This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note the amount of land required to produce a reasonable quantity of Biodiesel. Total world oil consumption is ~4*10e12 kg/yr. Using Soya yielding 1000kg/ha, this would require ~4*10e7 sq km of land to be devoted to Biodiesel production. (Stats taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption) This is 4 times the surface area of the US. It should be made clear to the non-scientific reader that this is impractical in terms of available fertile land. 'We can eat, or we can have biodiesel, but we can't do both.'
Also I believe the scientific name of chinese tallow has changed to Triadica Sebifera, from Sapium Sebiferum. Using the old name in google results in outdated links.
Whilst extensive, this article totally ignores the strength of opposition from prominent scientists, environmentalists and journalists such as George Monbiot who warn of the potential threat of the mass production of biodiesel crops. May I suggest you expand or produce a new section outlining some of the major arguments against such as the displacement of communities and (often biodiverse) forest to grow biodiesel crops, the draining of wetland and subsequent release of Co2 from dried out peat bogs, the environmental problems of any monoculture such as pesticide build-up or nutrient depletion, and most strikingly of all the loss of space for food production. A useful resource might be: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/
Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat (ELISABETH ROSENTHAL, New York Times, Feb 8, 2008) claims that two new studies show that the damage to forests and such makes it so that, all told, biofuels use more carbon than regular fuels.
Expand production cost discussion. currently more expensive, that could reduce with economies of scale, focused production, innovation, and use of better crops.
Adjust notation of many volumetric amounts. IE, "230,000 million US Gallons" is simply 230 billion US Gallons. Problems like this exist all throughout the article.
Check the figures on the yield 95,000 litres oil/ha per year from an algae farm. There are no such farms in existence. One company GreenFuel is currently proving the concept at the Redhawk power station in Arizona. Check an article: Biofuel made from power plant CO2 http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg19225725.600-biofuel-made-from-power-plant-cosub2sub.html They estimate that a farm of between 8 - 16 square kilometers (8000 - 16000 ha) will yield 150 million litres of biodiesel plus 190 million litres of ethanol per year. Total fuel 21,250 - 42,500 litres per year. I have done some calculations that make me feel that even these values may be a bit optimistic. The 21,250 value is getting close to the limits discussed in: http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p261/Content/Sources_Conversion/Photo-_synthesis/photo-_synthesis.htm ; "At least eight photons are required to store one molecule of CO2 which means 1665 kJ of light energy are required to store 477 kJ in the plant. Max efficiency is 28.6 %. Only light in the range 400-700 nm can be used. This amounts to 43% of total solar incident radiation." Thus before other considerations the limit is 12.23%. They go on to take into account other factors like energy lost in respiration and set a limit of 6.6% in crops. In practice crop farming yields are very much lower than 6.6% in agreement with your table.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 120 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
I'm writing a paper, so I looked up the source for Duffy and Patrick doing transesterification. The main sources I could find were "histories of biodiesel," very few of them had sources. In google scholar, those that cited sources referred to other articles which did not cite sources. Not once did I find a primary source. Until proven otherwise, I believe this to be a fabrication. The original source would be great, if anyone has the citation or knows where to find it. Cheers! Semitones (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
So what did you find already? I see they appear in a Spanish Ph.D. thesis in 2001 and some articles in 2002, and it was added to WP in 2003, so at least it wasn't just made up for us. Did you get hold of this one referenced in the Spanish thesis? (Summers P (1998) Studies highlight biodiesel's benefits. Golden, Colo. (EE.UU.): US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 6 Julio.). It's an announcement of a couple of reports, no mention of Duffy or Patrick anywhere. So maybe the Spanish student made it up? A couple of his Irish buddies? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It looks like it was not Duffy and Patrick, but Patrick Duffy (see refs in article). -- Linksfuss (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The images are of homebrew equipment designs; they're both how-to content and based on original research and thus, cannot be included. I'm unsure why you continue trying to foist this quality (questionably safe design, etc) of content on Wikipedia. We've had this discussion before (when you promised to make changes and never did). While you're capable of posting interesting and useful images, you also repeatedly ignore guidelines (particularly WP:NOR) to the point of being disruptive (as been cataloged here and here).--E8 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this section, links like Ethanol fuel are unneeded as they already exist in the Nav boxes. The MOS states that "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." There's an obvious reason - if all related nav box links end up in the See Also section, 1) the section is massive, and 2) there's no point in having the Nav boxes. Ethanol fuel is a parallel technology, but so are all other biomass derived liquid fuels; Ethanol and Biodiesel don't share production methods, rarely share feedstock (corn oil isn't a high percentage feedstock for Biodiesel), and aren't used in the same vehicles, so why single out ethanol above the other biofuels? I'm not strictly opposed to this addition, i just fail to see the justification for the special treatment.--E8 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Both are the most common methods for stretching transportation fuel. Consumers are going to be most familiar with the E10 gas at the pump, truck drivers are going to be most familiar with Biodiesel. See Also should be for topics that are strongly related to the article topic. Navigational links elsewhere are not immediately seen by most article readers (I certainly didn't notice them), and should be reserved for related, but not strongly related topics. I recommend removing the other See Also links if they are not strongly related. Greenlead (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I better understand your concern. Visibility is an issue. I think adding a "Biofuel" sidebar would resolve this issue; a sidebar with this specificity would be a better suited than the more general one on Ethanol_fuel (below), which would replaced as well. I'll draft a template.
You're comparing values for crude oil and distillate fuel oil. Distillate fuel oil is a fraction of crude oil(~28%), accounting for the difference.--E8 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Product made of barrel of oil also represents the picture: transport consumes 70 at least? If you distill crude oil and split 30% for the transport and 70 for other purposes then you do not say that 70% is motor oil, right? Is 70% just waste? -Javalenok (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)