This largely comes down to the details of how it's created. In general, a "biofuel" is just a hydrocarbon derived from biological materials (e.g., algae, sugarcane, etc.). The idea here is that...
This largely comes down to the details of how it's created. In general, a "biofuel" is just a hydrocarbon derived from biological materials (e.g., algae, sugarcane, etc.). The idea here is that since you're growing something that will capture carbon (plants), when you burn the fuel from it, it is close to (if not all the way) carbon neutral. In this sense, biofuels are significantly better than any traditional hydrocarbon fuel. Where it can get problematic is in what you do to grow your fuelstock, e.g., if you're cutting down forests to make more land for agriculture after converting farmland to biofuel crops that can be problematic.
edit: also, if you're doing something nasty in the processing step between plant and fuel, obviously you can have problems there as well (an analogy would be: the processing step of solar panel creation)
Cleaner is a misnomer for sure. The amount of carbon these fuels emit when burned are still roughly the same as the fossil fuels but the theory is that oil is from sources that are sequestered...
Cleaner is a misnomer for sure. The amount of carbon these fuels emit when burned are still roughly the same as the fossil fuels but the theory is that oil is from sources that are sequestered from millions of years ago and are no longer sequestering or so slow that it's not worth considering, whereas biofuels come from sources that are still consuming carbon from the environment and so long as we're replenishing the source of the biofuel equal to the amount we're emitting it's effectively carbon neutral (over a 50-200 year time scale vs a few million)
It looks like the corn-based projects might get cancelled but sugarcane-based production is lower cost (and maybe better for the environment?), and it's still going:
It looks like the corn-based projects might get cancelled but sugarcane-based production is lower cost (and maybe better for the environment?), and it's still going:
Brazil has about 15 ethanol corn mills in operation, three in pre-operational stages, and 23 new plants are in the pipeline, according to Unem. If oil prices stay near current levels, it’s likely only 40% of the projects will continue, Nolasco said.
Unlike Brazilian plants that make ethanol out of sugar cane, which accounts for the vast majority of the nation’s 31-billion liter biofuel market, corn-ethanol mills have to buy the raw material from farmers.
As gasoline tumbles, ethanol is under pressure. The two compete directly at the pump in Brazil, where most drivers have flex-fuel cars, which can run on either.
[...]
Margins for the grain-based biofuel have already turned negative in Goias state, where a third of the nation’s plants are based, said Matheus Costa, an analyst at INTL FCStone. If lower energy prices are sustained, things could get worse. As many as 60% of planned expansion projects could be scrapped, according to Guilherme Nolasco, president of the industry group known as Unem.
My understanding was that biofuel was still very bad for the environment and not much better than regular diesel fuel.
This largely comes down to the details of how it's created. In general, a "biofuel" is just a hydrocarbon derived from biological materials (e.g., algae, sugarcane, etc.). The idea here is that since you're growing something that will capture carbon (plants), when you burn the fuel from it, it is close to (if not all the way) carbon neutral. In this sense, biofuels are significantly better than any traditional hydrocarbon fuel. Where it can get problematic is in what you do to grow your fuelstock, e.g., if you're cutting down forests to make more land for agriculture after converting farmland to biofuel crops that can be problematic.
edit: also, if you're doing something nasty in the processing step between plant and fuel, obviously you can have problems there as well (an analogy would be: the processing step of solar panel creation)
Cleaner is a misnomer for sure. The amount of carbon these fuels emit when burned are still roughly the same as the fossil fuels but the theory is that oil is from sources that are sequestered from millions of years ago and are no longer sequestering or so slow that it's not worth considering, whereas biofuels come from sources that are still consuming carbon from the environment and so long as we're replenishing the source of the biofuel equal to the amount we're emitting it's effectively carbon neutral (over a 50-200 year time scale vs a few million)
It looks like the corn-based projects might get cancelled but sugarcane-based production is lower cost (and maybe better for the environment?), and it's still going:
From the article:
[...]