Biodiesel Discussion Forum

Many in the biofuels industry have heard of camelina (Camelina sativa—a plant in the Brassica family) as the latest, greatest biofuel feedstock. It requires less water than canola, it can grow in cold climates, and it is being researched as a feedstock for biodiesel and jet fuel. The drawing to the left shows the camelina plant and seed pod, courtesy USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database.

For example, a Cincinnati, Ohio company called Great Plains Oil and Exploration: The Camelina Company was founded “with the purpose of manufacturing and marketing biodiesel produced from camelina." Montana-based Sustainable Oils has “developed elite varieties of the unique oilseed crop, camelina, which is used to produce a high-quality, efficient biofuel." In 2009, Japan Airlines claimed to be the first airline to conduct demonstration flights fueled by camelina-based jet fuel. On Earth Day 2010, a U.S. Navy supersonic jet made a test flight using 50% camelina oil fuel.

For the past three years Lentz Spelt Farms in Marlin, Washington has intercropped camelina with emmer (an ancient form of wheat) and other crops. The Biodiesel Education Team at the University of Idaho became aware of Lentz Spelt Farms’ interest in camelina when we found their seeds being sold in the bulk section of our local food co-op. Rene Featherstone, who is in charge of research and development at Lentz Spelt Farms, agreed to talk to us about his experiences with camelina.

Featherstone is incredibly excited about camelina’s potential. He agrees that camelina can be a good feedstock for biofuels, but he has a broader view of the plant’s usefulness. Featherstone has found that camelina can serve as a weed suppressor, as a food supplement, and as a food product for humans and animals.

Nowadays we tend to view camelina as a new crop, but in fact it has been cultivated since about 2,000 BC. Remains of camelina seeds have been found in Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age agricultural sites throughout Europe. Camelina was grown commercially for oil until the 1940s in central and eastern Europe (Zohary and Hopf, p. 125). The actual oil content of the seeds ranges from 29% to 41%, with a protein content ranging from 23% to 30% (Putnam et al.).

Another name for camelina is “German sesame,” and Featherstone says the seeds can be used in baking as a substitute for poppy seeds, sesame seeds, or chia seeds. At one point Lentz Spelt Farms sold their camelina seeds to a Tacoma, Washington hummus company which wanted to use only regional ingredients in their hummus. They used camelina instead of sesame seeds. Camelina oil is high in Omega-3 fatty acid (alpha-linolenic acid) as well as gamma tocopherol, a form of Vitamin E. Featherstone recommends using the cold-pressed oil in vinaigrette. Lentz Spelt Farms has also sold camelina seed as chicken feed, and camelina oil as a soap feedstock.

Featherstone learned about camelina from Duane Johnson, who was at Montana State University at that time. Johnson was excited about camelina because compared to canola, camelina needed fewer inputs, and the seed was cheaper. Featherstone was especially interested in camelina’s health benefits. Lentz Spelt Farms bought seeds of two varieties of heritage camelina, one from Germany and one from Austria. Lentz Spelt Farms mixes the two seeds before planting. Featherstone named this blend “Lena Camelina” after his business partner Lena Lentz Hardt.

For three years Lentz Spelt Farms intercropped camelina with emmer and it “worked like a charm” to suppress weeds. Camelina grows in a horizontal rosette and often nothing else will grow through. Camelina has a deep tap root and if intercropped with grain that has a shallow root, the two crops don’t compete for water. Last year Featherstone tried a variety of winter camelina from Poland intercropped with winter spelt. The camelina came up well but did not suppress weeds. This year he will try spring camelina with winter spelt. “We want to get the system down to where people don’t have to spray for weeds,” Featherstone says.

Lentz Spelt Farms provided camelina seeds to Paul Walters, a farmer in Princeton, Idaho who wanted to try an intercropped system using peas and camelina. Walters believes his pea yield was about the same as without the intercropping. The photo below shows Walters in a field interplanted with peas and camelina.

Camelina should be seeded at 2 to 5 lbs/acre if monocropped, which will yield 500 to 2,000 lbs of seed per acre. If intercropped, a lower seeding rate should be used (40-50% of the monocropped rate). According to Featherstone, this system works if the primary crop produces the same yield, so the income is the same from the main crop. The camelina can then be used for food, feed, fuel, or even as a feedstock for bio-plastics.

Featherstone recommends harvesting the two intercropped seeds together, and then separating the seeds using screens. While Lentz Spelt Farms spends the time and money to clean their camelina for food grade products, Featherstone points out that if farmers want to sell the seed as a biofuel feedstock, they do not have to clean it quite as well.

To contact Rene Featherstone, please call him at 509-345-2483.

Works cited:
Putnam, D.H., J.T. Budin, L.A. Field, & W.M. Breene. 1993. Camelina: A Promising Low-Input Oilseed. p. 314-322. In: J. Janick and J.E. Simon (eds.), New Crops. Wiley, New York.

Zohary, Daniel and Maria Hopf. 1988. Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

For More Information:
Camelina Production in Montana – an 8-page document published by Montana State University in 2008. http://msuextension.org/publications/AgandNaturalResources/MT200701AG.pdf

Camelina sativa, a Montana Omega-3 and Fuel Crop – a 3-page publication from Montana State University, published in 2007: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu07/pdfs/pilgeram129-131.pdf

]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=24 Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:40:07 -0600 Weird Feedstocks for Biodiesel xml-rss2.php?itemid=21 Joe Thompson, Biodiesel Lab Manager, University of Idaho Biodiesel Education Program

Biodiesel is normally made from soybean oil, canola oil, waste oils and greases, or animal fat. However, biodiesel can be made from virtually any oil or fat.

Over the past 24 years, our biodiesel lab has made biodiesel from a variety of unusual feedstocks, including oil from candlenut and croton from Africa, avocado from Mexico, karanja from India, hemp from Canada, algae from California, peanuts from Georgia, and coffee grounds from our local Starbucks.

Probably the strangest feedstock I’ve ever worked with was the fat from black soldier fly larvae. We received the larvae from a man in Washington state who was researching them as a way to produce both fertilizer and biodiesel feedstock. The larvae feed on manure and transform it into fertilizer. As they grow, they accumulate fat in their bodies. We received several pounds of larvae. First we had to dry them in an oven, and then we put them through our mechanical press to extract the fat. It was a gooey, smelly process. It was difficult to separate the oil from the rest of the larvae. Maybe hexane extraction would have been a better option. We found that the fat was very high in free fatty acids—about 80%. The theory is that the larvae produce an enzyme in their bodies to break down the fat and use it for life support.

The photo below shows biodiesel made from coffee oil, hemp oil, karanja oil, and black soldier fly fat.

Why do we bother with all these strange feedstocks? Sometimes we are commissioned to analyze biodiesel from a particular feedstock by a company, but sometimes it’s just plain curiosity. I love to see how different kinds of oils and fats transform into their own unique kind of biodiesel. Some feedstocks produce a really pretty biodiesel: hemp biodiesel is fluorescent green, and karanja biodiesel is bright red. Some smell beautiful: coconut biodiesel is like perfume. Others have interesting properties: castor oil biodiesel is so thick that it won’t pass the viscosity specification for marketable biodiesel, but it could be used after mixing with a lower-viscosity fuel.

We recently got some used coffee grounds from Starbucks and extracted the oil with hexane (it’s about 10% oil), and since I like coffee so much, I thought it was cool to make biodiesel from coffee oil.

Sometimes the co-product is interesting. When we pressed the oil out of Georgia peanuts, the peanut meal came out like little potato chips, except made from peanuts; quite tasty.

The photo below shows biodiesel made from fish oil, algae oil, and coconut oil.

A while ago, a man from Mississippi shipped us a 55-gallon barrel of what he called “pond scum.” I don’t know how he harvested it or how much degradation it went through in shipment, but it had about an 85% free fatty acid content. This is not all bad. In fact it lends itself well to some new processes we are trying at the moment.

If you have an unusual biodiesel feedstock you’d like help with, feel free to contact me at: joet@uidaho.edu.

]]> General xml-rss2.php?itemid=21 Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:25:33 -0600 Consequential Life Cycle Analysis: Use for Warning, Not for Rule-Making xml-rss2.php?itemid=17 Dev Shrestha and Jon Van Gerpen, Bioediesel Education Program, University of Idaho

In a recent Tech Note, we clarified the differences between attributional life cycle analysis (ALCA) and consequential life cycle analysis (CLCA). Briefly, ALCA is a “business-as-usual” scenario analyzing current practices, and does not include indirect effects such as indirect land use change. CLCA analyzes potential changes in a system, and can include indirect effects.

In the Tech Note, we explained why the Environmental Protection Agency came out in 2009 and 2010 with two sets of dramatically different numbers for greenhouse gas emissions of soy biodiesel. In May of 2009, the EPA said that soy biodiesel achieved a 22% reduction of greenhouse gases over petro-diesel. In February of 2010, the EPA raised this number to 57%. The Tech Note points out that changing the assumptions of a consequential life cycle analysis can dramatically change the results.

Some have suggested that inherent uncertainties in consequential life cycle analysis demonstrate its lack of scientific rigor. These people suggest that CLCA should not be used to calculate the effects of indirect land use change.

We think that if it is used carefully, there is a place for CLCA in the process of making decisions about environmental options. However, it is important to emphasize the appropriate use of consequential life cycle analysis. Consequential life cycle analysis should not be used for regulatory purposes, to pass judgment on certain biofuels, or to prevent certain biofuels from being able to participate in government mandates such as the RFS2 program. Instead, CLCA should be used as a warning system.

Currently, many people do not realize how uncertain and variable a consequential life cycle analysis can be. For example, the incorporation of indirect land use change into CLCA typically requires models to forecast economic interactions between countries. These economic interactions are very difficult to estimate. This kind of consequential LCA is similar to such challenging activities as predicting the performance of the stock market.

People may take the numbers from a consequential life cycle analysis as though these numbers were set in stone, and compare numbers from one CLCA to another CLCA without understanding what was involved in deriving these numbers. Then, they use the numbers to pass judgment on a particular fuel, saying that, for example, biodiesel from a particular feedstock is “bad” or “good” based on these numbers.

The main thing to understand is that it may not be appropriate to compare numbers from two consequential life cycle analyses to decide which is “better.” For example, a consequential LCA for soybean biodiesel production is often compared to a consequential LCA for algae biodiesel, which is not yet commercially produced. This is not necessarily a valid comparison, because there are so many unknowns related to the indirect land use changes from soy biodiesel. There are also unknowns associated with the production of algae biodiesel, since no commercial production exists. A consequential life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel is based on a hypothetical production scenario from smaller model plants, theoretical process kinetics, and upscaled laboratory data.

If people conclude from this that algae biodiesel is better, this may not be a valid conclusion, because the CLCA numbers for both soy biodiesel and algae biodiesel are derived very differently based on different sets of assumptions. Instead of comparing two perhaps highly unreliable CLCAs to decide which is “better,” policy makers should use each CLCA separately to assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of each. If an option looks promising based on a CLCA, policy makers might cautiously proceed to support it and re-evaluate the scenario as more reliable numbers are available.

Two CLCAs can be appropriately compared when they both deal with the same system, with a single variable changed. For example, a CLCA for soy biodiesel based on one level of soy yield can be compared to a CLCA for soy biodiesel based on a different soy yield. This kind of comparison can help policy makers understand the potential impact of their decisions.

Just as it may not be appropriate to compare two CLCAs to decide which is better, it also may not be appropriate to compare numbers from an attributional LCA to a consequential LCA. While the EPA included indirect effects in the biofuels life cycle analysis, they did not include indirect effects in the petroleum fuels life cycle analysis. The EPA states that they considered including indirect land use change caused by the development of Canadian tar sands, but decided that this land change would have a “negligible” effect on overall GHG emissions, and therefore did not include it (p. 467, Renewable Fuel Standard Program Regulatory Impact Analysis). The EPA also did not consider other indirect effects such as oil spills. Therefore, an attributional LCA of petroleum-based fuels is being compared to a consequential LCA of biofuels, with potentially misleading results.

The problem is, Congress has mandated that the CLCA for soy biodiesel (and biodiesel from other feedstocks) be compared to the ALCA for petroleum diesel. The EPA is endeavoring to comply with this law. We think the law should be changed to take out the requirement to incorporate indirect land use change into the biofuels analyses. The ALCA for biodiesel should be compared to the ALCA for petroleum diesel.

However, we don’t want to inadvertently harm the world’s forests and grasslands by ignoring potential threats. So, how can we avoid this? A consequential life cycle analysis for a biofuel should be used as a warning about possible outcomes, rather than a tool to kill policies or technologies not favored by the analyst. Results of consequential LCA should always be posed as “if-then” statements. “If we do this, then we need to take some action to ensure that the undesirable consequences don’t happen.”

If consequential LCA were seen as a source of warning signals rather than the final word on the energy and environmental impact of a particular course of action, it would gain more support and credibility. Indirect land use change arguments, which are inherently based on consequential LCA, rather than being seen as obstacles to progress, would be seen as triggers for actions to monitor and protect sensitive lands around the world. It would be more effective to take steps to directly protect the world’s rainforests and other sensitive lands, instead of relying on the elimination of biofuels mandates to somehow indirectly save the forests.
]]> Opinion articles xml-rss2.php?itemid=17 Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:49:08 -0700 Forget Generational Biofuels xml-rss2.php?itemid=12 Jon Van Gerpen, Project Director, Biodiesel Education Program, University of Idaho

It has become popular lately to refer to biofuels as "first generation," "second generation," "third generation" and so on. First generation biofuels consist of ethanol from sugar or starch (such as from corn) and biodiesel from animal fats and vegetable oils. Second generation biofuels are those produced from ligno-cellulosic materials such as switchgrass or wood chips. At this point the definitions get a little less well defined, but third generation is usually defined as fuels from algae, and fourth generation status is claimed by every new technology seeking to promote itself as the next big thing.

The term "generation" carries a connotation of a sequence of time. It implies that higher generation fuels are superior to lower generation fuels and will replace them over time. First generation fuels are criticized for competing with food, for negative land use changes, for taking too much energy to produce, and for only being economically viable with government subsidies. Higher generation fuels are supposed to be free of these disadvantages and will provide greater supplies of low-cost fuel while helping to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, this understanding of the development of biofuels is based on false assumptions and leads to incorrect conclusions.

A better model for how the various biofuel options should be compared can be drawn from the petroleum industry and the manner in which petroleum is extracted. In a new oil field, about 5 to 15% of the petroleum rises to the surface under its own pressure and is known as primary recovery.

The amount of oil that can be produced by primary recovery is limited, so the desire for more petroleum leads to the implementation of more expensive and more technically sophisticated techniques such as water or CO2 injection to raise the pressure of the petroleum so it can be removed. These techniques are known as secondary recovery, and they allow extraction of an additional 30 to 50% of the oil.

The desire for even more extraction leads to tertiary recovery techniques such as steam injection that are based on lowering the viscosity of the petroleum so it can flow more easily toward the well.

The lesson to be learned from the petroleum model is that the desire to increase the supply of the product is met by introducing more expensive and more sophisticated technology.

In the same manner, biofuels should be categorized as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary biofuels are those which are least expensive and which require the least technology to produce. These are the low-hanging fruit, and include sugar and starch-based ethanol and biodiesel. Although requiring subsidies to compete with petroleum (which is itself subsidized, of course), these fuels have already achieved commercial status and market acceptance.

Ultimately, it should be expected that their success will cause the price of corn and soybean oil to increase to the point where additional production of the primary biofuel is not economically viable. To further displace petroleum with additional biofuel will require a move to secondary biofuels. These fuels will be more difficult to produce and more expensive. Cellulosic ethanol is likely to be the first fuel to enter the marketplace in serious volumes using straw or corn cobs/stover as feedstock. Although the feedstock is cheaper than corn, the processing is much more extensive, making cellulosic ethanol more expensive. If this were not the case, then this approach would already be the primary source for biofuel and corn would return to its traditional use as food for cattle, hogs and chickens.

Tertiary biofuels from algae will also be needed if we are to replace a major fraction of our current petroleum consumption. These fuels are even more expensive and involve even more difficult technical problems.

What we can learn from this model is that secondary and tertiary biofuels do not replace primary Biofuels—they supplement those fuels. Primary oil extraction is always preferred, but meeting the demand for petroleum requires supplemental oil from secondary and tertiary recovery. Primary biofuels will always be around and they will become increasingly profitable as higher fuel prices draw secondary and tertiary fuels into the market.

A criticism of primary biofuels is that the increase in demand for feedstocks causes an increase in food prices and land use changes. These impacts have been exaggerated in many cases or do not recognize positive benefits such as rural revitalization and higher income for farmers. It should be recognized that secondary and tertiary biofuels will be subject to these same criticisms if they achieve any level of success. Growing switchgrass to produce ethanol will be criticized for displacing food crops and requiring fertilizer. Gathering straw and stover will lower soil quality. Growing camelina on rangeland and algae in the desert will destroy delicate eco-systems. Biofuels do not come without drawbacks.

As a society, we have to make choices about how we want to allocate the costs of different fuel options. It seems clear we have opted to maintain our mobility. Now the question is whether the economic, environmental and societal costs of biofuels are sufficiently below those of petroleum to justify continued support.
]]> Opinion articles xml-rss2.php?itemid=12 Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:57:03 -0600