Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

'Oh, crap ...' says the industrial agrodiesel investor

Small protest may be start of agrodiesel's biggest nightmare

Posted by biodiversivist (Guest Contributor) at 10:26 AM on 29 Aug 2007

Read more about: agriculture | biofuels | politics

A link to John Cook's Venture Blog in the Seattle P-I via a post by Glenn Hurowitz brought my attention to a guy named Duff Badgley (not to be confused with Duffman or Ed Begley). Duff is an old-school, grassroots, car-free, long-haired, bleeding-heart, dirty hippie environmentalist. His protests may very well turn out to be Imperium's worst nightmare. From an article about the filing of Imperium Renewables' IPO (initial public offering) where they must, by law, warn potential investors of known potential risks:

In its filing, the company said that palm oil is the cheapest feedstock available and noted that shifting public opinion about the use of palm oil could hurt its business.

"Unfavorable public opinions concerning the use of palm oil, soybeans and other feedstock, or negative publicity arising from such use, could reduce the global supply of such feedstock, increase our production costs and reduce the global demand for biodiesel, any of which could harm our business and adversely affect our financial condition," the company wrote.

An all-important goal in any power struggle is to gain and then hold the moral high ground.

Bush's handlers have gained much of the a high ground in the ethanol debate by planting the image of small farmers finally being able to feed their starving families while simultaneously sticking it to "turrists." But when your feedstock comes from other countries, that strategy won't work. The industrial agrodiesel industry could promote how they are creating not only domestic jobs at their facilities, but also jobs for poor people abroad. Anticipating this, I would suggest that those domestic jobs are essentially welfare from the dollar-a-gallon government subsidy, paid for by taxes using money borrowed from China. In addition, this article in Utne (via Karen Orr) suggests that the overseas jobs issue may also come at a price:

Rural eastern Paraguay was once flush with jungles, small farms, schools, and wildlife. Now it is a sea of soybeans. The families, trees, and birds are gone. The schools are empty. The air is filled with the toxic stench of pesticides.

To date they have been doing their share of infighting over profits. Dr. Dan (Freeman) quoted in the Seattle Weekly:

If you're not doing it (producing biodiesel) sustainably, you're doing it irresponsibly. And that will damage both the industry and the environment.

Some more interesting quotes from that article:

Asked if he cares what kind of oil the fuel is made from -- soy? canola? palm? -- Chamberlin is ambivalent. "It's doesn't matter as long as it's biodiesel," he says.

"Fuck yeah, it matters," counters Nico Juarez, as he fills up his Chevy van with biodiesel across town at Laurelhurst Oil. "If it was my way, it would be all dumpster oil. You can't get any more local, more recyclable than that."

Mr. Chamberlin sounds like one of these quasi-religious biodiesel enthusiasts I keep talking about.

Dan Freeman is founder of Dr. Dan's biodiesel, and he was the first guy to jump on the bandwagon back in the days when our local politicians were touting how it was going to be made by Washington State farmers. I once rode my bike past his original pump in Ballard where I found a guy filling up his Volvo. I had asked him about the brown smoke pouring from his exhaust and he told me, "Well, at least it's carbon neutral and, like, totally non-toxic."

Dan has since expanded his operation. The picture at the top of this post was taken at a local coffee shop where he has placed another self-serve biodiesel filling station. This device was custom built and must have cost a small fortune, suggesting that Dan has taken on debt in an attempt to compete with the big boys. The problem is that Dan's fuels are no more environmentally friendly than the big boys' are -- maybe even less so, if the big boys are presently using canola from Canada (three times more efficient) instead of soy from the Midwest or God-knows-where. What Dan needs to do is find a source of recycled grease. This would give him a huge advantage, regardless of cost. The market for that has also probably gone ballistic. I fear it is only a matter of time before the small guys are all bought up for chump change (a million here, a million there).

I would not lose much sleep over all of this if I were one of the profiteers. Every politician in the country, from the federal level to the local, is backing this industry with billions. In fact, one of the bees in Duff's bonnet was the recent decision to invest $10 million of Seattle's pension fund, not in biodiesel in general, but in Imperium specifically:

After the policy change, the city's retirement system invested $10 million in Imperium Renewables Inc., a private biodiesel startup ... the retirement system could hit a home run by getting a big return on its money.

...

Nonetheless, the appearances are unsettling. Imperium is a Seattle-based company in the alternative energy field, a darling industry of the moment. We wish Imperium well, but we also wonder: Why is a biodiesel startup more suitable for $10 million in pensioners' money than an established company in a more mature industry?

Obviously, the city isn't doing enough by buying up the fuel at whatever cost to put in their buses. You really should take the time to click on this video link from a couple of years ago when the game plan was to boost our local economy by growing our own biofuel. In the video, Ron Sims, a local politician who is honest, dedicated, and as well intentioned as they come, says: "No need to import oil, our supply can be homegrown as oil seed crops right here in Washington State (applause) as we can tell anybody, there is no reason not to use biofuel, no reason."

And speaking of worst nightmares, this link, titled "Renewable Diesel: Biodiesel's Nightmare," from GreyFlcn suggests why this investment may bomb big time, becoming yet another poster child for why government needs to get out of the business of picking winners for us:

With the exception of small biodiesel producers using local and distributed biodiesel feedstocks such as waste vegetable oil from restaurants, I expect that petroleum refineries will end up having an economic advantage making renewable diesel in comparison to conventional biodiesel producers. This means that commodity oils, and fats available in large enough quantities to interest refineries will be bid up in price to a point where less efficient biodiesel producers [like Imperium] will be unable to operate profitably.

All of this may happen remarkably quickly as well. ConocoPhillips and Tyson say that their deal could ramp up to 175 million gallons by 2009, or about 10% of the United States' 2006 biodiesel production. How soon will refineries be competing directly with biodiesel producers for soy and other vegetable oils?

While we can only speculate about the relative economics of renewable diesel and biodiesel, having a new competitor cannot be good for the biodiesel industry. Biodiesel producers might be sustained by federal biodiesel tax credits, but depending on government subsidies is not a sustainable business model, especially when you are competing with an industry with a long track record of successful lobbying.

The likely winners I see are the suppliers of feedstock. When the deal was announced, a Tyson spokesman said he expected the deal to increase annual earnings by between $.04 and $.16 per share [in other words, higher food prices].

Imperium is rapidly heading for that space between a rock and a hard place. Not only are they buying next to none of their feedstock from Washington State, they are not even buying it from American farmers. At least they're still getting it from the same continent (canola in Canada). Feedstock has become hard to find, and the result is rising costs. That's called economics 101, which is a class our politicians (federal and local) have apparently never taken.

Eventually, they will be forced to take shiploads of soy oil from places like South America, or palm from Indonesia, and when that happens the shit will really hit the fan -- especially if they get caught trying to unload those tankers in the middle of the night.

One early move to gain the high ground by Imperium is to invest in research into other feedstocks: (algae, for example). It will be years, possibly decades, before algae will ever (if ever) be commercially produced, so it really is not an answer to their rapidly growing feedstock dilemma; but in the meantime, it will make good PR to battle those damned grassroots hippies.

I don't think Seattle's politicians, like most around the world, are up to the challenge being presented by peak oil and global warming. The existing political system does not have an advisory system capable of feeding the politicians the data they need to make wise decisions. They obviously are not aware of the complexities. Their existing advisers (assuming they have any) are to date doing a really poor job. If the article in Science showing agrofuels are worse than petroleum has any validity, this agrofuel monster is going to rapidly eat what is left of our biodiversity carbon sinks -- making even coal look tame.

On one hand it seems unlikely that Duff's efforts will make a dent against this kind of money and power, but then again, why has Imperium gone from publicly stating that they will use 30 percent palm, to using 20 percent palm, to using "presently" only Canadian canola, if this rag-tag band of grassroots environmentalist doesn't have them worried?

Don't make too much of IPO disclosures

Legally, a company soliciting a public investment has a very strong legal incentive to disclose every last risk out there, no matter how minor to avoid future frivolous lawsuits (e.g., "we warned you that was a possible risk").  The standard advice to companies preparing those forms is therefore to identify every possible risk, up to and including the risk that the CEO could be struck by a stray meteorite on the way to work.

Bottom line is that I would not infer anything the probability that Imperium puts on that particular risk just because they disclosed it as a risk.

Apparently Germany

Apparently the German AgroDiesel market is soon going to crash.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsess ...

But there's 78% Less CO2

At least according to the prominent flash cartoon on the website of Propel Biofuels which plans to sell the fuel supplied by Imperium Renewables according to this article Should It Matter Where Your Biodiesel Comes From? from the Seattle Weekly.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
NonprofitWatch,

From this post:

The last and biggest to fall was its carbon neutrality. This fuel has gone from being touted as carbon neutral, to adding 22 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere for every 100 pounds released at the tail pipe (78%, according to the Department of Agriculture report with the picture of a bus with a soybean motif painted on it), to adding 59 pounds of CO2 for every 100 pounds released (41% if you accept the highly biodiesel-positive study from the University of Minnesota), and finally to being far worse than fossil fuels in the latest peer reviewed study, found in Science.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
"Hardcore [enviros not] pragmatic"

The Seattle Weekly article Should It Matter Where Your Biodiesel Comes From? includes the below from the founder of Propel Biofuels, a company which will be selling the fuel from Imperium Renewables.


For his part, Propel's Elam, who grew up in Minnesota, says he's been environmentally active since he was a kid, but adds that he's become isolated over the years from "utopian hardcore" environmentalists.

"The hardcore environmental movement has become so disconnected from pragmatic solutions," says Elam. "They do nothing but yell from their ivory tower, which allows big oil to keep the status quo. We want the most local, sustainable biodiesel that meets our cost and quality standards. But you have to put one foot in front of the other and understand it's one step at a time to get there. We must understand it will be a dirty, clumsy process to make change."

This reminds me of someone's comment that


Progressive environmentalism embodies the reality that we don't have to pit the environment vs. economics, and we can in fact use economic thinking and mechanisms to improve environmental policy."
From this link


bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
OMG IT NOT BAD

But there's 78% Less CO2

That all depends HEAVILY on what assumptions you make.
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png

Which doesn't even get in to the nasty deforrestation issues with biodiesel from Soy or Palm Oil.
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil

Glad you brought that up, Bernardo

This is an example of planting negative images in the media in an attempt to gain the moral high ground. You don't find it humorous how he labels the likes of me, or anyone critical of his income source as "Utopian hardcore environmentalists"?

A few years ago the talking points included:

  1. use of local feedstocks.
  2. soy oil is a waste product.
  3. soy oil does not compete with food.
  4. soy oil will enhance energy independence
  5. soy oil is carbon nuetral, 78% carbon nuetral, 41%.

However, today we know

  1. local has little to do with it
  2. soy oil is a valuable food commodity
  3. food prices are expected to rise 7% this year
  4. if your oil comes from all over the world, you are not getting more energy independent
  5. it is worse than fossil fuels

The guy getting rich selling agrodiesel ;p paints a negative picture of his opponents, not as people who have nothing to gain financially with their critiques (backed by science), who just want to save the planet's biodiversity for future generations, but as HARD CORE ENVIORS ...da,da,daaaa. You know the type, never happy, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, perfection the enemy of progress blah, blah, blah, "disconnected from pragmatic solutions" like hybrid electric bikes and high mileage cars.

They do nothing but yell from their ivory tower, which allows big oil to keep the status quo

Right after calling us Utopian hardcore enviros, he paints a contradicting image of snooty, know nothing academic types. So, which is it? All bases are now covered for those who "believe" in biodiesel.

Note how he pulls out the big oil status quo card. Not only will big oil be making all our agrofuel soon, replacing one percent of our liquid fuel use with biodiesel won't help. These "new" talking points have all been just as carefully crafted as the old ones.

We want the most local, sustainable biodiesel that meets our cost and quality standards

...he says as he imports 99% of his feedstock from thousands of miles away made from unsustainable industrial crops growing where just a few short years ago there were carbon sinks on conservation reserve land or cerrado grassland.

Anyone would have to have to have a set of blinders on to buy what he said. Critique of biofuels is coming from all corners now: engineers, scientists, activists. From my perspective most biodiesel enthusiasts look like hard core enviros who just happen to be badly misinformed by the lay media.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Perhaps an Op-Ed is in order

Just to clarify, I was merely drawing attention to the propaganda and rhetoric of others; I didn't mean to ascribe those views to myself.

Biodiversivist, I appreciate your critique of the CEO's rhetoric.

Perhaps you, maybe along with GreyFlcn, might want to compose an op-ed to submit to the Seattle media.  Maybe start with the biggest most mainstream newspaper and see if they bite.

Duff Badgley seems to have been doing good work on the front line, but perhaps some assistance from others could be of help to him.  Also, he seems to have set an example that others should see about replicating in their own localities, especially as cities move to pass laws calling for the purchase of "biofuel".

To me, folks like Duff are the ones who truly need financial support for their grassroots work as opposed to many of the big mainstream enviros, which can always call up one of the billionaires with which they're cozy.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

PS

Perhaps Grist could do a profile of Duff Badgley or "a week in the life of activist" features?

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
So what's left?

Coal... obviously bad.

Oil... obviously bad.

Natural Gas... obviously bad.

Photovoltaics... bad... envision scaled-up zinc mines (for cadmium and indium) , iron mines (for more indium), mineral extraction operations, processing facilities, organic solvents, the waste released into the air and water, abuse of third-world countries, damage to natural habitat, damage to natural water tables, cost of recycling damaged or old systems, health problems, et cetera that would inevitably happen if PV approached replacing fossil fuel.

Fission... bad.

Fusion... not ready for prime time even though a ton of money has been invested in it, probably hazardous in some way we've not anticpated but will learn about too late.

Biofuel... bad... destruction of natural habitat, starving children, release of other greenhouse gases, everyone who grows the stuff dumps 10x more fertilizer on their fields than they have to, temptation to use genetic tampering to improve efficiency.

Wind... bad... intermittent, have to make the generators out of something that gets extracted from the ground, no one wants to look at them, ugly as a strip mall, bird killers.

Waves... threat to ocean life.

[Hey... do wind and wave powered generators leak fluids like other mechanical devices?]

Geothermal... not enough capacity, results in release of toxic gases from the ground, can permit hazardous chemicals to enter ground water.

Hydroelectric... damages natural habitats, creates flood hazards, displaces communities..

Hydrogen... has to come from something already mentioned, so not really alternative energy.

Perpetual Motion Machine... discredited following 1950s boom.

Pixie Dust... imaginary.

You left out

You left out one of the more obvious ones.
Solar Thermal.

That and Wind isn't that bad if you do it on a large scale with some storage.  The Bird issue is primarily with smaller turbines that have faster moving blades.  Much of it could actually be made from carbon fibre if we ever were hard up on materials.

Glad you brought that up, Wiscidea

You simply described a list of downsides. All ideas have downsides. You have to compare the downsides to the upsides. If the negatives outweigh the positives, toss it from the solution set. Of course, I made it sound a lot simpler than it actually is.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
downsides

My experience visiting the Grist website suggests that a majority of environmentalists tend to focus on the downside pretty much all of the time. Perhaps I'm subconciously just trying to fit in.

It seems almost every proposal is quickly shot down as...

not practical,
not ready for prime time,
full of potential for unintended consequences,
not sufficiently natural,
a new incarnation of old thinking,
a potential source of some new pollutant,
raises the cost of something else people need,
lowers the cost of something else people selling,
is controlled by someone we dislike,
furthers corporate domination,
imposes Western culture on developing nations,
encourage some other bad behavior,
creates dependence on some other natural resource,
or does not solve the problem 100%.

Perhaps, someday, a majority of environmentalists will develop truly open minds and discuss, based on accurate information, both the positives and negatives of various ideas for protecting and restoring biodiversity and natural habitats.

Yes, biodiversivist, you make it sound a lot simpler than it is.

Well there is the simple one

Well there is the most simple/effective approach.
Energy Efficiency.

Thats largely why I see BioFuels as a big loser.

Since what we really should be doing is putting that focus/money/attention into changing our cars.

__

It's kind of like someone all hyped about installing a hyper-expensive solar panels.

And yet their washer and refrigerator is using efficiency ratings from the 1970s.

__

We need to do demand side management, before we do supply side management.

GreyFlcn

I have to agree with you 100% regarding energy efficiency.

Please provide an opinion on the following matter...

There appear to be two extreme groups engaged in battle. On the one hand, there are the "environmentalists" who focus on our car culture as a major problem. Get rid of the cars and we get rid of much pollution. This totally disregards how deeply rooted personal transportation is, how much we rely on it, and how much people value it. On the other hand, there are the "you can have my SUV when you can pry it from my cold dead hands" people who live in a fantasy world of infinite fuel and infinite space to dump the waste products of their life-style.

Is there a happy medium? Will "environmentalists" ever find a way to accept automobiles? Or do they really just want them eliminated, regardless of how energy-efficient someone might make them? Can someone create an attractive and efficient car that, say, current SUV drivers will really want? Is it physically possible to build an efficient, safe, and attractive personal automobile? Was the electric Saturn an impractical fantasy or was it truly viable?

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks