I don't know why rapesed hasn't been tried before. It seems a lot better than corn and in England it's high water use will not be a problem.

The problem, as is so often the case, is scale. A study by Strathclyde University suggests that using all the set aside (deliberately unused) farmland in the UK to grow rape could meet 4% of the country's diesel fuel needs. That's less than the current 5% biodiesel target set for 2010.

I don't know how much biodiesel is being produced from crops on currently productive land in the UK. Quite a lot, I guess, although since the UK is less than 70% self sufficient in food production, some of the familiar arguments over biofuels vs food must eventually raise their heads in time.

Strathclyde University offers an online simulator allowing one to play with the outputs and implications of using various crops as sources of biofuel.

I agree with you about the amount of water we can count on in England.

RME (rapeseed methyl ester) is a solution to an EU farm price-support dilemma.  By removing land from production of foodstuffs and producing non-food fuel products instead, it reduces the downward price pressure on everything from grains to cheese which results from chronic overproduction.  The overproduction was in turn a product of excessive farm-price supports....

Remind you of American price supports for corn?  It should.  And neither one has a thing to do with energy policy, despite the language used to tout them.

As is becoming quite clear, we have not had overproduction of food in the past. We have had an underproduction in the last couple of years. We presently have inadequate food stocks. While price supports may not be the best way to assure adequate buffer surplus they have not been excessive in terms of performing that function.

Chris

Each year we've produced about 2,100Mt of grain. We need 1,230Mt if we feed people nothing else - give 'em their calories and protein, no nutrition.

About 750Mt goes to livestock, and 350Mt to biofuels. World stocks are about 420Mt, and these float up and down by 5-20Mt each year.

If not for biofuels, world grain stocks would rise by 340Mt or so each year - not far off doubling.

We produce enough food, it's just that a lot of it isn't used as food, but fuel.

We can easily feed the world twice over from what we grow. But we cannot both feed it and fuel it. When it comes to grains: food, livestock and fuel - choose any two.

yes Kiashu I think this is a valid piont, thus fuel must suffer!

.... food, livestock and fuel - choose any two

Rapeseed (huile de colza, biodiesel, in fr.) is commonly used in Switzerland and Germany. Links are in french sorry. Ex: newspaper: http://largeur.com/expArt.asp?artID=1617

On the only measure that I have looked up, that is CO2 emissions (gives a very handy overall picture, not the whole story of course) biodiesel (rapeseed, palm oil, soya oil, other biomass, and used vegetable oil, which is collected in CH and parts of France..) does not perform well altogether in comparison with ethanol, methanol, or methane (from grass, potato, beet, corn, sorghum, barley, sugar cane, bio detritus, all from all countries, with cane being from Brazil, corn from the US, etc.)

This can be seen in the second chart in the pdf which is easy to understand from any language; the better performing are few - French and Swiss used vegetable oils (they come as a kind of free lunch, or I suppose, post prandial gift...) and sugar cane from Brazil, no surprise there. Of course that is just eye balling, and much detail cold be dug into.

the study is swiss, from swiss pov, by the fed. energy agency. PDF, ecological evaluation of bio - energy, in french. Note the different rubrics counted; exploitation, transport, infrastructure, etc.

Right on brother. You make sense, a lot of these turkeys have their heads in the sand :) .

The reason why soybean planting is far wider than rapeseed may be the different usefulness for animal (cattle, swine and poultry) feed of the respective meals.

That's where you're wrong. Most of England has a severe water shortage problem. Contrary to popular myth, rainfall in London is significantly lower than in Rome