Talk:Biodiesel/to do

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • 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 Using the old name in google results in outdated links.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.