Hello again Graham >Hey Keith, > >Skepticism indeed. I am sorry to hear that the grassroots biodiesel >movement and the nascent industry have already grown so divided.
Well, I said why. You don't seem to have addressed that much. There's not a lot of discussion about it, generally, we just get on with what we're doing. The industry is largely to blame for any division, for the reasons stated, and more below. >My >own experience has been that biodieselers are more supportive of >commercial producers than your perspective but I am sure that your >view was developed after much discussion and consideration with >others. I am not speaking for World Energy but would like to provide >my personal observations. I entered the industry after having been >introduced to biodiesel by Josh and Kaia who are friends of friends. >I jumped into biodiesel with both feet because I concluded that >biodiesel is a huge improvement over petroleum diesel and I remain >convinced of this. As, of course, are we all. >RE: your post- > > > > Not so. I've just been looking at costings for a batch-processing > > set-up that includes everything, rents, utilitities, insurance, > > labor, maintenance and truck lease for collection, etc, for a 3,000 > > gpd facility generating 1,050,000 gallons a year, cost of >production > > well under $0.60 a gallon. > >I have not seen this happen yet but would consider it to be great >news. Please keep me up to date if you pursue this. It's not something I'm doing, but it's not unique either. If it takes off, and I think it will, it should encompass quite a few different operations. > > >With notable exceptions, it generally does not result in ASTM-spec > > >commercial grade biodiesel. > > > > The other way round - there are a few people who use sloppy methods > > and bolster their confidence with spurious "tests", thoroughly > > debunked yet they persist, there may even be some of them here. But > > the idea that homebrewers can't make standard-spec fuel simply >isn't > > so, most of us can and do. That's an industry myth, and it's about > > time industry did a little bit of checking to see if it's still >true > > or not, if it ever was true. > > > > > How is a commercial batch plant somehow superior to a well run > > homebrewer's batch plant? After all, that's where NOPEC and the >rest > > of the world started fifteen > > years ago and still primarily reside, with a few esterification and > > FFA recovery refinements here and there. They all use batch > > processors, so do we, so what's the difference? Economies of scale, > > and therefore of efficiency? Oft bandied about, but those are > > dangerous assumptions, industry myths. Big ain't beautiful - very > > often it only means flabbier, more wasteful, less efficient than a > > dedicated small, local operation would be. Same for quality - big > > operations will do exactly enough to meet minimum requirements, and > > no more, small operations are more likely to take some pride in >what > > they do and produce the best product they can. They're also more > > likely to know their customers personally, which makes a >difference, > > there are inter-personal and community-level obligations and > > responsibilities involved. > > > > Frankly I think we're all rather tired of this industry crap that >we > > can't make good fuel. >I expected this might draw some ire but it's a good point to >discuss. The big fear of the biodiesel industry is that homebrewers >are going to destroy the market. Yes, I'm aware that's your fear, but it's based on prejudice and ignorance of developments in the homebrewing field. You really know very little about us, and it's time you learnt. >I have seen home-brewed biodiesel >cause problems in multiple locations and it has taken significant >efforts to undo the damage. One region of the country in particular >had large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel that was being sold >and distributed. The use of biodiesel was substantially delayed in >this area until trust for the fuel was re-established. Really? Has anyone else here heard about this? "... large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel". Home-brewed, you mean? Large quantities of it? Homebrewers do not make large quantities, and certainly don't sell large quantities. Please provide full details of this. It sounds like something of an industry myth to me, an apocryphal tale. >The biodiesel >industry has gone to major efforts and expenditure to make progress >with the engine manufacturers and to establish the ASTM standard. We know about this, but in fact progress with the manufacturers has been somewhat slow. A few months ago the NBB was stating that "no manufacturers' warranties are voided by the use of biodiesel", now they're not saying that any more, instead they have a much longer article with lots of hedging and provisos. Progress, I'm sure, yes, but slow. >Frankly, I don't know what percentage of homegrown fuel is in spec >but I do read about a lot of goo being produced. Not a lot, very little, less and less I believe. >Everytime off spec >fuel causes a problem, it causes a problem for everyone. In fact we've had a long-standing search for the mythical wrecked diesel motor as a result of using bad biodiesel, and haven't found one yet. Please provide any details you may have of this. If you don't have details, please tell us where we might be able to find them. >I also am >aware of at least one prosecution for failure to pay road taxes on >homegrown fuel that was sold. We know of a road taxes case, but AFAIK the biodiesel wasn't being sold, it was being used by the producer. There was also the case of Yellow Biodiesel, who was closed down by the EPA. The proprietor is a member of this group. There was much discussion of it here and at the Biofuels-biz group, and on the other forums. We started a special closed forum with those concerned and some other interested parties to investigate it. I suggest you do a search for "EPA hassle" at the two archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuels-biz To confirm what most biodieselers think of industry, the initial conclusion by many, including those involved, was that it was a deliberate conspiracy by Big Soy and the NBB to exclude small-scale producers. This was a widely-held view, and many people still think that. This was a comment I received yesterday in an off-list communication: >Thanks to the efforts of the NBB, it was extremely difficult and >expensive for anyone to become a commercial biodiesel producer- it >is very cheap to get set up as a small producer, and the 'producers' >association effectively shut small producers out of the game. Various members here have pushed and shoved and inquired and badgered people at the EPA and the NBB, both of which have since changed their stance several times. What emerges is that neither of the two knew their own rules when it came to small-scale operations. It centred on whether small-scale producers were liable for the fees for access to the Tier 1 and 2 Health Effects Data for the Clean Air Act provisions. The EPA got its definitions wrong, and the NBB semed to have forgotten that it had provisions to exempt small producers from paying the fees, which are prohibitive. Now the EPA says small-producers do qualify for the exemptions as long as their fuel meets standard-spec, which is not a problem. The NBB seems a bit confused - recent enquiries indicate that they still seem more concerned about getting back their soy check-off dollars that were used to pay for the Health Effects Data tests. It needs a test case, coming soon no doubt. IMO it wasn't a "conspiracy", it was simply ignorance and neglect - small-scale producers simply fell below their radar screen. When it came to an actual case, they seemed to operate from a prior conviction (as you do) that "homebrewers" can't meet the standards. In the doing, they perhaps unwittingly created a lot of bad feeling and distrust among biodieselers, which will be very difficult to undo. >I think it is in everyone's interest >to recognize that there are differences between homegrown and >commercial grade biodiesel. What exactly are those differences? I asked you that last time, and you haven't really answered, except for talk about poor-quality fuel which may be no more than rumour. I hope you'll be able to substantiate that, I'm sure we're all very interested. But we require substantiation and details when such claims are made. On the other hand, we hear several reports of fleets supplied with biodiesel by industry where vehicles have had a lot of down-time from clogged filters because industry failed to warn them that biodiesel would loosen the gunk laid down by petro-diesel use. All of us are very careful to warn people about that. >If homegrowers can hit spec and do >quality control and test to spec, then they should consider whether >they want to comply with the various legal requirements and go >commercial. See above. >Otherwise they should keep it at home. > > > > > > This was forwarded to me three years ago from a correspondence with > > an ex-President of the National Biodiesel Board: > > > > "Proponents of "make-it-yourself" fuel are not looked upon as >serious > > because there is no way to ensure consistent fuel quality. Of >course, > > these groups can be very helpful when approaching government to > > demonstrate community-wide support." > > > > We're a joke, but we can be quite useful, uh-huh. Both the NBB and > > Werner Korbitz of the Austrian Biofuels Institute still promote >this > > patronizing myth. Boocock also says that - though we see no signs > > that Biox can meet ASTM-spec, and other industry figures doubt it. > >Sorry if you've been patronized. I was more interested in the fact >that biodieselers understand and support the use of biodiesel. Whatever makes you think they don't??? What a strange thing to say! >I >don't think that the industry knows much about homebrewers who do a >good job of quality control and testing. > > > > >Commercial production has some significant differences. Even >yellow > > >grease feedstock has a collection cost plus production cost plus > > >margins plus marketing and transportation. Soybean-based >biodiesel > > >has all of these costs and typically a higher raw material cost. > > >Any commercial biodiesel must compete with petroleum diesel and >this > > >is the underlying problem. According to Norman Myers and Jennifer > > >Kent in Perverse Subsidies (see also the Sept/Oct. issue of > > >Ecolonomics in Action or the site without the article at > > >www.ecolonomics.org), taxpayers are subsidizing fossil fuels to >the > > >tune of $14 billion annually. I don't know the basis for their > > >numbers but do know that we don't pay at the pump the true cost of > > >petroleum fuel. > > > > "The national security cost of oil is in the area of $57 billion a > > year, or approximately $9.19 per barrel of oil used in the US." -- > > "The National Security Costs of Petroleum", Energetics and NEOS > > corporation, 1994. > > http://www.ethanol-gec.org/natsec.pdf > > > > Friday December 5, 1997 1:38 pm Eastern Time > > Company Press Release > > SOURCE: Fuels for the Future > > 'True Cost' of Middle East Oil Exceeds $100 Per Barrel, U.S. Desert > > Storm Military Leader Says; Ethanol Cleans Air In Brazil > > > > NEW YORK, Dec. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Wall Street Journal readers have > > been straightened out on the benefits of domestic ethanol, and it > > took a former commander of the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Air >Command > > and principal air planner for Operation Desert Storm to do it: > > > > The true cost of importing oil from the Middle East "exceeds $100 a > > barrel," retired Air Force Gen. G. Lee Butler wrote the newspaper >in > > a published letter entitled "Fuel Grade Ethanol: Let's Clear the >Air." > > > > [more] > > > > >So the biodiesel industry, which has been rapidly growing and > > >primarily soybean based, is trying to hold onto its subsidy >program > > >to compete with Big Oil. > > > > We don't think soy is the best choice of oilseed crop, we don't >think > > the industrialized agriculture way of growing soy is the best way >to > > produce oilseed crops (nor anything else), and we much prefer > > decentralized, localized biodiesel production. We've discussed all > > this here quite a lot. Localized, micro-niche crop production and > > biofuels production can account for a very large amount of >biodiesel, > > has considerable advantages over centralized production from > > industrialized monocrops, and overturns all the estimates of how >much > > land would be needed to grow enough fuel to replace fossil fuels. >And > > we don't think mere replacement is what's required - it also needs > > overall reduction in use, greater efficiency of use, and a >diversity > > of technologies, as well as localization. On this basis, we >wouldn't > > be too bothered about how much fossil fuel is or isn't subsidized >or > > whether biofuels (or soy) were subsidized or not. Subsidies are for > > centralized producers, and I'm not sure how relevant they are. > > > > Wouldn't it be true to say that the US biodiesel industry's need >for > > subsidies has more to do with the need to maintain soy prices than > > with real production costs? Rather than the centralized solvent > > extractors and manufacturers, if soy farmers were to start milling > > their own beans, marketing the meal (hexane-free) to the livestock > > industry themselves and making their own biodiesel, would they need > > as heavy a subsidy for it? Or any subsidy? Doesn't the problem lie > > with all the middle-corporations between the farmer and the retail > > market? > > > > There's, what, 2.5 billion (billion) pounds of surplus soy oil > > currently in storage in the US (at whose cost? - the taxpayers?), > > it's only a by-product from seedcake feed production, and yet the > > price remains high - and the price paid to farmers low, and the > > farmers themselves have to be subsidized (exactly the kind of price- > > > and market-rigging BS the US and the other OECD countries won't >allow > > the 3rd World to use, yet insist on using themselves). > > > > Shouldn't all this be examined in the clear light of day before we > > start supporting yet further subsidies? I think one thing that has >to > > happen before biofuel takes its rightful (essential) place in the > > economy is for the whole issue to be wrested away from agribusiness > > concerns. It's too important to be left to the likes of ADM, >Cargill > > and Monsanto. It's an ENERGY matter, not just a side-issue whereby > > bloated agribiz corps get to cosy up their nests a bit more. It >needs > > a rational energy policy, not just this ad-hoc stuff from Big Soy. > > Not to say that there's exactly a rational energy policy for > > fossil-fuels in the US, but that's a different issue. > > >I think the solar analogy is a good one. Solar bloomed on a large > > >scale during periods when it has received sound governmental > > >support. Does anyone who considers environmental costs believe >that > > >coal or other fossil fuel power generation is really more cost > > >effective or fiscally sound than solar power? We do need >additional > > >biodiesel feedstocks including yellow grease and these plants are > > >coming on line and will continue to grow if there is a market. We > > >also need as much mutual support within the industry and in the > > >burgeoning grassroots movement as possible. > > > > We've talked about mutual support between the industry and the > > grassroots movement before, and it doesn't work out well. What's > > happened each time is that the "mutual" bit turns out to be >strictly > > one-way - industry will be in charge, we'll be a useful resource >for > > them, to rally and utilize as needed. I'm not just saying so, >that's > > been the result of actual discussions I've had with industry people > > who said just what you've said. Such as this: "We are extremely >eager > > to get involved in the grassroots movement for biofuels. I would be > > highly interested in discussing further a collaborative effort to > > pressure the ultimate decision makers from the flanks." This was a > > telling bit: "We want to corral the efforts of these advocates." > > Corral. And this: "While we have the supply, we can only go as far >as > > demand will take us. We believe that a grassroots effort will > > generate this needed demand." You need us, but do we need you? > > Backyard biodieselers generate great publicity, at zero cost, >getting > > in the media all the time. Industry uses expensive PR groups and >gets > > stuff placed, though it's usually more corporate stuff, and gets >its > > lobbying done, but our stuff probably does more to reach the >general > > public. > > > > Sure, it's not an either-or question, or it shouldn't be, there's > > room and need for both. But that's not how it works out. In the >case > > above, after quite a lot of discussion with this person, some of us > > put together a good proposal on how we could best work with >industry, > > for mutual benefit, and for general benefit. The guy said he'd come > > back to us, he put it on the back-burner and we never heard about >it > > again. For one reason - it would have been truly mutual, but he > > wanted to be in control, and that was obvious. He thought he could > > get us for nothing. When he saw that he wasn't going to be able to > > co-opt us, he gave up. Wasted a lot of our time - he gets paid for > > his time, we don't. > > > > >If folks want to do more, the American Soybean Association's site >is > > >a good place to get more info and participate, > > >http://capwiz.com/soy/home/. The National Biodiesel Board also >has > > >updates and includes yellow grease producers as well as soybean > > >ones, www.biodiesel.org. > > > > I think we do better here, at these two groups, and other groups, >and > > at our various websites. > > > > Nobody speaks for the biodieselers, they're a completely >distributed > > network of independent individuals - networks, rather, both > > real-world and virtual. There is no central organization, hardly >any > > organization at all. It's like Open Source - even less organized >than > > that. I run these two groups and a major web resource, but I can >only > > speak for myself and many might disagree. However, Graham, I'd say > > that if World Energy really wants to collaborate with the > > biodieselers, you'd be welcome. But it would have to be real > > collaboration, two-way, mutual. We're not interested in being > > co-opted. We know what we could offer you, and you also know that, > > but what could you offer us in exchange? Why should we be >interested? > > For the general good of the biofuels issue? I think we already tend > > to that quite adequately, at least as well as you do. We've shown > > willing in the past, the fault lies on the industry side. > > > > I should say that I'm not volunteering for anything that may come >of > > this, we're overstretched, we don't have the time or resources to > > spare, and the main focus of our project is 3rd World rural > > development, not energy issues in the industrialized countries. But > > if it seemed worthwhile there might well be those among the members > > here who would be prepared to take it up and put the required time > > and effort into it, and if so we'd be prepared to help. If you do > > want to discuss it, this would be the right place. > > > > By the way, just to indicate that I might not be too far off course > > on what biodieselers think, I just received this from another > > biodieseler, part of a cross-correspondence that seems to involve > > several groups: > > > > >It is very well-documented, particularly in other countries not > > >dominated by US soy/agribusiness that many, many other oil crops >are > > >a better source of oilseed for fuel than are soybeans. Soy oil is >a > > >sort of 'waste' product of soy production is grown for >agribusiness > > >animal feed. commercial soy farming is also huge source of >pollution > > >in this country (and don' t believe any of the GMO corporations' > > >claims that GMO's will result in lower pesticide use, the only > > >currently commercially used GMO' crops have all been altered for > > >increased resistance to herbicides like Roundup, with the >exception > > >of bt crops which have their own massive problems in leading to bt > > >tolerance in damaging insects and the unintentional killing off of > > >monarchs and other 'useful' species . > > > > > > The National Biodiesel Board is dominated by the soy farming > > >interests, a very ugly consortium with Monsanto, Archer Daniels > > >Midland and Cargill written all over it. Unfortunately these folks > > >love all our efforts on behalf of publicising biodiesel. Not that > > >we should change it. We just need to be aware of who our 'allies' > > >are on the commercial/NBB side. > >I appreciate your analysis of these issues but my approach is a >pragmatic one: I think biodiesel is better than petroleum diesel. Well, I think it deserved a more considered response than that, with the assertion that it's not pragmatic. But you would say that. >The biodiesel industry is targeting the mainstream fleet market which >is a conventional one. The users are not interested in a thorough re- >evaluation of our economic system but they are enthusiastic about an >American-made cleaner burning alternative diesel fuel. They want it >to meet the ASTM spec, be available via conventional petroleum >delivery and not require too much of their time. This may be more >incremental a change than you want to participate in and that's >fine. We're making our own changes, Graham, and they're not insignificant. You people are more corporate and go for the business end of the business - fleets etc. We've done a lot of work fighting the diesel-bashing lobby in the US to try to mend the ridiculous disparity between the US and Europe when it comes to diesel cars - 1% vs 35%. And had some success. And of course just about every biodieseler is like throwing a pebble in a pond - the ripples of what he/she does spread to others, raising general awareness of biodiesel and the issues it addresses by leaps and bounds. The "grassroots" movement as you call it has made tremendous progress in the last three years. >I do think that the soy farmers have essentially created the >biodiesel market in the US and I think they deserve far more credit >than you suggest. We're well aware of what they've done, and what they haven't done, and why. We know much more about industry than industry knows about us, as the "EPA hassle" case demonstrates most amply, and as you too demonstrate. Nonetheless, the soy interests' main interest in biodiesel is in selling more soy, no? We don't agree with that. There's room for soy, sure, lots of room no doubt, but biodiesel is very much more important than the welfare of the soy interests, and I think that's something that's holding it back, and from which it needs to be freed. >The companies that have been the biggest producers >include a large number of farmer-based cooperatives that aren't the >ugly monolithic corporations that you describe. There aren't that many NBB members. I did not say that the commercial producers are ugly monolithic corporations. Nonetheless, ADM, Monsanto and Cargill are ugly monolithic corporations, and they have very much to do with the soy-based biodiesel industry. >The people that I >have met from these businesses can't be pigeon-holed into one >category but generally have been what I consider to be good and >decent human beings who are trying to make a living from farming. Can you give us some details of farmer-based coops producing biodiesel for sale for on-road use? >As far as where the mutual opportunities exist, I think we've hit a >few. I know the biodiesel industry does benefit from the PR and >interest in homemade veggie fuel. I think that at least some of the >grassroots movement shares my view that biodiesel is a change in the >right direction and that it is worthwhile to support it. OF COURSE biodieselers think biodiesel is a change in the right direction and support it - why else would they be doing it??? Graham, you seem to equate "biodiesel" and "the biodiesel industry". We don't. For some reason we do rather tend to think that biodiesel is something that exists independent of industry, maybe because we make so much of it ourselves. >The common >goals are sustainability, clean air, clean water, clean soil and less >dependence on foreign oil. I think biodieselers could benefit from >the standards and technical knowledge of the industry. Yes, but again you're unaware of the standards and technical knowledge of the homebrewers, which is at a much higher level than you think. >The NBB is >the organization- most of their meeting in St. Louis next week could >be attended by anyone who wants to; perhaps biodieselers should >consider appointing an ambassador. That's not much of a response to what I was saying. We know about the NBB, we've often been in touch with them, we especially appreciate their database, but we have our reservations about them and their interests, and they've proven to be rather well-founded. I'm sure biodieselers wouldn't consider having anything like an ambassador, and anyone who appointed himself as such would be laughed out of town. Or ignored. These are independent people. If you or the industry want to work with them you'll have to do a bit better than that. Have you got anything they want? What are you offering? How? I don't think you've responded to my post very well, I'd hoped for better. Best Keith >At any rate, I think it's cool >that people are making their own fuel, envisioning better political >and agricultural systems for this country and working to help >developing countries reduce their petroleum dependence. > >Happy Trails, > >Graham Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
