EU drive for ‘green’ biodiesel has increased emissions, study finds 

Posted: April 27, 2016 by oldbrew in Big Green, Idiots

For how much longer? [image credit:]

For how much longer?
[image credit:]

The Telegraph reports that the biodiesel ‘cure’ is about 1.8 times worse than the imagined carbon dioxide ‘disease’. Another own goal by misguided government-supported environmentalists.

The use of supposedly ‘green’ biodiesel to hit EU renewable energy targets has actually significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions, a new study finds.

By 2020, continued use of biodiesel derived from vegetable oil will increase total EU transport emissions by almost four per cent compared with using its fossil fuel alternative, according to analysis by Transport & Environment, a green group.

That is roughly equivalent to putting an extra 12 million cars to the road, it says. Countries across Europe have blended small percentages of biofuels into petrol and diesel in recent years in an attempt to cut emissions and to hit the EU’s renewable energy directive (RED), which requires 10 per cent of transport energy to come from renewable sources by 2020.

But Transport & Environment says the EU’s own studies show that producing biodiesel from food crops – in particular soy and palm oil – is significantly worse for the environment than producing regular diesel. This is largely due to the knock-on effects on land usage of using food crops for fuel, which can result in rainforests or other habitats being cleared to make way for more food crops, so actually increasing emissions.

Producing crop-based biodiesel has an emissions footprint on average 1.8 times the size of fossil fuel based diesel, it says. The EU revised the RED last year to take account of widespread concerns about the impacts of land use change, saying that biofuels from crops grown on agricultural land could count for a maximum of seven per cent toward the 10 per cent target.

It is encouraging countries to instead use ‘advanced’, non-food crop biofuels. But Transport & Environment says its analysis takes account of these changes, and that the overall effect of the policy is still likely to be harmful.

It estimated that the use of bioethanol from crops as an alternative to petrol would marginally reduce overall transport emissions, by about 0.5 per cent, while the use of advanced biofuels could contribute a two per cent reduction. However, set against the four per cent increase in emissions due to biodiesel the net impact of the EU biofuel will still be an overall increase in transport emissions of about 1.4 per cent, it said.

Source: EU Drive For ‘Green’ Biodiesel Has Increased Emissions, Study Finds | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  1. oldbrew says:

    No doubt ‘green’ bio-fools campaigners will be out in force demanding biofuels are scrapped ASAP 😉

  2. Graeme No.3 says:

    Now they tell us. After tens of thousands of square kilometres of tropical rain forest has been destroyed for palm oil plantations.
    Perhaps they should check first before following someone’s wish bubble.

  3. Bitter& Twisted says:

    Another great example of the “Law of Unintended Consequences”.
    With one caveat- these Government bozos were told what exactly what would happen- and did, but chose to believe the Green Lobby, rather than real scientists.

  4. c777 says:

    “Water in the lake remains in liquid form due to geothermal activity heating it from underneath”.

    An ice sealed Lake under the Western Antarctic ice sheet.
    Geothermal activity, seems to be a lot of that under the “melting” Western Antarctice ice sheet eh?
    The one the alarmists claim is “melting” due to the results of AGW in “models”…

    [mod note] this comment seems to belong elsewhere e.g. Suggestions

  5. Easily explained. Just remember green=gullible.

  6. oldbrew says:

    ‘Transport & Environment says the EU’s own studies show that producing biodiesel from food crops – in particular soy and palm oil – is significantly worse for the environment than producing regular diesel.’

    Does the EU take any notice of itself in such matters? Or do they do as usual and ignore anything that comes up with the ‘wrong’ answer?

  7. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Not to mention the devastation of SE Asian rainforests to satisfy the EU’s 10% biofuel (feel-good) mandate, in order to “save the planet” from CAGW.

    Green hypocrisy at its very finest.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Emma Thompson gets covered in Green Emissions by angry farmer as anti-frackers ignore High Court injunction not to trespass on his land.

  9. oldbrew says:

    The Thompson airheads should stick to what they know i.e. pretending to be someone else (and possibly, making cakes).

  10. tchannon says:

    Folks look dim from what I saw, field, things going on,, act as a passenger, a townie. Silent tractor? Silent slurry spray? No peripheral vision? 🙂

    More fun… were they actually cooking? If so it is very likely this used gas. Doesn’t matter what kind.

    Rather fun topic anyway, cooking methods and fuels. A minefield for enviros.

  11. Most of these comparisons of supposed renewable fuels are biased by leaving out important factors. Ethanol contains an oxygen atom ie when used as a fuel it is already partly oxidised and gives lower fuel economy and less power. In Australia E-Fuel containing 10% ethanol costs 2 to 3 c/litre less than petrol (now about 110 c/l) however, the fuel economy in my car is reduced to more than 2% to wipe out the price difference. The economy loss increases if pulling a trailer or caravan. The only benefit of the E-Fuel for occasional use is to clean the injectors (I have an AWD suv). The other is that about 30% of the cost of petrol is government tax (excise). Ethanol has no tax to make it competitive, in a way it is a government subsidy to the ethanol producers. At least 3 Biodiesel companies set up with government grants have gone bankrupt although there being no excise tax on the product. I know of no successful biodiesel operation in Australia. Two of my daughters have diesel powered vehicles. The fuel is cheaper to purchase by about 10%, The economy is far better than a petrol engine of the same size (at least 20%), the engine last longer and it gives more power.
    Just a point about large diesel engines for electricity generation. Nearly, all ships engines work on the diesel principle. I believe single engines are now sized up to 80MW. The larger the engine the heavier the fuel used. The engines have heat exchangers to preheat the fuel for injection and turbines to compress the air. The cost of the fuel is not far off the cost of crude oil.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Bi-fuel (not bio-fuel) generators fire up with diesel then switch over to natural gas when they’ve warmed up.