4 comments

• 

  Jarred

  1 year ago

  That's hot.
  reply
• 

  James

  1 year ago

  I've been following the biodiesel process and industry for the last four years, including overseeing a failed production facility at Furman. I love the fuel but only see it as a small contribution to a number of other smaller solution to fill the energy gap until something better comes along (I believe this will be all electric).
  
  The problem with biodiesel is that it still needs petroleum products to be produced, namely methanol. People are trying to make fuel using ethanol as a catalyst with less results, but that takes petroleum to make as well. If you think about it, there are very few environmentally friendly products and fuels that don't originally come from a product or material that somehow involved oil.
  
  I love biodiesel and drive a diesel powered car myself (though not on biodiesel, but I would if I could) but I don't think there's a big future for biodiesel past any government mandates that forces companies to contain a certain level of biodiesel content, like the B20 the man was talking about.
  
  Homebrewers will continue to make and use biodiesel, as many of the most environmentally conscious people would be conscious regardless and go above and beyond the efforts by most people to be better to the planet. For plenty though, biodiesel is attractive simply because it's cheaper to make at home (and avoid some taxes).
  
  Like I said, economics, not morals or tending the planet or looking out for future generations, will be what will make the big switch from unsustainable to sustainable living, and not environmentalism for environmentalism's sake.
  reply
• 

  Taylor

  1 year ago

  James--thanks so much for your comment. As I argued here (http://tropophilia.com/2007/12/14/markets-for-m...)), I don't have much faith in alternative energy movements that aren't supported by government mandates, tax incentives, or enormous efficiency advantages that make switching relatively painless and money-saving for producers and consumers. With that said, algae is the most efficient bio diesel fuel stock I know of. Though it requires some petroleum to convert to fuel, the fact that it grows by removing CO2 from industrial emissions, is extremely efficient per acre (unlike ethanol or soy), and involves a far less carbon-heavy conversion process than corn ethanol (which the new energy bill mandates including in fuel stocks), makes it a very appealing future step to me. I'm not saying we'll get there overnight--or even within the decade--but I see this innovation as an exciting sign of where we COULD go with courageous public officials and entrepreneurial scientists leading the way.
  reply
• 

  James

  1 year ago

  All your points are valid, and believe me, I, more than anyone I know (except maybe you?) would love to see renewable biodiesel replace every other alternative until something better comes along.
  
  The first I heard about algae biodiesel was from an article written in 2004 by Michael Briggs from the University of New Hampshire. He wrote a "best case" scenario where we cordon of 780 square miles of desert and devote them to algae ponds.
  
  http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
  
  The first time I heard about the concept being tried was from a company called De Beers (not the diamonds) announcing a pilot plant in South Africa to make algae biodiesel. This was about a year and a half ago. Las I heard, it works but only on a small scale.
  
  Looking for De Beers info, I came across this site:
  
  http://www.oilgae.com/blog/
  
  That should keep you busy for awhile . . .
  reply