Blog Literature 1 - Feasibility of Biodiesel Production in Georgia

LITERATURE 1 - Feasibility of Biodiesel Production in Georgia

Source:  Shumaker, G., McKissick, J., Ferland, C., and Doherty, B. (2003). A Study on the Feasibility of Biodiesel Production in Georgia. University of Georgia, Athens, 3-20.20 Oct 2016.
<http://www.biofuels.coop/archive/GA_biodieselrpt.pdf>

This study was performed at the University of Georgia to determine whether it is possible to reduce the air pollution in the state though the production of fuels derived from plants and foods such as soybeans, cottonseed and peanuts. This is due to the increased problems related to the air quality in many cities across Georgia, as well as a lower pricing for many crops. This proposed solution would allow for mass quantities of crops to be bought for biodiesel production (which would lead to an increase in crop pricing), and would allow the air quality to improve since the combustion products produced during the burning of biodiesel are cleaner than those from petroleum-based diesel.

Focusing on the air quality aspect of the biodiesel benefits, an environmental engineer may very much wish to see a transition towards. According to Shumaker, "Biodiesel has a lower flash point than petroleum diesel and thus helps prevent damaging fires; biodiesel burns cleaner than petroleum diesel and thus reduces particulate matter thus lowering emission of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons; the odor of burned biodiesel is considered by many to be less offensive than petroleum diesel; there are only limited to no needed modifications to current engines to use biodiesel; there wold be no need to change the transportation and storage systems to handle biodiesel; biodiesel behaves similarly to petroleum for engine performance and mileage; and biodiesel dissipates engine heat better than petroleum diesel" (Shumaker, 2003). As an environmental engineer who decides to specialize in renewable fuels, ti is very difficult to balance the use of innovative biofuels with the integration of the biofuels into the current infrastructure. Should the biofuel require special infrastructure, that results in an expensive project to test if the biofuel will jump-start the market and determine if the biofuel will be implemented in other cities. Such as change would be very drastic if this required a complete change in infrastructure, so sometimes biofuels are frowned upon, despite their benefits. However, in the case of biodiesel, since there is minimal change in infrastructure and it is a blended fuel, it can reside in the current diesel systems, the use of biodiesel suddenly becomes a very attractive alternative. On the downside, though, an environmental engineer using biodiesel in the way being studied is cutting into the state's food supply. It also becomes an ethical issue of "wasting food" to create fuel, or continue using the current diesel so the food can be used for digestive consumption. Other things to consider about biodiesel are that "biodiesel can be corrosive to rubber materials and liner materials. Biodiesel cannot be stored in concrete lined tanks. In some cases, the fuel intake orifices may need to be reduced in size to create higher cylinder pressures" (Shumaker, 2003).

Annual current diesel demands were measured, which came out to be approximately 4.65 million gallons of diesel per day, equivalent to 1.7 billion gallons of diesel per year. From there, the biodiesel production was considered, taking into account that "for each unit of energy required by the process approximately 3.2 units of energy are gained" (Shumaker, 2003). Sources of vegetable oil in Georgia are responsible for making approximately 10 million gallons of peanut and cottonseed oils a year, while a soybeam farm produces 13 million gallons a year, and an outside source of soybean oil produces an additional 17 million gallons per year (Shumaker, 2003). Fats are easily accessible, due to the large market for poultry. However, because many of the facilities that extract bird fats are also using it for other purposes, only approximately 14 million of gallons per year can be made into biodiesel, out of 144 million gallons of fat that can come from poultry. Another source of possible biodiesel can come from yellow grease, but this option is not as viable, as the facilities that produce yellow grease retreat it and repurpose it. Prices, availability, and quantities of the various available biodiesel sources were determined, and based on these values, production plant sizing, cost sensitivity, and final capital cost were taken into consideration.

It was found that a production plant designed for 15MGD would be most suitable for the state. The construction cost of the plant was approximately $9.6 million, and the entire facility would take up nearly 10 acres. It was found that operating costs would come out to be $23 million, including the acquisition of feedstock. It was found that in order for the state of Georgia to produce biodiesel at a relatively inexpensive price, then feedstock was absolutely crucial to make it possible (Shumaker, 2003). Throughout the process, it was assumed that pure biodiesel was being produced. However, since biodiesel is being used as a blended fuel, it was determined that 2% blends of biodiesel can be sold if the following three criteria are met (Shumaker, 2003):

1. Feedstock costs are near $0.10/lb and retail diesel prices near $1.15/gallon
2. Feedstock costs are near $0.15/lb and retail diesel prices near $1.25/gallon
3. A tax reduction becomes available that can recover the difference between the delivered cost of biodiesel and diesel.

The conclusions follow a very logical and results-based train of thought. Since most of the operation cost is from attaining feedstock, it is almost a requirement for the feestock to be cheap. Using a 2% biodiesel blend would be more than enough to meet the needs of the state for fuel consumption. Since this type of fuel can be directly integrated and implemented into the current infrastructure, it is very much a feasible solution to the issues of low crop pricing and bad air quality, as long as the feedstock prices are $0.10 or less. Should the prices of feedstock, it would be wise to reconsider. On a 20% blend, it is shown that the reduction in CO in the air is 12.6%, particulate matter is 18%, CO2 is 20%, hydrocarbons is 11%, and other air-toxic compounds is between 12 and 20%. Such comprehensive data collection and demonstration of results makes this study valid for execution.