<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Not All Biofuels Are the Same</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:10:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-60737</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-60737</guid>
		<description>To be fair, we should include the political cost of paying the OPEC countries hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

Without oil money, I don&#039;t think Iran would be the troublemaker it is.  Just eliminating that problem would save both blood and treasure.

Most of the oil fields in Iran are near the coast of the Persian Gulf, likewise for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.  It would be easy enough to invade and Internationalize the oil, if we don&#039;t stop to install democracy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be fair, we should include the political cost of paying the OPEC countries hundreds of billions of dollars a year.</p>
<p>Without oil money, I don&#8217;t think Iran would be the troublemaker it is.  Just eliminating that problem would save both blood and treasure.</p>
<p>Most of the oil fields in Iran are near the coast of the Persian Gulf, likewise for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.  It would be easy enough to invade and Internationalize the oil, if we don&#8217;t stop to install democracy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Trucksess</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51808</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Trucksess</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:20:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51808</guid>
		<description>Several posts have raised some interesting points I feel compelled to respond to:

The motivation to write this piece came from the need to counter many of the misperceptions of biofuels being perpetuated in the popular press today. If you believe that all you read about this Food vs. Fuel debate is simply accurate, unbiased journalism, I suggest you read Senator Grassley’s comments on the Senate floor on May 15 in which he revealed that a prominent DC firm had been retained to run an anti-biofuels media campaign. 

(http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/may08/may26/Bitingthehandthatfeedsyoudo.cfm?title=Biting%20the%20hand%20that%20feeds%20you%20doesn ) 

and 

(http://grassley.senate.gov/public/releases/2008/051520082.pdf)  

To be open, I included the fact that I work for a biodiesel company in the link on my name.  In an attempt to narrow the scope of my piece, I focused exclusively on biodiesel.  There are far more in depth studies defending the merits of ethanol out there as it obtains much more coverage.  If you are interested in what I would consider a more in depth and objective look at biofuels, read Robert Zubrin’s In Defense of Biofuels.  http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels

 
The best argument for biodiesel and all alternative fuels is supply/demand for oil.  While I have heard varying estimates, API suggested to me that demand was growing at 6% and supply at 3%.  Consequently, we now have $130/barrel oil.  Can biodiesel replace petroleum demand, no but I would suggest it could easily replace 5% of U.S. diesel demand, and drive investment in second generation feedstocks and technologies such as algae, camelina, and jatropha that are non-food crops that can be grown on marginal land.  Biodiesel is not a silver bullet, but it can be a critical piece.  Given the effect high energy prices are having on our economy and current global instability, we need every domestic solution we can come up with.  

Misc. Notes: 

Energy Balance: 3.5 to 1 according to new research conducted at the University of Idaho in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  A table reflecting old data and comparison to other fuels can be found at : http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/balance.htm

Farmland:  Camelina is a often a rotation crop for wheat.  Wheat acres are left fallow every 2-3 years.  Camelina can be planted instead of leaving acre fallow.  Because of its low water and fertilizer requirements it can also be grown on marginal land not otherwise planted.  Thus, the meal and oil produced is additive, not competitive. (Camelina oil is not consumed by humans as suggested.) Camelina therefore increases land capacity utilization, it does not compete.  Other crops have similar potential. 

There is also more land available.  The U.S. has about 800 million acres of farmland, 280 million of which are currently cultivated. (Zubrin, 2008)  The objective of using developing second generation crops is to utilize marginal land not plow under virgin prairie lands as suggested.  According to a study by Texas A&amp;M Agriculture Food Policy Center, Texas alone has 4 million acres of expriring CRP lands, rangelands and center pivot corners. 

Usage Integration:  We do not suggest using 100% biodiesel. ASTM is currently considering and amendment to its diesel fuel spec D975 which would allow up to 5% biodiesel.  Like any fuel however, proper handling and storage recommendations should be followed. 

Carbon Footprint: According to NREL, biodiesel’s lifecycle CO2 reduction is 78% (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf) No one would suggest that clear cutting tropical rainforests to grow alternative fuels is positive. To suggest the carbon foot print of biodiesel should be tied to the clear cutting of a forest lacks much scientific basis, especially when 80% of U.S. biodiesel is currently made from soybeans.  Only about 5% of palm oil produced is made into biodiesel.  

Price of Food:  Texas A&amp;M’s Agriculture and Food Policy Center recently conducted a study (http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/515/RR-08-01.pdf) that found that the effect of increased ethanol use on rising food costs are relatively inconsequential. The big drivers of increase in food prices were increased energy costs and speculative fund activity.  Additionally increased global demand has a huge influence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Several posts have raised some interesting points I feel compelled to respond to:</p>
<p>The motivation to write this piece came from the need to counter many of the misperceptions of biofuels being perpetuated in the popular press today. If you believe that all you read about this Food vs. Fuel debate is simply accurate, unbiased journalism, I suggest you read Senator Grassley’s comments on the Senate floor on May 15 in which he revealed that a prominent DC firm had been retained to run an anti-biofuels media campaign. </p>
<p>(<a href="http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/may08/may26/Bitingthehandthatfeedsyoudo.cfm?title=Biting%20the%20hand%20that%20feeds%20you%20doesn" rel="nofollow">http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/may08/may26/Bitingthehandthatfeedsyoudo.cfm?title=Biting%20the%20hand%20that%20feeds%20you%20doesn</a> ) </p>
<p>and </p>
<p>(<a href="http://grassley.senate.gov/public/releases/2008/051520082.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://grassley.senate.gov/public/releases/2008/051520082.pdf</a>)  </p>
<p>To be open, I included the fact that I work for a biodiesel company in the link on my name.  In an attempt to narrow the scope of my piece, I focused exclusively on biodiesel.  There are far more in depth studies defending the merits of ethanol out there as it obtains much more coverage.  If you are interested in what I would consider a more in depth and objective look at biofuels, read Robert Zubrin’s In Defense of Biofuels.  <a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels" rel="nofollow">http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels</a></p>
<p>The best argument for biodiesel and all alternative fuels is supply/demand for oil.  While I have heard varying estimates, API suggested to me that demand was growing at 6% and supply at 3%.  Consequently, we now have $130/barrel oil.  Can biodiesel replace petroleum demand, no but I would suggest it could easily replace 5% of U.S. diesel demand, and drive investment in second generation feedstocks and technologies such as algae, camelina, and jatropha that are non-food crops that can be grown on marginal land.  Biodiesel is not a silver bullet, but it can be a critical piece.  Given the effect high energy prices are having on our economy and current global instability, we need every domestic solution we can come up with.  </p>
<p>Misc. Notes: </p>
<p>Energy Balance: 3.5 to 1 according to new research conducted at the University of Idaho in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  A table reflecting old data and comparison to other fuels can be found at : <a href="http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/balance.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/balance.htm</a></p>
<p>Farmland:  Camelina is a often a rotation crop for wheat.  Wheat acres are left fallow every 2-3 years.  Camelina can be planted instead of leaving acre fallow.  Because of its low water and fertilizer requirements it can also be grown on marginal land not otherwise planted.  Thus, the meal and oil produced is additive, not competitive. (Camelina oil is not consumed by humans as suggested.) Camelina therefore increases land capacity utilization, it does not compete.  Other crops have similar potential. </p>
<p>There is also more land available.  The U.S. has about 800 million acres of farmland, 280 million of which are currently cultivated. (Zubrin, 2008)  The objective of using developing second generation crops is to utilize marginal land not plow under virgin prairie lands as suggested.  According to a study by Texas A&amp;M Agriculture Food Policy Center, Texas alone has 4 million acres of expriring CRP lands, rangelands and center pivot corners. </p>
<p>Usage Integration:  We do not suggest using 100% biodiesel. ASTM is currently considering and amendment to its diesel fuel spec D975 which would allow up to 5% biodiesel.  Like any fuel however, proper handling and storage recommendations should be followed. </p>
<p>Carbon Footprint: According to NREL, biodiesel’s lifecycle CO2 reduction is 78% (<a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf</a>) No one would suggest that clear cutting tropical rainforests to grow alternative fuels is positive. To suggest the carbon foot print of biodiesel should be tied to the clear cutting of a forest lacks much scientific basis, especially when 80% of U.S. biodiesel is currently made from soybeans.  Only about 5% of palm oil produced is made into biodiesel.  </p>
<p>Price of Food:  Texas A&amp;M’s Agriculture and Food Policy Center recently conducted a study (<a href="http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/515/RR-08-01.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/515/RR-08-01.pdf</a>) that found that the effect of increased ethanol use on rising food costs are relatively inconsequential. The big drivers of increase in food prices were increased energy costs and speculative fund activity.  Additionally increased global demand has a huge influence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51630</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51630</guid>
		<description>Lou - We have lots of land (see above) that we&#039;re keeping in the bank. If we tap into that for biofuel, we don&#039;t affect food supplies. I still prefer desert-grown algae.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lou &#8211; We have lots of land (see above) that we&#8217;re keeping in the bank. If we tap into that for biofuel, we don&#8217;t affect food supplies. I still prefer desert-grown algae.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51543</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:17:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51543</guid>
		<description>Nobody is trashing the algae idea on this thread. Does that mean that everybody is on board? It seems like the best choice to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nobody is trashing the algae idea on this thread. Does that mean that everybody is on board? It seems like the best choice to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lou Bauman</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51228</link>
		<dc:creator>Lou Bauman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:50:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51228</guid>
		<description>Sorry Jeffrey, but the premise of your article is WRONG.  &quot;Biodiesel from non-food crops such as camelina, for example, preserves America’s food supply.&quot;  How is that??  If it grows on ground that could be used for food crops, then it competes - it does not preserve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry Jeffrey, but the premise of your article is WRONG.  &#8220;Biodiesel from non-food crops such as camelina, for example, preserves America’s food supply.&#8221;  How is that??  If it grows on ground that could be used for food crops, then it competes &#8211; it does not preserve.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MW</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51176</link>
		<dc:creator>MW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51176</guid>
		<description>Kevin. Of course biofuel all contributes virtually the same carbon to the envirement as oil but...and this is a stupendiously big but, the carbon from any fresh grown fuel does not count the same as the carbon from any fossil fuel. This an elementary fact of greenhouse gas knowledge BTW. The carbon atom added to the atmosphere from a fresh grown crop was just taken from that atmosphere by that same crop and thus is not increasing the carbon in that atmosphere over time. This is not true of fossil fuels which are releasing carbon stored from over millinea, vitually all at once. Problems of biofuel, such as real efficiencies, use of resources, and possible pollution are other issues that really do need to be considered more carefully.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin. Of course biofuel all contributes virtually the same carbon to the envirement as oil but&#8230;and this is a stupendiously big but, the carbon from any fresh grown fuel does not count the same as the carbon from any fossil fuel. This an elementary fact of greenhouse gas knowledge BTW. The carbon atom added to the atmosphere from a fresh grown crop was just taken from that atmosphere by that same crop and thus is not increasing the carbon in that atmosphere over time. This is not true of fossil fuels which are releasing carbon stored from over millinea, vitually all at once. Problems of biofuel, such as real efficiencies, use of resources, and possible pollution are other issues that really do need to be considered more carefully.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51142</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51142</guid>
		<description>I am a truck driver and I own my own truck, a 1995 Freightliner with a 12.7 liter Detroit Diesel and I have watched the fuel debate closely because last year I personally bought $33,000.00 dollars of diesel.  This year I have almost exceeded this dollar amount already and because of the newly enacted emissions I have noticed my fuel mileage drop from around 7 MPG depending on load and environmental conditions to between 6-6.4 MPG with the same environmental conditions as before.  I have recently started using bio-diesel when I can buy it and I have noticed that my fuel mileage has increased to above 6.5 again.  Also there is less &quot;clatter&quot; noise and less engine vibration when using bio-diesel in B-2 to B-20 blends, my older year model truck seems to do best on B-5, I have yet to use B-100 so I cannot comment on that but if you do the math for petro-diesel at $4.30 a gallon, 6.2 MPG it is 69.3 cents per mile fuel cost, and for Bio-diesel at $4.45 a gallon, 6.5 MPG it is .684 cents per mile fuel cost, you discover that it costs almost a full penny per mile less for biodiesel even though I am paying 15 cents per gallon more for the pump price.  Then you take that .01 cents per mile and times it by the miles I drive per year and you find that in my case I can put around $800.00 a year in my pocket doing basically the same thing. Now I&#039;ve found that depending on what part of the country I&#039;m in, the price of bio-diesel is within a couple of cents per gallon of petro-diesel and that adds even more money to my pocket.

That said I have compared notes with other truck drivers with new trucks and they have just the opposite results. Which leads me to think that a lot of the end result you will get using bio-diesel depends on the blend, the compression ratio of the engine and most importantly the injection timing of the engine, all things that can be tweaked and changed as needed once enough testing has been done to determine the best combination.  

Personally I think that using algae to produce &quot;crude&quot; oil to refine into different types of oil products will eventually be the best option once there has been enough research done to work out the scalable problems, considering the current thought is that most of the crude oil we use today came from aquatic algae and other plant life from 15+ million years ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a truck driver and I own my own truck, a 1995 Freightliner with a 12.7 liter Detroit Diesel and I have watched the fuel debate closely because last year I personally bought $33,000.00 dollars of diesel.  This year I have almost exceeded this dollar amount already and because of the newly enacted emissions I have noticed my fuel mileage drop from around 7 MPG depending on load and environmental conditions to between 6-6.4 MPG with the same environmental conditions as before.  I have recently started using bio-diesel when I can buy it and I have noticed that my fuel mileage has increased to above 6.5 again.  Also there is less &#8220;clatter&#8221; noise and less engine vibration when using bio-diesel in B-2 to B-20 blends, my older year model truck seems to do best on B-5, I have yet to use B-100 so I cannot comment on that but if you do the math for petro-diesel at $4.30 a gallon, 6.2 MPG it is 69.3 cents per mile fuel cost, and for Bio-diesel at $4.45 a gallon, 6.5 MPG it is .684 cents per mile fuel cost, you discover that it costs almost a full penny per mile less for biodiesel even though I am paying 15 cents per gallon more for the pump price.  Then you take that .01 cents per mile and times it by the miles I drive per year and you find that in my case I can put around $800.00 a year in my pocket doing basically the same thing. Now I&#8217;ve found that depending on what part of the country I&#8217;m in, the price of bio-diesel is within a couple of cents per gallon of petro-diesel and that adds even more money to my pocket.</p>
<p>That said I have compared notes with other truck drivers with new trucks and they have just the opposite results. Which leads me to think that a lot of the end result you will get using bio-diesel depends on the blend, the compression ratio of the engine and most importantly the injection timing of the engine, all things that can be tweaked and changed as needed once enough testing has been done to determine the best combination.  </p>
<p>Personally I think that using algae to produce &#8220;crude&#8221; oil to refine into different types of oil products will eventually be the best option once there has been enough research done to work out the scalable problems, considering the current thought is that most of the crude oil we use today came from aquatic algae and other plant life from 15+ million years ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brosco Pertwee</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51082</link>
		<dc:creator>Brosco Pertwee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-51082</guid>
		<description>To &quot;Spinoneone&quot; the equation is about the efficiency of converting solar energy to fuel. It takes a substantial amount of energy in the form of ammonia fertilizers, etc. to farm corn, ferment and distill the product. As a result you get about 1.2 times the energy out that you put in. Most if not all the biodiesel crops are more efficient in their conversion ratio. Consider the efficiency of a ham sandwich as a photocell you attach electrodes to the top and bottom slices of bread and you get about the same total energy of the ham sandwich plus generated electricity when you eat it. The same cannot be said for fabricated silicon solar cells. While I have not attempted to eat one, the generated electricity is not insubstantial over the life of the cell. So conversion efficiencies are important since in the long run you are converting solar energy (either stored as fossilized coal, ng, oil, produced by plants, produced by the hydrolic cycle, or whatever) to energy. No magic wands, just different efficiencies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To &#8220;Spinoneone&#8221; the equation is about the efficiency of converting solar energy to fuel. It takes a substantial amount of energy in the form of ammonia fertilizers, etc. to farm corn, ferment and distill the product. As a result you get about 1.2 times the energy out that you put in. Most if not all the biodiesel crops are more efficient in their conversion ratio. Consider the efficiency of a ham sandwich as a photocell you attach electrodes to the top and bottom slices of bread and you get about the same total energy of the ham sandwich plus generated electricity when you eat it. The same cannot be said for fabricated silicon solar cells. While I have not attempted to eat one, the generated electricity is not insubstantial over the life of the cell. So conversion efficiencies are important since in the long run you are converting solar energy (either stored as fossilized coal, ng, oil, produced by plants, produced by the hydrolic cycle, or whatever) to energy. No magic wands, just different efficiencies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DG</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-50485</link>
		<dc:creator>DG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 15:25:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-50485</guid>
		<description>I get very tired of people harping on the ethanol and biodiesel subsidies. For example, in 2006 the ethanol subsidy cost $7billion. Why does noone ever compare this to the huge oil and gas tax deductions which depending on whose numbers you cost a multiple of 2-5 times this? Also the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which is necessary due to our dependence on imports costs over $1 billion a year to maintain. Then there are all of the indirects in government sponsored research, state and local etc all of which push these numbers toward $100 billion.  

I am for ending all subsidies and letting the markets (us) sort out the best answer. But when you do make sure you end ALL of them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I get very tired of people harping on the ethanol and biodiesel subsidies. For example, in 2006 the ethanol subsidy cost $7billion. Why does noone ever compare this to the huge oil and gas tax deductions which depending on whose numbers you cost a multiple of 2-5 times this? Also the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which is necessary due to our dependence on imports costs over $1 billion a year to maintain. Then there are all of the indirects in government sponsored research, state and local etc all of which push these numbers toward $100 billion.  </p>
<p>I am for ending all subsidies and letting the markets (us) sort out the best answer. But when you do make sure you end ALL of them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Friedman Libertarian - Pajamas Media &#38; Not All Biofuels Are the Same</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-50080</link>
		<dc:creator>Friedman Libertarian - Pajamas Media &#38; Not All Biofuels Are the Same</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 00:40:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/not-all-biofuels-are-the-same/#comment-50080</guid>
		<description>[...] Original Post. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Original Post. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

