New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Biodiesel Is Better

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Petroleum alternatives include renewable fuels such as biodiesel, derived primarily from soybeans, and ethanol, distilled mostly from corn grain. In the first comprehensive analysis of the energy gains and environmental impact of both fuels, University of Minnesota researchers determined biodiesel to be the better choice. Ethanol from corn grain produces 25 percent more energy than all the energy people invested in it, whereas biodiesel from soybeans returns 93 percent more. Compared with fossil fuels, ethanol produces 12 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions, whereas biodiesel produces 41 percent fewer. Soybeans also generate significantly less nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticide pollution. Dedicating all current U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels, however, would meet only 12 percent of gasoline demand and 6 percent of diesel demand. Prairie grass may provide larger biofuel supplies with greater environmental benefits, the scientists reported online July 10 via the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi
Scientific American Magazine Vol 295 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Biodiesel Is Better” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 295 No. 3 (), p. 38
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0906-38c

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe