Is Bio Diesel the answer?

[han]

- only if we continue to increase our dependence on oil as we are at the moment....

Of course, if we want to slow down global warming, we will have to reduce car use anyway.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

All hydrocarbon energy use contributes and there's very little that you can do about it other than looking for ways to cut hydrocarbon energy use right down to a sustainable level. That potentially means cutting industrial oil/gas use, use of fuel for the transport base that makes globalisation possible, use in agriculture and food supply, cars and many other areas of modern life.

I suspect that this will not be good for business, and therefore won't happen.

 

[han]

But surely individual people can convert to using pure vegetable oil, and this will make a difference?

The only reason why it's not widely known about at the moment is because it's not money-making for big business.

I know people who've been powering their vehicles on pure waste vegetable oil for years, and they save a fortune. If more people know about this then it will make a <admittedly teensy> difference to the planet on a grand scale, but a massive difference to peoples' wallets and a massive difference to peoples' consciences.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Oh I'm sure it's worth doing and good recyling practice if nothing else, but the whole scheme is limited by the amount of waste vegetable oil in circulation.

So it's not going to make much of a dent in the big picture.

 

[fortyplus]

Problem is almost all commercial agriculture relies on petrochemicals to provide fertilizer and pesticides...

and, much more significantly, it requires shedloads of diesel to run tractors, combines etc - it's one of the most oil-dependent sectors of the economy.

I suspect (pure guess here) that the best hope for biodiesel to make a significant impact is as farm-machinery fuel, rather than road-transport fuel.

Seriously, for road transport, by far the most realistic option, post-oil, is still pedal-power. We'll all have to live closer to where we work and shop.

And as for flying, enjoy it while you can - we're the last generation who'll ever be able to pop over to NYC for a w/e....

 

[Cobbles]

I saw a warm and fluffy advert from BP last night saying how green they are by selling Bio Diesel and for this reason they are a green company. Naturally I have a distrust of any oil company so I did some research.

It appears that their bio diesel is a blend of 95% ultralow sulphur diesel and 5% rapeseed oil. Well OK it’s a start I guess.

Then I wondered what would happen if everyone run on bio diesel. Is that any kind of a solution to cap the 10% of all carbon emissions in Europe caused by private vehicles? Will it help as we are reaching or have even reached our peak oil supply? Can I drive a car and believe I am not part of the problem?

I came across an article from George Monbiot, and a few other sources with the same conclusion. Essentially there is not enough land in the UK to grow crops for our bio diesel demands. Therefore if we import fuel demands will compete with food demands. An extract:



http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/

Is there a sustainable way to drive a private car?
Is Bio Desiel the answer?

As you rightly say, a mere 10% of Europe's carbon emissions flow from private vehicles.

When the other 90% start to do something, then I'll think about doing my teeny inconsequential bit as well.

Why are private motorists demonised so frequently when they're only a tiny spot on a boil somewhere on the rump of the emissions problem?

If every private car was junked to-morrow, the difference would be the square root of sod all.

 

[fortyplus]

As you rightly say, a mere 10% of Europe's carbon emissions flow from private vehicles.

When the other 90% start to do something, then I'll think about doing my teeny inconsequential bit as well.

Why are private motorists demonised so frequently when they're only a tiny spot on a boil somewhere on the rump of the emissions problem?

If every private car was junked to-morrow, the difference would be the square root of sod all.

the transport sector is the fastest-growing part of the problem, and one of the least tractable to alternative solutions. Road and air transport are both increasing their share of total C02 emissions rapidly.

and 10% of whatever is >>> sqrt(0).... more than enough to meet feeble kyoto targets anyway....

 

[Cobbles]

"the transport sector is the fastest-growing part of the problem, and one of the least tractable to alternative solutions. Road and air transport are both increasing their share of total C02 emissions rapidly."

We're only talking about private motorists, not the whole "transport sector".

As there's only a finite volume of road surface, it's a fantasy to imagine that private motoring can grow in any way other than gradually and not exponentially so that even in ten years, we'll still not even be a minute part of the problem yet we continue to be hounded by enviro-nutters at every turn.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Unfortunately, I suspect you have to find investment to put the alternatives in place before you can reasonably expect people to stop driving cars in large numbers. That means a) effective rail transport etc, b) long-term changes in settlement patterns to eliminate many unnecessary transport energy costs.

I see no obvious way to do either of those things on the basis of 'free markets' or PFI type schemes.

 

[fortyplus]

it'll happen eventually from market forces when oil gets prohibitive, which it will, someday (unless we all get drowned/frozen/burned/whatever first) - the only debate is when - peak oil, innit.

because oil is plundered not produced, its price has historically been artificially low which has encouraged wasteful uses such as draughty houses, cheap flights and car-commuting.

obviously pfi isn't going to work (>>> separate argument why off-balance-sheet-finance is as corrupt in the public as in the private, e.g. enron case).

but a fair fuel or carbon tax, levied equally on everything from red diesel to avgas and housecoal, would help modify behaviour quicker than any amount of cycle lanes or trains - and raise money to pay for the said lanes/trains.

not a vote-winner though.

 

[Giles]

Unfortunately, I suspect you have to find investment to put the alternatives in place before you can reasonably expect people to stop driving cars in large numbers. That means a) effective rail transport etc, b) long-term changes in settlement patterns to eliminate many unnecessary transport energy costs.

I see no obvious way to do either of those things on the basis of 'free markets' or PFI type schemes.

Free markets WILL change where and how people live and work.

As fuel gets more expensive, people will no longer be able to afford to live 50 or 100 miles from their workplace and drive there and back each day.

Less people will be able to run a car at all, which will mean more local shopping and less 25 mile jaunts to big superstores out of town.

People won't want to buy houses miles out from any facilities when they factor in prohibitively high transport costs. Instead, they will demand housing within towns and cities where they can walk or cycle to work/play/school etc.

Giles..

 

[crustychick]

I don't think biofuel is anywhere even close to the "answer". Its a sticky plaster over the gapping bloody wound of the problem. There is no way we can produce enough to fuel all our cars and as has been pointed out would almost inevitably lead to fuel vs food wars as poorer nations are forced to grow fuel instead of food crops.

As with all energy supplies I believe we need to invest time and money into researching alternative technologies, for example, we need to find a better way to harness the energy from the sun (imo) to meet our national electricity demand.

But, i think, the most interesting development in this area is Hydrogen-on-demand fuel cells. There was a big article about it in the New Scientist a few weeks ago. The basic principes are that you only have to carry water around with you (so none of the dangers with carrying Hydrogen that current hydrogen fuel cells have) and when it is required, passing it over some kind of catalyst which splits the water into Hydrogen, which is then used as a fuel, and catalyst/oxygen compound which can then be recycled, reclaiming the original catalyst for re-use and releasing the oxygen as the only "waste" product.

There are many car manufacturers funding research into this area, the above example is of the one I found most likely/interesting.

The only drawback really would be providing the infrastructure for the production and recycling of the catalyst....

 

[Cobbles]

"but a fair fuel or carbon tax, levied equally on everything from red diesel to avgas and housecoal, would help modify behaviour quicker than any amount of cycle lanes or trains - and raise money to pay for the said lanes/trains."

You meen the current "blleed 'em dry" level of fuel duty isn't enough?

As private motorists are only 10% of the problem, surely more could be done by:
a) Replacing Drax with a nice clean Nuclear station
b) banning the sale of bottled water
c) whacking a an air miles tax onto fruit&veg that's travelled more than, say. a distance equivalent to the length of the UK

Motorists are becoming less of an easy target - it was only after the first Fuel Duty blockade that the Government decided to slow down the rate of increase in Fuel Duty. More of the same will follow if the Government continues to harrass Motorists.

 

[Cobbles]

I don't think biofuel is anywhere even close to the "answer". Its a sticky plaster over the gapping bloody wound of the problem. There is no way we can produce enough to fuel all our cars and as has been pointed out would almost inevitably lead to fuel vs food wars as poorer nations are forced to grow fuel instead of food crops.

No problem there - vast tracts of land in Africa are currently used to grow miniature carrots for the premium ranges in UK supermarkets, never mind flowers - neither of which would be classified as "food".

I'm sure that any agrarian economy will be delighted to grow whatever it can sell at the highest possible price as opposed to food for its local population.

In any event bio-diesel is only applicable for vehicles that can use it as a fuel (e.g. clunky stinky particulate generating Diesel engined vehicles). If we only had Diesel powered transport, particulate pollution levels and NO" would rocked, as Edinburgh has found out, where the Toon Cooncil's banning of everything apart from public transport from certain areas (e.g. big smelly diesel engine powered buses) has led to sky high particulate and NO2 levels that were previously within EC levels when there was a mixed transport population.

 

[fortyplus]

You meen the current "blleed 'em dry" level of fuel duty isn't enough?

Obviously, it's nowhere close, otherwise the private motorist would be a declining rather than a rapidly-increasing part of the problem.

But a fair fuel tax would be equal across all forms of fuel, so probably much lower for cars than at present. However, a fair fuel tax would be in addition to a road-pricing system so drivers pay would fairly for the construction and maintenance and land-use rental of the roads infrastructure.

As private motorists are only 10% of the problem, surely more could be done by:
a) Replacing Drax with a nice clean Nuclear station
b) banning the sale of bottled water
c) whacking a an air miles tax onto fruit&veg that's travelled more than, say. a distance equivalent to the length of the UK

a fair fuel tax would achieve the same result, evenly - no? But at least they could ban the fucking supermarkets selling air-freighted f'n'v as 'organic'.

Motorists are becoming less of an easy target - it was only after the first Fuel Duty blockade that the Government decided to slow down the rate of increase in Fuel Duty. More of the same will follow if the Government continues to harrass Motorists.

I think the term is "feebly capitulated to a vocal and ignorant minority"...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, I can see how significantly more expensive fuel, presumably as a result of total war in the middle east and/or depletion, might have some effects but it's not at all clear to me that they'll be either soon enough or the right ones.

We are emitting CO2 right now, more and more each year. To significantly cut emissions now we have to be proactive, building alternatives, like a really good public transport system, without worrying about whether they're going to make a profit.

Please forgive me if I doubt free markets will provide this. I suspect this to be a matter of religious faith, which I lack.

 

[Cobbles]

We are emitting CO2 right now, more and more each year. To significantly cut emissions now we have to be proactive, building alternatives, like a really good public transport system, without worrying about whether they're going to make a profit.

Which system, if it TOTALLY managed to replace private vehicles may well reduce emissions by 10% (less the volume of emissions it generates itself).

Back in the world of reality, I can hardly see that Governments that are dependent upon the employment generated by PSA/BMW/Volkswagen-Audi/Nissan/Honda/Damiler-Chrysler and the rest, never mind the spin off employment that flows from private vehicle production, are going to ban private vehicles en masse so a total ban is just a fantasy.

Anything less than a wholesale replacement of private vehicles by public transport would be just a waste of time as it would only make an unmeasurably small change in emissions as opposed to a puny change in emissions.

 

[Cobbles]

I think the term is "feebly capitulated to a vocal and ignorant minority"...

No, that describes the limpwristed extra 50 quid or whatever GB added to VED in this year's Budget to shut up the eco-babblers.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Which system, if it TOTALLY managed to replace private vehicles may well reduce emissions by 10% (less the volume of emissions it generates itself). <snip>

I'd be interested in seeing a source for that if you have one handy. Not doubting you, but I like sources.

 

[fortyplus]

No, that describes the limpwristed extra 50 quid or whatever GB added to VED in this year's Budget to shut up the eco-babblers.

when £2500 might have been nearer the mark? ISWYM...

 

[fortyplus]

Cobbles' 10% figure for private motoring, Europe wide, feels about right but I can only find figures for road transport as a whole, which show the UK figure at 21.5% in 2004, up from 18.6% in 1990.

obviously that includes the amount emitted by lorries and buses, of which lorries would be by far the biggest contributor.

what I don't accept is Cobbles' argument that 10% is not worth bothering about; it's still 10% of the problem, and both the share is growing and the absolute level of emissions is growing.

It's an interesting, if somewhat alarming, exercise, to try and work out if any of us, personally, could lead a fossil-fuel-free lifestyle; the car, for those of us who live in towns, is the easiest thing to give up - but in rural areas, doing without a car is all but impossible.



source:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gagccukem.htm

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If you want an optimal answer with significant reductions in hydrocarbon energy use, I know how to do it, but I don't see any way to make it happen.

What you do is completely re-arrange our settlement patterns around our agriculture, so that most of our food is grown in walking distance. Then you arrange for most productive work to happen within such 'eco-villages' so there is no reason to burn loads of hydrocarbons travelling to and from work

The 'eco-village' produces a fair bit of what its residents need to live using low energy methods, so again you don't need to be shipping stuff around the place and you emphasise recycled or native materials to reduce import/industrial hydrocarbon costs even further. You keep a few small cities, more like towns, in which 'big' stuff like major teaching hospitals, universities and so on can be provided for a population base big enough to support them and you make sure they are evenly enough distributed to maximise energy saving. You also have a network of smaller 'market towns', probably the old pre-industrial ones for the most part, to facilitate local exchange.

This way you would cut a massive amount of hydrocarbon energy use. If we were optimising our society to produce maximum quality of life with minimum hydrocarbon use, I'm pretty sure that's what a viable solution would look like. Instead we optimise for corporate profits.

So I can't see it happening.

 

[fortyplus]

Sounds a bit like the Blueprint for Survival, produced in the 60s by the Ecologist Magazine.

but, I agree, not going to happen...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sounds a bit like the Blueprint for Survival, produced in the 60s by the Ecologist Magazine.

but, I agree, not going to happen...

Yep, it would resemble that because the minute you start thinking about optimising for efficient hydrocarbon energy use instead of maximising profit, the maths always takes you in that sort of direction.

Some of the veterans, like Richard Douthwaite are still arguing for this kind of thing, but trying to use stuff like local credit unions to make it happen.

Here's his recent book Short Circuit, available online.

 

[fredfelt]

If you want an optimal answer with significant reductions in hydrocarbon energy use, I know how to do it, but I don't see any way to make it happen.

What you do is completely re-arrange our settlement patterns around our agriculture, so that most of our food is grown in walking distance. Then you arrange for most productive work to happen within such 'eco-villages' so there is no reason to burn loads of hydrocarbons travelling to and from work

The 'eco-village' produces a fair bit of what its residents need to live using low energy methods, so again you don't need to be shipping stuff around the place and you emphasise recycled or native materials to reduce import/industrial hydrocarbon costs even further. You keep a few small cities, more like towns, in which 'big' stuff like major teaching hospitals, universities and so on can be provided for a population base big enough to support them and you make sure they are evenly enough distributed to maximise energy saving. You also have a network of smaller 'market towns', probably the old pre-industrial ones for the most part, to facilitate local exchange.

This way you would cut a massive amount of hydrocarbon energy use. If we were optimising our society to produce maximum quality of life with minimum hydrocarbon use, I'm pretty sure that's what a viable solution would look like. Instead we optimise for corporate profits.

So I can't see it happening.

Bernie, I think this is spot on. We need to have more local lives where we source our requirements from within out communities to the best of our abilities.

I can see it happening. There is lots of talk about peak oil being reached. As it gets more expenisve to move anything around (food, goods, us) it makes more economic sence to be more local.

About the 10% figure for emmisions for private car use in the UK. I read this figure on some EU transport consultantion web site. Have not got the time to dig it up now tho.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

One problem, and the one addressed in that Douthwaite book I mentioned is that what you're partly trying to do in that scenario is protect local economies against the global one. You can't build village-scale light industry and make it viable against competition from some poor bastard in the developing working an 80 hr week for 20p. Unfortunately, until you do, he's probably stuck with his 80hr week for 20p because it's profitable for whoever owns the sweat shop.

If you invest money in any major bank, they'll want to put it into that third world sweatshop too. They won't care that maximising local industry is more energy efficient or socially desirable and most likely won't consider local light industry as being a going business proposition unless it's specialised. So Douthwaite suggests local credit unions and similar in order to keep the surplus value generated locally circulating locally instead.

 

[Cobbles]

What you do is completely re-arrange our settlement patterns around our agriculture, so that most of our food is grown in walking distance. Then you arrange for most productive work to happen within such 'eco-villages' so there is no reason to burn loads of hydrocarbons travelling to and from work.

Welcome to the wattle and daub school of economics, last in favour around the time of the Black Death........

 

[Cobbles]

Bernie, I think this is spot on. We need to have more local lives where we source our requirements from within out communities to the best of our abilities.

I can see it happening. There is lots of talk about peak oil being reached. As it gets more expenisve to move anything around (food, goods, us) it makes more economic sence to be more local.

About the 10% figure for emmisions for private car use in the UK. I read this figure on some EU transport consultantion web site. Have not got the time to dig it up now tho.

I think that like most of the science and statistics that coccoon eco-babble, it's a question of pick a number, any number - there'll be a computer model along in a minute.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You are Jeremey Clarkson and I claim my five pounds

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Meanwhile, here's a net energy analysis based bit of modelling that tries to explore what the real-world cost of a transition to sustainability might be.

So what happens then if we make greater energy self-sufficiency the priority since, in both tests described so far, the EU-15 became increasingly dependent on fuel imports even with a major effort towards conservation? Could a fast track investment programme in renewable energies improve matters? To investigate, we assumed a deliberate government-led programme of investment in renewable energy systems: a mix of wind turbine and photovoltaic. Such a policy would be considered wildly uneconomic, at least in the early stages. We assumed too that the resulting growth in renewables would be accompanied by a learning curve resulting in an eventual halving of the amount of human-made capital required per unit of power over the trial period. This was the outcome by 2015:

Growth rate: 45% less than BAU.
Manufacturing output: 25% more than for the year 2000, but 11% less than BAU.
Material standard of living: 24% down on BAU.
Primary energy: demand 20% less than BAU
Self-sufficiency in energy: better than BAU with 33% of electricity from renewable sources.
Unemployment: even higher than BAU.

So, although self-sufficiency in energy was improved, the other outcomes made this an unattractive policy. The reduced output and increased unemployment were directly due to the massive diversion of capital to investment in renewables which, because of their low load factors, require about three times as much investment per unit output as conventional or nuclear energy sources.

What was clear from these trials is that though it is possible to solve one problem, all three cannot simultaneously be solved. This is an important insight and leads to a search for a set of policies that better meets one's aims.

CONCLUSION

A renewable-based economy is certainly possible so far as the supply side - nature - is concerned. The investment requirements are going to be formidable - greater than with nuclear power. The transition will take time and require the embodiment of much energy. To make this transition we shall need all the fossil fuels we can get. And the sooner we start the easier it will be. We certainly will have to start before it becomes 'economic' using that word in its traditional sense. This is where examining new energy proposals in the light of net energy are immensely valuable.

source