans-up unburned gasoline residues that you would otherwise be breathing. Ethanol and Biodiesel should also be credited for all the farmers who are making their own fuel.
The EPA low-balled the environmental footprint of petroleum based fuels, by excluding data on crude oil extracted from energy intensive tar sands, and it underestimated the energy consumption of oil shales and deep offshore oil production. These consume up to twice as much energy as a conventional oil well. The EPA omitted the effects of deforestation caused by huge open strip mining and tar sands pits. The EPA omitted the environmental impact of shipping foreign oil thousands of miles using dirty bunker fuel, one of heaviest polluters of Black Carbon Soot. The EPA omitted the environmental impact of America expending 12-15% of our entire defense budget, and the burning of billions of dollars worth of diesel fuel, jet fuel, and bunker fuel, every year, in order to protect our foreign oil supplies (Rand Report). Next time you pull-up to the pump, add that to the cost of your fuel. Now tally the military cost to protect our supply of domestic biofuel – Zero.
David Tilman, a critic of first generation biofuels wants to over-regulate them. He says: “Accounting rules should consider the full life cycle of biofuels production, transformation, and combustion.”
Then we should also apply the same high standards and the same accounting rules to petroleum based fuels – using complete and accurate data – not omissions.
Comments RSS feed —