Why isn't there an emphasis on biodiesel instead of ethanol since it doesn't conflict with food?

Unlike ethanol, which uses up the crop used as feedstock, biodiesel can be made by pressing the vegetable oil out of plants, which leaves the solids for food.

Even if we just used biodiesel and just used it for long haul truckers, who seem to be especially hard hit by rising gas prices, it would relieve them, leave more petroleum to be used for gasoline, and wouldn't interfere with food supplies.

To run on three fuels; Mostly grease or WVO, waste oil (NOT biodiesel). Absolutely Free driving, except for some paper filters I have to buy. And easy to do. For a couple grand you can go buy an older Diesel mercedes (conversion works best on the older ones) and for about $1500.00 more be driving for free. just collect grease from local restaurants. really works and more and more are doing it now. The car is soooo much quieter on grease too. And helps plant life (better than carbon neutral).

In other words, what is the gel temperature?

Out that it is almost like our country approached the problem ass backwards.

There has been no need to EVER use food for ethanol. Ethanol could have been made from the husks and the cobs of the corn etc. Rather than from the corn kernels.

In Brazil they make ethanol from the waste materials of the cane sugar plant. The cars there run on ethanol using no petroleum products at all. (The Brazilian product is booming as I type this, and they are laughing their booties off at us!)

and excuse to manipulate markets.

For commodities, but to mis-educate us into thinking that if we want ethenol then we have to pay more for food. That we can't have our corn kernels and our ethanol too.

Notice that over the last 25 years the M$M has gien us few headlines about our need to conserve. In fact, they gave us many headlines about buying bigger cars, bigger houses, and now is encouraging the flat screen, energy hogging TV's.

Then in the last few weeks, every other news story is about how awful an idea ethanol is - because it has created starving masses of people abroad and pushed food prices higher here.

because that would drive the price down below their break even point.

It all sounds like more neoliberal shock doctrine stuff.

Archer-Daniels Midland and all the other big Ag corporations dealt themselves this Ethanol gravy train. All of this was perfectly predictable -- and predicted.

This is a no-lose proposition for them. First they get the government to spend lots of taxpayer money to subsidize ethanol plants, then that results in the price of their product going through the roof. Life is good when you are an industry big enough to buy the high-priced lobbyists. Kind of sucks for the rest of us though.

Several years ago hubby and I planned to buy a diesel as I had read that it(biodiesel) would be the upcoming fuel. We decided to wait.
Now we look at the price of reg diesel and shudder. Will it finally be an up and coming fuel in the near future?

A guy had an unconverted diesel bus he drove around bumming used veggie oil from restaurants. He'd put it in a drum with a handful of chemicals and a heating element overnight, and the next day, he had diesel fuel for his bus.

It seems that it doesn't require fresh water, which is another dwindling natural resource in the world. It grows in salt water. And I understand it has the highest energy yield per pound of any other form of biomass. You can also make ethanol from the remainders after pressing out the oil.

http://gas2.org/2008/03/29/first-algae-biodiesel-plant-goes-online-april-1-2008/

"...PetroSun has announced it will begin operation of its commercial algae-to-biofuels facility on April 1st, 2008. The facility, located in Rio Hondo Texas, will produce an estimated 4.4 million gallons of algal oil and 110 million lbs. of biomass per year off a series of saltwater ponds spanning 1,100 acres. Twenty of those acres will be reserved for the experimental production of a renewable JP8 jet-fuel. ..."

"...Microalgae have garnered considerable attention, since acre-by-acre microalgae can produce 30-100 times the oil yield of soybeans on marginal land and in brackish water. The biomass left-over from oil-pressing can either be fed to cattle as a protein supplement, or fermented into ethanol. ..."

But then we have to get U.S. automakers to build compact affordable diesel cars. I don't know if they want to do that, since diesels tend to have a longer lifespan than gas automobiles and automakers tend want people to buy new cars as often as possible.

It is supposed to grow dense, grass 8-12 feet in a year. Testing it in our area to see if it would grow as advertised. Reason for test? To see if it would be a viable biomass crop for ranchers/farmers in our area. Some of the forward looking locals were curious about this grass they have read some about. Havocdad is always ready to experiment.

If the grass does grow well here, it could be a boon to struggling food/cattle producers in the area. One more crop to put into the possibilities here helps keep the producers independent a bit longer. The longer we can help them hold out and stay in business instead of giving in to BIG AG, the better I like it.

Like you, I would rather not see food or feed crops going into gas tanks. And the process, I understand is not really efficient anyway.

We have a mini experimental ag station instead of a garden ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Biodiesel_feedstocks

If it's made from vegetable oil, that's food. If it's made from animal fats, well for some of us animals aren't food, but there's no questioning that animals eat food.

If it's produced with algae, that's good. However, that's not how most biodiesel is produced.

It's like ethanol. In theory, there are ways to produce it which do not "conflict with food" (as much) but the primary source of ethanol in the US is corn. In the case of biodiesel, it's soy beans.

Even if it's produced using algae, the algae need to be grown somewhere.

the worst you would have to do is boil or bake more foods instead of deep fry them, but no one would starve.

Additionally, "used" oils are processed to manufacture pet foods.

Unless you're talking about creating a hemp industry - and hemp oil is not only a direct replacement for diesel, but also a nearly perfect food oil - a biodiesel industry would only place further pressure on food prices.

Neither needs to. I do think that biodiesel is more versatile in production; but less so in its uses.

It's already a threat to tropical rainforests.

You can't make enough of it to put a noticeable dent in our fossil fuel consumption, for another....

It uses the STARCH in the crop. What's left over after making the ethanol is highly nutritious grains for animals. Cows in particular should not be eating starch, they can't digest it, get sick, etc. So cows are healthier and gain weight better on dried distillers grains. If biodiesel from crops is so much better, how come you can get only 50-60 gallons an acre of biodiesel from a crop and hundreds, even thousands (cattails) per acre for ethanol. And properly managing the land, without using fossil fuels.

The dirth of education on how ethanol works is going to lead to oil companies making all our decisions for us on what energy to use. As they have for 100 years or so.

http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com?bid=2&aid=CD8&opt=

The energy density of liquid fuels is desirable. However, it is important to understand that the amount of energy used to produce ethanol is roughly equal to the amount of energy you get out of it. That means it isn't an answer to our energy needs unless it is locking some form of nonfossil derived energy into a liquid state. This study is disputed by some who say that the amount of energy contained in the ethanol is about 20% more than what is required to make it; either way it doesn't change the basic characteristic of the fuel - it is a means of storing energy, not collecting large amounts of surplus energy.


Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower
David Pimentel1, 3 and Tad W. Patzek2


Energy outputs from ethanol produced using corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass were each
less than the respective fossil energy inputs. The same was true for producing biodiesel us-
ing soybeans and sunflower, however, the energy cost for producing soybean biodiesel was
only slightly negative compared with ethanol production. Findings in terms of energy outputs
compared with the energy inputs were:
• Ethanol production using corn grain required 29%
more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced.
• Ethanol production using switchgrass
required 50% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced.
• Ethanol production using
wood biomass required 57% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced.
• Biodiesel
production using soybean required 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced
(Note, the energy yield from soy oil per hectare is far lower than the ethanol yield from corn).
• Biodiesel production using sunflower required 118% more fossil energy than the biodiesel
fuel produced.