Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Biodiesel: it's what you make it out of

Replacing fossil fuels with biodiesel may do more harm than good

Posted by biodiversivist (Guest Contributor) at 4:07 PM on 19 Aug 2005

Read more about: biofuels | cars | hybrids | consumerism | placemaking | energy
vanI remember when real environmentalists drove smoking VW vans with bumper stickers that said stuff like, "You can't call yourself an environmentalist if you eat meat." They didn't get the best gas mileage, but hey, you could do worse. They were replaced by the forest-green Subaru Outback (Eddy Bower edition if you were really cool), seen by the dozens in any REI parking lot. These are presently being eclipsed by the ubiquitous Prius. But, there is stiff competition from the diesel Jetta replete with biodiesel stickers all over the butt end.

As we all know by now, biodiesel can be made out of a lot of things:

Soybeans: 50 gallons per acre
Rapeseed: 150 gallons per acre
Jatropha: 175 gallons per acre
Palm oil: 650 gallons per acre

To limit the impact on the planet, maybe we should start pressuring our biodiesel distributors to sell fuel made only from palm oil? According to the World Wildlife Fund, we would also need to demand that it be made out of palm oil grown only on degraded, non-forested land:

Jakarta, Indonesia - Plans to create the world's largest palm oil plantation in Kalimantan along Indonesia's mountainous border with Malaysia could have a devastating impact on the forests, wildlife, and indigenous people of Borneo, warns WWF. The proposed scheme, funded by China, is expected to cover an area of 1.8 million hectares (equivalent to about half the size of The Netherlands). Most of this mountainous region, part of the "Heart of Borneo," still holds huge tracts of forests, where threatened species such as orangutans and the Borneo bay cat live, and 14 out of the island's 20 major rivers originate from. According to WWF, new species have been discovered there at a rate of three per month over the last ten years making the area one of the richest on the globe in terms of biodiversity.

Go here for a really good soybean vs. palm oil debate. Unfortunately for President Bush and any soybean farmers who voted for him, you can't grow palm oil in the Midwest.

Forgive me my sins, but once again, I have been having impure thoughts. I jumped on the net and took an ecological footprint test, obtaining a score of 12. I took it a second time, putting zeros in for transportation issues. My score dropped to 11, indicating that I use an acre or two a year for my transportation needs.

Now, for the sake of discussion let's say I just bought a new diesel Jetta for the express purpose of burning biodiesel. Since it takes about 10 acres of soybeans to produce a year's worth of biodiesel for the average American, I would have to add 10 acres to my score, making it 21 (a 90% increase). I have never been particularly enamored of footprint tests, but it is undeniable that if you run on pure biodiesel made from soybeans you will be directly commandeering 10 fertile acres of the planet for your own personal use. These numbers imply that driving a car that runs on biodiesel made from soybeans is worse (from an ecological-footprint-test point of view) than driving a Hummer. Like I said, I don't care for these tests, but there is food for thought here.

As an aside, I pointed all this out to my next door neighbor a few weeks ago -- who, by the way, had just ordered a new diesel Jetta. It now has two biodiesel stickers on it. Man, talk about putting your foot in your mouth (sorry about that, neighbor).

I would fully expect most Jetta owners out there reading this work of blasphemy to rationalize (third definition) away my arguments, not that they would need to. I am not picking on Jettas per se. They are good quality, well-engineered, well-built, high-mileage cars with or without biodiesel. They are also one of the most popular cars in Europe.

The average American consumes about 28 pounds of food per week. We also consume about 69 pounds of (11 gallons at 6.25 pounds per gallon) of automobile fuel per week. One reason for being a vegetarian is to lower one's ecological footprint. There is something self-defeating about being a vegetarian and driving a car that uses soybean-derived biodiesel. My car would consume more soybeans than your average cow.

About 26% of our CO2 emissions come from transportation. If a quarter of the cars in America converted to biodiesel in the next decade, we could cut our CO2 emissions by 6%. Which sounds OK until you realize that if a quarter of U.S. drivers today used biodiesel made from soybeans, there would be absolutely no farmland left in North America, unless of course we bought our soybean oil from someplace else, like South America.

500 gal per year / 50 gal per acre = 10 acres

470,000,000 arable acres in US / 10 acres per car =47,000,000 cars.

47,000,000 cars can use biodiesel made from soybeans / 200,000,000 cars in US = 0.25 or 25% (a quarter of all cars in the US).

You can find support for any crazy idea on the internet. Fortunately for me, there is at least one other skeptic out there -- George Monbiot. His biggest concern is that biodiesel will raise food prices. There is plenty of food in the world today. The 800 million who go to bed hungry every night do so because they cannot afford it. Taking an optimistic view, one answer to that might be to get them out of poverty by employing them inside the huge vegetable oil industries (undoubtedly owned by the likes of BP, Shell, and Exxon) that will spring up to make biodiesel.

Three-quarters of our CO2 comes from sources other than our cars. Biodiesel, regardless of what you make it out of, can't fix that. So what is the answer then?

Uh, I have misplaced my crystal ball, but clearly it isn't making biodiesel out of soybeans.

Engineering compromises; you cannot escape them. Biodiesel is renewable and carbon neutral but consumes the surface of the planet. Cuba, short of fossil fuels, spends most of its resources staying fed using extensive organic farming. Picture Cuba also trying to grow enough biomass to give every Cuban two tons of biodiesel annually (69 pounds per week x 56 weeks per year).

Running diesel engines on vegetable oil is old technology, first demonstrated over a century ago. Most of our energy needs used to come from burning biomass in our fireplaces and steam engines. When we started running out of biomass, we began burning coal and finally oil. Biodiesel is basically a return to square one, burning biomass.

There is a perfect storm brewing here: Rising oil prices, Bush, the red-state soybean farmers, a movement for oil independence to protect us from terrorists, and worst of all, the profit motive have created a movement aligned with environmentalists in praising biodiesel. In our collective euphoria, we are ignoring the negative ramifications of making it out of the wrong stuff. I did not see any money in the energy bill to fund research on salt-water algae farms. Unfortunately, salt water algae farming is about as far along as sub-critical fission and clean coal.

Replacing the fossil fuels in the cars and trucks of the world with biodiesel has the potential to convert much of what remains of the Congo and Amazon into vegetable-oil plantations (be it palm oil or soybean or whatever). We need to do better than that. Preserving our biodiversity is more important than driving our cars. If we are going to do it, we have to do it right, sparing our biodiversity and keeping hunger at bay while we are at it.

I am counting on you biodiesel enthusiasts out there to come up with some thoughts as to what we should be making biodiesel out of and why -- hopefully something a little more productive than the "Poorly researched, poorly written. So bad, in fact, it could go directly to the "troll" file. Shame on you Grist!" kind of stuff.

Biodiesel isn't the only solution

It seems like the 800 lbs. gorilla that you failed to acknowledge was in the room, is the mitigation of CO2 emissions.  I think this issue is first and foremost on the minds of environmentally minded people, for good reason.  So while your footprint test showed a negligible effect from your transportation use, more than 30% of the CO2 emissions in the world come from transportation.  Call me crazy but if we don't address CO2 emissions sometime soon, that will have just as detrimental effect on biodiversity and the health of rainforests.

Since you cite in your piece that biodiesel is carbon neutral (which is not entirely accurate it's more like 78% fewer CO2 emissions that regular diesel according to the DOE), it seems to me that it's an option worth exploring for transportation.  Again, if the climate changes dramatically due to CO2 emissions, and most think that it will, what affect will that have on arable farm land and the cost of food.

You just can't evaluate new technologies and biofuels in a vacuum.  By that, I mean that you can't judge biodiesel as a fuel based on a model of "if everyone used biodiesel," because that's never going to happen.  Biodiesel is one option to reduce emissions, so are hybrids, so is cellulose ethanol, so is increasing CAFE standards, so is raising the gas tax, so is funding mass transit.  It's not a be-all, end-all option for our transportation needs, no one option ever will be, and it needs to be evaluated as such, the market will decide the rest anyway.

What bugs me is that you seem to ignore the positive aspects of biodiesel.  While you acknowledge the carbon neutrality, it also serves to get people thinking about energy independence, sustainability, and higher efficiency diesel vehicles.  Now, I'm generalizing, but if just 10% of the country started thinking about these issues, instead of more horsepower for their SUVs, that's a good start.  It might actually get people thinking in terms of "biodiversity vs. driving their cars" -- which is an entirely different paradigm than I see in America right now.

10% of our fuel from biodiesel isn't that far-fetched, and its impact on farmland and the cost of food shouldn't be terrible if we can start using better feed crops that soybeans.

If your primary concern is biodiversity, you absolutely must consider the effects of climate change.  And if you are concerned about climate change, you absolutely must consider the most egregious greenhouse gas emitters, motor vehicles.  Biodiesel isn't the only solution, it's no silver bullet, and we can't expect every car to run on it but that does not diminish its benefits.  

Thanks, Greenstork for the intelligent feedback

I am warming up to biodiesel. If we can find ways to make it that does not take down what is left of our biodiversity or cause more hunger, then I am all for it. You make a very good point here:

[Biodiesel] might actually get people thinking in terms of "biodiversity vs.driving their cars" -- which is an entirely different paradigm than I see in America right now."

As far as your comment:

It seems like the 800 lbs. gorilla that you failed to acknowledge was in the room, is the mitigation of CO2 emissions.

I felt that I had acknowledged it adequately as shown below but I probably should have emphasized it more:

About 26% of our CO2 emissions come from transportation. If a quarter of the cars in America converted to biodiesel in the next decade, we could cut our CO2 emissions by 6%.

Three-quarters of our CO2 comes from sources other than our cars.

Biodiesel is renewable and carbon neutral.

I also agree with your astute comment that "the market will decide the rest anyway." That is what worries me the most. The market may find biodiesel to be highly profitable.

One of your concluding comments did a nice job of summarizing what I had meant to be the gist of my post:

10% of our fuel from biodiesel isn't that far-fetched, and its impact on farmland and the cost of food shouldn't be terrible if we can start using better feed crops than soybeans.

Thanks again


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

You forgot algae.

You forgot algae bio-d.

Grown in solar cogeneration facilities it can produce many more time the biodiesel per area.  And other byprodcts of solar cogeneration are heat and cooling capacity, waste treatment, clean water, solar electricity, and other biofuels..like methane, methanol, ethanol,and  hydrogen.

This process combined with a major switch to plugin hybrids that only ocasionally burn ANY fuel could actually eliminate imported oil.  The figures DO line up, unlike the estimates of a total biodiesel transportation economy supplied by agri-chem crops.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

new

Good essay, but you write as if all Biodiesel comes from newly planted soy beans.  Biodiesel can be made from recyled restauarant fryer oil. No acreage required.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks