Regarding Jeff Falen’s letter denouncing
biodiesel on the basis that atmospheric carbon is atmospheric
carbon regardless of its source (HCN, 10/17/05), I must disagree on
three counts:
While there is a mostly finite amount of
carbon on the earth and in its atmosphere, sizable amounts are
stored within the crust. Humans really began distorting the carbon
equation in the Industrial Age by using crust-based fuels. So to
say that adding carbon from the earth’s crust (via petroleum, gas
or coal combustion) is equal to adding carbon from plant-based oils
seems short-sighted.
Second, it is not sustaining to the
present world situation to stop heating homes, or sustaining to
economies to stop having cars. So why not start the curve toward a
new paradigm by using renewable plant-based oils (biodiesel and
ethanol) that can be delivered into existing infrastructures for
use in many existing vehicles?
Third, the biodiesel I buy
is not virgin vegetable oil but converted fry oil that (in
sufficient quantities) is regulated by the EPA as industrial waste.
So why deal with it as industrial waste when with minor chemical
changes (and useful byproducts) we can burn it in place of
petroleum diesel? You make the call.
Neal
Schwieterman
Paonia,
Colorado
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline In defense of biodiesel.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
