ok first; i'd rather they use Rapeseed for biodiesel than for human consumption. cause the stuff gets nasty (and transfatty). but beyond that, the funnniestthing in that article, is that they talk about some guy investing in biodiesel in Moses Lake WA. and that is funny. Moses Lake is the only place in the united states where someone is making solar-grade silicon(!) so, why invest in bidiesel when one of the most in-demand resources is produced right under yoru nose? but also since the manufacture of solar-grade silicon is highly toxic, um, perhaps moses lake isn't the best place to grow rape seed, sugar beets, sugar plum faries or anything aside from SoGsi

I wish I was an expert at this stuff, but still, it seems that whether it's local-grown or foreign-grown, and no matter what crop you raise, you simply can't compete with fuel that has been collected over thousands of years (fossil fuel). One years's harvest, using every acre of arable land Earth has, will still only produce a fraction of the energy we actually use in a year.

There really seems to be no substitute for reduced need/demand for energy.

Also, please keep in mind that the world population is expected to double in a few decades, and more of the world's people are striving to live like us wasteful Westerners.

Carl, a fine point, but the world pop is expected to increase roughly 50%. That percentage drops a little every year as we get closer to the peak.

Note in the article that environmentalists are supposed to be supporters of it. I don't think that is going to last very long when it is realized how very little biodiesel can do to reduce CO2 in this country (half of a percent by my calculations if we use 10% of our cropland).

In addition, a diesel car just plain pollutes more than a gasoline car no matter what you burn in it. If you buy a diesel car and don't burn 100 biodiesel all of the time, you are really polluting the air over a gas car.
From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

When it comes to buying a new car, gasoline-powered models are better than diesels on toxic soot and smog-forming emissions. The downside to current diesels is that they produce 10 to 20 times more toxic particulates than their gasoline counterparts, more than can be made up for with the use of biodiesel. Diesels fair even worse when it comes to smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions, with greater than 20 times the emissions of a comparable gasoline vehicle.

Biodiesel is quickly transforming into nothing but a money making scheme. The enviros will be the first to see that, the politicians will be the last. Biodiesel may produce less CO2 and is renewable, but it is also consuming cropland and jungles.

Mmmm, there are many good points here, but the most important two are that diesel is finite, and biodesiel burns cleaner. It was already shown in an article here IIRC, that truckers will pay up to the same price for biodiesel as regular diesel, and with its cleaner burning nature, that's very important to environment. Yes, long term we will need to think of something better, but it will likely require lifestyle change, as your really big trucks that bring things close to home need diesel engines for the torque to do their job, and on the horizon, there's no replacement for a diesel.

Oy Vey! Ignorance and partial information passed along as gospel. OK, modern passenger car diesel technology is not more polluting than gasoline equivalents...in Europe. There, cars have very simple particulate filters. Why not here? Because up until 2006 our diesel has been dirty, high sulfur crap. In '06 the US finally gets the clean diesel at the pump that Europe has had for years. This is why 2007 will usher in a whole host of passenger diesel options in the US.

Now, a couple of things to keep in mind:

Diesel is less refined than gasoline, taking less energy to produce. Did you factor that into your pollution equations? NO.

Diesel engines can burn straight vegetable oil by simply pre-heating the oil to 160 degrees. NOT BIODIESEL, but straight old Wesson. You don't need to waste all that energy turning the vegetable oil into biodiesel and muck around with methanol and lye.

Diesel engines last many times longer than gasoline engines, hence, less engines/cars need to be produced.

Diesel engines generally need fewer oil changes due to their low RPMs compared to gasoline engines. Again, less waste, less energy needed to support a diesel engine over a gasoline engine.

So actually all those new gasser cars rolling of the US production lines are the cause of a gigantic pollution footprint, which would be much lower had they all been diesel.

FIGURE IT OUT ALREADY!!!!