Posted on 07/12/2006 7:44:17 AM PDT by Brilliant
The first comprehensive analysis of the full life cycles of soybean biodiesel and corn grain ethanol shows that biodiesel has much less of an impact on the environment and a much higher net energy benefit than corn ethanol, but that neither can do much to meet U.S. energy demand.
The study, which was funded in part by the University of Minnesota’s Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment, was conducted by researchers in the university’s College of Biological Sciences and College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences. The study will be published in the July 11 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers tracked all the energy used for growing corn and soybeans and converting the crops into biofuels. They also looked at how much fertilizer and pesticide corn and soybeans required and how much greenhouse gases and nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants each released into the environment.
“Quantifying the benefits and costs of biofuels throughout their life cycles allows us not only to make sound choices today but also to identify better biofuels for the future,” said Jason Hill, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of ecology, evolution, and behavior and the department of applied economics and lead author of the study.
The study showed that both corn grain ethanol and soybean biodiesel produce more energy than is needed to grow the crops and convert them into biofuels. This finding refutes other studies claiming that these biofuels require more energy to produce than they provide. The amount of energy each returns differs greatly, however. Soybean biodiesel returns 93 percent more energy than is used to produce it, while corn grain ethanol currently provides only 25 percent more energy.
Still, the researchers caution that neither biofuel can come close to meeting the growing demand for alternatives to petroleum. Dedicating all current U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12 percent of gasoline demand and 6 percent of diesel demand. Meanwhile, global population growth and increasingly affluent societies will increase demand for corn and soybeans for food.
The authors showed that the environmental impacts of the two biofuels also differ. Soybean biodiesel produces 41 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel fuel whereas corn grain ethanol produces 12 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. Soybeans have another environmental advantage over corn because they require much less nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides, which get into groundwater, streams, rivers and oceans. These agricultural chemicals pollute drinking water, and nitrogen decreases biodiversity in global ecosystems. Nitrogen fertilizer, mainly from corn, causes the 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico.
“We did this study to learn from ethanol and biodiesel,” says David Tilman, Regents Professor of Ecology and a co-author of the study. “Producing biofuel for transportation is a fledgling industry. Corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel are successful first generation biofuels. The next step is a biofuel crop that requires low chemical and energy inputs and can give us much greater energy and environmental returns. Prairie grasses have great potential.”
Biofuels such as switchgrass, mixed prairie grasses and woody plants produced on marginally productive agricultural land or biofuels produced from agricultural or forestry waste have the potential to provide much larger biofuel supplies with greater environmental benefits than corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel.
According to Douglas Tiffany, research fellow, department of applied economics and another co-author of the study, ethanol and biodiesel plants are early biorefineries that in the future will be capable of using different kinds of biomass and conversion technologies to produce a variety of biofuels and other products, depending upon market demands.
Hill adds that both ethanol and biodiesel have a long-term value as additives because they oxygenate fossil fuels, which allows them to burn cleaner. Biodiesel also protects engine parts when blended with diesel.
“There is plenty of demand for ethanol as an additive,” Hill says. “The ethanol industry was built on using ethanol as an additive rather than a fuel. Using it as a biofuel such as E85 is a recent and currently unsustainable development. As is, there is barely enough corn grown to meet demand for ethanol as a 10 percent additive.”
>>>>The first comprehensive analysis of the full life cycles of soybean biodiesel and corn grain ethanol shows that biodiesel has much less of an impact on the environment and a much higher net energy benefit than corn ethanol, but that neither can do much to meet U.S. energy demand.
Oh the irony!
but of course it does!
and I'm sure Monsanto is somewhere behind paying for this analaysis!
To the contrary, these "boutique" ideas will never amount to a hill of beans in terms of energy contribution to the global economy. Furthermore, as the article points out, diverting crops to fuel will shut off a higher-value use, namely feeding the world's growing population.
We definitely need the gonads to drill more holes in the earth to recover natural resources like oil, tar sands, coal and uranium.
How much grease does McDonalds, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, Crispy Cream and KFC dispose of in a week?
All can be converted into Bio-Diesel.
What is the problem with industry funding of research? Sheesh! I have had no less than 50 projects funded by industry and the data does the talking. Sometimes industry benefits and sometimes they don't.
I think in the long run, they make a difference. But they are in such a state of infancy, it may not be in our lifetimes.
Yes, let's keep the problems with whom made the problem.
Great idea.
Actually, there are several companies that specialize in collecting and recycling restaurant deep fry grease.
I am not sure of all the details, but alternative fuels are really popular here in Thailand. Ethanol is a major seller. Thailand has a very big rice surplus and without researching it more, that is probably where the ethanol is coming from.
I think it will take a lot to have an impact on the US, but in other developing countries, these alternative fuels do make sense.
As we've seen on earlier threads, there's room for niche markets for biodiesel, making use of stuff like used frying oil from fast food restaurants and other waste products. But there's not much sense in replacing food crops with fuel crops, when our country is already starting to become a net importer of food.
That is certainly bad news. For most of the twentieth century we were net exporters of food on a large scale, but that is no longer true, apparently.
The problem with the environmental movement is that it becomes fixated on the latest chic fad. Then you get an unholy alliance between the environmental whackos and the corrupt politicians, pushing public tax money into factory farms owned by big political donors, for instance.
I'm all in favor of genuine innovation and discovery, but you have to take the politics out of it, and you have to be VERY careful of any program that involves huge government subsidies and bureaucracies, because then the vested interests take over and could care less whether the program is actually helpful or economically viable.
I think we definitely need the legislature to overturn all the EPA laws that keep us from drilling off shore and in Alaska, and that keep us from expoloring for new oil. Also eliminate the idiotic rules for building refineries. Bio fuels suck and will never ease our need for oil. We need to reocgnize the fact that we haven't found a substitute for petroleum yet and need to get with the drilling program!
Until we do that, we will keep fooling ourselves that "biofuels" will solve our problems or at least lessen them.
The only biofuel I have seen that actually works only works for generating electricity and that is manure turned into methane and other products.
"Yes, let's keep the problems with whom made the problem."
Well, somebody needs to pay for the research. It will be peer reviewed (or already has). That is science.
Would you prefer that we DON'T understand the net energy gains in these techniques? What is the point in fooling ourselves.
It's like my wife going to a 50% off sale, buying ten of something we don't need and then coming home to tell me how much we saved!
My friend up the street from my business owns a hot dog stand and has been burning BD in his clapped out Benz for a few years now.
"two 55 gallon drums a month" bookmark
Chicken feed.
Then if we take into consideration other studies suggesting that ethanol actually produces negative energy, I'd say we need to look elsewhere.
Only a minute fraction of that necessary to supply the US energy needs.
Every little bit helps.
"Most of this grease goes to making jelly beans, gummy bears, and other DELICIOUS candy."
:(
Some things are better left unsaid.
Malarkey alert!!! Removal of the "biofuel" portion of the crop does not destroy the nutritional value of either corn OR soybeans. The solids are quite nutritional.
There has been surplus grain production in the world since Britain passed its first corn laws in 1800 to protect their farmers.
10% ethanol more than compensates for our imports from the Middle East (7%) and allmost accounts for what we get from Venezuela (14%). The goal seems to be to cut our imports by 25% asap so those tin horn dictators can't extort us with threats to cut off the straits of Hormuz, for instance.
What a scam Ethanol is.
What research? The renewable engery sites always has complete research.
My instinct, distilled from this article and all the other science reports like it that I have read, suggest to me that only a radically different energy paradigm, unrelated to chemical based fuels (from "fossil" origins or from plants), will come out ahead for our transportation fuels for the future; i.e. hydrogen or electric (connected to the grid on the highway, battery in town).
Corn and Soybean production does not feed the world growing population. They feed livestock which is then killed for meat. As others has pointed out, the leftovers from ethanol production can be used to feed that livestock. In other words no one is going to starve.
Refutes other studies?
What other studies? Inquiring minds want to know. This article is worthless unless it can reference the "other studies".
Scientists and engineers differ all the time. But the lay public, since they make their decisions based on what "expert authorites" tell them, need to know how the studies differ and why?
Think of all the cows that would starve. Now follow the logic. All 300 million Americans would have to become vegans. I don't think so.
I think it has been pointed out that leftovers from the process can be used for animal feed. I don't think the cows are going to starve either.
ProtectOurFreedom wrote:
> Think of all the cows that would starve. <
Or, as Marie-Antoinette might have said,
>> Let them eat switchgrass! <<
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.