I agree with a diverse supply of renewable and cleaner fuels. As for energy calculations, I'm not sure how we calculate the 'real' cost of extracting finite petroleum? There is certainly an exploration, drilling, extracting, PROTECTING, transporting, refining, distributing and using cost to petroleum products that is not factored into the easy to refine light sweet crude. Then there is the more energy consuming processing of heavy crude and even more extreme 'oil sands' refining. I'm not suggestig tha that biofuel replace every drop of petroleum, but certainly using biodiesel (and improving the technology in proper oil seed/plant and processing) that is available today would be a wise move. I would hope that we continue to take on conservation methods, develop improved even better energy sources but ev, hydrogen, fuel cells, solar, super capacitors, efficient electric motors and batteries are still quite a way in our future. Even if you favor those over renewable biofuels like biodiesel ... large equipment will still need to be powered by the diesel engine for a long time to come. Biodiesel blended to cleaner petroleum make a lot of sense.

 

Saw this quote that factors in just using soy oil:

 

But again, no mention of how they came to this conclusion. Are they including the energy involved in making fertilizer from natural gas and perticides and herbicides from oil (plus all the energy used to extract and protect that oil), and the additional oil energy consumed to plant and harvest? Or are they just calculating the energy needed to process the soy into bio-diesel, as the statement seems to infer?

Again, I have no doubt that bio-fuels are of great benefit to society, but when it comes to calculating the overall energy inputs versus the output I think many are quick to ignore the factors that would place the balance in the negative in order to show it to be a source of energy rather than a consumer of energy, or means of converting already extracted stored energy into more environmentally friendly forms.

When bio-fuels really become a source of energy then it should be pretty easy to see since their production should be a closed loop, using only bio-fuels to produce bio-fuels. I do not think this has happened yet, but it probably can at some point as efficiencies increase and the use of energy sink chemicals in agriculture is eliminated. Once technology advances enough then it should be possible to operate a small personal production facility, just as it's possible to grow your own food, growing your own fuel should be just as possible.

 

That is the point ... they only looked at using the "whole" plant and "Lone" fuel product from the plant including all the energy consumed in farming and processing.

Point is that the oil used in Biodiesel specifically IS the by-product and being utilized in either the virgin oil fashion for cooking/food/etc OR by a processor in making biodiesel. No including the meal product that is a very profitable commodity is wrong ... not to mention that there is a huge business of converting used oils to fuel that requires even less energy to recycle for fuel.

If we were to seriously look at the energy consumed in the petroleum markets, I don't know how we would calculate ALL that goes into extracting, refilling wells, transporting, refining, PROTECTING, etc ... but I would venture to guess that isn't as efficient as some calculations subscribe too. Besides ... what is the net life cycle and environmental reality of renewable, cleaner biofuels to refining and burning petroleums?

Again ... not bashing or suggesting we eliminate using petroleum, just that we use it wisely (like most here adopting hybrid technology), suppliment with renewable, domestic, clean biofuels and continue to advance even better energy options that are yet to be available today. Biodiesel, ethanol, EVs, and hybrids are available now and are things we can to do.

 

I don't understand this. Plants are basically Nature's Solar Cells. They capture free energy from the sun. That sun energy is then liquified & put into cars.

How can there be a net energy loss, when there's solar input???

troy

 

Because there is energy used in planting, fertilizing, herbicizing, harvesting, trucking, processing, distributing. With petroleum a few steps are eliminated since the 'finite fossil' fuel is trapped underground. (also energy content of final product)

I disagree with the study though ... as it doesn't take into count the other variables. For example the primary use of 'soybeans' is the 'meal' and the oil is the byproduct. The study only looks at the 'oil.' Also ... we all know that there is more cost involved in 'securing' crude oil (especially from the middleeast) than just pumping it out of the ground and processing ... what is that cost? An let's contemplate the environmental cost of petroleum vs. biofuels ... again no calculations. I'd rather spill some biodiesel or ethanol and pay for the clean up than a tanker full of crude oil along the shoreline ... besides the $$$ cost ... what about the environmental damage that is difficult to price?

 

It seems to me that both sides of the debate have a vested intrest in skewing the numbers. Of course the oil people are gonna say it isn't worth the time and of course the soy people are gonna say that BD is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

I say biofuels are viable when they close the loop. When the production of bio-fuels requires zero petroleum inputs and minimal electrical inputs then it's truly a source of energy. Until then it's another way of converting oil into another more friendly energy storage medium. We need to get our agriculture off the petroleum, it's unrealistic to expect a stable economy to be based on a limited supply of energy, so renewable fuels and electric technologies are the future, it's a matter of getting these products to market.

 

I agree completely.

 

On the other hand, the Cornell study has 1-1/2 pages that details how it arrived at its opinion on 'soy' based biodiesel's efficiency and the media articles even less; the study used data from 1990 agricultural information and completely ignored the value of the soymeal, glycerin, etc. (BTW: note that Dr. Pimentel and Patzek head the UC Oil Consortium at Berkeley)

The US Department of Energy's study, using recent agricultural data from the US Department of Agriculture (2002) concludes something far different from the heavily publicized Cornell story. Their report concluded that for every one unit of fossil energy used in this entire production cycle, 3.2 unit of energy are gained when the fuel is burned, or a positive energy balance of 320%. This study started with bare soil and took into account all the energy inputs associated with growing and harvesting soybeans: transporting and processing the soybeans into oil and meal, transportation and production of the soybean oil into biodiesel, and transportation of the biodiesel to the end user.

This 286 page PDF study can be found at National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

It is disappointing that the Pimentel study gets so much press when a far more detailed report, using more recent data, is available to the media. Just like theNYTimes writer interviewing hybrid owners and selecting comments to support the story's objective, I believe that most of the 200+ recent releases of the Cornell study have mislead their viewers and readers too.