Shock: Biofuel is actually worse for the environment

Not as damaging as hybrid production and disposal.

well hybrid batteries can be recycled completely at least from toyota and honda i don't know about others

Ethanol/Biodiesel is not the solution for long-term. That's why other approaches are more economical. And that is why I don't see that as the fuel of the future.

This is a misleading title for the article.

The specific (and thats the important part) bio-fuel being mentioned is Corn (or food based)based Ethanol. Which the articles author is entirly correct in stating that they will end up being worse for the world. This does not apply to Switch grass ethanol nor any of the biodiesels.

In fact some of the biofuels kill two birds with one stone (I just like using that turn of phrase in an eco rant)...and noone ever mentions it. Biofuels can be made from waste products. Thats right, a reduction in the crap we are pouring into sewers and continue to toss into our overcrouding Dumps...can actually be used to our benifit, instead of discarded.

Now I'm no fool in beliveing that it is the best option that will ever be available for cars, however Solar cells have not come far enough yet (give them another decade or so) to generate enough energy to propel an everyday car at any speed for any distance. And the ever present question ..."What happens if its cloudy" is still pertinent.

While Hydrogen still has a stigma (and deservidly so due to where it falls on the periodic table) as being a dangerous substance to work with...AKA people are afraid of their cars turing into giant bombs when rear ended. Liquid Hydrogen could be a solution, however while developing an national if not world wide infrasturture for Hydrogen would take multiple decades. I can even begin to fathom the time required to create a liquid hydrogen infrastruture. Even though it is proven to be a good powerful technology in the BMW H2R .

I'm not even going to get into the false green state battery powered vehciles cause due to landfill use and 10 year total life cycle of the unit (which mean when you buy these cars you will drive it till it dies and then have to buy a new one with no trade in value because no car dealer will want to replace an entire engine just to resell an old car.) Along with the fact that even rechargable cars rely on taking power from the national power grid which is currently run on Oil and Coal.

The point is bio-diesels...at least for the next forseeable few decades will be the greenest option available to the world.

And as I said before this is just like quitting smoking some people are strong enough to go cold turkey, but the majority of the people use the patch.

Biofuels are your patch.

..."30% worse mileage on biodiesel"...
- Huu76

Again, Huu76 just throws out biased numbers from nowhere.

Cummins Engine Corporation estimates that a tank-full of biodiesel will get 5-7 percent less fuel economy than a tank full of ULSD (number 2 diesel fuel). A far cry from 30% loss. That's based on actual test, unlike Huu76s numbers. (source: www.biodiesel.org go to manufacturers statements).

Also, to help confirm this, there is a real world test going on with Decker Trucking (2-million mile haul), wherein identical trucks are being tested: control group uses ULSD, and the test group using 20% biodiesel (B20). So far, after several hundred thousand miles, the B20 trucks are coming in at less than 1% fuel economy loss.

A third real world test. I get 44 mpg, average, in my 2006 Jetta TDI using B20 exclusively. The car is estimated by the EPA to get 33 mpg (city/hwy combined: 2008 estimates). When I first purchased the car, I had to use number 2 diesel fuel. I got no better fuel economy when I did not use biodiesel.

I fail to see a 30% drop off in any real world scenario. The fuel is 89% as energy dense and has higher viscosity to offset this 11% energy density drop, so it is virtually impossible to lose 30% fuel economy from this great fuel versus diesel fuel. I think, maybe, Huu76 is confusing biodiesel with ethanol, which averages 27% fuel economy loss in current fleet cars using E85 versus FFVs running 100% gasoline (see www.fueleconomy.gov and then go to ethanol-fueled cars).

The original article was no doubt brought to you by the American Petroleum Institute or some other fossil-fuel association.

Speaking of hybrids and battery disposal, I've already had my wife's 2007 Saturn Aura Green Line Hybrid batteries replaced, as, only after seven months, two of the three batteries were leaking and had to be replaced.

Now sure, they can be recycled, but it takes energy to do that. I'm not against hybrids or any other technological means to reduce petroleum usage, however, hybrids are not the cure all. In fact, there is no single answer. It will take a combination of energies, fuels, efficiency improvements, and conservation to solve or dependence problem.

Certainly, the fuel with the highest net energy balance, biodiesel, can and will be one of the many elements to help us import less petroleum. For every unit of energy input, biodiesel produces 3.1 units of energy output (source DoE).