Why go bio anyway? For more than half century cheap oil has stomped, (read: smothered) competing technologies including the environmentally contentious campaigns to drive alternative energies. Let’s face it; no one wants to save the planet at five dollars a gallon. Competing technologies boast cleaner burning fuels with lower emissions, the catch, stiffer consumables and specialty hardware. Oil conglomerates wallow in the margins as we petal SUV’s to Middle America. But as gas prices continue to soar, so does the emergence of developing technologies. Oil has a trajectory; its future can only go up as the underground pools of black goo are systematically sopped up by thirsty countries. Demand in America doubles every few years as China finds ways to sell us new cars for under a thousand U.S. dollars. Indian, Chinese and German demand has also put a terrible strain on the once seemingly infinite resource. The tables of supply and demand have turned on us. Oil fat cats are coasting off our dependency using technologies founded in the early 90’s to bring crude to the surface for little over four dollars a barrel. They are not about to roll over and let some pesky tree-hugging technology take the reins to the biggest golden goose there is. They need to provide some let off in order to retain global clients, namely us. From super deep offshore drilling and tar sands to oil shale extraction, they will stop at nothing to feed our addiction. These are the technologies in their arsenal, each promising to lighten the burden of fifty-five dollar fill-ups in say, seven to ten years. Are you kidding? Seven to ten years of listening to wry gas jokes on the Late Night Show, (thank God the writers are back)? Oil moguls are interested, but not in an overwhelming hurry to drop hundred million dollar checks on streamlining technologies when we are still interested in driving tanks to drop off the kids. Astronomical projections and daunting upwards flux may actually have a positive effect on our pocketbook. Of recent years we have seen a boom in alternative fuel technologies; ethanol, natural gas, coal to liquid and hydrogen, to name a few. But we need something now, not an estimate, not a science project, something that will offer a viable alternative to petro (or petroleum based) fuels, without chocking up the cash for a hybrid. Enter the soybean.
Let’s examine the prospect of soybean biodiesel as a potential oil killer. Many of the benefits of biodiesel, as an eco-friendly fuel source, are well known. Biodiesel can mean the substantial reduction of toxic emissions such as hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfates and particulate matter, normally associated with traditional petrodiesels. The adverse effects on our environment are most notably acid rain, hazardous fumes, accumulation of smog, and ozone depletion. In a quote from the National Biodiesel Board, “It [biodiesel] is less toxic than table salt and biodegrades as fast as sugar.” Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to comply with the strenuous standards of the Clean Air Act (1990) established in an effort to raise awareness of the growing air quality crisis –sounds like a plug eh?
Plants apply photosynthesis to convert solar energy into a chemical energy. This is the main component stored by the production of biodiesel. The chemical energy is then released as it is burned, hence the necessary reaction to propulsion. So of all things, why the soybean? Soybeans in themselves are not a very efficient producer of biodiesel, yielding only 40 to 50 U.S. gallons per acre. However, they are widely used in the food industry making them readily available and accessible. In addition, the cost of cultivation to methylester content is generally acceptable. The more methanol forming methylester is present in a substrate, the higher the reaction levels are. Many plants such as rapeseed, mustard, jatropha and palm oil have higher methyester content boosting efficiency to upwards of 650 U.S. gallons per acre. However, the cost of cultivating and harvesting as well as the turnaround of sustained renewability must be taken into consideration when choosing a potential renewable resource. All in all soybeans offer a suitable blend of natural methyesters and ethyesters that are far superior to other potential candidates.
Of the many challenges presented to the soybean on its conquest, there are three that stand apart from the rest. The first is the effects of cold temperatures on biodiesel. As temperatures drop below 40 degrees Fahrenheit the fuel begins to gel. Currently there is no additive on the market that has been able to correct this issue. Blends, such as with kerosene or traditional petrodiesel, have been better able to withstand this cold weather problem.
The second hurdle is biodiesel’s great affinity for water, in other words, it wants to bond with water. Any water not absorbed or displaced during the process of refining is bonded back to the construct. The same is true for holding tank condensation and atmospheric moisture. An imbalance of water means a reduction in the heat of combustion and therefore harder starts, more smoke, and overall less power. Water can cause the deterioration of vital engine components such as pumps and fuel lines while corroding seals and injectors. In addition, water provides an environment for spawning microbe colonies to take root. They feed on the nutrients in the biodiesel and severely gum up filters and hoses leading to expensive engine treatments.
The third, and perhaps most significant, problem is the encompassing effect on the environment. After all is said and done the eco advocates, or perhaps more fittingly soybean investors, have led us to believe that the driving force behind the development of biodiesel is the supposed urgency to correct the planet before it’s too late. Soybean biodiesel may burn far cleaner than petrodiesel but at what cost? According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 23 million additional gallons of pesticide would be leached into the ground and 416 million gallons of fresh water would be needed. Production of sufficient supplies of biodiesel to fuel America alone would require the repeated cultivation of 6,000,000 acres of land. Among the argument is the emphasis on our liberation from the dependency on foreigners, but wait a moment, just who will be harvesting the soybeans again? The unfortunate conclusion is that soybean biodiesel may be better suited to supplement the market for bio/petro blends or as an additive to reduce toxic emissions than the stone that kills Goliath. Even if we were able to sustain it, is it acceptable to burn food while approximately 852 million people starve? Unless the cost of soybeans plummets dramatically we will have to look elsewhere for a solution to our pain at the pump.