By JEFFREY BALL
Filling up his Ford Excursion is a headache for Eric Sobalvarro. So many choices: Taco joint or sandwich shop? Scent of banana peppers or of tempura?
Mr. Sobalvarro is a greaser—one of a small but growing band of drivers who fuel their cars and trucks with used frying oil.
It takes grit to be a greaser: Stalwarts must recruit restaurants as back-alley sources, filter the smelly liquid in the garage or backyard, and modify a vehicle with a diesel engine to burn it. Drawbacks include finding dead raccoons in restaurant grease vats.
Now greasers have another worry: corporate competition. Vegetable oil is a main ingredient of biodiesel, and demand for used oil has soared along with government subsidies and mandates for the alternative fuel. Over the past six months, the market price for grease has jumped some 70%, to about $3 a gallon.
The big boys in the grease market are middlemen known as "renderers." They buy used grease, clean it up and resell it at the market price. Some goes to cattle lots, which feed the grease to cows to fatten them up. Some goes to makers of biodiesel, which generally doesn't gum up engines as much as straight grease does, especially when it's cold outside.
When grease was cheap, restaurants typically gave it to anyone who would take it. Those were good times for greasers, who are happy to spend Sunday afternoons picking up leftover grease from their favorite lunch spots.
But with grease prices heating up, many processors are paying restaurants for used oil. That's squeezing greasers.
"I'm a little paranoid about the whole thing," says Glenn Carlin, a greaser from Kent, Conn. He recently lost one of his local sources, the Fife 'n Drum, to a processor that began paying the restaurant $15 per 55-gallon drum for its grease.
Mr. Carlin filters grease for his Volkswagen Passat with a setup of tanks and tubes in the converted barn where he and his family live. But now he's down to one supplier: Mohawk Mountain, a nearby ski resort. "The less people thinking about grease, the better," he says. "I don't want the competition."
Steve Fugate, who runs a co-op in Iowa City, Iowa, that collects and processes grease and sells it mostly as biodiesel, also is scrambling. Shakespeare's, a local bar, switched from Mr. Fugate, who doesn't pay for grease, to a renderer that agreed to give the bar $50 per barrel.
Each year, Shakespeare's fills only about four barrels, bringing in about $200 from dirty oil. "But it's better than when I got nothing," says owner Susie Spalj.
In protest, Mr. Fugate has stopped eating at Shakespeare's.
Greasers, though, have limited muscle. What they're doing may not be legal. The Environmental Protection Agency hasn't approved grease as a fuel for cars and trucks, although it has blessed biodiesel.
Running on grease requires a car or truck with a diesel engine, because a vehicle made to burn gasoline can't handle the stuff. Rudolf Diesel used peanut oil to power the eponymous engine he patented in the 1890s.
But today's greasers typically tweak their rides with kits that can cost a few thousand dollars, to avoid gumming up modern filters and hoses.
The grease wars are getting particularly sticky in Colorado.
Last year, grease processors in Colorado pushed through a law requiring anyone who acquires and transports grease to pay the state a registration fee of up to $1,140 a year.
Rocky Mountain Sustainable Enterprises, a Boulder-based processor that led the charge, wanted to thwart what it saw as unfair competition, says Aaron Perry, chief executive of the company, which has since changed its name to recycOil. After filtering used oil, some greasers and rendering companies dump the leftover gunk into the environment, avoiding the fees recycOil incurs when it sends off its dregs for disposal, he says.
By "dumping it on the back 40, they're avoiding those costs," he says.
Seething, several Colorado greasers are talking with a Denver lawyer about fighting back. Although the law sets a much lower annual fee for greasers who keep a minimal amount of the goop on hand, many greasers say it's still too restrictive.
"If I go to Costco, I can buy a pallet of vegetable oil," notes Mr. Sobalvarro, one of the Colorado greasers in on the legal fight. "Explain to me why it is that it's considered a hazardous material if it touches a chicken wing."
Mr. Sobalvarro's anger bubbled up several weeks ago, when a processor snagged one of his sources: the Longmont, Colo., location of Snarf's, a sandwich chain. The Snarf's had been supplying Mr. Sobalvarro with soybean oil in which its banana peppers came packed.
Greasers debate which kinds of restaurants cast off the best used oil. Typically, they say, oil from burger joints and bars requires the most filtering, because it's full of food bits and water from frozen french fries and chicken. They prefer oil from vegetarian and Japanese eateries—anywhere, really, that changes its oil often and doesn't fry a lot of frozen food.
The stuff from Snarf's, Mr. Sobalvarro says, "was really good oil." The processor, Boulder-based Sustainable Oil Service, "sweet-talked" Snarf's into switching, he grouses.
Sustainable pays Snarf's not in cash but in bottles of Dark Majic, a kitchen cleaner Sustainable manufactures using a grease byproduct.
Chelsea Pohl, a Snarf's manager, says it doesn't make sense for restaurants to give away grease. "A lot of people don't realize this is a commodity."
Kurt Lange, Sustainable's president, says he wasn't aware Snarf's had been giving its oil to a backyard producer.
Having lost Snarf's, Mr. Sobalvarro is hustling to stay in the good graces of his remaining sources, particularly a sushi place with quality tempura oil.
His strategy: Eat there often, pay in cash and tip well. "It's a symbiotic relationship," Mr. Sobalvarro says. "It's the only way a little guy like me is going to be able to get oil."
Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Barack Obama 2012 budget provides $8bn for clean energy
The White House is asking Congress to repeal oil, natural gas and coal subsidies to pay for clean energy initiatives
Reuters
guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 February 2011 16.36 GMT
President Barack Obama proposed on Monday to boost funds for clean energy research and deployment in his 2012 budget by slashing subsidies for fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.
The budget provides the Department of Energy with $29.5bn (£18.4bn) for the fiscal year 2012, up 4.2% from the proposed 2011 budget, and up 12% from the enacted 2010 budget. Some $8bn would support research in clean energy like wind, solar and advanced batteries.
"Whomever leads in the global, clean energy economy will also take the lead in creating high-paying, highly skilled jobs for its people," the administration said in the budget.
The budget would also provide $853m to support new nuclear energy technologies, such as small modular reactors.
The White House asked for $36bn in federal loan guarantees to help finance the building of nuclear power plants, as it did last year. The loan programme already has $18bn in authority.
To help pay for the clean energy initiatives, the White House is asking Congress to repeal $3.6bn in oil, natural gas and coal subsidies, a move that would total $46.2bn over a decade. In addition, the budget cuts funding for oil and gas research and for hydrogen fuels programmes.
But many Republicans oppose cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, saying it would hurt industries that provide jobs while the economy is still fragile.
"Given the broad difference in priorities between House Republicans and the White House on energy issues, we believe that few of the proposed cuts and expansions ... will become law," Whitney Stanco, an energy policy analyst at MF Global, said in a research note.
Republicans, who now have control of the House of Representatives, have also proposed to cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) programme to regulate greenhouse gases, saying Congress should be the one to decide whether to fight climate change, not the administration.
Republicans may try to force a government shutdown if the Obama administration does not agree to its spending cuts. But analysts said a delay in EPA climate regulations led by Congress was more likely than shutting down the government over an environmental rule.
The Obama budget cuts the 2012 EPA budget by about $1.3bn or about 13% with reductions in a clean diesel programme and in Great Lakes restoration projects.
Stanco said the budget's funding for electric vehicles could be likeliest to make it into law as it could be paired with funding for natural gas vehicles. The budget proposes $588m for vehicle technologies, an increase of 88% from current levels.
The budget would double the number of energy innovation hubs to six to bring scientists to work on topics like rare earth elements, energy storage and batteries and development of smart grid technologies designed to make electricity transmission efficient.
Reuters
guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 February 2011 16.36 GMT
President Barack Obama proposed on Monday to boost funds for clean energy research and deployment in his 2012 budget by slashing subsidies for fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.
The budget provides the Department of Energy with $29.5bn (£18.4bn) for the fiscal year 2012, up 4.2% from the proposed 2011 budget, and up 12% from the enacted 2010 budget. Some $8bn would support research in clean energy like wind, solar and advanced batteries.
"Whomever leads in the global, clean energy economy will also take the lead in creating high-paying, highly skilled jobs for its people," the administration said in the budget.
The budget would also provide $853m to support new nuclear energy technologies, such as small modular reactors.
The White House asked for $36bn in federal loan guarantees to help finance the building of nuclear power plants, as it did last year. The loan programme already has $18bn in authority.
To help pay for the clean energy initiatives, the White House is asking Congress to repeal $3.6bn in oil, natural gas and coal subsidies, a move that would total $46.2bn over a decade. In addition, the budget cuts funding for oil and gas research and for hydrogen fuels programmes.
But many Republicans oppose cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, saying it would hurt industries that provide jobs while the economy is still fragile.
"Given the broad difference in priorities between House Republicans and the White House on energy issues, we believe that few of the proposed cuts and expansions ... will become law," Whitney Stanco, an energy policy analyst at MF Global, said in a research note.
Republicans, who now have control of the House of Representatives, have also proposed to cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) programme to regulate greenhouse gases, saying Congress should be the one to decide whether to fight climate change, not the administration.
Republicans may try to force a government shutdown if the Obama administration does not agree to its spending cuts. But analysts said a delay in EPA climate regulations led by Congress was more likely than shutting down the government over an environmental rule.
The Obama budget cuts the 2012 EPA budget by about $1.3bn or about 13% with reductions in a clean diesel programme and in Great Lakes restoration projects.
Stanco said the budget's funding for electric vehicles could be likeliest to make it into law as it could be paired with funding for natural gas vehicles. The budget proposes $588m for vehicle technologies, an increase of 88% from current levels.
The budget would double the number of energy innovation hubs to six to bring scientists to work on topics like rare earth elements, energy storage and batteries and development of smart grid technologies designed to make electricity transmission efficient.
Should we worry about Carbon Trust and Energy Saving Trust cuts?
The contribution of both bodies to the climate change effort may not be worth the money we spend on them
• Carbon Trust funding cut by 40%
Chris Goodall guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 February 2011 16.33 GMT
The Carbon Trust is the latest body to announce a substantial cut in its funding from government. The 40% reduction in its grant income is marginally less severe than the 50% cut imposed on the Energy Saving Trust (EST) a few weeks ago. The job of both these bodies is to reduce energy use and carbon emissions with the Carbon Trust focusing on large companies and the EST on households. They have both claimed major successes in recent years.
So should those of us worried about climate change be upset with the government's cost savings? I suggest our reaction should be very muted indeed. Both bodies had become bloated and inefficient. I have dealt with many entrepreneurs and small businesses who have found them to be actively unhelpful. Their contribution to the climate change effort may not be worth the money we spend on them.
First of all, we should put the funding cuts in perspective. The EST had a budget of about £70m in 2009-10. But two years earlier, its funding was only £36m, just over half the current level. In other words, the cuts imposed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) last month simply take the EST income back to where it was in 2008. And, incidentally, the claim the EST makes for its impact on carbon emissions as a result of work carried out in 2009-10 is actually less than the figure of two years earlier, despite the much higher level of income. Similarly, the number of people employed at the agency has risen sharply in recent years with no apparent impact on the energy savings it achieved.
The position at the Carbon Trust is very similar. Its income rose from just under £100m in 2007-08 to £166m last year. As with the EST, the reduction announced today simply takes its funding from central government back to where it was two years ago. The chief executive, Tom Delay, says that the 40% cut will mean 35 redundancies but this will still leave its employee numbers substantially higher than they were only a couple of years ago.
Both bodies have large and expensive offices in central London. The Carbon Trust, for example, occupies space in an office block in one of the most desirable areas of the City. I have recently watched an entrepreneur struggling to establish his business gasp at the disparity between the conditions in which he works and the standards he saw at the Carbon Trust offices.
Other small business people have commented to me on the ponderousness of both organisations and their lack of industrial expertise. Perhaps these criticisms are unfair but views like these are very widely held among companies and individuals working in the low-carbon sectors.
Both bodies can rightly claim that their jobs have got much more complicated in recent years, demanding higher allocations of funds from the taxpayer's purse and putting strain on their ability to respond quickly and efficiently. As organisations dependent on pleasing their bosses in Decc and other government departments, they are forced to focus on projects given to them at very short notice, such as the domestic boiler scrappage scheme handled by the EST with three weeks' notice.
• Chris Goodall is a businessman, climate change expert and author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet
• Carbon Trust funding cut by 40%
Chris Goodall guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 February 2011 16.33 GMT
The Carbon Trust is the latest body to announce a substantial cut in its funding from government. The 40% reduction in its grant income is marginally less severe than the 50% cut imposed on the Energy Saving Trust (EST) a few weeks ago. The job of both these bodies is to reduce energy use and carbon emissions with the Carbon Trust focusing on large companies and the EST on households. They have both claimed major successes in recent years.
So should those of us worried about climate change be upset with the government's cost savings? I suggest our reaction should be very muted indeed. Both bodies had become bloated and inefficient. I have dealt with many entrepreneurs and small businesses who have found them to be actively unhelpful. Their contribution to the climate change effort may not be worth the money we spend on them.
First of all, we should put the funding cuts in perspective. The EST had a budget of about £70m in 2009-10. But two years earlier, its funding was only £36m, just over half the current level. In other words, the cuts imposed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) last month simply take the EST income back to where it was in 2008. And, incidentally, the claim the EST makes for its impact on carbon emissions as a result of work carried out in 2009-10 is actually less than the figure of two years earlier, despite the much higher level of income. Similarly, the number of people employed at the agency has risen sharply in recent years with no apparent impact on the energy savings it achieved.
The position at the Carbon Trust is very similar. Its income rose from just under £100m in 2007-08 to £166m last year. As with the EST, the reduction announced today simply takes its funding from central government back to where it was two years ago. The chief executive, Tom Delay, says that the 40% cut will mean 35 redundancies but this will still leave its employee numbers substantially higher than they were only a couple of years ago.
Both bodies have large and expensive offices in central London. The Carbon Trust, for example, occupies space in an office block in one of the most desirable areas of the City. I have recently watched an entrepreneur struggling to establish his business gasp at the disparity between the conditions in which he works and the standards he saw at the Carbon Trust offices.
Other small business people have commented to me on the ponderousness of both organisations and their lack of industrial expertise. Perhaps these criticisms are unfair but views like these are very widely held among companies and individuals working in the low-carbon sectors.
Both bodies can rightly claim that their jobs have got much more complicated in recent years, demanding higher allocations of funds from the taxpayer's purse and putting strain on their ability to respond quickly and efficiently. As organisations dependent on pleasing their bosses in Decc and other government departments, they are forced to focus on projects given to them at very short notice, such as the domestic boiler scrappage scheme handled by the EST with three weeks' notice.
• Chris Goodall is a businessman, climate change expert and author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
