From an article in E Magazine:
According to Kathryn Phillips, manager of Environmental Defense's California Clean Air for Life campaign, it [biodiesel] actually increases nitrous oxide (NOX) emissions, which react with other chemicals to create ground-level ozone, or smog, significantly impacting lung development in children.
After glossing over the problem by telling us that "the biodiesel industry is working on methods to reduce NOX via an additive or catalyst," the author then spends the next 1,310 words telling everyone they should burn it not only in their cars but also in their furnaces.
Although biodiesel is cleaner than heating oil, it is much dirtier than natural gas. It's not a problem as long as people do not run out and start replacing their natural-gas furnaces with oil furnaces so they can use biodiesel -- as is happening with gasoline cars. Replacing a natural-gas furnace with a biodiesel furnace would be a big step backwards from an air-pollution perspective (likewise for replacing a gasoline-powered car with a biodiesel-powered one). Some gasoline cars are on the verge of being zero-emissions vehicles.
All the other downsides to using biodiesel aside, the author also glossed over (or was completely unaware of) just how much more NOX a biodiesel car spews over a conventional gasoline car -- a full order of magnitude. There are reasons some states have banned the sale of new diesel cars, and biodiesel spits out 10 percent more NOX than standard diesel.
It is one thing for industrial trucks to use biodiesel. They have to use diesel engines for their higher torque, and with the exception of NOX, biodiesel is cleaner than regular diesel, but thanks to air-pollution controls (that cannot be applied to diesel) it is not cleaner than gasoline-powered cars.
Replacing your gasoline car with one that burns biodiesel is another story. Your neighbors will have to breathe your NOX as you do your part to save the planet from global warming by using biodiesel instead of walking, biking, or just driving less. It's a trade-off. Just because half the cars in Europe are diesel does not mean they always get things right. Even though France has replaced coal with nukes for about 80% of their electric power, they are still struggling with clean-air problems thanks to all of the diesel cars. From an air-pollution perspective, they would be better off using biodiesel in their cars, but they would be even better off if they drove gas cars that can capitalize on modern air-pollution controls.
The author ends the article with the oft-repeated urban legend that biodiesel exhaust smells like french fries. This is only true if you happen to be burning oil that had been used to cook french fries; otherwise, it has the acrid smell of burnt vegetable oil, which does not appeal to me. I have no problem seeing how something that smells that bad is also bad for my children's lungs.
By the way, the Europeans are having other biodiesel-related problems:
... while there are no shortages as yet, rapeseed prices have shot up in the past couple of years and there is less available for food producers.
Wow, who could have seen that coming?
Critics say they have nothing to worry about. Just squeeze the water to the other end of the balloon. They can always get their vegetable oil from someplace else (like soybeans or palm oil grown where rainforests used to be).
Comments
View as Flat
meander Posted 6:51 am
09 Apr 2006
The E article also made the frequent nitrous <--> nitric oxide switch. The smog-forming chemical is nitric oxide (NO and NO2), or NOx. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is also emitted by engines, but has little role in smog formation. It is, however, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:17 am
09 Apr 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
David Foley Posted 11:12 pm
09 Apr 2006
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 1:46 am
10 Apr 2006
Don't blame diesel technology for the lack of air pollution controls. Blame governments for that. The only reason auto manufacturers don't have air pollution controls on diesel cars is because the EPA is dragging its feet on its implementation of low sulpher diesel. Once it happens (apparently later this year), the last hurdle will have been removed on cleaning up emissions from diesel vehicles. Sulpher in the fuel is preventing it right now.
Also, your critique of biodiesel is heavily focused on the NOx part of the equation. New studies are coming out that suggest that increased NOx is not necessarily accurate. http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/npbf/pdfs/38296.pdf
Regarding CO2, diesel engines are much better than standard gasoline engines. They are more efficient and use less fuel. If you check out http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ you will find that the greenhouse gas emissions of diesel passenger cars rank them alongside some of the most efficeient cars on the market (with only the most efficient of the hybrids beating them out). Finally, there are very efficient diesels on the market (in other countries) that we don't even have access to here in the USA. How about the VW Polo, not available in the USA. It gets 60 mpg.
I've typed enough already. I won't go into detail regarding the benefits of lowering our consumption of oil from the middle east. Hopefully, that needs no explanation.
-Bryan
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:05 am
10 Apr 2006
Electric cars powered by wind, solar, or hydrokinetic electricity are indeed zero emmision in operation.
When manufacturing and recycling energy is also obtained from renewable sources, those vehicles will be completely zero emmision for their entire lifecycle.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:10 am
10 Apr 2006
You can replace some imported oil, but that won't stop the biggest disaster, the one from global climate change.
Only renewable elecric power used in electric vehicles will cure global climate change AND imported oil problems.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:12 am
10 Apr 2006
Which was taken up by plants, so it's technically a closed-loop cycle (of course it depends on the energy conversion rate: how much energy you put in to grow v. take-out). Some bioenergy, like willow biomass (1:16) is much more efficient than corn (1:1 seems like) but may not be applied in biodiesel. I'm not sure if it can be converted to biodiesel at the above ratio.
"...that the greenhouse gas emissions of diesel passenger cars rank them alongside some of the most efficeient cars on the market (with only the most efficient of the hybrids beating them out)."
But there is more C in diesel to start with, it is a heavier fuel, so the actual use rate is not as hopeful as it seems. Those 60 or even 90 mpg VW cars actually would get a much lower efficiency rating if the amount of C per liter/gallon would be considered. It is true that these engines would still be more efficient than the gasoline engines, but the difference is not as drastic as those numbers suggest.
"N2O is hundreds of times more powerful as a green house gas than CO2. NOX is a general term used to describe all nitrogen oxides that may come from your tail pipe. "
NOx compounds are volatilized nitric compounds and do not include N2O: NO, NO2, and NO3.
Permalink
greenstork Posted 4:11 am
10 Apr 2006
The problem: sulfur in fuel prevents NOx scrubbers from being effective. Take the sulfur out of fuel and car companies can put pollution controls in place to reduce NOx emissions by more than 50%. The EPA has mandated the sale of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) by 2007, at which time many new and effective pollution controls for diesel automobiles are being planned.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm
Don't take my word for it, just do a Google search for diesel sulfur and NOx. There are hundreds of articles out there about the pollution controls planned to greatly reduce NOx emissions in 2007.
The E Magazine article also has a huge omission. Smog or ground level ozone isn't just formed by NOx, but rather, it is a mixture of sunlight, NOx, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) that form ground level ozone. Where do VOCs come from? Well, certainly not from biodiesel, but predominantly from gasoline automobiles.
Ever heard of the weekend effect? To summarize, smog levels actually increase on the weekends when diesel traffic and NOx emissions are at their minimum.
According to a Berkley Labs blog called Science Beat http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sb/July-2004/4_weekend.html:
Precisely how this combination of car and diesel truck emissions contributes to the weekend effect remains unclear, but there are several theories. One is based on the fact both cars and trucks are on the road during the week, emitting nitrogen oxides. But on the weekend, when work-related diesel truck traffic diminishes, there's an approximately 40 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. This reduction actually causes smog levels to increase, most likely because nitrogen oxides can suppress ozone-formation under certain conditions.
Again, don't take my word for it, just do a Google search for "weekend effect" and smog.
To simply say that NOx is responsible for all ground level ozone is misinformed at best. Readers should bear in mind that the original poster, biodiversivist, has an axe to grind with biofuels. He doesn't like them and takes every opportunity to trash them, sometimes using half-truths such as this E Magazine article. Again, don't take my word for it, just look at his posting history.
I'm not in favor of imported biofuels just the same as biodiversivist, but domestically produced biofuels still hold a great deal of promise for weaning the U.S. off petroleum and reducing pollution, in my opinion.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:18 am
10 Apr 2006
Only a natural carbon sink like land in conservation reserve takes CO 2 out of the atmosphere, and that is the way to stop global climate change. More conservation land.
Simply maintaining present levels won't do it. And the more land that turns from a carbon sink to growing fuel crops even more CO 2 is released.
Present crops will not produce both fuel and food at anywhere near making a real dent in imported oil.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:48 pm
10 Apr 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 12:21 am
11 Apr 2006
You are right to celebrate the PZEV technology. But let us not forget global warming -- which has far greate consequences to biodiversity than does smog. Lets encourage the governement to get the cleaner diesel fuel on the market, so that diesel emissions can get cleaned up. And then encourage everybody to buy the most fuel efficient cars on the market. The best cars are both low-emissions AND ALSO high on MPG.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:49 am
11 Apr 2006
I can imagine what it would feel like to drop 18 K on a new diesel Jetta specifically to burn carbon neutral biodiesel to support local farmers, recycle used veggie oil, reduce air pollution, reduce your ecological footprint, our dependency of foreign oil and stop global warming, only to later learn that:
A) It isn't carbon neutral. It is at best only 78% carbon neutral when made from soybeans (and probably closer to 60%).
B) Your source for it isn't a local commodity made from recycled friar fat. It is made from virgin vegetable oils shipped thousands of miles from the Midwest or South America.
C) It doesn't produce less pollution than the Honda accord you traded in. It produces ten times more
D) Your car is consuming about a football field of soybeans a month, or about 15 acres a year, doubling your ecological footprint score.
E) It has the potential to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by only 3% and reduce total U.S. CO2 emissions by less than half a percent. Two tankers from South America delivered twice as much biodiesel than was produced in all of North America in 2005.
Biodiesel is useful to supplement heavy transport that has to use diesel (trucks, trains, ships and ferries), because it decreases air pollution, but replacing cars that use gasoline with cars that use diesel, or biodiesel, increases pollution. This is a clearly documented, undisputed fact. I can point you to the emissions reports of a diesel Golf and a gasoline Gulf on the EPA car site. That is your reality if you own a new diesel Jetta or Golf today, regardless of what fuel you burn in it. And, if you still own that car in 2007, it will still spew ten times more NOx because it will not have pollution controls on it. What is so hard to understand? I am not saying that you should not buy a car just because of this fact. I am just saying that you should be aware of the fact before you make your decision.
The 50% reduction in NOx emissions slated for 2007 you refer to means that your new diesel cars will still emit 5 times more NOx than a regular gasoline car.
So, what to do, if you cant' deny that biodiesel emits a hell of a lot more NOx than a modern gasoline car? Well, you can insinuate that NOx is not a concern. Don't take my word for it. The EPA thinks NOx is a big concern. If it were not, why would they have spent the last decade and tens of millions of dollars trying to reduce it?
This is not the first time you have mentioned the weekend effect. I did not follow your reasoning the first time either. Are you suggesting that by replacing the other 99% percent of our cars (the ones that use gasoline) with cars that run on biodiesel (which would be impossible given today's technology anyway) we would make our air cleaner? Increasing the NOx of hundreds of millions of cars by 50% does not strike me as being the most efficient means of accomplishing that. Are you suggesting (as those who oppose evolution and global warming do) that because scientists do not have all the answers their conclusions that don't support what you want to believe are therefore bogus? Or are you just saying...
You are still the master of the strawman argument: "To simply say that NOx is responsible for all ground level ozone is misinformed at best." Do me a favor. Put that comment in quotes along with the person who said it.
The following is contradictory:
To put it simply, almost all of the NOx could be eliminated from biodiesel automobile emissions by simply eliminating sulfur from diesel fuel... Take the sulfur out of fuel and car companies can put pollution controls in place to reduce NOx emissions by more than 50%.
So... which is it? "... almost all the NOx could be eliminated..." or "50%" of it? The EPA says 50%. Not that it matters to my post, which simply informed readers of the facts that exist today, not facts that may exist in the future.
And I am not sure what your point is here:
Smog or ground level ozone isn't just formed by NOx, but rather, it is a mixture of sunlight, NOx, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) that form ground level ozone
A cake is not formed by flour, but rather a mixture of sugar, flour, and eggs. Take the flour away and what have you got? I don't know, but it sure isn't a cake, and the same can be said about smog and NOx.
And finally:
Readers should bear in mind that the original poster, biodiversivist, has an axe to grind with biofuels. He doesn't like them and takes every opportunity to trash them, sometimes using half-truths...
Telling readers that I have an ax to grind against "biofuels" when I write an article informing them about the NOx produced by "biodiesel" and that I am feeding them half-truths (a euphemism for lying to them) is a rather disingenuous way to try to convince them of your point of view, don't you think? The best way to convince them is to come up with defensible, verifiable, rational, logical arguments of your own instead of suggesting that your opponent is a liar, using strawman tactics, and repeating poorly defended arguments like the ones above.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
atreyger Posted 7:29 am
11 Apr 2006
"Which was taken up by plants, so it's technically a closed-loop cycle"
Only a natural carbon sink like land in conservation reserve takes CO 2 out of the atmosphere, and that is the way to stop global climate change. More conservation land.
So you mean to tell me that the carbon taken up by a plant doesn't take up CO2 from the atmosphere? Maybe you should take a basic bio course to refresh your memory.
Permalink
greenstork Posted 8:36 am
11 Apr 2006
It doesn't produce less pollution than the Honda accord you traded in. It produces ten times more.
This is patently false. According to the EPA, biodiesel reduces hydrocarbons by 67%, carbon monoxide and particulate matter by roughly 50%, PAH & nPAHs by roughly 90%, CO2 by 78% over petroleum diesel. And NOx is only 10% higher than petroleum diesel according to the EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/biodsl.htm
I was hoping that you could cite your sources on NOx emissions, I was having trouble finding information about NOx emissions being 10 times more in diesels than gasoline cars. Per your harsh critique of me (claiming that I don't defend my arguments and cite solid statistics), I was hoping that you could cite actual statistics too, like NOx levels in parts per million and not some assertion on behalf of an author somewhere of "10 times more". You entire argument is based on this assertion and I'm really hoping that you have some stats since I couldn't find them anywhere. I don't doubt you, but it would be nice to work from a scientific base of argument.
I'm not an expert on NOx emissions and I don't claim to be but I do know that NOx can be scrubbed out of emissions when sulfur is eliminated from the fuel. This fact wasn't mentioned by E Magazine, and certainly not by you. The reason for my entire first post on this thread was to point out this simple fact. On the website from the EPA that you linked to above, this one here:
http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/nox/effrt.html
The EPA states very clearly on that site that NOx emissions will be reduced by "90% or more" with the advent of low sulfur diesel fuel in 2007.
I'm not a scientist, so I think it's not correct to build on my assertion of a 50% reduction. Is it 50%, is it 90% or more, I don't know. My point was that there are plans in place to greatly reduce NOx, and this fact wasn't mentioned at all by you or E Magazine. The reason that NOx can't be removed from emissions now is not because of biodiesel, but because of sulfur is diesel fuel. It just seemed to me that you were painting biodiesel as the culprit behind NOx emissions when indeed if all diesel vehicles ran on biodiesel, NOx emissions would have been greatly reduced years and years ago.
The responsible and scientific thing to do would be to determine the exact reduction in NOx in parts per million and then compare that to gasoline automobiles. Instead, you've built a good part of your post and many paragraphs on telling readers why 50% isn't enough. Perhaps real data would be better here, please don't be so quick to call my arguments strawman, certainly hypocritical in this instance.
To respond to your question about my reasoning for mentioning the "weekend effect" -- I thought it was important to point out that there is some doubt as to the relevance of NOx emissions in the formation of ground level ozone. The Department of Energy did a study on the weekend effect and found that volatile organic compounds (VOC) from gasoline fueled vehicles could be a much more significant contributor to smog than NOx. My point here is that it's unfair to pick on diesel and say it's the primary reason for smog when indeed gasoline is an equal culprit.
You said:
Biodiesel is useful to supplement heavy transport that has to use diesel (trucks, trains, ships and ferries), because it decreases air pollution, but replacing cars that use gasoline with cars that use diesel, or biodiesel, increases pollution. This is a clearly documented, undisputed fact. I can point you to the emissions reports of a diesel Golf and a gasoline Gulf on the EPA car site. That is your reality if you own a new diesel Jetta or Golf today, regardless of what fuel you burn in it. And, if you still own that car in 2007, it will still spew ten times more NOx because it will not have pollution controls on it. What is so hard to understand? I am not saying that you should not buy a car just because of this fact. I am just saying that you should be aware of the fact before you make your decision.
Please point readers to the diesel vs gas Golf web page, I'm interested in seeing it. But it is important to point out that this is the study of a diesel running petroleum, and not biodiesel. Biodiesel as I mentioned earlier burns much much cleaner than petroleum diesel in every category except NOx. To claim that a diesel Golf running on biodiesel is dirtier than a gasoline Golf just isn't true. What you fail to mention here is CO2 emissions, where biodiesel wins by a landslide over the gas version.
This failure to mention CO2 emissions when you talk about pollutants demonstrates clearly to me that you do have an axe to grind. You've posted more than a half dozen articles on Grist about why biofuels are bad, often times omitting clearcut benefits. I believe that the failure to tell the whole story by omitting certain key facts & benefits is a half-truth, it's misleading to your readers. But to be clear, I never called you a liar or thought as much. I'm just hear to balance the argument, it's not some personal affront on you, yet you've seized on numerous opportunities to attempt to discredit me. I think it's a healthy debate, one that I know that I've benefited from immensely, so I would ask you to try to steer clear of petty attacks on me and attempts to undermine my arguments that are not expert. You are not an expert either, but you have a podium and a microphone that is the Grist website, and that bears a responsibility.
I do bring a voice to the discussion that you completely overlook and I'm not here to spread falsehoods. My intention is simply to balance your often one-sided opinion and facts and to refute your assertions that are clearly false.
Permalink
JPelty Posted 9:18 am
11 Apr 2006
Come forth into the light; let nature be your teacher - Wordsworth
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:49 pm
11 Apr 2006
Greenstork,
Please point readers to the diesel vs gas Golf web page, I'm interested in seeing it. To claim that a diesel Golf running on biodiesel is dirtier than a gasoline Golf just isn't true.
Go here and click on the blue box with the heading that says "Air pollution score."
A chart will pop up. Note that a car with a score of 9.5 (a gasoline Golf) puts out 0.02 grams of NOx per mile. A car with a score of 1 (a diesel Golf) puts out 0.6 grams per mile. That is 30 times more NOx per mile.
So, if you buy the diesel Golf and put biodiesel in it, you will be producing at least 30 times more NOx than the gasoline version.
This is patently false [that a biodiesel car pollutes worse than an equivalent gasoline car]. According to the EPA, biodiesel reduces hydrocarbons by 67%, carbon monoxide and particulate matter by roughly 50%, PAH & nPAHs by roughly 90%, CO2 by 78% over petroleum diesel. And NOx is only 10% higher than petroleum diesel according to the EPA.
You are not alone. Most people have a rough time keeping diesel, biodiesel, and gasoline sorted out. I said, "It doesn't produce less pollution than the Honda accord you traded in. It produces ten times more." The Honda accord is a gasoline car. It cannot run on biodiesel. You just told us that biodiesel is cleaner than diesel. We all know that biodiesel is cleaner than diesel. What few people know, is how much dirtier biodiesel is than modern gasoline cars, and remember there are now over 20 models of near zero emissions gasoline cars on the market.
The EPA states very clearly on that site that NOx emissions will be reduced by "90% or more" with the advent of low sulfur diesel fuel in 2007.... I'm not a scientist, so I think it's not correct to build on my assertion of a 50% reduction. Is it 50%, is it 90% or more, I don't know.
That 90% figure is a misprint on the EPA site. They are referring to PM emissions. Go here and scroll down about a third of the way and read under the heading "Highway Diesel Progress Review Report 2" for clarification:
EPA's review of industry progress shows that engine manufacturers are on target to introduce new engines in 2007; diesel particulate filters that reduce harmful PM emissions by more than 90% will be used by all manufacturers; NOx control will be accomplished using proven technologies, some of which are in production today; and engine manufacturers will conduct early prototype testing with trucking customers in 2005. In 2007, these new clean engines operating on the 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%, reduce PM emissions by more than 90%
This failure to mention CO2 emissions when you talk about pollutants demonstrates clearly to me that you do have an axe to grind,
Greenstork, you say this every time, as if I have a duty to list all of its positives every time I talk about one of its negatives. I cannot do a dissertation on the pros and cons of biodiesel every time I post on it. If you want to read about the positive benefits of biodiesel, just type the word into your Google search engine and read away. If you want to find out about its negatives (the whole truth), you have to come here to Grist, the only blog on the net where you will find it.
My intention is simply to balance your often one-sided opinion and facts and to refute your assertions that are clearly false.
OK, one more time, to clarify for anyone who might be following this exchange, exactly which part of my post was clearly false?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
greenstork Posted 5:49 pm
11 Apr 2006
I asked you to come up with some shred of evidence about biodiesel pollution and you've pointed us to an EPA site that makes no claims at all and presents absolutely no statistics about biodiesel fuel. How about automobile fleet average emission standards for NOx emissions using gasoline vs diesel, now there is something tangible.
I had to find the evidence myself. Most of the country adheres to EPA's Tier I emissions standards. The acceptable fleet average for gasoline passenger vehicles NOx emissions is 0.4 grams per mile and 1.0 for diesel passenger vehicles. Long overdue Tier II standards, scheduled to be phased in from 2004-2009 mandates a fleet average for diesel and gasoline alike of .07 grams per mile.
The low emissions vehicle (LEV I) standard from California that you were quick to sing the praises of mandates NOx emissions between 0.4 to 1.0 for LEV certified vehicles (depending on weight), 0.2 to 1.0 (again depending on weight) for ultra low emissions vehicles (ULEV), and 0.2 to 0.5 for super ultra low emissions vehicles (SULEV). LEV II standard is being phased in from 2004-2010 and mandates a maximum of .05 grams per mile NOx emissions (but does make concessions for heavier vehicles - in excess of 8500 lbs.) for LEV and ULEV certified vehicles and I assume zero NOx emissions for SULEV vehicles. This is of course, very similar to the EPA Tier II standard.
As of today, Tier I standards are in place throughout most of the U.S. It's not a full order of magnitude greater NOx emissions for diesel vehicles, it's more like 2.5 times more (1.0 vs 0.4 grams per mile) so for your to say 10 times more all over this thread was a bit misleading.
And the quote you cited from the EPA site specifically lists a 50% reduction in NOx emissions for sulfur diesel fuel, not ultra low sulfur diesel. As I mentioned, when Tier II standards and ULSD take over in 2007 and beyond, diesel NOx emissions will fall inline with their gasoline counterparts, by and large.
What I've come to realize in my research is that the diesel NOx emissions will be reduced by 90% or more under Tier II standards, which is the reduction from NOx emissions of 1.0 grams per mile to .07 grams per mile. This will be the new standard, there's no way around it.
I think I've made my point about the many falsehoods in your arguments listed above but I do believe that these active discussions deepen everyone's understanding about the benefits and tradeoffs of biofuels.
Permalink
JPelty Posted 10:11 pm
11 Apr 2006
I'm simply asking, why not? NOx pollution is surely only one of the factors to be considered in the debate on the relative "greeness" of any vehicle. As far as I know, nobody in my neighborhood is selling home-grown gasoline - super low emissions or not - and that means buying (and often fighting for) fossil fuel that belongs to someone else. That my VW Golf TDI consistently gets over 50 mpg and can run on a more locally produced product seems to me to be a very good thing.
Come forth into the light; let nature be your teacher - Wordsworth
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:38 am
12 Apr 2006
In order to produce more biodiesel (present farm land only meets present needs for food, fiber, and fuel)land that was in conservation needs to be turned to agriculture.
Chemical agriculture strips the soil of the organic matter and the micro-organisms that form the carbon sink. It uses soil up.
Organic agriculture builds soil up by adding more carbon sink material to the soil in the form of manure and decaying plant material.
By burning a chemically fertilized crop (or the biodiesel from it)grown on soil, the carbon stored in that soil is released as CO 2.
400 years worth of biomass carbon sink is burned per year as fossil fuel.
So you will replace that by burning up every bit of soil not now already consumed by agribizzness? It is not even anywhere near enough to replace oil, and actually adds more CO 2 stored in healthy soil now, into the atmosphere.
Give it up, go renewable electric transportation energy. Biodiesel from waste is a transition fuel only and given the NOx problem one that really accelerates global climate change greenhouse gas formation.
Like methane (400 times the greenhouse effect of CO 2) released by melting permafrost, NOx has catastrophic effects on climate.
Renewable energy allows more land to revert to conservation, that in turn takes CO 2 out of the atmospheric system.
A transition to organic agriculture by using renewable energy to produce organic fertilizer from waste will turn the destroyed soil, that used to store carbon back into a carbon sink again. Gradually reducing levels of CO 2 and curing the human addition to the problem.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
greenstork Posted 6:55 am
12 Apr 2006
Your logic seems to ignore the fact that cropland is turned over every planting cycle, new crops are replanted and they in turn begin to absorb CO2 again. Because biodiesel releases only about 78% less CO2 than petroleum diesel, it's not an entirely closed loop system. Energy is used in catalyzing biodiesel and transport, etc. However, gasoline releases more than 100% of it's CO2 if you consider the energy used for its transport and refining.
NOx is not a greenhouse gas, let's be clear about that. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas (N2O) but nitric oxide is not (NOx). Diesel vehicles do not emit N2O.
Your passion for renewable electric transportation is noble. I think most readers of this website (including myself) would go out and purchase a mainstream electric vehicle today if it were that easy. But alas, it is not, there simply are too many shortcomings at the moment (limited range, battery life, etc.). In the meantime, we have excellent alternatives like hybrid technology and biofuels, both of which make significant strides in addressing greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, building out the biofuel infrastructure -- increasing the number of distributors, demanding more vehicle options, etc. -- paves the way for more idyllic feecrop advancements like switchgrass and biodiesel from algae. I think most folks would be hard pressed to find a problem with biodiesel produced from algae ponds that scrub the CO2 from power plant emissions (yes, even biodivesivist). Let's not trash the whole industry before promising new advancements such as this have a chance to blossom. By the time these advancements hit the mainstream, demand just may be picking up to the point where there is a measurable impact on Conservation Reserve Land. As of today however, the impact on CRP land in very minimal. Almost all biodiesel produced comes from existing agricultural land, already in production, which is essentially a closed loop CO2 cycle.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:22 pm
12 Apr 2006
"there simply are too many shortcomings at the moment (limited range, battery life, etc.)...."
We are not debating what car to buy tomorow, we are debating energy policy. If you base energy policy exclusively on what is now available it would never change. This is a common argument against renewables: Well they are only a few percent of the energy supply now so they can't possibly solve the problem.
Because most people used horses, at one time, mean that the horseless carriage would never succeed?
"In the meantime, we have excellent alternatives like hybrid technology and biofuels, both of which make significant strides in addressing greenhouse gas emissions."
Nope, they are neither "excellent alternatives", nor do they do anything to signifigantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Saying it does not make it so no matter how many times it is repeated. Hybrids have a slight mileage advantage, a few percent.
Plugin hybrids are better,having 2 to 3 times the mileage of a conventional vehicle, but that is because of the plugin battery part of the technology. Plugin technology is ready now but is being blocked with the help of your "excellent alternatives" as the excuse.
Cities across the US have signed a pact calling for plugin hybrids, Toyota owners have designed and built their own plugins, and a company has developed a plugin retrofit for the Prius. Still no plans for any auto company to produce plugins has emerged.
Instead we see billions going into agribizz biofuel and hybrids that only offer incremental improvements and still bring on global climate disaster.
Agribizz biofuels destroy carbon sink land in reserve adding that carbon to the greenhouse gas problem. They waste scarce financial and political capital better spent on real alternatives to combustion.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:35 am
13 Apr 2006
Greenstork made a good point: I don't think you understand how plants grow.
Last I checked, most hybrids had at least 1.5-2x fuel efficiency. But in any case, it's not a perfect situation either.
Horses created environmental problems also: they need pasture to feed them, which is... wait for it... biomass and not at an efficient conversion rate either. Also think of all the horseshit in the street and how the automobile was touted as an environmental solution to that problem in the past.
As I said in my last post on 'driving with alcohol', there is not enough land to create electrical energy at the current rate of demand. Clearly, the demand will change sooner or later as supplies dwindle, but at the current energy policy rate this will not be a factor in the consideration of a solution, rather a problem.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:36 am
13 Apr 2006
My post was narrow in focus. The bigger issue has been discussed here in the past and I am sure will be in the future. Stick around and you can join in when it resurfaces again.
DRx,
Piffle? Please try to restrain your language.
Greenstork,
And the quote you cited from the EPA site specifically lists a 50% reduction in NOx emissions for sulfur diesel fuel, not ultra low sulfur diesel.
Not so. The 50% reduction in NOx will come from using 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel, which is ultra low sulfur fuel (a reduction from 500 ppm). The quote from the EPA site you refer to is here, "In 2007, these new clean engines operating on the 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel will reduce NOx emissions by 50%..." And like I have said before, my post was about the cars being driven today, not the cars you may drive in the future. The future is a completely different topic.
It is false for you to (continue to) claim that biodiesel is dirtier than gasoline just because of NOx. Diesels also tend to be significantly lower in emissions of alkenes (e.g., ethene), carbonyls (e.g., formaldehyde), and semivolatiles like polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens).
Note on the EPA site that the diesel Golf and Beetle both emit 7 times more formaldehyde than the gas version (Go here and click on the blue box with the heading that says Air pollution score). It is unknown if a Golf or Beetle burning biodiesel would emit less of those pollutants than the gasoline version. The data has not been generated yet. All we have are comparisons of diesel and biodiesel.
I have focused on the NOx issue, but there are others. According to the Union of Concerned scientists:
In a full lifecycle assessment, hydrocarbon emissions are 35% higher in biodiesel than conventional diesel.
And here you take issue with my claims that a car burning biodiesel would emit ten times more NOx than an equivalent gasoline car:
As of today, Tier I standards are in place throughout most of the U.S. It's not a full order of magnitude greater NOx emissions for diesel vehicles, it's more like 2.5 times more (1.0 vs 0.4 grams per mile) so for your to say 10 times more all over this thread was a bit misleading.
You must compare similar cars. You cannot compare apples to oranges (big cars to little cars, fast cars to slow cars). Only by comparing the same cars with similar sized engines, one that uses diesel and one that uses gasoline, can you get meaningful comparisons of fuel emissions. The diesel Golf and Beetle both emit 30 times more NOx than their gasoline counterparts, and the diesel versions both rate a 1 on the pollution score while the gas versions rate 9.5, and if they burned 100% biodiesel, they would still emit 30 times more NOx--a well known air pollutant and health hazard. I usually say "10 times more" just to be conservative. It is easier to swallow "than 30 times more."
In conclusion.
If you buy a new Golf or Beetle diesel and burn 100% biodiesel in them, you will emit 30 times more NOx (a well documented air pollutant and health hazard) than their gasoline counterparts.
If the EPA were to run tests on those two cars today using biodiesel, the resulting pollution score would fall somewhere between the 1 rating for the present diesel version and the 9.5 rating for the gasoline version, largely thanks to the high amount of NOx produced, but also because these modern gasoline cars with three stage converters have very low emissions of other pollutants. Which is another way of saying that a Golf or Beetle that uses biodiesel is dirtier than a Golf or Beetle that uses gasoline. This is just tradeoff for using biodiesel, one people are free to accept now that they know it exists.
The only quote I can find on the net that says Biodiesel is cleaner than gasoline comes from a speech Bush gave and he was just mixing up facts like he always does. "Fool me twice... uh," That's all we have to work with until the EPA or someone else burns biodiesel in a Golf or Beetle and compares the resulting emissions to the gasoline versions.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:40 am
13 Apr 2006
Also, NOx can be removed from exhaust to a larger degree, so biodiversivist's comment is only applicable right now, and will hopefully get better in the future.
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 4:28 am
13 Apr 2006
I have focused on the NOx issue, but there are others. According to the Union of Concerned scientists:
In a full lifecycle assessment, hydrocarbon emissions are 35% higher in biodiesel than conventional diesel.
OK folks, here is the link to the biodiesel information page of the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/biodiesel.html
On that page, it says:
Does using biodiesel in place of conventional diesel help combat global climate change?
Plant-based B100 resulted in over 75% less carbon dioxide emissions than conventional diesel in a full lifecycle assessment.
Check it out for yourself. I provided the link.
-Bryan
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 4:44 am
13 Apr 2006
I have focused on the NOx issue, but there are others. According to the Union of Concerned scientists:
In a full lifecycle assessment, hydrocarbon emissions are 35% higher in biodiesel than conventional diesel.
Again, here is the link:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/biodiesel.html
But the actual quote from the UCS webpage says:
In a full lifecycle assessment, smog forming HC emissions were 35% higher than conventional diesel.
Note the key difference -- the addition of the word smog. Your statement above says:
I have focused on the NOx issue, but there are others.
But no, the UCS is still talking about the NOx issue -- the same issue, not another issue. I don't know about greenstork, atreyger, and jpelty, but I feel like many of your arguments are moving targets with shifting facts.
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 4:57 am
13 Apr 2006
The only quote I can find on the net that says Biodiesel is cleaner than gasoline comes from a speech Bush gave and he was just mixing up facts like he always does.
Well again, it didn't take me more than a minute. But here on Grist, Umbra herself says it. Here is the link:
http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2005/03/14/umbra-svo/
Umbra says:
Dearest Marc,
You have stung me to the quick. I did not side with gasoline. I asserted that gasoline is better than diesel, but not better than biodiesel. Not only will biodiesel result in lower carbon-dioxide emissions than gasoline; it is also an alternative fuel, and supporting it sends an important message about prioritizing the environment. Hybrid cars deserve our support, but they rely on gasoline, the supply of which is rapidly dwindling and the extraction of which is wrapped up in nasty world politics and pollution.I'm glad you have a Prius, but I completely support your switch to biodiesel, and also to straight vegetable oil from restaurant fryers.
OK folks, this was came from Grist!
-Bryan
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:41 am
13 Apr 2006
But no, the UCS is still talking about the NOx issue -- the same issue, not another issue.
I also changed HC to hydrocarbon so readers would know what it stood for. I omitted smog only because it seemed extraneous. It was not meant to be misleading. As you already know, NOx is not a hydrocarbon (it contains neither hydrogen, nor carbon). Although they did use the word smog in front of word hydrocarbon, they were not insinuating that hydrocarbons are innocuous unless combined with NOx to form smog. From the EPA:
A number of hydrocarbons are also considered toxic, meaning they can cause cancer or other health problems.
Also note that they said this about biodiesel:
Large volume biodiesel use could raise concerns about genetically modified crops, pesticide use, and land-use impacts common to all plant-based fuels. Since biodiesel is made from plant-based oils or waste stream sources, it is considered a renewable fuel. However, waste vegetable and animal fat resources are estimated to be able to sustain production on the order of 1 billion gallons of biodiesel per year, or less than 3% of current diesel use. Widespread use of biodiesel would require more virgin plant oils or other waste stream sources to meet larger demands. Crops for biodiesel must be grown in a manner that supports wildlife habitat, minimizes soil erosion, avoids competition for food crops, and does not rely on the use of harsh chemicals and fertilizers.
I did not include it (along with many other things) because it was not relevant to the topic of the original post.
Umbra is talking about CO2 emissions, which are not being contested by anyone. I don't know what Bush is talking about. My original post was talking about emissions identified as short-term health risks, primarily NOx. Everyone is in agreement that biodiesel only adds about 22 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere for a given number of gallons produced and consumed compared to gasoline and diesel's 100 pounds for the same number of gallons.
Following are a number of links discussing the downsides of biodiesel. There may be something in there you didn't know. There is very little critique available on the net. Please keep in mind these quotes from George Monbiot of the Guardian before reading them:
Tell people something they know already, and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new, and they will hate you for it.
The last time I drew attention to the hazards of making diesel fuel from vegetable oils, I received as much abuse as I have ever been sent by the supporters of the Iraq war. The biodiesel missionaries, I discovered, are as vociferous in their denial as the executives of Exxon. I am now prepared to admit that my previous column was wrong. But they're not going to like it. I was wrong because I underestimated the fuel's destructive impact.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/8/19/15444/0363
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2005/12/bioenergy.html
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=126981®ion=2
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7907725/
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 12:35 am
14 Apr 2006
Thanks for your reply. You know, the interesting thing about Monbiot's quote is the fact that it applies to everybody, not just those sympathetic to biodiesel. It even applies to him. The unfortunate thing about his article, which I have read previously is that it is incredibly limited in scope. The one thing I agree with him on is that large scale deforestation of rainforest to grow biodiesel crops is not a good idea. And I don't think anybody would disagree with him. There are several good critiques of his article:
Is George Monbiot a corporate oil shill?
Better Than Fossil Fuel
The first of those two links is a very well written critique and makes some very wonderful points. I highly recommend it.
Another point I would like to make concerns biodiesel production methods. Concerns have been rightly raised both here and elsewhere regarding whether we can seriously derive enough biodiesel from farm crops and the environmental damage that would result from such an effort. The wonderful thing about biodiesel however is that it doesn't have to come from just soybeans or palm oil. In fact, the most exciting area of biodiesel concerns its future with regards to algae. As I'm sure everybody here knows, palm oil (as Monbiot also states) has been considered the best source of biodiesel. But that is no longer true. Please read:
Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae (this isn't the easiest piece to read though, perhaps too academic.) But another article which breaks it down and is easier to digest is Algae - like a breath mint for smokestacks. As this article states:
...This kind of algae also grows so fast, it can produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre. Just 60 gallons are produced from soybeans...
I understand your concerns about biodiesel NOx emissions. As I stated in my very first reply to your original post, we can (and will) be cleaning that up beginning either this year or in 2007. I'm all for that, as is everybody else who has posted here. We have the technology to clean up biodiesel NOx emissions. Unfortunately, it requires that, first, ultra low sulphur (petro) diesel be introduced due to the fact that petroleum based fuels are still our primary fuel source in this country. Again, this will start changing. I wish it was already in effect, but if I could control that, I would have already.
I also understand the concerns of amazingdrx, yourself, and Monbiot about the destruction of land held in conservation and also the reduction in food crops that might arise from large scale farm-based biodiesel production. But as I have talked about above, I'm struck by the idea that this is an oversimplification of the issues. There are many home-based producers and coops that are making their biodiesel from things like waste restaurant vegetable oil. So that can't supply enough biodiesel to fuel our country, I agree. But that doesn't mean that soybeans or palm trees or all that is left. The promise of biodiesel from algae seems very hopeful, and I would hope you can see that.
(On a completely unrelated note, for the last 6 years I have lived in Wisconsin and Iowa. I have been watching our farmland be reduced almost daily from urban sprawl, which I deem to be a much greater threat to a potential reduction in food production. It is basic economics. Farmers all around me are selling their land because it is no longer profitable for them. If biodiesel drives up soybean prices enough that these farmers use some of their land for soybean production and it helps keep the rest of their farm afloat, that might be a good thing. Soybeans might not be the most efficient source for biodiesel, but it it helps slow down sprawl and keep other important crops in the field, then I deem that a good thing.)
I'm of the opinion that the era of monolithic energy sources is ending. I don't have a source to back this up. I imagine I could find one if I looked, but I'm stating this as my opinion. I believe our energy future includes not only biodiesel, but solar, wind, geothermal, hybrids, pure electric vehicles, bicycles, etc. I think we make a grave mistake if we make the assumption that we need to be finding some universal source to replace everything. Biodiesel doesn't have to replace all diesel and gasoline, hopefully there will be many other technolgies that arise to assist it.
Let's keep an open mind. But lets not "throw the baby out with the bath water".
Permalink
greenstork Posted 3:56 am
14 Apr 2006
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/mercedesbenz_e3.html#comment-16173637
Don't be misled readers, this type of clean diesel technology will be the norm this time next year across many automobile lineups. Diesels hold much more promise for our transportation future in regards to increasing gas mileage, and in conjunction with biodiesel and other domesticlly produced biofuels, greatly reducing greenhouse gas emissions over their gasoline counterparts.
Permalink
greenstork Posted 4:05 am
14 Apr 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:16 am
14 Apr 2006
Due to developments like THIS!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/business/14solar.html
21% efficient PV cells. Is this guy the "Gates" of solar energy? As he is quoted, "Real men own fabs (silicon foundries)".
How about building a solar powered one in the desert to meet your supply constraints of silicon wafer? And maybe rolling the foundry business right into the PV business? A REAL man might do that? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Rob Posted 6:05 pm
05 May 2006
Non-renewable/fossil Coal (56% of U.S. supply): 2.095 pounds of CO2 are expelled into the atmosphere for every kilowatt produced. This is our most polluting and most plentiful fossil fuel used to generate electricity. In addition, the particles that come out of the smoke stacks have been proven to cause cancer, acid rain and are not held to vehicle emission standards.
Nuclear (22.38%): No CO2 is expelled into the atmosphere directly from nuclear fission, but when...
"the entire nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction are taken into account, nuclear energy produces 4 or 5 times the emissions of renewable energy. Uranium mining and milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, transportation from centralized manufacturing sites, reactor construction, and nuke waste disposal. All these things are energy intensive. For example, the Paducah, New York, uranium enrichment plant uses so much energy that it has a dedicated coal-fired electricity generating plant to meet its needs. Further, the plant is the nation's largest contributor of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which destroy the ozone layer that protects our fragile environment from harmful rays of sun."
- Michael Welch, January 2002 issue, Home Power Magazine.
Non-renewable/fossil Natural Gas (9.3%): 1.321 pounds of CO2 are expelled into the atmosphere for every kilowatt produced.
Hydroelectric (9%): Hyrdoelectric is your primary electricity source in Seattle and the most profound ecosystem-destruction energy available. Using your fast and loose logic- you are killing salmon per mile driving your electric car- just how many? Standing in the Skagit river, with no salmon, thanks to your vehicle choice- blame the messenger or the buyer? The environmental costs of hydroelectric dams are often severely underestimated. Entire ecosystems are destroyed when rivers vital to local habitat for animals and plants become lakes, and cover many square miles of land.
Non-renewable/fossil Petroleum (3%): 1.915 pounds of CO2 are expelled into the atmosphere for every kilowatt produced. On a nationwide average, we do not use very much for electricity. However, as an example of it depends where you are, in Hawaii they produce 76.4% of their electricity by burning petroleum.
Following your anti-biodiesel logic, converting our entire fleet of vehicles to plug-in hybrid would mean a dramatic increase in the above energy sources- drilling in ANWAR and offshore for oil, damming all of our available rivers, and establishing more offshore natural gas platforms- dramatically increasing our climate change emissions and drastically impacting biodiversity. Or, we could radically subsidize wind, solar or new energy sources which are not economically viable- you have clearly stated your opposition to alternative energy subsidies. So which is it?
Biodiesel is the most energy efficient vehicle fuel available. Definitive peer reviewed studies have show a positive net energy balance of +3.5 or more including ALL ENERGY INPUTS OF PRODUCTION.
While you don't consider CO2 a emission of concern, the rest of the world does.
As a "biodiversivist" I would expect you have a grasp of the complexity and entirety of our energy dependencies. Somehow you ignore reality in your ongoing anti-biodiesel crusade. Utopian do-nothing approaches to our challenges are not valid. Choices are being made. You are doing a disservice to Grist readers, Russ, with this ranting of yours. Please re-think your approach and look more clearly at the information available.
Permalink