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)
>> Interested in solar power? See if group discounts are available in your city
>> Don’t forget to: Sign up for our electric car interest list.
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).
You Might Also Like
Winning Formula One Ferrari Ran on Cellulosic Ethanol 
Ford’s New Super Duty Diesel Pickup Is Its Cleanest Ever
Reading Tea Leaves: Future Biofuels in the Bottom of a Cup?
Boat-Eating Bug May Hold Key for Future of Biofuels
May 9th, 2008 at 12:02 am
What About Hemp based fuels?? That would only drive up the cost of Cannabis
May 9th, 2008 at 1:10 am
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?
May 9th, 2008 at 1:49 am
I should say its good overall though.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Hello!!
You have a very good site.I love It.
Keep up the great work.
Thanks
Jitendra
May 9th, 2008 at 10:40 am
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.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
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.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
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.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
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.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
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?
May 9th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
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.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:37 am
It is the gross CO2 emissions. Otherwise they would all be 0, see my previous post. Assuming of course the figures are correctly calculated.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Why don’t you include HEMP in your study?
Isn’t HEMP the highest cellulose producer?
Doesn’t HEMP take comparable water and pesticide, yet have a higher cellulose content?
Is this exclusion due to Federal Funding and fear of lack of funding if findings show HEMP as a viable alternative?
Should science be dictated by fear, or should scientists be held to a higher standard … the truth?
HEMP may not have all the answers, but if we use HEMP for plastics, manufactured wood, engineered lumber, clothing, and some fuel, then won’t it help?
May 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
on the Algae row in the full table, are the numbers for open pond systems? or does it take into account vertical systems like this one here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVJyoYC8O7A
It’s claimed that 10% of the state of New Mexico is all that is needed with this system to meet all the energy demands for the US. That’s technology worth investing in big time.
the kicker column in this table is the column listing the percent of existing US crop land to produce to produce enough fuel to meet half of US demand. Algae beats the others hands down and if that number is for open pond systems, then vertical closed loop systems is many times less than that area. PLUS, you don’t have to use existing crop land!!!!
May 16th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
who ever said biodiesel’s would completely replace our current system. I know the current one needs to be replaced but one step at a time. if biodiesel was available to customers they could make a choice. only so many could be made for that reason. Second there are devoloping new ways to grow drops on vertical farms. its pretty interesting this could be one way to better support the food vs fuel consumption
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
[...] fuel from corn better? nope How Green Are Biofuels? Comparison Chart [PIC] : Gas 2.0 __________________ EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO MY OPINION v-6’s are for [...]
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 am
hey,
your post is so effective. the chart is so informative. i like your blog. i hope you will publish more posts on biofuel and other related blogs.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
According to the Department of Energy, hemp as a biomass fuel producer requires the least specialized growing and processing procedures of all hemp products. The hydrocarbons in hemp can be processed into a wide range of biomass energy sources, from fuel pellets to liquid fuels and gas. Development of bio-fuels could significantly reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear power.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I take issue with the high reported of water for soybean/biodiesel. We do not irrigate soybeans here in Iowa, it is all rainfall. So no matter what is grown there, prairie grass, corn, beans, trees, watermelon it is all rainfall. No added water for growing.
Most, probably 98% of all biodiesel production uses little if any water. Only garage units use a water wash.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:52 am
[...] Producing cellulosic ethanol from non-food feedstocks has been studied extensively at a local scale, but it’s difficult to estimate the environmental impacts on larger, heterogeneous regions. In this study, researchers evaluated two potential consequences of diverting usable land to biofuel production: either existing agricultural operations are intensified, or large areas of natural forest are cleared to increase cropland. Sound familiar? [...]