There is so much greenwashing about biodiesel and it's time to set it down. Truthout.org explains that biodiesel "requires tractors and fertilizers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make 'green' fuel." In addition, forest is often clear-cut to make room for more crops. Alarmists would say we are feeding our planet to our cars.
But you don't have to believe me (I often don't). You can believe MIT or Science (subscription required) magazine.
I used to think that biodiesel was a good first step toward something sustainable. Instead, it's a step backward.
Reference to Science: (DOI:10.1126/science.1141361)
Monday, August 27, 2007
Biodiesel is worse than gasoline
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This article is a bunch of BS. I didn't even read it and I can tell you that. Biodiesel is probably the best first step to sustainability there ever was....
Of course there are fossil fuels used to fertilize the plants! Of course there is land cleared to make room for those plants!
However, the more we use biodiesel, the less we will have to go to war over oil, and the less we will destroy countries and precious natural resources through war.
In addition, if you use the right feedstocks (algae, or jatropha) you can get more gallonage for less forest clearing and less fertilizer use. This fricking author obviously knows nothing about the feedstocks that biodiesel producers will be capable of using. He should probably work at a biodiesel company before he makes a statement such as this one.
Bogus. The MIT link is entirely about ethanol. And yes, ethanol is probably worse than gasoline. The other link didn't work.
The biodiesel I buy is made from restaurant waste oil, which otherwise is treated like toxic waste.
Even using virgin soybean feedstock, the greenhouse gas savings are significant.
It's true that in southeast asia rainforest is being torn out to put in palm oil trees for biodiesel. But that is a totally seperate issue that needs to be addressed seperately.
I think your post is irresponsible and misleading. And as dbh07 pointed out "a bunch of bs".
Valid criticism. Let me see if I can tackle some of it.
First, I apologize for the link to Science. Science is a subscription site. Students at university will be able to access it. Everyone else can only read the (lame) abstract.
And I should have been more careful with my words. I should have referred to Corn Ethanol, not biodiesel in general.
dbh07 -
The war argument is a good one. I agree with you, and the war has doubtless caused so much CO2 that it tips the balance.
My article only compares the current, commercialized biodiesel to gasoline. Other feedstocks are certainly a hope, but they are not here yet. We have ethanol and all it is doing is turning ADM into Exxon.
Rob - It is wonderful that you use restaurant waste for fuel. That is certainly a good thing and I will not argue against it.
But consider that deforestation is part of the carbon problem. Felled trees decompose and release 100-200 tons of carbon per hectare. In addition, they aren't around to sequester more carbon. These are certainly related issues.
Post a Comment