Oh, No! Are Biofuels Just Garbage?

When I first heard about biofuels, they sounded fantastic. The way it was explained to me was that the fuel would be made from renewable vegetable oils and recycled cooking grease. I figured that soon, when people finished eating their fries at McDonalds, they'd just take that greasy wrapper paper and drip it into their gas tanks. I dreamt of the day that we could just put our garbage directly into our cars. Not only would we have gas-free vehicles, but we wouldn't have to take out the garbage after we've already removed our shoes and gotten comfortable. It was an energy source that we would never run out of. It was perfect, right? Well, maybe.

San Francisco recently converted its entire diesel fleet to biodiesel. Last November, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced a new project called SFGreasecycle. The idea is to collect used fats and cooking oils from restaurants at no charge. Then these restaurant wastes would be converted into fuel. The only negative I could envision was that as the need for more and more grease would grow, there would be an increase in the construction of fast food places. But there are other negatives.

Today, every once in a while, I see a car that proudly bears a sticker proclaiming that it is powered by bio-diesel fuel. Even if I am in our Prius, I feel this car is bragging to my car, "I'm even better for the environment than you are." I've felt almost ashamed that I'm not as much on the cutting edge as I could be. Until now.

I recently learned that there are some serious concerns about this new "green" fuel. Some experts think it might cause more problems for the environment than bad old gasoline. It's all getting very confusing.

So, what's the problem? Well, not all biofuels are created equally. The European Union just announced that it is proposing a ban on certain biofuels. It turns out that some entrepreneurs are perhaps more interested in "the long green" than in "being green." Crops for fuel are being grown on all kinds of land -- forests, wetlands, and grasslands. Not only are some trees being chopped down in tropical rain forests to plant these crops, but I'll bet they're not using biodiesel-powered tractors to plow those areas.

Certain parts of Southeast Asia are planting too many palm trees for the oil and not necessarily harvesting them in environmentally friendly ways. And these crops require nitrogen fertilizers and use large amounts of water that might be better used elsewhere.

A branch of the Smithsonian recently warned that biofuel production can result in environmental destruction and health problems. Great. Wasn't it invented to help avoid these things? It was bad enough when scientists learned that sunshine and eggs weren't that healthy for us. And after some of us switched from red meat to fish, we were told we were putting mercury into our bodies. But biofuels? What's next? Are they going to discover that flossing is bad for our health?

Of course, there are "good" ways to grow crops and convert them into fuels. They don't have to be grown in places where they shouldn't be. They don't have to be converted to fuel without regard for the environment. Governments can have standards for the production and import of what so recently seemed like the perfect fuel.

That's what the European Union is doing, and I'm sure states and cities here will, too. But I'm worried that there will be cheaters who will try to sneak their "bad biofuel" into our cars and buses. Am I being cynical? I don't think so. Let's see: There's the possibility for businesses to make at least multibillion dollar profits selling fuel for transportation purposes without regard for the environment. Sound familiar?

Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Home Improvement" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Comments

[maxwells1]

This is just about funny. Brain dead lemmings who listened to shrub lead the US over a cliff believe whatever they hear or read. BIG oil and Big energy are all about convincing them that alternatives are misguided. What could possibly cause a person to listen to them? My family has been using biodiesel for almost three years in two vehicles and I have read every thing there is out there about the subject. The fight over food, the land use issues, the competition for commodities and all the other sound bites that are being used to scare people into hanging on to the fossil fuel nightmare are just that, sound bites. With algae and other non food crops we are making progress on many fronts. The bottom line is simple. Stay with the fossil fuel suicide mission or try to move on. The naysayers always say the same stupid things. Alternative fuels will not solve our problems but will convince people that petroleum is no longer viable.
Ignorant fools who I'm sure believe the nonsense that the war criminal has to say are the same fools who believe the propaganda put out by big energy. SAD for our future.

[Biofuelsimon]

Actually garbage could be an excellent source of biofuels. Its got no alternative value and its widely available. Why not convert it with pyrolysis into synthesis gas and turn that into either ethanol or diesel to power our vehicles. Lets make them much more efficient too, otherwise we're pouring good fuel after bad. In the meantime impose European standards on biodiesel used in the US. the standards are likely to be inadequate but they'd be better than nothing.

[Rule Of Law]

You want to see something that helps the environment from both ends--no, not that way...visit this site and see how garbage can be converted into fuel!

http://www.energy-visions.com/

[realitytrumpsbull]

The PetroCo's really wanna jam this 'channel' for obvious reasons, because any real step towards eco-hippy-groovy energy independence
is a step away from the fuel pump, and hence
a drop in their profit margin. But now, Billy,
you know why it's taken GM et. al. SO long to get a divorce from their diesel-gargling ways.
Speaking OF fuel-guzzlers, one interesting area of study is the powerplants they used before they started with all the EPA engine-chokers.
Use good fuel, don't need all the pimpy digi-gizmos to 'manage' your engine, there. Hmmm...
What's that, you say? I'm stoned? Well, maybe NOT. Do this experiment(SAFELY, and if you don't think you can, locate your local academician for 'adult supervision', in other words, kids, don't try this at home), anyway,
1 oz. of 'pure' grain spirits, and 1 oz. of el gasolino. Put each liquid in separate burn-proof containers, and burn em separately and observe with keen scientific interest what happens. The ethanol burns cleaner, and cooler.
The gasoline has a little black smoke to it, but burns pretty well. You can drink(not recommended, but hey, it's your liver) that
pure ethanol, and it won't kill you. Don't drive afterwards,(you may want a Pepsi or something handy to wash that down with, but you can kiss your gingivitis germs goodbye for today), anyway, the ethanol is a lot less poisonous than the equivalent amount of gas.
(DON'T drink the gas, if you do, sign HERE_____ promising you won't sue me, I don't have any money anyway, so I'd just end up being your slave or something, and I have a really crappy work ethic, you'd hate it. So would I)

Moral of my stupid little story? Let's make ethanol. And biodiesel. And hydrogen. And have EV's. And the rest of it. Screw these monopolists and their tax schemes...and their legal games...

[Sundialsvc4]

I have never imagined that, say, "factory farm offal" would become something that you would one day pump into your tank at the local Shell station.

But I -do- easily imagine that source of energy being consumed by "that particular factory farm." A moderate-sized, even portable plant (similar to the cement plants that you sometimes see next to a major construction site) could easily transform the waste-product of a farm into a fuel source that could profitably offset the energy needs of that farm. In fact, the technology to PROFITABLY do that very thing today already exists... and the patents are free.

[elkabong]

How about a car that runs on compressed air and can travel 125 miles on a $3 fill-up? Well, here it is:

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2008/01/this_is_awesome.html

Of course, the makers of gas guzzlers will allow it in the US over their dead Body by Fisher.

[moderationsmuse]

The fuel question misses a much larger problem. Energy policy in this country is the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees (well, except for the fact that we're cutting all the trees down ....)
Friends, no matter what you use for fuel, I don't care if the most pristine oxygen/nitrogen mixture perfect for breathing is the bi-product of the combustion, it still doesn't solve the problem of roads.
We are paving every square foot of the planet because of our notion that every man, woman and child (think kid's ATVs) has to have wheels. Where do the animals live (or are animals permitted to live?) when we eliminate all their habitats?
People are worried about polar bears ... where I live "ordinary" North American mammals like deer, possom, foxes, racoons, beavers are finding fewer and fewer places to live. Soon "bio-diversity" in the mid-Atlantic will consist of cats, dogs and squirrels.
This could be the bi-partisan issue that it once was if Democrats and Republicans could ever stop loathing each other long enough to ask some really deep "quality of life" questions, such as: how much shopping can human beings really do?
Some people need to stay home, walk, enjoy nature. But walking can be as hazardous to humans as it is to animals.
We hear a lot on Huff Po about casualities in Iraq, but all the death in Iraq hardly compares to the mortality figures from highway deaths in any typical year. Why aren't people stirred up about that?

[GH]

One has to wonder if the trip to pick up the used oil from the restaurant uses more energy than is saved by the bio diesel Mercedes? Besides, it only takes one, at one red light, to make the sensory receptors go into gag reflex. The stench can be unbearable. Imagine 3 or 4 in the same traffic jam.

There's only one immediately obtainable way to reduce our contribution to greenhouse gases:

Former Senator Gaylor Nelson (D), father of Earth Day, "We are preparing to celebrate the 32nd Earth Day just after the Census Bureau has announced that far from winding down in the 1990s, U.S. population growth boomed at its highest level in the nation's history! Not even the peak of the Baby Boom in the 1950s added as many people! This new population boom represents a profound failure in our nation's pursuit of environmental quality. Since 1970, another 80 million people have been added to the country. Every environmental goal has been delayed because of this failure."

Let's adopt Morman Democratic Senator Harry Reid's (senate majority leader) 1993 immigration refrom bill.

[DMSmith]

"...the destructiveness of biofuels." What crap!

Studies have proved that bio-ethanol and bio-diesel can both be made from almost any plant mass. So corn will not be needed - only maybe the waste parts of the plants. Algae is another supply.

I bought a used Mercedes diesel to use bio-diesel, and I do! I buy it from a women-owned coop that uses waste oil from a potato chip factory.

Destructive? Not for a moment. Bio-fuels are new, and like most new things we need to be careful going forward to avoid problems such as the ones listed above, but that is NOT reason to not move foreward, or to avoid bio-fuels. Destruction of rain forests for ANY reason is bad, but bio-fuels have never REQUIRED that. They are not the problem. Greedy people are.

Go buy a diesel car and join the solution. NOW!!

[BeerNotWar]

Biofuels are NOT worse than continuing to use petroleum. First know that the vast majority of the palm oil is used in food, not for biofuels. The price pressures encouraging palm growers to tear down forest would likely have occurred anyway as population increased.
Moreover, until we spend the better part of a century murdering each other over biofuels...you can't possibly claim that it's worse than petroleum.
What we're seeing now is that we're reaching the practical limit, using current sources of feedstock, of biofuel production. But crops take time to get online and all I've been hearing from the anti-subsidy people is how we've been putting Mexican farmers out of business. I assume that is ending and that more supply will soon be coming online.
More importantly, the demand for biofuels will do more to drive research and development of improved sources of feedstock than any government program. We're right where we need to be with biodfuels to create a real revolution in how we power our lives.

[londubh]

Conservation and fuel efficiency should be the first step. Ultimately, we'll have to live in more compact cities and create more mass transit.

A lot of these renewable biofuels are a ways off. The one source of biodiesel that I hope takes off is using algae which acre for acre can produce more oil than any other plant: 800 gal/acre and theoretically produce up to 5000.

We are addicted to fossil fuels and we are looking at alternative fuels in the same way a heroin addict looks for a different drug trying get high when their supply dries up. Biodiesel and bioethanol are the methadone to gasoline and diesel's heroin. The problem is the addiction and it is slowly destroying us.

[LanceJetson]

One word: HEMP!

[longmoo]

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. What SF is doing will not result in deforestation. Reuse, renew recycle. pretty easy, really.

[rh654]

Yes - there is no such thing as a free lunch.

EVERYTHING has consequences and trade-offs.

[sinnerjizm]

Does anyone who supports biofuels realize that in order to produce them, (mostly) 3rd world countries are being forced to convert their land from food crops to biofuel crops?

It's amazing what pressure from the IMF and World Bank can do to weak nations.

People are going to starve to death so we can 'feel' green without having to really 'be' green