Comments on: Ethanol: It’s still fuel

By: gls

gls — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:58:48 +0000

Well, a large-scale switch to biodiesel is unrealistic for the simple reason that it requires cars with diesel engines — not very common in the States. In Europe, something like 50% of new cars sold are diesels. Of course, that’s motivated more by the fiscal benefits of high fuel efficiency than the desire to be green, but the end result is at least somewhat beneficial.

You ask, “If we are manufacturing and consuming biodiesel at, say, half the rate weâ€™re consuming fossil oil, are we going to end up with a net gain? Or are we just going to redistribute international political power and profit centers?”

Do you really think, this late in the game, that complete energy independence is even possible? What about in 15 years, by the time we get all the legislation and technology in place?

By: thudfactor

thudfactor — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:27:07 +0000

What qualifies biodiesel as a “quick fix” is that there’s going to have to be a heck of a lot of it to replace fossil fuel. In fact, there’s probably going to have to be a heck of a lot of *anything*. If we are manufacturing and consuming biodiesel at, say, half the rate we’re consuming fossil oil, are we going to end up with a net gain? Or are we just going to redistribute international political power and profit centers?

By: gls

gls — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:45:49 +0000

Biodiesel as a “quick fix” is an ironic notion. Rudolf Diesel intended the diesel engine to use peanut oil or coal dust as its fuel. That was just over 100 years ago, so if it’s a quick fix, it’s taken a long time for it to catch on.

The main reason biodiesel hasn’t been “feasible” until recently is due partly to the engineering involved in the diesel engine. Diesels traditionally have been thought of as smelly, finicky, unreliable, difficult-to-start engines. Modern diesel engines no longer have such problems.

We drive a 2000 Jetta TDI on biodiesel, and I can tell you, it makes us almost giddy at times to think of how the size of our carbon footprint when driving it.

By: Jeremy Bruno

Jeremy Bruno — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:50:35 +0000

But beyond reuse, biofuels seem like a bad idea, a quick fix, another issue that politicians can grandstand about. Brazil’s ethanol industry and China’s demand for palm oil are encouraging the clear cutting of rain forests, which must be intensively fertilized to become productive, which leads to the eutrophication of aquatic systems.

The proposed alternatives are only getting this much attention because people are entirely fixated on preventing global warming, pushing aside equally threatening factors like habitat destruction and pollution.

By: Kim

Kim — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:02:04 +0000

I’m not sure how this enters the debate, but I wanted to point out that corn isn’t the only source for ethanol. When Pataki was governor, he made a big push for NY to produce its own ethanol for use in the state, to cut down on the trucking necessary in getting corn to the factories where it’s turned into ethanol and the trucking necessary to then get the ethanol to NY. We don’t grow a lot of corn in NY, but we do have a lot of paper mills with a lot of cellulose by-products. It turns out that cellulose can be turned into ethanol.

Admittedly, I don’t know a whole lot about the issue, but it seems that taking a waste product from one of the state’s largest industries and turning it into a useable fuel is probably a good thing. Or, maybe it’s just a way for the paper mills to make more money.

By: Thud

Thud — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:33:38 +0000

Thanks for the correction, Tom. I have the two hopelessly confused in my head, which is probably inhibiting my ability to parse the science. Your succinct explanation will help me sort some of that out.

By: (: Tom :)

(: Tom :) — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:57:25 +0000

Minor quibble: ethanol does not equal biodiesel.

Ethanol is made from corn, and can be used as an alternative to gasoline.

Biodiesel is made from (new or used) vegetable oil, and can be used as an alternative to diesel fuel.

Re-using vegetable oil from restaurants to make biodiesel and reduce regular diesel consumption is a good thing.

Ethanol is significantly carbon negative - it is a net generator of CO2.

Biodiesel is relatively carbon neutral - the (lesser) CO2 emissions are used by the plants to reproduce themselves and the biodiesel supply.

Now, there are drawbacks - from what I’m reading, Indonesia is gutting its’ palm tree forests due to increased biod demand (palm oil trees are the most productive, veggy oil wise, natural products on the planet). And you’re still taking away arable food producing land in order to produce transportation fuel.

But biodiesel and ethanol are not the same solution, or even the same type of solution, to the problem of environmentally friendly alternative fuel production.

Just thought you might like to know…