[cantrip]

Are they carbon neutral?

Sure the initial carbon dumped into the atmosphere to plow the fields is a short term increase, but then you're also deforesting lands to grow them, which permanently adds more carbon into the atmosphere.

[paulirwin]

The biodiesel.org site, which is run by the National Biodiesel Board (a biodiesel industry trade group), references [1] a 1998 study that shows biodiesel to have a 78 percent reduction in net CO2 emissions. So not carbon neutral, but significantly less net emissions. I'd be interested in seeing the results of a more up-to-date study.

However, that's the net reduction for B100, or 100% biodiesel. The more common and engine-friendly B20 blend at 20% biodiesel / 80% petroleum diesel would be a 15.6% net reduction in CO2.

[1]: http://biodiesel.org/what-is-biodiesel/biodiesel-faq's

[cantrip]

I don't think linking to a biodiesel lobbying group constitutes as evidence.

[wtallis]

The research in question was merely cited by the lobbying group. Specifically, they write:

> A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel.

[paulirwin]

It appears this is the study cited: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24772.pdf

[kevin_thibedeau]

Where are the people who funded those studies working today? Industry has a well established track record of planting shills and promising lucrative jobs to public officials who do their bidding.

[bequanna]

> but then you're also deforesting lands to grow them

Other than anecdotal evidence, do you have any source for this?

The cost to remove trees and put that land into production is quite high. Even then, most forested land is poor for growing crops. I would be very surprised to learn that in the US, farmers are removing trees and preparing the land to till on a large scale.

[njarboe]

Most of the land in the US East of the Mississippi was forested, cut down, and turned into farmland. Some marginal lands have returned to forest like in upstate New York and in the Appalachia Mountains, but Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and other mid-western states are/were the heart of US agricultural production. They are slowly beginning covered by urban and suburban development. I believe that people thought farming was not possible if the land did not already support trees. They were mostly right before irrigation and scientifically bred crops.

[rch]

The article focuses on Argentina as it was a source of low cost biodiesel.

It is still probable that grasslands are a better carbon sink than the same land would be if used to grow soybeans.

Here's a source that describes methods which would be broadly beneficial:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1287318.Holistic_Managem...

[netfire]

This is covered in the article. The forests in question are in Argentina, not the US, and it sounds like demand for Soybeans from China may be causing some of the deforestation (although it is unclear how much is due to that versus US-based demand).

[cantrip]

The article we're discussing is a good source.

Also, Brazil enacted a soy moratorium over ten years ago to combat deforestation.

You're limiting your "surprise" to the US, but that's not what I, or the article we're discussing, are talking about.

[jandrese]

They're more carbon neutral than dino diesel. Of course energy is still needed to convert the soybeans into something you can burn in an engine, plus all of the cultivation and transportation costs.

The intent is that this is grown on lands that would otherwise lay fallow, so there shouldn't be a large deforestation concern.

[cantrip]

You either are or you aren't, you can't be "more" carbon neutral. And anyway, I'm not asking if it's better for the environment than fossil fuels, I'm asking if the claim that it is carbon neutral is true or not.

[stcredzero]

You either are or you aren't, you can't be "more" carbon neutral.

Well, if you're going to be that pedantic about it, then nothing we know of is technically carbon neutral. We might be off by an atom or two!

[cantrip]

I was clarifying in case the author of the comment was unsure what "carbon neutral" means. It's not a comparative term, so it confuses the discussion to use it as such, just as unfunny comments derail discussion.

[stcredzero]

It's not a comparative term, so it confuses the discussion to use it as such, just as unfunny comments derail discussion.

"Either it is or it isn't," implies that it's a binary. That's incorrect and muddies the waters. It's quantitative in a practical sense, as in geography or geology, not in an absolute sense as in mathematics. So "more carbon neutral" can be sensibly interpreted in this quantitative sense. Your use of language implying that it's a binary, "confuses the discussion to use it as such."

You probably think it's "unfunny" because you missed the logical distinction. Now that it has been explained to you how you were the one who derailed the discussion in the first place with bad logic, you probably still think it's "unfunny."

[cantrip]

I honestly can't for the life of me understand what you're trying to say here.

The poster said "They're more carbon neutral than dino diesel."

I was simply stating that not only was I not arguing otherwise (if we're assuming "more carbon neutral" means better for the environment), but also clarifying what the term means (the binary state of being carbon neutral).

I think your statement was unfunny because I did not personally find it funny, nor do I expect others to. Not for any other nefarious reason.

[s0rce]

And, I assume producing and transporting vast quantities of fertilizer which is not carbon neutral.

[afarrell]

IIRC, soy has nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

[s0rce]

Yes, but there are other nutrient needs, also looks like in certain cases additional nitrogen fertilizers are used for soybean crops.

https://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-managemen...