Energy Balance for Biodiesel?

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:50 pm

In the latest issue of TDR magazine, they have an article by a college professor in Canada claiming that the energy balance for biodiesel is no better than that for ethanol, ie, it takes more energy to make it than what you end up getting out of the fuel itself, and that both ethanol and biodiesel are a waste of time.

From everything I've seen, from DOE, state of NC Dept of Energy, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Diesel Power magazine, etc, all seem to agree that the overall energy balance for biodiesel is that for 1 unit of energy put into making it, you end up getting 3 1/2 units of energy out of biodiesel. At the same time, they agree with the professor's assessment of ethanol, that it takes more energy to make it than you can get out of it.

For all the alternative fuel gurus out there, the question is, who's blowing (or inhaling) smoke on this one?

oldnavy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:36 pm

Everything the Co-op people have stated, and a few others, is that 1 acre will yield approx 60 gals of biodiesel. I'm thinking the prof is taking in the enegery to process the oil from the bean, but the oil is a biproduct of the process for making the soy meal that is used in all our food stuff's. Almost all the oil is waste because they haven't any real market for the extra oil, and until recently they dumped most of the oil here in soybean land. Here in MO the MFA co-op is building a new biodiesel plant each year for the next 3 years to handle all the oil from some local coo-op farms and figure they can make 15,000,000 gals of diesel a year from each plant.

Reggie · **Posted:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:07 pm

You might want to look into who is funding the good professors grants - its probably an oil and gas company

valkraider · **Posted:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:39 pm

retmil46 wrote:

In the latest issue of TDR magazine, they have an article by a college professor in Canada claiming that the energy balance for biodiesel is no better than that for ethanol, ie, it takes more energy to make it than what you end up getting out of the fuel itself, and that both ethanol and biodiesel are a waste of time.

From everything I've seen, from DOE, state of NC Dept of Energy, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Diesel Power magazine, etc, all seem to agree that the overall energy balance for biodiesel is that for 1 unit of energy put into making it, you end up getting 3 1/2 units of energy out of biodiesel. At the same time, they agree with the professor's assessment of ethanol, that it takes more energy to make it than you can get out of it.

For all the alternative fuel gurus out there, the question is, who's blowing (or inhaling) smoke on this one?

It depends. Who was the college professor? There are a few "studies" that have already been "debunked". Do you have any links?

I would bet that either the article was referring directly to the Pimentel & Patzek "study" or the Canadian professor was using the Pimentel numbers.

This thread at Biodiesel now is a long discussion about it, and in the discussion there are lots of links:

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4105

Here is another discussion about recent studies that show that Biofuels are much more efficient than petrolium:

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11036

There are some great articles in there.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:31 am

Believe it or not, they were quoting the "great" :roll:

men themselves, Pimentel and Patzek!!! The Canadian professor was Vaclav Smil from the Univ of Manitoba.

Yep, kinda familiar with these "impartial scientific" studies paid for by a particular industry, that just happen to turn out a result favorable to the group that funded it.

Few years back, when I was rather heavily involved with electric vehicles, saw a study turned out by two professors at a certain Northeastern college that trashed electrics and hybrids from every angle possible (this was before the Japanese started building them and the OEM's realized they could actually make money off of hybrids). They fudged so many numbers, made basic math errors that even a first grader would catch, and quoted other references and studies so far out of context, that the study was a laughingstock before it even went to peer review. It was so bad their own college even discredited the study, and admonished them for publishing such a sloppy, clearly prejudiced POS.

Where did they get their funding? From the industry that just racked up record profits last year selling us gasoline. Even though that study was shot full of holes before the ink was even dry, it was still trotted out by the auto and oil industry as "proof" that electrics and hybrids just didn't work.

naturist · **Posted:** Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:25 am

As one of the authors of one of those studies mentioned on NPR a couple weeks ago, it makes all the difference in the world whether you include the lunch costs of the workers in the field growing the crop . . . .

It also makes all the difference in the world how you account for the feed oil. If you do the calculations based upon using soybeans grown just for the oil, then there is no doubt that it doesn indeed take more energy to make the biodiesel than you can possibly get from it. Soy oil is used in North America because that oil is the cheapest and most widely available oil, and it is that because the soybeans are grown for the soy meal; the oil is a waste/byproduct. And on that basis, it makes energy sense to use soy oil.

However, if this country got serious about replacing as much petroleum fuel as possible, soybeans are definitely NOT the crop to grow, as you can only get about 60 gallons per acre per year. There are scores of crops that would produce higher yields, with the most productive currently known being one of several species of algae that can produce as much as 15,000 gallons of oil per acre per year. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how much more energy efficient it would be to drain a shallow pond to harvest your crop than it is to run a tractor across a field while towing a combine.

So I take all those energy estimates with a ton of salt, both the "takes more to make" ones and the "3-1/2 times as much" ones.

Reggie · **Posted:** Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:30 am

The problem with studies like this is that groups like the Sierra Club quotes these studies to advance their own agenda - like hybrids and fuel cells. I find that humorous because hybrids are not all that fuel efficent and fuel cell technology is decades out. Diesel is one of the few viable alternatives for reducing green house emmisions. Groups like the sierra klub treat diesels like an ugly step child that is to be bannished.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:32 pm

There's an old saying - "There are lies, darned lies, and statistics."

Depending on what conditions, parameters, limits, etc, you want to use to crunch the numbers, two different groups can take the same set of data and come up with completely opposite results. As you said, too often it depends on that person's or group's agenda, looking for a particular outcome that pleases them (or the people paying them), that determines the conclusions of the study.

Wilmo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:19 pm

naturist wrote:

However, if this country got serious about replacing as much petroleum fuel as possible, soybeans are definitely NOT the crop to grow, as you can only get about 60 gallons per acre per year. There are scores of crops that would produce higher yields, with the most productive currently known being one of several species of algae that can produce as much as 15,000 gallons of oil per acre per year. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how much more energy efficient it would be to drain a shallow pond to harvest your crop than it is to run a tractor across a field while towing a combine.

I'm interested to read more about farming/processing this algae for oil production - could you please provide any links to information?

Many thanks in advance.

Calvin56 · **Joined:** Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:59 am **Posts:** 345

One other thing to think about... maybe the study is right, maybe it does take 3x the energy to create the fuel. But think about where the energy ultimately comes from- the sun. Basically free energy to grow plants. If the good proff took the energy it took to grow the plants, he may have well come up with the 3x energy factor.

grywlfbg · **Posted:** Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:45 pm

Wilmo wrote:

I'm interested to read more about farming/processing this algae for oil production - could you please provide any links to information?

Many thanks in advance.

There was some, ahem, discussion in a thread awhile back on this. Chek here:

http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/vie ... php?t=5356

naturist · **Posted:** Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:00 am

Wilmo wrote:

naturist wrote:

However, if this country got serious about replacing as much petroleum fuel as possible, soybeans are definitely NOT the crop to grow, as you can only get about 60 gallons per acre per year. There are scores of crops that would produce higher yields, with the most productive currently known being one of several species of algae that can produce as much as 15,000 gallons of oil per acre per year. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how much more energy efficient it would be to drain a shallow pond to harvest your crop than it is to run a tractor across a field while towing a combine.

I'm interested to read more about farming/processing this algae for oil production - could you please provide any links to information?

Many thanks in advance.

Uh, Wilmo, there is this web search engine called Google, which can be reached at www.google.com, and typing in the search criteria "biodiesel+algae" brings up 98,500 articles, at least two or three of the first 20 or so ought to tell you more than you ever wanted to know.

trailexplorer · **Joined:** Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:05 am **Posts:** 1

naturist wrote:

However, if this country got serious about replacing as much petroleum fuel as possible, soybeans are definitely NOT the crop to grow, as you can only get about 60 gallons per acre per year.

Do we have any better use for the land?

When the reports say "use up as much energy to grow...", what kind of energy? Energy produced from non-renewable sources? I want to use biodiesel because I want to switch to using more renewable energy. If it takes more energy from renewable engery, that's fine by me because we can make more of it. Just wondering...

dog_party · **Posted:** Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:31 am

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the equation/question would be a lot easier to answer if there were only one machine that produced bio. We'll call our hypothetical machine the "Super Soy 2000" (SS2k).

The SS2k plows, seeds, weeds, harvests, seperates, cleans, processes, and spits bio out the back like a broken firehydrant on a hot summer day. All it needs other than itself is nature (soil, water, and sun). We don't even have to oil it because it uses it's own oil for oil.

The SS2k is, of course, powered by b100 biodiesel.

We attach a hose to the SS2k's biodiesel output point and snake it into the fuel tank, thus powering itself.

The question is (after the initial startup loss of energy), would the SS2k sustain itself on any given amount of land? And what amount of land would be needed for the SS2k to not only sustain itself, but have a biodiesel surplus for us to use?

valkraider · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:06 pm

dog_party wrote:

We'll call our hypothetical machine the "Super Soy 2000" (SS2k).

The SS2k plows, seeds, weeds, harvests, seperates, cleans, processes, and spits bio out the back like a broken firehydrant on a hot summer day. All it needs other than itself is nature (soil, water, and sun). We don't even have to oil it because it uses it's own oil for oil.

The SS2k is, of course, powered by b100 biodiesel.

We attach a hose to the SS2k's biodiesel output point and snake it into the fuel tank, thus powering itself.

The question is (after the initial startup loss of energy), would the SS2k sustain itself on any given amount of land? And what amount of land would be needed for the SS2k to not only sustain itself, but have a biodiesel surplus for us to use?

I think I saw the SS2K on an informercial last night.

I think that in reality, this is kind of what they are trying to do with cellulosic type plants and things like Thermal Depolymerization (TDP) and the like.

They use some energy, usually natural gas, to kick off the process. Then they run, for the most part, on the fuel that they create...

valkraider · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:13 pm

Another thing that makes me laugh, is that people seem to treat dinosaur oil like it is magically pain free.

Like it somehow just completely magically appears in our gas tanks without consuming any energy. That oil drilling rigs, oil tankers, and trucks, and all of that are perfectly clean perpetual motion machines....

I am fully aware of the downside of biofuel.

But for all the research I have done, the negatives of biofuel look like we have a better chance of overcoming than the negatives of petroleum.

Petroleum is *only* around because *initially* it was cheap and easy. Beverly Hillbillies style gushing up from the ground.

Those days are long gone.

Say 100 years ago or so when petroleum was becoming the fuel of choice - if it had been as expensive, difficult, and politically volitile as now. They would have said - no way!

retmil46 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:35 am

valkraider wrote:

Another thing that makes me laugh, is that people seem to treat dinosaur oil like it is magically pain free.

Like it somehow just completely magically appears in our gas tanks without consuming any energy. That oil drilling rigs, oil tankers, and trucks, and all of that are perfectly clean perpetual motion machines

Exactly. They do the same when talking about battery only electrics. When comparing to a gas car, somehow the gas is already magically in the tank, and they only talk about MPG and efficiency off what's already in the tank, ignoring the whole process it takes to get that gallon of gas in your tank. But for the electrics, they always throw in the whole supply chain, from coal mine to train to power plant to transmission lines to your outlet thru the charger into the batteries thru the motor to the ground. That way they make it look like an electric motor is less efficient than a gasoline engine, which any electrical and/or mechanical engineer will tell you is absolute BS.

And when you do get them to throw in the gasoline supply chain, they make assumptions such as the transportation is 100% efficient - X number of gallons left the refinery, and same X number of gallons got delivered to the corner station. No account for the energy expended by the pumping stations in the pipelines, at the terminal, fuel burned by the tanker trucks, energy spent at the refinery, or even the electricity used by the gas station to operate their equipment and pumps 24/7.

As I said before, there are lies, darned lies, and statistics.

dog_party · **Posted:** Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:08 am

Come on guys. Don't you know that dinosaurs are just roaming free-range around the world peeing gasoline on command into big underground tanks?

Supply chain? There's no supply chain cost.... :roll:

It's alllll free! Wonderfully pain free and magical like a candy world with rivers of chocolate flowing into lakes of ice cream.

I just wish they'd quit beating us with the giant candy canes.

Quote:

I think I saw the SS2K on an informercial last night.

Yea, Exxon beat me with a pecan log until I gave them the plans. Then Consumer Reports tested it and said that it only got 11MPG and the energy balance was something like 1 unit of energy produces -4,041,503,203.1940134 units of engergy. So I actually OWE them energy now. They're garnishing 104% of my energy wages (post taxes) until it's paid off.

Energy Balance for Biodiesel?

Who is online