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.

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.