European Biodiesel Production Doubles in Two Years; EBB Warns on Need to Eliminate “Legislative and Standards Desert”
18 July 2007
Although production of biodiesel in Europe has more than doubled in the last two years, urgent market measures are required to create a real market for the fuel quantities being produced, according to the European Biodiesel Board (EBB). Absent those measures, the Board says, production may decline.
Production of biodiesel in Europe jumped 54% in 2006 to 4.89 million tonnes (about 1.5 billion gallons US), up from 3.184 million tonnes (about 961 million gallons US) in 2005, according to the EBB. This follows 65% record growth in 2005 over 2004.
As a result, EU biodiesel production has more than doubled in the last two years. In 2002, 2003 and 2004, biodiesel production rose by a relatively lower 30-35% rate.
In terms of capacity, the EU biodiesel industry will be able to fulfill the 2010 EU target and be ready to meet the 10% biofuels target endorsed in March, according to the EBB.
...however in the EU biodiesel is still strongly hindered by the lack of appropriate markets measures able to create a real market for biodiesel in Member States.
As a result the important increasing biodiesel industrial capacity risks to remain very largely unemployed and production may start stagnating if not declining already as from this year 2007, if urgent action is not taken
This would be a paradox...This paradox needs to be avoided: the EU cannot on the hand ask the biodiesel industry to undertake a long walk to reach very high levels of production in the long run and on the other hand leave this same industry alone to cross a legislative and standards desert over the next two years.
Among the measures the EBB called for is an increase in the biodiesel incorporation rate in EN 590 diesel (with no labeling) from the present 5% to 10% and then again to 15% by 2015 in order to achieve a 10% minimum target in all member states by 2020.
The EBB also blasted the US for its B99 export subsidy which gives US producers a roughly €200/m3 advantage and allows US exporters to sell US originated biodiesel “at the same or even at a lower price than the cost of EU industry’s raw materials.”
EBB is pushing EU authorities to take action on this at the WTO.
Europe is the global leader in biodiesel production, producing 77% of biodiesel worldwide in 2006. Within the EU, Germany, France and Italy are the top three producers, with Germany alone accounting for 2.662 million tonnes of production in 2006—about 54% of the EU total. The German government began taxing biodiesel in August 2006—a policy that has resulted in slowing sales at the pump, according to biodiesel producers.
How about greater tax differntials between bio-diesel blended and normal bio-diesel fuels - i.e. lower fuel tax with a bio-diesel blend. At present the cost is around $7.50 per US gallon in the UK (although cheaper in Europe) sure this woudl generate demand?
Posted by: Scott Gibson | 18 July 2007 at 06:17 AM
Scott:
Unfortunately, pure fossil diesel is taxed less in most of Europe to promote diesels and in Canada to satisfy truckers.
Would you propose to increase taxes on all fossil fuel to compensate for tax reduction on biofuels?
Posted by: | 18 July 2007 at 07:00 AM
Heaven forfend!
If the government bureaucrats were asked to do without. If they truly wanted to encourage Bio fuels, rather than make lip service, they would forgo tax income to make bio fuels economic sooner.
Bu that would mean S-A-C-R-I-F-I-C-E for the Socialists. No way!
Sacrifice is for the masses of peons...
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 18 July 2007 at 10:17 AM
I agree - there should be no export of the BioDiesel from the US - There is plenty of market for BioDiesel in the USA - many parts of the USA don't even have it available at the pump at all - not even in 5% blend (B5).
How about the USA making the major oil companies have a B5 pump avialable at a rate of 1 pump for 10 stores in any major market of 100,000 population or more? That would give US Biodiesel producers a market at home!
W-
Posted by: Spokane Walt | 18 July 2007 at 12:56 PM
I read the paper. It isn't about standards. It is about a guaranteed market for EU biodiesel producers. And also about protecting them from US biodiesel producers.
Apparently there is a B99 US trade provision that the EU producers think is an unfair subsidy. That may well be true. And the EU should ask the WTO to examine the matter.
Posted by: K | 18 July 2007 at 02:01 PM
Remind me, what is so good about biodiesel?
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
Wouldn't we be better off turning Coal in Diesel than doing BioDiesel?
Posted by: GreyFlcn | 19 July 2007 at 11:37 AM
"Wouldn't we be better off turning Coal in Diesel than doing BioDiesel?"
Yes, many of the BioDiesel users in the USA are dead set against any fuel sourced from any deforestation of rain forests. I am a biodiesel user and I am against any source that displaces rainforest or food crop land.
The best sources of BioDiesel are waste (waste veg. oil) and other rotational crops. For example, some wheat famers have discovered that growing Mustard every 5th year replenished the soil and helps with pest control in a natural way. BioDiesel made from the Mustard Seed Oil makes it so that during that 5th year they can still make a reasonable profit from the mustard crop. Win-win in that case.
One Biodiesel producer in Ellensburg, Washington, has stated that they only produce BioDiesel from local sources in the State of Washington (USA West Coast)
BioDiesel is good, but only when produced from a responsible source.
Posted by: Spokane Walt | 19 July 2007 at 03:38 PM
While I understand all of your concerns and many are valid, we're are a very few short years from having completed the research and production of a non food source feedstock for biodiesel that will make the use of foodstocks for biodiesel obsolete. I also believe that if you have to choose between eating and using biofuels, obviously eating is going to win everytime. Anyone in the business of producing Biofuels is well aware and researching alternative feedstocks.
Posted by: Cyris | 20 July 2007 at 10:55 AM
While I understand all of your concerns and many are valid, we're are a very few short years from having completed the research and production of a non food source feedstock for biodiesel that will make the use of foodstocks for biodiesel obsolete. I also believe that if you have to choose between eating and using biofuels, obviously eating is going to win everytime. Anyone in the business of producing Biofuels is well aware and researching alternative feedstocks.
Posted by: Cyris | 20 July 2007 at 11:05 AM
"I also believe that if you have to choose between eating and using biofuels, obviously eating is going to win everytime. "
I see it otherwise . If you plant for both usage you are more flexible in either direction.
Sp.
Posted by: Spangenberg | 22 July 2007 at 06:01 AM
cyris-
Unless youre growing veggies and fruit, by hand, in your back 40, then diesel or bioD were reqd to put it on your table.
Posted by: fred | 25 July 2007 at 11:31 AM
As Fred implied above, biodiesel does not come free. It is important to consider the net energy contributed by a biofuel, its effects on carbon emissions, soil erosion deforestation, water depletion and on the local population not just the equivalent volume or mass of petroleum it replaces. Patzek and Pimentel have often published reports critical of biofuels, showing negative net energies and other deleterious effects. Policy decisions affecting our energy supply need to be based on sound scientific analysis not feel good politics.
We should certainly use all of our waste vegetable oil but electricity and electric transportation will probably be more sustainable.
Posted by: glenn | 27 July 2007 at 07:45 PM