<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Biodiesel is wack]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by atreyger http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/ Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:07:57 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/1 quick point about 'sustainable'

If the 'sustainable' farms are certified, I envision something along the lines of what happens with paper mills and sustainable wood sources. They usually run a day per week (or more like a month or what have you) of fully certified wood through the machines (after changing the process to suit the requirements) and then switch back to the original sources and process. Or, they use a mixture of sustainably certifed/regular sources and state it in the certification scheme or packaging.

However, I do not see a reason for why the majority of the population would care to pay the extra premium to pay for certified biofuels just like they do not care to pay for certified wood. It is much too expensive of a price to pay for exactly the same quality of a product. At least with organic foods, there is a perceived difference in the final products' chemical constitency, even if it is not visible.

If, and that is a big if, the demand was high enough, the as-of-yet non-existent certification would most likely require the refineries to use either only certified oil or stop the process if it is not or switch to mixing up runs of biofuel sourcing.

]]> quick point about 'sustainable'

If the 'sustainable' farms are certified, I envision something along the lines of what happens with paper mills and sustainable wood sources. They usually run a day per week (or more like a month or what have you) of fully certified wood through the machines (after changing the process to suit the requirements) and then switch back to the original sources and process. Or, they use a mixture of sustainably certifed/regular sources and state it in the certification scheme or packaging.

However, I do not see a reason for why the majority of the population would care to pay the extra premium to pay for certified biofuels just like they do not care to pay for certified wood. It is much too expensive of a price to pay for exactly the same quality of a product. At least with organic foods, there is a perceived difference in the final products' chemical constitency, even if it is not visible.

If, and that is a big if, the demand was high enough, the as-of-yet non-existent certification would most likely require the refineries to use either only certified oil or stop the process if it is not or switch to mixing up runs of biofuel sourcing.

]]> Comment #2 by Tom Philpott http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/ Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:00:42 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/2 Well done, biod...

This kind of thing infuriates me. if the company is serious about its "triple bottom line," then at the very least the monthly cross-continental lobbying trips should focus on raising money for local oil-seed processing facilities. But I guess that would sacrifice the comparative advantage conferred by being close to a port -- and thus render useless the extra-good price available for southeast Asian palm oil.  

Victual Reality

]]> Well done, biod...

This kind of thing infuriates me. if the company is serious about its "triple bottom line," then at the very least the monthly cross-continental lobbying trips should focus on raising money for local oil-seed processing facilities. But I guess that would sacrifice the comparative advantage conferred by being close to a port -- and thus render useless the extra-good price available for southeast Asian palm oil.  

Victual Reality

]]> Comment #3 by naturist http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/ Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:03:23 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/3 I have two problems with this article.

While the author's point about palm oil vs rainforests, and the concept of "sustainable" palm oil imported from third world countries is certainly valid, he falls off the wagon on two scores: firstly, the ONLY reason soy oil is used in the US to make biodiesel is that it is a cheap waste product from the production of the soy meal that is the real reason soybeans are grown at all. Only a moron would contend that soybeans are a viable crop to grow if oil is the proposed main product. Thus the argument that making biodiesel is necessarily in competition with growing food is spurious at best.

There are, in fact, many, many crops far better to the purpose, all of which produce far more oil per acre, and many of which do not require the use of prime farmland or petro-chemical fertilizers for that matter.

Secondly, the author seems to take the tack that it is futile to seek to replace petroleum, so why even bother. The futility of such a world view is sad to behold. And totally unjustified.

But such pesimism leads me to ask why the author doesn't get up off his butt and contribute to the solution instead of merely complaining about why this is no solution.

]]> I have two problems with this article.

While the author's point about palm oil vs rainforests, and the concept of "sustainable" palm oil imported from third world countries is certainly valid, he falls off the wagon on two scores: firstly, the ONLY reason soy oil is used in the US to make biodiesel is that it is a cheap waste product from the production of the soy meal that is the real reason soybeans are grown at all. Only a moron would contend that soybeans are a viable crop to grow if oil is the proposed main product. Thus the argument that making biodiesel is necessarily in competition with growing food is spurious at best.

There are, in fact, many, many crops far better to the purpose, all of which produce far more oil per acre, and many of which do not require the use of prime farmland or petro-chemical fertilizers for that matter.

Secondly, the author seems to take the tack that it is futile to seek to replace petroleum, so why even bother. The futility of such a world view is sad to behold. And totally unjustified.

But such pesimism leads me to ask why the author doesn't get up off his butt and contribute to the solution instead of merely complaining about why this is no solution.

]]> Comment #4 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/ Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:34:00 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/4 Welcome to the forum Naturist

soy oil is used in the US to make biodiesel is that it is a cheap waste product...Only a moron would contend that soybeans are a viable crop to grow if oil is the proposed main product. Thus the argument that making biodiesel is necessarily in competition with growing food is spurious at best

Soy oil is a valuable commodity traded on the futures market as a food vegetable oil. Typically, the value of soy oil accounts for 38 to 40 percent of the soybean crush. But the energy boom has pushed the value of soy oil to 41 and 42 percent. Soy oil is a byproduct, which is not the same as a waste product. The price of the oil may rise with demand until supply catches up, making the soy meal the byproduct. Likewise, the price of soy meal may go down with an increase in supply unless an increase in demand can be developed in parallel. The bottom line: we will have to grow more soybeans to meet the demand for biodiesel. Where would those other users now go for their oil? If food producers have to turn to palm oil you have just pushed the problem from our shores to Orangutan habitat. If they have to buy it from South America, you are destroying the Amazon.

There are, in fact, many, many crops far better to the purpose, all of which produce far more oil per acre, and many of which do not require the use of prime farmland or petro-chemical fertilizers for that matter

This is true, but here in the U.S. we are making almost all of our biodiesel out of soybeans, and also importing palm oil. Maybe you should take your case to the refiners? I'm just the messenger.

Secondly, the author seems to take the tack that it is futile to seek to replace petroleum, so why even bother. The futility of such a world view is sad to behold. And totally unjustified.

I don't think it is futile to seek to replace petroleum. I just don't want to see it replaced with something worse. You agree that converting rainforest carbon sinks into palm oil plantations is worse? How about stuffing ten acres of soybean oil into your average American gas tank annually?

But such pessimism leads me to ask why the author doesn't get up off his butt and contribute to the solution instead of merely complaining about why this is no solution

Admittedly, there is a fine line sometimes between pessimism and realism. There is also a difference between complaining and critique. As for getting off my butt and contributing to the solution, well, I do what I can.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com


]]> Welcome to the forum Naturist

soy oil is used in the US to make biodiesel is that it is a cheap waste product...Only a moron would contend that soybeans are a viable crop to grow if oil is the proposed main product. Thus the argument that making biodiesel is necessarily in competition with growing food is spurious at best

Soy oil is a valuable commodity traded on the futures market as a food vegetable oil. Typically, the value of soy oil accounts for 38 to 40 percent of the soybean crush. But the energy boom has pushed the value of soy oil to 41 and 42 percent. Soy oil is a byproduct, which is not the same as a waste product. The price of the oil may rise with demand until supply catches up, making the soy meal the byproduct. Likewise, the price of soy meal may go down with an increase in supply unless an increase in demand can be developed in parallel. The bottom line: we will have to grow more soybeans to meet the demand for biodiesel. Where would those other users now go for their oil? If food producers have to turn to palm oil you have just pushed the problem from our shores to Orangutan habitat. If they have to buy it from South America, you are destroying the Amazon.

There are, in fact, many, many crops far better to the purpose, all of which produce far more oil per acre, and many of which do not require the use of prime farmland or petro-chemical fertilizers for that matter

This is true, but here in the U.S. we are making almost all of our biodiesel out of soybeans, and also importing palm oil. Maybe you should take your case to the refiners? I'm just the messenger.

Secondly, the author seems to take the tack that it is futile to seek to replace petroleum, so why even bother. The futility of such a world view is sad to behold. And totally unjustified.

I don't think it is futile to seek to replace petroleum. I just don't want to see it replaced with something worse. You agree that converting rainforest carbon sinks into palm oil plantations is worse? How about stuffing ten acres of soybean oil into your average American gas tank annually?

But such pessimism leads me to ask why the author doesn't get up off his butt and contribute to the solution instead of merely complaining about why this is no solution

Admittedly, there is a fine line sometimes between pessimism and realism. There is also a difference between complaining and critique. As for getting off my butt and contributing to the solution, well, I do what I can.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com


]]> Comment #5 by benjamin2012 http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/ Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:16:33 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/5 biodiesel

a better choice than petro, but no where close to sustainable. We need a much more sustainable solution than this. I wonder how much petro based fertilizer is used to grow every gallon of bio? My friends think their so cool for using bio but really is it that cool?

]]> biodiesel

a better choice than petro, but no where close to sustainable. We need a much more sustainable solution than this. I wonder how much petro based fertilizer is used to grow every gallon of bio? My friends think their so cool for using bio but really is it that cool?

]]> Comment #6 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/ Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:48:01 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/6 Good points

Atreyger,

You did a better job of making my point than I did.

Benjamin,

All normal human beings have to be cool. What is cool depends on your peer group. Depending, coolness may be a  penis gourd, lip disc, tatoo on your ass, shiny red Prius or Hummer. All human beings want to look good in their peer's eyes. That is why most of  us comb our hair and wear clothes. By making envrionmentally sound choices cool, we can do great things.

Your pals have their hearts in the right place. They are cool if they are using soy made from waste. Most likely, they are supporting the soy lobby. They are also proabably unaware of the other downsides of soy biodiesel. Their beaters are polluting  the air much worse than a gasoline car becasue today's diesel cars don't have pollution controls. That smell of combusted vegetable oil is soot heading for your lungs. They are also unaware that by using soy they have doubled their ecological footprints by usurping ten acres of soy oil to fill their tanks every year. Soy takes less fertilizer than corn, but uses five times more land area. If you are interested in other downsides to soy biodiesel, drop in here

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> Good points

Atreyger,

You did a better job of making my point than I did.

Benjamin,

All normal human beings have to be cool. What is cool depends on your peer group. Depending, coolness may be a  penis gourd, lip disc, tatoo on your ass, shiny red Prius or Hummer. All human beings want to look good in their peer's eyes. That is why most of  us comb our hair and wear clothes. By making envrionmentally sound choices cool, we can do great things.

Your pals have their hearts in the right place. They are cool if they are using soy made from waste. Most likely, they are supporting the soy lobby. They are also proabably unaware of the other downsides of soy biodiesel. Their beaters are polluting  the air much worse than a gasoline car becasue today's diesel cars don't have pollution controls. That smell of combusted vegetable oil is soot heading for your lungs. They are also unaware that by using soy they have doubled their ecological footprints by usurping ten acres of soy oil to fill their tanks every year. Soy takes less fertilizer than corn, but uses five times more land area. If you are interested in other downsides to soy biodiesel, drop in here

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> Comment #7 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/ Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:59:27 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/fighting-global-warming/7 You can't make soy from waste...

you can make fuel from it../:(

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> You can't make soy from waste...

you can make fuel from it../:(

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]>