The future: hybrid or diesel?

And the really cheap could use their own biodiesel made from used cooking oil.

While nice, there's only a few million gallons of cooking oil floating around.

Where as if you get into virgin biodiesel from stuff like soybean or palm oil.  The destruction is more damaging than recycled cooking oil could ever save.

http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png

Encouraging biodiesel is a bad way to go because it's a precariously slippery slope.

That guy
http://youtube.com/watch?v=d2lei-DcWB0

"People are not even using the used cooking grease available, they are going with virgin oil from fuel farming instead."

That's a rather large generalization. It's easy to find examples of groups of people and grassroots efforts doing the right thing. One nearby me:

http://www.greengreasemonkey.com/

They collect a huge amount of waste grease. But average joes are up to it as well, off the radar.

But also, continually throwing biodiesel off the table is problematic. By all means, advocate for change, and sustainability standards, definitely, but tossing a fuel that is waaay closer to being carbon neutral compared to gasoline or diesel is just plain silly.

Movement-messaging-wise it's a bad call, too. The entire public now sees biodiesel as a good idea brought to their attention by things like Live Earth, and those crazy enviros are already shooting holes in it.

Those environmentalists are never happy with anything!

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

BioDiesel from "Waste" vegetable oil couldn't even account for 1% of US total consumption.

Considering how DANGEROUS palm/soy biodiesel is, we'd best just swear off it entirely.
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://greyfalcon.net/soy

Besides which, if we were going to use that waste grease, we should be using it to power turbines, not car engines.
http://greyfalcon.net/biodiesel.png
http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/376

Thats only about 550 million gallons of waste grease.

We currently consume about 40,000 million gallons of diesel per year.

And 140,000 million gallons of gasoline per year.

That might seem large to you but it's a piddly drop in the bucket on a national scale.

Grey,

Yes, good points, but you're not being very practical. Biodiesel is already here, it's being manufactured in enormous facilities, and more are being built all the time. We can't, as a pile of Gristers, stop that. But we can advocate for sustainability standards for those that do produce it. How about, no biodiesel from palm oil, ever, as a starter. But there are other feedstocks besides WVO, which we can learn to grow more sustainably.

Biofuels are going to be part of the liquid fuel mix, even if it's only a slice. This and gas sipping petro cars will have to be a bridge to the next place we go with personal transport, whether it's all electric or what have you. But we have to transition there, in a fuel-sipping manner. So hybrids, plugins, and biodiesel, which is much more climate friendly than petrol.

"Which then begs the question how green is this biodiesel really going to be?"

Baby and the bathwater. Greens have to go for the big picture, and try not to pick apart the individual pieces to the detriment of progress.

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

That's a rather large generalization. It's easy to find examples of groups of people and grassroots efforts doing the right thing...They collect a huge amount of waste grease.

A very small percent of the biodiesel being produced comes from waste grease. DrX's comment was much more than just a generalization. A "huge amount" is relative. Expressing it as a percentage would put things into perspective.

But also, continually throwing biodiesel off the table is problematic. By all means, advocate for change, and sustainability standards, definitely, but tossing a fuel that is waaay closer to being carbon neutral compared to gasoline or diesel is just plain silly.

Again, "waaaay closer" and "plain silly" are relative terms and not really defensible measurements. How, exactly do you make this sustainable?

http://www.agrisurfer.com/mirror.aspx?dt=/attachment%2Fsize%5Foriginal%2F84016145%2DC762%2D41FC%2DB715%2DC5CB0ECF266C%2Ejpg

If carbon emissions are the only measure of acceptability then we definitely should go nuclear for everything, no contest.

Movement-messaging-wise it's a bad call, too.

I couldn't disagree more, and neither could Monbiot.

The entire public now sees biodiesel as a good idea brought to their attention by things like Live Earth ...

Yes, a direct parallel to the public's ignorance about ethanol and flex fuel vehicles. I addressed that problem here as you may recall.

Biodiesel is already here, it's being manufactured in enormous facilities, and more are being built all the time. We can't, as a pile of Gristers, stop that.

Coming from someone who obviously values grass roots movements, that statement strikes me as odd. Imperium biofuels has changed its business plan from 90% palm oil feedstock to 20 % thanks to critique from places like Grist. From comments you have made in other threads ("None of this would be an issue if hybrid cars weren't so expensive") it sounds like you don't want it to go away because you own a car that runs on it--because you couldn't afford a hybrid. Many  biodiesel enthusiasts see a used diesel car running on biodiesel as a poor man's equivalent to a hybrid and seem perfectly happy to ignore and rationalize away its numerous downsides to maintain that fantasy.

This and gas sipping petro cars will have to be a bridge to the next place we go with personal transport,

We may transition to better personal transport without biofuels as is happening with the hybrids and plug-in hybrids. If corn ethanol and biodiesel didn't exist today, nothing would be different. Agrofuels are just as likely to delay the transition away from the business as usual burning of liquid fuels in 30% efficient internal combustion engines.

So hybrids, plugins, and biodiesel, which is much more climate friendly than petrol.

Like I said before, climate friendliness (carbon emissions) is not the only measure. You are promoting a fuel that is putting three times the acreage pictured above annually into your average American biodiesel enthusiast gas tank.

Baby and the bathwater.

That is not a baby floating in the bath water.

Greens have to go for the big picture, and try not to pick apart the individual pieces to the detriment of progress.

The big picture is much more than just carbon emissions. There appears to be an overpowering urge by biodiesel enthusiasts to blow off the downsides so that they can continue to feel good about using biodiesel. Progress is being made in ferreting out what is wrong with popular ideas like hydrogen, soy biodiesel, and corn ethanol so we can divert resources and energies to finding better solutions.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Erik,

So, you would outlaw biodiesel made from palm oil, eh? And what feedstock would you use in its place, soybeans? Soybean-oil yields per acre are 1/10 that of palm oil. And as more corn (for ethanol) is grown in the USA, and less soy, and more of the soy that is grown is turned into biodiesel, who's producing the soy that China and Europe are demanding increasing volumes of?

Countries in Latin America -- Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay -- that's who. Great market opportunity for them, but not so great for the rain forests. And to the extent this soy is being produced for markets other than biodiesel, no biofuel sustainability certification system is going to affect how or where those crops are grown.

I am disappointed, also, that you would defend biodiesel -- which is heavily subsidized in the USA on a per-gallon basis -- on the lame argument that "The entire public now sees biodiesel as a good idea brought to their attention by things like Live Earth."

Back to the original post on diesels. I also think Toyota could be making a mistake. I could see a diesel Yaris that sold for about $10K less than a Prius being a big hit. Now that we have ultra low sulfur diesel it would also meet air pollution standards.

Corporate strategists are always gaming. One thing Boeing always watched out for was designing a plane that simply competed with other Boeing planes. It could be that a diesel Toyota would just take sales from the Prius. Just guessing. One thing is for sure, Toyota has its reasons.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Ron,

You say "I am disappointed, also, that you would defend biodiesel..."

Now there's some loaded language.

"...with the lame argument that "The entire public now sees biodiesel as a good idea brought to their attention by things like Live Earth."

You ignore my point to make your own. My point is the same as Wiscidea's on the Volt thread. Enviros constantly advocate for things as good and then tear them down. The general public just gets confused. They see the greenest musicians on the planet, for eg, all saying that their tours are "carbon neutral" or whatever, and then they hear the Sierra Club or whomever saying that offsets are smoke and mirrors. Who could blame them if they tune out on green issues?  

You can't outlaw biodiesel and ethanol, but you can make them better, until the point they're not needed any more.  

Russ,

"That is not a baby floating in the bath water."

; )

But, at core, you and I disagree again. You ask "How, exactly do you make this sustainable?" And as I answered you about ethanol a while back: we need to lobby for it. Crops grown sustainably for fuel would automatically mean less acreage, grown with less inputs, but if we desire to use less, as we should, why would this be a problem?

Business is ahead of us and already taking cues on things like palm oil, with Britain's Asda supermarket chain saying it won't stock unsustainable palm oil.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/british_superma.p ...

And you claim that Grist caused that plant in WA to scale back its planned use of palm oil. Great. Sounds good.

But you seem to be saying that we need to advocate no more biodiesel, period. And this is where we really differ. That's totally impractical. There are lots of plants already making the stuff and more are coming on line, with huge investments, with the support of the guv-mint. (A subsidy joke for you, Ron).

So I say advocate for changing the industry to a greener shade. You take my quote and say that I'm anti-grassroots, that we should give up the game to the super-corp-biofuel builders. Naw.

Saying that my position is merely a case of rationalizing my own use of biodiesel is wrong. Happy to buy something better in my price range, but as you know, I find hybrids are too expensive, and anyhow, they use dino-fuel.

Might not a rational person as well think you're rationalizing your own use of dino-fuel with all of your cheerleading on the topic of your Prius?

To say "We may transition to better personal transport without biofuels as is happening with the hybrids and plug-in hybrids" is also interesting. I mean, what's happening to the millions of gallons of biofuel being produced each day if it's not helping us transition to the next thing?

I'm happy to see biofuels fade off screen soon as we have the next thing. I'm not convinced hybrid is it (and anyhow, how can there be one answer, to anything?). Even if every american who said they needed a car drove one, we still drive too much, and we're still talking about frying the planet.

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

With biodiesel we aren't merely wasting time and money

But we are actually shooting ourselves in the foot in a way which would make Coal-to-Liquids look ideal.
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png

It's not that we aren't moving forward with biodiesel, it's that biodiesel is a larger threat than any fossil fuel.

_

Considering you'd have to give each person buying biodiesel over $500 a year in subsidy to support their habit, you could just as easily give that money to buy a hybrid, for a cheaper price.
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png

_

Crops grown sustainably for fuel would automatically mean less acreage, grown with less inputs, but if we desire to use less, as we should, why would this be a problem?

And then fungibility kicks your ass.

http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/soy2