I NTERNATIONAL J OURNAL OF C HEMICAL

R EACTOR E NGINEERING
Volume 5 2007 Article A48

Green Diesel: A Second Generation Biofuel

Tom Kalnes∗ Terry Marker†
David R. Shonnard‡

∗
UOP LLC, Tom.Kalnes@uop.com
†
UOP LLC, Terry.Marker@uop.com
‡
Michigan Technological University, drshonna@mtu.edu
ISSN 1542-6580
Copyright 2007
c The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.
 Green Diesel: A Second Generation Biofuel
Tom Kalnes, Terry Marker, and David R. Shonnard

Abstract
Environmentally-conscious design of processes and products is increasingly
viewed as an important strategy in the sustainable development of new refining
and chemical processes. This paper discusses a new process technology devel-
oped by UOP and Eni S.p.A; the UOP/Eni EcofiningT M process to produce green
diesel from vegetable oil. This novel process utilizes catalytic saturation, hy-
drodeoxygenation, decarboxylation and hydroisomerization reactions to produce
an isoparaffin-rich diesel fuel from renewable feedstock containing triglycerides
and fatty acids. The resultant biofuel product has a high cetane value, a lower
gravity, good cold flow properties and excellent storage stability. Green diesel is
completely compatible for blending with the standard mix of petroleum-derived
diesel fuels, thus providing significant value to the refiner. The process for produc-
ing green diesel operates at mild operating conditions and integrates well within
existing petroleum refineries. In contrast to fatty acid methyl esters, where fuel
properties depend on feed origin and process configuration, green diesel product is
independent of feed origin and the fully deoxygenated biofuel is readily blended
with conventional diesel fuel. A life cycle assessment (LCA) of this promising
new biofuel production technology has been undertaken to quantify the intrinsic
benefits of green diesel production over the current practice of converting various
forms of lipids to fatty acid methyl esters. This paper will describe the technol-
ogy, discuss the results of the LCA study and summarize the advantages this new
technology can offer over other processing routes.

KEYWORDS: biofuel, green diesel

Kalnes et al.: Green Diesel: A Second Generation Biofuel 1

1. INTRODUCTION
Existing technology for producing diesel fuel from plant oils such as rapeseed, soybean and palm has largely
centered on transesterification of oils with methanol to produce fatty acid methyl esters (FAME, RME) or biodiesel
(Radich 2004, NREL www.eere.energy). Numerous life cycle assessments (LCAs) have been published comparing
biodiesel to conventional petroleum diesel. The general consensus of these studies indicates that substituting
biodiesel for petroleum diesel results in a significant reduction in both fossil fuel consumption as well as green
house gas emissions (Hill, 11206-11210).

While it is safe to say that biodiesel, as a substitute for petroleum diesel, helps reduce GHG emissions;
there are quality issues associated with its widespread use. Although it has been documented that the methyl esters
have many desirable fuel qualities such as good cetane number and lubricity, the amount of biodiesel added to a
petroleum diesel blend is most often limited to 5% or less due to poor storage stability, marginal cold flow
properties, excessive solvency and engine compatibility issues. In addition to these quality issues, an overall energy
balance that includes the life cycle of the raw materials used in biodiesel production indicates that petroleum derived
diesel is still more energy efficient (Hass, 2003).

Future widespread use of biofuels depends on developing new process technologies to produce high quality
transportation fuels from biologically-derived feedstocks. These new biofuels need to be compatible with the
existing fuel and transportation infrastructure. UOP and Eni, S.p.A. recognized the need for different processing
routes to convert vegetable oils into a high quality diesel fuel or diesel blend stock that is fully compatible with
petroleum derived diesel fuel. The two companies started a collaborative research effort in 2005 to develop such a
process based on conventional hydroprocessing technology that is already widely deployed in refineries and utilizes
the existing refinery infrastructure and fuels distribution system. The result of this effort is the UOP/Eni EcofiningTM
process (Holmgren, 2007 AICHE) for the production of green diesel. This new technology utilizes widely available
vegetable oil feedstock to produce an isoparaffin-rich diesel substitute. This product, referred to as green diesel, is
an aromatic and sulfur free diesel fuel which has a very high cetane blending value. The cold flow properties of the
fuel can be adjusted in the process to meet climate-specific cloud point specifications in either the neat or blended
fuel. The new process is targeted for commercialization in early 2009 in an Eni refinery located in Italy.

2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION

The feedstock of primary interest in the UOP/ENI EcofiningTM process is vegetable oil such as soybean, palm,
jatropha, and rapeseed oils. Processing of biologically derived feedstocks is complicated by the fact that these
materials contain a significant amount of oxygen. A typical plant oil contains 10-12 wt-% oxygen and consists
primarily of triglycerides with 1-2% free fatty acid content. Other lower cost materials such as tall oil, tallow oil,
fish oils, and waste greases can also be also used as feedstock. In some cases, pretreatment may be required to
remove contaminants such as solids or salts.

A simplified block flow diagram of the process is shown in Figure 1. Feedstock is routed to the catalytic
reactor where it is combined with hydrogen, brought to reaction temperature, and then converted by a series of
optimized hydrodeoxygenation, decarboxylation and hydroisomerization reactions to a branched paraffin rich diesel
fuel.

The water and CO2 formed by the deoxygenation reactions are separated from the fully deoxygenated
hydrocarbon product. The deoxygenated liquid product is then fractionated to remove the small amount of light fuel
byproduct. The excess hydrogen provided to the reactor is recovered and recycled back to the reactor to maintain a
minimum required hydrogen partial pressure. Make-up hydrogen is added to the process to balance both chemical
consumption and solution losses

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007

2 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 5 [2007], Article A48

Vegetable Make-
Make-up
Oil Hydrogen

Recycle H2 CO2
Reactor Purification

Propane &
Light Ends
Separator
Naphtha
or Jet
Water

Diesel
Product
Figure 1: Simplified Ecofining process flow diagram

3. PROCESS CHEMISTRY

The UOP/Eni Ecofining process removes the oxygen by catalytic reaction with hydrogen, producing a paraffin-rich
product (equation 1). Triglycerides and fatty free acids both contain relatively long, linear aliphatic hydrocarbon
chains. The aliphatic hydrocarbon chains are partially unsaturated and have a carbon number range and molecular
weight similar to the molecules found in diesel fuels. Conversion of feed is 100% and the volumetric yield of
hydrocarbon products is >100%. Selectivity to diesel boiling-range paraffins is very high. The deoxygenation
reaction byproducts are water and carbon oxides. Feedstocks rich in saturated fats such as palm and tallow oil
require substantially less hydrogen than feedstocks higher in olefin content such as soybean or rapeseed oil.

1) Triglycerides + H2 ====> Paraffin + H2O/COx

Catalyst

Process hydrogen requirements and product yields are shown in Table 1. The primary product is paraffinic
diesel and the co-products include propane and naphtha. Product carbon number distribution and selectivity of
oxygenate conversion to H2O and COx is controlled by choice of catalyst and reaction conditions. Diesel yield
depends on both feedstock type and operating severity and will vary from 88 vol-% to about 99 vol-% depending on
the level of hydroisomerization required to achieve product cloud point specification.

The properties of green diesel are compared to both petroleum diesel and biodiesel in Table 2 (Holmgren
2007 AICHE). Green diesel has a high cetane value and good cold flow properties. It is also has excellent storage
stability and is completely compatible for blending with the standard mix of petroleum-derived diesel fuels. In
contrast to fatty acid methyl esters, green diesel properties do not depend on feed origin and process configuration
and the fully deoxygenated biofuel is readily blended with diesel fuel.

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol5/A48
Kalnes et al.: Green Diesel: A Second Generation Biofuel 3

Feeds, wt-%
Vegetable Oil 100
Hydrogen 1.5 – 3.8
Products, vol-%
Propane 8-9
Naphtha/Kerosene 1-10
Green Diesel 88-99

Table 1: Process Yields and Hydrogen Requirements for a range of different feedstocks and diesel cloud point
targets.

Petroleum Biodiesel Green diesel

ULSD (FAME)
% Oxygen 0 11 0
Specific
0.84 0.88 0.78
Gravity
Sulfur, ppm <10 <1 <1
Heating
Value, 43 38 44
MJ/kg
Cloud Point,
-5 -5 to +15 -10 to +20
°C
Distillation,
200-350 340-355 265-320
°C
Cetane 40 50-65 70-90
Stability Good Marginal Good
Table 2: Green diesel Fuel Properties (ULSD is ultra-low sulfur diesel)

From a petroleum refiner’s perspective, green diesel would be considered a premium diesel blending
component. The boiling range is comparable to typical diesel products, with substantially higher cetane and lower
density. These are very valuable properties that enable refiners to optimize the amount of lower value refinery
streams that can be blended into the refinery diesel pool while still meeting all of the required EU diesel
specifications. Furthermore, cold flow properties can be controlled by adjusting process severity, thus making the
process more flexible than biodiesel with respect to feedstock selection and plant location.

The light paraffin byproducts are valuable hydrocarbons that can be used in a variety of ways including as
a feedstock to an olefins plant or feedstock to a hydrogen plant. In some cases where a convenient supply of
hydrogen is not available, an integrated hydrogen production facility can be used to supply all of the hydrogen
needed in the process. In the LCA study that follows, a green diesel cloud point of -80C and a green diesel yield on
88 vol-% was specified and several different sources of hydrogen were considered. For Green Diesel Case A, the
hydrogen supply was assumed to be a typical refinery blend containing ~60% hydrogen from a naphtha-to-gasoline
PlatformingTM unit and ~40% hydrogen from a steam methane reformer (SMR). For Green Diesel Case B, the
hydrogen was supplied by in-situ conversion of the green diesel byproduct propane and naphtha to hydrogen. When
comparing the three sources of hydrogen, the SMR consumes the most fossil fuel. The hydrogen produced in a

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007

4 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 5 [2007], Article A48

typical refinery as a byproduct of the conversion of naphtha-to-gasoline consumes a lesser amount of fossil fuel
based on a mass allocation of energy inputs. Hydrogen produced by steam reforming of the green diesel light fuel
byproducts does not consume any fossil fuel.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

UOP and Eni have done extensive process performance testing to determine optimum process conditions, catalyst
stability, and product properties. A range of vegetable oil feedstocks have been processed in pilot plants at both
UOP and Eni facilities including soybean, rapeseed, and palm oil. An extensive program is underway to evaluate
other potential feedstocks including tallow and greases derived from animals. Considerable testing has been
performed to confirm the stability of catalyst system employed. Data from an on-going stability test evaluating
rapeseed oil is shown in Figure 2. No measurable deactivation was observed for this feed oil over 2000 hours of
continuous testing.

110
Vol--% Yield

105
100
95
Green Diesel, Vol

90
85
80
75
70
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
HOS
Figure 2: Catalyst Stability Testing

The product properties shown in Table 2 were found to be similar for all the vegetable oils processed. In
all cases, the product has a very high cetane number (>80) and contained no sulfur or aromatics. Pilot plant results
also verified that diesel cold flow properties could be controlled by the isomerization severity used in the process.
The observed diesel yield was 88 vol-% when diesel cloud point was controlled at -10°C In this case, the diesel
yield loss was primarily to lighter paraffins boiling in the naphtha range.

5. PROCESS ECONOMICS

Preliminary techno-economic feasibility studies were performed for soybean oil and palm oil feedstocks to
determine if the process would be competitive with alternatives already available to petroleum refiners (Holmgren
Sept. 2007). The investment cost was found to be competitive with large capacity FAME production. Estimated
erected cost (inside battery limits) for a 300,000 MTA Ecofining unit ranged from $20MM to $34MM depending on
plant location, feedstock type, and diesel cloud point specification.

As with FAME production, the overall process economics were found to be very sensitive to feedstock
costs. A palm operation becomes profitable at a crude oil price of $52/bbl when palm oil can be purchases at
$420/MT. A Soybean oil is profitable at a crude oil price of $67/bbl when soybean oil can be purchased at $560/MT.
For a plant built in the USA, a $1/gallon subsidy is currently provided for renewable diesel production. When this
subsidy is provided, a new unit processing soybean oil can be paid out in 1 year at a crude oil price of $39/bbl.
Hydrogen was valued at $1240/MT in this study. At this hydrogen cost, variable operating cost (utilities, hydrogen,
catalyst, and chemical cost expenses) for green diesel were estimated to be in the range of $41-53/MT.

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol5/A48
Kalnes et al.: Green Diesel: A Second Generation Biofuel 5

6. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT METHODS

The life cycle assessment (LCA) presented next was conducted according to ISO 14040 standards. The goal of this
LCA is to compare green diesel produced from soybean oil and hydrogen to biodiesel and petroleum diesel. The
system boundary of this study is from raw material extraction through fuel production and to combustion in a diesel
engine. The impact assessment focuses on total energy consumption, fossil energy consumption, and emission of
greenhouse gases expressed as equivalents of fossil-derived carbon dioxide. Comparisons are made on the basis of
1 MJ energy content of each fuel. The selection of fuel energy content as the functional unit is justified because
engine performance is closely related to fuel heating value and also because this choice will allow comparison of
green diesel to previous studies in the literature.

Inventory data, including raw materials, primary energy resources, emission to air, water, and solid waste,
for soybean oil production was obtained from a study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) (Sheehan, 1998). This data included the life cycle stages of soybean cultivation and harvesting, soybean
transportation to crusher, crushing to produce soybean oil, and transportation of soybean oil to a biofuels conversion
facility. Omitted from the LCA was transportation from biofuels production to end user because this step is case
specific with high uncertainty as a result of the location of green diesel production facilities. This transportation step
is expected to contribute negligibly to the analysis and is nearly equivalent in all cases. Omitted also are emissions
of N2O from aoybean farming consistent with the NREL study. Energy and other material inputs for production of
biodiesel were obtained from the literature (Sheehan, Nexant, 2003). Green diesel inputs were obtained from recent
studies including a study conducted by UOP for the US Department of Energy (Marker 2005). Inventory data for
those energy and material inputs were obtained from eco-profiles within SimaPro7.0 (Pre Consultants, 2007),
representing average production in a European context. Data for production of petroleum diesel were taken from
SimaPro7.0, which again represents average conditions in Western Europe. The allocation of inventory elements
among numerous products for production of biodiesel, green diesel, and petroleum diesel were made based on the
relative mass production rates of the various products.

Emission of fossil carbon dioxide in diesel engines was estimated from stoichiometry, but only for fossil
carbon in each fuel (e.g. only for the methyl ester in biodiesel since fossil-derived methanol is assumed). A typical
petroleum diesel meeting current EU specs will have a carbon content of 86-87 wt-%. Upon combustion 1 kg of
petroleum diesel yields ~ 0.865 * 44/12 ~ 3.172 kg CO2 and 1 MJ of petroleum diesel yields ~ 3.172 / 42.6 = 0.0745
kg CO2. Soybean oil is mostly comprised of a mixture of unsaturated triglyceride fatty acids, with over 50% being
linoleic acid, a C18 fatty acid with 2 C=C. The methyl ester of this fatty acid has a carbon content of 77.55% with
one fossil carbon. Upon combustion 1 kg of biodiesel yields ~ 0.776 * 44/12 * 1/19 ~ 0.150 kg fossil CO2 and 1 MJ
of biodiesel yields ~ 0.150 / 38 = 0.00394 kg fossil CO2. Emission of greenhouse gases for other stages in the life
cycle for each fuel was included in the inventory analysis, and these inventory elements were converted to
equivalent CO2 using the EcoIndicator 95 method in SimaPro 7.0.

7. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The results to be presented here will not only compare green diesel to biodiesel and petroleum diesel, but will also
feature different options for production of green diesel where the hydrogen inputs to the conversion process are
derived from different fossil resources or from soybean or palm oil. Figure 3 shows the energy consumption for
soybean oil over their life cycle based on 1 MJ of energy in each fuel. Total, biomass, nuclear, and fossil energy
categories are included. Table 3 also shows this data in comparison to palm oil feedstock and literature values.
Total energy for petroleum diesel is 1.28 MJ/MJ, thus requiring 0.28 MJ of additional energy for all processing and
transportation steps for each MJ in diesel. Results for soybean biodiesel are 1.38 MJ/MJ for total energy and 0.33
MJ/MJ for fossil energy. These results are comparable with values reported in the biodiesel study of Sheehan et al.
(1998), as shown in Table 4. Total energy for petroleum and biodiesel tend to be slightly higher in our study
compared to the study by Sheehan et al., most likely due to differences in system boundaries and assumptions about
the energy content of soybean oil (40.8 MJ/kg in this study). For each biofuel in our study, total energy is slightly
higher compared to petroleum diesel, with most of this energy contained in the biomass itself. For palm oil based
biofuels, total as well as fossil energy required is slightly lower compared to soybean oil-derived biofuels (Table 4).

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007

6 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 5 [2007], Article A48

Nuclear energy is derived from the mix of electricity generating sources in the inventory databases used in
SimaPro7.0.

Fossil energy use is lower compared to biodiesel for both green diesel processes where H2 is either
imported or is integral to the process, thereby demonstrating green diesel’s advantage for displacing petroleum.
Fossil energy consumption is lowest for green diesel when H2 is produced within the process using either soybean or
palm oil byproducts, but at the expense of higher consumption of biomass energy. When green diesel is produced
using imported H2, fossil consumption is higher compared to Green Diesel, B but biomass energy use is lower,
leading to lower total energy consumption. A sensitivity analysis on the origin of the H2 for the Green Diesel, A
case shows a maximum in fossil energy consumption of 0.35 MJ/MJ for soybean oil when natural gas is the sole
fossil source and a minimum value of 0.26 MJ/MJ green diesel when H2 is derived from naphtha only. A similar
trend is observed for the palm oil case.

The net energy balance (NEB), defined as the fuel energy divided by all fossil energy inputs over the life
cycle, is 0.78 for petroleum diesel, 3.0 for biodiesel, 3.4 for green diesel (fossil hydrogen), and 5.0 for green diesel
(soybean hydrogen) when soybean oil is used. Palm oil biofuels exhibit slightly higher NEB values compared to
soybean biofuels. NEB values >1 indicate a net reduction of fossil resources for the same energy delivered for
diesel transportation. The NEB value reported here for soybean biodiesel is slightly lower than literature results; 3.2
Sheehan) and 3.67 (Hill). The main reason for differences in NEB are due to assumptions on system boundaries,
which in the Hill et al. study included on-farm impacts that are normally not considered, as well as methods of
allocation, which in the Hill et al. study differed in that a displacement method was employed rather than a mass
allocation approach.

1.50 1.38 1.34 1.45

1.28
1.25
MJ (total)/MJ

1.00
1.01 1.03 1.23
0.75
1.26

0.50

0.25
.33
.29 .20
0.00
Petroleum Biodiesel Green Diesel- Green Diesel-
Diesel A B

Fossil Energy Nuclear Energy Biomass Energy

Figure 3. Soybean oil biofuel energy comparison over the life cycle for 1 MJ contained in each fuel. Total
energy is the entire bar, while fossil biomass and nuclear energy are indicated in red, yellow, and green,
respectively. For Green Diesel Case A, the hydrogen supply was assumed to be a typical refinery blend
containing ~60% hydrogen from a naphtha-to-gasoline PlatformingTM unit and ~40% hydrogen from a steam
methane reformer. For Green Diesel Case B, the hydrogen was supplied by in-situ conversion of the green diesel
byproduct propane and naphtha to hydrogen.

A comparison of emission of greenhouse gases over the life cycle for each fuel is shown in Figure 4 and
also in Table 4. When compared to the previous studies in Table 4, the results of our analysis are within the ranges
reported. However, other studies predict higher GHG impacts for biodiesel, and presumably green diesel, due to

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol5/A48
Kalnes et al.: Green Diesel: A Second Generation Biofuel 7

emission of N2O on the farm (Hass). Emission of N2O from agricultural soils is highly uncertain in magnitude and
was therefore neglected in our work.

Total Biomass Fossil NEB GHG

Energy Energy Energy (kgCO2
(MJ/MJ) (MJ/MJ) (MJ/MJ) Eq. / MJ)
(MJ/MJ)
This Study
Diesel----------------------------------- 1.28 1.26 0.78 0.0856
Soybean Oil
Biodiesel------------------------------ 1.38 1.01 0.33 3.0 0.0236
Green Diesel, A--------------------- 1.34 1.03 0.29 3.4 0.0140
Green Diesel, B--------------------- 1.45 1.23 0.20 5.0 0.0127
Palm Oil
Bioiesel--------------------------------- 1.28 0.98 0.25 4.0 NA
Green Diesel, A---------------------- 1.27 1.03 0.20 5.0 NA
Green Diesel, B---------------------- 1.32 1.17 0.13 7.7 NA
Sheehan et al. 1998
Diesel----------------------------------- 1.201 1.199 0.79 0.0866
Soybean Oil Biodiesel------------- 1.241 0.311 3.2 0.0177
Hill et al. 2006
Diesel----------------------------------- 0.0823
Soybean Oil Biodiesel------------- 0.273 3.67 0.049

Table 3. Comparison of Soybean Oil and Palm Oil Derived Biofuels to Literature Data

0.09
CO2 equivalents (kg CO2/MJ)

0.08
0.07 .0856
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
.0236
0.01 .0140 .0127
0
Petroleum
Petroleum Diesel
Diesel SBO BiodieselGreen
Biodiesel SBO GD H2
Diesel, A from NG
GreenSBO GD B
Diesel, H2 from
SBO

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Figure 4. Greenhouse gas emission comparison over the life cycle for 1 MJ contained in each fuel. For Green
Diesel Case A, the hydrogen supply was assumed to be a typical refinery blend containing ~60% hydrogen from a
naphtha-to-gasoline PlatformingTM unit and ~40% hydrogen from a steam methane reformer. For Green Diesel
Case B, the hydrogen was supplied by in-situ conversion of the green diesel byproduct propane and naphtha to
hydrogen.

Sheehan et al. (1998) report emissions of CO2 on a brake horsepower-hr basis, but when converted to 1 MJ
in fuel diesel emits 0.0866 kg CO2/MJ and soybean biodiesel emits 0.0177 kg CO2/MJ. That study was an inventory

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007

8 International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering Vol. 5 [2007], Article A48

analysis and therefore no attempt was made to convert all greenhouse gases to equivalent CO2. Therefore, it is
expected that the results of that NREL report will be low compared to our study and also to that of Hill et al. (2006).
The NREL biodiesel value is low compared to our study and to those reported in Hill et al. as shown next. In the
PNAS study (Hill) emissions of greenhouse gases for diesel were 0.0823 kg CO2/MJ and for biodiesel were 0.0490
kg CO2/MJ. One possible reason for the higher value for biodiesel in the PNAS study compared to our study is the
expanded system boundaries for their study, which as mentioned previously included more on-farm activity.
Overall, our results are in good agreement with similar results in the literature for diesel and soybean biodiesel.
Green diesel emissions of greenhouse gases are lower than biodiesel regardless of the method of generating
hydrogen. Our findings for the soybean oil case show that emission of greenhouse gases is reduced by between
83.6% - 85.2% for green diesel compared to petroleum diesel. A comparison of greenhouse gas emissions for palm
oil biofuels is beyond the scope of this study. A more detailed analyses of the palm oil case will be the subject of a
future publication.

8. CONCLUSIONS OF STUDY
A new technology for conversion of triglyceride-rich feedstocks such as soybean, palm, and rapeseed oils to high
quality (and energy content) isoparaffin-rich diesel fuel has been developed. This stable, high cetane, low cloud
point diesel product is referred to as green diesel.

The hydrogen required in the production of green diesel can come from a variety of sources including a
conventional H2 plant (SMR), a typical naphtha-to-gasoline PlatformingTM unit, or by steam-reforming the light
fuels produced as byproducts of green diesel production in order of decreasing fossil fuel consumption.

Green diesel compares favorably to biodiesel in the LCA study of this paper. Fossil energy consumption
over the life cycle is expected to be reduced by between 84-90% for green diesel produced from soybean oil or palm
oil, respectively when H2 is produced internally from byproducts rather than from fossil resources. Thus, green
diesel has the potential to displace more petroleum resources per energy content in the fuel compared to biodiesel.
Larger reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for green diesel relative to biodiesel were predicted by this study for
soybean feedstocks, but lack of verifiable data on palm oil prevented any conclusions to be made for this feedstock.
Overcoming this omission and inclusion of other environmental impacts will be the subject of future research in
green diesel production and use.

REFERENCES
Alternative Fuels, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) web site,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/whatis_biodiesel.html

Radich, A., Biodiesel Performance, Costs, and Use. Energy Information Administration, 2004.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/

Hill, J, Nelson, E, Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Tiffany, D., “Environmental, economic and energetic costs and benefits
of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 103, no. 30, 11206-
11210.

Hass, H. et al, “Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context,” A
Joint study by EUCAR / JRC / CONCAWE, October 12, 2003.

Holmgren, J., Gosling, C., Marker,T., Kokayeff; P., Faraci, G., Perego, C., “Green Diesel Production from
Vegetable Oil,” Extended Abstract 2007 Spring AICHE conference, April 22-26, Houston, Texas.

Marker, T., Petri, J., Kalnes, T., McCall, M., Mackowiak, D., Jerosky, B., Reagan, B., Nemeth, L., Krawczyk, M.,
Czernyk, S., Elliot, D., Shonnard, D., “Opportunities for Biorenewables in Oil Refineries: Final Technical Report,”

http://www.bepress.com/ijcre/vol5/A48
Kalnes et al.: Green Diesel: A Second Generation Biofuel 9

submitted to the U.S. Department of energy by UOP, Des Plaines, IL, December 2005, DOE award no. DE-FG36-
05GO15085.

Pre Consultants, “SimaPro7.0 Life Cycle Assessment Software” (most widely used LCA software), 2007,
http://www.pre.nl

Sheehan, J. Camobreco, V., Duffield, J., Graboski, M., Shapouri, H., Life Cycle “Inventory for Biodiesel and
Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus,” US Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
May 1998, NREL/SR-580-24089, 286 pages.

Nexant Chem Systems, “PERP Report Biodiesel 02/03S2,” December 2003

Holmgren, J., Gosling C., Marinangelli, R., Marker, P., Faraci, G., Perego, C., “New developments in renewable
fuels offer more choices,” Hydrocarbon Processing, September 2007.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007