Talk:Biodiesel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biodiesel is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, the introduction of this article may need to be rewritten.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the layout guide to make sure the section will be inclusive of all essential details.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
To-do list for Biodiesel: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Mississippi University uses ultrasonication to improve transesterification of oil to biodiesel. Higher yield will enhance the environmental effect of biodiesel. [see: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/researchers_use.html]
  • Include statistics on world production of biodiesel - what are the top producing, consuming countries? How much is produced each year?
  • Note the amount of land required to produce a reasonable quantity of Biodiesel. Total world oil consumption is ~4*10e12 kg/yr. Using Soya yielding 1000kg/ha, this would require ~4*10e7 sq km of land to be devoted to Biodiesel production. (Stats taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption) This is 4 times the surface area of the US. It should be made clear to the non-scientific reader that this is impractical in terms of available fertile land. 'We can eat, or we can have biofuels, but we can't do both.'
  • Note, I changed the Chinese Tallow data to reflect a newer study.

Also I believe the scientific name of chinese tallow has changed to Triadica Sebifera, from Sapium Sebiferum. Using the old name in google results in outdated links.

  • More careful description needs to be given on how biodiesel is actually produced commercially; how are vegtable oils esterfied and what futher processing is required.
  • Whilst extensive, this article totally ignores the strength of opposition from prominent scientists, environmentalists and journalists such as George Monbiot who warn of the potential threat of the mass production of biodiesel crops. May I suggest you expand or produce a new section outlining some of the major arguments against such as the displacement of communities and (often biodiverse) forest to grow biodiesel crops, the draining of wetland and subsequent release of Co2 from dried out peat bogs, the environmental problems of any monoculture such as pesticide build-up or nutrient depletion, and most strikingly of all the loss of space for food production. A useful resource might be: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/
    • Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat (ELISABETH ROSENTHAL, New York Times, Feb 8, 2008) claims that two new studies show that the damage to forests and such makes it so that, all told, biofuels use more carbon than regular fuels.
  • check the flash point; it is stated as 150 and 160 °C. I dont buy the reducing cancer by 94 % thing. Particulates from exhaust pipes only make up for approx. 5 % of the total. So gettin rid of those cant possibly reduce any risk by 94 percent. nice article thoug.
  • Add more citations, and put more of the sources that are used in the proper form in the references section Make citations consistent throughout. (Done by SEWilcoBot: There were a couple of URL-only links and some notes were out of order.)
  • Better structure and consistency for most of the sections after History
  • Discuss the total vegetable oil and fat production numbers
  • Not as widely tested in B100 form for actual use
  • Note the toxicity comparison to table salt (10x less) and the LD50 of >50ml/KG, which is more than 3 liters for a 60KG human
  • Expand production cost discussion. currently more expensive, that could reduce with economies of scale, focused production, innovation, and use of better crops.
  • Explain biodiesel taxation
  • Trim external links section down significantly (Wikipedia is not a link repository) (Trimmed the English links. Many repeat the same information. Some are not particularly objective --137.132.3.12 17:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Clarify relationship to straight vegetable oil
  • It's odd that biodiesel is described as 'hydrophilic' and also stated that 'water and oil separate'. Aren't those opposite claims? Is it just meant that in practice it's often contaminated with undissolved water, or is the small amount of dissolved water itself a problem?
  • Adjust notation of many volumetric amounts. IE, "230,000 million US Gallons" is simply 230 billion US Gallons. Problems like this exist all throughout the article.
  • The Czech Rebublic does not produce 299,929,999,940 km^3 of biofuel. How big is the sun?

European biodiesel standard is now accepted as EN14214

  • The article says that biodiesel is non-toxic. It seems to imply that conventional diesel fuel is toxic. Is this true?

Diesel is a mixture of petroleum distillates (b.p. 250 - 380 C). The paraffins are generally not very toxic, but the aromatic compounds normally present are expected to be carcinogenic. Also, there are additives used which may or may not be toxic. A useful link: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci/chem-faq/part6/ search for "diesel" --Rifleman 82 08:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest modification of this statement, as it is more correct to say that "biodiesel does not produce toxic vapours, or engine exhaust emissions" unless someone would guarantee that it is drinkable. LouisBB (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph starting with 'biodiesel is biodegradeable' is modified according to the above suggestion. LouisBB 09:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The paragraphs describing the vehicle manufacturers stance etc do not fit into the introduction, and ought to be put elsewhere, especially as a complete rewrite of this section is recommended above (reference: 'lead section guidelines') LouisBB 09:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are there wildly differing prices quoted, some higher and some lower than for conventional diesel?
  • A usefull link: http://www.gbev.org/biodiesel.htm an explanation about what biodiesel is and how it can be used.

Bold text

  • Check the figures on the yield 95,000 litres oil/ha per year from an algae farm. There are no such farms in existence. One company GreenFuel is currently proving the concept at the Redhawk power station in Arizona. Check an article: Biofuel made from power plant CO2

http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg19225725.600-biofuel-made-from-power-plant-cosub2sub.html They estimate that a farm of between 8 - 16 square kilometers (8000 - 16000 ha) will yield 150 million litres of biodiesel plus 190 million litres of ethanol per year. Total fuel 21,250 - 42,500 litres per year. I have done some calculations that make me feel that even these values may be a bit optimistic. The 21,250 value is getting close to the limits discussed in: http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p261/Content/Sources_Conversion/Photo-_synthesis/photo-_synthesis.htm "At least eight photons are required to store one molecule of CO2 which means 1665 kJ of light energy are required to store 477 kJ in the plant. Max efficiency is 28.6 %. Only light in the range 400-700 nm can be used. This amounts to 43% of total solar incident radiation." Thus before other considerations the limit is 12.23%. They go on to take into account other factors like energy lost in respiration and set a limit of 6.6% in crops. In practice crop farming yields are very much lower than 6.6% in agreement with your table.

In my view if you lump the ethanol in with the biodiesel, the 21,250 litres/ha is a possible but unproven value. This is still 21 times Rapeseed, and 4 times Palm oil.
Priority 4  
Archive
Archives
1
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Talk page maintenance

Hi. Just caught myself responding to comments here from two years ago. Can somebody archive some of the old stuff or point me to instructions on how to do it. --Treekids (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thought. I'm unsure what the procedure for this is, but when you find out, please inform me.--E8 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will attempt to set up an auto-archiver, archiving anything older than, say, 100 days. Let me know if there are any problems. I think it would also be useful to remove/edit the "to do" list which clutters this up considerably, but I won't do so unless there are comments from others.--Gregalton (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Whooops! Forgot I had already done so. I am tweaking again to a shorter time as it is now very long again.--Gregalton (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Auto-archiver proposal (and be bold)

I propose to establish an auto-archiver for this page. Since it is so large, I will be bold and start. Please, if any objections, speak now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregalton (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This page looks much better now. I've manually archived some discussion as it was either 1) unsigned and undated, but notably older, OR 2) older, but not automatically archived.--E8 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to have new sections and comments go at the top instead of at the bottom? I just added something but its way at the bottom where I'm not sure people will see it. (Ajhendel (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

I don't think theres any need to worry about that. Since it is pretty much standard to add new comments at the bottom of the page, everyone check that part for new comments. --Apis O-tang (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does look better since you manually archived some of the discussion. No objections here to stop it. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Biodiesel" and greenwashing

Hi. I think calling things that are 95% and 80% petroleum "biodiesel" is confusing to the point of greenwashing. One person said "you wouldn't tolerate it if your orange juice was 80% toxic." Let's have some clarity and consistency here. --Treekids (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The B% is the industry-adapted standard.--E8 (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are the instustry-standard term for biodiesel blends. Dropping that key word amounts to greenwashing. --Treekids (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A rating system based on percentages is transparent. There is no obvious attempt to trick people with this system.--E8 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You keep missing my point. If it is a blend, it should be called a "biodiesel blend" or "B5" or "B20" etc. My complaint is primarily with instances where "biodiesel" is used to describe 80% petroleum blends and 95% petroleum blends without the qualifier. I have no complaints with the B5, B20, etc., designations. I repeat, I have no complaints with the B5, B20, etc., designations. Do I need to say it again? --Treekids (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding greenwashing, from involvement in the industry I've noted many claims, particularly in marketing, of Biodiesel being "renewable." Calling it so is clearly greenwashing, as methanol is the most commonly used alcohol and it's derived from natural gas (not renewable). This it the greatest greenwashing I've seen associated with Biodiesel.--E8 (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed restructuring

Hi, in looking to move towards FAC, I've made an outline of some proposed restructuring and additions. I know Wiki outlines aren't ideal, but please comment on what you think if you have a chance. I'm going to try to do the restructuring over the next few days. The goal is to have the article be more cohesive, less US focused, and cover the whole Biodiesel topic comprehensively, cover the important details well, and not give too much space to less important details. I plan on keeping most of the material in the current article, so some of the outline bits may be confusing, but let me know what you think. A lot of the parenthetical comments are to remind me which sources to cite which stuff to. - Taxman Talk 23:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yield Table

I am working on a Biofuels research project and am interested as to the source of the oil source for the statistics discussed in the Base Oils section where the gal/acre numbers are discussed.

Thanks!

TRL 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Most are from the Journey to forever site which cites other sources I believe. The algae one is from Briggs. The yields vary of course on a lot of factors such as methods, soil quality, specific plant variety, etc. The JTF numbers are a bit out of date, but no comprehensive source I have seen has more up to date numbers. Biodiesel is a burgeoning industry so now instead of publicly funded research, much of the research now now seems to be proprietary in the R&D labs of companies looking to commercialize. That's probably partly a good thing since mass production of biodiesel is going to require efficent sources of lipids. - Taxman Talk 14:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • We need to redo the yield table. And maybe make a chart. The existing one shows yields of vegetable oil per acre per unspecified timeperiod. We need yields of *biodiesel* per acre, since energy content varies. Also we need timeperiod to be specified. --Treekids (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sources

OK, so there are new figures there, and there are, IMHO, better references, and they relate to biodiesel specifically, not UVO. The references have gallons per acre. They are apparently US gallons since the references appear to be mostly American. --Treekids (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need more fuels

Hi folks. We also should have imperial and metric values. It would be cool if someone ...

  • Get info (with references) for other oils. Particularly missing are any animal fats. In particular I remember reading that Tyson is giving Cargill animal fat from their massive beef and pork (formerly IBP) and chicken processing plants to be made into biodiesel and that Chevron is essentially selling their petrodiesel with up to 3% *unrefined* animal fat added. --Treekids (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need help with conversions

Hi folks. Can someone help with the arithmetic and formatting? We should add imperial and metric and make it back into a table. --Treekids (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Some more thoughts

The marketing of biodiesel has been so successful that it is difficult to find critiques of it buried in all of the hype. The sites that sell or promote biodiesel are the wrong places to go to find unbiased data. Here is an article in Grist that summarizes some of the growing awareness that biofuels may do untold damage to the planet. There was also an article in New Scientist pointing out the same thing.

Of course this goes both ways, and there is at least as much fear, hype, and misinformation on sites like these. If you read the primary scientific literature, you can certainly get closer to objectivity, but even there, important and fairly obvious options are generally overlooked. Note that just because there is the word "scientist" in the title of the magazine, doesn't make it science - this was a news piece (i.e. one journo's opinion), not peer reviewed research. Jamiegilardi 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Another point to keep in mind is the confusion over different blends of biodiesel. For example, A B100 (100% biodiesel) blend is partially carbon neutral,

first B100 is not a blend, it's pure biodiesel. Second, it's impossible for something to be "partially carbon neutral" it is either positive, neutral, or negative, and likely all three depending on the feedstock.
but gets 15% worse gas mileage than diesel and increases NOx emissions 110% over gasoline cars.
sorry, from most sources which have been confirmed by my own experience after burning about 4k liters of B100, any decrease in efficiency is well under 5% and is generally not detectable. NOx emissions vary and newer additives make this issue a non-issue.

A B20 blend is far from carbon neutral. Biodiesel is also not 78% carbon neutral. Its neutrality is dependent on the plant being used. The 78% figure quoted in Wiki is for Soybeans and even that number appears to be biased. I can show you the sources if you want.

Claims that biodiesel can impact CO2 emissions are misleading as are claims that it will make a meaningful difference in foreign oil dependency. Let me know if you want to see the sources and math.

This makes no sense. If the EPA estimates a 67% decrease in GHG emissions and the stuff is grown locally in Europeo or the USA, there's no math involved.Jamiegilardi 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Farming is not environmentally friendly. It is a necessary evil to grow food. It usurps vast areas of land and water and requires billions of tons of pesticides and fertilizers. A cornfield is one species away from being just as biologically impoverished as a mall parking lot. Environmentally friendly biodiesel is an oxymoron.

When one considers that, next to burning fossil fuels, deforestation is the second leading cause of global warming, one has to stop and ask: should the world be cutting down rainforests and plowing under its conservation reserves to grow biofuels?

Valid question. However, you need to ask yourself the more important question first ... is this actually happening or just something you fear might happen. Deforestation for making cookies and cakes with palm oil is one thing, and actual deforestation for biodiesel production is quite another. Of course there is some of this, but the horror stories are about oil for food, not for fuel (yet).Jamiegilardi 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's clear it is happening, biodisel factories that are intended to use palm oil is being built if not already in production and cutting down rain forest to make room for oil palm plantages is the biggest cause of deforestation in those areas. This of course is directly affected by the increasing demand for palm oil because of biodiesel (among other things).--Apis O-tang (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs a criticisms section similar to the one found on the Precautionary Principle. I would be happy to submit one for your critique. Sarann 03:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks, there is nothing short of giving up farming completely and going back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle that would "save the planet". Algae is the way to go because it does not use farmland, doesn't need fresh water, and can actually result in a net reduction of greenhouse gases we're putting into the atmosphere if we use the CO2 emitted by power plants. No, it's not a perfect fuel. But we don't live in a perfect world. --JSleeper 08:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Hear, hear! We cannot wait for the perfect solution or we will never get there. We must take the steps we can. --Treekids (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marqee?

Under the description section there appears the bb code tags for marquee, however while editing the page no such code appears. Perhaps this is only a problem for Safari users?

[edit] Cancer Risk Reduction Proof

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel.html (1/4 the way down the page there are links to studies that prove the ~90% reduction in cancer risk.)

The above was unsigned, but I did find this at the source: "According to a U.S. Department of Energy study completed at the University of California at Davis, the use of pure biodiesel instead of petroleum-based diesel fuel could offer a 93.6% reduction in cancer risks from exhaust emissions exposure." Here's a link to the PDF. This is worth mention on the main.--E8 (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental Benefits

[edit] Environmental graph

Graph of UK figures for the Carbon Intensity of Biodiesels and fossil fuels
Graph of UK figures for the Carbon Intensity of Biodiesels and fossil fuels[1]

(please don't delete this graph from the talk page or the discussion below will make no sense) The recent additions to Environmental Benefits fails to mention a critical detail - the values are specific to the UK. Transportation costs (for fuel, not feedstock) were figured in, inflating the values for foreign imports. At very least, this needs to be addressed, though I am in favor of removal. It's common for individuals to overlook details when presented with graphical displays; since this display provides a distorted view of the situation, it should be removed or replaced with something unbiased. Also, other, more general sources and comments were removed in favor of this nation-specific source.--E8 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and interest. I have amended to caption to make it clear these are UK calculated fugures. Transportation cost is indeed one of the reasons why Australia and the Ukraine produce more CO2 than the UK in the oil seed rape option. This just goes to show (as I said) that the calculations are complex, and dependant on a lot of assumptions. Transportation costs appear to be an important, but not overriding consideration (which is why Poland appears the overall winner, rather than the UK). I think it is unfair to say it is a distorted view, although it may be a UK-centric view. It also has the advantage of being "official" government data. Mike Young (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Updated the picture as well. Mike Young (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Your addition did little to clarify the issues, and for now, I've removed it as I continue to feel it is misleading. I have called in two other editors that frequent this page to discuss the matter. Consider that WP users are as subject to the same mistake you made: 1) look at data, 2) assume it's valid, 3) overlook critical information, 4) draw improper conclusion. This (very nice) graphical display you added would be a great addition if it wasn't regionally-focused; since it is so prominent and there no other displays to compare it with, it does introduce bias. The information you posted is only useful for those from the UK (or nearby, perhaps), as the accounting behind the figures is obfuscated; I was unable to determine how to remove the regionally-biased components from the cost accounting. BTW, you deleted a citation from a US government research facility that was not region-specific and replaced it with one that was, so I'm not sure why you're commenting on gov't sources. --E8 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC).
Help me out on this. What mistakes has the UK DoT made in its calculations, in particular what "critical information" has the UK DoT overlooked to make its results "an improper conclusion"? In what way is the UK a special case that makes inclusion of this data misleading? Does it produce biodiesel with a significantly different Carbon footprint than other countries? In this game "overlooking critical information" would almost certainly result in a higher carbon footprint. How much more do you estimate the Carbon footprint be? What conclusions have I drawn (improper or not)? The information in the graph is useful as it shows the sort of results that could be expected, and the sorts of variations, and because it shows Carbon Intensities about 60-70% those of fossil fuels. The problem with the article as it stands is that it says "biodiesel reduces emissions of Carbon Dioxide by 78%" which is not what the DoT says. What countries manufacture large amounts of biodiesel with Carbon Intensities of 22% those of fossil fuels? Mike Young (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think what we are discussing below is the best likely solution, as comparing diesel to biodiesel depends on the diesel itself, which is different in the US and other countries. You sound like a likely candidate for a UK article that could focus on UK specific advantages/disadvantages. Pharmboy (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Mike, I not stating that the information is flawed, just the placement. The information provided is specific to the UK as the figures account for transportation of said fuels to the UK. This appears to be very useful information (and presentation) that should be placed in a page like Biodiesel in the UK; if you'd like help starting this page, I can offer some time.--E8 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but having a closer look at these figures, they are not particulary UK specific. Transporting stuff by Boat halfway around the world doesn't use up that much of the energy burden. e.g. for the Brazillian Soy only 6% of its carbon cost (166 Kg CO2 per Tonne Biodiesel) to make a 10,000 km boat trip. A trip to the USA would average about the same distance. I suppose domestic consuption would be 6% less. (BTW the transport of 1500 miles by truck inside Brazil uses 1301 kg CO2 per Tonne) Mike Young (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The report also mentions Biproducts rape meal etc can substitute for animal feed (eg wheat or Soy), so the calculations give a bonus for this, (without which many of the Biodesels would hava a worse Carbon intensity than normal diesel). Should this be mentioned in the "advantages" section? Mike Young (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The report also says p88:
“ NB. The Government recommends that fuel chain default values should be defined ‘conservatively’ (i.e. a higher carbon intensity) in order to provide an incentive for companies to collect more data. The use of conservative default values means that the values in the tables below should not be interpreted as being an accurate assessment of the GHG saving potential of the biofuels. ”
Oh dear.
So there is a problem here. These figures are deliberately set high to motivate users to collect data on the actual values (and presumably find they are somewhat lower). The problem is that the government wants the users to collect the data, so wants to motivate them to substitute real data for default data. (a similar thing happens with estimated gas and electricity bills). However, the government does not want to set these figures unreasonably high, otherwise there will be no incentive to use biofuels of unkown origin. What is not known is how close these default values are to actual values, I suspect high, but not unreasonably so (I would guess about one standard deviation too high). Mike Young (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There is some confusion in the article here with Efficiency and economic arguements and Environmental benefits. The first part about fuel use on a farm gives a benefit of 12.5:1 oil to farm fuel use, but this is probably fairly meaningless from the greenhouse gas perspective as it neglects many other inputs. However, it does make sense in the economic section. There is the compsrison with solar panels, again very good in the economic section. The section then goes on to discuss the DOE / USDA figures for energy yield. This is mostly environmental benefit, and does not have much to do with the economy of the farm. It is also a 1998 study, which seems a bit old - surely a more up to date study exists? I think that this energy balance question is one of the most important aspects of biodiesel (and all biofuels). Clearly cost is also very important. Another important aspect is sustainability, land use, forest clearance etc. Whilst there will be regional differences in these issues, a great many of the issues will be universal. I think they should be dealt with here, possibly with greater details in regional articles. OK, my suggestion. A section on the economics. A section on energy balance. A section on sustainability issues. Some of this could be done with re-aranging the current material, such as the USDA data and the data in the graph under discussion could be discussed in the energy balance section. (A slight aside - a part sentence says "Generally is 2.5" - where did this come from?). The information in the graph under discussion could be summarised, and the caveats about the UK Govs. assumptions included to prevent the impression that this is the internationally accepted figures. Clearly this is a fairly major bit of work, so as a compromise, I would say summarise the data in the graph and put it alondside the USDA / DOE study. The inclusion of the graph itself may over-emphasise the data, but the information surely deserves to be there.Stainless316 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem with the information in the graph remains. The "carbon cost accounting" includes transportation of the fuels to the UK. Obviously imported fuel will have a higher carbon costs in such an accounting system. There was no explanation of the transportation cost accounting that I could locate in the paper, and without that information, these costs cannot be factored out. I think the study is very useful, just not general. I teach college math and statistics; I know people tend to look at the main presentation and skip over all the fine details. This is why I the current presentation can't be included on the main.--E8 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Biodiesel in the United Kindgom has been created and the material in question, placed there.--E8 (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Is that like Biodiesel in the United Kingdom but for people like me that can't spell? ;) Pharmboy (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
          • The transportation costs are there in the doc, but buried deep in the annexes. I have done a graph with them highlighted and one with them taken out. (see below) Mike Young (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] make regionial pages?

  • Comment The environmental benefits could be done another way: Strip down to only the basics, head the section with general benefits that affect everyone (chain of carbon, etc.) and then break off one paragraph for each country affected and link to subarticles. Biodiesel in the United States already exists (but not wikified or completely written). Biodiesel in the United Kingdom could be next, and so on. These other articles would be the better place to provide details anyway, this article is just called Biodiesel and should be the most general and universal. As it is, the article is getting too large and too specific. These sub articles would be WAY better as they could truly focus on each country, instead of a watered down compromise of "benefits". Pharmboy (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestion Pharmboy. That's why I asked you, though I wish I'd thought of that myself.--E8 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, thank you. To be honest, I would never have thought about until you asked the question. I didn't even know that the Biodiesel in the United States article existed until I wrote the reply and saw it wasn't a redlink. My first preview had a somewhat different answer, then seeing that someone has already started the article, the answer (to me) seemed kinda obvious: break it up a bit so it can be accurate for each country. The US article needs work as well. I think that biodiesel is such a growing issue, it I guess we shouldn't be shocked if it blossoms into other indepth articles and leave the main article a little shorter, more general and concise. Pharmboy (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New graphs

Graph of UK figures for the Carbon Intensity of Biodiesels and fossil fuels.It assumes biodiesel is transported to the UK to be burnt.
Graph of UK figures for the Carbon Intensity of Biodiesels and fossil fuels.It assumes biodiesel is transported to the UK to be burnt.[2]
Graph of UK figures for the Carbon Intensity of Biodiesels and fossil fuels. This graph assums that all biodiesels are burnt in their country of origin
Graph of UK figures for the Carbon Intensity of Biodiesels and fossil fuels. This graph assums that all biodiesels are burnt in their country of origin[3]
Calculation of Carbon Intensity of biodiesel grown in US and burnt in the UK, using UK government calculation
Calculation of Carbon Intensity of biodiesel grown in US and burnt in the UK, using UK government calculation [4]

Here's a new graph with the UK specific contributions in (i.e. the cost of transportation form the country of origin to the UK. I think this makes it clear enough what the UK specific values are. Mike Young (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Below it is another graph with the UK specific data (the red bits in the graph above) removed. This graph shows no country specific bias (although it does use figures calculated in the UK, it assumes that the biodiesel is burnt in the country of origin). Mike Young (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Nicely done, Mike. Post it.--E8 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Mike, I think it would make more sense to have the graph with the red bars in Biodiesel in the United Kingdom and the graph without, here.--E8 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks like that is the case. Might want to source it in the summary with more than "UK numbers" as well. That is pretty vague. Pharmboy (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Land use change not considered properly

I have another concern about this graph: Deforestation of tropical rain forest is the second largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf, Global anthropogenic GHG emissions chart on p. 36) Clearing of such forest to make room for oil palm plantations is the biggest cause of clearing of rain forest. As far as I could tell that was not taken into consideration when calculating the figures for palm oil. If anything it looks like they made the assumption the oil palms where being grown on what was previously cropland (which is ridiculous imo). I haven't read through the entire report yet, but if you look at the section Land use change on p. 12 they state that "Where information is not provided (i.e. ‘unknown’ is reported), the Government recommends that, in the early years of the RTFO, the calculation should not require the use of a default value for land-use change impacts". Deforestation also have severe impact on the biodiversity in the affected areas. I think this graph gives the wrong impression of the environmental effects from these fuel sources and should be removed. It is far too technical to be presented as it is. I'm going to be bold, and remove the graph for now since I feel it is misleading. After all the data is still available in the reference if anyone reading the article is interested.--Apis O-tang (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've marked your comment with a citation needed. And your deletion seems to be based upon feelings and personal belief - and while that is fine, its not usefull on Wikipedia. I've restored the graph - until you can substantiate your claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think my removal is based on feelings and personal belief (or rather, of course they are, but they are also based on facts and an understanding of the mechanisms at work etc)? I've added a reference to the IPCC's fourth assessment report. These issues are also mentioned in the UK report itself so it's not really in dispute. This webpage from BBC describes the basic effects of deforestation rather pedagogically: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3556848. My issue is with these factors not being considered in the document and hence the graph, which might be fine for the intended use of that document, but those figures weren't intended to end up in a graph on wikipedia. As it is, I think it's extremely misleading because the shortcomings of the graph isn't obvious and besides there are other considerations that has to be made about the environmental effects of certain types of biodiesels. Having a huge graph like that in the beginning of that section is misleading, it makes it look like palm oil biodiesel is the best fuel possible from an environmental point of view and I can't see that there is any evidence for that as it is. And how about at least considering what I'm saying before accusing me of making things up.--Apis O-tang (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course land-use changes are a factor. The original research here is that you are claiming a proportion of impact from a single factor (rainforest deforestation because of biodiesel production) that is not supported by the references. You need to show us that the impact of deforestation for biodiesel is a significant enough factor to scew the figures in the graph. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you even read the UK report and the IPCC assessment report? The UK report don't claim land-use changes such as deforestation aren't important, that isn't in dispute by anyone but you. Have you read my comment? I'm not saying the graph is incorrect, I'm saying it is misleading in this context. In the report this aspect is carefully mentioned, it isn't on this page. Therefore it should not be presented as it is. This isn't original research, it is something anyone who read the actual document can see for them selves. Please provide something substantial in your comments or this discussion is pointless.
Yes, i've read them. The trouble here is not the connections. The reason that you say that its misleading, is a personal feeling of how big the impact factor of deforestation for biodiesel is in the grand total. In effect this is original research. Find a reliable source that estimates that this factor is significant enough to scew the results in the report.
The IPCC synthesis report does not report on how big an impact factor biodiesel production has on deforestation. Your usage of this reference is original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No it's not, I don't claim I know how big those effects are, and neither do they! That fact is pointed out very carefully in the UK report, but it isn't apparent from the graph though. That is the problem! No one here knows how big these effects are apparently, but it is clear that deforestation of tropical rain forest is a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Since the report disregards that fact, and the graph is taken out of its context I find it very misleading in it's current form.--Apis O-tang (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"but it is clear that deforestation of tropical rain forest is a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions"[citation needed] - Carbon emissions from industry in 1998 was 6.788 peta grams of carbon, and according to this paper emissions from tropical deforestation was 0.9 petagrams of carbon or 0.1%. But lets assume that it really is for a minute. So what percentage of tropical deforestation is happening because of biodiesel? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If we go by the AR4 (IPCC 2007) report - then the tropics are pretty much neutral with regards to emissions (despite deforestations). Here is the specific section in AR4 ( chapter 7, section 7.3.2.3.3 page 522 ) [emphasis mine]:
7.3.2.3.3 Robust findings of regional land-atmosphere flux
• Tropical lands are found in inversions to be either carbon neutral or sink regions, despite widespread deforestation , as is apparent in Figure 7.7, where emissions from land include deforestation. This implies carbon uptake by undisturbed tropical ecosystems, in agreement with limited forest inventory data in the Amazon (Phillips et al., 1998; Malhi and Grace, 2000).
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion isn't leading anywhere, Im just repeating myself. As I said, the fact that the percentage is unknown and not included in the figures is exactly the point. That is why that picture is misleading.
It is only misleading if there is a substantiated reason to believe that deforestation makes the figures deviate significant. And the report doesn't indicate this. In fact the figures include LUC (land use change). It makes a recommendation to examine this in more detail - but raises no specific concern about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is apparent from the IPCC report and other that deforestation contribute significant amounts of GHG emissions. If you read the UK report carefully they say they don't consider land use change in all cases, and as far as I could see it looks like the figures for palm oil was based on the assumption it was being grown on what was previous cropland while it's well known making room for new palm oil plantations is one of the biggest threats to the rain forest in many areas of the world. There are also other problems with the deforestation of the rain forest that I like to believe most people are aware of. That includes but is not limited to the possible extinction of thousands of species. This graph is presented in such a way that these aspects are not clear. In fact the text implies land use change have been considered. That is why that graph is misleading.--Apis O-tang (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter4.pdf, Chapter 4: Ecosystems, their Properties, Goods and Services, Section 4.4.5 Forests and woodlands, on page 227 one can read:
"[...] The latter underlies the currently high deforestation and degradation rates in tropical and subtropical regions (Hassan et al., 2005), leading to about one-quarter of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (e.g., Houghton, 2003a)." (one quarter is 25%) but please read all of the report, you actually might learn something. If you had read the other sources you would already have seen this. The reports you refer to indicate co2 emissions from deforestation of tropical rainforest's to 12% [0.9/(0.9+6.788)]. Still as they point out that is not what the IPCC reports, and the IPCC typically represent the consensus (or best estimate if you will) among climate researchers. The paper you refer to is from 2002 and is based on satellite measurements during the 1980s and 1990s. I don't really see how this is relevant. According to "your" report: "Overall, the rates of tropical forest clearing have increased by ca 10% from the 1980s to 1990s in contrast to FRA statistics that report declining rates. The increase is largely in southeast Asia" and further I think 12% is significant.--Apis O-tang (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, what you are citing here is the WGII report (impacts and vulnerabilities). It is the WGI report (scientific basis) that is authoritative on current and past carbon emissions. The sentence you picked includes the subtropics - as well - and doesn't limit itself to tropical rainforests (deforestation is many things).
Great so go look it up in the WGI report then, I'm sure they come to the same conclusion.--Apis O-tang (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That said i miscalculated in the above - of course its 11.7% not 0.1 (argh!). Please note that "my report" (as you scare quote it) is one of the main references to Table 7.2. (deFries 2002) In the WGI report. And thus the basis for the WGII report. So of course its relevant. And WGI specifically states in table 7.2 that all land use changes in the tropics come to 1.8 GtC/yr. (or ~20.9%). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you finally agree that the report that you refers to agree to what I have been saying and that it's already part of the IPCC report.--Apis O-tang (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The Section you refer to doesn't discuss the effects of deforestation. See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis", Section 7.3.3.1.5 (p. 527): "Deforestation: Forest clearing (mainly in the tropics) is a large contributor to the land use change component of the current atmospheric CO2 budget, accounting for up to one-third of total anthropogenic emissions (see Table 7.2; Section 7.3.2.1; also Table 7.1, row ‘land use change flux’). The future evolution of this term in the CO2 budget is therefore of critical importance." --Apis O-tang (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course land use change (amongst others deforestation) is important in the carbon budget (and in several other contexts) - but that is not the issue here. The issue here is: how large is the deforestation component of biodiesel. And that part most certainly isn't even remotely close to 17% - the major components being livestock (Brazil) and logging (Asia). Most biodiesel doesn't originate in the Tropics. And the second major thing: Land use change is incorporated in the figures. Keep the focus on the topic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Nb. please note that the section i referred to is the originator for the table 7.2 - which is the basis for the statement you quote (p 527). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You are the one that keep asking me for these references and now when facts don't agree with your point of view you want to get back to the topic! fine.
No most biodiesels don't, but palm oil biodiesel do come from the tropics. If you read the UK report is says they base the land use change calculation on what has been reported by other governments. If previous land use is "unknown" it's not even included in the calculations at all. I'm not sure where you get 17% from? Deforestation is believed to contribute to up to 33% of CO2.[1] And no, all deforestation isn't caused because of production of palm oil biodiesel, I haven't said that. It is however a fact that clearing for palm oil plantations is a major cause of deforestation in tropical regions. And deforestation of tropical regions is a significant source of GHG emissions. deforestation of tropical regions have many other negative impacts as well, among other the high risk of extinction of many unique indigenous species such as the Orangutan. That part is already stated in the article, it's not in dispute. (I provided additional references from the IUCN redlist which you removed though). That graph is presented in a way that does not consider these issues and thus is misleading. It gives the impression land use change is included since its mentioned in the text. And it does not deal with other aspects of the problem. That is why I think it shouldn't be used in its current form.--Apis O-tang (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me chipping in my 2c worth. From my perspective, since biodiesel is about 80% produced in Europe (although to be fair, I am not sure if this refers to manufacture, or the original crop also), and also from US soy, and total world production is only 1% of US and EU diesel (not petroluem) use, there will currently be only a tiny direct effect on global CO2 emmissions from palm oil production from biodiesel. This does not in any way reduce the importance of the energy balance. What is important is the CO2 balance for each unit of fuel. I think it is absolutely clear that biodiesel produced from cleared land converted to palm oil plantations gives a very bad energy balance. EU and US produced biodiesel may not directly cause deforestation, and therefore can give a positive energy balance. What is not clear is the extent to which using large amounts of oil for fuel affects global prices, and encourages the conversion of land to palm oil plantations, either directly for fuel, or to replace the oils previously used for food but now going to fuel, or because palm oil has become more valuable. This is a huge issue for biodiesel, and biofuels generally. I don't think this debate is well reflected in the article at the moment. I am working on modifications to the lead section, and at the moment, all I can use are the figures from the graph, which, whilst a useful piece of information, does not reflect the current debate. It currently appears that this graph is the consensus.Stainless316 (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, I think we both are happy to get more input here. I have looked at the rtfo document more closely and as far as I can tell carbon dioxide emmisions due to land use change is not included at all in the graphed values, that should at least be made clear. There is an example in the same document (p 104) showing that biodiesel produced from brazilian soy from rain forest clearings would have an aditional 1 558 added to it's carbon intensity value (although that is just an example). Neste Oil is planning on building the worlds biggest biodiesel factory in Singapore with a production of 800 000 ton annually, using palm oil as feedstock. On this (admitedly somewhat unreliable) site [2] one can read that "The Malaysian government is now refocusing the use of palm oil to the production of biodiesel to cater to the huge demand from European countries. It has encouraged the building of more biodiesel plants". So it is reasonable to expect an increase of palm oil used for biofuels I think. Here is a page with a discussion about palm oil and bio fuel: [3]. Anyway, as I said, I don't think there is something wrong with the facts in the graph but the way it is presented is misleading, it makes it look like palm oil biodiesl is the best thing for the environment, wich I don't think is clear.--Apis O-tang (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please look at the graph above the one you are talking about (the one with the blue bars), showing how the figures are composed. It says "0 for cropland, 122 for grassland, 1127 for forestland when amortised over 20 years". I.e. the one off penalty for burning down forestland is 1127*20 = 22,540 gCO2 per MJ. The problem is that land use penalty is one off, (but can be a huge one off), but then the year by year use is a possible benefit. These penalties for land use are ocnsidered in the UK document. I will add another graph specifically illustrating these land use penalties. That should make everyone happy. - Just give me time. In the meantime I have added a caveat to the description of the graph. Hope this resolves thingsMike Young (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the changes you and stainless316 suggest sounds great and would basically resolve this issue as far as I’m concerned. I’ve been thinking more about these values and they are all also based on current production methods (of course). If the farms and transports would change fuel from say diesel to biodiesel, processing plants where to use nuclear instead of coal power etc (maybe not so likely?), then that would affect these values noticeably right? My point being these values might become outdated quickly. This is of less importance than land use change in my opinion but perhaps it’s worth mentioning somewhere? (Also wouldn’t it be more appropriate to leave the misleading template in place until changes have been made?)--Apis O-tang (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental concerns

Note. Moved this discussion from the above Land use change not considered properly discussion under the Environmental Benefits section, since they are not directly related.--Apis O-tang (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, why did you remove my other edits not related to this graph? --Apis O-tang (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
As for removal of your other contributions. This statement: "Tropical rain forests are major carbon dioxide absorbers" is highly dubious. Rainforests are old-growth forests which are normally not large carbon sinks, and afaik rain-forests are in equilibrium with sinks/sources. The link you provided is not very relevant as the extinction danger of Pongo (abelii & pymaeus) are not discussed, and no indication is given that biodiesel production is the reason for the endangered status. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is becoming ridiculous, is the extinction of the orangutans not discussed: "Loss of habitat on such a scale could endanger numerous species of plants and animals. A particular concern which has received considerable attention is the threat to the already-shrinking populations of orangutans on the Indonesian islands of Borneo and Sumatra, which face possible extinction"? And if you need a reference for rainforest's being co2 sinks state that and I will try to provide one, not that you appear to care about references though. I just a few minutes ago provided a link, upon your request, showing that deforestation is a major contributor to global anthropogenic GHG emissions which you apparently blatantly have chosen to ignore.--Apis O-tang (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrator note: Both of you seem to be engaging in an edit war, please, before either of you edit the article again, work out the differences here (and agree). I'd hate to see blocks occuring. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are the one who has to substantiate that deforestation to produce biodiesel is a significant impact factor, and one that would significantly scew the data already provided in a reliable source. You new addition, that "CO2 emission caused by deforestation is believed to cause 17% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions." is even wrong according to the IPCC. The 17% is deforestation and biomass-decay etc. This btw. is also irrelevant in this article - since its not palm-oil plantation or bio-diesel production that is the cause of this deforestation. Focus please. We are talking about biodiesel on this page - not general environmental problems - deforestation and tropical deforestation in particular is a serious environmental concern - but you have to put it in context. And the context here is biodiesel production - so only the deforestation that is taking place for biodiesel is relevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And if you had actually bothered to check my reference from the IUCN redlist you would have been able to read the folowing: "The rapid expansion of oil palm plantations in Borneo in response to international demand (the oil is used for cooking, cosmetics, mechanics, and more recently as source of bio-diesel) has accelerated habitat losses". And also that "[...]The decline of the species [Bornean orangutan] is predicted to continue at this rate, primarily because of forest loss due to conversion of forest to agriculture and fires".--Apis O-tang (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've reinserted the link, since the previous reference makes a connection, and states that oil-plants in particular could be a concern. And i did bother to read the reference, the connection made on the IUCN red list is not sufficient in and by itself, without the first link it would have been original research. Ask yourself: Can you by the information given estimate if the threat level from biodiesel (itself) is 2%,10%,50% ? (hint: you can't. Not without knowing the percentage of deforestation that happens because of oil-palms, and the percentage of oil-palms that are used for biodiesel (as opposed to cooking,cosmetics,...)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You have only reinserted the references to iucn, not the referenced part about deforestation. Please put them back unless you can explain why there is something wrong with my edits or references. Please note that both the IPCC and IUCNredlist are highly respected authorities on climate change and wildlife conservation respectively.
Thats correct. I haven't inserted the IPCC reference because 1) Its wrong: the 17% is not only deforestation. 2) Its misleading: tropical forests are a tiny part of the 17%. I've commented specifically on this issue - in the above.
And btw. you are 100% correct the IPCC and IUCN are authorities on these subjects. But we can't say more than the IPCC and IUCN says. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have located even more references of the effects of deforestation of tropical regions from the IPCC, not that there is any point in that aparently, while you where busy making threats on my talk page. I have never given any estimations of weather "threat level from biodiesel (itself) is 2%,10%,50%". That kind of statements partly is why I am concerned about the graph in the preceding section. I still find it of interest to point out that there is a connection though, even if I don't have a source citing an exact number.
Reverting my edits without giving any reason (the image I can comprehend at least), and now threatening me is both childish and insulting. The amount of data and sources you and your administrator friend is requiring is ridiculous and apparently not required by other users statements.
I really have no Idea how to "resolve this conflict". While providing references and motivations in amounts normally not required Kim D. Petersen has been reverting my edits, requiring more and more references, and now managed to prevent me from making any further edits. --Apis O-tang (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
By discussing it on the talk page. That is the normal way of editing: See bold, revert, discuss. If reverted, then its normal to start a discussion on the talk page - and wait for the discussion to reach consensus. (not just comment once - and then rerevert). I believe i have legitimate problems with your edits - and am trying to address them. (nb: this part is in the previous section). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Then why didn't you start a discussion then? You appear versed in wikipedia guidelines after all... As I said, please put back my edits, you haven't given a reason why you removed them.--Apis O-tang (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you haven't responded I presume this conflict has been resolved and I'm going to put back my edits.--Apis O-tang (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-worked Feedstocks section.

I have drafted a feedstock section below at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stainless316/sandbox5

Any comments welcome. I think it makes clear just how much oil needs to be produced to replace petrodiesel at current useage, and puts it in terms that can be understood - all those millions and billions are hard to follow.Stainless316 (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I will substitute this for the current section then.Stainless316 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How much CO2 does normal diesel produce?

The UK government on Page 130 here says diesel has an emissions factor of 0.086 kgCO2e/MJ fuel.

Carbon and Sustainability Reporting Within the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

The US government says on page 19(or 45 according to acrobat reader) that normal diesel produces 633.28 g CO2/bhp-h

Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus

Now my unit converter [4] says there are 2.68452 MJ in a horsepower hour.

so the UK government says 0.086*1000*2.68452 = 230 g Co2/bhp-h and the US says 633

So the US and the UK don't agree on the NORMAL diesel Co2 footprint, yet alone the biodiesel.

Help!!! Which of these is right?

This may be the reason the UK thinks that Biodiesels have about 70% the footprint of normal diesel and the US thinks it's 17%. They disagree on the footprint of normal diesel !!

No this isn't the reason. There's a mistake in the caculations in the US report: see below Mike Young (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers please!


Mike Young (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)on

I put a comment on your user page, Mike.Stainless316 (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


OK, a few more thoughts on the C02 problem.

Let's check the UK calculation.

The UK says it's 0.086 kg CO2 produced per MJ

We also have an energy density of 43.1 MJ per Kg

so we get 0.086 * 43.1 = 3760g CO2 per Kg diesel = 3.706 kg CO2 per kg Diesel


Check the US calculation

The US says it's 633/2.68452 = 235.793 g Co2/MJ Multiply by the (uk) energy density and we get 236.2* 43.1 = 10162 g = 10.162 kg Co2 per Kg diesel

Calculation by simple chemistry

Assuming a formula of C12H23 for Diesel Fuel. Let's calculate what % weight of diesel fuel ends up as CO2.

12*12(atomic weight Carbon) = 144

23*1(Atomic weight Hydrogen) = 23

So diesel is 144/167 Carbon

144/167=0.862275449

so 86% of weight of diesel is Carbon that ends up as atmospheric C02

so for 1 kilo 860g of Carbon is changed into CO2

Atomic weight of Oxygen is 16 and Carbon is 12: So we get

862 g of carbon produces 862*(16+16+12)/12 = 3160.666667 g of CO2 or 3.16 kg CO2 per kg Diesel

Extending

3.16 kg Co2 per kg

But diesel has a density of 0.89 kg/litre

So Diesel produces 2.812993363 kg CO2 per litre

But there are 3.785 litres in a (US) gallon so 2.812 * 3.785 = 10.64 kg CO2 per (US) gallon Close to the 10.1 stated at the start!

This is closer to the UK value than the US Mike Young (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of some duplication

More proposals. There are a few sections at the beginning describing different uses / applications (cars, trains etc.), then later a section on applications. This is duplication. I propose to put the "applications" section near the beginning, with all the different uses as sub-sections. It would be useful if the "description" section were before this, as this includes the "B" nomenclature, which could be used for all the subsequent sections. Some of the detail I will remove, for example the data about UK heating oil being 1.5 million tonnes, requiring 330000 hectares - I calculate that as 500gpa, which seems a bit high compared to the yields described later. A section on differences from petrodiesel would also be useful near the start. This should include the different solvent properties, gelpoint, water contamination etc, which are refered to in the application sections.

So, the contents table would look like this:

1. Origin

2. Description

3. Differences from petrodiesel

3.1 Solvent properties
3.2 Gel point
3.3 Water contamination

4. Applications

4.1 vehicle use and manufacturer acceptance
4.2 Railroad use
4.3 Aircraft use
4.4 Heating oil

5. Distribution

6. Historical Background

7. Technical Standards etc as before

Any comments?Stainless316 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Good idea to remove the weird stuff at the start, but the article must try to give something simple for the layman, rather than diving into chemical detail. I'd vote for the following major headings:

  • Definition
  • Production
  • Environmental Effects
  • Economics
  • Chemical properties
  • History

probably in something like that order, with everything else as a sub article. Pull off some stuff into seperate articles. Mike Young (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats a pretty big re-working. I will take it one stage at a time, and start off combining the Applications (mainly to get rid of the duplicated heating oil section) and to not have non-applications in teh applications section. After that I will have another look and take stock.Stainless316 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US study

The 1998 study "US Life Cycle inventory of of Biodiesel and Petrolioum Diesel for use in an Urban Bus" [5] has often been quoted in this article. This is a detailed study that contains many useful calculations. However it does contain an error, and some of the conclusions that it makes are dependant on this error. The error occurs on page 211 to 220 in the calculations of the Life Cycle Energy Demand and the Life Cycle Emissions of CO2. The actual omission is that the calculations on these pages use data for energy and Carbon produced earlier in the report in generating a Tonne of Soy Beans and apply that to a Tonne of Soy Bean Oil. 1 kg of Soy Beans will only produce about 170g of Soy Bean Oil. This means that the study has underestimated the cost of producing Biodiesel at the beginning of the chain by a factor of over 5. This is why the study's conclusions (e.g. that Biodiesel reduces the Carbon by 78%) are at variance with many other studies. I have therefore removed these references Mike Young (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a brand new overview of the Biodiesel energy balance; you should be able to locate the original studies by examining this article. [6]--E8 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The original study is the one mentioned above. Having spent several hours today looking at this, I really think there is a mistake in it. I haven't seen the new one. Will post more details to you as soon as I get the time. Mike Young (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to save you the trouble of reviewing the old one since there is a very recent update that covers at least some of the same material. Sorry I don't have more time to contribute. Nice work Mike.--E8 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This seems to agree with my views (i.e. that it has a bad footprint) Mike Young (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of UK and US studies

I have just spent some time looking at the different conclusions about Carbon Intensity published by two government departments, Carbon and Sustainability Reporting Within the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation by the UK Department of Transport (UKDoT) and Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus by the US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Energy (USDoADoE).

Both of these studies attempt to generate the Carbon Intensity of US Soy bean Biodiesel, but they come to remarkably different conclusions, with the UK study showing that the Fossil fuel intensity is about (58-3)/86 = 64% (i.e using B100 produces 64% the net carbon of fossil fuels) and the US study saying it is 17%.

The studies are supposed to go through essentially the same calculations, but come to radically different conclusions. I was determined to find out why this was. Fortunately as I could look at the two independant studies side by side, this enabled me to highlight the differences and find the mistakes. This was not a particularly easy job, as the two studies used different units, and there was a lot of conversions between one data value and another that had to take place.

The differences were:

1)Different data values: The UK figures are probably less accurate than the US here, as they are deliberately "pessimistic". This is because they are designed to encourage producers to calculate the actual energy used in the processing of the Biodiesel. Relatively high "default values" have been used in the hope that producers will provide data for actual usage which will be lower. As biodiesel with a low footprint collects greater subsidies, the default values are designed to encourage producers to actually calculate and report the fuel used in production, rather than relying on the less than generous "default values". So we would expect the US data values to be somewhat lower than the UK "default" values. This is true. We would also expect the US figures to be more accurate.

2)Differing Assumptions. Some calculations take some things into account that others do not. The major difference here is that the UK studies take into account the penality for the change in land use, but also the benefit for the production of biproducts. In the case of the US Soybean, these values are +25 g CO2/MJ penalty for land use change and -41 g CO2/MJ benefit for the use of biproduct (Soy meal used as cattle feed). Thus the differing assumptions should make the UK figures better than the US.

3)Mistakes in Calculations. The UK study is much better at actually showing its working, (as it is hoping that biodiesel producers will actually go through similar calculations themselves). The US study performs a lot more calculations but uses an especially odd method of aggregating the total CO2. When comparing the UK and US calculatons, I think the US calculation is just plain wrong here. Using the (simpler) UK method of calculation with the US data and assumptions yields figures of the same rough order of magnitude as the UK.

If you compare the US and UK figures with each other, then you get the following graph. I can't put it on the page as it would be original research, but it shows what I think are the true values for the footprint, what you get when you use the (accurate) US data with the correct (UK) method. Mike Young (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats a lot of work there Mike - maybe we can finally get to the bottom of thie comparisons. Comparing this to the 86g / mJ the UK use for petrodiesel, this gives an intensity of 53% for light blue and 63% of petrodiesel for dark red. I am a bit confused by the graph - can you explain what the two colums are again? The co-product benefit also seems rather large - can it really be greater than that taken to produce the soy in the forst place? That must be a particularly CO2 intensive cattle feed it is replacing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stainless316 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The top (purple) column contains the data values that are given in the document US Life Cycle inventory of of Biodiesel and Petrolioum Diesel for use in an Urban Bus. These data values have been converted using the universally accepted conversion factors (eg kilograms to pounds) or conversion factors given in the above report itself (eg yield of oil per kg soybeans)
However the method of calculation is that of the UK report.
The lower (blue) column contains data values and calculations from Carbon and Sustainability Reporting Within the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation by the UK Department of Transport (UKDoT).
The values used for the benefits of the co-product is given on p 191 of the UK report they are
4.32 T soy meal / t soy oil
-373 kg CO2 / t soy meal.
gives -1527 kg CO2 / t soy oil
This is then divided by 37.2 MJ per Kg (see page 133 of the UK report) to give a final score of -41 kgCO2/MJ
The steps in the calculation are as are done in the report. Mike Young (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

We have gone from long and rambling to over concise, in my opinion. The wp:lead section describes it thus: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. I think it fitted this description before, and is now too short. Some tweaking could no doubt improve it.Stainless316 (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As author of above section I can't but agree. But these things can grow rapidly, as people add their bits and pieces. Think of what I've put more as a placeholder. 90% of intro paras are too big, rather than too small, so don't be afraid to add stuff. Mike Young (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Vehicular use and manufacturer acceptance section" needs serious attention!

As wikipedia becomes a powerful informational tool for public information, more and more "consumers" look to it for basic information before they make important purchasing decisions. A strong "vehicular use and manufacturer acceptance" section would assist potential biodiesel users in making decisions about whether to consider purchasing diesel vehicles and then whether to use the fuel (blends or 100%). Do any of you out there know of a website that monitors changing manufacturer attitude about biodiesel. My concern is that most printed materials become outdated quickly... Perhaps a link to a reputable site would help potential users know what is currently happening in the "warranty" world... deanzateacherman (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Food versus fuel

This new addition does not meet neutrality guidelines, in part because: 1) The price of food has long been held down by inexpensive energy, largely oil. There needs to be some discussion of the correlation between petroleum and food prices, as the increase in petro cost is what has driven the biofuel explosion. 2) some of the articles discuss corn (as an ethanol feedstock) and "biofuels," but make no mention of vegetable oils or biodiesel; this lumping together is inappropriate and inaccurate. 3) There was no mention of other factors driving up food prices (e.g. tremendous increases in Chinese consumer demand, transportation, etc). This "cherry-picking" hints at an agenda by the contributor; 4) Three of four of these sources are non-scientific media sources; thorough, scientific studies would be better. 5)I've seen a number of reports like this one, that indicate food and biofuel prices are NOT strongly correlated (none specific to oil seed crops or I'd post it); many of the factors that apply to corn input costs are the same for biofuel crops, however.--E8 (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely fair to state that price increases in all liquid fuels (or other forms fungible with liquid fuels) and energy in general, have driven up food costs. It's also fair to state that there are definite food vs palm oil issues, the criticisms have been limited to this one biodiesel feedstock. As such, generalizing to all of biodiesel is inappropriate. Note that I left the addition in question on in the main, but I needs more extensive research and balance in order to remain there.--E8 (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of biofuel related articles had something on this topic and I am trying to make a single article on it that can be referenced. It is just started and I mostly took stuff from existing articles (so it really is not all my point of view). Anyway, I agree with your points. In particular that it lumps ethanol and biodiesel together too much. But there is an issue that I think does have sufficient significance to warrant an article, and it is related to biodiesel. Feel free to correct problems and I will try to also. Vincecate (talk) 09:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reply. I agree that this is an important point that requires public discourse. I'll try to find sources balance the article, and, if I can, will add/modify accordingly.--E8 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I made some more changes. I think that food vs fuel is not so bad now. Vincecate (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (U
  • While I don't have specific references, it seems to me the issue here is more complicated then the article suggests. For example, palm oil is commonly used as a food oil, but it's use is controversial due to the potential health effects and there is definitely a push in some parts of the developed world (perhaps mostly unsuccessfully) to reduce palm oil usage as food oil. So whether it's a bad idea to use palm oil as a fuel oil from a food vs fuel perspective isn't a simple matter. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to a publication, Meat vs Fuel: Grain use in the U.S. and China, 1995-2008. This is an extremely worthwhile read with credible sources. It refers largely to methanol, which is why I posted it here and not on the main, but the soy industry is similarly affected.--E8 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biodiesel lead section

WP:Lead section: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any."

The following is what I think should be in the lead section. if everyone agrees, we could then figure out how best to get it in. I stress that this is not the form it should take, but the main points to include. Once the points to include are agreed, then the form will be relatively easy to complete. Hopefully, if we have consensus on what to include, the section will be robust when completed. Feel free to say what should or should not be included, and if my definition is correct.

[edit] What Biodiesel is

It refers in this article ONLY to transesterified triglycerides. Other forms of biofuel are covered elsewhere. Biodiesel is used as a replacement for petrodiesel, which is used in engines, and Heating oil, which is used in heaters.

[edit] Where it comes from

Biodiesel can be made from transesterification of the triglyceride part of any fat or oil, from vegetable oil, animal fats and algal oil (is algal oil vegetable oil? Algae are not plants.) Different scources give slightly different properties, e.g. higher gel point for animal fats. If it comes from anywhere else, then it is not biodiesel according to the definition.

[edit] Why use it?

As I see it, there are three reasons. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy security and help local farmers. It is also biodegradeable and non-toxic, so oil spills are not a problem. It seems to be pretty generally agreed that biodiesel can be made to produce less CO2 than petrodiesel, but the estimates of the savings vary. It is probably also agreed that equatorial forest clearance to put in new palm oil plantations produces more CO2 than petrodiesel. Energy security is improved, as the other energy inputs (fertilizer etc.) can be made from non-petroluem sources, e.g. coal or other renewables. Any subsidies or price increases will help local farmers, but I think this is less of an issue then with corn ethanol.

[edit] Why not use it?

Possible increased greenhouse gas production due to land use issues. Different properties from diesel, e.g. solvent properties, gel point, water content, biological contamination. Possible damage to engine. Displacement of food crops leading to increased food prices. Cost.

[edit] Where can it be used?

In blends with 95% diesel, almost all diesel engines. In other stronger blends, gaining acceptance in blends up to 100% biodiesel, similarly for heating boilers. Has been demonstrated in locomotives and airoplanes.

[edit] How much is there?

What is current production compared to diesel fuel.Stainless316 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New lead section incorporating above points

Biodiesel refers to a non-petroleum based fuel consisting of short chain alkyl (methyl or ethyl) fatty acid esters, made by transesterification of triglycerides from vegetable oil, animal fat or algal oil. Biodiesel is used as a replacement for petrodiesel in engines, and heating oil in heaters. It can be used alone or as blends with petroleum derived fuel. Biodiesel is distinguished from the straight vegetable oil (SVO) (aka "waste vegetable oil", "WVO", "unwashed biodiesel", "pure plant oil", "PPO") used (alone, or blended) as fuels in some converted diesel vehicles. "Biodiesel" is standardized as mono-alkyl esters and other non-diesel fuels of biological origin are not included.[5]


Biodiesel has slightly different properties from petrodiesel. It has a higher gel point, can allow the growth of molds and bacteria and has different solvent properties, which can corrode older rubber components and dislodge diesel varnishes which have built up in engines and heaters. Experience suggests that these problems are minor, but most engines today have been designed for use with petrodiesel, so the use of a different fuel raises some concerns among manufacturers. In blends up to 20% there is very widespread acceptance for use in motor vehicles, and its use in locomotives and aeroplanes has been demonstrated. Use of 100% biodiesel is widespread in Germany with no apparent major problems.

One impetus for its use is to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions from fossil fuels. There is debate over the size of the greenhouse gas reduction and this will depend on the choice of feedstock and method of calculation used. Recently published figures vary from 75% [[7]] to 15% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions when compared to petroleum diesel.[6][7]. However, these estimates do not consider land conversion, where natural land is converted to agricultural use. Greenhouse gas emissions could be higher than that of petrodiesel when these factors are taken into account, and there could be other undesirable consequences of deforestation. [[8]] [[9]] Even if biodiesel is grown from sustainable sources, there is concern that using land to grow non-food crops will push up food prices. Fuel security is another major driver for its use, since much of the energy inputs can be derived from non-petroluem, locally available sources such as coal, gas or other renewables. The the US NREL says that energy security is the number one driving force behind the US biofuels programme. (p8 (p14 including initial pages) of[[10]].

Europe is currently the largest producer of biodiesel, with Germany on its own producing 2.6 million tonnes in 2006, or nearly half of world production. Biodiesel production is currently a tiny fraction of the petrodiesel production, in 2006 it was about 1% of combined Europe and USA diesel use, and about 5% of total world vegetable oil production.Stainless316 (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Stainless316 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] encylopedia

This article's current data speaks to many of the above issues or points, it is a wealth of information and vinmax applauds the contributors. There is always an additional detail or observation that might be mentioned or added to a subject of this magnitude. I am new to wikipedia, you are all magnificent to contribute your time and energies to exapanding the Akashic record of the 22nd century. I offer some edits to this article, based on my experience in manufacturing biodiesel facilities, 100m, 25m, 13m and a 5,000,000 gallon per year plants. Could someone help place the upper pictures in a horizontal config? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My points are what should be in the Lead section. I have tried to pick out the main points of the article to include in the lead section. Given the length of the article, this should be 3-4 paragraphs long. The above are the things I think should be in it. I was hoping to get some discussion of what should be there, then if there was consensus, any attempts to actually write it could be compared to the agreed "things that should be in the lead section" criteria. It is very hard to write these things concisely and interestingly, and it is made a bit easier if everyone knows what the finished product should achieve. This should avoid someone slaving away and having it deleted shortly after. Any further alterations after a consensus is reached should be justified in the discussion. This is a fast moving field, so I am not suggesting a fixed intro for all time, but the lead section is arguably the most important part of the article, so it is worth getting right. Stainless316 (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro concept well taken, first thing to do is eliminate anything obviously subjective, we need objectivity and data with proofs and/or a contiguous stream of logic. News articles are not proof of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that subjectivity should be eliminated, but uncertainty is not the same as subjectivity. From WP:Lead section "and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any". With biodiesel, there is major controversy over the environmental impact, and as such this should be briefly described in the lead section. It is discussed in detail in the article. The difficulty is to summarise the controversy, without subjectivity, and without giving undue weight to any differing viewpoint. A tricky task, but required for a good introduction. Nobody have any views?Stainless316 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks good. Although I think it might be worth to also point out the concern for clearing of rain forest (more than just ghg emissions I mean). Maybe something like:
"in particular there is great concern from diffrent environmental groups that increased demand for palm oil would lead to the clearing of large areas of rain forest. This would have a very negative environmental impact, damaging ecosystems and biodiversity as well as causing increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them".
Maybe replace palm oil with some feedstocks if saying palm oil is not neutral enough? I supose there are similar concerns for clearing for soy in Brazil judging from the uk rtfo report.
Sources from environmental groups: [11] and [12]. --Apis O-tang (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, Apis O-tang. I notice you are planning to re-work the environmental effects section. When this is done, it should be clearer to summarise into the lead section. I take your point about environmental effects other than greenhouse gas.Stainless316 (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misc related intro comments

E8 - V8 whateva, the vacuum Db were on high, if you can use any of this for the intro, please help yourself: Biodiesel is a term applied to diesel fuels manufactured of materials of biological origin, ie.(vegetable - bean, cottonseed, rapeseed etc. & animal fats - beef, pork and poultry, etc. The process whereby these biologically originating oils are converted to biodiesel/biofuel is know as transesterfication. In organic chemistry, an example of transesterification is the process of exchanging the alkoxy group of an ester compound by another alcohol. These reactions are often catalyzed by the addition of an acid or base. Transesterification: alcohol + ester → different alcohol + different ester. (see Wikipedia for Transesterification) Biodiesel is an alternative fuel to hydrocarbon (crude oil) based diesel. These BIO-fuels are utilized in diesel fuel applications and diesel engines. Biodiesel is a renewable sustainable fuel that produces less CO2 that crude oil based conventional diesel. Blends of biodiesel and conventional hydrocarbon based diesel are products most commonly distributed for use in the retail diesel fuel marketplace. Unsigned by "Vinmax"

[edit] Distribution

Someone added that distribution for Biodiesel is possible using existing infrastructure. I've read otherwise in numerous industry articles include this one from Biodiesel Magazine, where concerns over contamination of other fuels was cited as a concern: “There isn’t enough empirical data and testing equipment,” says Nazzaro, referring to a problem called “trail back,” where trace amounts of residual biodiesel may stay in the pipeline and end up in future fuels. “[The biodiesel] could be extremely low, but until more work is done there is no tolerance for any measurable level of biodiesel in jet aviation fuel.”--E8 (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • E8, bro you should know better than to believe everything you read in a periodical. Transatlantic biodiesel fueled Jet flight is a piece of history, however Jet fuel is isolated and QCed prior to being delivered to airport fueling systems. You may confirm this at your local airport.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Verification is a Wikipedia requirement. If this practice is as common as you say, it should be easy to attain. Assuming inspections are done, what will happen if the jet fuel is found to be contaminated? Won't this become an economic issue (rather than a safety issue) at that point? Either way, it's still a problem.--E8 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Biodiesel is currently being sold at truck stops utilizing (existing infrastructure) who wants on the denial train? The article is looking better of late, and I know your kicking it and deserve some props, but don't buy the hype, there is a lot of sound bytes in print as well as on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your conclusions based on a media report are greatly overreaching. If you have something specific that refutes the industry publication I cited, post it. I will revert all specious material that is uncited, including yours. Regarding the jet test, the Biodiesel used was carefully selected, was blended (B20), and was only run in 1 of 4 engines, giving a wide margin of safety. Further, the testing was done under great scrutiny by Boeing, GE Aviation, Imperium Renewables, and Virgin Atlantic. [This article] discusses some of the potential problems and research that are occurring in the jet fuel / Biodiesel area.--E8 (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

There has been far too much loosely-added, uncited material here as of late. Please take more care in citing sources and research. The contributing author is responsible for providing accurate information WITH supporting sources. If you need help finding quality sources for this page, I will help. Leave me a message on my user talk page.--E8 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bio versus Petro differential

Would a section explaining the differences between biodiesel and petrodiesel be appropriate? A differential (with molecule models) would provide greater explanation on many of the common topics that are discussed here (e.g. combustion, energy density, hygroscopic properties, etc.) Thoughts? Worthwhile or just complicating?--E8 (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I did think that this section would be useful (see "Removal of some duplication" above). These differences are refered to in several parts of the article, so gathering them all in one place with a clear title would be good. Part of the problem is that to make sense it should be near the beginning, otherwise the differences already get discussed before their section. This could be delaying the "meat" so to speak. All in all I am in favour.Stainless316 (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use in aircraft

Al the media reports I have seen on the Virgin use of biofuel in planes have described vegetable oil, not biodiesel, including the one cited in the article. Is this a case of the media doing its usual poor job of reporting science based stories, or was it actually straight vegetable oil in the trials? If it was oil, then it does not belong here. If it is biodiesel, perhaps someone can find a reference which says it is.Stainless316 (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Here's the C-Net coverage of this new item, specifically stating: "biodiesel from Imperium Renewables composed of babassu oil and coconut oil" was used. I complete agree that the media reports were very unhelpful when it came to technical aspects of this flight.--E8 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for thatStainless316 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from Distribution

The aspects of this section related to vehicle modifications need sources and should then be adapted to fit in the Vehicular use... section. The infrastructure component is spurious and should not be re-added to the main (see comments above).

"Distribution is possible using today's Petro Diesel infrastructure as long as minor adjustments are made[citation needed] to both the distribution fueling systems as well as vehicle fuel systems, such as replacement of fuel system, solvent-sensitive o-rings, gaskets, fittings and hoses, filtering of loosened fossil fuel varnishes, prevention and growth of mold and additives to prevent solidification at colder temperatures."

--E8 (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minus section

The increase in biodiesel production of 5 times in 5 years is matched by the references in the Production levels section I have just added (Europe 0.9 million tonnes in 2001, US 5 million gallons or 0.02 million tonnes, compared to about 5-6 million tonnes 2006) However, this section mostly duplicates information already in the article.Stainless316 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Seems content was added to promote a website biodiesel-expansion.com, which is both an adsense site, and is selling a book. Fails WP:RS miserably..--Hu12 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flamability

Why is this under "enviromental efects"? It shoudld rather be only under "Properties". If nobody objects, i'll intergrate it to the propperties paragraph. - GeiwTeol 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This was redundant, and has now been corrected. Thanks for point it out.--E8 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Merge of environmental sections

Right now there are two "environmental" sections: Environmental effects and Environmental concerns. I think it might be better to merge them into one and present all environmental issues in the same section. It would hopefully give a more nuanced view since at least some of the benefits and concerns are related and it seems strange to me to present them on two different places. Otherwise there will be some duplicate information in both sections. Any objections/suggestions to this? --Apis O-tang (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be clearer all in one section. This is quite a hard section to get right, but also very important. Stainless316 (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Starting on this, the "Efficiency and economic arguement" section is largely redundant now, and I think could be either deleted or incorporated in the "Environment" section. Specific proposals to start. The first discussion about fuel use on farm vs oil yields is irrelevent, since this ignores all the other inputs e.g. fertilizer. I think this bit can go. The photosyntheses efficiency is interesting, and could be incorporated somewhere. The next bit is about energy balance, and belongs in the "environment" section. it also covers information about land required, which is covered, and about sources, which could be moved to appropriate section. Any objections to basically getting rid of this section? I will do it over a few edits, so it might get a bit scrappy before it gets better. This will be a first step to getting all the environment parts unified.Stainless316 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The efficiency and economic argument section does seem a bit redundant now yes. I pretty much agree with what you said. The comparison to solar is also interesting, although a bit unfair perhaps, it's the price per watt that is most interesting after all, although initial investment cost are probably high. Solar is primarily intended for grid use whereas biodiesel for vehicles so it seems a bit irrelevant. A comparison between electric batteries and biodiesel is also interesting but it would be nice to see more facts comparing them if that isn't out of scope here, and the big benefit from biodiesel is probably that it can be used in existing engines anyway? Well, it could be incorporated later if need be. So no objections from me.
I'm still working on the new environmental section, I need to add the last sections though and I'm going through sources and references. I know I've been a bit slow. :( I have been looking for more references from the related pages (biofuel etc). I should probably focus on getting it done and add sources later though. I would be thankful if you (or someone else) would help me go over it once I'm finished. But I'll make a post here then. =) Apis (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy to have a look and chip in whatever I can. It takes a lot of time to get these things right. Stainless316 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm mostly happy with the new environmental section now, it can be seen here: New Environmental Section.
I haven't included the "Food vs Fuel" section but it would be easy to move in there if anyone thinks thats where it belongs. Thankfully firefox have built in spell checker now days so I think the spelling won't be too bad =) but feel free to copy edit if there is something that's wrong/could be better (English isn't my native language). I have mainly added more material and rewritten to make the text more coherent, although one or two things with very dubious sources have been removed (data from an example msds factsheet for example). I'm not particularly familiar with the pollution and toxicity aspects (and there aren't many references to check out) so I have left that mostly unchanged. Comments and suggestions are appreciated. =) Apis (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Generally I think OK. I think there is a bit much emphasis on deforestatiuon, as it is included in the CO2 section and also has its own section, which is a bit of duplication. I would like to include some figures from the various estimates of CO2 savings without land use changes, such as Sheffield Hallam lifecycle analysis (LCA) 2003 [[13]] Summarised here[[14]] says CO2 Emissions are For each MJ of biodiesel produced 0.025Kg of CO2 is released. For each MJ of fossil diesel produced 0.087Kg of CO2 is released, giving a gain of 3.48. This does NOT include land change. Energy savings trust [15]] says generally accepted 60% reduction well to wheel. Well to wheel analysis european environment agency. [[16]] Report available here: [[17]] pdf format. Biodiesel from rapeseed can give saving of 53% of GHG compared to petrodiesel. Plus also the USDA recently released re-worked "Urban bus" figure of 3.5 (or thereabouts). These could be summarised as estimates of CO2 savings from about 2 to about 3.5, or similar.Stainless316 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I was initially planing on having a lead section which summarized everything and brought up the parts that was too short to merit their own section. I eventually realized I didn't know much about pollution or toxicity, and there's only one reference in those sections so I gave up. Some of that ended up in the first section (i.e. the CO2 section) and thus some duplication. The other data is great, I'll try to incorporate the figures, thanks. Apis (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through the reports and the first one (Sheffield Hallam analysis) give savings of 57% GHG, the eu ones: RME 45-50% GHG, SME 65% GHG WTW savings (slide 44 & 46). The energy saving trust says 60% CO2 WTW. With current production methods and not including land use change. I'll summarize it as 45-65% savings of GHG. The urban bus sounds a bit lower, but its possibly CO2 reductions then? or newer production methods? I also noticed that used cooking oil and tallow give ~85% CO2 reduction from the graph based on the UK rtfo report, I think that is worth mentioning as well. Apis (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have made some changes as discussed. If there are no other objections I'll make the switch? Apis (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time Magazine Cover Story Calls Biodiesel "The Clean Energy Scam"

The April edition of Time Magazine put out a very good article on biodiesel highlighting a lot of the environment concerns at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html.

This Wikipedia entry on biodiesel talks a lot about the benefits of biodiesel and barely touches on the drawbacks and environmental costs. All of the criticism is tucked away at the bottom of the page while all of the hype is at the top. This is especially troublesome when you consider that biodiesel has driven up the cost of food, increased deforestation, and increased global warming. Biodiesel based on sugar ethanol is more effective than corn ethanol but because of high tariffs on sugar and large subsidies to Midwest farmers in the U.S. inefficient and more environmentally costly biodiesel based on corn ethanol is able to succeed in the marketplace. The farm lobby is one of the strongest lobbies in the country and every presidential candidate needs to pander to the biodiesel industry in order to win Iowa which is the first state to have a presidential primary. The worst part of biodiesel is that the government and the special interests masquerade policies that are designed for special interests as green and environmentally friendly. (Ajhendel (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajhendel (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be advisable to read through this Talk page; you'll note there is on-going discussion regarding the inclusion of these topics. You are notably distant from a neutral point of view. Much of what you have stated above is misleading media-driven hype or, is off-topic (this is a Biodiesel page, not the biofuel or food vs fuel page). The rising cost of all energy is the impetus behind the drive for biofuels, not the reverse. There are certainly negative effects, but most of the reports circulating are non-scientific. Credible sources are added as they become available. As this subject is controversial and important, some mention should be made in the lead section (this is mentioned somewhere in this page, but bringing it back up is appropriate).--E8 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy security

I intend to add as section on energy security as follows:

One of the main drivers for adoption of biodiesel is energy security. This means that a nations dependence on oil is reduced, and substituted with use of locally available sources, such as coal, gas or other renewable sources. Thus significant benefits can accrue to a country from adoption of biofuels, even without a reduction in greenhouse gas emmissiions. Whilst the total energy balance is debated, it is clear that the dependence on oil is reduced. One example is the energy used to manufacture fertilizers, which could come from a variety of sources other than petroleum. The the US NREL says that energy security is the number one driving force behind the US biofuels programme. [8]and the White House "Energy Security for the 21st Century" makes clear that energy security is a major reason for promoting biodiesel.[9] The EU commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, speaking at a recent EU biofuels conference, stressed that properly managed biofuels have the potential to reinforce the EU's security of supply through diversification of energy sources. [10] Any comments / refinements before it goes in? Stainless316 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Energy security is definitely an important aspect! Noticed that you mentioned it in the new lead section as well. --Apis O-tang (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought it had to be mentioned in the article if it were to be in the lead section. Altered phrasing slightly Stainless316 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It has gone in. Not sure about the placement - I think the environmental effect section needs a re-jig as discussed, and then maybe a re-ordering of the sections would make sense.Stainless316 (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allowance for CO2 uptake?

This may be a stupid question - but shouldn't there be some allowance for the CO2 uptake of the crops when calculating nett CO2 impact of biofuels?Barneyt2 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, and there is! thats why it's lower than for fossil fuels. --Apis O-tang (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automobile Mileage Reporting

While not a direct edit of the Biodiesel page, the Wikiproject Automobile discussion page is having a discussion about whether or not to include fuel economy as part of the Automotive Infobox. If interested, please share your opinion. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biodiversity, Philippines

I added this landmark current research of Philippines due to its bio-diversity: Ateneo de Manila University's Department of Environmental Science, isolated Philippines species, on algal mass production to source out oil as alternative source of fuel. "Carbon dioxide as a product of aerobic decomposition can be utilized to enhance the growth of the algal species. Since the alga is also a rich source of proteins and carbohydrates, upon extraction of oil, the algae can still be utilized as food for livestock or fish; 1,000 to 10,000 gallons of algae are needed to produce a liter of biodiesel."abs-cbnnews.com, Ateneo scientists working on algae as biodiesel source --Florentino floro (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about the figure 1000 - 10,000 gallons of algae are needed to produce a liter of biodiesel. First, is gallons an appropriate unit to use for algae? does it refer to wet or dry algae? Plus, the numbers seem unbelievably high. Compare: about 10 pounds of olives (1-2 gallons) makes a liter of olive oil [18]. maxsch (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Further, this link [19] says algae can yield up 10,000 gallons of oil per acre, perhaps that's where the 10,000 gallons number comes from? Or are there 10,000 x 10,000 = 100 million gallons of algae per acre? maxsch (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If you search the archives and page history, you'll find this topic has been thoroughly discussed. As there has been so much discussion, Algae fuel has its own page. This discussion may be better there.--E8 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not finding the specific numbers I'm looking for, oil per unit of algae. The numbers that are in this and the algae fuel article are all oil per unit of land, per year. Either way, it seems to me that the edit by User:Florentino floro above gets those numbers confused or wrong. The reference is a news story--not a scientific publication. It would be a stronger edit if it mentioned the variety of algae or a scientific study, as it stands, it is at least misleading on the numbers. I'd like to take most of it out. maxsch (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)