Utilizing Bio-fuel Beyond Experimental Use 384
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."
Automotive fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Biodiesel emits little of the smog of conventional gasoline or diesel fuel and almost none of the heat-trapping gases that most scientists say are driving up temperatures and could cause more floods, storms and rising sea levels in coming decades.
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?
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.
Re:Automotive fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yes I have and (Score:2, Insightful)
HTH
The problem with slashdot is that any fuckwit can be a moderator too...
Re:Have you ever??? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure what Biodiesel vehicles you've been stuck behind in traffic. My only experience with biodiesel vehicles is a local hobbyist who buys (cheaply) used oil from local restaurants and filters/processes it, and it doesn't stink at all when his old Volvo Diesel is buring that fuel. In fact, it smells faintly of french fries. And I've ridden with him many times on the highway; he certainly doesn't have any trouble getting into traffic or passing slower vehicles; I've never seen him drive over 75 mph, but since 70 is the highest speed limit on local hiways, I can't imagine *needing* much more. Most resources one can locate on Google suggest a 10% loss in power. Significant, but not fatal; a 225 HP diesel will be a ~203 hp biodiesel. A matching 10% loss in 'economy' is also measured, so if you got 25 MPG, you're now going to get ~22.5 MPG. Again, not fatal from a pragmatic standpoint.
To the poster earlier that noted that it must still produce CO2, therefore cannot be carbon neutral - your assumptions are wrong. It's carbon neutral because it's adding no NEW CO2 to the atmosphere - ie, it can only release CO2 that was already in the atmosphere, and then bound by plants in the production of leaves, seeds, stems, etc. Thus, using biodiesel adds no NEW CO2 to the atmosphere, and cannot increase the overall CO2 percentage; burning petrochemicals releases CO2 that has been locked under the crust of the planet, increasing the overall CO2 content of the atmosphere.
To anyone who's looking at this thread and interested in Biodiesel, I suggest you get cozy with google and find out for yourself, rather than paying attention to the FUD here.
Re:Automotive fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Have you ever??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I see one everyday. My VW doesn't smoke unless the engine has coldsoaked for a couple of days below freezing. And then the smoke clears up within the first minute.
Have you ever smelled a biodiesel vehicle in operation or at rest? Uhg! What a stench.
Why yes I have. I've even gotten down on all fours and sniffed my tailpipe. It has a distinct smell, but it doesn't smell like fries or eggrolls, and it smells much much better than the sulfur laden petrodiesel we get here in New England.
Have you ever driven a biodiesel vehicle? They are a bit quieter than when running on regular diesel but they also lack power compared to when running on regular diesel.
I drive one everyday. It's certainly not lacking in power and the increased cetane rating makes the engine run much smoother. The BTU content of biodiesel is about 95% of that of petrodiesel. So does it get slightly worse mileage? Sure. But it isn't the anemic dog you make it out to be.
Biodiesel may become more widely used in commercial or off-road applications but, it will never take off for highway vehicles.
My commute is 90 miles by highway and I use biodiesel. I know of two retail biodiesel pumps just off I91 (one in Holyoke and one in Brattleboro). I think you are misinformed.
Finally, I have a question for you Mr. Anonymous Coward. You seem rather put off by your biodiesel exposure. Is that just armchair experience from surfing or have your actually driven a BD powered vehicle. If so, was it a modern german turbodiesel like my '03 Jetta or was it a 20 year old out of tune beater MB hippiemobile. No offense to the old-school MB diesel hippies, but they make the rest of us look bad.
Peak oil (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
BioDiesel in Dallas (Score:2, Insightful)
The city also runs Natural Gas in it's busses. The air quality in Dallas is better than it used to be, based just on my impression of the way things are.
Bio is the way to go IMO, especially when produced by small time operators. We have so much of the raw materiel that is treated as waste matter (cooking oil), we can kill multiple birds with one or two old water heater processors.
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
And, fucking *Insightful* moderation? Jeesus...
Re:No silver bullet (Score:3, Insightful)
Complaining that the potential solution to one of our biggest environmental problems will not make the entire problem go away is short-sighted and unproductive.
Re:Automotive fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Crazy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Biodiesel really is amazing!
Bzzzt. Back to intro physics for you. To quote MC Hawking:
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fsck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!"
Biodiesel is just solar energy, in liquid form.
Unless you knew this, in which case, if you were making a joke, you should have used a smiley.
2007? (Score:3, Insightful)
But there are projects to unlock the oil sands in Canada, they'll be online and working soon, and they'll certainly take up the slack for any drop in liquid crude pumping.
I'm not nearly as concerned about "peak oil" as I am about the precipitous rise in use. Yes, we're bad in the US, buying so many SUVs we don't get any better gas mileage than we did in the 70s. But the real issue is so many countries that are increasing their oil use many times for cars and power generation (article said Indonesia became an importer this year for example.
If the rate of oil use continues to rise rapidly, it doesn't matter how much we drill, we can drill it faster and faster, and we'll just bring the true date of peak oil sooner.
The 3rd world is going to increase their industrialization, so energy use will rise. We have to increase our energy efficiency to minimize the problems, and find alternate sources (including nuclear) also.
Re:Crazy! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you put in x energy to obtain the biodiesel, and get x * 3 energy from the biodiesel itself, you win. The energy that is being obtained from the biodiesel is actually solar energy, which, while technically a finite resource, isn't going to run out in our lifetimes, or those of our children, etc., etc. Unless humans survive, what, another 5 billion years?
Re:Automotive fuel (Score:3, Insightful)
The C02 released from fossil fuels was not previously part of the carbon cycle. It was stored away underground as oil or coal.
It seems to me that to have a positive effect on CO2 emissions, your act needs to not only lessen the amount of CO2 being released from otherwise permanently stored materials (oil, coal, natural gas), but it also mustn't prevent the natural storage of carbon into the earth. I.e. you have to look at both the IN-effect as well as the OUT-effect.
If you make biodiesel out of what would otherwise go to a landfill and be "permanently" stored there, you in the very least lessen the effect of not having to pump as much oil from the ground. If you, however, were to make biofuel by growing something on what would otherwise be barren ground, you would still not be taking C out of the ground, nor would you be holding back any that would otherwise be going into the ground.
If you burn a tree, you are indeed preventing the return of carbon into the ground, and thereby effectively introducing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Re:Big hairy Deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Automotive fuel (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Automotive fuel (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Automotive fuel (Score:1, Insightful)
People also *like* to drive (maybe not commute) its about freedom to come and go more or less as use please not subjugated to the tyranny of someone elses schedule I use public transit most of the time now ocasssionally walk its the worst part of my day it dosent take long, isnt crowded but its dehumanising the people are more like cattle I am glad I am finally getting a car this year. I understand the negative consequences of driving, but it took a long time for us to reach the point where we didnt have to live in tribes where there is no privacy and constantly judged by our "community" and all the other evils why regress ?
Re:Automotive fuel (Score:2, Insightful)
Massive caverns set deep in bedrock that are just waiting for a volcano to spring up to throw it into the atmosphere and give 1% of the population cancer
Or a hole in the ozone layer, massive amounts of smog and acid rain, the east coast moving 20 miles inland, and the definite release of larger amount of radiactive material thrown up in the ash of the coal you burnt for the energy than choice A would have spread?
Re:Big hairy Deal (Score:3, Insightful)
A seismic change would not be a gradual change. You assume that the eventual reductions in oil production will be gradual, leading to gradual increases in oil production. Oil demand is not very elastic, so dramatic changes to supply would cause dramatic changes in price (prices could double or triple very quickly if there was a production shortfall of 20%).
Can you come up with any scenarios that result in abrupt reductions in oil production? What if the OPEC countries are radically overestimating the remaining reserves and a production crisis across the middle east happens that reduces OPEC production by 75%? How about multiple simultaneous pipeline disasters?
I'm not reaching any conclusions either way, but I do think it's naive to plan based on an assumption that oil production will follow a gradual decline. Energy is ultimately a foundation of our economy and if that market is disrupted, our economy won't be able to work around that problem without a lot of pain and suffering. The smartest approach to planning is usually to plan for the worst and hope for the best. However, our leaders are planning for the best. If they're wrong, it's going to be a very scary time indeed.
Regards,
Ross