Biodiesel emits the same levels of CO2 as burning regular diesel however?

Question

growing rapeseed emits significant levels of nitrous oxide (laughing gas), which is 200 to 300 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

So how green is that?

Answer 1

It isn't, but then most of the green solutions I've seen are more about people feeling self-righteous than about producing real change.

Answer 2

not very but the goal is to work for oil indepentance

Answer 3

Rapeseed is not the only oil seed crop.  Here in Montana where I live they are researching all sorts of new plants to produce seed oil.  They should grow something other than corn for ethanol, too, since it hardly makes enough to be worth it.  

It isn't cost effective unless we taxpayers subsidize the growers. The corn growers have some exceptional lobbyists.

Answer 4

Burning just about anything will produce CO2 that is actually not much of a greenhouse gas.  That is just a money-making myth pushed by Al Gore.  So, BioDiesel, Corn-Ethanol and other 'alternative' fuels are really a crock, a way to suck up tax money to boost the value of some folks' investments.

Nearly all those bio-fuels will require conversion of more land to fuel production, resulting in destruction of pristine ecosystems.  NOT GREEN!

The Bush Administration has been pushing carbon-free Hydrogen energy generated by geothermal plants and nuclear power.  That is about as clean as energy can get.

Answer 5

Biodiesel does have lower particulate emissions than dinodiesel meaning better air quality (the particulates are carcinogenic) which is a worthwhile aim while also providing the 20% reduction in CO2 emissions from the tailpipe of the vehicle.

Answer 6

You are correct about rapeseed, however here in Iowa there is quite a buzz about corn biofuel. Although the process is still carbon positive (meaning that it emits more carbon into the atmosphere planting, harvesting, transporting, and burning than it removes from the atmosphere while growing) it emits dramatically less GHG then fossil fuels or rapeseed. There are other potential candidates for the production of biofels as well.

Low-Input-high-diversity grassland (LIHD)

Even with current methods, this method is carbon negative (it removes more carbon while growing than is produced while burning) It also requires requires virtually no input work, with a ratio of about 500% input work done by people to output work. IT also requires no fertilizer and replaces nutrients into ground that is not sutible for growing feedcrops.

Sugarcane

This method is currently very efficient because the substance required to make ethanol is glucose and sugar is pure glucose. This method is almost completely unused in the US, instead mostly in brazil where sugarcane grows well.

Soybeans

Corns more inneficient cousin-not much else to say

coconut oil

very energy dense, but the ideal places to grow it are in the rainforrest, which would have to be cut down in order to facillitate its growth.

Basicly any organic matter can be used, but some methods are highly inefficient and impractical, so will probably never be used commonly

Answer 7

the assumption would be that many of the plants that produce the worlds food do the same thing...and that one might be concerned about their environmental impact as well.

swamp methanogens are a big contributor to the methane in the atm.

or the widespread use of fertilizers cause the emissions of N2O

Answer 8

umm the study, that makes that claim comes from an unproven estimate from Shell Oil.

Also N2O degrades over time as part of the natural nitrogen cycle.

it isn't the rapeseed that causes the N2O emissions, its the farming techniques that need improvment.

Bioremediation methods to solve the situation, using microorganisms is currently being researched.

Answer 9

Your right, it isn't. It is time we make an effort to produce energy without having to burn things.