Opinion: Biodiesel -- Some Promise and Some Questions

By John Hausladen

resident

innesota Trucking Association

In response to “Why Biodiesel?” by Joe Jobe, executive director of the National Biodiesel Board (Opinion, 7-9, p. 9).

During the past six months, the Minnesota Legislature engaged in a lengthy and heated debate about the merits of mandating the use of biodiesel in all diesel fuel sold in Minnesota. Our organization, the Minnesota Trucking Association, vigorously opposed the mandate because this emerging fuel has just too many unanswered questions. We were never against the fuel, per se; we were against what amounted to a government-sponsored transfer of wealth from truckers to farmers. In successfully defeating this mandate we learned some valuable lessons about biodiesel.

Lesson 1: The existing data are largely one-sided. All the performance and emission data presented during the debate were generated by the soybean industry through the National Biodiesel Board. We were unable to find reliable third-party data that were not somehow connected to soybean money. There is a crying need for some objective research to verify the NBB claims.

Lesson 2: Engine manufacturers have yet to form a hard and fast opinion on biodiesel. To our knowledge, not one of the nation’s diesel engine makers has conducted tests to certify the emissions of biodiesel when run through their engines. Third-party engine testing is far different than tests run to certify emissions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To engine manufacturers biodiesel is nothing less than an experimental “boutique” fuel at this time, one which has only a provisional American Society for Testing and Materials standard.

Lesson 3: Environmental benefits are vastly overstated when put in perspective. Unless added at high levels, biodiesel has minimal impact on emission reduction. A mandate in Minnesota for a 2% biodiesel blend (B2) would have reduced emissions less than 2%. Supporters also fail to address the fact that biodiesel increases nitrous oxide emissions. Preliminary data on diesel locomotives show that particulate matter emissions can actually increase when biodiesel is added to ultra-low sulfur. The trucking industry cannot afford to go backwards in any emissions category.

Lesson 4: Proponents discount the impact of higher costs associated with biodiesel use. A modest B2 blend would have cost at least 2 cents a gallon more than regular diesel fuel. The higher the blend — which is needed to achieve true environmental benefits — the higher the cost to diesel users. A B2 mandate in Minnesota would have cost diesel users an additional $16 million, according to a report by C. Ford Runge, an agricultural economist at the University of Minnesota. Trucking would not shoulder these increased costs alone, but would be joined by school districts, transit systems, waste haulers, railroads and even airlines. All diesel users would ultimately pass these increased costs on to their customers.

Lesson 5: Supporters were unable to produce real-life fleet operational data. At no time during the debate in Minnesota were biodiesel supporters able to produce documentation of that fuel’s performance in working over-the-road truck fleets. These data were constantly alluded to, but never distributed. Furthermore, it is documented that biodiesel raises the cloud point, potentially creating operational problems in cold-weather climates. Tank heaters, adding more No. 1 diesel, inside vehicle storage and heated storage tanks are possible solutions to cold-weather problems, but these also come with a price tag.

Yes, biodiesel may be one solution to addressing lubricity problems created when sulfur is taken out of diesel fuel. However, the maximum lubricity benefits of biodiesel are achieved by adding about one-half of one percent to diesel, with minimal returns at higher levels.

Lesson 6: Biodiesel does hold promise. It is clear that biodiesel offers the potential to be a valuable alternative fuel. To fulfill that promise, we believe that the trucking industry, the National Biodiesel Board and Congress need to partner together to develop demonstration projects. These projects need to evaluate biodiesel under real-life field conditions, both for operational performance and emissions. If the results are positive, biodiesel then needs to be added to all diesel fuel nationwide rather than creating regional disparities and more “designer” fuels. The best way to build support for this fuel is to include diesel users as partners along the way.

It is encouraging to note that a market for biodiesel is already developing on its own under a free-market system. If biodiesel works as well or better than regular diesel and costs the same or less, truckers will be the first in line to use it.