ARTICLE IN PRESS

Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 584591 www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Energetic and economic feasibility associated with the production, processing, and conversion of beef tallow to a substitute diesel fuel
Richard G. Nelsona,, Mark D. Schrockb
a

Kansas State University, 133 Ward Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-2508, USA b Kansas State University, 129 Seaton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA

Received 24 June 2004; received in revised form 28 July 2005; accepted 25 September 2005 Available online 28 February 2006

Abstract This study investigates the resource availability, energetic efciency, and economic feasibility of converting edible and inedible beef tallow into biodiesel, a substitute diesel fuel. A resource assessment of edible and inedible beef tallow generation in the United States was performed for the period of 19972001. At that time, an average of more than 1.8 Mt (4 billion pounds) of edible and inedible tallow were generated each year in the 11 largest commercial cattle slaughtering states, which would equate to more than 2.08 GL (551 million gallons) of biodiesel ($1% of the total US distillate consumption). Tallow is a by-product of our meat production and processing system, which complicates its energy and economic analysis. Although tallow is available in signicant quantities at relatively low cost, it is not intentionally produced as a feedstock for biodiesel. Because of this uncertainty, energetic (energy ratio) and economic (production cost per gallon) feasibilities were estimated for three different system boundaries: (1) conversion of tallow by a continuous-ow transesterication process only with co-product (glycerin) credit, (2) rendering plant operations plus tallow transesterication, and (3) growth and maintenance of the beef animal from conception through rendering and transesterication. Energy ratios varied from 17.29 to 0.81 within the three system boundaries based on various assignments of the co-product energy credit for glycerin. Cost-sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effect of feedstock cost and by-product (glycerin) credit on biodiesel cost. Feedstock cost had the greatest impact, while by-product credit effect was minimal. Cost of production ranged from $0.22 to $0.63 L1 ($0.82$2.38 gallon1) produced. r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Biodiesel; Tallow; Energy ratio; Direct and embodied energies; Transesterication; Co-product credits; Economics

1. Introduction Diesel fuel use in the United States rose almost 10% between 1999 and 2003 and energy consumption in the US transportation energy sector is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 1.9% between now and 2025 [1]. Rising fuel costs, increased concern for the environmental impact of fossil fuel combustion, increased reliance on foreign energy resources, and the decline in domestic petroleum production all serve to increase interest in alternative fuels.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 785 532 6026; fax: +1 785 532 6952.

E-mail address: r.nelson@ksu.edu (R.G. Nelson). 0961-9534/$ - see front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.09.005

Biodiesel, a diesel fuel substitute derived from vegetable oils and animal fats, has been successfully demonstrated in unmodied diesel engines [2]. Transesterication of vegetable oils and animal fats involves combining them with an alcohol and chemical catalyst to produce an ester and glycerol. Comparisons between biodiesel and fossil-based diesel have shown biodiesel to be effective in reducing exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulates, and sulfur [2]. Federal legislation, referred to as the renewable fuels standard (RFS), has been introduced to encourage production and utilization of approximately 19 GL (5 billion gallons) of renewable liquid fuels in the transportation fuels market by 2012 to 2015 [3]. In addition, the USEPA

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.G. Nelson, M.D. Schrock / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 584591 585

has mandated that the sulfur content of on-highway diesel fuel must be no greater than 15 ppm (parts per million) by June 2006. This mandate will have a signicant effect on biodiesel because the process used to create ultra-low sulfur petroleum-based diesel fuel (hydrotreating) adversely affects fuel lubricity [2]. Biodiesel, blended in quantities as low as 2%, will restore the needed lubricity [2]. Edible and inedible tallow are biodiesel feedstocks that, due to their highly centralized generation in slaughter/ processing facilities and historically low prices, may have energy, environmental, and economic advantages that could be exploited. In addition, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) concerns have led to restraints in the trade and shipment of tallow and may reduce its demand in traditional uses [4,5]. Both biodiesel and direct ring of tallow have been proposed as low-risk end uses for tallow from livestock that due to BSE concerns are removed from the food chain [6,7]. 2. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to assess the energetic and economic feasibility of producing a diesel fuel substitute from beef tallow (methyl tallowate). Specic objectives were as follows: (1) assess the quantity of edible and inedible tallow generated on a national basis and the quantity generated from beef packing plants and processors; (2) assess the energetics (energy ratio (ER)) associated with three system boundaries of biodiesel production from beef tallow; and (3) Assess the economic feasibility of converting beef tallow into biodiesel.

3. Tallow resource assessment Most tallow (edible and inedible) in the United States is currently generated by the meat packing, poultry, and edible/inedible rendering industries. Inedible tallow is most often used as a supplement for animal feed (majority of market share), followed by use in fatty acids, soap, lubricants, and other uses [810]. National statistics [810] show average generation of 0.821.6 Mt (1.8 and 3.6 billion pounds) of edible and inedible tallow, respectively, between 2000 and 2003 (latest gures available). The average quantity of tallow (inedible plus edible) generated per head of cattle slaughtered has been estimated at 63 kg (139 pounds) [11]. Four-fths of the nations tallow is produced in nine states (Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Iowa, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, California, and Minnesota) [12]. Table 1 presents the quantity of both edible and inedible tallow generated by these states between 1997 and 2001 [12] and the equivalent quantity of biodiesel that could be produced. These numbers are based on an average live slaughter weight of 578 kg (1275 pounds), an edible plus inedible tallow generation of 10.9% of the live slaughter weight, and a tallow density of 0.88 kg L1 (7.35 pound gallon1). Three states (Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas) generate approximately 70% of the total tallow resource. Beef processors in Kansas generate an average of almost 450 Gg ($1 billion pounds) of edible and inedible tallow annually, which, if transesteried, could produce approximately 514 ML (136 million gallons) of tallow-based biodiesel. The quantity of tallow generated by the beef processing industry in Kansas could be used to displace nearly 20% of the states total distillate fuel consumption [1].

Table 1 Beef tallow resources assessment (19972001) and potential methyl tallowate biodiesel production Thousand head slaughtered Potential 5-year biodiesel production (million liters per year) 1998 7540 7300 6767 1649 1019 959 925 932 743 685 249 1999 8033 7435 6735 1719 995 1006 856 867 782 647 282 2000 8213 7617 6605 1735 1018 991 904 679 798 660 285 2001 7272 7694 6462 1658 955 954 877 788 861 702 323 5-year average 7685 7491 6637 1681 1004 976 899 863 785 763 280 551 537 476 120 72 70 64 61 56 54 20 2084

State KS NE TX WI IL PA WA IA ID MN SD 11-state total

1997 7368 7408 6615 1642 1034 972 932 1049 742 1121 260

ARTICLE IN PRESS
586 R.G. Nelson, M.D. Schrock / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 584591

4. Energetic feasibility Energetic feasibility is an important component leading to economic feasibility as well as a means of assessing the renewability of biomass feedstocks. For tallow-based biodiesel to be feasible from a rst law of thermodynamics standpoint, a net energy gain should be realized with the transformation process; i.e., the process must consume less energy than is contained in the fuel itself. In this study, energetics are presented in the form of an ER dened as the thermal energy of the fuel divided by the fossil-based thermal energy required to transform tallow into biodiesel.

4.1. Energy inputsdirect and embodied energies Both direct and embodied or indirect energies are considered. Direct energy inputs are hydrocarbon fuels (diesel, natural gas, etc.) and/or electricity required to produce, harvest, transport, process, and/or convert biomass feedstocks into useable energy sources. Examples include diesel fuel to operate agricultural eld equipment to produce biomass feedstocks, transport feedstocks to processing plants, natural gas to operate irrigation systems, and electricity to operate biomass conversion systems. Embodied energies are based on a life-cycle inventory methodology (cradle-to-end use) which accounts for energy required to produce, manufacture, process, and/or distribute the raw materials, machinery, equipment, fuels, and chemicals needed to produce and convert biomass feedstocks into usable energy sources. Embodied energy inputs also include the energy content of any raw material feedstocks sequestered in manufactured products. In this analysis, embodied energies were applicable to the transesterication unit, agricultural eld equipment, fertilizers, and chemicals needed to produce tallowate. Table 2 presents values of direct and embodied energies of the chemicals, fuels, and other pertinent data used in this analysis. The development of ERs employing direct and embodied energies has been performed quite frequently in other
Table 2 Direct and embodied energies for materials, chemicals, and fuels Chemical/fuel Fertilizers/chemicals Sodium hydroxide Methanol Nitrogen Phosphate Potassium Pesticides Fuels Diesel (HHV) Gasoline (HHV) Lubricating oil (HHV) Methyl tallowate (HHV) Units MJ kg1 29.904 43.023 76.761 16.033 12.827 specic by pesticide MJ L1 38.833 35.02 40.433 35.572 [35] [35] [35] [19] [34] [34] [28] [28] [28] [28] Energy content Reference

studies/analyses and is an accepted means by which to gauge the renewability of various biomass feedstocks for alternative fuel production [1316]. Each of these included direct and/or embodied energies, but not necessarily in a consistent manner, and they do not begin their analysis at a common starting point. For example, Pimentel [13] considers energy embodied in farm machinery in his analysis of corn-based ethanol while Shapouri et al. [15] do not. In some instances, a single ER is provided [16], but details regarding specic system energetic inputs are omitted. Other energy-based analyses/studies involve life-cycle analysis (LCA) techniques which investigate not only energy, but environmental impacts as well, have set protocols associated with their use, and are much more complex [17,18]. Data generated and methodologies presented in this analysis, while not nearly as expansive as an LCA, could serve as a precursor to such an analysis. All energy in this analysis is expressed on a thermal, as opposed to a mechanical or electrical, basis. An ER greater than 1 indicates a favorable energy conversion, while an ER less than 1 indicates an energetic liability. For this analysis, the thermal energy contained in methyl tallowate has been determined to be 35.4 MJ L1 (126,684 Btu gallon1) [19]. Determination of an ER associated with converting tallow to biodiesel is a function of the system boundary of the energetic feasibility analysis. This study contains three separate system boundaries which allow for an examination of various levels of direct and embodied energy inputs relating to conversion of beef tallow to biodiesel. Table 3 lists the three system boundaries considered. ERs are developed for each system boundary and all energy data and conclusions apply to beef cattle production, slaughter, and utilization of by-products in the state of Kansas. The rst analysis (case #1) is concerned only with the biodiesel transesterication process. It assumes that rendered tallow is available as a by-product of beef production, and transesterication occurs at the processing plant. Case #2 is concerned with energy required to process animal fat into tallow at the rendering plant and then transesterify it. The third analysis (case #3) deals with the growth and maintenance of the beef animal from conception through rendering and transesterication.
Table 3 Analysis system boundaries of the tallow production process System boundary Case #1 Case #2 Case #3 Transesterication process Rendering plant operations Animal growth life cycle Feedstock considered Rendered tallow Animal fat Fossil-fuel inputs for livestock feed ration production and transportation

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.G. Nelson, M.D. Schrock / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 584591 587

4.2. Case #1: tallow transesterication energetics Calculation of the ER in this case is based on a continuousow transesterication process as outlined by the Independent Business Feasibility Group [20]. Direct energy requirements are 311 kJ L1 (1116 Btu gallon1) electrical (thermal basis) and 2.1 MJ L1 (7507 Btu gallon1) thermal, subject to input energy requirements of 0.1 kW h electricity, 2.56 kg (5.66 pounds) of 862 kPa (125 psig) saturated steam, and 0.378 L (0.1 gallon) of fuel oil per liter of feedstock transesteried, respectively. Calculations used an electrical power plant efciency of 31% based on Kansas-specic electric-generating facility/plant data and an assumed boiler efciency of 85% [21]. Embodied energy in the transesterication plant and equipment was calculated and determined to be negligible, considering the total biodiesel production throughout the lifetime of the transesterication unit. Embodied energies for the methanol and sodium hydroxide were calculated as 4.1 MJ L1 (14,974 Btu gallon1) and 35.8 kJ L1 (128 Btu gallon1) of tallow transesteried, respectively. Therefore, the total energy consumed by the transesterication process was estimated to be 6.6 MJ L1 (23,725 Btu gallon1), with a division of 2.4 and 4.2 MJ L1 (8622 and 15,102 Btu gallon1) of direct and embodied energies, respectively. An energy allocation/credit analysis was performed for the glycerin co-product generated by the transesterication process on a mass, value, and replacement basis using the methodology cited by Irshad et al. [22]. On a mass basis, glycerin comprises about 9.5% of the total output product weight and therefore, an estimate of the mass-based energy credit is approximately 629 kJ L1 (2250 Btu gallon1) based on a total transesterication energy consumption of 6.6 MJ L1. Assuming costs for biodiesel and glycerin of 0.69 $ L1 ($2.60 gallon1) and 0.22 $ kg1 ($0.10 pound1), respectively, the monetary percentage glycerin comprises is about 22%, and therefore, the energy credit on a value basis is approximately 1.5 MJ L1 (5225 Btu gallon1). A replacement energy credit based on the amount of glycerin per liter (0.092 kg L1) and the energy required to produce glycerin from other petrochemical sources (49,577 kJ kg1) [22] yields a replacement energy credit of 4.6 MJ L1 (16,398 Btu gallon1). For this analysis, a co-product energy assignment of 629 kJ L1 (2250 Btu gallon1) was used which is the most conservative value of the three which yields an ER associated with the transesterication of beef tallow to methyl tallowate to be 5.90. ERs would be 6.85 and 17.29 if co-product allocations are made on a value and replacement basis, respectively. 4.3. Case #2: rendering plant energetics Rendering plant energetics are concerned with electricity and thermal energies needed to render the animal fat into tallow. Processing operations involve crushing and/or grinding, cooking, pressing, and centrifuging the animal fat before it can be transesteried. A major Midwestern

agribusiness [23] provided thermal and electrical energy input data totaling 4.0 MJ L1 (14,420 Btu gallon1). Using co-product replacements of 629 kJ L1, 1.5 MJ L1, and 4.6 MJ L1 (mass, value, and replacement-based, respectively), the ERs were calculated to be 3.49, 3.80, and 5.72, respectively, when considering all direct and embodied energies in the rendering and transesterication processes. 4.4. Case #3: animal growth life-cycle energetics In this study, energetics associated with growth and maintenance of the beef animal from time of conception through slaughter is the sum of the direct and/or embodied energies required to produce, harvest, process, and transport each feed ration quantity, energy needed for feedlot operations, and energy to transport the animal to the feedlot and processing plant. Typical feed ration components and quantities consumed by cattle and their associated breeding stock in Kansas throughout their lifetimes are 0.79 Mg (0.87 t) of irrigated corn, 0.76 Mg (0.84 t) of dryland grain sorghum, 0.127 Mg (0.14 t) of soybean meal, 0.19 Mg (0.21 t) of irrigated alfalfa, and 1.37 Mg (1.51 t) of sorghum silage [24]. Crop production energy data for corn were derived for the western one-third of the state while production energies calculated for the other crops were state averages. Both direct and embodied energies were determined, where appropriate, for each crop production input. Energy expenditures analyzed in the production and use of feed ration components include energy embodied in the machinery, fuel, and lubricants; irrigation; energy embodied in fertilizers and pesticides; and feedstuff transportation to end use. Drying of feed ration components is generally not performed and therefore not considered. Approximately 63% of the animals live weight at the time of slaughter is marketable ($361 kg), and an average of 17.5% of the marketable weight is considered edible and inedible tallow ($63 kg) [11]. Using this value and a tallow density of 0.88 kg L1 (7.35 pound gallon1), approximately 71.8 L (19 gallons) of tallow-based (edible and inedible) biodiesel can be produced from a single head of beef cattle. In this study, energy resources used to raise and maintain the beef animal are allocated to only the marketable products, and the tallow receives the same energy allocation on a mass basis as do the other marketable products even though its market value is much less. This results in a much higher proportion of input energy assigned to the tallow than if energy is apportioned on a monetary basis. Following is a brief description of how energy expenditures were calculated for each area of energy analysis in the animal growth life cycle. Machinery: A simplied method of estimating energy embodied in farm machinery was developed, based on logic that the energy needed to manufacture the machine and its repairs should have a strong correlation to the direct energy consumed by the machine. Several researchers

ARTICLE IN PRESS
588 R.G. Nelson, M.D. Schrock / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 584591

[25,26] have demonstrated this approach with results ranging from 0.28 to 0.46. For this study, it was estimated that the amount of energy needed to manufacture and repair a machine is equal to 0.36 times the direct energy consumed by the machine. Fuels/lubricants: The quantity of fuel and lubricants used for tillage, planting, and harvesting each feed ration component was derived from cost of production data ($ ha1) for selected Kansas crops [27]. Diesel fuel and lubricant consumption (L ha1) was determined by dividing the cost per acre by the average price of on-farm diesel at the time of the study. This value was then multiplied by the quotient of the higher heating value of diesel fuel and lubricating oil, and the average crop yield to obtain an energy expenditure per ton of feed ration produced. Irrigation: Direct energy required per acre for irrigating crops is a function of the total dynamic head, the amount of water applied (cm yr1), and the type of fuel (natural gas, diesel, electricity, or LP gas) employed to power the irrigation system. Corn and alfalfa were the only feed components that required irrigation in this analysis. A composite energy appropriation (GJ ha1) for each crop was determined that took into account the percentage of acres irrigated by each of the four particular fuel/energy sources and the weighted average of the amount of water applied by crop within the geographic region considered. Fertilizers and pesticides: Direct energy consumed in the application of fertilizers was included in the data for fuels and lubricants. Energy to apply pesticides was determined from the average fuel consumed per acre and the number of applications per acre. A national average of 1.21 L ha1 (0.13 gallon acre1) was used for fuel consumption of pesticide application vehicles [28]. Energy embodied in nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, and pesticides per acre was determined by multiplying the mass of fertilizer and pesticide applied by the embodied energy of each type. Energy embodied in fertilizers and pesticides includes energy for manufacturing, formulation, packaging, distribution, and transport [28]. The amount of fertilizer and pesticide applied was calculated as the product of the percentage of acres covered by each fertilizer and pesticide type, and the application rate (kg ha1) [29]. Transportation: Energy consumed per ton of feed ration and head of cattle transported was calculated from energy consumption values per ton of product per mile of transport, and the average round-trip mileage that each feed commodity or head was transported. Differences in fuel consumption were noted for loaded and unloaded transport from data supplied by Barton [30]. Distances for each type of transport were obtained from state government agencies [31]. Feedlot energy: Energy in the form of natural gas, electricity, and liquid fuels is needed to maintain the beef animal at the feedlot. The energy required per head was obtained from data provided by Sweeten [32]. These energies were 28,000 m3 of natural gas (1.01 MCF), 77.2 kW h, and 6.4 and 3.1 L (1.70 and 0.83 gallons) of

diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively, per head, equal to 5.9 MJ L1 (21,136 Btu gallon1) of tallow produced. Soybean meal: Energy used to crush, dry, and process soybeans into soybean meal was provided by a major soybean meal producer and was valued at approximately 1.74 MJ kg1 (1.5 million Btu t1) of nished soybean meal on a mass basis. Total energy input to the animal growth life cycle for feed ration production, feedlot operation, and animal transport was 44.4 MJ L1 (158,545 Btu gallon1) of tallow produced, and all co-product apportioning was performed on a mass basis. ERs for the animal growth life cycle, rendering plant operations, and the transesterication process were estimated to be 0.81, 0.83, and 0.89 when utilizing co-product credits of 629 kJ L1, 1.5 MJ L1, and 4.6 MJ L1, respectively, based on mass, value, and replacement credits for the glycerin co-product. Table 4 presents direct and indirect energies and associated ERs for each energetic feasibility case investigated. 5. Economic feasibility An economic analysis was performed to determine the cost of production ($ L1) associated with producing methyl tallowate, using commercially available continuous-ow transesterication technologies. Economic feasibility analyses were conducted for three different capacity transesterication units: 11.34, 37.8, and 113.4 million L (3, 10, and 30 million gallons) per year. Table 5 presents economics for a 37.8 million L (10-million gallon) per year plant at typical tallow and glycerin prices. Capital cost and operating data contained in Table 5 are taken from The Biodiesel Plant Development Handbook [20], and data from this publication is a compilation of several current operating plants in the United States. Cost sensitivities were performed to determine the effect of feedstock cost and glycerin credit price on nal biodiesel cost at the plant. Minimum, average, and maximum tallow feedstock costs were obtained from a national source for a 5-year period of 19972001 [33]. These values ranged from 0.206 to 0.5525 $ kg1 ($0.0934$0.2506 pound1) over this time period. Table 6 presents cost-sensitivity data with respect to the two varying inputs. Feedstock cost had signicantly greater impact on production cost, while the effect of glycerin byproduct credit was minimal. Production costs increased an average of 42%, 49%, and 53% per unit volume for the 11.34, 37.8, and 113.4 million L (3, 10, and 30 million gallons) per year plants, respectively, when feedstock price increased from 0.206 to 0.5525 $ kg1 ($0.0934$0.2506 pound1). 6. Conclusions Biodiesel is a widely accepted liquid alternative fuel that can be produced from a variety of fat, oil, and waste grease feedstocks and has been successfully demonstrated in unmodied diesel engines. Biodiesel production and use

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.G. Nelson, M.D. Schrock / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 584591 Table 4 Energy for tallow-based biodiesel Co-product credit Energy inputs (kJ L1) Mass Case #1: tallow transesterication Direct energy inputs (natural gas, fuel oil, & electricity) Embodied energy inputs (sodium hydroxide & methanol) Co-product energy credit Total energy required Energy ratio (ER)case #1 Case #2: tallow transesterication and rendering Tallow transesterication Direct energy inputs (natural gas, fuel oil, & electricity) Embodied energy inputs (sodium hydroxide & methanol) Co-product energy credit Tallow rendering Total energy required Energy ratio (ER)cases #1 & #2 Case #3: tallow transesterication, rendering, and animal production Tallow transesterication Direct energy inputs (natural gas, fuel oil, & electricity) Embodied energy inputs (sodium hydroxide & methanol) Co-product energy credit Tallow rendering Feed ration components (in eld production only) Corn Grain sorghum Alfalfa Sorghum silage Soybeans Soybean meal Feedlot energy Transportation energy (head transport) Total energy required Energy ratio (ER)cases #1, #2, & #3 Value Replacement 589

2409 4219 628 5999 5.90

2409 4219 1460 5168 6.85

2409 4219 4581 2047 17.29

2409 4219 628 4138 10,137 3.49

2409 4219 1460 4138 9306 3.80

2409 4219 4581 4138 6185 5.72

2409 4219 628 4138 7828 5851 1264 7755 909 558 5653 3785 43,662 0.81

2409 4219 1460 4138 7828 5851 1264 7755 909 558 5653 3785 42,831 0.83

2409 4219 4581 4138 7828 5851 1264 7755 909 558 5653 3785 39,710 0.89

Table 5 Base case economics (37.8 ML yr1) Costs Feedstock, FFA o0.05% Employee cost Methanol Sales & administration Fuel oil for heat Maintenance (% of capital cost per liter) Insurance (% of capital cost per liter) Power Cooling water Steam Catalyst-sodium hydroxide Wash water Interest charge Depreciation Credits Crude glycerin (lb) Total cost per liter Units kg kg L Units per liter of Biodiesel 0.9 0.1 0.038 Cost per unit input $0.35 $0.03 $0.15 $0.01 $0.22 $0.01 $0.00 $0.08 $0.08 $0.00 $0.13 $0.13 Cost per liter $0.3130 $0.0300 $0.0150 $0.0101 $0.0080 $0.0070 $0.0030 $0.0020 $0.0013 $0.0009 $0.0002 $0.0001 $0.0090 $0.0130 $0.0200 $0.3842

kW h m3 kg kg m3

0.03 0.017 0.679 0.0001 0.0001

ARTICLE IN PRESS
590 R.G. Nelson, M.D. Schrock / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 584591 Table 6 Effect of feedstock cost and by-product price on methyl tallowate cost Plant capacity (ML yr1) Cost of production ($ L1) Low tallow price (0.2060 $ kg1) 11.34 Base case Low glycerin High glycerin Base case Low glycerin High glycerin Base case Low glycerin High glycerin 0.31 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.22 Average tallow price (0.3477 $ kg1) 0.44 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.34 High tallow price (0.5525 $ kg1) 0.62 0.63 0.60 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.53

37.8

113.4

has increased dramatically since 1999 primarily due to advantages it possesses regarding its energetic feasibility, environmental benets versus conventional petroleum diesel fuel, increasing energy security, and its physical characteristics such as lubricity improvement versus ultralow sulfur diesel. Beef tallow generated from the slaughter of cattle presents a possible historically low-value feedstock that if converted to biodiesel offers a wide range of energy, environmental, and economic advantages as demonstrated by the analysis performed in this paper.

References
[1] US Department of EnergyEnergy Information Administration. Fuel and kerosene sales 2002, Washington, DC, http://www.eia.doe.gov/ pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/fuel_oil_and_kerosene_sales/ current/pdf/table13.pdf. [2] National Biodiesel Board. http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_les/backgrounder.PDF; 2004. [3] US Department of EnergyEnergy Information Administration. Impact of Renewable Fuels Standard/MTBE Provisions of S. 1776, Washington, DC, 2002, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/mtbe/ pdf/sroiaf(2002)06.pdf. [4] BSE and the Beef Tallow Issue. US Potato Board, www.uspotatoes.com/fry2.htm (6 January 2005). [5] Signicance of Tallow in the Transmission of BSE. August 2002, www.priondata.org/data/A_tallow.html. [6] Tong L, Pearl G. Biodiesel and BSE. Render Magazine. June 2004, www.rendermagazine.com/June2004/BiodieselandBSE.html. [7] SembCorp Utilities Put the Fat in the Fire. Impact Factsheet. 28 August, 2004, www.impact-teeside.org/sembcorp1.htm. [8] US Department of Commerce. Fats and oils: production, consumption, stocks. Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, 2001. [9] US Department of Commerce. Fats and oils: production, consumption, stocks: 2001. Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, 2003. [10] US Department of Commerce. Fats and oils: production, consumption, stocks: 2002. Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, 2003. [11] Kastner C. Personal communication. Department of Animal Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. 2004.

[12] Livestock Marketing Information Center. Personal communication. Lakewood, CO. 2003. [13] Pimentel D. Ethanol fuel: energy balance, economics, and environmental impacts are negative, vol. 12 (2). International Association for Mathematical Geology, Natural Resources Research, 2003. [14] Gever J, Kaufmann R, Skole D, Vorosmarty C. Beyond oil. Cambridge, MA: Balinger; 1986. [15] Shapouri H, Dufeld J, Wang M. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. Ag. Econ. Rpt. No. 814, USDA, Ofce of the Chief Economist, Ofce of Energy Policy and New Uses. [16] Environmental Benets. National Biodiesel Board, www.biodiesel.org/pdf_les/fuelfactsheets/Enviro_Benets.PDF (7 April 2005). [17] Sheehan J, Camobreco V, Dufeld J, Graboski M, Shapouri H. Life cycle inventory of biodiesel and petroleum diesel for use in an urban bus. Final report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US DOE, 1998. [18] Delucchi M, Lipman T. A lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials. Appendix A, Institute of Transportation Studies, 2003. [19] Ali Y, Hanna MA. Durability testing of diesel fuel, methyl tallowate and ethanol blend in Cummins N14-410 engine. Transactions of the ASAE 1996;39(3):7937. [20] Independent Business Feasibility Group (IBFG), LLC. The biodiesel plant development handbook. Kearney, MO; 2002. [21] US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index.htm. 2000. [22] Irshad A, Decker J, Morris D. How much energy does it take to make a gallon of soydiesel? National SoyDiesel Development Board, 1994. [23] Excel, Inc.Nathan Carswell. Personal communication. Columbus, Nebraska, 1993. [24] Jones R. Personal communication. Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, 2004. [25] Clark SJ, Johnson WH. Energy-cost budgets for grain sorghum tillage systems. Transactions of the ASAE 1975;18(6):105760. [26] Bowers W. Agricultural eld equipment. In: Fluck RC, editor. Energy in farm production. New York; 1992. [27] Langemeier L, Witt, K. Crop machinery investment, repair, and fuel oil requirements for irrigated and dryland crops in Kansas. Report of Progress 613. Manhattan, KS: Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State University; 1991. [28] Fluck RC, editor. Energy in farm production. New York: Elsevier; 1992. [29] US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural chemical usage 1998 eld crops summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, 1999.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.G. Nelson, M.D. Schrock / Biomass and Bioenergy 30 (2006) 584591 [30] Barton JD. Transportation fuel requirements in the food and ber system. Washington, DC: USDA-ERS; 1980. [31] Kansas State Board of Agriculture. Kansas grain marketing and transportation, 1992. [32] Sweeten JM, ONeal HP, Withers Jr, RE. Feedyard energy guidelines, D-1288. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A&M University System; 1986. 591 [33] Chemical Marketing Reporter. New York, NY. http://chemicalmarketreporter.com/home. 2004. [34] Boustead I, Hancock GF. Handbook of industrial energy analysis. New York: Ellis Horwood Ltd.; 1979. [35] US Department of EnergyEnergy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review Appendix A Thermal Conversion Factors, http://eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer; 2002.