Biofuels a net drain on energy, study says

By Mark Johnson
The Associated Press
July 18, 2005

ALBANY, N.Y. — Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable-energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California, Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm-weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.

The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, Pimentel said.

The study also omitted $3 billion in state- and federal-government subsidies that go toward ethanol production the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.

Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gasoline's octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.

The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.

Ethanol producers dispute the new study, saying the data are outdated and don't take into account profits that offset costs.

Maybe if the equipment used for production was converted from petro to bio....:rolleyes:

I agree with Redleg. The farmers that I have talked to said their first order of business is to get fuel back to their farm. I think the study probably assumes only petro products to run the farm equipment and the trucks to get the bio to the pumps.

Not necessarily. I've also heard this from several individuals who work in the industry. Apparently it does require more energy to convert the natural oils into something combustable than dino oil.

Three questions
1Who paid for the study?
2 Did the collages have anything to gain if they had came to another conclusion?
3 What did the collages gain by coming to the conclusion that they came to?

I would like to see a study specifically dealing with biodiesel rather than a study that just mentions it. Do you notice that they refer mostly to ethanol production. I would think that biodiesel would be much simpler and less costly to produce. Also, the study date may not include the double digit inflation that fuels are experiencing at this time.
Does anyone know when this study was made?

Joke.......this study is probably funded by someone from southeast of here.

From the DoE (http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/bio_market.html).

Feedstock costs account for a large percentage of the direct biodiesel production costs, including capital cost and return. It takes about 7.3 pounds of soybean oil, which costs about 20 cents per pound, to produce a gallon of biodiesel. Feedstock costs alone, therefore, are at least $1.50 per gallon of soy biodiesel. Fats and greases cost less and produce less expensive biodiesel, sometimes as low as $1.00 per gallon. The quality of the fuel is equivalent to soy biodiesel fuel.

Start adding in the other costs such as distribution, etc. and it's easy to see why the costs go up.

That's interesting... If it takes more energy to make crops into biofuels than the biofuel produces, than it is absolutely end-of-discussion fatal to my views of the future...

So I'd like to think that this study is full of bull-thistles... Since it's from the same Berkely that thinks algae generates hydrogen more efficiently than hydrocarbons, I'd call that a valid scenario. ;)

Although I still have yet to see a conclusive study on the oil-content of algae vs. corn vs. switchgrass vs. hemp vs. soybeans... Corn has never been the number-one candidate for ethanol production.

Part of the problem, too, is creating the refining facilities to do this. It's been a VERY long time since a new refinery was built because of the NIMBY's. I don't see this issue being resolved anytime soon, either.

Energy is a general term on this subject. Where does this energy come from? If not from the mid east, do it to it. I would pay double for fuel if the country would tell the mid east what to lubericate with their oil.

Originally posted by Haulin_in_Dixie
Energy is a general term on this subject. Where does this energy come from? If not from the mid east, do it to it. I would pay double for fuel if the country would tell the mid east what to lubericate with their oil.

But what this study is saying is that harvesting switchgrass, corn or soybeans doesn't yield enough fuel to run the combine... So unless you get fuel for the combine from somewhere else, it ain't gonna happen.

So we need to find plants that make more geasy stuff and find cleaner ways to harvest it... I'm thinking algae, but nobody likes that idea but me...
(Well, the hydrogen guys like the algae idea, but they're hydrogen hippies, so we don't like them...)

I read an article, don't remember much about it. I was discribing a seaweed that could be grown all along the coasts with high oil production and little labor. The key was the large amount of oil per amount of seaweed.

Originally posted by Begle1
That's interesting... If it takes more energy to make crops into biofuels than the biofuel produces, than it is absolutely end-of-discussion fatal to my views of the future...

So I'd like to think that this study is full of bull-thistles... Since it's from the same Berkely that thinks algae generates hydrogen more efficiently than hydrocarbons, I'd call that a valid scenario. ;)

Although I still have yet to see a conclusive study on the oil-content of algae vs. corn vs. switchgrass vs. hemp vs. soybeans... Corn has never been the number-one candidate for ethanol production.

http://www.ap.nic.in/nrcop/oilpalmglance.html

This is the best plant to go with for oil production. The oil palm produces the highest of oil of any plant I have found online.

Time to start harpooning whales again .... might get a tank or two each :D


HIDINGFROMPETAPISTOL

Soy fuel and Ethanol are not economical to produce. This is info from those who want cheep food and low corn/beans prices.

How about keeping the growers in business without subsidies??
Produce the fuels fron crops till we can get the corn prices to $4.00 and beans to $12.00.
And by all means, grow alternative crops.

I doubt it will go very far with the oil companies as powerful as they are!!!

I am not a crop producer.

That was part one of the study, part two is gonna explain how the yeild from hemp exceeds the energy demand of production.

Originally posted by Redleg
That was part one of the study, part two is gonna explain how the yeild from hemp exceeds the energy demand of production.

:rolleyes: Let me guess, hemp causes a reduction in energy demand when it's converted to smoke as opposed to oil, right? ;)[laugh]

Originally posted by Redleg
That was part one of the study, part two is gonna explain how the yeild from hemp exceeds the energy demand of production.

This has been studied for 20 + years. The problem here is that the Government will have to blow less money on the "War on Drugs" A.K.A., let the pedofiles and rapist go while we lock up pot smokers. What does this equal?
There are about 500 good uses for the hemp plant, but some people don't understand the difference between it and cannibis sativa. Therefore when you mention the word HEMP, everyone gets all upset thinking we are going to legalize marijuana..........:confused:

Just keep thinking that Big Oil's pockets are deeper than most other industries, that's one of the main reasons that alternative fuels are not explored more aggressively.
Ever heard the rumors about them buying up the rights to fancy carb's that got like 50MPG's, and other conspricy theroies?

Originally posted by screaminbanana
http://www.ap.nic.in/nrcop/oilpalmglance.html

This is the best plant to go with for oil production. The oil palm produces the highest of oil of any plant I have found online.
OH NO! Palm trees?? Nasty things!! I believe you could probably squeeze additional oil out of all the cockroaches those things harbor![yuk] Then use their squished carcasses for fertilizer to grow some soybeans to produce some REAL fuel.;)

Keith

Heard all about the rumors... motor city is only a couple hours away after all. Anybody ever snope it? To a certain extent, I don't care if they smoke themselves into oblivion. Hemp may have good uses, but are they great uses? Not just big brother, but I imagine industry and technology hamper bringing it to market as well. BHSF, DOW, or any of the synthetics producers would be against competittion from hemp politically, and their technology of products that aren't biodegradeable, are water and/or U.V. proof, etc. would dominate any market. Drugs are federally regulated, rape and murder is not. Nobody just lets them go. A sex crime is probably the hardest case to prosecute, even if the suspect is known by the victim. With the volume of cases tried every year, there is gonna be some that slip through, just like everything else in the world. If it happens alot in your area, then that's something to look at locally, are you listening California? It's the stupid or greedy ones that get caught doing the drug crimes, not everybody. The reply was a knock on Berkley for publishing a study on something that seems to have the potential for a solution they did not appear to have looked into. How long did they feed wood to the locomotive that was pulling coal cars before they got one that ran on coal? How long did they use a steam powered pump oil for an oil well before they got a diesel pump? Seems to me Brekely has done a number of studies on superfluous topics.

I've been in contact with a lot of folks at Berkely, some higer-ups even, trying to chase algae-production schemes, and I've never gotten anything but the cold shoulder... Berkely is strange when it comes to sharing information- essentially all they've ever done is stone-wall me. It seems every researcher there has their own political agenda... :rolleyes:


But ultimately, considering that all fossil fuels come from algae to begin with, there is no scientific reason for why we can't corner the market by short-cutting the production process by a few million years. The economics are killer, however. Whoever figures it out is going to make just a little bit of bank. And I'll be damned if they figure out hydrogen-production schemes first; but unfortunately, that's where the research is going. At least CE-CERT out in my neck of the woods is still on the bioDiesel bandwagon...

Originally posted by Begle1
I've been in contact with a lot of folks at Berkely, some higer-ups even, trying to chase algae-production schemes, and I've never gotten anything but the cold shoulder... Berkely is strange when it comes to sharing information- essentially all they've ever done is stone-wall me. It seems every researcher there has their own political agenda... :rolleyes:


But ultimately, considering that all fossil fuels come from algae to begin with, there is no scientific reason for why we can't corner the market by short-cutting the production process by a few million years. The economics are killer, however. Whoever figures it out is going to make just a little bit of bank. And I'll be damned if they figure out hydrogen-production schemes first; but unfortunately, that's where the research is going. At least CE-CERT out in my neck of the woods is still on the bioDiesel bandwagon...

I heard that Berkley was working on a new engine that burns Bibles and other religious materials. :rolleyes:

Well, those studies might be interesting- but then why do we manage to run a farm entirely on biodiesel, without fertilizers or pesticides, herbicides etc (one big consumer of dino juice), run all the farm vehicles and still sell some biodiesel- transported to the station with a biodiesel powered truck?
Naturally this is expensive, but some farmers over here do manage it. One big problem on that is only that if yu look at the net gain per area Austria would need to be many times the size it is to supply all the vehicles on the road etc with biofuels.

Just my 2c

AlpineRAM

PS- it's legal to grow hemp over here- it just needs to be one of those extremely low THC sorts, so it's no use smoking it :D

Originally posted by AlpineRAM
Well, those studies might be interesting- but then why do we manage to run a farm entirely on biodiesel, without fertilizers or pesticides, herbicides etc (one big consumer of dino juice), run all the farm vehicles and still sell some biodiesel- transported to the station with a biodiesel powered truck?
Naturally this is expensive, but some farmers over here do manage it. One big problem on that is only that if yu look at the net gain per area Austria would need to be many times the size it is to supply all the vehicles on the road etc with biofuels.

Just my 2c

AlpineRAM

PS- it's legal to grow hemp over here- it just needs to be one of those extremely low THC sorts, so it's no use smoking it :D

Exactly... Are you sure that all of the bioDiesel that they run for transit and production is produced by the farm?
And what crop would they be growing?

I think the people who did this study are pushing their own idea of energy production of solar and wind power. The idea that it takes 1.23 gallons of fuel to produce 1 gallon of biodiesel is simply preposterous. I'm sure the stats were massaged in order to show what they wanted.

Also, using soybean oil for biodiesel isn't the best use of the land. Soybeans produces about 48 gallons/acre and is pretty far down on the list of oil crops. Palm oil yields are the highest at 635 gal/acre. Even peanuts are more than double the yield at 113 gal/acre. There are many more crops which yield more than soybeans.

Look here for more info: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html

Edwin

Remember no conversion is 100%. There will be some losses. I did not see any information about energy required for #2 processing. Considering most vehicles are only 30-40% effecient I don't think the small percentage increase (if it is in an increase) of conversion losses would mean much.

Randy

The main energy oil crop is rapeseed over here. Palmtrees won't really like it :D and the women won't knit them any pullovers :D
The yield is about 2.6 times higher than with soybeans.
Over here the fuel oil crops are grown separately and they don't need too much if any chemical support because the problems you have with rapeseed will only ruin the taste in most cases but will only have a minimal impact on the yield.

AlpineRAM

Lets see now, with farms subsidised to grow nothing, I would guess that it would not take too much gain to make it worthwhile. Something is better than nothing.

I heard Berkley is working on a new form of transportation. It's rumored it will run solely on trapped armpit gasses and worn out Birkenstocks.:D

If we rendered all the greens how much biodiesel could we get? They should be willing to help out don't you think?

Here is what I know from the studies I have done in college on Biodiesel and the studies I have seen from both universities and the fuel manufacturers, ie the people at Lincoln-Land ethanol plant. As of now there is no efficient way to make ethanol and there is about a 20% energy loss with the most efficient production techniques, Soy Biodiesel has a positive energy gain of about 300% and canola even higher. I look at this as a gaint push for biodiesel over every other alternative out there. There are new hybrid mustard seed feedstocks coming soon that will produce finished fuel for about $1.30 on the commercial level. Probably will never see that kind of savings at the pump though, everyone will take their cut.

Oh, you can be sure the taxman will be there with his blood sucking parisites.

[i]Just keep thinking that Big Oil's pockets are deeper than most other industries, that's one of the main reasons that alternative fuels are not explored more aggressively.
Ever heard the rumors about them buying up the rights to fancy carb's that got like 50MPG's, and other conspricy theroies? [/B]

Hey, that part's TRUE!!! My dad had a buddy that bought a car new GM off the showroom lot in the '70's The thing had a 350 in it that got 45 - 50MPG! He had some guys in Black suits from GM knocking on his door to get their "experimental" carb back. It cost em some $$$.
If I was that guy, I'd have taken that carb to someone for disassembly and had blueprints drawn up. Sell em to the highest bidder.

See!:eek:

Unless we are going to call this guy a Liar??

errrrr, how about that Asian bean rust blite that's coming through with the hurricanes? Very expensive to treat from what I here. Reduces yields to half of normal.

It is showing up in Ga. The bean market is going to go through the roof. Soy will be out of the question. Found positive case in Florida on 7/19/05 on soy. Also finding infected Kudzu which we have lots of in my area. Soy is going to get real expensive as this travels accros the country.

JKE

And then there is the OBVIOUS. This morning Exxon Mobil turned out their earnings numbers for the last quarter. They announced a 32% increase over forecasted earnings. Big oil is gonna drive the prices just where they want them...... Homegrown or dino, the prices are gonna be jacked by the Big Boys to just where they want them....


[rant] [duhhh] [duhhh]

Gary

That is exactly the opposite of anything I've ever read. What I've read is that it takes roughly 30% less engery to convert than Dino-Diesel....I'll have to find my source of course, as I've been scouring the internet rapidly finding how-tos on making Bio-Diesel.

Originally posted by yosemitesamiam
That is exactly the opposite of anything I've ever read. What I've read is that it takes roughly 30% less engery to convert than Dino-Diesel....I'll have to find my source of course, as I've been scouring the internet rapidly finding how-tos on making Bio-Diesel.

There is no doubt a lot less refining for bioDiesel then petroDiesel, but the amount of energy that goes into extracting the oil is what is being argued.


You know, the energy it takes to run the crop duster, combine and tractor versus the amount of energy to pump the crude and put it in a supertanker.

Originally posted by Begle1
There is no doubt a lot less refining for bioDiesel then petroDiesel, but the amount of energy that goes into extracting the oil is what is being argued.


You know, the energy it takes to run the crop duster, combine and tractor versus the amount of energy to pump the crude and put it in a supertanker.

HA, yeah...ALSO, I guess it does take a lot more energy to get up, find used sludge, and refine into a burnable fuel yourself...than it does to drive down to the nearest Arco and fill'r up!

check out "new world technology's", they have a proccess to convert garbage into #2.
with a big net gain of energy.