The Scoop on Diesel - New Low Sulfur Diesel Available in 2006

[Dover]

In June of 2006, a new low sulfur diesel will be available. The costs to customers will increase somewhat, but the benefits to the environment are great.

Europe already has newly designed quiet, fuel efficient and clean diesel vehicles. It's just a matter of the costs and competitive import hurdles and/or domestic factory reconfigurations to get them in the U.S.. I don't know how this will effect the market for biodiesels:


ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL


WHAT IS IT?

Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is a specially refined diesel fuel that has dramatically lower sulfur content than regular on-highway diesel and can be used in any diesel engine just like regular on-highway diesel fuel.

Today, the sulfur content of ULSD ranges from 15 to 30 parts per million. Regular diesel has a maximum of 500 parts per million of sulfur. Other than the sulfur content, ultra-low sulfur diesel generally meets the same specifications as regular on-highway diesel. Starting in 2006, the majority of highway-grade diesel fuel must be ULSD and have no greater than 15 ppm sulfur level at the pump.

HOW DOES ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL CONTRIBUTE TO THE CLEAN DIESEL PROCESS?

Using ultra-low sulfur diesel will contribute to dramatic reductions in diesel emissions.

The lower sulfur content produces fewer sulfate emissions and most importantly enables use of emission- reduction equipment, like particulate traps and catalytic converters to lower emissions of particles and nitrogen oxides. Use of these systems in combination with ultra-low sulfur diesel can reduce emissions of fine particulates by more than 90 percent and emissions of hydrocarbons to nearly undetectable levels. .

Even without special emission-reduction equipment, use of ultra-low sulfur diesel in diesel engines reduces sulfate pollutants. It also has some benefits by lowering engine maintenance costs.

When widely available, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is expected to have virtually the same energy and performance as today's highway diesel.

HOW MUCH MORE WILL ULSD COST?

Cleaner ULSD will cost more than current highway diesel fuel. EPA estimates that it will cost consumers several cents per gallon at the pump, when it is required on a widespread basis (see below). Until then, predicting the actual cost impacts is highly uncertain.

CONVERTING TO, AND THE AVAILABILITY OF, ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL

Converting to ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is simple. ULSD doesn't require any special storage systems, and is stored in the same kinds of storage tanks and fueling systems of today's diesel fuel.

ULSD is already available in some parts of the country on a limited basis, mostly to fleet purchasers, but at some service stations in California. Many transit and school bus fleets around the country have converted to using cleaner ULSD in their existing operations. For an up to date map showing where ULSD is available go to http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/fuelsmap.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules will require that new diesel engines meet lower emission levels beginning in 2007 and will require ultra-low sulfur fuels for all on-road engines beginning in 2006.

http://www.dieselforum.org/factsheet/ulsd.html

___________________________________________________________


In general, the final rule mandates that refiners and importers of diesel fuel reduce the sulfur content of this fuel to 15 parts per million ("ppm") by June 1, 2006. There are three notable exceptions to this general rule: (1) a provision in the final rule that permits a refiner or importer to produce a maximum of 20 percent of its highway diesel fuel at the current 500 ppm standard between June 1, 2006 and May 31, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "phase-in provision"), with the remainder mandated to meet the 15 ppm specification; (2) a provision that provides refiners supplying the "geographic phase-in areas" (i.e., PADD IV) with an additional two years to comply with the gasoline sulfur reduction mandate, provided that all of the refiner's highway diesel fuel output meets the 15 ppm diesel fuel sulfur mandate; and, (3) a small refiner hardship provision, which permits companies that meet the definition of "small refiner" to continue to produce 500 ppm highway diesel fuel until May 31, 2010, provided that the small refiner certifies that ample supplies of 15 ppm highway diesel fuel will be available in its PADD from other suppliers. By May 31, 2010, all highway diesel fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur mandate, and all exceptions to the general rule will expire.

As a result of these exceptions to the general 15 ppm sulfur mandate, two different types of highway diesel fuel will be available between mid-2006 and mid-2010. The final rule mandates that 15 ppm diesel fuel and 500 ppm diesel fuel must be segregated throughout the distribution system, including retail diesel fuel outlets.

For diesel fuel marketers, compliance with the final rule is fairly straightforward, at least at first glance. A marketer may choose to sell either 15 ppm diesel fuel or 500 ppm diesel fuel, or both, from its retail outlets. However, as noted above, the two different types of highway diesel fuel may not be commingled. The final rule does not mandate that a marketer sell either or both types of highway diesel fuel -- EPA has left that issue to the marketplace.

There are no diesel fuel testing and sampling mandates imposed on marketers by the final rule. Instead, diesel fuel marketers will be held to a similar standard of liability that exists in other fuels programs -- i.e., maintenance of product transfer documents ("PTDs") from suppliers identifying the product and taking steps to assure that 500 ppm diesel is not sold as 15 ppm diesel at their outlets. The final rule does mandate that labels be affixed to all retail diesel fuel dispensers identifying the type of highway diesel fuel being sold.

In the preamble to the final rule, EPA states that it will consider an additional rulemaking in the coming years to determine whether different sized dispenser nozzles or color-coded dispenser handles or nozzles will be required to assist consumers in distinguishing between the two different types of highway diesel fuel. However, these mandates are not included in the current final rule.

III. Impact of Final Rule on Diesel Marketers
While compliance with the regulatory requirements of the final diesel sulfur rule should not be onerous for diesel fuel marketers, other, non-regulatory impacts of the rule may affect marketers more severely. First, it will be expensive for refiners to upgrade their equipment to make 15 ppm diesel fuel. Faced with this expense, some refiners -- particularly small- and medium-sized refiners -- may choose to reduce their highway diesel fuel production or exit the on-road diesel market entirely. Consequently, the final rule may have the affect of reducing the number of suppliers of diesel fuel across the nation, as well as the amount of highway diesel fuel available.

Second, EPA's decision to grant exceptions to the general 15 ppm mandate will result in two highway diesel fuels being available to marketers between mid-2006 and mid-2010. NACS strongly opposed EPA's exceptions because they will force marketers to either choose one type of highway diesel fuel to carry (thereby limiting the classes of trade that marketers may serve) or install additional tanks and dispensers to carry both types of highway diesel fuel. Whichever option a marketer chooses, it will cost the marketer money, either through lost business or capital investments.

Third, EPA's decision to phase-in the 15 ppm highway sulfur standard will create logistical problems for the diesel fuel distribution system because the two highway diesel fuels must be segregated throughout the system. It remains to be seen whether both fuels will be available in widespread markets, or whether 500 ppm fuel is available only in some areas of the country where the higher sulfur diesel can be transported directly from a refinery to retail outlets by truck.

IV. EPA's Rationale for the Diesel Sulfur Standard
The target of the final rule is emissions of oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") and particulate matter ("PM") from heavy duty vehicles, such as tractor trailers. As part of the final rule, EPA established an emissions standard for heavy duty vehicles (both gasoline- and diesel-powered) that will reduce NOx and PM emissions by 95 percent. EPA accomplishes these reductions by requiring that the engines of Model Year ("MY") 2007 heavy duty vehicles include emissions reduction devices to remove NOx and PM from these vehicles' exhaust.

cont'd

http://www.nacsonline.com/NR/exeres/0000615ekahlbkkqgboantrc/GenUseWithOneCallOut_Resource.asp?NRORIGINALURL=%2fNR%2fexeres%2f2E275E2B-AE24-4CEB-AFC6-1DD2A1E4099C%2ehtm&FRAMELESS=false&NRNODEGUID=%7b2E275E2B-AE24-4CEB-AFC6-1DD2A1E4099C%7d&cookie%5Ftest=1

_________________________________________________________________


EPA SITE:
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/regs/fuels/diesel/diesel.htm

_________________________________________________________________


NON-ROAD Vehicle Schedule:


The schedule:

Nonroad Phase-In - Final Rule Issued June 29, 2004

Key Compliance Dates:

December 31, 2005 – Each terminal company (or other entity) in the diesel fuel distribution system must register each of its terminal facilities with EPA.



June 1, 2007 – All nonroad diesel, including locomotive and marine (LM) diesel, will be required to have no more than 500 ppm sulfur.

June 1, 2010 – The sulfur limit for nonroad diesel (excluding LM diesel) will be reduced to 15 ppm.

August 1, 2010 – At the terminal level, all NRLM diesel must meet the 500 ppm sulfur standard.

June 1, 2012 – The 15 ppm cap for LM diesel will go into effect, except LM fuel (with up to 500 ppm sulfur) produced by certain exempt refiners.

June 1, 2014 – LM fuel produced by refiners under the rule’s “credit and small refiner” provisions will be required to have no more than 15 ppm sulfur.

Summary:

The new rule consists of two parts. It imposes a program of phased-in emission standards for new, nonroad diesel engines, and it requires a two-step reduction in the sulfur content of nonroad, locomotive and marine (NRLM) diesel fuel. The current, unregulated sulfur level of approximately 3,000 ppm will drop to a 500 ppm limit in June 2007. Then, in June 2010, the sulfur cap for nonroad fuel will be reduced further to 15 ppm, and the same 15 ppm cap will apply to locomotive and marine (LM) fuel two years later in June 2012.

The final version of the rule completely changes the mechanism for ensuring that nonroad diesel, when reduced to 500 ppm sulfur in 2007, will not be used to undermine the benefits of the highway diesel program. The new mechanism is the “designate and track” system. This approach requires refiners to designate all batches of 15 ppm and 500 ppm highway and NRLM diesel into one of eight separate categories. These designations will generally follow the fuel throughout the distribution system down to the point when the fuel exits the terminal. However, downstream parties will have limited ability to change designations. For-hire terminals will need to enter into contractual agreements with their customers to ensure that proper controls apply to the designations (and changes in designations) of fuels stored in the leased tanks.

http://www.ilta.org/Rules&Regs/ulsd.htm

[phantom power]

1. Question about diesel.

I was out boating with my dad-in-law, and he's filling his tank with 2% biodiesel. He was saying that some people tried migrating from traditional diesel to 20% biodiesel, and they screwed up their engines, because the biodiesel was too clean.

Supposedly, what happened was that this extra clean fuel started to dissolve some accumulated grime in the fuel system, and chunks of crud broke loose and jammed up the filters, caused havoc, etc.

Does that story make any sense?

[hatrack]

2. I've heard something vaguely similar, but it had to do with sulfur content

Not as a pollutant, but as a lubricant. The worry with older diesels was that if you switched them to lower-sulfur diesel, they'd suffer ring, valve & piston damage.

Whether that was true, I never found out - maybe I'm just prolonging an urban legend. :shrug:

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Two similar urban legends about TEL in gasoline.

1. Elimination TEL ("Tetraethyl lead" or "ethyl") would damage the rings. There may have actually been something to that.

2. Shutting down TEL manufacturing would raise the cost of ethylene glycol (coolant) because ethylene glycol was a byproduct of TEL synthesis. Once you shut down TEL synthesis, ethylene glycol coolant had to "pay its own way."

Lots of folk lore, urban legends, and "transfer pricing."

[hatrack]

5. Yeah, I kinda thought so, but thanks for the illumination!

:toast:

[Massacure]

3. Yes, bio-diesel will clean dino-diesel residue.

You may have to change the filters more often when that residue is dislodged, but once gone permanently it should increase your engine performance a bit. I've never heard of anyone having engine damage from bio-diesel.

[phantom power]

6. The filters might be the explaination.

Something about the fuel filter getting so clogged that it cut off fuel to the pistons, and they lost lubrication. Maybe if they knew they would need to change filters more often, it would not have happened.

[dcfirefighter]

7. Biodiesel in diesel engines

B2 should be no problem in any diesel. B20, because of it's detergent quality, may cause sludge problems. Typically, the recommend gradually building from B2, to B5, to B10, to B15, B20, etc.

(B# where # represents the % of biodiesel).

There are also reports of problems, typically in older motors and furnaces, of biodiesel attacking some forms of gaskets and rubber.

[Dover]

8. Can you explain to me why VW won't warranty a vehicle using biodiesel?

I was talking to a VW salesman and he was telling me all the benefits of a diesel engine (which I already knew...that's why I was there), but when I told him that I wanted to use biodiesel he told me that VW does not recommend its use. I didn't fully understand his answer, but it was something about no standards for biodiesel and/or a need for a certain amount of a lubricant (?). Anyway, if that's true, how can one expect to use biodiesel without warranty coverage?

[NNadir]

9. I asked Volkswagen this question directly by email and rec'd this response

"Dear (so and so),

Thank you for visiting the Volkswagen Web site. We appreciate your inquiry on Volkswagen's position on using biodiesel fuel.

B100 stands for 100% biodiesel. It is a diesel fuel derived from biomass feedstock such as soybeans. It can be blended with regular diesel fuel (B20 = 20% biodiesel/80% regular diesel, for example). In Europe our diesel engines are certified to operate any blend of the biodiesel that is available in Europe. European biodiesel is different than biodiesel in the U.S. since it is produced from different feedstock (the rapeseed plant versus the soy plant).

Our parent company does not agree with the specifications for biodiesel in the U.S. and does not recommend its use in any percentage. Using biodiesel will invalidate our warranty.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact Volkswagen
Customer Care at 800-822-8987.

Thank you for your submission.

Kyle
Volktalk"

Rapeseed oil and soybean oil do have differening chemical compositions. Both contain significant portions of C-18 straight chain acids, but in rapeseed, 64% is represented by monounsaturated acids (whereas in soy, the figure is 23%. Soy contains 55% doubly unsaturated C-18 whereas rapeseed oil contains only 22% of this acid.

A complete description of the chemical composition of various biodiesel feedstock oils can be found in Bioresource Technology 70 (1999) 1-15, an Elsevier journal.

I suspect though, that at the end of the day, the warranty restriction has to do more with corporate timidity, European agricultural policy, and poor marketing. Volkswagen seems more and more like a particularly uninspired company.

[Dover]

10. Thanks for that thorough answer!

After having a similar conversation with Volvo, and about bringing their diesel cars here to the States, I get the feeling there are some major problems with trade policies and gov. restrictions. The European arm of these companies are apparently trying to cut costs and make this market more fluid by standardizing regulations globally. But the discrepancies (such as you point out in the rapeseed v. soy issue) and other issues seem to be creating stagnation in the auto markets. Plus U.S. unwillingness to even address or respond to the gas efficiency/emissions control issues which are way behind Europes I believe.

[halfcourttrap]

11. what if algae oil becomes a standardized American Bio-Diesel

i have posted on different boards that get into Bio-Diesel, and I still have not come across anyone with facts to support Algae-based Bio-Diesel displaying any abnormal problems.....and due to its ease to grow (in mass quantity) and most of all oil content that by volume is higher than any feedstock (rapeseed, soy, peanut, hemp...)
so just wondering if anyone knows any of the drawbacks to algae?? if not, why we we all jump this issue BIG TIME?!? It would cause a dramatic shift of supply and demand...and Detroit would have one standard type Diesel-base to work with in refining and perfecting Diesel engines...(and that means TURBOS TOO!)...

http://www.veggievan.org/downloads/articles/Biodiesel%20from%20Algae.pdf#search='algae%20for%20diesel%20study'

[NNadir]

12. One hears about this all the time, but there are no industrial systems.

As I understand it, the cost still is too high.

In general I have found over the years that people like to believe in energy schemes that sound good, but few are familiar with the practical details which include of course, cost and environmental impact.

Although I've spent some time looking into the chemistry of various types of biodiesel fuelstocks, I have never seen biodiesel from algae discussed in more detail than the DOE report that is in your link. I have no idea, for instance, what the fatty acid distribution in algae based biodiesel actually is. It is worth noting that this program has been very poorly funded. It shouldn't be. From what I can tell, the funding is the equivalent to a few destroyed Hummers in Iraq.

That said, the chemistry of biofuels is not as simple as people would like to think. I would suspect, but do not know, that Volkswagen would invalidate a warranty simply because it was not European rapeseed type biodiesel.

[halfcourttrap]

13. oil content of algae? over 50% on average;-)

Im not sure if i am answering your exact question, but if you are speaking of what the oil content on average by volume it seems to be over 50% with most strains of algae...

if you want to think in terms of the energy efficientcy/energy balance compare the fact that soybean oil has a enrgy balance of 3.2:1

Other feedstocks such as algaes can yield substantially higher energy balances, as can using thermochemical processes for processing wastes into biofuels (such as the thermal depolymerization process pioneered by Changing World Technologies). Such approaches can yield EROI values ranging from 5-10, potentially even higher
(i cut and pasted that little paragraph;-))


here is a link also
http://c100.bsyse.wsu.edu/aebe/bioproducts/omega3.asp
(and i know this is off in a bit of a tangent), but it shows how waste glycol from the biodiesel refining process can be fermented with algae to create OMEGA-3 RICH Feedstock for cattle which gets passed on to us! SO if we can "pin down" a highly -efficient (and various)algae pool designs, we can also utilize some of the algae and "seedcake of algae" leftover from after the oil is pressed out to create feed for the cows, who in turn crap in the fields to create more Nitrogen rich fertizier to grow the algae (through scooping it up or just diverting natural field run-off to the algae ponds)...on and on and on past the break of dawn!

oh btw the pecentages i read also say that rapeseed is usually 27-38% oil content by volume, soybean is only 14-22%, and all other seedbased is below rapeseed...but algae far outweighs it, and grows whereever and whenever in the right spots (which we have a lot of!!!

oh and if you want the REALLY LONG version of that government report ..here is the link:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf

[NNadir]

14. By fatty acid distribution, I meant the types of fatty acids.

I.e. the amount of 18:1 (oleic), 18:2 (linoleic), or erucic acid, palmitoteic, etc, etc.

The distribution of these acids, all of which are "oils," has a profound effect on many of the physical properties of putative fuels, that is flowability, cloud point, melting point, bulk modulus, etc, all of which effect engine performance, lifetime, and pollution profile.

I frequently report here various laboratory schemes for doing something with glycerol, which is already, and has long been, in global oversupply, usually giving articles in Energy and Fuels as references.

Two recent such articles I discussed in threads here are:

New Application of Glycerin from a Photochemical Approach: Dihydrogen Formation from Aqueous Glycerin by Use of Giant Polyoxometalate Photocatalysts
Hori, H.; Koike, K.; Sakai, Y.; Murakami, H.; Hayashi, K.; Nomiya, K.;
Energy & Fuels; (Article); 2005; ASAP Article;

Production of Hydrogen by Steam Reforming of Glycerin on Ruthenium Catalyst
Hirai, T.; Ikenaga, N.-o.; Miyake, T.; Suzuki, T.;
Energy & Fuels; (Communication); 2005; 19(4); 1761-1762.

There needs to be a distinction between research reports, however, and industrial processes. Often I encounter the kind of thinking that reads a research report and assumes that the work can be repeated economically, cleanly and simply on an industrial scale. This turns out to be untrue in the majority of cases.

[halfcourttrap]

15. hmmm...is this the type of info you want on types of fatty acids in algae?

I understand that you are pretty learned in this area, but I think you are hyperanalyzing...if you have any better araes of pursuit that we can all clearly understand, I would love to hear them....but as far as Fatty Acid Profiles this was just one study that I found (based on some Grren, Red, Brown Algae Studies based on some species found off the northern California Coast...
http://www.degruyter.de/journals/bm/2002/pdf/45_17.pdf#search='algae%20oleic%20acid'

If you understand the true jest of what I am saying, maybe you wouldn't be such a wet blanket to the notion...
I am saying if $1 billion dollars was given annually to each of the 50 states for 5 years (5 year grand total 250 billion dollars)...I am saying that if each state were to made to invest that money into State Universities Biology and Environmental Sciences Depratments to create at least 1 algae research/production facility in EVERY STATE...we will get these precise Biological Refinements made!

Furthermore, there are currently many people utilizing algae based bio-diesel, growing it in their own backyards...from all of the research , the oil content, ease of growth, and controllability of the growing environment allows for exponential refinement.......anyways gas-based engines (which most Americans use of course) certainly don't come close to having the low -emissions and LONG-LIFE of Diesel engines....so Ill bet you dollars to donuts that people will be not so upset if their Algae- Bio-D Engine only gives them 300,000-400,000 miles...far better than a chevy 2.8 litre v-6 gas engine ever l;asted or most any other gas engine for that matter.......

but im not saying your not better at the whole chemistry issue than me, you seem very smart...but we HAVE TO GET IT TOGETHER AND MOVE ON SOMETHING NOW WITH BIO-DIESEL...SOYBEAN and RAPESEED DO NOT MAKE THE SENSE THAT ALGAE DOES...AND IF YOU NEED TO STILL GROW AN ALTERNATE CROP TO SERVE AS BACK-UP... THE ALGAE METHOD CREATES GREAT FERTILIZER;-)
oh and are those other crop versitile enough to serve as CO2 filters for coal burning power plants like Algae Pools would?

[NNadir]

16. I like that locution.

"The true jest of what I am saying..."

Look, I'm not "throwing a wet blanket" on anything, but...

...I'm also not in favor of dropping 250 billion dollars on a wild goose (or algae chase) either. Or for that matter on a criminal goose chase, like the war in Iraq. I do have an appreciation of the difference between bench top and industrial chemistry however and thus I would be reluctant to spend this kind of money on someone's pet enthusiasms.

Some people think that if they spend enough money on something, it will happen. I don't agree.

If I had 250 billion dollars to spend on energy issues, I would probably build 100 nuclear power plants. I know nuclear power plants work well and provide safe, clean, and affordable energy, and that the resources are vast. The technology has almost half a century of industrial experience behind it and is well understood. None of this is true of biodiesel. While the utility of biological fuels has been understood since the days of Herr Diesel himself, they have never really been large scale industrial fuels.

All that said, biodiesel is a relatively easy thing for people to get into. It's not rocket science. If biodiesel can be made from algae, one shouldn't need a billion dollars to prove it.

If people are indeed doing it in their backyards, and it is affordable, then it will happen as some of these people go commercial. If on the other hand, it doesn't work, people will buy all this equipment and end up hauling it to the dump. In general, I have suspicions about potential point source polluters, but there aren't really too many chemicals in this process (with the obvious exceptions of methanol and sodium hydroxide) that are going to do too much damage to anyone. It's probably just as safe as having a lead/acid battery. Indeed, biodiesel is clearly safer than petroleum diesel.

I am not so sanguine, by the way, about lots and lots of people having salt water tanks in their backyards. I have a well, for instance, and would not appreciate it if my neighbors tank over flowed in a rainstorm, or simply sprung a leak. I would also not appreciate methanol (which causes blindness) in my water either.

I do appreciate the link on the oil contents of various algae, however. I have downloaded the pdf file and will keep it for future reference the next time this topic comes up. The acid content of algae is indeed very different than rapeseed, far less consistent with rapeseed than soy is, for that matter. In particular their is a much larger C-16 constituent. This may offer the advantage of a lower melting point when compared to either soy or rapeseed oil but I have no idea what the effect would be on other parameters important to engine operation.

I note that a report from the USDA/Economic Research Service which I previously downloaded, for which I do not have a link, indicates that 100% of US oil crop diversion to use as fuel (ie. eliminating all other uses) would provide only 13% of the diesel demand of the US in 1995. In other words, all of the oil seed available would still be a drop in the bucket when compared with demand. Presumably one could in theory devote all of the ocean surface area to the production of appropriate algae farms, but speaking only for myself, I find this prospect environmentally unsatisfying.

But again, it is not really me who throws wet blankets here. It is European diesel car makers. Anyone who doesn't care about the warranty on their car - who is certain that the issues will not apply of biodiesel destroying their engine, injectors or whatever, is certainly free to use algae based biodiesel at will. Or else one can buy a used car whose warranty has already expired and test the matter for one's self. Anyone who insists on their warranty and the freedom to use biodiesel should take the matter up with Volvo (Ford) and Volkswagen, not me.

[halfcourttrap]

17. no it isn't quite rocket science

you are still missing the point, somewhat, but I completely appreciate and respect your knowledge in this field....but I will just say what you say "It isn't rocket science..."

I can tell from your previous post that this is a very big pursuit of yours, to learn the benefits & the drawbacks of diesel in a clearly balanced and scientific way... and I do know what you are saying about throwning money away on Wild Goose Chases...believe me, I am not big on Federal Spending for the most part either...but lets get down to brass tacks here...

Whatever large step that the Federal Govt tries to initiate in trying to shift our oil dependence is going to have to make sense to everyone...I think explaining Bio-Diesel to folks who are still not too familiar is definitely going to propogate itself much more quickly with Bio-D, than any other pursuit at this time...Hydrogen Fuel cells , Hybridss (which have far more Enviro probs, and compromises than Bio--D) Solar, or whatever...MIDDLE AMERICA UNDERSTANDS AND APPRECIATES BIO-D...

ANyway, you seem to have massive trepidation about pursuing Algae as our FOCUSED Base for Bio-D Development/Resources... From EVERYTHING that I have read there are no dramatic "Flaws" within Algae...the simple fact is..
Becase Algae is so easy to grow and control, and feed with basic nutrients...coupled with the fact that the oil content is UNCOMPARABLE to soybean (which too many people complain of the topsoil leaching caused by farms), and rapeseed (same complaints + complaints by other local farmers of too much blowover growth where not wanted)...and I'm talking when your speaking of growing in MASS liekwould need to be....You alsocite that seed-based Bio-D would only cover 13% of the world's diesel demand...THat kind of proves my point...
Enough algae can be grown on a fraction of the land needed for all the seedcrop resources that would be needed...Check out what France, Germany, and Japan are doing...the Japanese are very in-tuned with minimizing land space needed, and with fiberoptics, they are coming up with very interesting algae growing pools... enough money going to Colleges/Universities WOULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE HERE;-)

Sorry for the wet blanket comment, I was being a little disrepectful of your pragmatics, but I ajust don't see many other avenues to go at big-time for now..ok 250 billion is a lot ...haw about $10 billion a year for 5 years (50 billion total) ($200,000,000 per state for public universities Bio-D R & D Grants, per year)?
I am sorry, but if in the current political short-attention span climate, and Middle-America appreciates solid, firm numbers & plans...the research money to public schools are our only hope, along with profits from the sale of Bio-D created at the schools going DIRECTLY back into our schools (who would be against fuel money for education? WHO?)
...BIG-OIL WILL NOT HELP ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH OTHER DIRECTIONS TO GO?