Utilizing Bio-fuel Beyond Experimental Use

grumpyman writes "A C$14 million factory near Montreal started producing biodiesel fuel two weeks ago from the bones, innards and other parts of farm animals. At full capacity plant will produce 35 million liters (9.2 million U.S. gallons) of biodiesel a year, the greenhouse gas equivalent of removing 16,000 light trucks or 22,000 cars from the roads."

Comments

Automotive fuel

[PlayfullyClever]

For some time I've thought the future of automotive fuel lies in biodiesel rather than hydrogen. Hydrogen is just very hard to work with because of its low energy density and the fact it is normally a gas. Generation, transportation, storage and utilization all face large challenges.
For biodiesel, all the steps except generation are already solved and the infrastructure in place, and the generation problems do not seem large. (Even without the existing infrastructure, I suspect biodiesel wins economically.)

Generation from algae is particularly promising, as it doesn't require arable land, and can use salt water.

Re:Automotive fuel

[AndyChrist]

I call bullshit on at least one claim. The primary greenhouse gas is CO2 and biodiesel is still carbon based so it still produces CO2. If that claim is wrong, what about the others?

Alright, genius, what do you think is going to happen to the carbon in the waste products used here if it isn't used to make fuel?

A damn lot (all?) of it is going to end up back in the environment anyway as it decomposes. That's why this is "carbon neutral."

It may be true that biodiesel reduces our consumption of fossil fuels, but that depends on how much fossil fuel is consumed to produce biodiesel.

If more usable energy comes out of that process than went in, the increase in CO2 in the environment has been reduced.

Re:Automotive fuel

[blakestah]

I call bullshit on at least one claim. The primary greenhouse gas is CO2 and biodiesel is still carbon based so it still produces CO2. If that claim is wrong, what about the others?


Biodiesel emits CO2, this is true.

However, that CO2 was trapped by plants in the last year or two. Any large extent to which we switch to biodiesel will dramatically reduce net CO2 emissions.

Petroleum based diesel emits CO2 that was trapped by plants tens of thousands of years ago (or more). This causes a shift in greenhouse gases. By and large, B100 biodiesel does not.

The real problem, however, is cost. Yellow grease produced biodiesel has a wholesale cost 2-3 times greater than petroleum based diesel, and plant-based biodiesel costs 3-4 times more wholesale. Unless there is a tax or government subsidy for recyclable diesel (diesel in which the CO2 was trapped by plants recently), biodiesel will never take off b/c few consumers will double or triple their fuel costs to use a sustainable energy source.

Re:Automotive fuel

[peterpi]

It's a badly worded comment, but the intention is correct.

C02 released from burning biodiesel was already in the Earth's carbon cycle. It's like if you were to burn a tree; you're not introducing any new C02 into the Earth's system.

The C02 released from fossil fuels was not previously part of the carbon cycle. It was stored away underground as oil or coal.

That's the key difference.

Re:Automotive fuel

[blakestah]

Why is it a "patch"? It's completely carbon neutral and sustainable.

There are real questions about production capacity. If all the soy in the US were used in biodiesel it would produce 2.8 billion gallons of fuel a year. Or 68 million barrels of oil equivalent. That would last the United States 3-4 days at current energy usage rates. It should be easy to see farmland usage would need to be increased by 1-2 orders of magnitude to make a complete replacement.

Right now biodiesel is just at a trickle. You need to think about capacity questions if it is to be a real replacement.

The same may be claimed of hydrogen fuel. First, it is a high energy density fuel, but it is not an energy source. You still need to produce it in a petroleum-free manner to make it renewable. And production capacities necessary to make enough hydrogen are impossible. You just cannot do it.

By far the most logical choice to handle the downtrend in petroleum is nuke-u-lar production, which is already cost competitive and has a supply sufficient to handle US current energy usage for another 100 years.

Peak oil

[tepples]

Unless there is a tax or government subsidy for recyclable diesel (diesel in which the CO2 was trapped by plants recently)

Motor vehicle fuels are already taxed. Drastically cutting taxes on biofuels compared to petrofuels can subsidize them without "subsidizing" them, although European countries generally have more room to cut taxes than North American countries do.

few consumers will double or triple their fuel costs to use a sustainable energy source.

Unless worldwide crude oil extraction peaks and the supply curve moves so as to double or triple petrodiesel prices anyway. Then biodiesel will become even more attractive.

Re:Big hairy Deal

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The assumption of all of the above being, of course, that the market is capable of developing such a replacement strategy, even with gentle prodding, based on shifting financial incentives, and that this new equilibrium does not have some rather profound effects, like, say, complete and total change in the economics of transportation and manufacturing processes, great many of which depend on plastics. This is not to say that a positive outcome is impossible. I am merely pointing out what appears to be your unwarranted, blind faith in the infallability of free market and an out-of-hand dismissal of a possibililty of seismic shifts in the way of life of hundreds of millions of people, all of which can have far ranging effects well beyond the scope of pure economics, and with which the free markets are completely unequipped to deal with.