For those of us who may not make regular trips to the Metro recycling station, it may come as a mild surprise that individuals can recycle their used cooking oil at several locations throughout the Portland metropolitan area and beyond.

Encore Oils, a subsidiary of Sequential Biofuel, collects waste oil from these locations, transporting it to Sequential’s biodiesel plant in Salem. Once delivered to Sequential, the oil is processed into biodiesel in about three weeks, then distributed to retail and commercial customers throughout the state. The technology at the Sequential’s Salem plant allows for any vegetable oil to be processed into biodiesel including soy, corn, canola and olive oil.

Encore also pays (depending on market conditions) to collect large quantities of oil from a myriad of restaurants and commercial food processors –including Kettle Foods, Shari’s restaurants, and Burgerville– all of which becomes biodiesel sold throughout Oregon. Individual public drop-offs are by donation only.

heat local, baby

I’ve been happily heating my home with Sequential’s Oregon-sourced, Oregon-refined B99 (99.9% waste oil-derived biodiesel) since upgrading to a bio-furnace in October, 2007. More than 90 percent of Sequential’s biodiesel is produced using Oregon-sourced waste vegetable oil. The remaining stock comes from Canola oil produced in Oregon, from Oregon-grown crops. Sequential’s biodiesel for home heating is available for delivery in the Portland areas from the fine folks at Star Oil.

When dropping off containers of used cooking oil at any of the locations listed below, make sure they’re clearly marked with labels stating, ‘Used Cooking Oil’ –it’s also recommended that the oil be recycled in the same container it was purchased.

The following locations are open to the public for oil drop-off –call ahead for hours:

Encore Oils
10111 NE 6th DR.
Portland, OR 97211
503.954.2154

Far West Fibers
4629 SE 17th Ave
Portland, OR

Portland Recycling Centers
2005 Rosa Parks Way
Portland, OR

Portland Recycling Centers
1520 NW Quimby
Portland, OR

Portland Recycling Centers
341 Foothills Road
Lake Oswego, OR

Metro Transfer Stations
2001 Washington Street
Oregon City, OR

Metro Transfer Stations
6161 NW 61st Avenue
Portland, OR

Salem Transfer Station
3250 Deer Park Dr SE
Salem, OR 97301
503.588.5169

Woodburn Transfer Station
17827 Whitney Lane NE
Woodburn, OR 97071
503.588.5169

SeQuential Retail Station
86714 McVay Hwy
Eugene, OR 97405
541.736.5864

Far West Fibers
6440 SE Alexander Street
Hillsboro, OR

Far West Fibers
10750 SW Denney Road
Beaverton, OR

Related Posts

• April 14, 2009 -- Props to the `Ville (7)
• July 3, 2008 -- Out of Focus (4)
• June 14, 2009 -- A Chat with Burgerville (1)
• May 15, 2009 -- Burgerville + Beer + Twitter = Excellent (4)
• July 21, 2008 -- Dino-Might (2)

For those of you who heat your home, water and food with natural gas, Northwest (NW) Natural’s recent announcement that it will likely increase rates by up to 40 percent, likely came as a pretty massive shock. Just when natural gas customers thought they could avoid yet another impact from the volatile global energy market, this announcement hits at a most inopportune time. As I heat my home with Oregon-sourced and refined B99 biodiesel, this increase won’t hit me directly, but really, I’m already bent over the barrel (so to speak) –have you seen the price of Oregon-sourced B99? Yeah, no parade at my home, kids. The fact is, energy prices are squeezing us all. This being said, the recent announcement from NW Natural shines a glaring light on an industry that has long kept itself clean of the dirt kicked up during the recent oil and energy crisis. Natural gas deserves a closer look, especially as the coast is under deep investigation by the federal government for potential LNG (liquefied natural gas) ports. Or as I like to say, more needles to feed the habit.

First, before anybody completely skewers NW Natural for inflating rates, it’s important to note that gas utilities’ profits don’t depend on the volume of gas they sell. The price of gas for end-customers is based on what NW Natural refer to as the weighted average cost of gas. This figure is a complex sum of the price of gas withdrawn from NW Natural’s own storage wells, their long-term contracts, and the price the company pays on the wholesale market when it needs to bulk up supplies during the winter. According to the Oregonian:

“…in late August, NW Natural estimates its gas cost for the following year and submits the forecast to regulators at the Oregon Public Utility Commission, who analyze the request and set rates accordingly. If actual gas costs come in lower than the estimate, a refund is built into rates the next year. Utilities don’t lock in their entire supply for the year in advance. And regulators make sure utilities are motivated to buy gas judiciously by allowing them to share in any savings –or losses– they achieve from their original estimate.”

Natural is as Natural Does

NW Natural is an interesting business that has remained severely quiet during bio-fuel’s rise and recent decline… and for good reason. While they have a name that almost guarantees a perfect fit for Oregonians (‘Northwest’ and ‘Natural’ in the same title!), there’s not a boatload to be proud of. Yes, the gas is from natural sources, and yes, it is delivered to Northwest customers, but that’s where the honeymoon ends. The fact is, natural gas comes from the same place that we get oil (for the most part). Though it is a gas and not a liquid, natural gas is, in fact, a non-renewable fossil fuel, just like oil. It’s found primarily in both oil fields and natural gas fields, as well as in coal beds (as coalbed methane).

Natural gas consists primarily of methane but including significant quantities of ethane, propane, butane, and pentane—heavier hydrocarbons removed prior to use as a consumer fuel —as well as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium and hydrogen sulfide. It’s really a rather robust energy cocktail. Natural gas was formed millions of years ago when organic matter was buried in the earth and ocean floor. Over time, thick layers of mud, sand, silt and rock settled over the matter, pushing it deeper and deeper into the earth’s crust. As the layers of matter built up, pressure and heat from the shifting surface of the earth filled the resulting cracks and crevices with oil and natural gas.

When methane-rich gases are produced by the decay of non-fossil organic material, these are referred to as biogas. Sources of biogas include swamps, marshes, and landfills, as well as sewage sludge and manure by way of anaerobic digesters, in addition to fermentation in cattle. Yes, it is true that biogas is an excellent future energy source. In fact, the City of Portland now has a waste treatment facility that is supplementing its’ power needs with gas produced by the human sludge bubbling within the bowels of the facility. This being said, it’s still a nascent industry, albeit an important focus for future sustainability.

Whatever it’s source, before natural gas can be used to steam your turnips, it has to undergo extensive processing to remove nearly everything but the methane. After processing, the resulting gas has to be transported to gas-consuming regions where it can be distributed via a vast network of underground pipelines. Carriers can be used to transport LNG across oceans, while trucks can carry liquefied or compressed natural gas (CNG) over shorter distances. Trucks might transport natural gas directly to end-users, or to distribution points such as pipelines for further transport. These may require additional facilities for liquefaction or compression at the production point, and then gasification or decompression at end-use facilities or into a pipeline. Pipelines can keep the gas flowing to homes for about 50 miles before requiring a ‘boost’ to keep the pressure in the lines up to optimal levels.

By the Numbers

Geology/logistics lessons aside, more than 60 million customers use natural gas in homes and businesses in the United States. In fact, natural gas provides about 24 percent of all the energy that is used across the nation, including 22 percent of America’s electricity. Natural gas consumption in the U.S. divides in the various sectors of the economy as such:

Industrial use: 33%
Electricity production: 31%
Residential demand: 22%
Commercial sector: 14%

With increasing demands and subsequent costs, it’s fair to ask just where the heck does all this natural gas come from? Fortunately, most of it (~80 percent) comes from domestic sources, but this is not a stable foundation. Thanks to peak oil fanatics, we know that oil production in the United States is in dramatic decline, passing the discovery peak for oil in 1930. The production peak followed 40 years later, in 1970. The U.S. now imports about 70 percent of its oil. During the time that we’ve remained focused on the source and production levels of our oil, the general public has remained in a gaseous fog as to the source and production levels of natural gas.

What you may not be as aware of is that natural gas production in the U.S. has also peaked. In fact, American natural gas production reached its peak in 1973, then went over a second, lower peak, in 2001. This was also the date for peak production of natural gas in all of North American, which is now in terminal decline. The depletion rates for natural gas in the U.S. are larger than for oil. Natural gas fields put into production in 1990 were down 17 percent after the first year. Fields put into production today deplete more than 30 percent during their first year of operation.

Because of this decline, the U.S. now imports more than 17 percent of its natural gas, three percent of which arrives on our shores as LNG, mainly from Trinidad. The remaining 14 percent comes from Canada (which represents one half of Canada’s production). This being said, Canadian imports don’t represent anything more than a tourniquet. The province of Alberta has about 3/4 of Canada’s natural gas reserves, yet production from Alberta’s gas wells dropped 71 percent from 1996 to 2004. In the past 25 years, Canada, the United States and Mexico have gone from having 12 percent of world reserves to four percent and we have less than 10 years of reserves at current production rates.

Home is Where the Gas Isn’t

Though North American production has peaked, we’re still demanding more and more from our shrinking reserves. We now import (via North American pipelines) more than four times the amount of natural gas than we did in 1982, mostly because we can’t keep up domestically. The vast majority of the natural gas reserves in the United States exist in just six states, plus a relatively large reserve in Alaska. The state of Oregon doesn’t have any reserves worth more than a mention and the closest state to us with any significant reserve is Wyoming. The Gulf of Mexico used to produce a good deal of our domestic natural gas, but even this is suspect for a solid future. According to Ziff Energy, a Calgary-based consultancy, the Gulf’s gas will fall from 25 percent of the total U.S. supply in 2000 to eight percent in 2014, as total offshore output will drop dramatically. True, there remains a large amount of natural gas reserves worldwide (though data is unreliable), however it is difficult and expensive to transport.

The world’s major natural gas reserves lie mainly in Russian Siberia, Iran and Qatar. Natural gas is shipped mostly via regional pipeline. Subsequently, in order for the U.S. to gain access to the large reserves in Asia and the Middle East, liquefaction facilities need to be built. Unfortunately, as soon as the appropriate facilities are built, stiff competition for liquefied natural gas drives up demand and prices. The fact remains, natural gas is, like oil, rife with potential for generating geopolitical conflict. Just 15 nations account for 84 percent of the world-wide production of natural gas. This story sounds far too familiar.

Oil. Gas. Non-renewable. Un-sustainable. It’s a broken record. Unfortunately, we can’t just stand up and walk to the turntable, lifting the stylus gently to relieve the pressure. Not this time. The words just keep pounding into our head. As I’ve said before, if only there was some huge glowing ball of energy out there from which we could endlessly power our homes, our lives… if only.

Related Posts

• June 24, 2008 -- Love the Addict (2)
• April 16, 2009 -- Grease on Earth (2)
• July 7, 2008 -- Dependence Day (2)
• July 3, 2008 -- Out of Focus (4)

Last week, the Willamette Week published an interesting take on Oregon’s hybrid tax credits—which combine with existing federal tax credits to make the purchase of hybrid automobiles more attractive to shoppers. Last year alone, the state paid out more than $5 million to those applying for the credit. When the tax credit was created, the concept was to incentivize the purchase of more fuel-efficient cars, thereby cutting down on fuel consumption and associated pollution, especially in urban areas. Yes, a very good intention, indeed.

Tucked gracefully in this well-intentioned incentive are two intriguing issues: one, enviro-messaging; the other, social inequity. First and foremost, this credit is explicitly for the purchase of hybrids; it’s not a credit simply for fuel efficient vehicles or fuel efficient transportation. The message here is that hybrids are the best choice for personal transportation. As the WillyWeek references, the tax credit is readily available to anyone ‘green’ enough to chunk down the change for such planet loving steeds as the GMC Yukon hybrid SUV ($50K price and an estimated 21 mpg in the city) and the Lexus LS 600h ($100K price and an estimated 20 mpg in the city). Nope, you chumps slumpin’ down the freeway at nearly 40mpg in your $12,000 Toyota Yaris will just have to suck it. And for you schmucks silly enough to ride a bike… suck it even more.

Sure, this credit is ripe for criticism as it relates to rewarding technology as opposed to plain old efficiency, but the WillyWeek made a point to identify what I find to be the more prescient issue: social inequity. As writer Corey Pein points out, by taking mass transit (TriMet), people simply burn less fuel than individuals in cars (any car, hybrid or otherwise). Subsequently, transit riders contribute less to global warming and other auto-associated negatives (e.g., traffic congestion, street-level pollution, multi-vehicle road dynamics). Pein references a study from the highly respected Sightline Institute, which states that a mostly full transit bus is three times more efficient than a Prius with a lone driver. I’ll take it one step further: if the bus is burning Oregon-sourced and refined biodiesel from Salem’s SeQuential BioFuel, then its impact is even less.

Pein’s perspective on the state’s failure to reward the most efficient transportation is a steaming issue. I have a difficult time with this because I understand to some degree what the legislature is attempting to accomplish with this credit: make the biggest possible positive impact without asking people to shift their behavior too far. This is exactly what they did when they offered credits this past tax year to purchasers of bio-diesel for transportation (the largest sector of diesel fuel consumption). It’s worth noting that the state also offers a reduced tax credit to purchasers of bio-diesel for home heating, of which I claimed after burning through hundreds of gallons of B99 bio-diesel (from Sequential Biofuel).

Back in 1999, the legislature likely took a look at the market and said, ‘people are buying cars and they’re going to keep buying cars, no matter how much negative impact they have. So we need to figure out a way to get them to buy the most efficient cars while still getting what they want.’ Conversely, people on the bus are more likely to be riding the bus because they have to be –or in some cases choose to be because it’s the easiest or most environmentally responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, for the majority of transit riders, they’re going to ride the bus whether you incentivize their transportation choice or not. Subsequently –in the legislature’s collective mind– why waste money trying to get people to make the most efficient transportation choice (motorized or otherwise)? If you did that, you’d be handing out checks to a lot of people who made no change at all to their lifestyle –because they didn’t have a choice.

Again, I understand this line of reasoning as it relates to the legislature, but I don’t like it. If we as a collective people want our fellow citizens to make better transportation decisions, we may need to feel the pain of making the wrong choice instead of rewarding ourselves for making a slightly less destructive choice. Yes, the hybrid credit is not fair, nor does it make sense in today’s market, where gas is hovering around $4.50/gallon. But in my opinion, the credit is also rewarding the wrong thing: a purchase. I believe we need to reward behavior that benefits us all and punish behavior that hurts us all.

But that would be too simple and the problem is far too complex. What about the citizen who can’t afford to live in the city (or near a frequent-stop TriMet bus line), and subsequently lives outside of Estacada but still holds a job in Portland? What if they have a crazy work shift and simply can’t get to work on time any other way? How do we handle other social inequities and still incentivize socially responsible behavior? Hmmm… tough question. Now I see the legislature’s issue. That being said, it’s their job to tackle tough issues that affect us all and deliver solutions that produce positive environmental impact while rewarding socially responsible behavior and making those with the means to afford any choice, pay for the selfish choice. Good luck, Oregon.

Related Posts

• August 24, 2009 -- Sleek, Sexy… and Inconvenient (12)
• May 27, 2009 -- For Rapid Transit, they Gallop… (6)
• May 13, 2009 -- No Rollerskating on the new bus mall (3)
• April 16, 2009 -- Grease on Earth (2)
• February 10, 2009 -- TriMet Question of the Day (2)