Apparently, biodiesel makers are having trouble keeping their product from spilling into waterways -- when they're not actively dumping glycerin (a biodiesel product) into streams.
That's the message from an article in Tuesday's New York Times.
According to industry dogma, biodiesel is "nontoxic, biodegradable and suitable for sensitive environments," The Times reports.
Not so fast. According to a Canadian scientist, quoted in the article:
[A]s with most organic materials, oil and glycerin deplete the oxygen content of water very quickly, and that will suffocate fish and other organisms. And for birds, a vegetable oil spill is just as deadly as a crude oil spill.
In other news, a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences warned that increased corn ethanol production will likely "worsen" the massive "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico -- where fertilizer runoff from the Midwest accumulates every year, feeding an algae bloom that blots out sea life underneath.
Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp
Comments
View as Threaded
Biodiversivist Posted 3:12 pm
12 Mar 2008
Oh my God. Wiped out an "entire population" of an endangered species. Go biodiesel!
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ashley Braun Posted 5:48 pm
12 Mar 2008
They say the "all vegetable based bar soap is enriched with pure glycerin." Why wouldn't such a "nourishing blend of natural ingredients" help make all those fishes' scales feel just as soft and smooth?
Permalink
ehsdirector Posted 1:19 am
13 Mar 2008
No industrial manufacturer of these fuels would call them "non-toxic" or "non-hazardous" because they have to follow DOT, EPA and OSHA classification standards (the regulations-law). Under these government protection standards, ethanol and bio-diesel both have toxic, fire and aquatic life risks.
We need to remind people petroleum based fuels are from organic bio life that has just and a few million more years to cook.
But these are just regulatory facts and data...
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:39 am
13 Mar 2008
Glycerin, an alcohol that is normally nontoxic, can be sold for secondary uses, but it must be cleaned first, a process that is expensive and complicated. Expanded production of biodiesel has flooded the market with excess glycerin, making it less cost-effective to clean and sell.
And as Biod points out above, glycerin kills fish.
Ms. Tippett Mosby did not have to wait long to see the problem. In October, an anonymous caller reported that a tanker truck was dumping milky white goop into Belle Fountain Ditch, one of the many man-made channels that drain Missouri's Bootheel region. That substance turned out to be glycerin from a biodiesel plant.
In January, a grand jury indicted a Missouri businessman in the discharge, which killed at least 25,000 fish and wiped out the population of fat pocketbook mussels, an endangered species.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:10 am
13 Mar 2008
These cases likely represent poor decisions on the part of middle managers that are now looking for alternative employment.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:32 am
13 Mar 2008
Are you talking about just the biodiesel industry, or the entire liquid fuel industry?
When a captain runs his oil tanker aground and damages miles of coastline with crude oil, it gets reported by the press and his company gets fined. That captain is just a middle manager.
I don't see why one producer of a liquid fuel that is destroying the environment should be treated differently from another.
If we are going to treat the oil industry with malfeasance just because one of its middle managers runs a tanker aground, we are obligated to do the same for biodiesel. If not, then we should also be defending the oil industry, blaming its transgressions on the bad decisions of middle managers as well.
We all know that glycerin has other uses. But when the value of a byproduct drops so low that it's cheaper to dump it than sell it, given the chance, some refiners will dump it. The only thing stopping them are laws and the enforcement of those laws.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 8:54 am
13 Mar 2008
That's cuz it doesn't fit your agenda to acknowledge that some biofuel producers just might be more responsible than others. Your biofuel arguments just seek to demonize. Reminds me of the war on terror.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:07 am
14 Mar 2008
Malfeasance and demonic are strong choices of words. Nobody else has chosen to use such strong language to describe the actions of these refiners. But now that you mention it, they may be appropriate when you consider that this refiner wiped out an entire population of an endangered species. No big deal, bunch of stupid clams.
The two guys who popped in on previous posts who spent so much time and energy trying to defend the biofuel ethanol used that word "agenda" dozens of times. The most common use of the word is per this definiton:
program of things to be done; specif., a list of things to be dealt with at a meeting
But they were using it in an attempt to paint their debate partners as being deceptive and dishonest, biased, as per this less common use of the word:
an underlying personal viewpoint or bias
an underlying often ideological plan or program
They meant "hidden agenda" but dropped the word hidden knowing that it was still implied. Bias is inherent in any debate position. Both of these guys have ethanol websites and were profiting, or hoping to profit from ethanol.
I've never attempted to paint a debate partner as being dishonest with that word. I already know that we all have subconcious bias. I emphasize the strength of argument over accusations of hidden agendas.
Let me turn it around on you for a minute. What's your agenda? To sugarcoat the destruction of the biosphere by biofuels? And to what end? So you can keep that biodiesel sticker on your bumper?
Tom's post sheds light on two common biofuel misconceptions:
Biofuel spills are harmless.
Biofuel refiners are defenders of nature
and links to a study about the dead zone--about to get worse thanks to biofuels.
I understand that you are trying to use biodiesel made from waste grease, and I support your use of that fuel, but here you continue to defend biofuels in general. I don't really think you are dishonest, you are simply biased, like every other human being. Accusing a debate partner of bias is always case of a pot calling a kettle black.
Your war on terror analogy went over my head. You're suggesting terrorists should not be demonized or were you somehow trying to tie my critique of biofuels to Bush, who, by the way, has become a big supporter of biofuels?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink