Whats stopping China or India?

_

What I think we can do however is shift the debate away from
"OMG we have to stop paying money to Arabs"

And toward
"Reducing the carbon impacts of the fuels, and driving cars in general."

_

Even some of our most left wing congressmembers can't make this distinction.

Ironically, it takes Arnold Schwarzenegger to set things straight.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/03/bush_administra.h ...

-David Ahlport

I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.

http://www.bioenergywiki.net/index.php/Sustainability_sta ...

It's a needed conversation. Since a biofuel industry is already building itself out for major production regardless of our view of its sustainability, the green community needs to respond with a list of their expectations, basically, which is what the standards could be.


The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

How do we reconcile that homes are heated with oil and gas while the government subsidizes food fed to cars?  Nobody suggests that we heat homes with ethanol and biodiesel.  Firewood and pellet stoves are so much more efficient and lower cost.  The economics of displacing home oil and gas with efficiency and waste biomass would totally eclipse the savings of biofuels for transportation.

Either we are experiencing institutional failures bordering on anarchy or these biofuels subsidies are for purposes other than simply to reduce oil and gas imports.  

I feel like they are talking down to me with false information like I'm just an ignorant child in school.  I get the sense that the government, and their oil company handlers, do not want to reduce consumer demand for oil.  Biofuels only serve to distract us from genuine low-cost alternatives to burning oil and gas, and give us a false sense of empowerment that we do not need to import oil from the Middle East for our urban assault vehicles.

As it happens, I am currently in Jakarta, Indonesia, having come here to meet with various government officials and NGOs to learn about the nation's aspirations to develop biofuels. These include biodiesel from palm oil, coconut oil, and Jatropha curcas, as well as ethanol from cassava or from sugar cane. We have also engaged a team of local researchers to identify and measure support to the industry provided by Indonesia's central and provincial governments.

Conclusions must await the completion of that research. However, I have already learned that the situation is more complex than often described in the press.

First, it is clear that the government has big plans for expanding biofuel production. It's current plans call for annual biofuel consumption in the country to reach 5.29 million kilolitres (1.4 billion gallons) by 2010, 9.84 million kilolitres (2.6 billion gallons) by 2010, and 22.26 million kilolitres (5.9 billion gallons) by 2010. About 80% of these volumes would be in the form of biodiesel, biokerosene or pure plant oil (PPO) for electricity generation. Exports of biodiesel or crude palm oil (CPO) -- e.g., to Europe -- would be in addition.

Second, the recent stories about peatlands being exposed, and in some cases burning, in the name of palm-oil production is only half right. As explained in a recent study by the Indonesian NGO, Sawit Watch, called Promised Land:

Indonesia now has some 6 million hectares [14.8 million acres] of land under oil palm and has cleared three times as much -- some 18 million hectares [44.5 million acres] of forests -- in the name of oil palm expansion, mainly so speculators can get access to the timber. [Emphasis added.]

I was told by some experts that the peatlands are not likely to be planted to oil palm, as they would have to be drained, which would add to the cost. Rather, new plantation developers would still look to drier forested land for expansion.

Promised Land continues:

Existing regional development plans have already allotted a further 20 million hectares for oil palm plantations, mainly in Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and West Papua, and new plans are currently under discussion to establish the world's largest palm oil plantation of 1.8 million hectares in the heart of Borneo.

In an open letter, Sawit Watch (see its web page) has expressed its deep concern over the policies being adopted in the EU to promote the use and import of biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels. "Their disproportionate use is one of the new driving forces of large-scale and monoculture oil palm plantation expansion that contributes to global warming, social conflicts and rights abuses in producing countries, particularly Indonesia", it says.

Yet, interestingly enough, various people from NGOs with whom I spoke did not rule out biofuel production from palm oil entirely, or eventually. Many pointed to the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil, suggesting that adherence to its standards would go far towards reducing social conflicts and environmental damage. I am not arguing one way or another whether applying such standards would be sufficient, just observing that some people in Indonesia think it would be.

I was able today to visit one such oil palm plantation, on the island of Sumatra. The company has strived hard to provide good housing for its workers, and to help establish around a thousand small-scale growers, each producing fruit clusters on 2-hectare (5-acre) plots. It uses biomass from the kernels and husks for energy, recycles the waste water for fertilization, and practices integrated pest management (using owls to control rats, for example).

The mere fact that the plantation was created -- carved out of native forest -- is plain for all to see. It has preserved a 100-metre-wide easement of native vegetation on each side of a river that runs through the plantation, but of course that strip is just a remnant of what existed before. (How long before, I was not able to establish: much of Sumatra was already cleared for plantation agriculture before the current biofuels boom.)

Meanwhile, there are people in the government who are advising a cautious approach to large-scale biofuel production, while at the same time trying to encourage the small-scale production of biofuels (especially from coconuts) as energy sources for villages, especially villages on Indonesia's numerous small islands, which currently incur high distribution costs on purchases of petroleum fuels. There are also plans to increase the supply of biokerosene.

What will come to pass, I cannot say. But clearly the biofuels boom could have major implications -- economic, social, environmental -- for Indonesia (and its neighbor, Malaysia), on a par with or greater than what we are witnessing in the United States.

These are only my personal opinions.

Eric,

1. Making biofuels from waste
   
2. Making biofuels from food crops
   
3. Making biofuels by growing plants on unarable land (land not suited for growing food) and without destroying intact ecosystems and carbon sinks.

The successful implementation of those items rests on research. Any scheme to grow biofuel plants on land that could grow food or land that is presently an intact ecosystem or carbon sink is by definition non-sustainable. Ergo, boycotting biofuels made from food crops both creates and enforces biofuel sustainability. We should be calling for a boycott of those fuels, not for fuzzy and unenforceable sustainability standards. How can you stop a farmer from selling whatever plants he grew on farmland he legally owns to a fuel producer instead of a food producer? Specifying that X number of trees can be carefully extracted from X number of acres every X years is not the same as replacing ecosystems with palm plantations. Enforcement is always the weak link in any case, no matter how many rules you make. If sustainability of forest products works, then why have we just opened up Canada's forests for more harvesting? In theory, if sustainable standards work, we would never have to open up more forests.

It has been predicted that in the next 50 years, with or without global warming:

There will be about 3 billion more people.
About half of all species will be extinct.
The last ocean fisheries will have collapsed.

Which of the following American activities will usurp more arable land?

Eating meat.
Putting corn or soy based biofuel in your car.

A vegan who burns B-100 made from soybeans usurps about 50 times more arable land for his fuel than an omnivore would for his beef. Think about the destructiveness of this whole concept. The FAO report on the long shadow of livestock pales in comparison to the destructive potential of biofuels.

I submit that continued pursuit of fuzzy sustainability standards will provide those who are still on the fence an incentive to continue to accept the rapid usurpation of farmland and the destruction of ecosystem carbon sinks by biofuel crops in hopes that bureaucracies will save the day. I submit that the continued rejection of boycotts will allow the present fire to grow into an inferno.

Ron,

I am familiar with all of those talking points. You have to ask why the bogs are being drained and burned, what will happen to the forests once the wood is extracted.

The company has strived hard to provide good housing for its workers, and to help establish around a thousand small-scale growers, each producing fruit clusters on 2-hectare (5-acre) plots. It uses biomass from the kernels and husks for energy, recycles the waste water for fertilization, and practices integrated pest management (using owls to control rats, for example).

The mere fact that the plantation was created -- carved out of native forest -- is plain for all to see.

When you replace a rainforest with a palm oil plantation, does it matter how well run it is? Will those pathetic strips of forest along the river be there ten years from now when they will be worth millions? Villagers always could make their own biodiesel or even make stills to produce ethanol. What is stopping them? This technology is a century old.

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

I was certainly acknowledging the problem of the scale effect in the sentence you quote from my previous posting: "The mere fact that the plantation was created -- carved out of native forest -- is plain for all to see." In other words, improving the environmental performance of a plantation is all well and good, but it still begs the question of what biodiversity it replaced.

Nonetheless, we need to show some sensitivity to the views of people in developing countries, who themselves are quick to cry hypocrisy when people in the North (who are still plowing up prairies, draining peatlands for farming or energy production, and knocking down forests for urban development and roads) demand that tropical countries never clear another acre of existing forest. Many people in Indonesia see the expansion of palm oil as a way to boost rural employment and incomes. It is certainly possible that the decision-makers are too focused on palm oil to look for opportunities for other economic activities that might be more sustainable. But let us also not forget what could be the main driving force for production of palm oil in the future: subsidized demand for biodiesel in the North, or for plant oil to replace that which Europe and North America divert into domestically produced biodiesel.

I agree with your remarks concerning certification. Certification to sustainability standards may help in making particular (existing) plantations more socially responsible and reduce certain local environmental impacts. But as I have argued in other posts, and certainly on the lecture circuit, certification of biofuels is otherwise not of much more use than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Certification of products of organic agriculture, or sustainably harvested marine fish, expands the share of pie (food) of a more or less fixed size -- that is produced with low environmental impact. Certifying crop-based biofuels, by contrast, influences where the production for that particular use takes place, and practices used on that land. But it will have little effect on the overall pressure of agriculture on natural areas -- the size of the pie -- except by raising costs and perhaps drawing attention to the magnitude of the problem.

These are only my personal opinions.

Luxury crops are not new.

I mean, to put it simply, was Fidel smoking a cigar when he complained about crops going up in smoke?

Are we ready to make tobacco planting, or wine grapes, or all the calories going into distilled spirits, the same sort of environmental issue?

I hope no one here enjoyed their yuppie vodkas last night, only to disdain ethanol displacing food this morning ;-)

So sure, let's keep an eye on the food versus fuel issues, but let's not let ourselves off the hook - in a "costco good" (because we shop there), "walmart bad" (because they shop there), double standard.

From Odo,

"...let's not let ourselves off the hook"

From Ron,

"Nonetheless, we need to show some sensitivity to the views of people in developing countries, who themselves are quick to cry hypocrisy when people in the North ...demand that tropical countries never clear another acre of existing forest."

Guys, I'm not sure how asking rich Westerners to stop feeding food based biofuels to their cars  can be defined as hypocrisy. Analogously, you could say that calls to stop using mahogany, shark fins, tiger furs, ivory, or even heroin, could be called hypocrisy because in all cases, our consumption of those things are creating livelihoods for poor people somewhere. The poor need livelihoods that won't consume what remains of the planet's biodiversity. It isn't an either/or situation. Both goals (poverty reduction and biodiversity preservation) must be met simultaneously. Converting biodiversity into fuel is an unacceptable solution.

If Indonesia's economy were to light off like China's and start to generate wealth via manufacturing instead of scraping the living carpet off the surface of the planet and selling it to rich Westerners, you would still need to protect remaining biodiversity because rich people will still turn it into vacation property and profit. Poor people, given the opportunity, will become rich people. It's human nature. The urge to seek status never satiates.

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

I think again, we are going for the extremes, while granting ourselves out ... soda pop?

There are analogies much closer to home.

I am not suggesting that development in developing countries is an either-or proposition. I agree that the ideal is to reduce poverty and preserve biodiversity simultaneously. But, working in an international sphere, I am perhaps overly attuned to sanctimonious condemnation of developing-country activities affecting land that really does often reek of hypocrisy.

Europe, in particular, desperately could benefit from allowing more land to revert back to nature, especially in riparian zones. And some countries (like the Netherlands) have set aside funds to purchase land for just that purpose. But other countries insist on maintaining generous farm subsidies in general and support for biofuels in particular. These subsidies in turn drive up the price of land, thereby reducing the pace at which Environment Ministries can purchase land for nature. I have then heard these same defenders of crop subsidies express outrage and horror at the notion that countries such as Brazil might expand their agricultural output if European countries were to produce less.

Granted, one probably gets more biodiversity for the buck by preserving land in a country like Brazil than trying to recreate nature in a European country. But if that is the argument then perhaps northern countries could provide some additional funds to the South to help pay for the cost of setting aside (and enforcing) the vast tracks that they are asking those countries to maintain in pristine condition.

You say, "Guys, I'm not sure how asking rich Westerners to stop feeding food-based biofuels to their cars can be defined as hypocrisy." Did anybody say that? I don't see that suggestion anywhere. Of course it is not hypocrisy, it is a principled stance.

But then you add, "Analogously, you could say that calls to stop using mahogany, shark fins, tiger furs, ivory, or even heroin, could be called hypocrisy because in all cases, our consumption of those things are creating livelihoods for poor people somewhere." No.

What I was saying was that we have to confront the fact that northern subsidies for biofuels create a powerful and hard-to-resist market opportunity for tropical countries. It is hypocrisy if we then tell tropical countries that they should resist pursuing that market while we plow up our own prairies, expose our own peatlands (such as those being farmed just north of the Everglades), and mine our soils to grow corn -- all for the sake of producing home-grown fuels.

These are only my personal opinions.

Actually, China's manufacturing behemoth has swallowed plenty of prime farmland -- and now the country has to import titanic amounts of soy from Brazil, where (as you well know) they're busily clearing rainforest for soy. Our appetite for cheap stuff from China may be as damaging to carbon sinks as European demand for biodiesel.

Victual Reality

Although, I'm not exactly sure who we is. I don't condone plowing up prairies or peatlands anywhere. I don't blame them at all for converting rainforests into farms to feed our cars.

I'm blaming us, not them. I'm blaming us for creating a market for that fuel and for not finding better ways to reduce poverty without converting the carbon sinks.

Tom,

"Our appetite for cheap stuff from China may be as damaging to carbon sinks as European demand for biodiesel."

Good point. My point is that there are other ways to reduce poverty than by converting nearby ecosystem carbon sinks into monocrops.

Also, factories are far less land intensive than biofuel agriculture. I think you would agree that considering how fast the world is losing arable land, the last thing we need is to convert more of it to fuel farms to feed cars.


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

I already answered that question.

"We all know that there is no next generation of fuel, standing at the ready to run society beyond the current "biofuel bridge."

Not true. We have hundreds of years in coal reserves. We are also not out of oil. We all know that converting coal to liquid is CO2 intensive, expensive, and the mining of coal is destructive. Those are called the downsides. With continued wind, solar, and electrification of infrastructure, we can probably do without a next generation of liquid fuel.

The destruction of carbon sinks, an increase in food prices, exacerbating the extinction event are the downsides of using food crops. Pick your poison.

We should fund research like our lives depend on it. Algae or cellulosic, if it can be made viable are two potentials among many. URGE2 is one alternative among many, like doubling or tripling average mileage.

Liquid fuels are handy for cars but most CO2 is from power generation. Burning biomass directly to power stations or centralized heating systems to heat homes would be far more efficient than turning plants into liquid fuels and then burning them in cars.

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

Think about it, Eric

1. If the goal of stopping global warming is to stop the destruction of the planet's ecosystems, then how smart is it to destroy the planet's ecosystems and carbon sinks to stop global warming?

2. It is a related rates problem. How fast are biofuels alleviating global warming verses how fast are they directly destroying the biosphere. Answer, the present rate of destruction being wrought by biofuel production is far, far greater than the rate of global warming alleviation and that will be so for many decades to come if allowed to continue.  

They also are not going to switch over to biofuels any time soon. Also, if most people drove cars that average over fifty  miles to the gallon, as mine does, our consumption would drop by half, and my car isn't electric. It isn't even a plug-in. It holds five people, has four doors, a hatch back, and a big trunk. Just 500,000 of these cars save more gas annually than all the ethanol produced in America, land of 250,000,000 cars. There is tremendous potential to be gained in efficiency to buy time until more environmentally benign biofuel technologies come on line.

"and it is not a good solution to keep using oil to power transportation..."

Way too simplistic. Again, it is a rate problem, also good is a relative and poorly defined term. Using oil in highly efficient cars would be better than using option 2 to make biofuels:

1. Making biofuels from waste

2. Making biofuels from food crops

3. Making biofuels by growing plants on unarable land (land not suited for growing food) and without destroying intact ecosystems and carbon sinks.

"and it is not a good solution to keep using... coal to make electricity until then."

The problem isn't that simple, coal=evil, biofuels=good. Few would argue that making biofuels from babies would be better than using oil or coal, to make an extreme example that would be hard to argue with.

Making liquid fuels from coal would be bad, but not worse than how we are making biofuels. 20% of global warming comes from destruction of carbon sinks. And, as I said before, stuffing switchgrass bales of hay directly into a coal power plant would save all the energy wasted converting it to a liquid fuel to burn in a brutally inefficient combustion engine. So if you want to reduce CO2, you get the most bang for the buck making electricity by burning biomass directly. This is just one example of a more environmentally benign way to extract energy from biomass than making liquid fuels from food crops.

Much of this post is a repeat of the previous, a sure sign that this discussion has become circular.

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

Conversion makes it affordable even with our bush wrecked, debt ridden economy.

Oil enough for decades exists with that average fuel economy.  And land saved from the eco-disaster of chemical agribizz fuel farming by this plan would more than absorb those much smaller GHG emissions.

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

So anyhow, if biofuels are coming, why stick head in sand and rail against it? Why not work to ensure they're governed by standards? Not rainforest grown. Not from marginal lands. Not from whatever.

It just makes little sense, movement wise, to advocate against something that's inevitable, and offer an alternative that most americans can't afford or don't want.

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

I drive a diesel car that uses biodiesel...

Well now, that may help explain your reluctance to support a boycott of soy based biodiesel. The idea that I would have to start burning regular diesel in a car I purchased to save the planet with wouldn't sit well with me either. I'm still stinging from the study that suggests a Jetta Wagon uses 40% less dust to dust energy than a Prius (2.01/2.87).

I strongly suspect that you were aware of the downsides of your choice of car and fuel before you bought it.

I will assume that your fuel is soy based because you didn't say otherwise. I will also assume you are using B-99. Based on those assumptions, your car is not carbon neutral. It puts 28 to 60 pounds (depending on which study you choose to believe) of carbon into the air for every 100 pounds a diesel car would put in the air on a life cycle basis. Your car is also polluting the crap out of the air compared to a modern gasoline car that actually has air pollution controls on it. The Texas air pollution authority is actually trying to ban just the 20% blend of biodiesel, which is barely carbon neutral, if at all.

The biggest fly in the soy biodiesel ointment is that the average American would increase their ecological footprint score (the highest in the world) from about 24 acres to 39 if they started burning B-99 made from soy. That leaves you with the standard argument. Burning corn ethanol or soy or palm biodiesel is a bridge to better things. I have put up plenty of posts arguing otherwise.

...until there's a better carbon neutral alternative.

At what point will you decide that a better alternative has arrived? Have you run the numbers yet? Every drop of soy oil removed from the futures market and put into your gas tank is being replaced by another vegetable oil grown somewhere else in the world. The Amazon lost over 4000 square miles of precious ecosystem carbon sinks in just the last four years to soybeans. How much CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere by the slashing and burning of that forest carbon sink?

So anyhow, if biofuels are coming, why stick head in sand and rail against it?

A biodiesel enthusiast first presented that argument to me over a year ago when I put up my first post on this topic. Since then, every single one of his arguments has fallen by the wayside. So, I just might not be the one with his head stuck in a warm dark place.

To your point that "They also are not going to switch over to biofuels any time soon", well, yes they are. With millions of gallons of ethanol and biodiesel already in the pipeline, yes they are. It's already getting mixed in to gas cars, diesel cars, added to home heating oil...and there's nothing to convert. Americans won't have to buy a special car to use the stuff, and if it's coming, well, it's coming.

That's a pretty fatalistic, not to mention simplistic viewpoint. I am well aware that we have been blending biofuels into our fuel supply. However, for higher blends of ethanol, you do need to buy a special car. I would also suggest that a hybrid car is no longer any more of a specialty car than a turbo diesel, assuming you live in a state that will allow you to buy a new smoker (Volkswagen isn't even selling Jettas in the US this year).

It just makes little sense, movement wise, to advocate against something that's inevitable, and offer an alternative that most americans can't afford or don't want

By inevitable you mean using biofuels. I'm not railing against biofuels. I'm advocating we put a stop to the ecologically destructive forms of it that  convert this into soot in my city.

I am assuming that this "alternative that most Americans can't afford or don't want" you refer to is hybrid technology. Look around. How many Americans are opting for a smoking, growling diesel car? A Jetta in the future with a turbo charger, soot trap, blue tech technology and other assorted pollution controls running on clean diesel isn't going to be exactly cheap.

Electric cars and plugins are not ready to take america by storm.

That is a strawman that I addressed already. But, I will address it one more time:

... if most people drove cars that average over fifty miles to the gallon, as mine does, our consumption would drop by half, and my car isn't electric. It isn't even a plug-in. It holds five people, has four doors, a hatch back, and a big trunk. Just 500,000 of these cars save more gas annually than all the ethanol produced in America, land of 250,000,000 cars.

Hybrid cars are taking America by storm especially when you compare them to biodiesel-powered cars. I bet I see (or smell) about one biodiesel-powered car for every forty Priuses here in Seattle.

Why not work to ensure they're governed by standards?

I answered that twice already.


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

Actually, to be fair to Erik, I was always under the impression that much of his BioD ... er, I mean BioDiesel ... that he purchases is made from recycled cooking oil. But I'll leave that to him to confirm.

I know I must sound like a broken record, but the main issue here is subsidies and mandates. Setting aside biodiesel's downsides, the fuel would more naturally look like a "bridge" technology if it had to compete in the market like anything else. Then when something better came along, the transition to that would occur relatively smoothly.

But the playing field is not level. Biodiesel is favored by hefty subsidies, and benefits from the general Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandates that America use at least 7.5 billion gallons of so-called renewable fuels (ethanol and biodiesel) a year by 2012.

Moreover, the federal subsidy for biodiesel made from virgin vegetable oils or tallow ($1.00/ gallon) is double that for diesel made from recycled cooking oil ($0.50/gallon).

The problem with such subsidies is not only that they distort the market in the short term; they also get built into the decisions of market agents that have long-term implications. Thus with each passing year and new biodiesel plant built, the government will find it harder and harder to abandon its policy, lest it render obsolete a large amount of dedicated investment.

The first vital step, then, is to challenge efforts to extend the federal tax credit for biodiesel, which at the moment is set to expire at the end of 2008. Your call for a consumer boycott of food-based biodiesel may help draw attention to the problem, but keep your eye on the end game. If Senator Blanche Lincoln's (D-AR) and Norm Coleman's (R-MN) bill to extend the biodiesel tax incentive to 2017 becomes law, any further grumbling about biodiesel will be as effective as spitting into the wind.

These are only my personal opinions.

I was just in a meeting where they were suggesting

1. For state car purchases to take into account the cost of the fuel, and impacts of the pollution into the cost of buying the car.

2. All biofuel cars bought, would need to be fueled by biofuel. MANDATED.

_

Me I was able to convince our group that while part 1 makes for a killer idea.

Part 2 is just a tax burden.

And in general, how in the world would you be certain they are even filling up on biofuels?
What kind of enforcement oversight cost would that be? Not to mention, the infrastructure to build ethanol pumps, and supply chains.

_

But yeah, I still think Clean Diesel cars are a step forward.
As well as CNG
Electric
Hybrid
Mild Hybrid
Etc

But the point being,
BioFuels should be limited to retroactive use with OLD cars.

Making new cars with the explicit intenion of using biofuels is just a waste.  They could just have easily spent that money on a car that gets better mileage, and had a larger impact on reducing emmisions.

And furthermore, you can be certain they will fill up with whatever gets the lower carbon emmisions, since thats the only stuff it runs on.

(For instance CNG, Diesel, or Electric)

-David Ahlport

If Northeast Biodiesel fails to launch (fundraising has been a real bear, and banks are very unhelpful), I'll definitely reevaluate my car situation. Maybe at that point I'll have saved enough that I could  actually afford a hybrid. But I'd rather a largely carbon-neutral waste-fuel-powered rig.

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-06-10-diesel-vs- ...
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/sedans/0409_toyota_p ...

Cheaper too.

_

That said, model 3 Prius out in 2008/2009, that will sport something like 94mpg


-David Ahlport

GreyFlcn,

How aware is that group of the environmental downsides of biofuels made from food crops? You might want to turn them on to this site: http://www.biodieselrealitycheck.com. They are making policy without enough data. They need to see the pros and cons. They won't lose their jobs or go to jail just because they might create policy that paves a road to hell, like destroying biodiversity and carbon sinks. How bizarre that we are creating a whole new demand for a natural resource when the planet's web of life is already being destroyed by excessive extraction of natural resources, like lumber and you name it.

Erik,

I wish Northeastbiodiesel luck. The world is so complex. I have to wonder how much waste grease is available. Also, if that grease was being recycled for other products, will those producers now be forced to use virgin oils? Fungible:  http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fungible

We have a large refiner coming on line near Seattle. They plan to use palm oil to remain fiscally solvent. I have warned that they will start to advertise that they use a mix of oils that include recycled oils to appease environmentalists but that they will hide the percentages of the mixes under the auspice that they vary. For example, they may use 99.9 percent palm oil and only .1 percent recycled for PR purposes. Do you have any way of verifying what percent of your source is virgin oil?


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

That mileage estimate for a 98 TDI is pretty low: the worst mileage I can manage is 47 mpg. Average is more like 50.

Sure, there's always another use for yellow grease. But ought we make a premium fuel with it or cat food?

Northeast Biodiesel has a long term feedstock agreement in place, 100% recycled.

I hear you though about fuzzy math with some of these megacorporations, re: how much of their feedstock is virgin or worse, palm oil, vs recycled. At least the company I currently buy from has documentation, though, that it's 50% recycled.

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more