Answer to bad BD rumour?

[Lucas Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Lucas]

I was talking to someone yesterday about BD and saying how I run my vehicle on it, zero net CO2, great for the environment etc...
She then responded with a caution that in some Asian countries palm oil harvesters are causing "massive" landscape degradation and destruction that "outweighs the good carbon benefits of biodiesel".
This was the first "bad news" I've ever heard about BD. I've searched the web but could find no mention of this aspect of BD production in Asia. Although there's thousands of "good news" stories! I'm a bit sceptical that it might be a bit of petro-industry spin to paint BD in a bad light.
Does anyone have reliable information on this aspect of palm oil production? Has it ever been an issue in the past?
I'd like to find out more about it so I can reply to this person accurately.
Lucas

[Robert Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Robert]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

I've heard of this too. Here's the link to the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...658898,00.html

It does seem worrying. I have heard this reported before as well that Indonesians are clearing large areas by burning to make way for palm plantations. I guess a fuel is only as good as its feedstock.

Biodiesel from waste cooking oil, or other plant sources that are grown and managed responsibly is definitely not a problem. What we have here are the rules of supply and demand running unchecked by short sighted governments.

In Australia, we could be growing nice amounts of Jatropha, which is a high yield oil seed and thrives in arid and salty soil. It is already growing in many areas of Australia, but our government declares it a noxious weed and it must be eradicated, not harvested.

I think we all need to start trying to change things.

[Lucas Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Lucas]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

interesting article - thanks for the link. for those of us interested in the enviro benefits of BD it reinforces the need to check the original source products used in making it. Having said that - I'd like to see a more scientific appriasal of Monboit's argument. sure the initial burning is very bad but after that if the land is used repeatedly to produce BD (and in the process it continually consuming CO2 which is then released again when used as BD) then is it really as bad as "Nigerian crude oil" as he claims? Wouldn't this land use still be better than leaving a mature forest (which usually have very slow growth and modest CO2 sequestration) and then going and burning fossil diesel for hundreds of years instead?
Clearly this is a seperate issue to the species loss etc and of course in the long run humans will need to cut back on fuel use dramatically because there wouldn't be enough land available to supply all our current use of fuel if we stopped using fossil fuels.
I'll try and find out what Rutherford and Gosford use.
Lucas.

[Gunner Donating Member Find all posts View Profile Close Gunner]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

Andrew from Rutherford informed me that they currently use 30% Virgin Australian grown Canola and 70% WVO to produce their BD.

[Cheeky Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Cheeky]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

Hi Guys,

Anyone know if any work is being done on biodiesel production from algae oils, I have read "From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank" and it seems like a no brainer to use algae as an oil producing crop based on yield by weight, daily yield etc. I am sure it has it's problems but would certainly hope that work is being done with it as a renewable fuel oil source.

Any comments?

Cheeky

[Robert Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Robert]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

This is old news (posted it up on the site in Sept 05), but it was the last I heard about algae: http://www.sydneybiodiesel.com/content/view/22/2/

Algae would be the perfect oil producing crop, grows anywhere, fresh or salt water, absorbs more CO2 than anything else and has the highest oil yield - seems like a no-brainer.

I've not really researched much since I last heard about it, but I think the technologies to properly commercially harvest it are still a few years away. I think one of the methods used to extract the oil is centrifuge.

As mentioned in the article, complete self-sufficiency of biofuels is not possible with the current feedstocks. Even if we could convert all our current food farming land to oil crops, it would still not be enough to sate the world's oil addiction. However, with algae, that might be a different story.

If anyone has any more news that they've heard on Algae as an oil crop, please let me know (in a new thread) as I'd like some more news for the sydneybiodiesel site.

Cheers,

[morris Member Find all posts View Profile Close morris]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

This might (OR MIGHT NOT) be helpful:
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/EFM/05-025.pdf
It is a pretty good study on the viability of alge. It would be an incredible resource ofr agri-biz in Aus., but it appears that viability weighs on the development of new stain of algae. However, this is promising, I guess it will be a race between algae and F-T synthesis. ML

[jcaley Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close jcaley]

Re: Bio diesel plant for darwin to use palm oil

I read in the latest renew magazine (page 16) that a Biodiesel plant is to be built in darwin producing 130,000 tons BD per day from a palm oil feedstock. I wonder where that will be coming from.

I don't believe any reduction in net Greenhouse Gas Emmissions in the long term would justify clearing tropical rainforest to produce vehicle fuel.

[Cameron Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Cameron]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

I agree John,
As enthusiastic as I am about biodiesel I think that we should all be speaking out strongly against this whenever the need and/or opportunity arises. For me biodiesel is supposed to be a sustainable option and clearing rainforest or any other kind of native veg ecosystems anywhere is a bad idea.

It is not OK to say that the ends justify the means.

Cheers,
Cameron

[dillyman Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close dillyman]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

Hi Jcaley & Cameron,

Just caught up with this thread. I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments.
Just not acceptable. What can we do about it?
Apart from this on the nose issue, we have enough primary producers and land mass to be Oz sustainable, This will bive a chance to some of our own PP
to have other sustanable crops. Unfortunately it takes Govt: to approve to get anywhere. They are oil producers too!!!!

Dillyman

[gbrought Member Find all posts View Profile Close gbrought]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

Hi guys,

thanks for this info - it helps to be well armed.

I was talking to a friend the other day who I don't see very often - he has very, very "green" credentials, and he seemed underwhelmed when I told him I was using biodiesel.
He did mention something about what has appeared in this thread, but because I knew nothing about it, I must have seemed naive and ill-informed to him (which in hindsight, I was)

I guess it has sharpened my awareness that I can only be advocate for something (like BD) if I am aware of pros and cons (where they exist).

I'll have to get back to my mate and let him know it ahs been raised on this forum... hopefully that will reassure him that the biodiesel community in Sydney / Australia is smart and aware of all the issues.

cheers,

Geoff.

PS. Obviously I agree with Cameron and others sentiments above.

[darren leonadas Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close darren leonadas]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

Dont you just love these suedo greenies who bring up the cons about biodiesel, then jump in their V8 petrol car and vroom home!!
A friend of ours (using the term loosly), who is also a running candidate for the greens, who drives a V8 falcon, recently refused to come to our house warming party, because she heard I had recently removed, (according to VEPA requirments) a whole load of asbestos sheeting from my Bathroom. This same woman Tromps around in traffic like a banche, constantly tromping on her ASBESTOS brake pads. with scant concern for her imidiate environment. Go Figure, .There is no such thing as the Truth , only Opinion, but that's just my opinion.!?
Yep. I agree cutting down tropical rainforest to grow palm for palm oil is tragic, if not just stupid, but these other underdeveloped asian countries just see the money,!, and who in the corporate world doesen't. Meanwhile the Aussie Gov. cant find the investment to turn salt ruined, arid, outback waste lands into primary production of palm oil, which may then bring the price down. Aparently this plant will grow anywhere on little water.
Its a fact that as the demand for feedstock grows the market price will grow, and underdeveloped countries will folow.
The bottom line in my opinion is "I dont want to be apart of burning fossil fuel, and pump out of my exhaust Co2 from the Jurrasic. Co2 from burning biodiesel or burning rainforests is not from the jurrasic, its from the imidiate environment, so its not part of the global climate change problem, (CO2 debate). Infact burning rainforests creates Global Dimming which just might gives us a few more nano seconds to get our **** together.
Algae uses a lot of water, a precious resource, but the water is cleaned up by the algae, is it reusable? sewage effluent can be used to feed algae,, there are arguements-dialectics allover the shop.
GOOd news i heared from a good source at CERES . A Guy in western victoria wants to set up a thirty thousand hectare algae farm, using salinated land and brackish water and sewage effluent. Algae has the highest yeild of oil of anything that can be milled or centrifuged.
Forget these people who dish your endeavors, and bag biodiesel, for they only slander you out of spite and reactionary self loathing, you indimidate them, for what have they done lately for a positive change!??

[gbrought Member Find all posts View Profile Close gbrought]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

Hi Darren,

Although I have met the type of people who describe, I want to defend my old friend as someone with a lot more integrity. He runs a business and is one of the most ethical business owners I know... he once made a trip to China to see firsthand that the conditions of the workers in the factory were as they had been reported to him, before he would sign the contract to import.

So I guess I was commenting I my disappointment that he wasn't so impressed by biodiesel, rather than any outright bagging it.

BTW, I'm not sure what to make of your Jurassic vs. Immediate argument.
Its not an argument I've heard put like that before. I'll have to give it some more thought.

Thanks also for the good news story on algae farming.

cheers,

Geoff.

[darren leonadas Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close darren leonadas]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

BTW, I'm not sure what to make of your Jurassic vs. Immediate argument.
Its not an argument I've heard put like that before. I'll have to give it some more thought.

Geoff.

The reason (in my opinion, shared by many scientists), that biodiesel emissions are not considered greenhouse gasses, is because the co2 emiited by burning B100, started off in the imidiate environment. A Cyclic event. That is to say that the co2 was first consumed by the plant matter to make a carbon based lifeform, plant matter, Canola plants and sugarcane. Then that plant matter was either milled into oil, or fermented into alcahol, then made into biodiesel then burned with an end result of a directly proportonal creation of CO2. that again is airborn fertilizer for more plant matter. A cyclic event. No Co2 was added to the environment.
Burning "Fossil fuel" ADDS to the environment Co2 that has been locked away since the Jurrasic period, geosequestated by a multimillion year iceage. This is what IS causing Global Climate Change.
Burning 1 kg of hardwood produces aprox 900 grams of co2 that was absorbed by that tree as it grew that 1kg of timber.
Burning 1kg of coal or 1 litre of liquid fossil fuel creates aprox 950 grams of carbon dioxide that was not there before,, not since the jurrasic period. Creating more co2 in the environment, Creating Global climate change,.
Did you know many countries argued at the Kyoto conference that planting trees, Growing high co2 sequestation crops such as sugarcane etc could be counted as a carbon credit.
I hope i'm not preaching here to the knowledgable/converted, and properly explaining the jurrasic period vs imidiate environment arguement. (co2 debate)
Growing 1 sq. metre of sugar cane or Hemp intensivly sown for fibre, not for canibis heads, consumes in 1 year the same amount of Co2 as 10 sq. metres of old growth forest over ten years.
But hey , I much rather walking through old growth forest.
Sorry gbrought if i offended your dear friend, no offense intended.

[Lucas Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Lucas]

Re: Answer to bad BD rumour?

Hi all, this issue was what I was trying to touch on in an earlier post about Asian countries chopping down rainforest to grow biodiesel crops. I've been a passionate defender of rainforest (particularly, through some publishing work I was doing where I was able to advocate strongly for preservation of some temperate rainforest areas such as the Tarkine and the Blue Tiers in Tassie) and as an active bushwalker I dearly love these places. And I want my children to grow and see these awesome areas as well. So don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating chopping them down either!
But I think we all need to keep our minds open to all sorts of ideas as clearly climate change will be such a dominant issue in all our lives that past environmental "givens" might not be so absolute any more. I don't mean I necessarily suddenly take all these new ideas on board but no longer do i think in black and white terms about green issues (excuse my mixing of colour metaphors!).

Tim Flannery (author of The Weathermakers - an essential read for anyone interested in bio-fuels) reckons that climate change will become THE issue that defines our lives. In the book he presents a pretty convincing set of arguments to back up his concerns.
One interesting perspective is that if the earth warms just a few degrees most of those rainforests will disappear - or at the very least so many plants and animals who live there will be forced out of their habitat due to the warming that the place will be unrecognisable for what it once was.

Initially I was responding to an online article on George Moinboit's website knocking some biodiesel because it was produced in east Asian countries that cleared rainforest in order to plant intensive crops for biodiesel. I agree this should be an absolute last resort (there's plenty of other land that should be converted to bio-fuel crops before touching rainforest) but the article could easily be used by less-informed readers to conclude that "Biodiesel is a non-green product so I'll stick with fossil diesel" - which is what my friends who originally told me about the Asian biodiesel had decided.

After some thinking my response is now: I agree that biodiesel crops shouldn't be grown on land that was cleared rainforest - there's plenty of alternatives worldwide that should be converted before that takes place. However, I'm taking Flannery's ideas on board and I think that climate change will become such a huge part of all our lives that I'm not going to crucify the Asians too badly for their actions - it's still got to be better than burning fossil fuels. And I'm certainly not going to let the bio-diesel naysayers give bio-diesel a bad name over it - in climate terms (ignoring the current ethical issues of rainforest destruction for just a second) it's still a lot better than burning another few barrels of fossil diesel.

BUT - having said that it would be far more preferable (once an international bio-fuels industry arises) for the bio-fuels makers to self-regulate and encourage the likes of the Asian forest clearers to convert existing cleared land before clearing more rainforest.
And of course the only long term solution will be to break our massive dependency on all types of fuels for transport. Even if all the world's agricultural land were converted to bio-fuels there still wouldn't be enough to supply our growing needs for transport fuels. We've got to get a lot better at sharing transport and more efficient with moving produce and manufactured products around. In coming centuries this will probably have massive impacts on the very way that civilisations structure themselves and how we move about.
It's great to see a healthy discussion going on this topic conducted in a friendly way - keep it up!
Lucas