Renewable Diesel facility - Canada

[Johhny04]

Imperial Oil to spend $720M building Canada's largest renewable diesel facility

The Calgary-based company says its renewable diesel project will be the largest of its kind in Canada.

ca.finance.yahoo.com

But will any of us TDI drivers in Eastern and Central Canada get to utilize this fuel?

 

[DuraBioPwr]

Id like to know what the 'bio feedstock' is???

 

[Ton]

Hopefully they can ship some to the USA.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

A few years ago (quite a few probably) I thought there was a company in Thunder Bay making a bio blend of diesel fuel…..

 

[turbobrick240]

Id like to know what the 'bio feedstock' is???

Probably mostly rapeseed and soybean oil. Maybe some animal fats also.

 

[coolusername]

Hopefully they can ship some to the USA.

It's already in the USA, I fill up with it all the time in Southern California. Seems to be cheaper than Diesel No. 2, and from what I've read about it it's just as good for your car, and it even burns a bit cleaner. You do lose a little bit of MPGs but it's negligible.

 

[turbobrick240]

Renewable diesel production outpaced commercial FAME biodiesel production in the US for the first time at the end of last year. Looks as though HVO will probably outpace FAME by a wide margin this year.

Renewable Diesel and Biodiesel Supply Trends over 2011–2022 - farmdoc daily

Maria Gerveni, Todd Hubbs, and Scott Irwin - Scott Irwin -

farmdocdaily.illinois.edu

 

[TDIMeister]

Canada, particularly Alberta where the refinery is situated, does not grow as much soybean as it does canola (a variant of rapeseed). Edmonton is just shy of 500 miles from me.

There's actually a renewable Diesel plant at a local refinery to me, and I've done some work there (but not specifically RD-related). Although smaller than the Edmonton plant, all equipment is already in place and it is expected to produce commercial quantities THIS QUARTER. No plans for any dedicated retail fueling facilities of this stuff at high percentages; almost all of the production will be blended into normal Diesel up to ~5% as the relevant specs regulate and require it.

Tidewater biorefinery to begin operations before the end of Q2 | Biodiesel Magazine

Tidewater Renewables Ltd. released Q1 financial results on May 11, confirming that the company's 3,000-barrel-per-day (45.99 MMgy) renewable diesel complex

biodieselmagazine.com

In April, Tidewater confirmed that that all major pieces of plant equipment were onsite and that the majority of the dry commissioning of the utility packages was already complete. The facility’s tank farm and rail systems were also ready for operation as of mid-April.

 

[Nevada_TDI]

A couple of years or so ago, there was a algae producer that used the CO2 from the air to make it multiply. The result was being made into Bio-D

EDIT: It appears there still are algae producers for Bio fuels

 

[nwdiver]

Why has growth in biofuel been so stagnant? Between 2018 and 2021 production increased < 2%. In the same 3 year period wind and solar generation increased ~57%.

Global Production from biofuels in 2020 was ~1,100TWh vs >2,000TWh from wind and solar.

It seems like biofuels fall into the same solution category as nuclear. It looks great on paper but when you actually try to implement it as a solution at scale it just falls flat. Outside of very favorable locations like Brazil it doesn't appear to work economically at scale. Joule energy tried to make biofuel from algae near where I lived in Hobbs, NM. They gave it up after 10 years. Even formed a partnership with Audi. Joule closed shop and Audi went with EVs. Why?

 

[TDIMeister]

Biomass, while renewable, is such at relatively slow timescales compared to the rate of consumption, so it's finite.

Outside of biofuels for automotive use, there's a lot of discussion on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) derived from biomass. However, without a significant curtailing of the absolute quantities consumed, there's nothing sustainable about it, regardless of its source.

 

[TDIMeister]

Some food for thought:

The Rising Chorus of Renewable Energy Skeptics | The Tyee

The green techno-dream is so vastly destructive, they say, ‘we have to come up with a different plan.’

thetyee.ca

Elon’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Battery Math

Tesla's "Master Plan" for weather-dependent renewables will require 960 years of Gigafactory battery output.

robertbryce.substack.com

'Ephemeralize Everything' to Reduce Demand for Electricity and Materials

Why we need to reduce demand through sufficiency, simplicity, and efficiency.

www.treehugger.com

 

[wxman]

Some more food for thought...

“…Renewable liquid fuels – including renewable and biodiesel – displaced over 568 million gallons of diesel in 2018. Nearly 120 million gallons of diesel were displaced by renewable natural gas, and electricity – used to run hundreds of thousands of plug-in cars and trucks – displaced about 96 million gallons of petroleum….”

Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/cleaner...ion-gallons-diesel-fuel-under-low-carbon-fuel


“…the median scenario of all 85 possible pathways considered by the IPCC to hold the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial levels by 2050 foresees a bigger role for biofuels than for wind and solar energy combined….”

Source: “Whatever happened to cellulosic ethanol?” Physics Today, July 2022, Page 24


Looks like RD, at least, is growing at a faster rate than 2% in the U.S.:

Domestic renewable diesel capacity could more than double through 2025 - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

 

[nwdiver]

ACTUAL food for thought

Research shows crops not only grow, but thrive amid solar panel installations.

How about biofuels for existing ICE. But EVs are basically at 5-year parity today once the cost of fuel is added. What's the point of building new ICE?

If the increase in production of renewable diesel comes at the expense of the production of other biofuels since the limited feedstock is just being diverted. What is being accomplished? It's just a shell game.

Is the biofuel industry approaching a feedstock crunch?

We need to shift to a bigger pie instead of just changing the size of the slices...

 

[CleverUserName]

Renewable Diesel sold here in California is not economically viable without state government subsidies to make it the same price as diesel #2. It is significantly more expensive to collect, process and refine, something like +30-50% higher vs. petroleum diesel.

The sellers of this product also use dubious claims such as “increased power and torque”, and fail to tell consumers that the opposite is true in addition to the 5-7% loss of fuel economy. The other claims of lowering total PM and NOx are highly engine specific. When tested by a consulting firm, some engines actually produced higher emissions than the baseline with CA standard diesel #2. The state of CA appears to be OK with this deceptive advertising as it fits in with their green agenda.

 

[wxman]

ACTUAL food for thought

Research shows crops not only grow, but thrive amid solar panel installations.

How about biofuels for existing ICE. But EVs are basically at 5-year parity today once the cost of fuel is added. What's the point of building new ICE?

I don't see how that supports the idea that biofuels shouldn't be pursued or that the sale of new ICEVs should be abolished in 5 years.

If the increase in production of renewable diesel comes at the expense of the production of other biofuels since the limited feedstock is just being diverted. What is being accomplished? It's just a shell game.

Is the biofuel industry approaching a feedstock crunch?

We need to shift to a bigger pie instead of just changing the size of the slices...

"...the total annual biomass that could be produced, which includes both current and potential biomass from forest and agriculture lands, as well as biomass from energy crops, ranges from 1.094 to 1.633 billion dry tons, depending on the yield assumed for energy crops. Assuming fuel production yield of 80 gal/dry ton, the annual potential capacity for biofuel production is in the order of 88–130 billion gal...."

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/cradle_to_grave_report.pdf

The yield of the Red Rock biofuels process is >100 gallons/dry ton, which would result in an even greater potential RD supply.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't see how that supports the idea that biofuels shouldn't be pursued or that the sale of new ICEVs should be abolished in 5 years.

I never said biofuels shouldn't be pursued but the subsidies probably need to get pared back a bit. They clearly haven't worked. Solar and wind subsidies worked brilliantly, the cost of solar has declined by ~97% since 1980 and deployment continues to grow exponentially.

Run the numbers on what we're getting for the subsidy. Ethanol gets ~$0.45 per gallon. Diesel $1 per gallon. For $0.45 you reduce oil consumption by ~16 kWh (net gain) good for < 16 miles in ICE. The equivalent subsidy for solar is ~0.6w which will yield ~20kWh good for >60 miles in an EV.

The fact biomass exists somewhere in a forest doesn't mean it's economically feasible to collect it. If biomass was so easy to obtain biomass power plant operators wouldn't be drawing the ire of regulators.

Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada

Drax faces formal investigation over wood pellets burnt for power

What's the point to manufacturing more ICE? Plenty exist now. Why dig the hole deeper? Why expend resources on a vehicle that uses ~3x more energy per mile? We already have periods of surplus solar and wind that is being squandered because it's not yet economically viable to have grid storage. Why not build cars that can utilize that free energy?

If you buy a gallon of renewable diesel all that's accomplished is someone else is burning a gallon of non-renewable diesel instead. It's not like that gallon of renewable diesel will go to waste, it will displace oil if you don't burn it. Import a kWh from a curtailed wind farm and that's a kWh of clean energy that would not be produced if it didn't have a place to go. The only way it could displace oil is if you have an EV that can use it.

 

[J_dude]

Why dig the hole deeper? Why expend resources on a vehicle that causes more emissions just through it’s manufacturing process and has a shorter useable lifespan before becoming obsolete and creating more waste?

Fixed it for you. I believe you were referring to EV’s right?

 

[wxman]

We already have periods of surplus solar and wind that is being squandered because it's not yet economically viable to have grid storage. Why not build cars that can utilize that free energy?

Or use that excess capacity to produce hydrogen for synthetic fuels as you yourself suggested? This would be for synthetic ("efuels"), not biofuels ,but that would still be something used by ICEVs.

We should at least be using organic wastes to produce biofuels. There's enough organic waste material (forest and agricultural) to produce at least 50B gallons of biofuels, which is enough to displace ALL jet fuel with about 30B gallons left over for other surface transportation (ICEVs).

The example of the biomass power plants isn't something that should be considered. According to GREET, electricity produced from biomass is inefficient and produces far more criteria pollutant emissions than turning that biomass into biofuels and use that fuel in ICEVs.

 

[nwdiver]

Fixed it for you. I believe you were referring to EV’s right?

Really? 2010 called... want's its FUD back

Worst case is those embedded emissions are paid back after ~80,000 miles. ~20,000 is the average.

 

[nwdiver]

Or use that excess capacity to produce hydrogen for synthetic fuels as you yourself suggested? This would be for synthetic ("efuels"), not biofuels ,but that would still be something used by ICEVs.

We're 10 - 20 years away from that being viable at scale. There's significant capital expense in an electrolyzer plant. They can't really make much use of ~4 hours of curtailment every 2-4 days. But that's perfect for EV charging and there's ~no CAPEX involved. We need ~12 hours of curtailment ~everyday before H2 production is viable. And once we're producing H2 there's a whole list of things that make a lot more sense than 'efuels'.

 

[J_dude]

Really? 2010 called... want's its FUD back

Worst case is those embedded emissions are paid back after ~80,000 miles. ~20,000 is the average.

Providing that is based on actual numbers and not just something someone’s made up to “prove” their point, I still see nothing in there accounting for the waste after it has become obsolete... and with an EV thats just what happens. ICE (particularly diesels) will keep going for many years/km more than any current EV...
Maybe that will change with new EV tech, I hope so, but in the mean time cranking out more essentially “disposable” EV’s isn’t a good idea.

 

[nwdiver]

Providing that is based on actual numbers and not just something someone’s made up to “prove” their point, I still see nothing in there accounting for the waste after it has become obsolete... and with an EV thats just what happens. ICE (particularly diesels) will keep going for many years/km more than any current EV...
Maybe that will change with new EV tech, I hope so, but in the mean time cranking out more essentially “disposable” EV’s isn’t a good idea.

.... are you trapped in 2010? Invest in TSLA!

~95% of cars are recycled. No reason that's not achievable with EVs.

Redwood materials: We’re building a circular supply chain to power a sustainable world.

 

[wxman]

I don't understand that graphic. Why would efuels be any less "important" in that hierarchy that any other uses of H2?

 

[nwdiver]

I don't understand that graphic. Why would efuels be any less "important" in that hierarchy that any other uses of H2?

That chart is based on avoidance and competitiveness. Basically you get far less bang for you buck if you convert limited H2 to efuels. We're already using ~10B kg/yr of H2. Obviously any H2 we produce would go to offset that first before investing CAPEX in efuel facilities.

Pretty good summary from Chat GBT.

eFuels rank relatively lower on the hydrogen ladder due to the following reasons:

1. Efficiency losses: The production of eFuels involves multiple conversion steps, including the generation of hydrogen from renewable sources and its subsequent conversion to synthetic fuels. Each step in this process incurs energy losses, making the overall process less efficient compared to direct use of hydrogen or other energy sources.
2. Competition from alternative technologies: eFuels face competition from other renewable energy technologies such as battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and hydrogen fuel cells. These technologies offer more direct and efficient ways to convert renewable energy into usable power for transportation, reducing the need for eFuels in certain contexts.
3. Infrastructure challenges: The widespread adoption of eFuels would require significant infrastructure development, including the establishment of production facilities, distribution networks, and refueling stations. These infrastructure requirements can present challenges in terms of scalability, cost, and compatibility with existing energy systems.

These factors contribute to eFuels being considered relatively lower on the hydrogen ladder compared to other applications of hydrogen.

Then look at what a kWh gets you in a BEV vs eFuel'd ICE. The conversion efficiency of electricity => H2 => eFuel is < 50%. And you get ~70% fewer miles per kWh in ICE vs BEV. So 1kWh will get you >3 miles in a BEV vs < 0.5 miles in an ICE.

ICE (particularly diesels) will keep going for many years/km more than any current EV...

Glad we agree there's no reason to manufacture more ICE. That's really my primary point. If they last ~forever just keep using the ones we have.

 

[wxman]

That chart is based on avoidance and competitiveness. Basically you get far less bang for you buck if you convert limited H2 to efuels. We're already using ~10B kg/yr of H2. Obviously any H2 we produce would go to offset that first before investing CAPEX in efuel facilities.

Pretty good summary from Chat GBT.

eFuels rank relatively lower on the hydrogen ladder due to the following reasons:

1. Efficiency losses: The production of eFuels involves multiple conversion steps, including the generation of hydrogen from renewable sources and its subsequent conversion to synthetic fuels. Each step in this process incurs energy losses, making the overall process less efficient compared to direct use of hydrogen or other energy sources.
2. Competition from alternative technologies: eFuels face competition from other renewable energy technologies such as battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and hydrogen fuel cells. These technologies offer more direct and efficient ways to convert renewable energy into usable power for transportation, reducing the need for eFuels in certain contexts.
3. Infrastructure challenges: The widespread adoption of eFuels would require significant infrastructure development, including the establishment of production facilities, distribution networks, and refueling stations. These infrastructure requirements can present challenges in terms of scalability, cost, and compatibility with existing energy systems.

These factors contribute to eFuels being considered relatively lower on the hydrogen ladder compared to other applications of hydrogen.

Then look at what a kWh gets you in a BEV vs eFuel'd ICE. The conversion efficiency of electricity => H2 => eFuel is < 50%. And you get ~70% fewer miles per kWh in ICE vs BEV. So 1kWh will get you >3 miles in a BEV vs < 0.5 miles in an ICE.

According to "carculator," a European LCA model (https://carculator.psi.ch/), synthetic gasoline has very high energy requirements, but synthetic diesel doesn't, at least if the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) method is used to make the eDiesel:


"carculator" energy consumption @2025 @ Norway mix @midsize @default battery @200,000 km UL (carculator default parameters) @100% syn diesel (eFTD)

BEV - 2.545 MJ/km (+0.555 MJ/km road wear) (98 g CO2e/km)
ICEV-d - 3.274 MJ/km (+0.523 MJ/km road wear) (73 g CO2e/km)
ICEV-p - 12.742 MJ/km (+0.518 MJ/km road wear) (218 g CO2e/km)

[ICEV-d = diesel ICEV; ICEV-p = petrol ICEV (i.e., gasoline)]


The FT synthesis is highly exothermic which doesn't appear to be taken into account in the general discussion about eFuels. The excess heat can be reused in the process which reduces the external energy requirements.

So, the eDiesel in this case has lower GHG emissions, which needs to be taken into account in the calculations.

Also, eDIesel can use existing fuel distribution infrastructures. An entirely new "refueling" infrastructure is required for BEV.

 

[nwdiver]

So, the eDiesel in this case has lower GHG emissions, which needs to be taken into account in the calculations.

Also, eDIesel can use existing fuel distribution infrastructures. An entirely new "refueling" infrastructure is required for BEV.

In what case specifically? Using H2 as feedstock for eDiesel? And 'grid mix' for BEV? For the next ~40 years any H2 feedstock for efuels is effectively 100% fossil fuels. Using a kg of limited H2 to make eDiesel just means more natural gas needs to be converted into H2 accomplishing nothing. You're better just refining oil into diesel.

For the 57th time. BEVs don't use 'grid mix'. What's the MJ/km of charging a BEV off-peak to soak up surplus wind or solar? Arguably it's 0. That's energy that would have been squandered if the BEV didn't exist. Not only are you getting very clean energy but you're also increasing the utility of renewables and making the addition of more easier.

It's not like that heat is free. The laws of physics still apply. You need to use >50kWh of electricity to make ~33kWh (1kg) of H2. How many kg of H2 is required to make a gallon of ediesel? How much additional energy? Even if that conversion process is impossibly efficient you're still trading ~150 miles with a BEV that can be up to 100% RE for ~40 miles? 40 miles in an ICE that's 100% fossil fuels. Why 40 miles per 50kWh when you can get ~150? And you don't need the CAPEX of an efuel refinery.

We have the infrastructure for EVs already. It's called the electric grid. The DCFC investments pale in comparison to what would be required to electrolyze and refine H2 => eDiesel.

Maybe in 50 years when we have green H2 in abundance efuels could be viable. Why not just pause manufacturing ICE until then?

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

nwdiver, you said: ".... are you trapped in 2010? Invest in TSLA!"

We're on to you- You're not an environmentalist, you're just hyping your favorite stock even though it's not a viable car or solution to climate change.

 

[nwdiver]

nwdiver, you said: ".... are you trapped in 2010? Invest in TSLA!"

We're on to you- You're not an environmentalist, you're just hyping your favorite stock even though it's not a viable car or solution to climate change.

Yes. I'm telling someone in the year 2010 to invest in TSLA to pump up my stock 13 years ago. You got me.

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

In full disclosure I work for no automaker or energy company. I own neither TSLA or VW Group or any interest in renewable fuels, and my shares in Ford, GM, Cummins, Berkshire Hathaway, and Duke Energy are less than 1% of my total holdings.

nwdiver, how deeply are you tied to TSLA?