Posted on Sep 25, 2007 - 1:53am by E. Phil Haley in Biodiesel
Over the last few weeks I’ve noticed that biofuels have come under fire from several fronts; even environmentalists. Personally, I think that’s a good thing ’cause its never a good idea to jump on a bandwagon before giving some critical thought to the wagon’s destination (or its origination; for that matter). I’ve also noticed, though, that the two primary biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel, are frequently lumped together with the arguments against ethanol applied equally to biodiesel by implication. And that’s a mistake.
One of the primary criticisms leveled at both ethanol and biodiesel revolves around the food vs. fuel issue. It’s true that nearly all ethanol must be produced from corn, cane or beet sugars but biodiesel can be produced from non-food sources like cooking oil or Jatropha curcas. (If you’ve never heard of Jatropha curcas you’re definitely not alone but you might want to take a look at one of my older posts: Using Wastelands for Growing Biodiesel Plantstock.)
Now, you might think that commercial trucking can hardly be fueled by cooking oil, I know I’m skeptical, but you might want to take a look at this article about a UK company known as Wiseman Dairies. The company runs 1500 trucks, logs 50 million miles a year, and is “investing £500,000 in a trial to find out whether the idea is feasible.” Hmmm…I’m still skeptical but my interest is definitely piqued.
I’m a lot less skeptical about Jatropha curcas as a biodiesel feedstock source but that’s not to say there aren’t questions about its viability as well. This article, “Jatropha: What the public should know“, raises a lot of those questions and I think you’ll find it well worth your time to read the entire article. Then, if you’ve still got a few minutes, you might want to take a look at this video interview with Russ Teal. He’s been involved in the production of biodiesel and biodiesel production equipment since the early days and, although I don’t entirely agree with the slant of this video, the interview is full of reliable, if somewhat biased, information.
RSS feed for comments on this post | Trackback URI
I must not be keeping up with the food vs fuel debate. Farmers are loving the price increase they’re getting from their crops due to increased demand from ethanol. Until this price increase, corn prices had been low for some time, and more and more farmers were getting out of corn and into more profitable.
Yep, the farmers are loving the increased prices but that’s not the whole issue. The ethanol critics employing the food vs. fuel argument claim that 1) There’s not enough farmland available to produce the amount of corn necessary to fuel the nation’s cars on ethanol; 2) Some studies show that less ethanol is produced than the fuel used to plant, harvest, distill and ship it; 3) As the price of corn increases there will be a correlated increase in the cost of pork, beef, chicken and other food products utilizing corn and corn by-products; 4) As more food is used for fuel there will be, eventually, less available for human and animal consumption creating an obvious conflict. (About 70 percent of a bushel of corn is lost to the food chain when you use it to make ethanol.) 5) Most grain exports come from crop surplus and biofuels (both ethanol and soy-based biodiesel) are depleting that surplus. This can have a profound impact on poor countries in which the inhabitants spend a far greater percentage of their income on food than those of us in industrialized nations.
Understand, I don’t necessarily buy into every one of these arguments but they’re all worth some consideration. These arguments, though, are one reason I find myself leaning toward Jatropha curcas as a biodiesel feedstock source. As I pointed out in the post, though, it’s not without its problems either. Food for critical and objective thought.
I heard on NPR that there is a more efficent crop for ethanol production, some sort of grass. I know from first hand experience that the ag department pays farmers a stipen to not farm all of their land so that the price of corn wouldn’t crash. This was back in the early 90’s so I don’t know if that’s still in effect or not.
One would think that if it costs more fuel to harvest the corn than is made in ethanol that it would it be a non-starter. Give me $5 and I’ll give you $4 back…