I just returned from the Technology and Maintenance Council (TMC) annual meeting in Orlando full of good ideas and useful information. I would recommend attending TMC meetings to stay abreast of the latest trends and cost-saving practices in the trucking industry.
At this meeting biofuels (primarily including biodiesel and ethanol) received a lot of attention. Biofuel task force meetings were heavily attended by fleet members. At these, we learned that a good 5 percent of biodiesel fuel blends (B5) in ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) can provide performance indistinguishable from 100 percent ULSD –– if the B100 biodiesel stock is prepared according to the ASTM D6751 specification and properly blended into ULSD fuel (ASTM spec D975). As many of us have learned by experience, improperly manufactured biodiesel or improperly blended B5 fuels can cause a lot of trouble!
We also learned that both additive manufacturers and engine manufacturers are a little hesitant about using biodiesel blends higher than B5. This is primarily due to excessive injector deposits and poor low-temperature performance. Biodiesel is inherently less oxidatively stable than petroleum-based fuels, and fuel filter plugging is an issue at low temperatures.
The Engines Study Group (S. 3) is currently investigating various aspects of biodiesel usage. It is looking at manufacturing, blending and storage issues for those fleets who want to utilize biodiesel fuels. S.3 members also suggested the formation of task forces to study specifications for various biodiesel blends (B6 through B20). Other members suggested a task force to study possible vehicle specifications (such as fuel heaters, etc.) for Class 8 vehicles looking to minimize problems while utilizing biodiesel fuels.
Fleet members of the audience were asked to raise their hands if they had any direct experience with biodiesel fuels. Approximately 25 percent of the fleet attendees replied positively.
To date, less than 1 percent of diesel fuels in the market are biodiesel. Production is doubling every year, but we must remember that the U.S. uses 64 billion gallons of diesel fuel per year. Currently planned or on-stream biodiesel facilities will only produce about 750 million gallons per year. The current economic turndown (not recession!) and the high price of soybean oil might even slow construction of some of the currently planned facilities.
But make no mistake about it –– biodiesel is coming on strong! If producers can make the highest quality biodiesel, and researchers can make second generation biofuels such as biomass to liquid (BTL) cost effectively, biodiesel will be a significant contributor to U.S. air quality. Of course, tax breaks are also an important part of the equation.
Ethanol produced from corn is, however, a completely different story. Corn-fed beef and tortillas are being priced out of the market. A recent study conducted by researchers from Princeton and Iowa State Universities and the Woods Hole Research Center concluded that producing ethanol from corn actually increases global warming 93 percent over straight gasoline. Add to that the upcoming light-duty fuel economy legislation and ethanol produced from corn is about to go down the drain.
The only reasonable solution for ethanol is to let researchers investigate means of cost effectively converting switch grasses, other cellulosic materials and decomposing waste into ethanol. The above re-searchers estimate that these products might result in only a 20 percent increase in greenhouse gases over the near term.
I think the worst thing we can do is clear land to produce biofuel crops, because photosynthesis is one of the most effective means of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. One of the best things we could do is plant more trees and grass to absorb CO2. I wonder if we can talk the government into giving us a tax break for planting trees?
