It doesn’t have a different impact. They both produce CO2.
But Martin, if the bio fuels aren’t burned, wouldn’t much of it wind up as peat, coal, oil, or natural gas? If we dump grease, for example, in a land fill, isn’t it removed from the “carbon cycle”? Microbes may ‘eat’ it producing methane wich would be harvested by future generations and called “fossil fuel”?
Martin M August 23, 2009
7:45 pm
fossil fuel is old carbon that is not in the carbon cycle, thus the co2 from fossil fuels is being added to the cycle, whereas biodiesel is already in the cycle.
Instead of co2 being released when microbes eat the dead plant, it is released by burning in an engine. No microbes are eating the fossil fuels, so that carbon would have otherwise stayed in the ground.
edit
no, actually most of it will get eaten by microbes and be released back, only a very small portion does not go back into the atmosphere.
Because when the plants were grown that made the biodiesel, those plants removed the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. Thus there is no net increase in the amount of CO2.
TylerFromNE August 28, 2009
11:50 pm
The carbon being emitted in combustion is carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere when the input organism (i.e., algae) was grown.
There is no real difference at all. It is just an opportunity to source fuel from somewhere else. They both create co2 and produce toxic chemicals. Yes it is true that the plants removed co2 from the atmosphere before it’s death. But biodiesel is also made from animal fats. Now think about this. Petroleum is made from ancient plants and animals. These old plants removed the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during their time as well.
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
It doesn’t have a different impact. They both produce CO2.
But Martin, if the bio fuels aren’t burned, wouldn’t much of it wind up as peat, coal, oil, or natural gas? If we dump grease, for example, in a land fill, isn’t it removed from the “carbon cycle”? Microbes may ‘eat’ it producing methane wich would be harvested by future generations and called “fossil fuel”?
fossil fuel is old carbon that is not in the carbon cycle, thus the co2 from fossil fuels is being added to the cycle, whereas biodiesel is already in the cycle.
Instead of co2 being released when microbes eat the dead plant, it is released by burning in an engine. No microbes are eating the fossil fuels, so that carbon would have otherwise stayed in the ground.
edit
no, actually most of it will get eaten by microbes and be released back, only a very small portion does not go back into the atmosphere.
Because when the plants were grown that made the biodiesel, those plants removed the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. Thus there is no net increase in the amount of CO2.
The carbon being emitted in combustion is carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere when the input organism (i.e., algae) was grown.
There is no real difference at all. It is just an opportunity to source fuel from somewhere else. They both create co2 and produce toxic chemicals. Yes it is true that the plants removed co2 from the atmosphere before it’s death. But biodiesel is also made from animal fats. Now think about this. Petroleum is made from ancient plants and animals. These old plants removed the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during their time as well.