kj lad wrote:
Actually the amount of bio diesel being produced at the moment is a very small percentage of the amount required to replace fossil fuel based diesel. The land required for increased agricultural needs (including oil based plants) is thought to be responible for a loss of about 1 acre of rainforest per second!
Increased diesel requirements throughout the world (bearing in mind the economic revolutions in China and India) means that bio diesel cannot possibly replace or even signicantly suppliment fossil fuel based diesel.
Those partitioning the point of view that bio diesel is the answer to many of our future energy requirements are sadly mistaken. Unfortunately other options have to be explored. Hydrogen power seems to be coming out as a firm favourite. Being an environmental biologist, I don't fully understand this technology, but I do have a better than average of understanding of the biological resources on earth and they are finite and running out.
Ian
Ian, you are the environmental biologist, I am merely a chemist. I will tell you a secret: "hydrogen" is a red herring. It is perhaps useful as a means of moving energy from point A to point B (with a LOT of new technology needed) but IT IS NOT A PRIMARY SOURCE OF ENERGY and will never be so on this planet. The Laws of Thermodynamics preclude it. It is also a bust as a method of reducing petroleum useage, as the best ways we know of for making it, make it from petroleum or natural gas.
In essence, the advocates for hydrogen are mistaking a water pipe for a well. In the off chance of discovering new things, I support the efforts to "do something with hydrogen." Ie, I'll support basic research on about anything, but "hydrogen technology" is so far from producing anything of practical value, it isn't likely to help us out of the petroleum situation.
Secondly, the argument about whether biofuels in general, let alone biodiesel in particular, totally replacing petroleum useage for energy is disingenuous: we have never had a single energy source, and don't have one now. We need to replace petroleum to be sure, but there are no circumstances short of a miracle in which I can envision a single technology doing this in one swoop. What we need is a variety of technologies to replace parts of the problem. And biodiesel is merely one piece of that puzzle.
If I understand your concern, you are saying that if I plow up the rest of my 4 acres of clear bottomland, currently fallow in weeds and grass (as it has been since about 1960, as far as I can tell) to plant soybeans for biodiesel, I will be responsible for rainforest destruction somewhere. I disagree. And I am troubled by your insistence that my attempts to reduce my family's useage of petroleum is counterproductive. Simply put, your logic escapes me, and I note that following your line of thought here merely produces paralysis, which would be fatal if allowed to go unchallenged.