LOST JEEPS
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Biodiesel Prices
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30775		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  mcnaughb [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:35 am ]
Post subject:  Biodiesel Prices
Over the last 10 months or so I have been using a locally produced commercial biodiesel (sqbiofuels.com). The price has consistently been about 50 cents more than ULSD at a quality station. With the Oregon consumer tax credit of $0.50/gallon, the price was about even. The source for the biodiesel according to their website has been used cooking oil and locally grown canola. Of course not knowing what their production costs were, I was just assuming that was what it cost to produce and provide profit to the business.

Interesting though, that the price of the biodiesel has increased at exactly the same rate as regular diesel as oil prices have increased. I would have to assume that their production costs have probably not increased proportionally. I was kind of expecting the bio prices to increase a bit, but not at the same rate as regular.
Author:  05infernoCRDL [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:41 am ]
Post subject: 
methanol....

i would imagine if they use methanol, which is a petroleum distillate, their costs would rise because of the cost per barrel has gone up too
Author:  Threeweight [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:48 am ]
Post subject: 
They do require methanol for refining. However, I've noticed at least on station that carries Sequential B99 that raises their bio prices daily, in tandem with regular dino diesel. I know for a fact that this station does not sell more than a couple hundred gallons of the stuff per day. Currently, they are asking 4.59 or so a gallon for b99, 3.99 for dino diesel.

Oddly, however, I can drive another 10 minutes to a Jubitz truck stop that carries Sequential B20. If methanol and volume where driving the prices, this B20 should be slightly higher than dino (say $4.20 or so). In fact, however, B20 at Jubitz is usually slightly cheaper than dino in other places in town (Last time I filled up there, B20 was 3.69, when regular dino diesel was running 3.79 elsewhere).

While living in Oregon is great for having a good quality source of clean bio, the stations that carry it often leave much to be desired. If the schlep up to North Portland isn't too big of a hassle for you, I'd advise just going to Jubitz.
Author:  mcnaughb [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:00 am ]
Post subject: 
I use the Star Oilco cardlock in Tigard. North Portland is a bit of a trek to fill up. I can also get B99 at the cardlock so the tax credit applies. I don't think you can take advantage of that if you use B20 unless you are using it for home heating oil.

I'm sure the price of oil has impacted the production costs of the bio, but I HIGHLY doubt it has impacted it this much.
Author:  Threeweight [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:14 am ]
Post subject: 
B20 is eligible for the tax credit, just at a lower rate (20 cents on the gallon instead of 50). Still, I think the max total deduction is the same ($200).
Author:  UFO [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:29 am ]
Post subject: 
Methanol prices have risen with other fuels too. But it's correct, the methanol can at most figure in as 20% of the cost, so biodiesel in a vacuum would only rise 1/5 as fast. However it's a substuite for diesel, and it's price tracks.
Author:  kcfoxie [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:26 am ]
Post subject: 
This is cause and effect.

Cost of petrol goes up.

People eat out less.

Restaurants buy and use less oil.

Price of used cooking oil goes up

Increased feedstock prices and methanol prices = price of B100 going up

We're facing a similar problem in NC right now. For the first time in 4 years our price may have to go up.
Author:  Cowpie1 [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Keep in mind that we are competing with Europe on this one. A large portion of biodiesel production is going to Europe. All in all, we are getting hosed. The Government uses OUR money to subsidize biodiesel production and then the producers move most of it to Europe where they can get a better price. That keeps our costs for biodiesel up so that we are paying twice for the product.

Life is good!
Author:  dgeist [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  My area has an interesting duality...
So, there are several major producers in the NorthWest GA region that supply most of the state. One was primarily poultry based and is the biggest. For 2 years, a local commercial oil company retailed that producer's B100 and blended B20. During that time, both B100 and B20 ran a few cents cheaper than ULSD. Now that supplier has cut its local distribution and is selling exclusively overseas (I suspect due to the higher prices they can charge).

NOW, the other smaller places, which do mostly soy-based production, are the only game in town for retail/fleets. Those places are alos supplying mandated fuel contracts in the area (Military, school systems, Georgia Power, etc) and can't keep up, so they charge more for the Bio that they DO sell to the public.

Retail ULSD is now $4.05 and B20 is $4.40 at the same place. I'm looking into an appleseed reactor....
Author:  kcfoxie [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cowpie1 wrote:
Keep in mind that we are competing with Europe on this one. A large portion of biodiesel production is going to Europe. All in all, we are getting hosed. The Government uses OUR money to subsidize biodiesel production and then the producers move most of it to Europe where they can get a better price. That keeps our costs for biodiesel up so that we are paying twice for the product.

Life is good!


You have a misconception. There are NO subsidies for biodiesel producers, only a credit for petroleum industry refineries that are blending the purchased at wholesale price biodiesel into the petorleum product to reduce the CO2 output of their fuel.

Believe me, I work closely with one of Europe's newest suppliers. They sold out to them to keep in the game, because the government only offers a few grants (which are hard to get) and no constant subsidies for producers of biodiesel, but they make it worth the petrol industries' time and effort to blend the bio product into their own product with the $1/gallon credits.

If you wish to speak to someone fluent in this issue, I can give you Lyle Estill's email address. He is the founder of Piedmont Biofuels in North Carolina, the second largest biodiesel co-op in the united states (possibly now the largest with the membership growth we've had since the fuel dropped to 80 cents cheaper per gallon than petroleum).[/i]
Author:  mcnaughb [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
kcfoxie wrote:
This is cause and effect.

Cost of petrol goes up.

People eat out less.

Restaurants buy and use less oil.

Price of used cooking oil goes up

Increased feedstock prices and methanol prices = price of B100 going up

We're facing a similar problem in NC right now. For the first time in 4 years our price may have to go up.


I agree to a point. I just doubt that the recent price increases reflect the true cost of production increase. I think it is more opportunistic of the bio producers and retailers in this market. Not that that is a bad thing mind you, it is capitalism after all. I don't have to buy it.

I just find it interesting that the producers of bio here, who are kind of tree hugging/anti-establishment kinds of folks, are taking advantage of the oil price increase just like everyone else.
Author:  Reflex [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Keep in mind that modern farming is mechanized and that farms use nearly as much diesel to farm the crops as they produce with those crops(or more, depending on how much of the supply chain you wish to factor into the equation). That means that rising dino diesel prices will keep bio perpetually higher priced. If it takes you ten gallons of diesel to create 11 gallons of bio, its going to be *very* hard to squeeze a profit out if the price is the same at the pump. Without subsidies, biodiesel does not make even close to economic sense.

Thats why personally I'd much rather see the subsidy money going into research for next gen biofuels like algae and bacterial solutions. They are much lower impact environmentally, do not consume potable water and do not require nearly the energy to produce.
Author:  warp2diesel [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Take into consideration animals eat the....
...left overs from Biodiesel and Ethanol Production. Pork producers have bragged for many years that they use every thing but the Oink :!: When they squeeze the oil out of oil seed stocks the solids that are left over are processed into animal feed as are the left over solids from Ethanol production. Often these leftover solids have more protein and other nutrients than the original seed stocks themselves. Since they are, " Processed and Fortified with minerals, vitamins, amino acids and other stuff" these left overs are sold for more money than the original crops used to generate them. What is the added benefit to us besides Biofuel? The animals are healthier, produce more and are less likely to require the use of antibiotics or other medications to get well.
One example is the Soy meal that Fido has in his food, the oil is squeezed out of the Soy beans (some goes to Biodiesel), the solids are ground up and roasted, then the Soy meal is blended into the mix made into dog food.
When algae is used to make fuel, guess what the solids will be used for, Food :!:

Steve
Author:  Cowpie1 [ Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
kcfoxie wrote:
Cowpie1 wrote:
Keep in mind that we are competing with Europe on this one. A large portion of biodiesel production is going to Europe. All in all, we are getting hosed. The Government uses OUR money to subsidize biodiesel production and then the producers move most of it to Europe where they can get a better price. That keeps our costs for biodiesel up so that we are paying twice for the product.

Life is good!


You have a misconception. There are NO subsidies for biodiesel producers, only a credit for petroleum industry refineries that are blending the purchased at wholesale price biodiesel into the petorleum product to reduce the CO2 output of their fuel.

Believe me, I work closely with one of Europe's newest suppliers. They sold out to them to keep in the game, because the government only offers a few grants (which are hard to get) and no constant subsidies for producers of biodiesel, but they make it worth the petrol industries' time and effort to blend the bio product into their own product with the $1/gallon credits.

If you wish to speak to someone fluent in this issue, I can give you Lyle Estill's email address. He is the founder of Piedmont Biofuels in North Carolina, the second largest biodiesel co-op in the united states (possibly now the largest with the membership growth we've had since the fuel dropped to 80 cents cheaper per gallon than petroleum).[/i]


Not being seemingly as knowledgable as you on the subject, I will not contest about subsidies to producers. But VERY knowledgable on the Ag side of things, There are PLENTY of subisdies that are paid for by our taxes to the growers. Along with the cost to us for the Department of Agriculture and other agencies that direct the agriculture industry which in turn affects the markets. And now that biofuels are the "in" thing, we as nation will, for the first time in our history, have to import wheat due to the lack of production in the U.S. since there is a major shift to planting mostly corn and soybeans. Again, increasing the cost to the consumer. Also, alfalfa prices have more than doubled due to the decrease in acres being used for that. A small bale went for about $2 a few years ago, now, a second or third cutting bale goes for almost $5.

No matter how you look at it, the tax payers are subsidizing some portions of the whole process, either in direct taxation or unintended consequences. Else, biofuels would not have gotten as far as they have. At the state level, there are subsidies in the form of tax credits and such that influence the building of new production facilities. I watch this kind of crap go on daily here in Iowa. Not knowledgeable about the S.E. part of the country. Also, government mandates regarding inclusion of biofuels in all pumps affects the cost, including costing all of us for the beaurocracy involved and increasing the costs of other goods as mentioned in the last paragraph.

Not as rosey a picture as it appears on the surface. I realize that you could direct me to a biofuel producer, but I in turn would direct you to the Farm Bureau for more details on a broader scale than just the final biofuel production.
Author:  Reflex [ Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Exactly. 20% of all corn production(which itself was at a record level) went to biofuels last year(mostly Ethanol). Regardless of what the remnants are used for(remember, if you use it for feed then you can't use it for fertilizers) the end result is still that animal feed prices have gone up precipitously as have consumer goods. Even if you remove the speculators, which *have* been a major part of the problem, the fact is that biofuels are now being subsidized at ALL levels, if the true cost were reflected at the pump I don't think anyone would believe this is a good idea.

I'd rather see all this money going into biofuel and alternative fuel solutions have a chance of solving the problem(nuclear/algae based bio/etc), the crop based 'solutions' are a massive boondoggle.
Author:  kcfoxie [ Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
mcnaughb wrote:
I agree to a point. I just doubt that the recent price increases reflect the true cost of production increase. I think it is more opportunistic of the bio producers and retailers in this market. Not that that is a bad thing mind you, it is capitalism after all. I don't have to buy it.

I just find it interesting that the producers of bio here, who are kind of tree hugging/anti-establishment kinds of folks, are taking advantage of the oil price increase just like everyone else.


That's why our co-op upped the price. Instead of offering a "clean fuel for when you must drive" to concerned tree huggers, they upped the cost when the surplus was drained in a week by "penny pinching truck and suv owners" ..... so I can't say that it's ALL feedstock related. However, around here, they've been worried for 6 months about the cost of chicken fat and now Europe owns all that. They're moving the trail fuel to WVO, which they've been collecting and filtering for over 6 months in preparation for the switch off chicken to WVO to keep the original scope of the project going. It sucks all the way around, it's easy to see exactly how Petrol and everything else in our lives are connected when it's cost skyrockets for no apparent reason.


I suppose if you want to count the Ag subsidies as being biodiesel realted... then yes.

However, to me, you'd have to give the company that's taking the raw crop, pressing it for oil, then processing that oil some form of kickback to get me to agree that, yes, they get subsidies.

As it stands they get nothing, and they're doing the hard work: taking the raw product and making something that cleans up petrol's act.

Now, if all Farmers want to get into the chemistry game... we might have something going on.

I also look forward to switchgrass, or hemp, being turned into a cheap and usable ethanol or biodiesel.
Author:  warp2diesel [ Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  When you feed the animals.....
....the biodiesel feedstock left overs they eat are pooped out is ORGANIC fertilizer. With all of the developments in the proper usage of the animal waste, the farmer is getting more bang for the buck and other negitive impacts such as run off going into water sources are being totally eliminated.
A true conservationist looks at the big picture and does not obsess with surgically calculated statistics that promote a short term political agenda. If you want to count the beens, count them all and not just the beens that have the color you want that day.
Here is but one example of what the bi-products from crop based biodiesel do for live stock: http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/med ... 5411.shtml
If this were not true beef, pork, chicken, and turkey prices would be at least double what they are now.

Any biodiesel plan will need to have similar uses for it's bi-products to be a overall good solution. Having left over land fill mass or unusable waste is UNACCEPTABLE! If the algae biodiesel has unusable left overs that can not be put to good use, what good is the oil it produces. Remember, count all the beans.

I challenge other non crop based biodiesel sources to show their hand and point out what current economically uses their bi-products have as feed stocks.

Steve
Author:  Reflex [ Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
warp2diesel - One of the good things about algae is that it really has no leftovers, even the non-oil biomass can at the least be burned for energy.

kcfoxie - First off, its obvious you don't know much about modern agriculture. Farmers are in the chemistry game, in fact its a requirement to get a AG degree to go through quite a bit of chemistry.

Secondly, switchgrass/hemp/jathropa/etc increase yields per acre, but they also have much higher harvest and processing costs both in terms of cost and energy, hence the reason they have yet to find a way to make them cost effective. Furthermore from an environmental standpoint, any 'solution' that requires a) more land being reclaimed from nature and b) more potable water consumption is a negative overall, which is why people like me look to bacterial and algae style biofuels. Farming is one of the worst environmental practices humans engage in, although for obvious reasons its a necessary evil. That said, there is no reason to expand it, especially when a major part of the reason is supposedly to help the environment. You don't help the environment by consuming it for production.
Author:  warp2diesel [ Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:  All crops including algae ...
... have left over solids that contain minerals, amino acids and other building blocks of life, all life, you can not have 100% oil with nothing else. To pretend that algae does not have solids consisting of minerals, amino acids and so on defies the laws of physics and chemistry. For an example lets cite a little 10th grade biology, our blood contains minerals in the same proportion as sea water with the exception of salt. If you were to grow the algae in the ocean it would contain the same minerals, burning these minerals and other organic compounds would produce potential polluting compounds and ash that would require scrubbers to remove. Since aquatic plants do not need soil mulching is not a good option. Therefore, using the solid leftovers for something other than feed (even if it were dumped overboard as marine food) is just stupid to say the least.

I do not want to stifle the development of algae biodiesel, but if they have not addressed the use of the left over solids, they are playing poker with the public and we need solutions not bluffing. Most of what I have seen is sales pitch, not plans.

Reflex: Since you are the strongest proponent of algae biodiesel, perhaps you can sift through the smoke and mirrors and show an example where they have laid their cards on the table and addressed all of the production related issues as well as the oil companies have for the products they produce. What you have presented so far and what I have found on my own is promising, but so is warp drive.

Steve
Author:  Reflex [ Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm always glad to do some research, but I'm really not certain why you've fixated on the leftover solids, at the least they will be fine as fertilizer for other crops. Even if they are not, current oil production also has leftover waste as well, quite a bit of it in fact, utilizing the resource 100% is not a requirement for it to be a good replacement for fossil fuels. In fact there is nothing out there that gets utilized 100% in any conversion process, as per the rules of thermodynamics.

The important components of any proposed fuel source are 1) ROEI(return on energy investment), 2) yields(in the case of bio, yield per acre) and 3) Economic feasability. I feel strongly that crop based solutions fail all three, but that algae has the potential to easily succeed on the first two(the third depends on what the processing requirements are, and you are right, its nebulous right now). Consider this: Right now soy based biodiesel yields 48 gallons per acre per year. It is *almost* break even in terms of ROEI, but still requires a significant government subsidy to break even on price. Furthermore, it requires large quantities of potable water at multiple stages of the equation, which is a scarcer resource than oil. Now compare to algae, which in tests has demonstrated a capacity of about 33,000 gallons per acre, requires only sunlight and nitrogen, and can grow in saltwater, of which we have plenty. This stands a far far better chance of being an actual replacement for gasoline/diesel than any crop based solution ever will(superior in yield than even best case scenerios for cellulosic ethanol).

Thats why I'm high on it, however I'm not blind either, if it gets shot down it gets shot down, but I hate seeing all the money going into solutions that have *no chance* of ever being significant contributers to the problems identified.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/