The Question of Biodiesel in Heavy-Duty Trucks
After our recent letter writing campaign urging Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Air Resources Board to support alternative-fuels we received messages from some of our members that in some cases asked for clarification regarding which types of fuels we are advocating and in others criticized us for not promoting biodiesel.
In response to the first question, at this time our advocacy efforts focus on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and electric trucks. The bulk of our efforts to this point have been directed towards LNG trucks for several reasons:
1.LNG from domestic and North American sources produces at least 20% fewer carbon emissions than diesel;
2.The cleanest LNG trucks reduce smog-forming NOx pollution by more than 80% over “clean” diesel; and,
3.Burning LNG avoids emissions of the highly toxic diesel particulate matter that is responsible for 84% of all airborne toxic cancer risks in Southern California;
4.Using our plentiful domestic LNG supply reduces the need to import foreign oil.
Despite these benefits there is no denying that LNG is still a fossil fuel and the ultimate goal is to one day run the local, regional, and national heavy-duty trucking fleets on green electricity and other low-carbon fuels. But in the present, as in the electric generation sector, we see natural gas as a viable, vital and necessary bridge to an eventual low-carbon zero tailpipe emissions trucking industry.
The future holds great promise for electric heavy-duty trucks. Two Los Angeles area companies, Balqon and Vision Industries, have been developing first and second generation electric trucks in the hopes that they will gradually eat into diesel’s share of the market. Currently there are 25 electric trucks working at Port of Los Angeles terminals moving cargo containers within the port. They do have range and power limitations that prevent them from being used for long hauls and achieving speeds that would make them suitable for the freeways of Southern California, but over the last year they have dramatically improved upon the prototypes bringing it within the realm of possibility that they will eventually perform as well if not better than their diesel counterparts. In addition to improving performance the price of electric trucks will have to become competitive with diesel and LNGs. Currently at around $300,000 they cost more than twice as much as a diesel, and $100,000 - $150,000 more than an LNG truck.
The Los Angeles Basin has the worst air quality in the country and is a major emitter of climate changing gases. LNG trucks can lead to an immediate improvement in both of these areas at a price that is competitive and is expected to be more competitive as diesel prices rise as economic growth resumes.
The other set of responses focused on our apparent lack of willingness to advocate for biodiesel. While the potential for biodiesel in reducing air quality and climate change pollution is great it also can create more problems than it solves if there are no standards to measure its life cycle impact or as I would call it – its seed to wheel impact.
A fair assessment of biodiesel impact cannot be assessed simply by measuring the emissions produced by burning it otherwise advocating for mass production and use of it would be pretty much a slam dunk. But once you look at all the variables that need to be taken into account such as land-use changes, water-use, fertilizers, fossil fuel inputs, and the national and international impacts of biodiesel production it becomes clear that there are many issues that need to be weeded out otherwise we could be jumping blindly into a pool of unintended consequences. In short, we need to understand how all of these factors would affect not only the final carbon footprint of biodiesel fuels but also what other externalities could result.
1. Land-Use
As with any product derived from an agricultural commodity land-use issues are at the core of its price and its environmental impact. Land-use issues for biodiesel production fall into two major categories, (1) land currently used for agricultural production, and (2) land used for another purpose or not used at all.
Put simply, farmers are actors in a market and generally have the ability to switch what crops they grow in order to react to changing prices and cash in on crops that have higher value. A switch to one crop has consequences for the other leading to a price change. For example switching fields that previously produced whole foods such as fruits and vegetables to soybeans – the favored biodiesel input – will cause a rise in those prices and possibly even a shortage of food. At least a significant part of the spike in worldwide food prices in 2008 was attributable to farmers switching to production of biofuels.
Prematurely advocating for expanded use of biodiesel without understanding these effects in our opinion is reckless. There are other promising crops that can be used for biodiesel such as safflower oil that are highly resistant to drought, require very little fertilizer, and can even be grown in water that is highly saline. Care should be taken to ensure that these types of crops that won’t affect the availability and price of foods are prioritized for biodiesel. At present, soybeans would be the main biodiesel crop -at least in the U.S. - and given their potential to disrupt food supply and prices, it’s a dubious bet to place our faith in them.
The other land-use issue involves clearing land not previously used for agricultural production and dedicating it towards biodiesel crops. This needs little explanation as we are all familiar with the examples of forests being cleared to be replanted for soybean, sugarcane, and palm oil cultivation. The negative effects of these can far outweigh the benefits of the fuel itself. On the most basic level clearing forests removes a major carbon sequestration resource, however in addition some crops such as palms produce significant amounts of carbon emissions as a byproduct of their cultivation. After clear-cutting forests peat bogs that are major emitters of CO2 are put into place to grow palms. A double whammy: destroy the carbon sequestering forests to put into place a carbon producing crop that will be burned producing even more carbon emissions. And whether the land is cleared is a forest, grassland, wetland, or desert habitat the impact on habitat and biodiversity must be taken into account as well.
2. Water-Use
The total carbon footprint is probably not a sufficient measure of the impact of biodiesel. Water is another major consideration. Most soybean crops are grown in the same fields as corn in the U.S. meaning that they draw on the already overused aquifers and rivers that are critical to maintaining them. The Ogallala aquifer, like most others in North America, is being depleted at an astounding and unsustainable rate. And rivers such as the Mississippi, the Rio Grande, and the Colorado are also suffering. To be fair, agriculture is not the only villain as people and cities continue to tap into them at an increasing rate; however, agricultural use still accounts for the majority of the water drawn from them. Sustainable water use is critical, and advocating for biodiesel without a more rigorous push to make it a sustainable resource could create more problems than solutions.
3. Fertilizers
The widespread use of industrial fertilizers has resulted in a green revolution that has made farmers in the U.S. and around the world extremely productive in terms of output. On the other hand these fertilizers have resulted in a startling degradation of our soils, seeped into our groundwaters, and resulted in massive run-off that has poisoned our lakes, rivers, and oceans. In parts of the country much of the drinking water is often not suitable for us to drink because of the extremely high levels of fertilizer “nutrients” that are present. Fish populations in rivers and lakes suffer from deformations and sexual mutations, and at the mouths of some of our biggest rivers such as the Mississippi there are enormous deadzones filled with bacteria that feed on the nutrient run-off killing the fish and other wildlife en masse.
While this speaks to a larger problem of the negative externalities of our industrial agriculture system we should go to every means to ensure that biodiesel crops do not add to this growing problem.
4. Fossil-Fuel Inputs
If the additional carbon and air quality emissions were attributable only to the tractors that till the land and the trucks and locomotives that transport the crops and biodiesel then fossil-fuels would be much less of an issue. The reality comes back to one huge problem however: the fertilizers used on almost all of our farms today are produced from fossil fuels. In the early 1900s German chemist Fritz Haber perfected the art of extracting nitrogen from the air. This process was first used to produce explosives and chemical weapons in World War I, and later, after World War II when bomb factories became dormant they were adapted to produce nitrogen fertilizers. So much of it is used in agriculture today that it can literally be said that when we eat much of our food we are chomping on or sipping fossil fuels.
It is fair to say that the idea of producing biofuels is for the purpose of eliminating fossil fuels to reduce carbon and fossil fuel dependence. Efforts must be made to ensure that biofuels do not use these inputs, something for which the policy frameworks have not yet been designed to do.
The Benefits of Biodiesel
Now onto the good stuff. By most accounts the use of biodiesel results in some pretty impressive emissions benefits. First of all, biodiesel studies have not surprisingly indicated that biodiesel is significantly less toxic than petroleum based diesel. And while more tests need to be performed on a wider range of equipment, results point to significant decreases in many pollutants and air quality improvements.
All but one pollutant showed significant and marked decreases at all blending levels of biodiesel with regular diesel. Carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (Sox), and carbon dioxide (CO2) all declined significantly over regular diesel (this varied among the stock used to make the biodiesel however with soybean derived fuel performing the worst). Nitrogen oxide (NOx) levels – normally a major contributor to smog formation – showed some increase; however, in scenarios that included the widespread use of biodiesel smog levels actually dropped significantly despite the small increases in the pollutant. The speculation is that the lower levels of HC emissions outweighed the increase in NOx emissions actually producing an air quality benefit. Tailpipe emissions of CO2 declined by a significant amount, performing on par with natural gas and in some cases even better.
Biodiesel + Standards = Part of the Solution
So, where does this leave us? It’s a complicated process but a pretty simple answer. Biodiesel holds great promise in addressing our petroleum dependence and our environmental promise but there are too many unknowns right now for us to advocate for a major program to put it in the ports here in Southern California or anywhere else on a large scale. Unfortunately, as much as we normally hate hearing these words because they often are a firewall for inaction, “It needs more study.” Fortunately, the California Air Resources Board is in the midst of conducting several studies with the ultimate purpose of designing standards we hope will address the issues above and others as well. We will continue to support this process and provide input along the way so that those standards will achieve air quality benefits here while promoting sustainability from the seed to the wheel.
In the meantime we will promote the cleanest available truck technologies that will clean the air, fight climate change, and reduce oil dependence. We look forward to the near future when we can add biodiesel as a legitimate tool to accomplishing these goals.
In response to the first question, at this time our advocacy efforts focus on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and electric trucks. The bulk of our efforts to this point have been directed towards LNG trucks for several reasons:
1.LNG from domestic and North American sources produces at least 20% fewer carbon emissions than diesel;
2.The cleanest LNG trucks reduce smog-forming NOx pollution by more than 80% over “clean” diesel; and,
3.Burning LNG avoids emissions of the highly toxic diesel particulate matter that is responsible for 84% of all airborne toxic cancer risks in Southern California;
4.Using our plentiful domestic LNG supply reduces the need to import foreign oil.
Despite these benefits there is no denying that LNG is still a fossil fuel and the ultimate goal is to one day run the local, regional, and national heavy-duty trucking fleets on green electricity and other low-carbon fuels. But in the present, as in the electric generation sector, we see natural gas as a viable, vital and necessary bridge to an eventual low-carbon zero tailpipe emissions trucking industry.
The future holds great promise for electric heavy-duty trucks. Two Los Angeles area companies, Balqon and Vision Industries, have been developing first and second generation electric trucks in the hopes that they will gradually eat into diesel’s share of the market. Currently there are 25 electric trucks working at Port of Los Angeles terminals moving cargo containers within the port. They do have range and power limitations that prevent them from being used for long hauls and achieving speeds that would make them suitable for the freeways of Southern California, but over the last year they have dramatically improved upon the prototypes bringing it within the realm of possibility that they will eventually perform as well if not better than their diesel counterparts. In addition to improving performance the price of electric trucks will have to become competitive with diesel and LNGs. Currently at around $300,000 they cost more than twice as much as a diesel, and $100,000 - $150,000 more than an LNG truck.
The Los Angeles Basin has the worst air quality in the country and is a major emitter of climate changing gases. LNG trucks can lead to an immediate improvement in both of these areas at a price that is competitive and is expected to be more competitive as diesel prices rise as economic growth resumes.
The other set of responses focused on our apparent lack of willingness to advocate for biodiesel. While the potential for biodiesel in reducing air quality and climate change pollution is great it also can create more problems than it solves if there are no standards to measure its life cycle impact or as I would call it – its seed to wheel impact.
A fair assessment of biodiesel impact cannot be assessed simply by measuring the emissions produced by burning it otherwise advocating for mass production and use of it would be pretty much a slam dunk. But once you look at all the variables that need to be taken into account such as land-use changes, water-use, fertilizers, fossil fuel inputs, and the national and international impacts of biodiesel production it becomes clear that there are many issues that need to be weeded out otherwise we could be jumping blindly into a pool of unintended consequences. In short, we need to understand how all of these factors would affect not only the final carbon footprint of biodiesel fuels but also what other externalities could result.
1. Land-Use
As with any product derived from an agricultural commodity land-use issues are at the core of its price and its environmental impact. Land-use issues for biodiesel production fall into two major categories, (1) land currently used for agricultural production, and (2) land used for another purpose or not used at all.
Put simply, farmers are actors in a market and generally have the ability to switch what crops they grow in order to react to changing prices and cash in on crops that have higher value. A switch to one crop has consequences for the other leading to a price change. For example switching fields that previously produced whole foods such as fruits and vegetables to soybeans – the favored biodiesel input – will cause a rise in those prices and possibly even a shortage of food. At least a significant part of the spike in worldwide food prices in 2008 was attributable to farmers switching to production of biofuels.
Prematurely advocating for expanded use of biodiesel without understanding these effects in our opinion is reckless. There are other promising crops that can be used for biodiesel such as safflower oil that are highly resistant to drought, require very little fertilizer, and can even be grown in water that is highly saline. Care should be taken to ensure that these types of crops that won’t affect the availability and price of foods are prioritized for biodiesel. At present, soybeans would be the main biodiesel crop -at least in the U.S. - and given their potential to disrupt food supply and prices, it’s a dubious bet to place our faith in them.
The other land-use issue involves clearing land not previously used for agricultural production and dedicating it towards biodiesel crops. This needs little explanation as we are all familiar with the examples of forests being cleared to be replanted for soybean, sugarcane, and palm oil cultivation. The negative effects of these can far outweigh the benefits of the fuel itself. On the most basic level clearing forests removes a major carbon sequestration resource, however in addition some crops such as palms produce significant amounts of carbon emissions as a byproduct of their cultivation. After clear-cutting forests peat bogs that are major emitters of CO2 are put into place to grow palms. A double whammy: destroy the carbon sequestering forests to put into place a carbon producing crop that will be burned producing even more carbon emissions. And whether the land is cleared is a forest, grassland, wetland, or desert habitat the impact on habitat and biodiversity must be taken into account as well.
2. Water-Use
The total carbon footprint is probably not a sufficient measure of the impact of biodiesel. Water is another major consideration. Most soybean crops are grown in the same fields as corn in the U.S. meaning that they draw on the already overused aquifers and rivers that are critical to maintaining them. The Ogallala aquifer, like most others in North America, is being depleted at an astounding and unsustainable rate. And rivers such as the Mississippi, the Rio Grande, and the Colorado are also suffering. To be fair, agriculture is not the only villain as people and cities continue to tap into them at an increasing rate; however, agricultural use still accounts for the majority of the water drawn from them. Sustainable water use is critical, and advocating for biodiesel without a more rigorous push to make it a sustainable resource could create more problems than solutions.
3. Fertilizers
The widespread use of industrial fertilizers has resulted in a green revolution that has made farmers in the U.S. and around the world extremely productive in terms of output. On the other hand these fertilizers have resulted in a startling degradation of our soils, seeped into our groundwaters, and resulted in massive run-off that has poisoned our lakes, rivers, and oceans. In parts of the country much of the drinking water is often not suitable for us to drink because of the extremely high levels of fertilizer “nutrients” that are present. Fish populations in rivers and lakes suffer from deformations and sexual mutations, and at the mouths of some of our biggest rivers such as the Mississippi there are enormous deadzones filled with bacteria that feed on the nutrient run-off killing the fish and other wildlife en masse.
While this speaks to a larger problem of the negative externalities of our industrial agriculture system we should go to every means to ensure that biodiesel crops do not add to this growing problem.
4. Fossil-Fuel Inputs
If the additional carbon and air quality emissions were attributable only to the tractors that till the land and the trucks and locomotives that transport the crops and biodiesel then fossil-fuels would be much less of an issue. The reality comes back to one huge problem however: the fertilizers used on almost all of our farms today are produced from fossil fuels. In the early 1900s German chemist Fritz Haber perfected the art of extracting nitrogen from the air. This process was first used to produce explosives and chemical weapons in World War I, and later, after World War II when bomb factories became dormant they were adapted to produce nitrogen fertilizers. So much of it is used in agriculture today that it can literally be said that when we eat much of our food we are chomping on or sipping fossil fuels.
It is fair to say that the idea of producing biofuels is for the purpose of eliminating fossil fuels to reduce carbon and fossil fuel dependence. Efforts must be made to ensure that biofuels do not use these inputs, something for which the policy frameworks have not yet been designed to do.
The Benefits of Biodiesel
Now onto the good stuff. By most accounts the use of biodiesel results in some pretty impressive emissions benefits. First of all, biodiesel studies have not surprisingly indicated that biodiesel is significantly less toxic than petroleum based diesel. And while more tests need to be performed on a wider range of equipment, results point to significant decreases in many pollutants and air quality improvements.
All but one pollutant showed significant and marked decreases at all blending levels of biodiesel with regular diesel. Carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (Sox), and carbon dioxide (CO2) all declined significantly over regular diesel (this varied among the stock used to make the biodiesel however with soybean derived fuel performing the worst). Nitrogen oxide (NOx) levels – normally a major contributor to smog formation – showed some increase; however, in scenarios that included the widespread use of biodiesel smog levels actually dropped significantly despite the small increases in the pollutant. The speculation is that the lower levels of HC emissions outweighed the increase in NOx emissions actually producing an air quality benefit. Tailpipe emissions of CO2 declined by a significant amount, performing on par with natural gas and in some cases even better.
Biodiesel + Standards = Part of the Solution
So, where does this leave us? It’s a complicated process but a pretty simple answer. Biodiesel holds great promise in addressing our petroleum dependence and our environmental promise but there are too many unknowns right now for us to advocate for a major program to put it in the ports here in Southern California or anywhere else on a large scale. Unfortunately, as much as we normally hate hearing these words because they often are a firewall for inaction, “It needs more study.” Fortunately, the California Air Resources Board is in the midst of conducting several studies with the ultimate purpose of designing standards we hope will address the issues above and others as well. We will continue to support this process and provide input along the way so that those standards will achieve air quality benefits here while promoting sustainability from the seed to the wheel.
In the meantime we will promote the cleanest available truck technologies that will clean the air, fight climate change, and reduce oil dependence. We look forward to the near future when we can add biodiesel as a legitimate tool to accomplishing these goals.
Comment
Buy Gear, Help the Bee
Buy MGB Gear
- - - - -
All proceeds go to EndOil, a non-profit fighting oil dependency & climate change
Check Community for Clean Ports' All Things Environmental Blog!
Clean trucks, solar cells, biofuels...a full helping of the critical environmental issues that are shaping Southern California and the world!
Events
© 2010 Created by Mighty Green Bee.
You need to be a member of The Bee Hive to add comments!
Join The Bee Hive