Article on Alternative Fuels (Bio-diesel mentioned)

Life without Oil
Goes over the pros and cons of alternative sources and starts with bio-diesel.

Yup,

Archer Daniel Midlands Incorporated owns about 80+% of all the soy oil and about 35+% of all the ethanol.

How many are purchasing shares of ADM now?

Talk about BIG OIL........

Look at the BIG BEAN!!!

What SkyPup is saying makes sense (it was bound to happen eventually ). Investing in a huge food and energy supplier could be a gold mine, or at least more profitable than most of the other companies whose stock we own.
I am preparing for the worst-I have guns and ammuntion and gas cans in my TDI. Bulletproof glass and door armor next.
Mad Max MPG is on the warpath!

LOL

ADM stock has been pretty stagnant, the dividend is not too bad though.

For the company that supplies almost all the soy-based Biodiesel in North America and 2/3s of the RME to the European biodiesel fuel market, you'd think they be doing better than they are.

Here is the largest Biodiesel producer in North America and Europe and they don't look very good. Neither does Cargill, their main competitor for the biodiesel market.

The marketing hype that they put out do does seem to catch a few though.

Just some points from the article....

After all, largely because of the popularity of gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, the average fuel economy of the 2003 fleet of cars sank 6 percent below the peak set 15 years ago.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Truly pathetic. Despite modern engines and drivetrains, average fuel efficiency is less than 15 years ago. Why? Because people think they need a 6,000 lb tank to drive to work in. Pathetic. Perhaps they think that some of that 6,000 lb might somehow get into their penis and make it bigger?

In his so-called FreedomFUEL initiative, the president zeroed in on what is unquestionably the most promising alternative fuel. Hydrogen is everywhere, and when used to power a special battery called a fuel cell, its only waste product is water.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What a load of cr*p. "Unquestionably the most promising alternative fuel"? Bush and the oil/coal companies certainly have done a masterful job of deluding the public into thinking that this "hydrogen economy" is going to save us. This ignorant "hydrogen is everywhere, and when used to power a... fuel cell, its only waste product is water". Sure, hydrogen is everywhere - attached to other atoms - in molecules of water, fossil fuels, etc.. The hydrogen has to be separated to be used. If you use water, you expend more energy in electrolyzing the water and storing/shipping the hydrogen than you get back out of the fuel cell. That energy used has to come from somewhere - and as long as most of our electricity is coming from fossil fuels, that's where it's going to come from, and it's going to still emit a heck of a lot of greenhouse gases and other pollutants in the process of getting that hydrogen. Use gasoline or natural gas? Still emits lots of greenhouse gases.

Until renewable energy is more widespread, many suspect that hydrogen will be manufactured out of a clean, though not ideal, alternative fuel, natural gas.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Natural gas is not clean - it still emits CO2 (unless the natural gas is actually made from biomass, in which case there is no net CO2 emissions. But, the vast majority of natural gas used in the US is fossil fuel in origin). In fact, most of the methanol used to make biodiesel comes from natural gas - which is why most biodiesel only reduces CO2 emissions by 78% - the vegetable oil components has no net CO2 emission, but the methanol (from natural gas) does. Methanol, like natural gas, can be made from biomass. But, there's very little emphasis on going that route unfortunately.

But ethanol's green image has faded of late. Diesel tractors plant, fertilize, and harvest the corn used to make ethanol, and substantial coal-fired electricity is used to process the grain. Cornell University scientist David Pimentel, author of a study showing ethanol consumes more energy than it produces, calls it "unsustainable, subsidized food burning."

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aargh! Why is it that the media still believes Pimentel's study, and it's the only one they ever cite. His study has been shown to be a steaming load of horse plop over and over again. Studies by the DOE, EPA, USDA, and Argonne National Labs have all shown that ethanol has a net positive energy balance, as well as many univiersity studies. Pimentel's is the only study to ever claim it has a negative energy balance - and his study revolved almost entirely around ridiculous assumptions and outdated technology (old farming techniques and ethanol plants). It's amazing that there are several more thorough studies done by both independent universities as well as governmental organizations that have found that ethanol has a net positive energy balance, yet Pimentel's lone study using outdated data (i.e. farming technology from the 70s, even though from '78-'94 farmers increased production per acre by 80% while keeping energy use constant) claimed it had a net negative energy balance - and Pimentel's is the study always cited by the media. It's almost enough to make you believe in DTY's conspiracy theories.

Biodiesel also increases emissions of one smog-producing pollutant, nitrogen oxide, or NOx. Although technical solutions, such as adjusting engine timing, appear to be available, some environmentalists remain lukewarm. Daniel Becker, head of the Sierra Club (news - web sites)'s energy program, says the "french fry grease hustlers" are not competing with petroleum at all but are vying for market share against an alternative fuel his organization prefers: natural gas.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Sierra Club is run by perhaps the dumbest people of any environmental organization (except perhaps Greenpeace). Absolute morons. On the NOx issue - there are many catalytic converters available now that almost entirely eliminate NOx emissions (on the order of 99%) - but, they get killed by sulfur. So, they can't be installed on new diesel vehicles, since manufacturers have to assume that they'll be run on the typical high sulfur petro diesel in this country. Running on biodiesel though (or even ULSD), they can easily be used, and eliminate practically all NOx emissions. If the heads of the Sierra Club didn't have their heads so far up each other's rear end, they'd realize that natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and still has far far far more net CO2 emissions than biodiesel - even biodiesel made with natural gas derived methanol.

Anyway, that's my gripe for this morning. Perhaps I woke up on the wrong side of the bed.....

One of the nice things about biodiesel is that it can be made from any oil - vegetable or even animal fat. Right now, in the US, most biodiesel is made from soy - not surprising since last year there were 260 million gallons of surplus soy oil. A large amount of biodiesel in the US is also made from waste vegetable oil as well as animal fats. As the industry grows, more feedstocks will of course be adopted. There are surpluses of many vegetable oils that could easily be used for making biodiesel. Once the market gets to the point that all surplus and waste oils can't meet demand, crops will need to be grown specifically for the purpose of making biodiesel. At that point, it would be expected that crops that yield the most oil per acre would be used (i.e. a farmer, or biodiesel company, is going to want to get the most for its investment). So, soy will likely give way to rapeseed and a few other crops, as well as algae farms.

With petroleum diesel and gasoline - it can only be made from crude oil, the supplies of which are concentrated in a few places around the world (i.e. the middle east), and are running out (as well as getting increasingly more expensive to extract, and defend). Feedstocks for biodiesel can be grown all over the world, and from a multitude of sources.

Originally posted by SkyPup:
ADM stock has been pretty stagnant, the dividend is not too bad though.

For the company that supplies almost all the soy-based Biodiesel in North America and 2/3s of the RME to the European biodiesel fuel market, you'd think they be doing better than they are.

Here is the largest Biodiesel producer in North America and Europe and they don't look very good.

Neither does Cargill, their main competitor for the biodiesel market.

The marketing hype that they put out do does seem to catch a few though.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How is it that ADM has a monopoly on Biodiesel in North America and Europe?

Biodiesel in the US and Europe is made by many different companies.

Lurgi completed a huge biodiesel plant in Germany last summer.

BDI, Biodiesel International , has built many plants around Europe for various companies.
ADM has started getting involved in the US biodiesel market, and plays a role in Europe's as well (primarily in Germany, where they have two biodiesel plants), and is now working with some groups in the UK (http://www.cropwise.co.uk/news.php ).

Since it can be made from all manner of crops, the "biodiesel supply" is not controlled by any single company, or group of companies - unlike petroleum (can anyone say "OPEC"?).

[ February 12, 2003, 08:27: Message edited by: nh mike ]

Back to the super simple reality that ADM, Inc. controls Biodiesel in all of North America and all of Europe.

It is a major monopoly that is heavily subsidized with public tax dollars.....

You appear not to be a longterm shareholder.

Try learning a little about where all the BIODIESEL in North America and Europe comes from sometime:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/7084/000000708402000017/0000007084-02-000017.txt

quote
With petroleum diesel and gasoline - it can only be made from crude oil,
end quote

Not quite true.
Sasol in South Africa use Coal to refine gasoline and diesel.
Also Diesel can be made from natural gas.
If the price were right we wouldn't need arab oil. The big problem is that if the price goes up the arabs only get richer!

That's why I was a Sierra Club member for exactly one year. Then I got the heck out of there.

The sad thing is, I did my senior thesis on David Brower, who revitalized the SC in the 60s, then was booted because he was too radical. *sigh*

I have shares of ADM in my IRA.

Yes, if, for the sake of example, the Big Bean lobby were to push for US support of a repressive regime in China, in exchange for receiving a discount in imported soy oil, we would have to re-evaluate our support for biodiesel monopolies.

This is of course not a wild though at all. Back in the 1950's, Big Oil in the US was exporting oil to the rest of the world. Now it imports half of it. And the US government is cozy with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the oligarchs of Venezuela and Colombia, etc.

Times change, and so should we!

[ February 12, 2003, 09:46: Message edited by: Dorado ]

Do you think that Archer Daniels Midland will replace Exxon-Mobil as the world's largest corporation?

Maybe Cargill will buyout Chevron and Monsanto can take over BP.

Of course all of them will be forced to use cheap labor and import raw materials from China to remain competitive. Maybe the US farmers will be forced to all sell out to the Chinese....

That's right, Exxon-Mobil was also the first modern corporation to become international, and they are way ahead of the game. So they are strongly in control, as is the Big Oil lobby, in a way that the Big Bean is not.

My point is not that this will change any time soon, but that we can choose not to support Big Oil, albeit in a very limited way, because we don't want to support the way the petro-business influences our government's policies at this time.

How long will petroleum be a big part of the wider energy business? Not easy to say, but most experts say that peak world oil production is 10-20 away, so significant changes must not be too far away.

Who are you kidding.....

the BIG BEAN

aka Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE:ADM)

Was incorporated in the State of Delaware in 1902 and is Still 25% owned by owners and insiders, 62% of the public float is institutionalized.

The BIG BEAN always has been as MEAN or MEANER than BIG OIL......

[sarcasm]But ADM, Monsanto, Dow and Cargill don't pollute like big oil...and they have no ties to the current administration[/sarcasm]

Geez Louise, they don't pollute like hell on earth.....ha ha ha, what a laugh

no sarcasm.

Yep, Monsanto was at the heart of the huge PCB fiasco, and now it's at the center of the debate over genetically modified crops, especially soybeans, and the taylor-made pesticides that are sold along with them. Not a pretty record, and not a promising future in terms of openness and environmental responsibility.

There's no easy road towards environmentally and socially responsible energy sources.

I'm not convinced that Big Bean has always bean "mean" or "meaner" than Big Oil. But I believe that this should be seriously looked at by biodiesel supporters, eventhough there are some advantages of biodiesel that are not subject to such a debate: it's renewable, domestic (for now...), clean burning, safe to handle (high flash point), safe to store and transport (biodegradable), etc.

But granted, any criticism for the dealings of Big Oil should be balanced against the record of Big Bean.

That article in U.S.News reminded me of a website I found awhile back. Check out:
Powerball Homepage

I'm not a chemist, but it sounds like an interesting idea. I can just see someone pulling up to a Powerball station, opening their trunk and shoveling a few hundred green balls in.

The Big Bean has been spreading nitrogen-phosphorous fertilizers all over the country polluting the land and the water.

The Big Bean has been spreading pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, all over the country polluting the land and the water.

The Big Bean has been one of the most highly criticized corporations for it abuse of power fair employment and substandard menial wages.

The Big Bean supplies greater than 2/3 of all soy derived Biodiesel in North America and greater than 2/3 of rapeseed derived Biodiesel in Europe.

The Big Bean has released genetically modified germ seed into the environment.

It's is no different than Big Oil, except the BD-100 users think that somehow they are "Green"

But in reality, they are not!

Originally posted by SkyPup:
The Big Bean has been spreading nitrogen-phosphorous fertilizers all over the country polluting the land and the water.

The Big Bean has been spreading pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, all over the country polluting the land and the water.

The Big Bean has been one of the most highly criticized corporations for it abuse of power fair employment and substandard menial wages.

The Big Bean supplies greater than 2/3 of all soy derived Biodiesel in North America and greater than 2/3 of rapeseed derived Biodiesel in Europe.

The Big Bean has released genetically modified germ seed into the environment.

It's is no different than Big Oil, except the BD-100 users think that somehow they are "Green"

But in reality, they are not!

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The people that supply 2/3s of the total biodiesel used in North America and Europe are in fact:

One of the TOP 3 CORPORATE CRIMINALS of all time according to the United States Department of Justice who fined ADM $100 million, the largest fine ever levied against a United States Corporation for anti-trust and price fixing violations.....

Seems as though the BEAN IS QUITE DOWNRIGHT DIRTY ROTTEN

*sigh*.... this is getting ridiculous.

How many wars have been fought over access to soy fields? (or any other vegetable oil source that can be used for biodiesel)

How much CO2 have soybeans added to the atmosphere? (or any other vegetable oil source that can be used for biodiesel)

If you don't like a company that purchases a fair amount of the soy in parts of the world, then use biodiesel made from another feedstock, or from soy that has been crushed by other companies (there are plenty of others - ADM has nowhere near a monopoly. ADM buys soy from farmers, and crushes it to separate the components (oil, protein), just as several other companies do).

If you think Nike has too big of a share of the shoe market, would you stop wearing shoes?

[ February 12, 2003, 17:34: Message edited by: nh mike ]

Yes, this was indeed the largest corporate criminal case the liberal democratic Attorney General, Janet Reno prosecuted under the administration of the liberal democratic Presidency of Bill Clinton.

The criminal fine of $100,000,000 was the largest paid in the history of corporate fraud by the largest criminal producer of Biodiesel in the world.

That is pretty damn bad

Doesn't the fact that ADM is traded publicly and so widely held sort of emphasise how their unequaled farming operations are no secret. Enough yapping Skypip.

I'm no fan of ADM - Grim Reaper of all the farm foreclosures over the past 3 or 4 decades, sinister reports on 60 Minutes, Death of the American Farmer and all that, but this isn't the point here. The point is much more about learning to use alternatives, renewable alternatives at that.

Will ADM replace "Big Oil"? Who knows, 6 of one, half dozen of the other, but "Big Oil" is based on a resource whose supply is finite and non-renewable, so they can't be "Big" forever.

JJ

Yeah, the people responsible for 2/3s of all Biodiesel in North America and Euorpe are #3 on the Corporate Criminal list of the United States Department of Justice.

Sounds like true socially conscious saints to me....

OK this has gotten way off the topic of the article. I feel that bio-diesel would be better for the environment, and our national security. It is a totally renewable energy source that could end US reliance on terrorist supporting countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. Do I care who makes Bio-diesel? As long as I don't have to buddy up with terroists and dictators, not really. And if bio-diesel were widespread, then I am sure that competition would increase based on the whole supply and demand theory of economics.

I also know that bio-diesel will not get an endorsement from the current administration because they are a tool of the oil and energy industries (How many of them came from that background and do you think that they are going to do anything to jeopardize the portfolios and jobs of their freinds and ex-colleagues who will likely again be their future colleagues). They are pushing hydrogen power which will probably not be feasible for 20 years in mass, and only are contributing $1.2 billion over in research money (not much research is going to come from that amount). The only reason that they are supporting that is because they want it to be derived from CNG. These are the same people who had the Energy industry help write the energy policy (talk about giving the pyromaniac the lighter). Like they are going to propose anything that will affect their bottom line negatively.

And at least the previous administration prosecuted corporate criminals. Since then Microsoft has gotten off scott free with a slap on the wrist and I have yet to see the Enron (Energy company) swine of Skilling and Lay, the worst corporate criminals ever, prosecuted or even indicted . But why would you prosecute your biggest campaign contributors?!? They are only going after the underlings at Enron who were doing what they were told to make it look like they are doing something. The only person who has been indicted that should be is the Rigas family from Adelphia (Guess they contributed to the wrong party).

But enough with the factoids. The bottom line is that oil will eventually run out and as supplies start to dwindel the price will skyrocket. If we can eliminate the use of it before then, why not do it. ADM won't be the only game for long if BD usage were increase substantially, but they will have a leg up on the competition.

That's a nice pipe dream approach, especially asking the US taxpayers to subsidize it to the tune of billions and billions for the special interest industrial sectors.

The use of Ethanol is thousands of times greater than biodiesel, yet even under the very most liberal predictions, the two combined will only annually account for at most ONE DAY of imports......

You may be forced to wait another century or two for your dream to come true!

One of the high points of the last Congress was the day former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's energy extravaganza died in conference. That legislation was remarkable for its complete lack of energy-producing measures. Beyond that, it would have returned energy markets to a state of regulation not seen since the Carter gas lines. It almost made the farm bill look good.

Yet now comes news that the President and Congress hope to revive this Frankenstein's monster. Luckily, some Bush friendlies recently completed a new analysis of the Daschle bill and have been quietly circulating it around the White House. It's a reminder of just how much damage a bad bill would do to 20 years of successful deregulation.

Start with that bill's ethanol mandate, which would force drivers to use five billion gallons of that fuel annually. The mandate would cost at least $19.4 billion in gas price increases over six years, or two cents a gallon.

The arguments that ethanol helps the environment, or eases reliance on oil imports, are flatly false. A study by economic analysis firm MathPro estimates the net savings in U.S consumption of fossil fuels would be about 11 million barrels of crude per year in 2012 -- which is equivalent to less than one day of petroleum imports. Meanwhile, today's engines are so clean, and ethanol-making plants so dirty, that there are no real pollution gains from ethanol.

The samizdat energy report also delves into the much-feted "renewable" provision in the Daschle bill, which required that electric suppliers sell 10% of their power from renewable sources (wind, solar, biomass) by 2020. This is old-fashioned central planning and it is consumers who will take the hit as higher generation costs drive up consumer electricity prices. Moreover, the bill would exempt public utilities, giving government or co-op power an economic advantage and helping reverse the current healthy trend toward privatization.

The report also goes into the more than 40 additional tax subsidies in the Daschle bill, every one of which would create a major distortion in energy markets and hike taxpayer costs. They range from a $1 per gallon subsidy for biodiesel to a $3,000 tax credit for hybrid cars. Total estimated forgone tax revenue is $20 billion over 10 years. To put this in context, in just one year this would more than double the annual budget costs of all the energy subsidies that have been enacted over the past 30 to 40 years.

No one is denying the fact that alternative fuels, and our current sources for them, have their own present and future drawbacks. But they should be compared to those of gasoline and diesel, and the oil business that brings them to us.

Ethanol plants pollute, and so do crude refineries, oil tankers, oil extraction, etc. Here in Western PA, a lot of land has to be left fallow, and sometimes uninhabited by humans, because of the contamination of the former oil and coal industries. Many rivers and streams are still contaminated, and will take many more decades to return to health. Ironically, the latter has been good for wildlife, which has come back to live in that land, and supervise it's recovery.

The farming that's done in PA does not come close to doing the harm that the oil and coal industries did. But as always, I'd be willing to look at any evidence to the contrary.

And of course, in addition to domestic environmental issues, what is the latest estimate of the costs of the US diplomatic and military efforts to secure a steady supply of imported oil?

Not to mention the human cost of having tens upon tens of thousands of servicemen and women abroad, for months separated from their families and children, to insure the stability in oil rich regions. Not one of them has to leave his or her children behind, for us to be able to buy the biodiesel available now in this country!

Using an alternative fuel like biodiesel is not about being perfect. It's about taking small steps in another direction, that is, towards renewable, domestic, and clean fuels. And on those three accounts, biodiesel beats petrodiesel, irrespective of the merits and vices of Big Bean and Big Oil.

I agree, you first must take small steps before you take large ones.