-
Currently there is fuel available from three sources
From foodstock.
From reconstituted oils from the far east.
From reconstituted oils from Europe.
I guess my question relates to the comparison with our commonly available fossil fuels is it better or worse?
I am aware of the problems of scale but does this mean we should not use it in highly populated polluted cities because of the damage it does whilst being produced or is the benefit worth it?
Waste can and does come from other sources not just old chip fat.
citron-
I guess my question relates to the comparison with our commonly available fossil fuels is it better or worse?
For a given gallon of fuel - as you state, probably better, given that it doesn't produce so many particulates. Although it's still a polluter.
As a replacement, like for like - far, far worse, as you would need to turn over not just foodstock production, but much of the earth's biosphere to fuel oil production.
does this mean we should not use it in highly populated polluted cities because of the damage it does whilst being produced or is the benefit worth it?
That sounds like a maths problem that you can work out.
NotThamesWater
It's not a sustainable fuel source at scale. There's just not enough waste food oil, and supplementing it mean crops as a fuel source. Crops as a fuel source means deforestation and a consequential environmental impact significantly worse than burning fossil fuels.