Airlines love to tout their environmental-friendly initiatives and the new trend is biofuel. But is “biofuel” a subjective term like “all natural” or a clearly-defined, objective fuel type? Is it actually a good thing?
United released the following video on biofuel:
It does not a nice job of concisely explaining what biofuel is, but again…is that United’s definition or is there a regulated definition?
Wikipedia provides the following definition:
A biofuel is a fuel that is produced through contemporary biological processes, such as agriculture and anaerobic digestion, rather than a fuel produced by geological processes such as those involved in the formation of fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum, from prehistoric biological matter.
Sounds good, but that’s a very wide definition. Are biofuels helpful for the environment? Yes and no.
Biofuels are different from fossil fuels in regard to greenhouse gases but are similar to fossil fuels in that biofuels contribute to air pollution. Burning produces airborne carbon particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides.
Critics of biofuel argue that 1.) biofuel requires additional land-use to produce the material required for fuel. This will eventually cancel out the carbon emissions saved over fossil fuels. 2.) Creating biofuels take away irrigable land that is better allocated addressing world hunger issues and 3.) Both crops and biofuel facilities require significant water.
CONCLUSION
I’m not a scientist and try not to be a cynic, but don’t blindly assume that “biofuels” are inherently better than fossil fuels. Like many things in life, there are tradeoffs. I think we can all agree that working toward a carbon-neutral fuel is a lofty goal, even if an unlikely one.
If I were the land, Matthew, I would be irritable as well when you used the word irritable instead of irrigable.
I wonder how much pollution used cooking oil would cause if it were used as part of a composite fuel solution rather than creating biofuel, which supposedly increases the price of foods such as corn because of the reasons you have cited…
Thanks Brian! Correction made.
No problem, Matthew.
Until you changed the word to irrigable, I was using…
…dry humor, while being helpful…
Best thing is to cut down on the amount of flying.
What a stupid question. The oil price is close to a historic low so synthetic fuels make less economic sense than ever.
There are not only economical considerations, so it is not a stupid question. That said, I agree that it does not make economic sense.
Lol. Spot on.
Another example would be EV vs petrol engine, which one have less environmental impact? If you think it is EV, you might want to consider how the powerplant generates electricity. Nuclear? Dam? Wind? Or coal? Not to mention chemical and mining process to get the battery parts.
Then again, people loved the gimmick. Tesla is more expensive, yet people bought it. Iphone’s tech and innovation has been implemented all along on the android devices, yet still sold millions and making profits.
As for United, they beat, drag and bloodied passenger. They also ‘promoted’ basic economy which not exactly cheaper than economy. But people still fly United and they still make tons of profits.
So, as stupid as it sounds, there’s many people with no educational background who would vouch for the idea of AVTUR from BIOFUEL. And they will win the argument, because they can and will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
According to Ship & Bunker, the fraction of biofuel used by the US Navy actually costs $13.46 per gallon. The 94.5 percent of the conventional fuel the USS Mason filled up on only cost $1.60 per gallon — based on the current average price per metric ton. I’d prefer the DoD to spend my tax dollars on the more prudent, less expensive conventional fuels. When E-85 is used in my vehicle the mileage decreased by approximately 26%…
Biofuels also compete with the food supply as you stated.
Perhaps you meant “arable land” instead of “irritable land”?
irrigable.