Re: STUDY SLAMS ECONOMICS OF ETHANOL AND BIODIESEL
- From: "cnctut" <cnctutwiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Jul 2005 12:20:13 -0700
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Study Slams Economics Of Ethanol And Biodiesel
>
> Science A Go Go
> http://scienceagogo.com
> Wednesday, July 6, 2005
>
> 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."
>
> (some snipped)
Tut says:
Let's see (one more time):
Bushel of corn cost $2--produces:
1. 2.5 gal ethanol (2.74 gal calculated)
2. 14 lbs corn cobs at 6500 BTU per lb(91000 BTU's)
3. 10 lbs of DDGS @30% protein (distillers dried grains)
Problems:
1. $2 per gal gas--higher prices possibly needed
2. Misguided public relations efforts
--Love of hydrogen concept
--Short-sighted gov funded studys with 50K pixel conclusions
--Conservation and improved efficiency the "end all" answers
.
- Prev by Date: Derivation of conservation laws
- Next by Date: Re: The Kooks Have it. Bye
- Previous by thread: Derivation of conservation laws
- Next by thread: rock
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
