Washblog

I didn't know this about where the crops would be grown.   I thought that    HB 6508, the alternative fuel standard that just passed required crops that were grown here...  Or is it just that we have to process it here...

I'll have to take another look.

Jesse, do you have a link to a reference that discusses where the feedstock will come from for the Gray's Harbor plant?

by noemie maxwell on Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:26:07 PM PST

---

The Seattle Times ran the article a couple of days ago says this:

But it would probably be of little immediate benefit to Washington farmers, because the new refinery would be fed largely by palm oil from Malaysia and soybean oil from elsewhere in the U.S.

and this:

The company isn't immediately planning to buy Washington-grown canola oil because of the price, Plaza said.

"We have to be competitive with diesel," he said.

But he added that the company will consider buying from local farmers, who might be encouraged to grow the seeds when they see a firmly established market for them.

Malaysia and Indonesia now accounts for 50% of the worlds palm oil production. Only recently have preservation groups gotten involved in the process (2001), and it may be too late. If the trend continues, the United States is going to be under pressure to produce its own fuel so we're not more dependent on other unstable regions. At this point, the fuel for food argument gains some ground.

It is an interesting situation however. The SB 6508 text uses a lot of "if" statements with good intentions:

If the director determines that both in-state oil seed crushing capacity can satisfy the two percent requirement and a significant portion of the feedstock was grown in Washington state, all diesel fuel sold or offered for sale in Washington must contain at least five percent biodiesel fuel by volume.

So basically, the state will implement the requirements once the state has the available feedstock and capacity to crush. What this leads to is not a mad dash towards alternative fuels, rather an open door for a large, corporate plant to move in and make the capacity over night. This will destroy the market for Washington's measely 20 to 50 million gallon demand. And it will disable small plants from even getting started because there isn't the demand yet to make it profitable.

What we need is public support that enables small plants to get off the ground by putting caps on marketshare, much like a small business alliance. A state-sponsored cooperative of sorts...

alas...

by JesseNelson on Fri May 12, 2006 at 03:40:20 PM PST

---

Jesse,

I suspected that ethanol production in Brazil was largely at the expense of deforestation.  That does seem to be a complicating factor--one that if true, may devalue the Brazil as a model.

Do you have links to any studies or other research indicating that ethanol producing sugar cane is being produced at the expense of the rainforest?  Dick Durbin recently mentioned Brazil as a good case study, but didn't say where that information came from.  Likewise, Cantwell cited it on NewsHour, but only in passing.

by Patrick on Fri May 12, 2006 at 04:16:46 PM PST

---

   We may very well be growing palm and soy :(
There's truth to what Jesse says here. If you look at the voting record for SB 6508 you see that it didn't pass D vs. R. It passed Urban versus Rural. The potential mandates kick in faster than our grain growers can retool and plant. Two years isn't even two crop cycles when they need to plan the crops and which acres will be planted with what and order the seed, and , and.
   Offshore bio-oil is still offshore oil.
   Bio-diesel is cleaner than ground diesel. That doesn't mean that there is no carbon dioxide when it's burned. If you spill it on the water, it's still kill critters until it degrades.
   I really hate to admit it, but SB 6508 would have been a better bill if my R Senator's amendment, just to make it three years instead of two, to delay the mandates had passed.
   

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:16:20 PM PST

---

  The subject is important, but the title is somewhat misleading. There are many people, legislators, enviromental activists, energy activists and corporate and lobbyists, agriculture, transportation, Governors, and congress critters participating in this.
   Headlining with Cantwell doesn't address the underlying inherent concerns.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:41:25 PM PST

---

First, just quickly, the trend away from local and toward centralized profits is strong -- something progressives should be paying more attention to.  I think it should be at the center of our political questions.

David's point is well-taken.  Maria Cantwell didn't have power here to make this local.  This is a huge set of interlocking events here with many players.  Maybe she could have done better.  Maybe not.  Maria Cantwell's been great on the energy front.  

The context for this - that we have a choice between Maria Cantwell and Mike McGavick, oil shill -- is important to understand.  Reichert, too, is a blind friend of big oil -- part of the cartel bringing us our melted glaciers and endless war.  We need to really be on the case of the lawmakers who have been so blind to the energy debacle.  And I think we need to be kind to Maria Cantwell on this one.   She's our friend when it comes to energy.

The fact that we're in this situation - with local profits and control continually being lost -- is something voters can take responsibility for too.  It's not fair to ask electeds to do it all.   Jesse and I are both working on the Back to the Roots program that addresses just this question -- what is the political place for this issue, allowing sustainable use of land and resources to be profitable for people?  I put this right at the center of things.  If people can't make a living, nothing else works socially or politically.  The loss of profitability of local land use and of labor -- this is at the bottom of many of our  present problems.  Physical survival and welfare -- the ability for people to be self-sustaining, to have independence,  seems a first condition to me.  Physical/financial independence is a big part of being free.

by noemie maxwell on Sat May 13, 2006 at 07:34:07 AM PST

---

   Because it is an important issue and we can't ignore the need for alternative energy sources. Or the need to become less dependent on centralized, "economies of scale", sources.
   See http://www.rmi.org/ or http://www.sustainablefootprint.org/
   I have some other thoughts, but I'm a bit tired to properly convey them right now.

   As to responsibility, these problems are just as much your (the global your) or my fault as they may be Senator Cantwell's.
   

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Sun May 14, 2006 at 12:36:44 AM PST

---

I really appreciate the response to this diary. Initially, it was a rant about the corporate scale of this biodiesel project. Since it has been recommended and the discussion has become quite deep, I need to edit my original post a tad. I stated, "...but where's [Maria's] support for other fuel projects" with the tone that she is just another shill (probably more of a symptom of my day...).

What needs to be said, which Gibney underlines, is that energy is a complicated issue and so is agriculture. When the two combine, you have pork barrel politics, environmentalism, and labor and community values all rolled into one fine enchilada - and it can get very spicy.

Maria deserves much more credit than I gave her and we're lucky that Washington was even selected for this project in the first place. It will be a boon for alternative fuels in general, which is the beginning of something good, but not perfect. We must support these projects and Maria in general because the alternative is so so much worse. Nitpicking ourselves is easy but retroactive in the big picture of what's really at stake.

This type of critical language is good for the Progressive movement and we should embrace it, but we should also meld it with current Democratic Party objectives, because, afterall, we really don't have a Progressive Party yet...

There are systematic flaws in the entire 'system' in which all of us participate. This is why it seems nothing we interact with is sustainable. With this biodiesel plant in Gray Harbor, I'd be willing to bet that more harm is done to the Malaysian agriculture industry in its utter dependence on exports to America and the West.

However, we have to start somewhere in mending our broken world. As progressives, we need to support our democratic counterparts and help them in the road ahead. Instead of halting this plant, we can change the state laws to give incentives for using in-state ag. products. We can develop more sustainable ways to use the fuels that are made. We can even get people to use less fuel, so that more large plants - based on cheap imports and tax credits - don't need to be built.

The bottom line to this rant is that we need to combat the corporate-scale development of our resources. We can fight the development or we can harness it for our own objectives because it won't disappear over night. In this light, I retract my attitude about Maria because she's the best we have. For now...

by JesseNelson on Sun May 14, 2006 at 04:28:22 PM PST

---

  Well, maybe that'll get some comments.
  Let's take this a little further. A few years ago natural gas was being sold as cheap and efficient, especially in the NW. Then some pipelines came on from Canada to the Midwest and Texas. Demand from new customers already used to paying for higher energy costs (and likely some corporate spin) overdid supply and the price here in Eastern Washington has jumped alarmingly.
  At my real project Gladish Community and Cultural Center , we've spent several years repairing aged and leaking steam heat lines. Our actual gas use is about 20% down from last year; our charges are up 15%. If I knew how to embed the graph here, I would.
  At the Rabanco landfill back home in Klickitat County (where all ye westsider's garbage land), they are tapping the outgassing methane. Of course the R commissioners are making good use of the landfill income to bribe the local governments.
   We have a fair number of dairy and other cattle herds in this state, why aren't there "shit" digesters nearby to produce gas for energy. And fuel cells will work best with the simplest hydrocarbon, methane, CH3.

  OH, and back to the subject. Industrial hemp grows fast, makes rope and fiber and green mass for digesters, has no THC (damn) and doesn't take a lot of labor or mechanical effort to grow.

  Anyway, some things to think about.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Wed May 17, 2006 at 12:32:35 AM PST

---

Caveat: I work in the biodiesel business, not under the employment of Seattle Biodiesel nor any other biodiesel producer.

A few things worth noting in this conversation- which I belive is a good and necessary conversation.

First, let's add context on this specific subject, then talk about palm oil/agriculture commodities, then look at local ag-based costs/benefits.

First, It's unfair to categorically denounce the future of biodiesel in WA or Cantwell's support based on these articles or press releases. The mention of palm imports is unfortunate. I've known Seattle Biodiesel as proponent of WA ag production of biofuels beyond talk- they have indeed funded pilot projects and worked closely with farmers to understand the potential and build the foundation for economic opportunity. The specific business decisions made for the project in question are likely the result of project financing requirements- i.e if Seattle Biodiesel intends to build a large facility ahead of WA ag production capacity, where will the feedstock come from? The financing needs to know. Again, I am no apologist, just seeking to understand the realities of making change.

Second, Let's talk about palm and environmental destruction. Palm plantations have been historically destructive, yet none of this oil has been for biodiesel production. The palm market has been fueled by (pun intended) cosmetics and foods and the like- concern for destruction of Malaysian forest should be focused on the current products we consume, not hypothetical products. Going out on a limb- biodiesel production from palm has the opportunity to introduce biodiesel based values in place of current slash/burn- biodiesel may in fact be good for forests if consumers, and thus the producers, demand a sustainable approach. I haven't noticed an uprising of Lubriderm consumers to date. You bet-we need to be vigilant re the future, yet it is all too easy to ignore our current behaviors and justify hypothetical positions. If palm plantations are a concern, I suggest we all take a hard look at our medicine cabinet. No biodiesel in WA state is made from palm, nor will it be anytime soon. The biodiesel consumed in WA is almost exclusively from surplus domestic soy oil.

In review: the mention of palm imports is not a death knell for biodiesel in WA, nor is biodiesel the cause of environmental destruction in Malaysia. It is, however, something to keep an eye on. However...

The WA biodiesel industry opposes imported palm oil for biodiesel production. It flies in the face of biodiesel's political and economic promise to WA. We have a surplus of domestic oils for biodiesel in the US currently, not including the improved yields or rotation crops that, near term, can provide oil for biodiesel. The global agriculture commodity business is not immature. Nor is the US agricultural lobby. Given EU and US mandates, I expect the playing field will eventually level, but it will take time moving through the political process. WA farmers will have a market. Successful biodiesel businesses will focus long term- There will be no cheap feedstocks- which gets us back to the real issue- how will we value locally produced biodiesel? Global market vs local market, paying for the benefits. We all need to demand new metrics benefiting our communities vs corporations.

Biodiesel is a gateway drug in the sense that it leads to these tough issues. Hard choices need to be made. We simply can't continue with petroleum. Ultimately, if palm biodiesel enters the market, you can choose not to use it. The biodiesel industry is in an early and fragile phase- there is real promise and all the confusion and opportunists that go along with it. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, especially based on media reports. There is very real momentum behind a WA based biofuels industry, much of it focused on long term sustainable economic and air quality benefit. Building a biofuels industry is no easy task- it will take time, commitment, and cash. Here's to hoping we make wise choices.

by robE on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:48:11 AM PST

---

  I have spoken about "leftovers" in a couple of posts. I've been running into Dan Lambert of Evergreen Renewable Technologies at several events lately. They have some good ideas about what to do with Bio byproducts.
   I'm guessing that the leftovers from precrushed east asian oils will be mostly left over there, but if we're serious about growing our own energy, we need to be serious about the leftovers.
   If it wasn't for the leftovers, nuclear would be the hands down answer. And maybe, someday, we'll find something usefull to do with that stuff as well.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Mon May 15, 2006 at 01:03:43 PM PST

---

In an effort to distance Maria's position from the actual realities of biodiesel and other biofuels, I have changed the name of this diary entry. There has been much more activity then I was expecting when I initially wrote this diary entry and the title no longer fits with the discussion.

I encourage everyone to continue the debate on biofuels - ask questions, discuss externalities, propose new ideas, or share news.

Thank you,
Jesse Nelson

by JesseNelson on Tue May 16, 2006 at 10:30:11 AM PST

---

I apologize the the biodiesel enthusiests out there that may have noticed my tax incentive reporting. It seems, in the vigor of the moment that I reported the tax incentive for blending ethanol at $0.51 per gallon - this is true. However, biodiesel, and this is news to me, doesn't quite get that favorable of a credit:

"The credit equates to one penny per percent of biodiesel in a fuel blend made from agricultural products like vegetable oils, and one-half penny per percent for recycled oils. The incentive is taken at the blender level, meaning petroleum distributors, and passed on to the consumer." National Biodiesel Board, Tax Credit Fact Sheet

In short, for the State's 5% mandate, a blend of 5% biodiesel will yield $0.05 for every gallon of B5 produced. This will increase as the percent of biodiesel in the blend increases.

It is still true that this incentive comes at the blender level and does not give incentives for production of the fuel. As the National Biodiesel Board eloquently puts it: "...meaning petroleum producers...".

Instead of a $51 million incentive, it is $5 million for starters...

I apologize. Please correct any other errors you may find. The truth about this subject is much more important than my rant.

by JesseNelson on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:07:29 AM PST

---