| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Study: NO ENERGY BENEFIT from Biodiesel, Ethanol |
| 2005-07-11 |
| No comment needed.... [Emphasis added] Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study. "There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable." Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76). In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that: -corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; -switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and -wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that: -soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and -sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. Yikes! In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis. "The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products." Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations. You don't say. "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion. Well, maybe one comment: Bwhahahahahahahaahaha! :-D |
| Posted by:Barbara Skolaut |
| #16 chainey rite this? |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2005-07-11 23:22 |
| #15 Does the biodiesel rubrik cover the stuff that is made from used frier grease? A nice byproduct of that is the French fry smell you leave in the wake of your VW turbodiesel. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-07-11 22:50 |
| #14 O.K. DON'T believe me, even after the preview. Goodnight, nurse. Datsa enuff gin and tonic.... snooze... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-07-11 21:38 |
| #13 You missed hydrogen. Same thing. More input than output. But if you use low-cost nuke energy, it's reasonable. But son't believe me, read the mag with the nice pictures and graphs - Scientific American. This spring. Oh, but no one wants nukes, so I guess it's back to more Iranian oil! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-07-11 21:37 |
| #12 Just take the oil and don't pay for it. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-11 19:53 |
| #11 Subsidizing farmers is bad and all that but at least they are unlikely to use the money to fund hate schools that want to kill us. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-07-11 18:49 |
| #10 Whoops! Sorry, Fred, could you erase my second post? |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-11 18:32 |
| #9 VAMark- You hit the nail on the head when you said "....the lost time in finding an energy solution that will actually work could come back to haunt us big time." I am not referring to the government subsidized corporate interests who are scamming a buck off of the ethanol thing â I have no sympathy for them. Cut them off. I also have no sympathy for farmers who take direct agricultural subsidies (as opposed to tax breaks) from the government. Cut them off. Here on the West Coast there is a small but growing movement of people who make their own fuel in backyard stills or modify their diesel vehicles to take straight vegetable oils of various types. I have a close childhood friend who does this a kind of hobby over in Oakland. He gets most of his oil used from the grease traps of Chinese restaurants, filters it, and mixes it with small amounts diesel as well as some other chemicals. Right now he is paying an average of 50 cents per gallon as opposed to the $2.75 Iâm paying. It takes up a bit of his free time, but there you go. How are these backyard tinkerers keeping âusâ from finding âan energy solution that will actually work?â Seems to be working for them. When you say âusâ do you actually mean âthe government?â Or do you mean Exxon? Or do you mean GM? Which âusâ is working hard at finding a way to make, say, a less complex hydrogen engine? They work, you know, but theyâve just have a lot of kinks that need to be worked out. Eventually they will be, but if you are relying on the government and corporate America to come up with an answer before it becomes absolutely economically necessary for them to do it.... well, youâre going to be waiting for a good long while. See, hereâs a group of people who are not waiting for a âtop-downâ solution to their problems. Are you? |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-11 18:31 |
| #8 VAMark- You hit the nail on the head when you said "....the lost time in finding an energy solution that will actually work could come back to haunt us big time." I am not referring to the government subsidized corporate interests who are scamming a buck off of the ethanol thing â I have no sympathy for them. Cut them off. I also have no sympathy for farmers who take direct agricultural subsidies (as opposed to tax breaks) from the government. Cut them off. Here on the West Coast there is a small but growing movement of people who make their own fuel in backyard stills or modify their diesel vehicles to take straight vegetable oils of various types. I have a close childhood friend who does this a kind of hobby over in Oakland. He gets most of his oil used from the grease traps of Chinese restaurants, filters it, and mixes it with small amounts diesel as well as some other chemicals. Right now he is paying an average of 50 cents per gallon as opposed to the $2.75 Iâm paying. It takes up a bit of his free time, but there you go. How are these backyard tinkerers keeping âusâ from finding âan energy solution that will actually work?â Seems to be working for them. When you say âusâ do you actually mean âthe government?â Or do you mean Exxon? Or do you mean GM? Which âusâ is working hard at finding a way to make, say, a less complex hydrogen engine? They work, you know, but theyâve just have a lot of kinks that need to be worked out. Eventually they will be, but if you are relying on the government and corporate America to come up with an answer before it becomes absolutely economically necessary for them to do it.... well, youâre going to be waiting for a good long while. See, hereâs a group of people who are not waiting for a âtop-downâ solution to their problems. Are you? |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-11 18:21 |
| #7 The study confirms what a lot of us have known for years. However, it then goes on to perpetuate other myths. With a few esoteric exceptions, all energy systems need to be on demand. Imagine waiting for the wind to start blowing before your toaster works. Solar and wind are not on demand. Burning biomass just doesn't scale simply because there isn't enough conventiently available biomass. It will never be more than a tiny source of energy. And hydrogen conversion requires energy from somewhere and is horribly inefficient. It increases your demand for energy by between 2 and 5 times. The reality is either burn more fossil fuels or nuclear (or freeze in the dark). Take your pick. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-07-11 18:06 |
| #6 I Don't Have A Link Handy, but I have seen criticisms of similar studies to these. One thing in particular comes to mind: IF you can use grid power to provide the power inputs to the process, then even if it takes power to produce ethanol or biodiesel, it's still a more efficient and useful way of storing grid power for use in motor vehicles than doing electrolysis of water for hydrogen and trying to store the hydrogen... The most efficient way of storing hydrogen is to attach it to carbon atoms to form longer-chain hydrocarbons. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-07-11 18:04 |
| #5 Secret Master - If it takes more energy to process it than you can get by burning it, it's a bad idea no matter how self-sufficient it makes you feel. There are two reasons for continued federal subsidies for ethanol - the Iowa caucuses (both the GOP and Dem candidates promise to continue them like clockwork every four years) and the assortment of underpopulated farm states that get two senators just like everyone else. I don't mind the wasted money so much (we waste more on lots of other things), but the lost time in finding an energy solution that will actually work could come back to haunt us big time. |
| Posted by: VAMark 2005-07-11 16:55 |
| #4 Oh come on... pimental comes out with this garbage every few years. He's a joke. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2005-07-11 16:43 |
| #3 My 2 cents worth: There is one significant positive aspect to biodiesel that these professors have overlooked: you can make it yourself. More specifically, if you are looking for a source of energy for an internal combustion engine that isnât supplied by a delivery grid (such as gas stations) with a modified diesel engine you can use just about anything (peanut oil, old motor oil, sunflower seed oil, fat, etc) as an energy source. Yes, I understand that commercially producing sunflower seed oil involves the use a certain amount of fossil fuel unless you modify your tractor engine to use the very product you are producing -- not an unreasonable proposition. However the vast majority of farmers who are growing sunflowers, peanuts, soybeans, or what-have-you are doing so for the production of food, not fuel. It is very likely that most of them have never considered using vegetable oil as a fuel before as most farmers and ranchers get fuel delivered directly to their places by tanker truck. All very understandable. Now, if you will all humor me for a moment, one of the things that makes the American ideal a unique one is its emphasis on the individual doing things for himself. This belief in self sufficiency and non-collectivism is the foundation of the set of values our frontiersmen ancestors have bequeathed us. People grew food crops for thousands of years before the advent of the tractor. You cannot make your own gasoline without A) access to an oil well and B) a complex refinery, but you can make your own sunflower oil with fairly simply methods. The less you need others to supply your basic daily needs , especially when those others are the government or regulated portions of the private sector, the freer in reality you are. Needing to have an ARCO station every twenty blocks everywhere in America doesnât make us freer or provide us with liberty. Being able to produce our own fuel through non-statist, non-socialist means is a step in the right direction. Yes, I understand that the technology has some problems (carbon buildup in the engine comes to mind) and, no, I donât like idea of the government subsidizing anything that doesnât bristle with weapons and kill terrorists. But letâs not come down too hard on the small-scale, backyard biodiesel people for coming up with a grass roots solution to what may very well become one of the biggest problems of the 21st century. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-11 16:19 |
| #2 He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion. Arrrrgh! This drives me nuts! About 2% of electricity in the United States is produced from oil. Coal, nuclear and natural gas account for almost all of our electric needs. The amount of oil we import into this country is almost identical to what we use in the transportation sector. Electricity has almost nothing to do with it. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-07-11 16:18 |
| #1 Methanol baby! Methane comith from pig shit. A dual use product, eat more pork and piss off a moslem! |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-07-11 15:55 |