How Green Are Biofuels? Comparison Chart [PIC]
Published on May 8th, 2008
Biofuels are increasingly lumped into a single category of environmentally apocalyptic dead-end solutions. As the food vs. fuel debate rages on, it’s no wonder that the general public believes this.
But not all biofuels are created equal, as the chart above illustrates (click the image to see full size). It’s one of the best depictions I’ve seen of how each biofuel feedstock has completely different impacts on overall greenhouse gas emissions, water and pesticide use, and the energy required to produce the fuel. (Click on the chart for the full image)
- » See also: Scientists Researching How Plants Can Make Petroleum
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
The chart was created jointly by faculty members from University of Washington and The Nature Conservancy and published in the Seattle P-I (see the article Bio-debatable: Food vs. fuel).
What About Hemp based fuels?? That would only drive up the cost of Cannabis
The water column seems odd. This chart is more or less relative. What is defined as low since there is no entry that is low? Crude oil?
I should say its good overall though.
Hello!!
You have a very good site.I love It.
Keep up the great work.
Thanks
Jitendra
Bio Diesel produced from algae absorbs more CO2 than it produces when burned. It can also be grown in the desert and could completely replace diesel and gasoline usage in the united states… if the US Government pays ~300 billion USD in capital costs… But it won’t because they make money off of Middle Eastern oil.
what about algae? it can reproduce multiple times a day and is the fastest growing plant on earth. it is much more productive in terms of oil and also can produce ethanol and biofeed for animals. the vertigro systems by valcent recycle all the water, no farm land is needed because it can be grown in the desert or in cold climates, no fertilizer or pesticides, only sunlight and equipment. greenfuel technologies has another alternative that uses the CO2 emissions from coal or oil burning to accelerate the algea growth and capture most of the emissions. solazyme adds sugar or switch grass and increases reproduction significantly, while also eliminating the need for sunlight.
I agree with jpm110, where does crude oil figure in? How much does it take to import oil from the middle east should be factored in. And what about all of the emmissions??? Seems like switchgrass is a partial solution that we should study.
A negative CO2 count?
Algae consumes more CO2 that produced when burned?
Ridiculus. Using such assumptions the chart is flawed. Nothing can have a negative life-cycle net CO2 balance unless you bury some of it, the original product or a carbon containing derivatire, deep in bedrock where the carbon cant escape back to the atmosphere.
If seen alot of these, bordering stupid, statements on blogs lately that for instance capturing flue-gas CO2 and feeding algae used for fuel production would somehow reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
When you take carbon out of the earths crust, fossile fuels, you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. When you bury something contaning carbon deep in the earths crust you reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s that simple.
Mattias - stupid? the chart says nothing about algae.
would you prefer it not be discussed?
don’t you think that any consideration should be given to algae?
do you have any other alternatives that seem more promising?
isn’t it true that if the co2 is within a plant, then it is not in the atmosphere? in that case, what if the algae was not burned? or, what if the co2 released from burning it was used by more algae?
Your greenhouse emissions should show gross emissions, including the emissions from producing the fertilizer, planting/growing/harvesting the crop, transporting the fuel (ethanol requires added transportation) and worst refining the ethanol. Look at the actual water numbers, with the growing water shortages.
Foremost, there is not enough agricultural land to grow the crops for fuel with NO food. Then you add the costs of using marginal lands to grow crops.