From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Paul Kolk
Now where have we heard this before????
The UK government is investigating a fast-growing “green fuel” called HVO diesel amid claims of significant fraud, the BBC has learned.
HVO is increasingly popular as a transport fuel and for powering music festivals and its backers say it can curb carbon emissions by up to 90% as it can be made from waste materials like used cooking oil.
But industry whistleblowers told the BBC they believe large amounts of these materials are not waste but instead are virgin palm oil, which is being fraudulently relabelled.
And data analysed by the BBC and shared with the UK’s Department for Transport casts further doubt on one of the key ingredients in HVO, a material called palm sludge waste.
Europe used more of this waste in HVO and other biofuels in 2023 than it is thought possible for the world to produce.
Full story here.
Years ago, some bright sparks decided that using palm oil to produce biodiesel would be good for the planet, as it would avoid the need for carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
We have since found out about the environmental catastrophe that resulted.
Now the plot thickens. Supposedly HVO could be made using the waste oil, but (surprise, surprise) crooked operators are seemingly using virgin palm oil instead!
Why anybody should be surprised by this is amazing. If you create a subsidised, artificial market for something, people will cheat.
It has happened with wood pellets for biomass, and it has also happened with the carbon offset market.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
The law of unintended consequences, which nevertheless should have been foreseen, at work.
When George W decided to convert large quantities of corn to ethanol it caused a shock on the world grain markets because of a sudden drop in supply. The price increase was not really felt in the US or Europe but the more so in northern Africa which was and still is totally dependent on imports to feed it population. The price shock sent the cost of living through the roof and triggered what we now call the ‘Arab Spring’ uprising, which turned out to be more a dark bleak winter than a spring. It caused a mass migration of desperate people to Europe and endless civil wars. All because some clever clogs thought making ethanol was a good idea to save the planet.
No, not unintended consequences but atticman’s first law in operation: government subsidies attract chancers like flies to a honeypot.
re: “When George W decided to convert large quantities of corn to ethanol”
I think the desire at some point was to do methanol or involve same, but a failed step resulted in this side step to using crops grown for (to male) ethanol instead …
Anybody recall the details on the original plan? This goes back +20 years now …
FROM the deep memory dept –
“DOE’s Dismal Record on Cellulosic Ethanol Production”
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/biofuel/does-dismal-record-on-cellulosic-ethanol-production/
In 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced it would spend up to $385 million over four years on six biorefinery projects to make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012.
—-
Making Gasoline With Biomass
https://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/making-gasoline-with-biomass/
… this is what CORE BioFuel has set out to do since it was founded in 2008.
The company’s mission is to commercialize its biomass-to-gasoline process, a patent-pending variant of ExxonMobil’s methanol-to-gasoline (MTG). CORE BioFuel says it has modified and improved the process because it has bypassed the production of methanol to produce engine-ready Green Gasoline.
Fully 40% of our corn crop goes to ethanol production, 18 billion gallons/yr.
One of the unforeseen consequences of this is massive increase in land value in Iowa. In the ’80’s it was something like $3000/acre representative of what the value of crops were that could be grown on that land. But with the advent of EtOH plants, demand and value of corn increased and so did profits for farmers. This drove them to purchase more land as the alternative was to pay taxes on the profits. Thus, land prices skyrocketed reaching at one point $23,000/acre. Farmers got rich when they cashed out on this valuable land.
re: “Fully 40% of our corn crop goes to ethanol production, 18 billion gallons/yr.”
It wasn’t supposed to work that way. No one remembers that. No one has a memory any more …
The (biofuels industry) have taken the easy way out having gotten away from promising to deliver on Cellulosic ethanol production.
Cellulosic ethanol – Cellulosic ethanol is ethanol produced from cellulose rather than from the plant’s seeds or fruit. It can be produced from grasses, wood, algae, or other plants. It is generally discussed for use as a biofuel. The carbon dioxide that plants absorb as they grow offsets some of the carbon dioxide emitted when ethanol made from them is burned, so cellulosic ethanol fuel has the potential to have a lower carbon footprint than fossil fuels.
Cellulosic Ethanol: Fuel Of The Future?Date: March 1, 2007
Summary: In his 2007 State of the Union address, President Bush outlined his plan to reduce the nation’s dependency on foreign oil by requiring the production of 35 billion gallons a year of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017. One way to reach this goal is offered by Chris Somerville, professor of biological sciences at Stanford University and director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Plant Biology, who advocates increasing the production of cellulosic ethanol.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218140448.htm
“…it can curb carbon emissions by up to 90% as it can be made from waste materials like used cooking oil.”
This is no better than the ‘burning wood is carbon neutral‘ or whatever they claimed it was at the time. Diesel fuel generally goes from C10 up to C22, this so-called green fuel must contain at least C10…
Introduction to Green Diesel
“Green diesel, also known as bio-hydrogenated diesel, contains a saturated hydrocarbon chain comprising of approximately 15-18 carbon atoms”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-19-2235-0_1
Therefore, when you burn green fuel the emissions result is just the same. The only difference is some waste was [allegedly] used instead of oil from the ground. But I doubt there’s enough waste to power very much apart from bourgeois boutique concert events etc.
If there is one true constant in matters climate, it’s the opportunities to scam and defraud.
Hear, hear!
Used cooking oil is not going to waste. there is a thriving market for it. I believe most of it is already being burned to produce energy.
CO2 is CO2 and the theoretical “Global Warming” effect of CO2 is the same if it comes from palm oil or petroleum.
If I buy ten or 20 acres of land and plant it with Maple trees, how many miles can I drive my carbon powered Chevy without contributing to “global warming”?
Not really, the palm oil will grow back, absorbing CO2 in the process, the petroleum won’t.
Whether using palm oil is a good idea is another matter.
Lots of palms being greased. !!
Ouch!
OMG, sacrificing VIRGIN palm oil to save the planet! 🙂
Ouch, again!
Humor – a difficult concept
— Lt. Saavik
Lefties think non lefties are humorless.
What gave that away?
LOL
re: “It has happened with wood pellets for biomass”
ANYONE remember the experiment in Jr High titled “Distillation of Wood” performed using a test tube, a Bunsen burner and a method to collect and condense the resulting gas that evolved?
The result was some of the vilest smelling liquid I ever had the chance to sample … BURNING said wood sample would have evolved the SAME gases FREELY into the atmosphere.
Who ever thought burning wood was a GOOD idea anyway?
Who ever thought burning wood was a GOOD idea anyway?
A bunch of people that wanted to keep warm ?
😉
re: “A bunch of people that wanted to keep warm ?”
Stew-pid (and Doh! as well.)
You’re not doing this site any favors with such misplaced mirth when the question, the observation was posed in earnest hoping to start dialog. A downvote has been cast on your post as a result.
Maybe its that none of you performed the “Distillation of Wood” experiment previously? IDK, but my experience today on the site has not been a rewarding one, my effort has been wasted, and NO ONE has learned anything, a net negative all the way ’round.
a little humor should be encouraged…and should be expected when you end with such an open ended Question…Whoever thought burning wood was a good idea anyway?….i read the closing and first thought was…man burned wood for heat from as far back as they found fire…
consider adding to your question… burning wood for capturing the gases was a good idea anyway?….
lighten up and continue the dialog with your good points of reality…
Those gases are burned when the wood is burned.
They aren’t being released into the atmosphere.
Not all ‘released’ components of [fire] wood (in a stove for example) are burned, you’re assuming 100% complete combustion ALONG WITH any produced gases; I find your assertion delinquent, lacking merit and incomplete. Also you still don’t account for other trace minerals present in wood itself, some of which is released up the smoke stack also into the atmosphere [emphasis added here].
MarkWhisky, I don’t know why you bothered to respond; you contributed nothing to this aspect of the discussion here, totally disregarded the composition of wood smoke, and provided no basis for your claim. For this demonstrated lack of performance a downvote has been cast.
Cheaters cheat as liars lie, why would anyone be surprised?
Saw this recent piece on “renewable fuel” featuring a large oil refinery in Great Falls Montana.
Not a casual project IMO.
https://www.themontanaquarterly.com/features/
I’d rather they would go with the “green crude algae’ and clean up the nutrient load
getting dumped into the rivers. The toxic algae blooms seem to be happening
every summer and getting worse.
Breeding or engineering algae for fuel would almost certainly make heartier, faster growing algae, and that would logically increase algae blooms. More algae plantations, stronger algae plants, more algal escapees.
It was a genetically modified strain that was said to mimic crude oil, Sapphire Energy
was the company behind the project. They flew a jetliner around the country on
fuel made from algae.
https://sustainableamerica.org/blog/green-crude-farm/
There was an energy shortage back around the subprime mortgage
crash around 08’ish. Fracking was the innovation that got the nod. There
was a number of different biofuels such as grain oils ect. I like the
algae for a couple of reasons #1 is it can be grown on sewage waste
water..
… backers say it can curb carbon emissions by up to 90% as it can be made from waste materials like used cooking oil.
Because we all know that burning used cooking oil doesn’t add to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder where it goes …
I think cooking oil burners are expecting an equal or greater plant-growth-based removal of C02 from the air for the next batch of oil. Others here have pointed out that the “waste oil” was not being wasted so no gains from this version of the idea unless a market grows around food grown for use as machine fuel.
Biofuels and carbon offsets are the equivalent of indulgences. The basic scam just has acquired more props in 500 years.
Ahhhh . . . but the real question should be does “green fuel” contain trace amounts of peanut oil? . . . you know, with some humans—especially young children— being susceptible to going into anaphylactic shock over exposure to such. 🤪
Neste sources FOG (Fats, Oils & Greases) from multiple places for their Singapore HVO plant. They are probably one of the honest producers as California requires strict control of feedstocks. And Neste sends most of their fuel to CA to receive the Low Carbon Fuel Standard credits which are based on the Carbon Intensity of the fuel produced. Used Cooking Oil and Animal Fats are the lowest CI feedstocks whereas virgin soy oil and other seed oils have much higher CI. Palm Oils from new growth plantations have a CI greater than fossil fuels so should not be used to produce “Renewable Diesel”.
But a vast amount of FOG in the form of UCO (supposedly) now comes from China, and guess what, it may not be UCO or may be once through cooking oil as the value of UCO is sometimes greater than virgin cooking oil. What a surprise! Someone isn’t playing the game correctly.
The EPA which controls the Renewable Fuel Standard credits has requirement for source control documentation to avoid fraud, but one wonders how good the Chinese documentation is.
I have no issues with using what is otherwise waste to produce fuels, but this always results in some people gaming the system for their own profit.
Renewability and Environmentalism are always closely accompanied by fraud.