Wow, that’s terrific. I can’t wait for the moment when there’s so many biodiesel stations around that I can choose to refuel at the ones that display this logo!!!
Anthony wrote: I thought biodiesel requires a lot more energy to produce then a gallon of gasoline?
It all depends on where the source material for any bio-fuel comes from.
Ethanol (a bio-fuel, but not bio-diesel) from corn is hotly debated, but ethanol from sugar beets and some other sources may be better.
In the case of bio-diesel, much that is in production today is made from waste materials, things which would have been produced anyway. From a carbon and net energy standpoint, this is a positive factor.
A 5 July 2005 Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study of biofuels slams both ethanol and biodiesel.
“There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. “These strategies are not sustainable.”
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a new analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as of producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants.
The two have collaborated before on similar research. The current report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, their calculations determined that:
• Corn requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
• Switch grass requires 45% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
• Wood biomass requires 57% more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
• Soybean plants requires 27% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
• Sunflower plants requires 118% more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
Charles Hall, T. Pradeep, J. Hallock, Cutler Cleveland, M. Jefferson. 20 Nov 2003.wrote:
“Liquid, renewable fuels, such as ethanol and hydrogen, do not have a high enough Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROI) to run civilization, let alone maintain the existing infrastructure, the majority of which was built when oil had an EROI of 40 to 100” (Hydrocarbons and the Evolution of Human Culture Nature 426, pp. 318–22.)
In addition to finding information about the amount of energy it takes to produce ethanol,
other interesting discoveries included the following:
Using corn to produce ethanol will increase the cost of food and feed for animals like hogs. Furthermore, using food stocks to convert to liquid energy may create a foreseeable future food shortage as the population of the world grows. There is simply not enough good farm land to support both food production and energy production.
Various reports also indicate that ethanol production can not go forward and be financially self-sustainable without constant government and taxpayer subsidies.
There are also questions about what role General Motors is playing in the production of ethanol with their promotion of E-85 vehicles.
From my own prospective the primary difference between ethanol and boidiesel is that biodiesel can be processed from used cooking oils. Therefore producing biodiesel from used cooking oils appears to be an efficient energy source while producing biofuels from plants does not. That said, chickens can be home grown, but the question arises, are the cooking oils used to produce biodiesel really Oregon home grown?
I don’t want to dismiss it out of hand, but Dr. Pimentel is an entomologist–a bug scientist. He does have expertise in the agricultural field, but his schtick is insects.
I’m not sure I understand the argument over energy produced vs consumed. That’s not really the point, is it? Right now the primary goal is reducing emissions, and there’s just no comparison between ethanol/biodiesel and crude oil.
TJ, the point of biodiesel is also to reduce reliance on fossil sources, and that makes the energy-in/energy-out equation meaningful (it is also meaningful to the economics).
7 responses to “Branding Oregon Biodiesel”
Wow, that’s terrific. I can’t wait for the moment when there’s so many biodiesel stations around that I can choose to refuel at the ones that display this logo!!!
I thought biodiesel requires a lot more energy to produce then a gallon of gasoline?
Anthony wrote: I thought biodiesel requires a lot more energy to produce then a gallon of gasoline?
It all depends on where the source material for any bio-fuel comes from.
Ethanol (a bio-fuel, but not bio-diesel) from corn is hotly debated, but ethanol from sugar beets and some other sources may be better.
In the case of bio-diesel, much that is in production today is made from waste materials, things which would have been produced anyway. From a carbon and net energy standpoint, this is a positive factor.
– Bob R.
A 5 July 2005 Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study of biofuels slams both ethanol and biodiesel.
“There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,” says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. “These strategies are not sustainable.”
Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a new analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as of producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants.
The two have collaborated before on similar research. The current report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, their calculations determined that:
• Corn requires 29% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
• Switch grass requires 45% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
• Wood biomass requires 57% more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
• Soybean plants requires 27% more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
• Sunflower plants requires 118% more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
Charles Hall, T. Pradeep, J. Hallock, Cutler Cleveland, M. Jefferson. 20 Nov 2003.wrote:
“Liquid, renewable fuels, such as ethanol and hydrogen, do not have a high enough Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROI) to run civilization, let alone maintain the existing infrastructure, the majority of which was built when oil had an EROI of 40 to 100” (Hydrocarbons and the Evolution of Human Culture Nature 426, pp. 318–22.)
In addition to finding information about the amount of energy it takes to produce ethanol,
other interesting discoveries included the following:
Using corn to produce ethanol will increase the cost of food and feed for animals like hogs. Furthermore, using food stocks to convert to liquid energy may create a foreseeable future food shortage as the population of the world grows. There is simply not enough good farm land to support both food production and energy production.
Various reports also indicate that ethanol production can not go forward and be financially self-sustainable without constant government and taxpayer subsidies.
There are also questions about what role General Motors is playing in the production of ethanol with their promotion of E-85 vehicles.
From my own prospective the primary difference between ethanol and boidiesel is that biodiesel can be processed from used cooking oils. Therefore producing biodiesel from used cooking oils appears to be an efficient energy source while producing biofuels from plants does not. That said, chickens can be home grown, but the question arises, are the cooking oils used to produce biodiesel really Oregon home grown?
I don’t want to dismiss it out of hand, but Dr. Pimentel is an entomologist–a bug scientist. He does have expertise in the agricultural field, but his schtick is insects.
I’m not sure I understand the argument over energy produced vs consumed. That’s not really the point, is it? Right now the primary goal is reducing emissions, and there’s just no comparison between ethanol/biodiesel and crude oil.
TJ, the point of biodiesel is also to reduce reliance on fossil sources, and that makes the energy-in/energy-out equation meaningful (it is also meaningful to the economics).
Here’s a pretty good rebuttal to Pimentel’s study: old data, vague methodology, and a non-standard way of computing inputs. {pdf}