digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at gas2.org

Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0: 22 Biodiesel Myths Dispelled

gas2.org — Most of us are at least vaguely familiar with biodiesel, but how much do we really know? While biodiesel is easily the most popular alternative fuel available, it ’s commonly misunderstood or misrepresented by inaccurate information.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sustainablogger, on 04/11/2008, -5/+29This is a fantastic resource... there's still going to be controversy surrounding biofuels, but this goes a long way towards answering the biggest questions. Nicely done...
    • Spuy767, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5Unfortunately, the author shows that the fails to do very good research when he declares that OEM stands for Original Engine Manufacturer.
      • MacEnvy, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2He got the terminology wrong but he got the concept right. Half points for that, at least.
    • DinosWillDie13, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Also there is more to be said about managing the freezing problem of biofuels. Anyone interested in converting can head to http://www.greasenotgas.com

      There is an entire how to section. It also shows how to adjust the engine coolant line to run along side the fuel line to keep the biodiesel above freezing temperatures as it heads to the engine.
    • PDAIsAOk, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2Biodiesel is actually a better alternative than ethanol. You can convert many things to biodiesel, and depending on the catalyst and conversion used you can end up with a very clean fuel. In some cases the biodiesel is as clear as water and can actually be food grade (you could drink some and it wouldnt kill you, but not all that great either). My dad started a company called Syntroleum about 25 years ago that converts natural gas, coal, etc. to synthetic fuels. It looks like water, and has next to zero particulates in the exhaust. This is actually better for engines (no more black smoke from big rigs). Fewer particulates mean its better to be used for jet fuel as well (enemy will have a harder time locking onto the heat signature)
      • brufleth, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1"Fewer particulates mean its better to be used for jet fuel as well (enemy will have a harder time locking onto the heat signature)"
        No. Wrong.
      • clubby, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1"Particulates" are not what makes burning fuel hot. The "burning" is what makes burning fuel hot.
    • Aceanuu, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Hmm... this acticle is basically spot on, unlike most "mythbusting" articles on this topic. I work for a biofuels company, Biofuels Power Corporation ( biofuelspower.com ). We operate the first biodiesel powerplant in the United States and now we also have another plant that has a Frame 5 turbine producing power to the grid by burning biodiesel that we produce at a refinery nearby. Check out the website... but we just went live not long ago, so the details on the page are mostly in the "Press Release" section.
    • bustamj, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2Overall a good article, but several of these are wrong/misleading (I recently worked for one of the major diesel engine manufacturers, and currently do research in biofuels):

      MYTH #6: Biodiesel will wreck your engine.
      The concern is not short term damage, it is long term. Diesel has slightly different fuel characteristics than biodiesel, and diesel engines are optimized for diesel fuel. Over time, this difference can cut the life of the engine in half (unless it's optimized for biodiesel).

      MYTH #7: Biodiesel will cause a noticeable power decrease.
      “As an FYI, biodiesel has the highest BTU (energy) content of any alternative fuel (falling somewhere between diesel #1 and #2)”. I agree that the power won’t decrease overall, but this statement is wrong. Hydrogen has a far higher energy content (LHV of 120MJ/kg). Biodiesel has a higher energy content than ethanol, but that is only one of many possible alternative fuels.

      MYTH #16: Biodiesel causes deforestation.
      “What’s true there is not true in the United States.” (In reference to deforestation in Brazil and elsewhere) In a global economy, this doesn’t make any sense. If you create demand for biodiesel in the United States, the supply will come from somewhere; currently it’s cheaper to increase supply by deforestation than it is to increase it locally.

      MYTH #19: Biodiesel exhaust produces more harmful emissions than diesel.
      There are two major pollutants that concern engine designers: NOx and particulates (all others are at levels considered insignificant). Saying that “all major pollutants are reduced dramatically, except one” is extremely misleading. You decrease one, but increase the other.
      • konspence, on 04/11/2008, -0/+17> Good point. I guess the author is just talking about fuels that we can actually use TODAY. We really have nothing to run on hydrogen.
        16> A large point for biodiesel is that it's local. Living in Washington, I can go fuel up at Propel Biodiesel, which gets a lot of their fuel from Imperium Renewables, a Seattle company, which makes their fuel from Canola grown in Washington. While this is not always achieved, it is the fundamental driving force for biodiesel. Most of the oil you see it made out of is domestically grown, or even recycled.
        19> The claim that biodiesel increases NOx has been widely disputed, and many tests show that it still reduces the emissions of NOx. On any level, NOx is something that is easily regulated by catalytic converters.
    • konspence, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2#13 is unfortunately wrong.

      I just paid 4.999 for 100% biodiesel. It's easy to rationalize with a car that gets 45 mpg, since you're getting double the fuel economy of most cars, so it's the same as paying 2.50 a gallon.

      But 4.999 is hard for many people to see.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 04/11/2008, -18/+7This is not a myth. Biodiesel is only a stop gap measure and doesn't address the increase in man-made greenhouse gas emissions. We are in desperate need of non-burning, non-CO2 emission energy, but don't think that the only alternative is nuclear, because it is not the only alternative. There are ways to produce enough hydrogen via solar/wind energy complex that can satisfy our energy needs.
    • rootneg2, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7True to a certain extent (namely for electrical power generation plants) but internal combustion engines aren't going anywhere soon.

      All-electric cars have plenty of their own problems: batteries contain harmful heavy-metals and other substances, are expensive, and do no nearly approach the energy density of combustible fuel (in terms of joules/kg). The last point especially is a major stumbling block for a vehicle (which needs to transport the mass of it's fuel using said fuel); and so focusing on cleaner burning fuels is something that we *do* need to do, since the basic problem of "moving ***** from A to B" will always exist, and we will be using self-powered vehicles to do that for quite some time to come. Centrally powered track-based transport can alleviate some of this need, but it has limited locational flexibility, and high infrastructure overhead.
      • Zera, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1Nope, Hydrogen powered cars are "all electric" because electrolysis is where Hydrogen will come from, and these cars have no problems, and NO batteries.

        Internal Combustion engines will only be around as long as the government is subsidizing oil, and stiff-arming nuclear power. If our government was competent and would just stop ***** everything up we'd all be driving Hydrogen cars already.
        • MacEnvy, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4Except that the hydrogen is produced by using (a lot) of electricity from the power grid, which is largely fueled by coal. If we go all nuclear (and properly contain/utilze the waste) or renewable then hydrogen is okay, though still very inefficient compared to advanced supercapacitors or other alternative storage methods.

          Internal combustion engines are certainly backed by large subsidies to fossil fuel extractors/processors, but perhaps more importantly they are entrenched in American culture. I'll admit it - though I proclaim myself "green" in many ways, I own a Mustang GT that sucks fuel and does poorly on emissions tests. However, I love to hear that V8 purr. Until we change the car culture in this country we'll still have a lot of people who want that traditional internal combustion feel in their vehicles.

          Do we need to cut back on petroleum use? Absolutely, and as oil becomes more scarce we will. But the issue is much more complex than simply "big oil is causing all of our environmental problems".
        • Fordi, on 04/11/2008, -1/+81) Electrolysis is < 50% efficient
          2) Hydrogen fuel cells are < 50% efficient
          3) You may imagine that your hydrogen comes from electrolysis, but more commonly, it comes from cracking of light petroleum - very high CO2 production
          4) Given the choice between overall 20% efficient electrolyzed hydrogen to electricity to torque and overall 80% efficient mainline to battery to torque, which do you think is worth your money?
        • Zera, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1I'm talking about the future. Nuclear and Wind to power Electrolysis........ Duh, It's insane we're still using Coal at all.

          "Until we change the car culture in this country we'll still have a lot of people who want that traditional internal combustion feel in their vehicles."

          Car culture doesn't have to change. If you like cars, you'll like Hydrogen cars.... BMW built one that did a 0 to 60 faster than every internal combustion in it's class. Let's face it, we Americans like new technology. The old stick in the muds can keep their collector cars.

          Your efficiency percentages are wrong.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Alte ...

          But remember, in a competent future world, we would have plenty of Nuclear Power, and Wind Farms, (hopefully fusion as well) and the HUGE advantage over Electric stored in batteries is that hydrogen vehicles have no limits on range.
          • Fordi, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1"Your efficiency percentages are wrong...."

            Or, more accurately, slightly off. 0.7*0.9 (hydrogen production) is still 0.63 (near 50%), and production * consumption (0.63*0.4) is still around 0.25. I like to keep the numbers simple for the community; the comparisons are still accurate, as I underrounded both technologies to a roughly equal degree.

      • rootneg2, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I am considering a hydrogen fuel cell as nothing more than a fancy "battery".

        While it's true that perhaps they don't necessarily have the problem of toxic metals (which, not all conventional batteries do either; but this is the least of the issues), the problems of cost and energy density are no different than "conventional" batteries
        • Zera, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Not at all, hydrogen vehicles have no distance limit, batteries have to stop and be recharged ever 6-8 hours of driving (max) plus, those batteries are VERY VERY heavy, and tremendously inefficient to have to carry everywhere you go. Also, by all means give me one type of battery technology that can be abandoned and not hurt the environment, because lets face it, most cars sit in junkyards for decades after they're discarded. The last thing people want to do is pay alot of dispose of their 20 year old electric car's 600 pounds of batteries.
          • rootneg2, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1"hydrogen vehicles have no distance limit"

            right....
    • madfrogurt, on 04/11/2008, -1/+13I like the way the author put it: don't let perfect become the enemy of good. Unless we're ready to switch over to hydrogen tomorrow, we need some intermediate way of prolonging our oil reserves. I see biofuel as a tool like hybrid cars: it isn't sustainable in and of itself but it does help buy us time to develop and perfect other fuel sources.
      • Zera, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1But the effort in your examples is completely wasted..... The amount of greenhouse gas saved by ALL Hybrid cars COMBINED for a YEAR = 6 minutes of US based Coal power plant emissions. So ALL that effort, ALL that money, saved us 6 minutes of pollution? Yay....

        We COULD be ready for Hydrogen tomorrow if our government wasn't subsidizing oil so heavily.
        • Rendonsmug, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2So? Its not like Hydrogen is the second coming. I personally see biodeisle becoming fairly big, at least until we get everything worked out.

          Now how about powering our cars with mini-nuclear reactors? Thats where its at.
          • Zera, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1What are you talking about? Hydrogen powered cars ARE the answer, and will be used on this planet for as long as we humans are here. The hydrogen used will be created from electrolysis, which is powered by Nuclear and Wind, and we aren't ever going to run out of Wind, and we know we have at least 5,000 years of Uranium on this planet.
        • madfrogurt, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1I'm more concerned about depleting oil reserves than about polution. Yes, it is an added bonus but the key idea here is that the largest consumer of refined petroleum in the world is reducing the amount it uses.
          • Zera, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight..... Hydrogen fuel cells don't use ANY oil reserves.... what did you think I was talking about?
          • Zera, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Just remembered your original comment... well even if you aren't concerned about pollution, hydrogen is still the ultimate solution, even if it is far better for the environment.
  • claybodie, on 04/11/2008, -2/+29Biodiesel tends to be lumped into the broader 'biofuels' category which has gotten a lot of bad press lately (for good reason). This post tries to address those issues and also the practical issues about using biodiesel, by putting all the answers in one place. Whatever your stance on the issue, I think it has something to offer...
  • Overmind12812, on 04/11/2008, -2/+6I really like the prospect of a viable way to actually produce biodiesel; because as a fuel it works wonderfully, it's just the techniques used to produce it need a little refining.
    • Fordi, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Well, it's "easy" to make at home (that is, easier than making an authentic Twinkie at home).
  • lowerfootprint, on 04/11/2008, -1/+8"...a little refining." - Nice pun. ;)
  • askuja, on 04/11/2008, -4/+6This is very informative critical analysis of an important issue. Well done.
    • MacEnvy, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2That was a very uninformative non-critical analysis of an important issue. Poorly done.
    • 007brendan, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Well, informative, but definitely biased, and only partially critical.
  • airiox, on 04/11/2008, -20/+4FACT: Biodiesel does cause Deforestation, Jean Michel Cousteau told me so.
    FACT: Biodiesel and Ethanol cause every single food item you buy in a grocery store to rise in price.
    FACT: Biodiesel is not the answer and never will be. (Well, unless you want to cut down the Amazon Rain forest, they could grow enough for the entire USA. But socialist and global alarmists[warmers] don't like such things. That and it would make Brazil one of the richest countries in the entire world and western elites can't have that.)
    • Fordi, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2You're either stupid, or simply not funny.
    • MacEnvy, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4You seem to be confusing biodiesel with ethanol (which is what Brazil uses). Good job not reading the article before commenting. This was addressed.
  • dsmx, on 04/11/2008, -1/+18Here's the only fact worth mentioning in regards to diesel engines:
    Diesel engines run on almost any kind of oil, the original diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil however due to the fact oil was cheaper to produce they used that instead. I wasn't the least bit surprised when on mythbusters they "discovered" that there diesel car would run equally well on filtered used chip oil.
    • konspence, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Not modern diesels, which is why you don't just throw veggie oil into the engine. The fuel delivery system (pump, injectors, etc) are now all designed on petro diesel, which relies on having a thin and low viscosity fuel, which veg. oil isn't, hence the necessity of removing the part of veg. oil that makes it thick (which is the biodiesel process).
    • misimiki, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1This is totally true that Diesel originaly intended peanut oil to be used for the engine. Just goes to show the power of the petro chemical companies even in the early 20th century.
    • bgrah449, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Now if I could only get my hands on some damn peanuts ...
      -George Washington Carver
  • Stone420, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9Mythbusters Cooking oil episode


    http://2.0web.tv/index.php?option=com_seyret&task= ...
  • dvsbastard, on 04/11/2008, -2/+14Redundant title contains redundant word redundancy...
  • madfrogurt, on 04/11/2008, -3/+3Compared to the corn-fueled ethanol production we're subsidizing, biofuels are a godsend. No, it is not the single tool needed to stop our use of petroleum products, but it can help us extend those sources while permanently sustainable fuel sources like hydrogen can be further developed.
  • iggy2012, on 04/11/2008, -3/+7I don't think the writer grasps the meaning of "Fact"...
  • canthraxp, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2Adam/Jamie or it didn't happen!

    (...or Kari for that matter..)
  • BikerDude69, on 04/11/2008, -2/+17Ethanol from HEMP! Food from HEMP! Plastics from HEMP! Clothes from HEMP! LEGALIZE HEMP!
    • krnldmp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+9Hemp seed oil and you got a deal. Don't burn ehtanol. Ethanol is for drinking. Make a ***** fuel.
      • MacEnvy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Except for Indy Car racing.
      • Fordi, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2mmmmm.... Weed wine.... good stuff.
        • KdogTN, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2I am a homebrewer and actually made a beer for a friend of mine using "buds" instead of hops and they enjoyed it ALOT!!!! hehehe
    • fuzzybeard, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Kind schwag that's greener than a seasick leprechaun & stickier than super glue from HEMP!
      ...duuuuude... ;)
    • andreegal, on 04/12/2008, -0/+2http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml
      and don't forget that hemp being a herb restores the soil....
  • macwac, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2For the next one cover biobutanol.
  • TehNait, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2Biodiesel can be made from any plant oil or animal fat. Some examples include soybean, rapeseed, and palm kernel oils, and also animal fat left over from meat processing (disgusting I know). Biodiesel can also be made from recycled restaurant cooking-oil, often called waste-vegetable-oil (WVO), and is a major feedstock for some biodiesel producers.

    rapeseed?
    • krnldmp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Hemp seed.
    • MacEnvy, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3Yup, rapeseed. While it has a funny name, "rape" is a farily common crop whose seeds produce a lot of oil.

      Didn't we already go over this on a front-paged story in the last 24 hours?
  • CMiYC, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure I watched the actual Mythbusters and they said it was confirmed.
  • cap11235, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7Mythbuster 2.0? Could anyone explain what version 1.3 was? And is there an alpha build for 3.0?
  • krnldmp, on 04/11/2008, -5/+1Diesel engines are heavy and slow turning beasts. Maybe, since the way to go seems to be biodiesel, somebody should make a turboelectric car. Speedin and zoomin, up and down the street. Bet you could do it with comparable efficiency, maybe higher, taking into account the possibly decreased weight penalty.
    • Antwan718, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3You have never driven a diesel. Granted they are heavier, and they don't redline at 13k like a little RX-7 would, BUT from the 800 RPM Idle- 3200RPM redline but in that period you generate a ***** ton of torque. Torque is what enables the car to move, Horsepower is about the same as a gasoline engine at the same RPM and in actuality the Diesel is more efficient than a gasoline engine, it also has less parts to break spark plugs and ignition for example. Also because the diesel engine is heavier it is more durable meaning with the same matinence you need for a gas motor with the exception of changing the fuel filter more often the diesel motor will last you at least 4 times as long.
      • joesmeat, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1They last longer, but 4 times as long? The typical petrol engine will last 300-400 thousand kilometers. I've seen many petrol engines last much longer.
        A Corolla with 660,000.
        And entire nation of Falcon and Commodore 6-cylinder taxi's with 500,000-900,000km.

        Anyway... What the ***** is a turbo electric motor? Why would you want to pump air into an electric motor?
  • silverslayer, on 04/11/2008, -4/+2Biofuels are just another way transfer one type of limited resource for another so we can avoid dealing with the fact that the population is growing too fast to sustain. Driving fuel prices down by using up agricultural land will only drive up the prices of food. This is probably fine for most people who read digg but not so much for people where eating is more important than driving.
    • krnldmp, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Nothing is being done that will decrease fuel costs. It's just that petroleum fuels are getting expensive enough on every front that biofuels now compete. Believe it or not, the people thinking hardest about all this are planning for eventual sustainability. Ain't that neat?
    • KdogTN, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1The positive thing about bio fuels is it's something you can do in your back yard vs having to have a complex refining setup that you would need a chemist to help set it up. It's taking the power out of the hands of the oil companies... I use a solar distiller to make ethanol for my lawnmower and other nick nack projects and bio diesel for my dad's John Deer. I have probably made a little over 200 gallons so far at an average cost of about $30 for a 55 gallon drum.
  • DinosWillDie13, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3Also there is more to be said about managing the freezing problem of biofuels. Anyone interested in converting can head to http://www.greasenotgas.com

    There is an entire how to section. It also shows how to adjust the engine coolant line to run along side the fuel line to keep the biodiesel above freezing temperatures as it heads to the engine.
    • Antwan718, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Considering there are things known as engine block heaters, they already come with most American pickup trucks they are pretty handy on cold days though with all the climate change you may not need them =D.
    • da_bradler, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Still bio diesel not a big seller in Canada, at least in the parries where it gets down to -40 pretty regularly during the nights. although i'm sure it's not going to be long before they start adding something to the fuel to increase its cold weather resistance. If they do that before i get my next car I might actually take a look at a diesel.
  • thedinomeister, on 04/11/2008, -10/+2***** THE RIAA!
  • chucki, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0On biodiesel emissions
    -Biodiesel reduces all diesel emissions except NOx. The NOx emissions actually can be traced to the differing bulk modulus of BD vs D. BD's bulk modulus (don't remember which is higher/lower, but I know this is true and can provide references upon request) causes earlier injection (longer before the piston hits top dead center-TDC). This earlier injection causes earlier ignition, so that, as the piston reaches TDC, the BD pressure and temperature are higher than its D counterpart. NOx emissions can be traced to the temperature and pressure in the piston. BD=more combustion before TDC=higher temp and pressure=more NOx.

    Now, today we have electronic injection systems where we could retard BD injection, but who is doing it? I don't have the answer to this, but it is an issue that should be addressed. If addressed, we could have the same NOx emissions as D, but with lower emissions of CO and CO2
  • nigirimon, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately the article misses the important point: biodiesel from crops will likely have a negative environmental impact because a) expanding the current agricultural base will destroy large areas of habitat causing species extinctions and b) opening up new areas to agriculture will release more carbon from soils than will be saved by not burning the equivalent amount of fossil fuels. The answer is algae. The biofuel potential of algae is thousands of times greater than from crops like soybeans. Essentially all biofuel startups are going the algae route. People need to know: algae yes, crop-based biofuels no.
    • da_bradler, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2He mentions algae like 10 ***** times.
    • wherley, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Algae is exciting. But there may be unused cropland in the US that could produce biodiesel. Did you see one of his Myths with the answer:
      "FACT: Some advocates, like Josh Tickell, claim there’s an additional 60 million acres of fallow US farmland available for growing soybeans. If a large portion, like 40 million acres, was put into use, it could produce 2 billion more gallons of vegetable oil (Tickell’s Biodiesel America, p. 151)."
  • Tahiri, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1And here I was afraid it was going to be some FUD article. Glad Digg didn't let me down for once
  • chucki, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Also, spark ignition engines (gassers) are theoretically more efficient than compression ignition (diesel) at the same compression ratio. Diesel engines are more efficient though because they can reach very high compressions (17:1 in the cylinder is not uncommon, plus turbocharging), where as a gas is stuck below 12-13:1 on pump gas (93 octane, lower octane is worse) to prevent knocking.

    Yes, diesel engines are slow, but their torque at low rpms is amazing, so they are totally different animals...

    Diesel engines are heavier, but how long has VW been getting 40+ mpg with their diesel vs. Toyota's hybrid of the last decade?
    • nbcaffeine, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Also, note Audi's R10 for the latest in high performance diesel. Peugeot has one now too.
  • blameau, on 04/11/2008, -6/+1Pray tell, where does that energy come from if it yields more than it produces? Perhaps for a harvest or two, but sustainably? No.



  • optimuscrime, on 04/11/2008, -1/+10I like that in #16 he says biodiesel causing deforestation is a myth... and he continues to say it's a myth because in the USA it doesn't cause deforestation. The fact still remains that it currently DOES cause deforestation eslewhere... so how can he label this a myth?

    "What’s true there is not true in the United States."

    Does Clayton Cornell assume that other nations aren't going to want to get in on this new economy? You can't live in a bubble. Biodiesel currently does cause deforestation, and it will continue to do so in the future, and you can't write that off as a myth just because it doesn't cause deforestation in the USA.

    "Most people really aren’t interested in importing biodiesel from parts of the world where it’s questionably produced." Who are "Most people"? Does the author really think Central and South America and Malaysia share his white middle class american viewpoint?

    I have a feeling that this "gas 2.0" site is biased in favor of biodiesel... I mean really, the url kind of gives it away.
    • brufleth, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2What makes it sillier is that deforestation is a global problem. If a country like Brazil destroys its forests the effects can be wide spread. So saying "What's true there is not true in the United States" is just stupid. Do we live in a hermetically sealed bubble?
    • roseap, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I think the point that #16 was making is that it *can* be grown from feedstocks here in the us, as well as other sources (like algae).

      In fact, the whole point the article is trying to make is that the biodiesel industry is still in its infancy, and that as it matures, it can become a sustainable source of energy.
    • Pixelpaws, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I believe the point he was trying to make is that there is land readily available to be put to use growing the crops needed for biodiesel. I could be wrong, of course, but that was the way I interpreted it.
    • wherley, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1We'll see if this group has any impact on the production of Palm Oil in a sustainable way:
      http://www.rspo.org/About_Sustainable_Palm_Oil.asp ...
  • macromage, on 04/11/2008, -3/+0this is awsome tells the story anout ethanol better then I ever could have. a lot of people don't understand how bad corn grain ethanol and sugar cane based ethanol realy are.
    +1 for the trueth.
  • mparker7410, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2No Jamie or Adam PLUS you've used the adjective "2.0" ...BURIED!
    • RyeBrye, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1They are definitely infringing on a trademark with the "mythbusters part" and abusing a cliche with the "2.0" part.
  • twrife, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1It might just be because my dad is the head agricultural breeder for a biodiesel company, but I already knew most of these..
  • H0tKarl, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1I'm gay for Mythbusters.
  • mikusjay, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2This is a great article! I live in eugene (an hour or so from the author of the blog.) It is awesome living in a hugely environmentally conscious area. I work at a local natural foods store, and every time I see a gigantic truck in the parking lot it always has a biofuel sticker on it. One of my co-workers has a van that they get free fuel for by going to local restaurants and straining the frying fat for fuel. The restaurants are happy to get rid of it, and he gets free gas.

    Not to mention that the biofuel station on my way to work has blue sky soda on tap. Awesome.
  • Hillsfar, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2I'm not as worried about peak oil now as I was before I read this really informative article. I am gonna look into a diesel vehicle for my next vehicle purchase.
  • RyeBrye, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1"it’s going to take a combination of improved fuel economy, massive reinvestment in public transportation, new technology, new fuel sources like non-food based biofuels and electricity, and other factors to move us into transportation 2.0"

    So... from the time of cavemen until now - all transportation releases have been in the 1.x version? I can't imagine what new features 2.0 will bring - considering that incremental upgrades in 1.x brought us the horse, the wheel, the chariot, the car, the train, the airplane, the segway, etc.
  • cldershem, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1who the ***** believed half of those if not more? seriously let me know. i dont want to be your friend.
  • JoeVet, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2Myth #23: Bio-fuel will help with global warming. Bio-fuel started soley as an alternative to foreign oil. There is no difference between burning bio-fuel and regular oil. The bio-fuel proponents have simply adopted this eco-friendly stance to advance their cause. For truly eco-friendly energy the world needs to relook a nuclear energy.
    • roseap, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1We biodiesel enthusiasts bring up this point because the oil from which biodiesel is produced comes from a plant that absorbed CO2 in order to grow, as opposed to fossil fuels that have stored CO2 nicely for all this time. The only reason that it's not offsetting the CO2 used in production is because the industry is still ramping up.

      I would still suggest that it makes more sense than trying to put a small nuke reactor in each and every vehicle, or to some how store enough electrical energy in the car to be able to go more than a few miles.
    • wherley, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Lifecycle emission analysis shows a 78% reduction in CO2 when using biodiesel vs. regular diesel. It would seem clear that given a choice of regular diesel vs. plant based biodiesel, the latter has a clear positive impact on "global warming".
    • stix213, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1You are forgetting where the CO2 originates from.
      With good old regular Diesel the CO2 is from crude oil from way down in the earth.
      With Biodiesel, the CO2 is captured from the atmosphere by plants.
      So, even if the CO2 released while burning is the same, the CO2 released by burning Biodiesel is pretty much just stuff that was already there a year ago and removed to make the Biodiesel in the first place. The same goes for Ethanol as well.

      So, if we switched to any plant based fuel, even if it releases massive amounts of CO2..... The production of that fuel actually removes about the same amount from the atmosphere, so this is clearly not that bad of a choice.

      Personally though I vote for electric cars and nuclear plants. Gimme a Chevy Volt dang it!
  • DaDiggydiggyDOC, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Good or not the price is still around $3.30 per gallon, how does this help out the price crisis that we are facing at the pump now? If they have a new fuel and it's good that's nice ,but the real issue is that we are being raped at an ever increasing rate and we need a resource that is "cheaper" not 5% less than the already outrageous prices we are forced to pay today. You want a fuel to catch on make it around $1.50 and keep it there and people will flock to it in droves.
    • wherley, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Because diesel vehicles tend to be 30-40% more efficient than the equivalent sized/powered gasoline vehicle, you end up spending less on fuel when using biodiesel/diesel than gasoline.
    • izackcarson, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1A couple of farmers I know get their oil basically free from restaurants. They do have to drive into town to go get it, so there is wear and tear on the vehicle to consider, but that's it.
  • misimiki, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Nice article, well done!

    As I commented above, Diesel did intend peanut oil to be used to power the engine. My thoughts are that the recycling of cooking oil everywhere could be an answer to providing more biodiesel for use. Sadly in Hungary where I live it is unlawful to manufacture your own biodiesel for tax reasons - there simply is no mechanism for the state to collect taxes on the stuff, even if an honest individual kept a tally and "volunteered" to pay the tax. I can drive to Austria and buy the stuff in a petrol station - but at 250km each way it sort of defeats the point. Nevertheless I still plan to manufacture my own as I can buy a kit in the UK for about 1000 dollars. Then just gonna collect the raw material stuff from friends' restaurants. At a grassroots level this is an answer that many libertarians may enjoy. Make your own and pay no tax on it and feel proud to help the environment. Bear in mind that at least in Europe most of the cost of fuel is paid as tax in the first place.
  • ronin691, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Making your own bio diesel is gaining momentum here in Texas, beyond rural area farmers, in to suburbia. Tons of info and resources here:
    http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor.ht ...
    http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html

    Check your local laws about making and storing bio diesel first.
    • stix213, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Something about this scares me..... So do you make it meth style in your bathtub?
      • ronin691, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Kinda, but its much safer. I recently read that a bunch of people who could not or were not allowed to make biodisel where they live, all got together and have started a "trust", paying in advance for their guesstimated usage. THey give the lump sum to one person who is already making biodiesel in his garage. Then as needed, they fill up at his house. Savings? One guy was paying $400+ a month at the regular gas station is now only paying $50 to $60 a month.
  • roseap, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1FTA: "Last time I checked, biodiesel was $3.30 per gallon. With a tax credit offered in Oregon, the final price was $2.80 per gallon."

    Sadly, this is not the case. It's as (if not more) expensive as diesel currently is right now.

    Having said that, my VW Golf TDI has burned nothing but biodiesel, and I love it.
  • Pixelpaws, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2I'm a driver for a major truck driving company. This article makes me wonder why we're not using the stuff. If it really is as good as the article claims - especially the price benefits - it could easily save the corporation a hundred million dollars a year. Just from an economic standpoint, it would make sense to use a fuel that were 50 cents a gallon less expensive; it could save a big company half a million dollars a day (assuming 14,000 trucks are using 75 gallons each). And, frankly, I'd like to see some of that in my wallet instead of my truck's fuel tanks.
    • izackcarson, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Why don't you talk to some of the people in the office and see what they say? Maybe print out the article for them? It's worth a shot.
  • kd1s, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2And I'll mention the problem with bio-diesel form another perspective. That perspective is tax revenue. Right now the federal government gets 16 cents a gallon, while states get a varying amount, in RI it's 32 cents.
    That money is theoretically supposed to go into roadway improvement. Yeah, right.
    But lets say 10% of the people out there start using bio-diesel. That's a reduction in tax revenue and it won't take a legislator long to figure that out.
  • stix213, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1"After stalling out on the freeway once in 13 degrees F and being towed to a gas station, I had to fill the empty space in the fuel tank with diesel, add an anti-gelling additive (available at any gas station), replace the fuel filter, and wait for a sunny day"

    Hmmmmm I like how he uses this story as part of how he is dispelling the myth of not being able to use Biodiesel in cold weather.

    I'm going to stick with my Prius until 2010, then get a Chevy Volt. You all can drive around in cars that smell like french fries if you want.
  • londubh, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1I think they'll pulled all of those myths out of their ass. I've not heard a single one of them in the mainstream media even when they actually mentioned biodiesel. Myth #1 is the most retarded. Yes Americans are pretty stupid but not that stupid. Even Bush isn't that stupid.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.