Biofuels Really Not So Green

Interesting read. Biofuels Really Not So Green
Another link from the London Times

Greg

LanduytG said:

Interesting read. Biofuels Really Not So Green
Another link from the London Times

Greg

Click to expand...

i'm starting to feel real bad about biodiesel, been using it for 6 month without problem, but many people pointed out that it wasn't cleaner than other fuel and i have read many thread like this one everywhere

whats the real verdict then?

kilimats said:

i'm starting to feel real bad about biodiesel, been using it for 6 month without problem, but many people pointed out that it wasn't cleaner than other fuel and i have read many thread like this one everywhere

whats the real verdict then?

Click to expand...

My personal take is that if it keeps money out of the hands of terrorists, it's a good thing. It does produce more NOX, but it's better for your engine.

robzuk said:

My personal take is that if it keeps money out of the hands of terrorists, it's a good thing. It does produce more NOX, but it's better for your engine.

Click to expand...

I can't stand seeing that inaccurate sig that you refuse to correct so I'm putting you on ignore.

Edit: received word that you fixed it, unignored. Thanks for making it right.

LanduytG said:

Interesting read. Biofuels Really Not So Green

Greg

Click to expand...

I encourage you to quote the titles of articles completely.

This one is "Biofuels May Disperse More Greenhouse Gases Than Oil".

The emphasis should be very much on the word "may".

The outcome that this study "suggests" is all based on N2O emissions from growing plants. The last such study I read (something like 89 pages to get to the heart of it) said that the science on N2O emissions is not all that clear and warranted further study. It compared a field of soybeans to grasslands that had never been cutivated, ever. I'm not sure how much of the soy crop is now growing on new fields that were (until last year) grasslands that were never cultivated.

None of these studies ever look at the global consequences of oil dependence. I will still be using my soy biodiesel thank you and be quite convinced it is better than petroleum.

LanduytG said:

Interesting read. Biofuels Really Not So Green
Another link from the London Times

Greg

Click to expand...

If you bother to track down the article in reference, you'll note that there is significant controversy over the methods employed in the NOx model created by Crutzen. To quote from the Chemistry World story:

Let's keep pushing for strong and open research into energy lifecycles of all fuels, whether biofuels or petroleum and coal derived, and full emissions accounting.

BioFuels are not bad for the environment.

It looks like they are referring to BioEthanol not BioDiesel.

(and only the most common BioEthanol production stock.)

New (more environmentally responsible) feed stock will be coming more popular in a short time as farmers move away from what they are used to growing and move to what will be healthy for the environment and their soil.

BioDiesel is a whole different story. BioEthanol and BioDiesel are not the same.

Ask this fellow traveller on this blue/green ball if he'd rather have happened upon a biodiesel spill.



Or how about asking some mother/wife who's just lost a brave soldier to our quest to secure the free flow of the Devil's Tea if, as a nation, we might begin to break away from our deadly addiction.

I'm not sure about the non-conclusive science on the debate about alternative fuel emissions, but I am sure we need to move away from a totally nonsustainable and deadly energy system based on fossil fuels.

One step at a time. As fast as we can.

kilimats said:

i'm starting to feel real bad about biodiesel, been using it for 6 month without problem, but many people pointed out that it wasn't cleaner than other fuel and i have read many thread like this one everywhere

whats the real verdict then?

Click to expand...

Just ask yourself how many US soldiers and Iraqi civilians had to die for your biodiesel. Ask yourself how much of your money went to a US farmer instead of overseas to a Middle Eastern terrorist regime for your biodiesel. Ask yourself how many toxic oil spills were caused by your biodiesel....and how much sequestered carbon was spewed into the air by your biodiesel. While you are at it, ask yourself how much less you polluted simply by choosing to drive a 40 mpg diesel car instead of a gas-hogging 10 mpg SUV.

.... think of how many poor africans would starve if we turned all our land that produces crops toward biodiesel....

oh the hu manity.

Think of how much more farmland would be available for various uses if we stopped dedicating so much of it to grow food for livestock.

Eat low on the food chain, go vegitarian... one of the best things one can do for the health of the planet.


Sorry, somewhat on topic but relevent to some of the latest comments.

First of all the article came from FOX News, which I find suspect in any circumstance. We all know that big business and the current Presidential party speak to the ignorant masses through FOX News. Funny programs, but skewed reporting.

Secondly NOx is not a greenhouse gas. In the lower atmosphere it traps sunlight under inversion layers (see L.A.) and contributes to acid rain, but in the upper atmosphere the NOx breaks down to form hydroxyl radicals (OH) which break down other greenhouse gases. So it, in some sense, is an anti-greenhouse gas.

Besides, catalytic converters take care of most NOx emissions anyway. A more efficient engine will produce more NOx. It's an inevitable by product of more heat.

Add to that the possibility that the account of increased NOx emissions is dubious, and you see how big oil is trying to discredit their competition.

Insinnuendo said:

First of all the article came from FOX News, which I find suspect in any circumstance. We all know that big business and the current Presidential party speak to the ignorant masses through FOX News. Funny programs, but skewed reporting.

Secondly NOx is not a greenhouse gas. In the lower atmosphere it traps sunlight under inversion layers (see L.A.) and contributes to acid rain, but in the upper atmosphere the NOx breaks down to form hydroxyl radicals (OH) which break down other greenhouse gases. So it, in some sense, is an anti-greenhouse gas.

Besides, catalytic converters take care of most NOx emissions anyway. A more efficient engine will produce more NOx. It's an inevitable by product of more heat.

Add to that the possibility that the account of increased NOx emissions is dubious, and you see how big oil is trying to discredit their competition.

Click to expand...

Boy it took longer than I thought for politics to enter in.

Greg

Journier said:

.... think of how many poor africans would starve if we turned all our land that produces crops toward biodiesel....

Click to expand...

Let's not cry too much about Africa since they're pretty much FUBAR for the forseeable future. They're a bunch of nations that can't get their act together because they'd rather have tribal and religious squabbles that delve into full-blown wars. That, and ignorant education about how poor people or garbage causes the HIV shortens the life of too many people.

As for crops - Africa has a good amount of farm land that isn't used because of the aforementioned conflicts. Look at Zimbabwe as an example. One of the strongest economies is now in the toilet with 15,000% percent inflation under the rule of Robert Mugabe. Land reforms that force out farm owners and give the land to new owners who either refuse to or don't know how to farm the land means starvation for a good part of the population. They're now resorting to eating pets and rats, but hey - at least they got rid of the white man . . .

BioD is as close to carbon-neutral as you're going to get. DinoD, not so much. Bio MAY put more NOx into the air, but thats a chemistry problem solvable by EGR, multiple-injection timing, and better cats.

Biodiesel is a BY PRODUCT of soy bean production! The oil is removed before soy beans are used for the vast array of things that can be made out of it. This can't be said about ethanol.

Gimme soy bean based biodiesel for now. Algea and other things to come. Forget palm oil. THAT is bad stuff because of where it's grown. Get the facts before giving up biodlesel. We don't use palm oil - yet. Other countries do. We need to encourage them not to.

Do you like using petroleum oil? In the USA, it doesn't have the minimum 50 cetane required by VW. Imagine that. Bio can make up for that. Bio also sends your money to the USA, not abroad. Bio is 78% carbon neutral if the machines aren't using biodiesel themselves. Some farms do. Then it's 100% carbon neutral.

~BeetleGo

I think there are lots of ways to look at this type of study.

First, you might ask: should we abandon biodiesel and go back to petroleum diesel. The answer is trivially easy: heck no. The disadvantages of petroleum based fuels are simply too great to ever consider this path. Frankly, this path is suicidal in more ways than one.

The next question is: should we abandon biodiesel and go entirely to greener energy such as solar/wind/tide/geothermal. The answer here is probably also simple: we need to move in this direction as fast as possible, but liquid fuels still have their places, especially in transportation.

The important question then becomes this: what are the weaknesses of biodiesel production, and where should we focus in improving them? This is where these most recent studies provide value, in pointing out the next area of focus for building a greener technology than we have now. We should continue to use and promote biodiesel, but also keep in mind the unseen costs that reduce the benefits, such as fertilizers and NOx.

Journier said:

.... think of how many poor africans would starve if we turned all our land that produces crops toward biodiesel....

Click to expand...

Yes. Absolutely. Let's do think about that.

Biodiesel from soy oil goes like this:

Crushed soybeans = 80% protein cake + 20% soy oil.

Soy beans are produced for the protein cake, for years, the soy bean industry produced so much soy oil the market couldn't absorb it and there was a 200 million gallon surplus. This is why the soy bean promotion board got excited about soy biodiesel in the first place. Finally... a market for surplus soy oil. We definitely don't want to take food away from people so we can drive but, having said that, I believe that we can produce biofuels and still produce food too.

I think we also need to realize that the oil industry does everything it can to create and circulate stories that will cause people to have doubts about alternatives to petroleum. We must be committed to produce biofuels in the most sustainable manner and in ways that do not deny food to people. While we are on that journey, I will still be using my soy biodiesel instead of petroleum for all of the reasons already listed in a variety of posts.

We must change. Oil is dwindling away and could likely be the reason for Gulf War #3 unless we do something to reduce our consumption and find transporation fuel alternatives. I do not want to get into a shooting war with China over the last dregs of petroleum in places like Nigeria or the Middle East.

BeetleGo said:

Bio is 78% carbon neutral if the machines aren't using biodiesel themselves. Some farms do. Then it's 100% carbon neutral.

~BeetleGo

Click to expand...

Actually, it is the fact that biodiesel is made with about 20% methanol (made from natural gas) that keeps it from being 100% carbon neutral. It wouldn't have to be produced that way... but is today.

RC said:

Think of how much more farmland would be available for various uses if we stopped dedicating so much of it to grow food for livestock.

Eat low on the food chain.

Click to expand...

Exactly! See the study on this page of links:

http://www.worldalmanac.com/blog/2007/01/livestocks_long_shadow_1.html

Livestock a major threat to environment
"...the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport"

It takes 10 pounds of corn to create 1 pound of beef. Over 60% of the corn crop goes not for food for humans... but for feed for livestock for meat. Did you know that it only takes 4 pounds of corn to make 1 pound of pork? Hmmm... beef consumes a huge amount our corn.

Another large percentage of our corn crop goes to make sweetners for soda pop. I wonder why nobody ever writes articles about how soda pop sweetners are causing people around the earth to starve?

LanduytG said:

Boy it took longer than I thought for politics to enter in.

Greg

Click to expand...

And now that I've made a post, let's see how long before this is "edited for content"...

(inside joke)

Journier said:

.... think of how many poor africans would starve if we turned all our land that produces crops toward biodiesel....

oh the hu manity.

Click to expand...

The edibile part of the grain is not required for bio diesel production... so really is a weak argument meant to get sympathy for people who can't research or think for themselves....

ikendu said:

Crushed soybeans = 80% protein cake + 20% soy oil.

Soy beans are produced for the protein cake

Click to expand...

That used to be true, but with soy oil selling for almost $0.40 a pound and meal selling for about $0.14 a pound, soy oil constitutes about 40% of the revenue from soy beans. If soy-based fuels take off, protein meal will become the byproduct and the oil will be the driver.

OkiTDI

OkiTdi said:

That used to be true, but with soy oil selling for almost $0.40 a pound and meal selling for about $0.14 a pound, soy oil constitutes about 40% of the revenue from soy beans. If soy-based fuels take off, protein meal will become the byproduct and the oil will be the driver.

OkiTDI

Click to expand...

Well, that might be right. But with other crops being so much more productive sources of oil (rape seed is over double), it is hard to imagine people would grow soy beans for the oil alone.

I learned an interesting thing this last weekend, soy beans actually have more soil erosion than corn. People are so worried about corn displacing soy beans because we'll lose more top soil when it is the soy beans that lose the most.

I guess if what you say is true, we will have a glut of soy protein cake and the cost for food will actually drop.

Honeydew said:

I can't stand seeing that inaccurate sig that you refuse to correct so I'm putting you on ignore.

Click to expand...

There, ya happy forum police? You and that other assbadger suburbanTDI need to get a life FFS!! This issue would have been better handled via pm instead of Suburban pming me the link to his crap and you with yours.

ikendu said:

I do not want to get into a shooting war with China over the last dregs of petroleum in places like Nigeria or the Middle East.

Click to expand...

I'm more worried about this taking place in Calgary .
Shorter commute

ikendu said:

Well, that might be right. But with other crops being so much more productive sources of oil (rape seed is over double), it is hard to imagine people would grow soy beans for the oil alone.

I learned an interesting thing this last weekend, soy beans actually have more soil erosion than corn. People are so worried about corn displacing soy beans because we'll lose more top soil when it is the soy beans that lose the most.

I guess if what you say is true, we will have a glut of soy protein cake and the cost for food will actually drop.

Click to expand...

Because the subsidies exist for soybean oil, thanks to the lobbyists?

I know it's been said above, but I also really don't like buying from people who want to kill me and the rest of us westerners, and hence supplying them with the means to do a really good job of it. Also it's my understanding that NOx emissions are higher with biodiesel while COx and HCs are lower. I wonder who is behind trashing biodiesel's reputation? Who would gain from that - maybe the people who would want to kill us or the big oil companies that are their partners.

pdreyfuss said:

I know it's been said above, but I also really don't like buying from people who want to kill me and the rest of us westerners, and hence supplying them with the means to do a really good job of it. Also it's my understanding that NOx emissions are higher with biodiesel while COx and HCs are lower. I wonder who is behind trashing biodiesel's reputation? Who would gain from that - maybe the people who would want to kill us or the big oil companies that are their partners.

Click to expand...

you really believe US is in MidEast only for oil ?
We are there on behalf of Israel and oil is secondary reason..
People hate you for a reason and definitely it is not our lifestyle or ideas.

IT'S OUR FOREIGN POLICY

Why Russians don't like US now but they did yrs ago ? Encircling their country has lot to do with it.
The propaganda in Western media nowdays rivals Goebels work in WW2

We are there for any number of reasons, all of them having to do with not being all that bright about things for the last 50 years or so.

We're reaping what we and those before us have sowed. It's real simple.