Biodiesel, like ethanol, is a bad idea.
I know, I know–better than fossil fuels, right? Clean burning? Cuts down on carbon emissions? Sustainable?
It’s no better, and I’m going to tell you why:
Reason #1: We can’t make enough.
We can’t make enough biodiesel to go around–even if we wanted to replace only a fraction of our fossil fuel consumption. In fact, a University of Minnesota study found that if the entire US soybean crop were converted to making biodiesel, it would replace only 6% of current diesel use–which is only a fraction of total gas consumption.
A study by the US Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture estimates that there is potentially enough biomass feedstock available to replace perhaps 30% of current total gasoline usage.
And despite arguments about what it’s made from, it doesn’t matter–soybeans, rapeseed, palm oil–all of these plant materials require land and lots of it, leading to:
Reason #2: It destroys the land.
It normally takes centuries to produce an inch of topsoil. Worldwide, over a third of farmland is losing topsoil at an unsustainable rate. America’s midwestern “breadbasket” is in dire straits; one researcher says the topsoil there is nearly gone.
This is a global phenomenon: Kazakhstan, for example, incresed wheat production so much in the last two generations that now, due to topsoil erosion, most of its land no longer supports cropping. Meanwhile, biodiesel producers are leveling rainforests to produce it.
Making biodiesel on a meaningful scale will only accelerate these effects and make food production even more insecure.
Reason #3: It encourages corporate control and genetically modified crops.
Guess who the dominant player in biodiesel production (and number one producer of it in Europe) is? Not to mention the largest producer of ethanol? Why, Archer Daniels Midland, of course–one of the worst corporate polluters in the nation and an alleged user of child labor and big pusher of genetically modified crops.
While some are instead focusing on local and regional production, those small-scale projects cannot produce even a fraction of the fuel needs of residents. The effect on land, of course, is the same.
Reason #4: It pollutes about as much as regular diesel and increases smog.
The typical biodiesel “blend”–20% biodiesel mixed with regular diesel–has little impact on pollution. In fact, it actually increases smog levels and the associated health hazards. A 5% blend has negligible benefits. Widespread use of 100% biodiesel–which is completely unrealistic (see reasons #1 and #5), is better but still increases smog.
Reason #5: It doesn’t address the real problem: consumption.
Fuel consumption isn’t decreasing–it’s increasing at a sharp rate. the NRDC estimates US consumption will more than double by 2050 (from 140 to 290 billion gallons yearly), despite efficiency and conservation efforts. We’d need about three times all available land, devoted exclusively to biofuels, to even meet a fraction of that consumption.
Here in Portland, our local government is pushing to be the “biodiesel capitol” of the nation. One city council member believes it’s good for Oregon farmers, too.
Giddy entrepreneurs are–understandably–lining up. One businessman is betting on biodiesel and trying to build a large processing plant right across the river in Vancouver (Washington.)
So, what do we do? Maybe ethanol is a better answer? No, it’s even worse. For starters, I think we need to:
- Radically reduce consumption
- Stop using farmland to produce fuel, and
- Stop building and widening roads.
This fellow’s got a bunch of other ideas, too.
What are your ideas?
[Update]: Look here–biofuel’s already squeezing food prices. This fellow clarifies how biofuel competing for land with our food is a critical problem. The Earth Policy Institute told the US Senate last month: stop this nonsense, it’s going to kill us.
And this article sums up the destructive properties of biofuels better than most.
Commissioner Leonard, are you listening?
18 responses so far ↓
1 Claire // Jul 19, 2007 at 3:56 pm
One small suggestion directed at managers, HR professionals and the like.
I’ve reduced consumption by getting rid of my car. It was quite an adjustment at first, but I’ve gotten pretty good at using my feet or public trans to get around the city. I’m probably even more punctual now than when I drove.
Now I’m in job-hunting mode and dismayed to see how many employers list owning a car as a job requirement, or at least a point in one’s favor. I’ve also been on a search committee and heard others express doubts about a highly qualified applicant after he revealed that he had never owned a car.
Employers in particular need to quit equating “car owner” with “responsible adult” and “reliable employee.” In fact, it’s quite the opposite when you think about it.
2 Claire // Jul 19, 2007 at 4:31 pm
They say that an efficient dishwasher uses significantly less water and energy than washing by hand. If true, a “dishwashers for the poor” subsidy program could help combat global warming while promoting domestic harmony.
3 arachnochick // Jul 19, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Darn…I guess this means I shouldn’t make my own biodiesel like the Google ad suggests.
Perhaps instead I could be a “Biodiesel model or just look like one….”
Good stuff - do you think we can turn this around before we hit the iceberg?
4 Rustle // Aug 6, 2007 at 8:39 pm
It looks like the future of biofuel production is in algae farms on arid land and would act as carbon sinks (http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/alg-all.html)
which would take care of most of the complaints raised in this article. With the new emission controls (particulate traps) required in the states it can burn cleaner than natural gas. I use my vehicle once or twice a month and burn biodiesel which I think is a workable solution.
5 Tad // Aug 10, 2007 at 12:59 pm
your “Top 5 reasons” completely miss the point and are largely misleading, if not outright falsehoods.
1) We Can’t Make Enough. A) so what? Some is better than none. And the question of “how much can we make” does not have a clearly defined answer(and we can most certainly make more than you’re presuming).
2) It destroys the land. False.. unsustainable farming destroys the land(duh). Biodiesel is simply being produced with the most available/cheapest feedstock RIGHT NOW. In the future, it will be made from algae-based feedstocks that are grown on otherwise unproductive land.
3) It encourages corporate control and genetically modified crops. - Not anymore than eating GMO corn does. Next specious argument?
4) It pollutes about as much as regular diesel and increases smog. Sure, if by “about as much” you mean significantly less. Look at your own link. “Increases smog” - It generates a SMALL (single digit percentage) increase in NOx, which *might* (but if you pay attention to research done in THIS CENTURY you’ll see that it probably doesn’t) increase the POSSIBILITY of smog, IF you’re in a smog-prone area already.
5) It doesn’t address the real problem: consumption: True statement, but still not a reason to not use it. That’s like saying you shouldn’t eat healthy food because overeating makes you fat. Please, LEARN SOME LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS.
6 Tad // Aug 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Forgot to mention: you completely ignore the fact that biodiesel generates closed-cycle carbon emissions. That in itself is the biggest pro-biodiesel argument there is.
7 ecohuman // Aug 10, 2007 at 1:11 pm
“Tad”,
did you visit any of the links in what I wrote? each of your points is convincingly answered, but I’ll summarize, again:
1. and 2. “so what”? if you’re going to devote thousands of acres to growing the fuel for a fraction of vehicles, meanwhile accelerating topsoil destruction and preventing human food being grown there, what are you doing? you’re not helping the environment–you’re trading one environmental problem for an even bigger one.
3. “Not anymore than eating GMO corn does. Next specious argument?”
So, since GMO corn is bad, we should do something even worse? what you’re saying here is by definition a specious argument.
4. “Sure, if by “about as much†you mean significantly less.”
you didn’t read the links. there are at least three there, linking to recent and significant research, which prove otherwise.
5. “True statement, but still not a reason to not use it. That’s like saying you shouldn’t eat healthy food because overeating makes you fat. Please, LEARN SOME LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS.”
and you could learn some grownup courtesy skills. are you saying that even though biodiesel doesn’t address the actual problem, we should use it anyway? even if it destroys topsoil? even if it creates food insecurity and increases poverty? even if it depletes rainforests and hogs farmland? even if we devoted all available farmland to biodiesel production and *still* could only provide a fraction of vehicles with fuel, making a negligible decrease in CO2 emissions?
all of that is addressed in the article, but I can tell you didn’t take time to read–you’re instead slinging ad hominem mud.
i hope you’ll keep visiting, and post some comments that are on-topic.
8 ecohuman // Aug 11, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Rustle,
algae isn’t the answer either.
1: it works in a test tube, but not on a massive commercial scale.
2: the process doesn’t eliminate CO2, it just adds a step between creating and (eventually) releasing it.
3: biofuels may contribute to a bigger than ever “dead zone” in teh Gulf of Mexico.
4: the claims of “10,000 gallons per acre” are basically made up, without much basis in science.
there are many more.
here’s an excellent discussion by an engineer. take the time to read it, and then i’d request some counter proof about algae:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/05/algal-biodiesel-fact-or-fiction.html
9 Tad // Aug 13, 2007 at 11:23 am
Ecohuman- Apologies if I offend, but your dissemination of misinformation/outright falshood offends *me*.
No, I’m not going to spend hours doing your research for you, that’s your job. Yes, I did read some of your links - did you? Specifically related to BD emissions, your statement:”It pollutes about as much as regular diesel and increases smog.” has little support from the links you gave(BTW there are not THREE, there are TWO). Both of them are very pro-BD, clearly state that BD use provides a reduction in all emission catagories (excepting NOx) in proportion to the blend used. Neither of them state that BD “increases smog”. What they do say is that BD use generates a small (less than 10% increase) in NOx emissions, *when used in an unmodified diesel engine designed for use with petrodiesel*. Fortunately, this increase is largely irrelevant because: a) NOx is a short-duration/short-distance pollutant - it breaks down quickly in the environment; b) NOx emissions can be reduced by optimizing the tune(injection timing) of the engine and by using exhaust aftertreatment (which will be standard on near-future models); c) NOx is only one component of smog, and the other component (HC) is not present in quantities necessary for smog formation in most areas - google the ‘weekend effect’ for more info.
As for carbon emissions, please either explain how BD use does not greatly reduce carbon emissions vs. petrodiesel(or gasoline), or concede that BD use(vs. petroleum) is in fact a good way to reduce carbon emissions(and no, I dont want to quibble about exactly how much the carbon is reduced… some is greater than none).
Your complete logical failure and/or promotion of an outright falsehood on this point tends to destroy any credibility you have on your other points.
And speaking of logical failures… your other points center around the false logical progression that since BD can be made with unsustainable practices, it must therefore be a bad idea. What about BD made from recycled oil? What about BD made from sustainably grown feedstocks? Why not make as much sustainably-produced BD as we can? You make the blanket assertion that algae will not work on a massive commercial scale, but that argument could have been made about nearly any technology when it was in it’s infancy. The technology will continue to improve.
If we’re going to survive the transition away from a petroleum-based economy, we’re going to have to exploit *every* option at our disposal, and that includes biodiesel. It DOES address “the actual problem”, and if you disagree, you need to clearly define what you believe the “actual problem” to be.
10 ecohuman // Aug 13, 2007 at 3:18 pm
“Tad”,
thanks for posting. obviously, you care a lot about proving biodiesel right. what i’m noticing is you carefully avoiding the points that matter–that we can’t make enough to make a difference, that every single way of producing large quanities of biodiesel is already causing poverty and damaging rainforests, and that it accelerates the already wholesale loss of topsoil.
these are not “false logical progressions” or “fallacies.” they’re documented facts.
if you’ve got some sources–any sources–that show that we can make enough biodiesel to make a meaningful environmental impact without causing significant environmental damage and increasing poverty, i’d gratefully read them.
until then, it sounds like you’re more intent on being inflmmatory (”get some logical reasoning skills”, “outright falsehoods”, etc.) than providing a reasoned response to all of the five points.
to address your ideas about “sustainable feedstock” and “recycled oil”–where do i begin? recycled oil *pollutes*. partial biodiesel pollutes *and* has negligible environenmental benefit. “sustainable feedstock”? did you see the point about topsoil destruction and the loss of food growing land to fuel making, and the harm its already causing?
“Tad”, mostly I hear you yelling, while dodging the big picture of how the five points interrelate and together prove the point.
11 Tad // Aug 13, 2007 at 8:07 pm
What I’m hearing from you is “we can’t do it perfectly the first time, so lets not bother”.
Yes, mass-production of biodiesel in a way that is cost-effective is detrimental to the environment… *for now*. Of course it is, that’s how our entire agribusiness system is setup! But you’re failing to see that this not a failing of biodiesel, it’s a failing of our agricultural
practices!
“Can’t make enough to make a difference”… false! any amount of difference is “a difference”. Every step is a step toward the goal, and we have no idea how productive we can be as the technology develops. Your take seems to be that we can’t make enough of a difference, and we should be putting our energy elsewhere, but IMO this is *something* that we can do *today*. What other alternative is so ready to be used *today*?
We can’t get there all at once, but a baby step is a step nonetheless.
Unfortunately, I’m beginning to smell a troll here… some of your statements are hard to fathom. Recycled oil pollutes? More than chucking it in a landfill(which is where it would go if it weren’t made into BD)?? You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that your emissions claims are flat wrong(as demonstrated by your own cites). And did you see me mention that the fact that bad farming practices are bad is irrelevent to whether biodiesel is “a bad idea”?
Please, tell me what practical alternative fuel ideas you support?
I’m not trying to be inflammatory, I’m trying to make a point(but apparentlyyou’re not listening). And I grow weary of your condescending attitude…
12 ecohuman // Aug 13, 2007 at 8:31 pm
“I’m not trying to be inflammatory…And I grow weary of your condescending attitude…”
you mean like ending your first post with “LEARN SOME LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS”?
“tell me what practical alternative fuel ideas you support?”
ones that don’t consume topsoil, increase poverty, destroy rainforests, take up food growing land and concentrate power in the hands of the few (like biofuel already is, except you must’ve skipped that part of my article.)
“Yes, mass-production of biodiesel in a way that is cost-effective is detrimental to the environment… *for now*.”
this statement of yours is our essential difference in opinion. i believe that type of stance–that we should go ahead and do things
even though they’re harmful,
even though they can have unimaginable, unforeseen consequences,
even though they’re already causing damage,
even though a wide range of scientists and leaders are saying “biofuel is not addressing the problem but instead creating new ones”–because someday, *hopefully*, “science” will solve the “problem” is what’s gotten us in trouble.
beyond that, my article (and what it links to) speaks for itself. i’m sorry you’re okay with destroying rainforests, increasing poverty, destroying topsoil, so that we can make a fractional substitute for fossil fuel–and keep right on consuming at breakneck speed.
“Unfortunately, I’m beginning to smell a troll here”
my thought exactly, “Tad”, about your comments here and the comments you make on bojack.org.
so–i’ve responded enough on this one–thank you for visiting and responding.
13 ecohuman // Aug 16, 2007 at 7:29 am
Tad, your last comment was deleted because it was off topic. ad hominem attacks (and being ironic in your decrying of personal insults) have no place here. you’re welcome to add comments that are on-topic anytime.
14 Dennis Brumm // Oct 5, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Liquid fuels from biomass are not sustainable, and a waste of a lot of our present precious time trying to find some magic potion to give us a boost to continue living as we do. We simply won’t, but how many people worldwide will we starve while we try?
15 A Bare Cupboard, A Full Tank // Dec 18, 2007 at 3:57 pm
[…] most of us will be the last to feel any significant pain from food stock problems–for now. Biodiesel for your sleek VW? C’mon, it’s […]
16 Delaying Pain // Jan 28, 2008 at 11:29 am
[…] you can’t get enough “organic material” from trash or foodstock byproduct to make even a fraction of the ever-increasing fuel needs of […]
17 Bio(fuel)Hazard // Jan 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm
[…] of whether you believe biofuels–biodiesel, ethanol, something else–will solve pollution and oil problems, the policy wheels and […]
18 Earth Day Roundup: Top 5 Ecohuman Posts // Apr 22, 2008 at 9:14 am
[…] 1: Bio(fuel) Hazard Why biofuels are one of the worst ideas ever. Here are the Top 5 Reasons. […]
Leave a Comment