Comments greenstork has made

some sustainble biofuels

Contrary to the assertions here, there are some sustainably produced domestic biofuels. Not all biofuels come from Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brazilian rainforest land.  

Do domestic biofuels compete with food crops? Yes.
Do they significantly reduce CO2 emissions? Yes.On Biofuel rating system may be premature posted 2 years, 5 months ago 24 Responses

My mistake...

In this case, I think I misread your original post, I honestly thought you were talking about NOx emissions so any strawman arguments were certainly not intentional.  I did not see that you said "when it cleans your engine", I simply read that biodiesel emissions are full of toxic sludge, my mistake.  I assumed by toxic that you were talking about NOx emissions as you've done on more than one occasion in the past.  I apologize for insinuating otherwise, that was certainly not my intent.  

You did fail to mention that a car running on biodiesel from day one wouldn't have any toxic sludge because biodiesel is non-toxic.  It was a little misleading.  

And I'm having trouble accepting your 50% less CO2 argument based on your back of the napkin calculations.  I'd hardly be trotting that out there as fact when your calculations haven't been vetted at all by the scientific community.  

This explanation is just ironic:

In the following sentence you are seem to be saying that the lack of diesel engine emission controls is the fault of the manufacturers. In reality, it is the corrosive aspect of the "present" levels of sulfur in the petro diesel fuel that has prevented manufacturers from putting controls on diesel engines.

I and a couple of other readers actually explained this very point to you in a previous thread. For the record, I'm not insinuating that you didn't discover this on your own, but the thread I cited was the first mention of sulfur and diesel emissions controls on Grist.  

HC is the term used to represent the general class of gaseous organic compounds called VOCs or TOCs, just as NOx is used to refer to all nitrogen/oxygen compounds.

Hydrocarbons are essentially anything that burns and then some.  HC's as they relate emissions discussions are typically unburned hydrocarbons, containing formaldehyde and and other nasty carcinogens. So while many types of harmful emissions are indeed hydrocarbons, the measurement of HC in emissions testing pertains to unburned hydrocarbons.

Volatile organic compounds is a much broader category of gaseous organic compounds, as noted by bioD.  My point mentioning them is that many harmful VOCs like benzene are prevalent in gasoline emissions and absent in biodiesel.

By the way, the 90% reduction in hydrocarbons you quoted above over petro diesel is at the tailpipe. According to this article by the Union of Concerned Scientists (that was otherwise very positive about biodiesel), the life cycle hydrocarbon emissions of biodiesel (made from soy) are 35% higher than petro diesel...

I didn't make any assertions about unburned hydrocarbons, I was talking about unregulated (HCs are regulated by the way) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).  I think we can only assume that the UCS article is talking about unburned hydrocabons or what are commonly referred to as HCs.

One important footnote.  I'm having trouble accepting the UCS article as undisputed fact.  The EPA study I cited wasn't just one study, done by one government entity.  It was a combined life-cycle analysis combining 80 independent scientific research studies on biodiesel emissions.  For the record, I'm a donor to the UCS and I respect their work but it's just one scientific assessment and should be treated that way.  

If it all comes down to biodiversity, as you state in your signature line, how can we not invest in technology and conservation measures to begin to address global climate change, that is after all, one of the biggest threats to the world's biodiversity. Before you chime in about how minute the positive benefits of biofuels are today, let me say that I know that biofuels aren't going to single-handedly stave off climate change, but it's a paradigm shift.  It's the first one percent. It's the build-out of an infrastructure, a collective change in the way we think about fuel, transportation, and carbon emissions.  The advent of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel derived from algae will make the real impact. And we agree that import biofuels aren't the sustainable solution.On Good idea posted 3 years, 3 months ago 10 Responses

just the facts...

Kudos BioD for reporting the facts on biofuels without any sweeping statements and pontification, this is the type of reporting that I rely on and respect Grist for publishing.  On Poof ... posted 3 years, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Not advocating ignorance....

Sunflower,  

I'm all for knowing the full story but I am against blanket statements like "biofuels are bad for biodiversity".  Biodiversivist tends to present selective facts about imported biofuels and I think it's important to look at the whole picture before demonizing the entire industry.  On Biofuels are bad news for biodiversity posted 3 years, 5 months ago 13 Responses

Electricity has a high degree of fungibility

I think Clark's point about hydro power was that electricity has a high degree of fungibility.  What isn't used by Seattle residents is sold on the open market.  Our hydro power will be used by someone on the west coast if you're not charging your car with it.  And if it's not resold on the open market, well then, nearby states who don't have the benefit of obtaining their power from hydro will have to burn more natural gas or coal or whatever.  

The point is that electricity is highly fungible and if it's not used in Seattle, it will be sold and used eleswhere.  There's never a situation where hydro power goes unused.  

I see your point that cars running off electricity more effeciently use power than internal combustion engines and I agree with you wholeheartedly.  However, power sources will have to improve region and nationwide before we see an overall impact on CO2 emissions.  You can't make the claim that within your closed system in Seattle that you're helping overall CO2 because the system isn't in fact, closed.  On MIT and me posted 3 years, 6 months ago 16 Responses

Hydropower is storage

Hydropower is essentially a big storage sink.  Use less hydro power when the wind is blowing and it's sunny out and use more at other times.  This works for the west where we rely more heavily on hydro resources but isn't a solution nationwide.  

Solar and wind also tend to compliment each other.  It's typically windier when the sun isn't shining due to storms and such but there is no perfect inverse correlation unfortunately.  On Intermittency and storage posted 3 years, 6 months ago 11 Responses

qualification

I just wanted to qualify my statement about our transportation energy future.  I think diesels (and biodiesel) hold more promise for our short-term energy future, but I believe that biofuels are merely a good transitional fuel.  Like many posters on this forum, I'd prefer pure electric vehicles over the long run or even fuel cells run on hydrogen derived from renwables.  Hybrids and biofuels are an excellent stopgap however.  On Smells like french fries posted 3 years, 7 months ago 33 Responses

If only electric vehicles were an option...

amazingdrx, I'm not sure you and I have the same understanding of the carbon cycle.  When crops are planted to grow biofuels, they absorb CO2 throughout their lifespan.  They are harvested, processed into fuel, burned, the CO2 is released but crops are then replanted that then continue to absorb CO2.  

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.On Smells like french fries posted 3 years, 7 months ago 33 Responses

Discredit rather than debate, biod's MO

BioD, let me take a moment to respond to a few of your harsh accusations, which I would call a bit unfair.  

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. On Smells like french fries posted 3 years, 7 months ago 33 Responses

Soy biodiesel not a long-term solution either

For the same reasons you cite corn ethanol as a boondoggle, soybean based biodiesel is as well.  Now, I drive a car that runs on soy biodiesel and it isn't really a problem with biodiesel making up less than 1% of the diesel fuel market. But if the growth trend continues for both ethanol and biodiesel, switchgrass and algae will be the only real economic and environmentally sustainable solutions.  

As a supplement to your article, algal biodiesel isn't commercially available but also shows promise of providing from 10-15K gallons per acre.  A couple pilot projects are underway:

Toronto Star: Algae farms make case for Kyoto
Worldchanging.com: Turning Emissions Into Fuel With Algae
USA Today: Algae - like a breath mint for smokestacksOn What's the most energy-efficient crop source for ethanol? posted 3 years, 9 months ago 5 Responses

Re: picking on me is your pastime...

Discrediting me seems to be something you enjoy biodiversivist.  Finding fault in biofuels and their supporters is your specialty so I wouldn't expect anything less ;^)

I take offense that you are labeling my arguments as strawman arguments.  The sentiment on the post that sparked this conversation is a suspicion of Senator Sessions' motives.  It is actually explicitly spelled out in the post itself:

Why might Sessions be so psyched about switchgrass?

My sense, and that of a couple of other commenters on this thread, is that there is a apprehension about switchgrass because it was mentioned by Bush, not because of some apprehension based in fact.

If someone is going to make claims that the production of cellulosic ethanol uses more energy than it emits or roughly the same and that argument is widely held to be false, I'd like to see some sources quoted.  You want to call it a strawman argument, fine, I really just want to be convinced of what is fact. I would think that you would want to same for the readers of this blog, but instead you've seized this as an opportunity to discredit me by labeling my arguments strawman, unfortunate for one of the blog contributors.  

BioD, you've labeled one of my strawman arguments about using very little water, herbicide, and fertilizer by completely misquoting me.  I guess if you turn one of my assertions around completely, it's easy to say "strawman."  I think this is more than a little irresponsible.  To clarify, you implied in one of your comments that switchgrass uses a lot of water, herbicide, and fertilizer, which indeed it does not compared to conventional row crops.  Here is your comment:

The establishment period requires seeding, fertilization (with lime and nitrogen), and application of potassium, phosphorus, and herbicide.

I just wanted to make sure that the readers knew the facts, that's all.  

Regarding using biofuels in smaller mixtures like 10-50%.  If you can't see the environmental and political benefits of reducing our reliance on imported fossil fuel by 1/3 to 1/2, I'm not sure I can really help explain it to you. We could potentially wean ourselves off middle eastern oil entirely.  I mean, let's be realistic here, the benefits are apparent. If you could reduce CO2 emissions by 85% on half of our current petroleum consumption... do I have to spell it out for you?

My point addressing sunflower was that comparing solar energy collectors and liquid fuel is comparing apples and oranges at this point.  With the exception of a very small fringe audience, cars do not run on electricity.  Perhaps that will change by 2050, I sincerely hope that it does, but that does not preclude us from researching and advancing other positive solutions like cellulosic ethanol.  

And this brings me back to what you label a my strawman argument #1. It's not just solar or just conservation that we should unify behind.  I never said any one commenter on this thread was cowardly or naive but I do believe that if you think any one solution is the only solution, then naive is a term that certainly applies.  To suggest that I was directing this at any one commenter is unfair, it twists my words and you know it.  

The fact of the matter biodiversivist,  is that you've come after me because we've butted heads on biofuels in the past.  I know you have a beef with imported biofuels but as it applies to switchgrass, it appears to be just dogma on your part.  Is Conservation Reserve Land your only concern, or the cost of food competing with fuel crops.  If the benefits of the CRP program remained, and the cost of food stayed the same, as the NRDC report suggests on both counts, would you stick to your dogma about biofuels?  Because otherwise you're betraying your own beliefs about protecting biodiversity just to come after me, or to stick to your guns about biofuels.  On Hint: he's from Alabama posted 3 years, 9 months ago 34 Responses

forgot to mention...

Sunflower,

I forgot to mention that switchgrass can be grown in a rotation with food crops and solar energy collectors would essentially eliminate farmland for food. On Hint: he's from Alabama posted 3 years, 9 months ago 34 Responses

Switchgrass is a carbon sink

This blog seems to come out soundly against biofuels despite the fact that many reputable environmental organizations, not known for corporate shilling, support cellulosic ethanol and domestic biodiesel production.  

According to David Bransby, from the NPR story, cellulosic ethanol has a 4 to 1 positive net energy balance.  Meaning for an energy input of 1 unit (of petroleum, nuclear, coal, whatever), you receive 4 units of ethanol (depending on production methods).  Moreover, because switchgrass absorbs CO2 throughout its life-span, the ethanol produced reduces net CO2 output by ~85% compared with gasoline.  Switchgrass yields a tremendous amount of fuel per acre - 1000 gallons - and can be grown in a crop rotation with other food crops.  

A concerted effort to grow more switchgrass on Conservation Reserve Land isn't necessarily a bad thing. Switchgrass is a carbon sink, and it commonly used to reduce erosion and improve water quality.  In addition, it provides an excellent wildlife habitat according to NRDC.  These are the goals of the Conservation Reserve Program - http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/crep03.htm.  While CRP land may be acting as a carbon sink and wildlife habitat, growing switchgrass doesn't eliminate those benefits.  

By all reports, and contrary to the false assertions made in the comments of this post, switchgrass does not use very much water, fertilizer or herbicide, and does not take much energy to produce. For those who say that cellulosic ethanol is not energy efficient, I say point us to your scientific sources, most environmentalists and scientists claim otherwise.  

NRDC believes that switchgrass is the bridge to ending our dependence on foreign oil.  They believe that by 2050, the U.S. can produce 7.9 million gallons of oil per day from cellulosic ethanol, without impacting our current agricultural food needs. That's equal to half of our transportation fuel use and more than 3 times that which we import from the Middle East.

Read the report for yourselves, don't take my word for it:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/biofuels/biofuels.pdf

Just because George Bush likes switchgrass doesn't mean that it's bad for the environment.  Just because Senator Sessions wants major cellulosic ethanol production in Alabama doesn't mean it's bad for the environment.  In order to achieve renewable energy independence, a lot of politicians and multinational corporations are going to have to support sustainable U.S. biofuel production.  Profiting off renewable fuels, produced sustainably, isn't a bad thing... just the opposite.  

And it's important to note that this is only one solution for addressing global warming.  Biofuels alone aren't a silver bullet and shouldn't be evaluated as such.  Many different solutions --like improving land use, promoting conservation, promoting renewables, advocating for mass transportation and bike-friendly cities to name a few solutions -- will combine to address climate change.  To simply say that because any one solution can't do everything and is therefore not worthy of supporting is cowardly and naive.  On Hint: he's from Alabama posted 3 years, 9 months ago 34 Responses

Laying it on a little thick I think...

BioD, let me take a moment to respond to a few of your comments...

This argument is about biofuels, not industrialized agriculture. If biofuels went away tomorrow, there would still be unsustainable industrialized agricultural practices.  It's easy to point out the problems and only harp on them, as long as you also consider the massive benefits of a 3 to 1 net energy gain (from biodiesel) and 78% less CO2 than petroleum.  

They aren't? Now you tell me. How about where the Amazon used to be?

Obviously, there are biofuel feedcrops being grown around the world. They aren't all being grown in Orangutan habitat, that was my point.  

Let me qualify that statement a little, if I may: Domestically produced biodiesel has no ill effects on biodiversity beyond the effects of industrialized agriculture and assuming it does not usurp the millions of acres of conservation reserve land now acting as a giant carbon sink thus destroying habitat needed to maintain biodiversity.

And where, may I ask, are millions of acres of conservation reserve being usurped in the U.S.?  Hence the meaning of the word domestic...

It is interesting to hear you tout future potential advances in the production of biofuels while at the same time pooh-pooh future potential advances that will make imports of palm oil useable in low temperatures. The last time you cleared up a common misconception you said: "Biodiesel is currently, for all intents and purposes, a domestically produced fuel. Part of its budding appeal is that the U.S. wouldn't be importing it. You're assuming that biodiesel will be a cost effective export fuel and that has never been proven in real world circumstances"

This is just an effort to smear me.  I'm surprised quite frankly. You make very coherent arguments, I didn't expect you to stoop to that.  I wasn't poo-pooing anything, merely stating the facts about biodiesel additives - I really don't want palm oil biodiesel to succeed, but algae, I do.

At the time when I made the statement you quoted, U.S. biodiesel was predominantly domestically produced. In fact, it still is.  While Europe is importing biodiesel, the U.S. really hasn't imported much more than a trickle of it.  And in the U.S., ethanol imports in 2005 from Brazil total only 112 million gallons, a mere 1% of the global production capacity (Stats from Grist: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/12/15/hearn/) A lot has changed in the past 8 months.  I have since earned up to this mistake on my part with this comment:

And obviously, commodity biodiesel, imported from foreign countries that are stripping down rainforests is indefensible.  If this trend continues, then I'll likely be changing my tune.  But as long as my biodiesel is produced domestically, I'm still a supporter.  It's almost the same as making an effort to buy local produce.  Domestically produced biodiesel from recycled waste vegetable oil and domestic crops deserves the support of environmentalists, not their scorn.

You never answered my question about how climate change impacts the world's biodiversity?  I know your views on why imported biofuels are bad for biodiveristy, but I'd like to know what you think the effects of runaway global warming will be on rainforests.  

A few years from now, you will soon have no way to tell if your biodeisel came from Indiana, Indonesia, or South America. Do you know where your coffee was grown?

I know where my biodiesel comes from because I ask, the same applies to my coffee.  

I am concerned, like you, that not everyone will ask.  Most folks will buy the cheapest fuel and be done with it. But not if conscientious advocates of biofuels continue to support domestic production. Aside from the "do-gooders", do you think the U.S. agricultural lobby wants consumers to buy biofuels from Brazil and Malaysia? You don't think they'll insist upon tax incentives only for U.S. fuel and labeling schemes to inform consumers?

While I don't necessarily support subsidies on principle, if given the choice, I'd rather subsidies go to support domestic biofuels than to go towards foreign oil.  I'd rather the free market decide, in the absence of subsidies.  But the free market relies upon equal access to information and that the true costs are reflected in the product.  Right now, the costs of petroleum are largely hidden, like the costs of GHG emissions and war.  

The point I keep coming back to is that there is a way to do it right.  You seem intent on poking at what's wrong rather than supporting something that's right.  Affecting change requires a broad-based movement and the perfect is the enemy of the good. Although I think both viewpoints are important, you can choose to support sustainable biofuels or to denounce unsustainable ones.  I tend to see the glass half full, particularly in light of the many promising technologies on the horizon.  On It's biofuel realities that matter, not airy scenarios posted 3 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses

The market will decide

To add to what Clark mentioned about Iogen, algal biodiesel is being testing on a large scale by a company called GreenFuel technologies:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm

I tend to agree that technologies such as cellulosic ethanol and algal biodiesel won't really take off under today's current market conditions but if a cap & trade system on GHG emissions comes to fruition in the U.S. (which seems inevitable given the global pressure to do so), then these solutions become a lot more attractive in the marketplace.  

Biofuels can be produced sustainably.  Contrary to biodiversivist's beliefs, not all biodiesel feedcrops are grown in orangutan habitat.  Domestically produced biodiesel has no ill effects on biodiversity beyond the effects of industrialized agriculture.  

To respond to Tom P., two popular biodiesel feedcrops, mustard and rapeseed/canola, actually fix nitrogen in the soil.  While they aren't tilled under like a typical cover crop, which would be ideal for soil health, they are improving the soil.

Also, to clear up a common misconception.  Palm oil biodiesel won't really work in most of the U.S. It gels up when the temperature dips below 55 degrees, as in jello in your fuel tank.  Even with the latest fuel additives, developed only in the past month, the fuel still gels at 32 degrees (important to note that no biodiesel fuel additives have panned out yet).  How practical is that for the U.S. and Europe?  So it's not like Palm oil biodiesel is primed for U.S. consumption, as has been purported on this blog and elsewhere.  

Lastly, how does global warming impact the world's biodiversity? What is the impact of not exploring carbon friendly solutions like biofuels?  Out of the frying pan into the fire if you ask me.  On It's biofuel realities that matter, not airy scenarios posted 3 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses

not exactly a supportive thread

Biodiversivist,

It seemed to me that the sentiment on this thread was to dismiss biofuels as a whole, so I thought it was worthwhile to remind everyone that biofuels can indeed be produced from recycled oil.  You and most of the comments were happy to jump on the "we hate biofuels" bandwagon, failing to mention the fact that there are some highly sustainable biofuels.  So while you call it a strawman argument, I felt someone needed to point out the obvious positives that were so egregiously overlooked.  

Second, domestic crops does not equal soybeans.  Although soybeans are the predominant crop, they are the least efficient.  You have a current agricultural industry subsidized to grow soybeans for food, until relatively recently when biodiesel started growing in popularity.  As it becomes more popular, farmers are growing crops better designed for oil and fuel, like rapeseed, which happens to be much more  efficient.  And you still ignore the fact the the leftover pant material from soybean biodiesel is used in animal feed, it's not as if biodiesel is the exclusive end use of the crop.  

Not surprisingly, you don't mention any of the benefits of biofuels at reducing CO2 emissions, I guess global warming is a good thing for biodiversity?On Some environmentalists wake up to the dangers of biofuels posted 3 years, 11 months ago 10 Responses

Dual Flush

And if you're remodeling your bathroom, there are a lot of great dual flush options like this Caroma toilet:

http://www.caroma.com.au/innovate/idea_1.htmOn Umbra on low-flow flushing posted 4 years ago 5 Responses

Would eliminating subsidies really help?

I'm posing this as a question more than a comment.  In fact, I am usually heavily in favor of abolishing subsidies but I have to wonder in this instance.  Obviously, the cost of living and agricultural production is higher in the U.S. than it would be in some parts of the world.  

If we completely eliminated huge factory farm subsidies, that would no doubt lead to a collapse in the U.S. agricultural industry because instead of buying U.S. crops, most consumers would simply buy more food from overseas -- perhaps food grown on felled rainforests or by using questionable production methods -- posing an additional environmental threat to say nothing of what it might do to the U.S. economy, and the effect that would have on the poor.  

Am I off base here?  In theory, I'd like to say no subsidies too but I have my doubts because of what I think the fallout could be.  On Seriously, now -- why aren't organics getting affordable? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 18 Responses

Biodiesel isn't the only solution

It seems like the 800 lbs. gorilla that you failed to acknowledge was in the room, is the mitigation of CO2 emissions.  I think this issue is first and foremost on the minds of environmentally minded people, for good reason.  So while your footprint test showed a negligible effect from your transportation use, more than 30% of the CO2 emissions in the world come from transportation.  Call me crazy but if we don't address CO2 emissions sometime soon, that will have just as detrimental effect on biodiversity and the health of rainforests.

Since you cite in your piece that biodiesel is carbon neutral (which is not entirely accurate it's more like 78% fewer CO2 emissions that regular diesel according to the DOE), it seems to me that it's an option worth exploring for transportation.  Again, if the climate changes dramatically due to CO2 emissions, and most think that it will, what affect will that have on arable farm land and the cost of food.

You just can't evaluate new technologies and biofuels in a vacuum.  By that, I mean that you can't judge biodiesel as a fuel based on a model of "if everyone used biodiesel," because that's never going to happen.  Biodiesel is one option to reduce emissions, so are hybrids, so is cellulose ethanol, so is increasing CAFE standards, so is raising the gas tax, so is funding mass transit.  It's not a be-all, end-all option for our transportation needs, no one option ever will be, and it needs to be evaluated as such, the market will decide the rest anyway.

What bugs me is that you seem to ignore the positive aspects of biodiesel.  While you acknowledge the carbon neutrality, it also serves to get people thinking about energy independence, sustainability, and higher efficiency diesel vehicles.  Now, I'm generalizing, but if just 10% of the country started thinking about these issues, instead of more horsepower for their SUVs, that's a good start.  It might actually get people thinking in terms of "biodiversity vs. driving their cars" -- which is an entirely different paradigm than I see in America right now.

10% of our fuel from biodiesel isn't that far-fetched, and its impact on farmland and the cost of food shouldn't be terrible if we can start using better feed crops that soybeans.

If your primary concern is biodiversity, you absolutely must consider the effects of climate change.  And if you are concerned about climate change, you absolutely must consider the most egregious greenhouse gas emitters, motor vehicles.  Biodiesel isn't the only solution, it's no silver bullet, and we can't expect every car to run on it but that does not diminish its benefits.  On Replacing fossil fuels with biodiesel may do more harm than good posted 4 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

waste veggie oil can be hard on engines

Hi Joelle,

Biodiesel and petroleum diesel run pretty much the same in any diesel car.  But there is a notable difference between waste vegetable oil and biodiesel.  WVO is much thicker, and often dirtier than vegetable oil. You need to perform major modifications to run WVO, and could face costly repairs should anything go wrong.  

The biggest concern with any diesel fuel or vegetable oil is water. Modern diesels engines have a tough time with any water in the fuel.  Most new diesels run cleaner and are more efficient because the fuel is injected into the engine at very high pressures, in a very fine mist.  New VW's pump fuel into the cylinder at 30,000 psi.  If any water is present in the fuel, it can wreak havoc at these high pressures AND can also cause rust.  

Since WVO is used to fry up foods, water can find its way into the fuel.  

Biodiesel is also quite hydrophilic, but if it is stored properly and manufactured correctly, should have no water present and is completely safe for any modern diesel engines. It is important to ensure that your distributor gets their biodiesel from a reputable manufacturer and follows a few best management practices for storage.  In fact, biodiesel has more lubricity (it's greasier) than regular diesel fuel, which is better for the long-term health of your engine.  

One of the biggest issues with burning WVO is the release of a nasty toxin called acrolein:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/acrolein.html
Acrolein comes from the glycerin present in veggie oil.  In biodiesel however, glycerin is removed, and with it, this nasty chemical.

More info here:
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2590&SearchTerms=wvo,emissions

In general the BiodieselNow forums that I listed in the link above are an excellent resource for these types of questions.  On Biodiversivist posted 4 years, 5 months ago 24 Responses

Too many assumptions

biodiversivist,

I think you're making far too many assumptions. You're assuming that biodiesel will be a cost effective export fuel and that has never been proven in real world circumstances.  In fact, there are literally dozens of tax incentives and more being proposed every day to enhance domestic production.  Again, domestic production = NO impact on rainforests.  Farmland in the U.S. is already firmly established, no new forest will be cut down.

The cost off food is not controlled by a free market, just the opposite.  In fact, there are many farms around the U.S. who actually get federal subsidies to NOT grow food.  There are huge extra stores of grain that sometimes get tossed.  It doesn't go to malnourished nations because giving food to impoverished nations can perpetuate poverty by artificially maintaining high birth rates.  You were so quick to point out that we need to keep the population in check and as callous as it may sound, keeping food prices low isn't necessarily the answer.  

Biodiesel has enough benefits not to get bashed on a very prominent environmental website, citing Penn State students as your source.  On Biodiversivist posted 4 years, 5 months ago 24 Responses

Response to BHurley

BHurley, I just wanted to take a moment to respond to your assertion about diesel emissions.  

It's important to note that B100 biodiesel dramatically reduces harmful emissions over petroleum diesel.  CO is reduced by over 50%, particulates by up to 65%, CO2 by 78%, sulfur by 100%, PAH & nPAHs by 90%, and hydrocarbons by over 40%. The only increase of conventional diesel is in NOx.

Here are a few links to the above mentioned statistics:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

Diesel engines are continuing to improve with the mandatory adoption of low sulfur diesel here in the U.S., enabling EPA's Tier II emissions standards and the adoption of Euro 3 and Euro 4 diesel emissions standards in Europe.  More on the oodles of new emissions reductions technologies here:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/emissions/index.html

The guides you mentioned completely ignore alternative fuels like biodiesel, not surprisingly. The EPA's green car guide has also been linked to a slightly too friendly connection to automakers: http://www.cleancarcampaign.org/20020621alert.shtmlOn Biodiversivist posted 4 years, 5 months ago 24 Responses

Two sides to every story

I can certainly see both sides of this argument.  While a higher gas tax provides an incentive for more fuel efficient vehicles, a tax on miles driven provides a disincentive for driving more, and ideally reducing sprawl. New technolgy vs. a change in people driving habits, or behavior.  

It seems like increased fuel efficiency is an inevitability in the near future (not the we shouldn't still work damn hard to make sure of it) but reprogramming people to drive less, to live closer to work and play, in more densely populated areas is not a given.

If less pollution and CO2 are the goal, both higher fuel efficiency and incentives to drive less help accomplish that.  However, if people continue to drive more and over longer distances (like in L.A.), then any fuel efficiency gains will be offset, in terms of their impact on emissions.  

Take for example household energy use.  Despite all of the Energy Star compliant appliances and compact flourescent lightbulbs, household energy use per person continue to rise.  

What I am trying to say is that technology alone cannot solve our problems.  True conservation efforts also neccesitate a change in behavior and any incentive to do so is worth at least exploring.  On In the annals of bad ideas ... posted 5 years ago 1 Response