On-Site Energy


We were in conversation with one of our customers recently and got on to the topic of biofuels. They mentioned that another company they know were claiming that by using biodiesel, they have a path to net zero.

Biodiesel emits similarly high levels of CO2 and other harmful pollutants as regular diesel, which is obviously not the aim of net zero. The label ”bio” is only because it was manufactured from waste (which would have decayed over decades), and so arguably making it into a fuel accelerates its release into the atmosphere. We would like to understand the valid arguments for biofuel to be treated as a green strategy given this and in the context of achieving net zero.

The same applies for biomass, biogas, etc. Fundamentally, they emit the same CO2 and pollutants. These claim carbon neutrality, but it takes trees decades of growth to reach the point where they absorb more CO2 than the equivalent biomass will emit when burnt this year. Why then, if we need to make a difference by 2050, are these bio-products part of the solution mix ?

We believe biofuels and biomass are not going to help the world achieve its net zero emissions targets and feel that the sooner this is recognised by policy makers, then the fewer companies will sign up to this green scam.