Posted on 07/06/2005 5:07:49 PM PDT by shrinkermd
A new joint study from Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley says that fuels produced from biomass are uneconomical as they use much more energy in their creation than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates.
"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," said study author and Cornell researcher David Pimentel. "These strategies are not sustainable."
The study, appearing in Natural Resources Research, entailed 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. The researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (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.
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. Wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
For biodiesel production, the study found that: Soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. Sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
The researchers acknowledged that finding alternative fuel sources was of great importance but said that bio-fuels were not the answer. "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."
While bio-fuels may not be the answer to the looming specter of decreasing oil production, Pimentel does advocate the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example). In closing, Pimentel said the U.S. should focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion. "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment."
The economics portion of your link does not address the amount of energy (natural gas) needed to produce ethanol.
Read Methadras' post #17 for more objections.
We may not need ethanol, if it turns out that methane is abundant in the earth’s mantle. It’s common for planetary bodies to contain large reservoirs of methane, why not the earth? Recently the mars expedition has noted methane and has wondered if it is created in deep under the martin surface. Some researchers even suggest that oil didn't come for dinosaur swamps, but it is a result of bacteria deep in the earth converting the methane to organic fuels. Therefore its may be hopeful to believe that the deeper we dig, the more we will find the fuel we need.....
Scientist stirs the cauldron: oil, he says, is renewable
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/574189/posts
Earth's mantle can generate methane
Published on 14 Sep 2004 by News@Nature.
http://www.energybulletin.net/2098.html
Gas (Methane) Hydrates -- A New Frontier
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
Hemp?
Combusting hemp, ehh?
Never thought of that one...lol!
The problem is that the famers want subsidies for ethanol as a fuel, and because Presidential primaries happen early in IOWA, the ethanol program is sacrosanct. No ambitious politician can afford to speak the truth about it: it is nothing but welfare for the farm lobby.
If you have to subsidize something, then it certainly is not really economically viable. That being the case, you muct then have a very good reason for persisting in the policy. Paying off political supporters is not a good enough reason.
FINALLY a respected (by Liberals) institution shows what a goddamn waste Ethanol is. It is time to cut the cord. End all ethanol subsidies now.
I'm not sure if their conclusions are accurate. They seem to assume that there is no benefit to growing these plants besides the ethanol output. Corn and soybeans are two major crops with significant importance. At the moment I believe most of the plant goes to waste after the corn and beans are harvested. If the plant parts can be salvaged and made into fuel at a reasonable price it's just an added perk to an already profitable crop.
Federal subsidies and tax breaks
"There are ethanol & biodeisl plants popping up all around Iowa. That would not be happening if there were no potential for profit"
Not just potential for profit, profit right this minute. Profit at the expense of the taxpayers subsidizing this boondoggle. It's more effecient to replace heating oil with ground corn than distilling that same corn for liquid fuel. As long as Archer Daniels is getting 3 Billion a year in subsidies though, the ethanol charade will continue
"This is a way to run our vehicles when the oil is in a state of scarcity"
There is no scarcity of oil, we have more than refineries can keep up with. When oil becomes scarce, I doubt your automobile fuel will be your biggest worry
Throughout history new products have faced opposition.Cheap shot or an uneducated position; we have come far enough along by now that the economics of a particular 'fuel' can be evaluated, and evaluated fairly accurately, to you can ditch this old canard now ...
Do you know if you can just go up to the ethanol or biodiesel plants and "fill up"? I'd like to get some ethanol in my cars (know how to convert for them to not corrode the lines and stuff, just need to learn more about adjusting the fuel/air mix and timing.
Not to mention that with or without the subsidies/tax breaks, they can undersell petrol gas, and make huge profits still (no pun intended)....
Methanol (what is used in IndyCar racing) is made from grasses and other such biomass, so I would think that it could me made from the other remaining plant parts...
You still don't get it, do you? If it takes 6 gallons of gasoline to produce the equivalent of 5 gallons of gasoline, you are not going to be able to produce this stuff when oil is scarce.
"Take a moment to educate yourself on the current state of Ethanol production:"
Well that trumps all the other studies from Cornell and the like. If Northern Iowa Community College says it, it must be gospel. Next thing you know they'll tell us how to get rich extracting gold from seawater
I remember almost the exact same study from Cornell at least a year ago. Is this a *recycled* story?Here's the more RECENT study:
Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle Tad W. Patzek Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering June 10, 2005CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf
"you can ditch this old canard now ..."
As soon as you prove me wrong.
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.