Upsetting the applecart #1 - carbon neutral biofuel

[thermidorthelobster]

I've seen a couple of people comment that they're happy to be carbon-neutral because they use biofuel.  It's a nice idea;  all the carbon dioxide that you burn when you use the fuel is locked away again when you grow the next generation of plants for the fuel.

However, it's also a fallacy.  Firstly, biofuel crops are produced using intensive farming methods and agricultural-scale use of fertilisers.  The tractors that are trolling up and down the fields are burning mostly diesel;  and the fertilisers are produced using highly energy-intensive production lines which rely on grid-generated electricity, which in turn comes mainly from coal-fired and oil-fired power stations in this country.

You also have to put plenty of energy into transporting and refining the fuel.  (For example, soya oil requires 3-4 times as much energy to produce as you actually get out of the fuel.)

The concensus (not that there is much of one) seems to be that biofuels, on balance, generate about 90% of the greenhouse gas loading of fossil fuels - not 0%.  (New Scientist recently had a good article on this but their website's down today - I'll post it when the site comes back up.)

In the global picture there's also the issue that the majority of biofuel crops in South America, for example, rely on bulldozing rainforest to clear the agricultural land, which releases a huge amount of CO2.  Not so relevant if you're buying vegetable oil from Sainsbury's, but it's a major factor if you look at worldwide use of biofuels.

I'm not knocking biofuels and I can see there's a real future in them.  I'm also glad to see so many people here and elsewhere trying them out.  But it's worth bearing in mind that they are not carbon-neutral.

[Terranosaurus]

This is all very true but conversely how much CO2 is produced getting fossil fuels from under ground to the pumps, my bet would be that gallon for gallon fossil fuels would produce more CO2 in their production that bio-fuels do, so whilst bio-fuels might not be carbon neutral they are at least carbon reducing - as always theres 2 ways of looking at any point.

[thermidorthelobster]

I totally agree with you.  My point was that there's a difference between carbon-neutral and carbon-reducing, like there's a difference between being a virgin and nearly-a-virgin.

[mark.yellow.series.3]

i would be impossible to have a carbon neutral car, because has to be produced in the first place. and factories use a massive amount of elecricty, and a massive amount of chemical processes and refining fossel fuels to make the plastic parts. so you will infact have a huge carbon foot print before youve even filled the tank.

i will say however, that the humble primative series LR have a small carbon foot print, due to the primative way in which they were built, and note the lack of plastic in a series LR compared to the defender/disco of today.

another carbon plus point for the series, is the avarage car has a life span of 8-10 years, so my series is over 30 years old, if i had 'a normal car', i would have bought 3 of them to my one series LR. this is a massive carbon saving in the fact that the car plant has had to make 3 less cars.

thought for the day, if every body drove series LR's, the world would be a greener place

[Eeyore]

i would be impossible to have a carbon neutral car, because has to be produced in the first place. and factories use a massive amount of elecricty, and a massive amount of chemical processes and refining fossel fuels to make the plastic parts. so you will infact have a huge carbon foot print before youve even filled the tank.

Well spotted, Mark.

As a tongue in cheek remark, my stock answer to the green arguement is that my diesel comes from animals that roamed the world and absorbed CO2, therefore, diesel is carbon neutral and all we're arguing about is the time frame!  :lol:

Not one to be tried in serious debate, I feel!

Cheers
 8)
Eeyore

[thermidorthelobster]

Here's one such article.

And this one suggests a figure of only 18-28% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by using corn ethanol.

[clbarclay]

Ethanol being worse doesn't surprise me as it has to be heated for production compared to using an SVO.


I take it its out of the question just to use less energy?

[clbarclay]

another carbon plus point for the series, is the avarage car has a life span of 8-10 years

An interesting point, but is that due to failure of the car or just a lack of demand for 10+ year old cars being the reason for most of them being scraped? After all what % of the population would want an old car if they can so easily have a newer model.

[thermidorthelobster]

I take it its out of the question just to use less energy?

Oddly enough it's apparently not as simple as that.  There's an argument that the economics of the situation are that if you save money by reducing energy expenditure, you tend to spend the money you saved on other things, for example luxury products, that consume energy in their manufacture.  It's an odd argument and I'm not sure I agree...  but it appears it's not as straightforward as it seems at first glance.

In other words, if I saved money by buying a nice little energy-efficient car, I'd probably spend the money I saved every year on a bigger telly, or a holiday abroad, etc etc, and use energy in ever more devious and abstract ways.

[thermidorthelobster]

Another vaguely interesting point:  somebody published the area of crop you needed to grow to get x amount of biofuel.  I can't remember the exact figures, but I worked out that if I wanted to plant my own crops to run the Disco on biofuel, at 25,000 miles a year I'd need 20 acres of a good efficient biofuel crop, assuming 1 crop per year (ie in UK).  That doesn't factor in the amount extra I'd need to grow to support the energy I'd need to grow the crop in the first place, etc etc.

[mark.yellow.series.3]

another carbon plus point for the series, is the avarage car has a life span of 8-10 years

An interesting point, but is that due to failure of the car or just a lack of demand for 10+ year old cars being the reason for most of them being scraped? After all what % of the population would want an old car if they can so easily have a newer model.

cars can be repaired, but whats the point when a new car is affordable.

[Biodiesel-Bev]

I think most biofuel producers would agree that biofuel is not the definitive answer, only part of the solution in helping people to reduce their CO2 emissions.  

We make biodiesel from used cooking oil; oil that has been used in restaurants etc, and if not recycled would probably go down the drain or in landfills.  We collect the oil, filter it and process it into quality biodiesel.  Using biodiesel produced from used cooking oil will give a smaller carbon footprint/CO2 emissions than quoted above.

The overal figures are, using 100% biodiesel reduces new emissions of carbon dioxide by 60-80%.

I completely agree that cutting down rain forests to plant palm is not the answer, but as fuel prices continue to rise (they sure as hell ain't going to fall much) people will look for alternative fuel sources.  So why not utilise vegetable oil such as rapeseed, soya, sunflower etc.  Many will argue that using these is using food for fuel.  There are some oil producing plants that can grow where food based plants can't.  In India, millions of hectares of wasteland are growing Jatropha which is used for the biofuel industry.  It is growing where food crops will not grow.  Jatropha also has a higher oil yield than rapeseed, it produces 1500 litres of oil per hectare compared to 1000 litres per hectare of rapeseed.  It also takes in more CO2 than rapeseed, for the energy it supplies from the oil part of it.

There are many people who do not believe the news, articles, pictures, documentaries and scientific reports about global warming, but the Government and the EU does.  The UK has to reduce its CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 50% by 2050, and as part of the Governments Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation many of the UK oil companies are already blending their fossil diesel with 5% biodiesel.  Continuing to use  fossil-diesel will not reduce CO2 emissions. The government will have to give drivers more incentive to lower their CO2 emissions by using alternative fuels, and this is already happening.

So, if biofuel isn't the answer, what is?  Using public transport is fine if you live and work in London, but try getting 30 miles to work if you live in a rural area and start work at 7am.  People will not give up their vehicles.



"The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today.  But such oils may become, in the course of time, as important as petroleum and the coal tar products of the present time"  Rudolph Diesel (1858 - 1913)


.

[Smego]

I couldn't give ahoot about my carbon footprint!

[Biodiesel-Bev]

I couldn't give ahoot about my carbon footprint!

And we wonder why 4x4 owners get bad press from the environmentalists?

[Lee_D]

I'm glad I read this - My new (to me) RR won't run on Biofuel - I feel I'm not missing out so much now and relatively less of a climate criminal than I felt before you bought this to my attention.

I've also spent the weekend driving behind a disco running on 50 - 50 diesel - veg oil and can say the stink of BBQ had me battening down the air vents on the 110

Cheers Dave!

[Biodiesel-Bev]

I've also spent the weekend driving behind a disco running on 50 - 50 diesel - veg oil and can say the stink of BBQ had me battening down the air vents on the 110

Cheers Dave!

Have to say I much prefer the smell of veg oil/biodiesel that carbon monoxide.    

[thermidorthelobster]

Given I'm worried about upsetting my somewhat finicky TD5 with anything other than 100% pure full-fat dino juice, I've taken the alternative route, which is to use the bike instead for local runs, and Abby's nice economical Rover for longer trips when I have a choice...  Might chuck some sunflower oil in at some point though and see what breaks!

[thermidorthelobster]

Have to say I much prefer the smell of veg oil/biodiesel that carbon monoxide.    :-&

<pedant>
Carbon monoxide's odourless...  and it's produced by burning veg oil just as much as fossil fuels - burning any carbon-based fuel without sufficient oxygen will produce it  
</pedant>

Please don't think I'm having a dig though - I don't have any better suggestions than biofuel at the moment and it will only get better as the technology matures.

[Biodiesel-Bev]

Have to say I much prefer the smell of veg oil/biodiesel that carbon monoxide.    :-&

<pedant>
Carbon monoxide's odourless...  and it's produced by burning veg oil just as much as fossil fuels - burning any carbon-based fuel without sufficient oxygen will produce it  
</pedant>

I was being ironic, but fair enough.  The point I was making is that the smell of veg oil/biodiesel is far less offensive than fossil diesel.  Not that I make a point of sniffing exhaust pipes, but if stuck behind a diesel I know which smells better.  

[Biodiesel-Bev]

Have to say I much prefer the smell of veg oil/biodiesel that carbon monoxide.    :-&

Please don't think I'm having a dig though - I don't have any better suggestions than biofuel at the moment and it will only get better as the technology matures.

The technology is already there.  We have hundreds of different makes, models and ages of vehicles that use our biodiesel.  Some new common rail vehicles don't like to run on 100% biodiesel, but will happily run on, say, a 50-50 or 75-25 mix.

[thermidorthelobster]

I was thinking more of the environmental benefits - ie how close to carbon-neutral it is.

[Biodiesel-Bev]

I was thinking more of the environmental benefits - ie how close to carbon-neutral it is.

Whether it will ever be carbon neutral, I don't know, but with a CO2 reduction of 60-80%, it's got to be better than fossil diesel.  As you rightly pointed out earlier, maybe technology will make it even more beneficial in reducing CO2.

[Eeyore]

So, if you're still burning a gallon every, say 28 miles, how does changing to a biofuel reduce your CO2 by 60%, unless there's a doubling of the thermal efficiency in the engine used (which isn't the case)? Burning a kilo of fuel releases X amount of CO2 regardless of how it's burnt.  :?

If you really want a flipside to the arguement, many years ago acid rain was mans worst enemy. The American world was looking for a plan to reduce that type of emmision. Now bear in mind the nitrous products from the exhuast make up a small percentage of the total e-flux.

Now, a company called Johnson Mattey explained to the US Govt and the legislators that catalytic convertors were the way forward as they convert most of the acid rain producing output to less harmfull products. It was the only solution. The fact that catalytic convertors used precious metals in which JM had a considerable stake (i.e. the own, or are agents for, most of the worlds platinum and rhodium). Their arguements seemed compelling and the legislators agreed that all new cars must have a cat fitted.

Here's the catch. Cat convertors require a lot of fuel to get up to temperature - under temperature they don't work and will be damaged, so engines had to be built that threw more fuel than necessary into the block to get hotter exhuast temperatures. But, fair do's, they do reduce acid rain causing by products.

At about the same time, most companies were throwing a lot of dollars at lean burn technology. Lean burn means lower exhuast temperatures and less fuel burnt per mile. Even back in them days the car companies could see rising oil prices. This reduces nitrous outputs in the e-flux AND reduces CO2, but the engine wouldn't be compatible with a cat convertor. Imagine a petrol Mondeo that did 70 to the gallon. That was the possibility facing the auto-industry, but in one fell swoop, JM and the legislators rendered that technology redundant. And for Ford alone it negated a billion dollars of development.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Cheers
 8)
Eeyore

[L90OOK]

Given I'm worried about upsetting my somewhat finicky TD5 with anything other than 100% pure full-fat dino juice, I've taken the alternative route, which is to use the bike instead for local runs, and Abby's nice economical Rover for longer trips when I have a choice...  Might chuck some sunflower oil in at some point though and see what breaks!

Don't do it...you were moaning about the Disco breaking all the time anyway, what with a pending new head gasket too  :roll:

P.S.  Now running the 110 on rapeseed oil...should have done it in Norway, would have had everyone craving for fish & chips  :lol:

[Terranosaurus]

It doesn't reduce the output by the vehicle by 60% but by th whole cycle it does because the CO2 was absorbed to produce the fuel in the first place, but then as was pointed out above it was for fossil fuels too, it's just that was a long time ago.

Not sure where you read that lean burn engines run cooler cylinder temperature, they don't they run hotter. Also manufacturers do not map the engines to put extra fuel in when cold to get the cat up to temp, this would kill the cat in no time at all, cats cannot tolerate unburnt fuel.

[thermidorthelobster]

So, if you're still burning a gallon every, say 28 miles, how does changing to a biofuel reduce your CO2 by 60%, unless there's a doubling of the thermal efficiency in the engine used (which isn't the case)? Burning a kilo of fuel releases X amount of CO2 regardless of how it's burnt.  :?

Yes, but in an ideal world, GROWING a kilo of biofuel locks away the same amount of CO2, so it's carbon neutral.  The point I made originally is that this unfortunately isn't the case, as you have to burn a bunch more fuel (and generate CO2 in the process) to make the kilo of biofuel.

Fossil fuels don't work in the same way, because whilst we can regrow biofuels at the rate we use them (thus locking away CO2 at the same time we're releasing it), we can't do that with fossil fuels, because it takes millions of years to create them.

I think the 60% figure is the net result of the saving made by locking away the CO2 by growing the next batch of biofuel crop, minus the extra CO2 you have to generate to produce it.

Or am I missing the point?  :?

[Eeyore]

ah, okay yes, see the point now. Thanks.

As regards the exhaust gas temp, I may have got the number wiorng, so I'll go back a review and amend the above post to suit, again, ta to Sptb for pointing it out!

However, just imagine what a better place the world would be if it wasn't for cat convertors!

So, bearing in mind the 'return on investment' for biofuels, in terms of land use, and the actual requirment for fossil fuels, where are we gonna grow all these oil producing plants, becuase looking at the numbers of gallons per acre and what have you, it doesn't add up.

Besides, one good volcano and the arguments nullified anyway!  

Cheers
 8)
Eeyore

[Wireless]

In terms of CO2 output, annual worldwide volcanic activity is balanced by annual sub-duction of tectonic plate that includes CO2 absorbed into the ocean bed.

So 'one good volcano' is irrelevant in the world, although if you live near it you might think somewhat different.

[Eeyore]

As may be so, but the immediate output is a huge imbalance caused by a sudden release of oodles of CO2 and other gaseous contaminents.

Gets back to what I was saying, my fossil fuel is carbon neutral, we're just debating the time-frame of it all.  

But  good point, none the less.

cheers
 8)
Eeyore

[thermidorthelobster]

where are we gonna grow all these oil producing plants, becuase looking at the numbers of gallons per acre and what have you, it doesn't add up.

Therein lies another problem, because in the developing world there's a lot of burning down of nice CO2-sequestering forests to clear land for biofuel agriculture.  It's not a panacea;  using less fuel in the first place still has to be the ultimate goal.  But still, it's better than dino juice.