This is in response to Michael R. Fox's letter regarding biofuels (Aug. 20). While he may not like ethanol and makes some valid points about its energy content vs. gasoline, these same points do not hold water when talking about an arguably 'better' biofuel - biodiesel.

There is effectively insignificant mpg lost vs. petro diesel, because the energy content is roughly the same while pollution from biodiesel is dramatically lower in almost every measure. Moreover, biodiesel lubricates diesel engines actually better than the petro version, so they last longer (and they already last a loooong time as it is). We have been driving two VW TDIs all but nonstop for the past several years - my wife is a wine rep and drives daily, so she knows the truth of a reliable, non-polluting and great mileage small car.

Finally, while it's true that some sources of biodiesel are not sustainable at present, many western and midwest states are building out canola, switchgrass and other oil sources into sources of fuel that do not compete with food, as well as sources of revenue for farmers and job-creation, right here in the USA, not overseas and not in the Middle East.

I encourage Mr. Fox to look around - Washington and Idaho are leaders in biodiesel already and the trend continues to look good for the future. You can start with our site: http://www.nwbiodiesel.org - there are many links from there to explore.

Kevin Orme

N.W. Biodiesel Network

Seattle