There are multiple problems that will make it difficult for biodiesel to ever compete without subsidies. In a nutshell the key problem is that the feedstock costs are linked to fossil fuel prices. The feedstock is generally a vegetable oil and methanol – an alcohol typically produced from natural gas. A second big problem is that biodiesel is an inferior fuel to hydrocarbon diesel (especially in cold weather). Further, the by-product of the biodiesel process is glycerin, which has limited value (especially at the volumes produced when biodiesel production is ramped up).

More Here

1. If you can grow food, grow food. Forget the food/fuel debate; the economics are better for food in most places in the world. The reality is that a ton of food will bring more than a ton of biomass or biofuels. Focus on marginal lands to grow non-food energy crops. Incentivize these activities—not converting corn to ethanol.

2. Close the process so that any organic waste ends up back on the land. In doing this, stay clear of fertilizers and focus on increasing the soil content naturally.

3. Focus on biomass above baseline. Establish how much mass is there and focus on the additive effect of the process. If you have to burn down a forest to plant palm trees, it’s probably not a great net effect.

From the NY Times:

The study concluded that whether a biofuel is climate-friendly or not depends largely on whether it is based on crops or production residues. Biofuels of the latter category were generally considered beneficial for the environment, and generating electricity locally from waste materials was found — in mast cases — to be more energy efficient than converting biomass to liquid fuels.

Read More

From Yahoo:

Burning bioenergy and fossil energy release comparable quantities of carbon dioxide.

But in a key difference, bioenergy has been seen as preferable for combating climate change because overall emissions are — in theory — reduced, because biomass results from additional plant growth.

“This is because plants grown specifically for bioenergy absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and this offsets the emissions from the eventual burning of the biomass for energy,” said the study, adding that in contrast, burning forests releases stored carbon in the same way as burning oil.

However, both the studies note, the positive effect of biofuels on carbon emissions would necessarily be negated if land used to produce them had been cleared of forests to do so.

Melillo’s study also predicts the increased use of fertilizer in biofuels production will cause nitrous oxide emissions to become even more important than carbon losses in terms of potential for warming by the end of the century.

Read More

The core of re:char’s technology, Jason explained, is a process called pyrolisis, which takes place by heating to biomass like wood or agricultural waste in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolisis separates biomass and turns it into two main bi-products: a liquid fuel called bio-oil and bio char. Bio-oil is the used to run an energy generator and the remaining biochar can be applied back to the ground, enriching the soils and accelerating the process of carbon capture. Other models involving biomass do one of the two, Jason told me, either turning biomass into charcoal which can then be used, to operate cooking stoves or into energy through gasification processes. Jason’s model is different in that energy needs for lighting and cooking can be met through bio-oil, leaving char available to be put back into the ground, producing both environmental benefits (making the process carbon negative) and social benefits in the form of increased agricultural yields.

Read More