Mexstan

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Ethanol producers dispute the new study, saying the data are outdated and don't take into account profits that offset costs.

Redleg

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

trailblazenyj

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.

TomW

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.

bigfoot

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?

dspencer

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.

TomW

From the DoE.

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

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.

TomW

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.

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.

Begle1

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...)

Haulin_in_Dixie

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.

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.

PistolWhipt

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


HIDINGFROMPETAPISTOL

j-fox

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.