Biomass Is Net energy Negative (Peak Oil Related)

[mhr]

July 5, 2005

Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
By Susan S. Lang

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

"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 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. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input 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; and
-wood biomass requires 57 percent 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 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
-sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

Snip ......

In other words biofuels are not the answer.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

[DRoseDARs]

1. Wait, so because the efficiency isn't 100% we should give up on them?

Photovoltaics currently only manage roughly 35% (in special laboratory conditions; commercial cells have even less efficiency) conversion of sunlight into usable electricity. I suppose we should scrap that whole industry too then. :eyes:

What a total horseshit slanted article. :thumbsdown:

I seriously hope these researchers are the victim of poor writing; that they are really just publishing this as the basis for more research into improving the efficiencies.

[4dsc]

2. Not at all

what we should be taking from articles like this is that there's not REAL replacement for OIL!! And that being said, what's going to replace oil when its gone in the not to distant future?? Solar?? Not even in your dreams.. Wind?? Keep dreaming..

[brokensymmetry]

9. Unfortunately, people don't want to hear that....

they won't listen, won't do anything to power down or adapt.

We're toast. It's going to get very, very bad.

[mhr]

4. You Missed The Point Entirely - The EROEI Is Negative

EROEI = Energy Returned On Energy Invested

In other words, more energy is consumed creating the bio-fuel than is created in the resulting final product.

So the question is why would any rational person spend precious oil-based fuel to create bio-based fuel that has less energy content?

The answer is no one. Which means this is not an answer to our transporation fuels problem.

[NickB79]

38. That's not what the article says

It says that it takes MORE energy to produce the biofuel than you get from it when it's burned. That's going into negative efficiency. At least with solar, you break even after a few years to a few decades of use, and after that it's all profit. If this report is correct, you just keep digging a deeper hole the longer you use biofuels.

[greenman3610]

3. In other words, here's a STUDY

that OPINES that biofuels are not the answer.
I agree that this is a serious premise that should
be further studied, but one study does not
a paradigm shift.

[rodeodance]

5. on the other hand, it looks like a detailed study to me.

.......

[rodeodance]

6. "subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporation

and this is another problem.



...In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including 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. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis.

"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."

Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.

[patcox2]

39. Thats called science, yup.

I am not being sarcastic, what you describe, with the exception of using the word "opines" with no factual basis, is called "science."

What you are doing, insisting that the study was wrong, despite that you have zero objective evidence to support your belief, is called "faith," also sometimes called "superstition."

[rzemanfl]

7. Aren't certain applications (e.g., aircraft) going to require liquid

fuel even if energy is lost in producing it? I mean when fossil fuel is gone.

[mhr]

8. Yes - But Air Travel As We Know It Will Die - Only Ultra-Wealthy Will Fly

eom

[rzemanfl]

10. Like Bush says about history, I'll be dead by then. n/t

[mhr]

11. You May But Your Children Or Nieces And Nephews Won't

They will take trains and sailing ships in their lifetimes instead of planes.

This will all unfold over the next twenty years.

[rzemanfl]

23. Yeah, and my grandchildren too. On edit, that is if they can get

travel papers from the government.

[FloridaPat]

12. Ethanol I can see. Biodiesel oils should be more reasonble.

People have been turning plants into oil for centuries - way before oil was found in the ground. So it's still feasible if we cut way back on gas use and use some manual labor. Getting everything to run at 50 miles per gallon would be a big step. We use 75% of our oil on transportation.

[mhr]

14. Does Not Work For Bio-Diesel Either See Below From The Article

"In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for bio-diesel production, the study found that:
-soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
-sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced."

Now to your point on fuel economy, there was a post on DU back during Katrina that listed over 50 models of European autos that all had 50 mpg fuel efficiency.

So yes we can move toward better fuel economy but that will only move the Peak of Peak Oil to the right. It buys us some breathing room but does not solve the fundamental problem of oil depletion.

[FloridaPat]

18. I did read that. And I disagree with it. If people have producing oil

for thousands of years without oil from the ground, then it should be possible today to produce it without that same ground oil.

[mhr]

20. Ah, You Miss The Point, The Study Is Based On Using Oil To Run All The Farm

production and distribution equipment.

What you are suggesting is that "Oil labor" will be replaced by "Human labor".

Each time we burn one barrel of oil, as gas or otherwise, it is equivalent to having 80 slaves working for us.

So where will the slaves come from for most to have their bio-diesel?

[FloridaPat]

24. When there's no gas to run everything, we might as well get off our

fat rear ends, turn off the tv and go out and plant and weed. The Great Depression had millions doing nothing but looking for jobs. Is it better to do nothing than at least do some manual labor and at least get food.

[mhr]

25. No One Is Arguing With That Sentiment - Still, The Point Is That No Amount

Of Biomass fuels will replace the amount of energy we consume today from fossil fuels.

As Kunstler says, we will have to make "other arrangements" and those will be draconian compared to what people expect of life today

[FloridaPat]

26. Ture. We use too much. Here's a list of some countries per capita

energy consumption. We are basically hogs about this. And the standard of living for these countries is just like ours.

Energy Consumption : Consumption per capita for 2001
Units: Kilograms of oil equivalent (kgoe) per person per year

Country
Finland FIN 6,517.9
France FRA 4,458.6
Germany DEU 4,263.5
Israel ISR 3,432.6
Mexico MEX 1,515.8
Russian Federation RUS 4,288.8
United Kingdom GBR 3,993.8
United States USA 7,920.9

Neat web site: http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.cfm?theme=6&variable_ID=351&action=select_countries

[FloridaPat]

13. There is another source of fuel we can use - shit.

Mother Earth's Journal had an article about cars run on the gas shit produces when it rots. Farmers have a large tank, puts the shit in and it produces a very explosive gas. It is then put in a canister and tied to the fuel line of a car. You can even still run a regular engine. Just needs some tweeks. And if it one thing we have a lot of in this country it's shit. Especially in Washington.

[mhr]

16. Yes But how Many Cows Will We Need To Graze To Produce Enough Manure

To maintain our current American lifestyle.

As Howard Kunstler says in the Long Emergency, there is no combination of alternatives that will allow us to continue the way we are currently running the country.

The Long Emergency
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=CC13U3iCkX&isbn=0871138883&itm=1

[FloridaPat]

17. True. And there is no reason we should be consuming this much

so people can ride around in SUV's. Plus, you can use all kinds of shit, including human. That would help with the waste treatment in our country. Also rotten food, rotten anything.

[mhr]

19. Yes, That All Pushes The Peak To The Right But It Still Does Not Address

Total energy consumption as addressed by Kunstler and the Hirsch Report.

The Hirsch report correctly states that we have a liquid fuels problem. And Kunstler correctly states that because we have a liquid fuels problem, no amount of alternatives will replicate the volume of liquid fuels we now use once the oil is depleted.

See the Hirsch report here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

[HereSince1628]

15. Those pesky laws of thermodynamics

Those pesky logistics of human consumption.

The lesson for species survival is never build inverted energy pyramids.

[slor]

21. Where is Hemp or Algae in this study?

These are the 2 sources of bio fuels that show the most promise. We certainly also need to get past a one stop shop idea of a oil substitute. We will need to use several different sources. This approach, combined with conservation and improved public transportation will go along way towards helping. We will need to rethink about how we do alot of things we do in our society, if we are brave and smart enough.

[mhr]

22. Good Question - Suggest You Contact The Author To Find Out

eom

[Chemical Bill]

27. Please people, look at who is doing the study.

Patzek is head of an oil industry sponsored group in California. I've actually seen the study, not just an article about it. They count the workman's lunch as energy input. The figure that the farmers need to buy new tractors all the time, then count the energy needed to make the tractors. They load up the energy input with unbelieveable numbers to get these results (IIRC, they count sunshine as energy needed). The government (dept of Agriculture, or Energy, I forget which) has found that corn ethanol returns 1.34 times the energy that is needed to produce it, and soy biodiesel returns 3.4 times the input. And the input energy doesn't have to be petroleum, it often is electricity. Tractors can be run on biodiesel, you know. I'll see if I can find the government numbers, but I'm pretty sure they are at biodiesel.org if I can't make it back.

Bill

Edit: here's one response:
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/pressreleases/gen/20050721_pimentel_response.pdf

National Biodiesel Board, DOE, USDA Officials Dispute Biofuels Study Pimentel/Patzak study deeply flawed, researchers say

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) today condemned a recent study that claims biodiesel takes more energy to produce than it yields, citing instead more thoroughly conducted, peer-reviewed studies that show biodiesel actually yields more than three times the amount of energy it takes to produce.

The study that says biodiesel has a negative energy balance was conducted by David Pimentel, an insect specialist at Cornell, and Tad Patzek, a former oil company employee who is now director of the University of California Oil Consortium.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1998 performed the prevailing life cycle study of the energy balance of biodiesel. This is the most comprehensive, credible and thoroughly peer-reviewed study available on biodiesel produced from soybeans. It found that for every one unit of fossil energy used in this entire biodiesel production cycle, 3.2 unit of energy are gained when the fuel is burned, or a positive energy balance of 320 percent.

“As a researcher with more than 10 years of experience in this area, I find the Pimentel/Patzak paper unconvincing,” said Jim Duffield, USDA senior agricultural economist and one of the original authors of the DOE/USDA study. “It lacks depth and clarity compared to previous studies published on this topic that clearly show biodiesel has a positive energy balance.” Duffield said the report offers no explanation for unorthodox assumptions. “Including calories as energy inputs is highly unusual. Even though the calories consumed by farmers can be converted to energy equivalents, most researchers do not treat the calories as fossil energy.”

[Chemical Bill]

28. This study does show one thing...

the oil companies really don't want us to use anything but petroleum.

[mhr]

29. Good Try, But The Article Also Says That We Should Use Wind

Somehow I don't think the oil industry would support the study at all if it includes other alternatives.

BTW, counting all energy inputs to produce an output is called emergy analysis.

It will become more prevalent as energy becomes more scarce.

[Chemical Bill]

30. "emergy analysis"?

Does it include counting more energy than is actually inputted? That is what your petroleum sponsored analysts are doing. Your opinion on the sponsorship of the UC Energy Consortium is contradicted by fact. I'm all for decentralized wind generated energy, but the headline of your OP has no mention of that, only a mistaken bash of bio fuels based on a study that has crumbled under scrutiny. Please read the original study carefully, and then tell me if your opinion of it hasn't changed. Do you know where to find the original study?

Bill

[mhr]

32. I Won't Do Your Homework For You And Let You Ride On

Ad hominem attacks.

If you want to know more, go find out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergy

[Chemical Bill]

34. I'm sorry...

I don't believe you understood my post. I was asking if you knew where to find the original study in order for you to read it. I was asking a rhetorical question about emergy analysis because it doesn't seem to address the issues I raised in my first post.

You could be right that worker's lunch is a necessary energy input into any industrial process. I don't see it, but I think that lives in Iraq are probably the most important factor in energy discussions, and they don't seem to have made this study, so what do I know?

The study counts energy required to make newly purchased farm machinery as energy input needed to make bio fuels. I think it's obvious that farmers don't have to buy new tractors every year. You may disagree, I won't even ask you to defend this.

One co-author of the study is the head of the UC Oil Consortium. You and I both seem to agree that he would not bite the hand that feed him. My conclusion is that he wrote the article in order to further the aims of the oil companies, namely to keep the US dependent on oil. I see the wind power mention as a minor side point of the article. You may disagree, but please grant me the courtesy of considering my POV.

What do you have to say about the government studies that show biodiesel returning more than 3 times the energy needed to make it? What is your response to my contention that the energy input into biofuels is not all from petroleum, and in fact may be renewable?

There are other major objections raised to this study, both in the paper I referenced, and in the previous thread.

The study assumes that 80% of the energy needed to grow soybeans is used to make biofuels. However, 80% of the soybean is in the form of meal, which is fed to cattle. The oil accounts for 20% of the bean. Please address this issue.

The study assumes that energy intensive production methods are used to make bio fuels. These methods are used in the oil industry, not the biofuel industry. Please address this issue.

The paper I referenced points out that this study was not peer-reviewed. Could you comment on this?

I hope that these points meet your requirement of logic rather than emotion, and look forward to your response.

BTW, I haven't begun to address the issue of our use of inefficient plants for biofuel production. As previous posters have mentioned, hemp provides multiples of useful biomass when compared to corn on a per acre basis, and algae derived biodiesel promises to fuel our entire country's transportation needs in a cost effective and practical manner. However, mostly due to governmental issues, neither is currently available on any practical scale.

Bill

[Chemical Bill]

31. Previous thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=179619

[mhr]

33. Lott's Of Things Get Posted Twice

It's the nature of DU.

[Chemical Bill]

35. That's a funny Freudian slip of the keyboard. n/t

[patcox2]

40. Great response, thanks for getting the facts.

Some other responses are examples of magical thinking, simply asserting its not true because they don't want it to be true. I am glad to see that there is objective evidence to discredit the study.

[TheBaldyMan]

36. is this guy sponsored by the nuclear or oil industries?

I might swallow the claims for ethanol; to distil it you would need high energy input although you might be able to used waste/reclaimed heat from another process, a communual heating system perhaps.

But the claim about biodiesel makes my spider sense tingle. Biodiesel can, for instance, be obtained from waste oil from fast food joints, in other words, oil that has already been extracted and utilised for other purposes. This would effectively reduce the energy extraction cost. I suspect that the good professor doesn't think like a genuine tree-hugger. Recycling reduces total energy cost.

Remember the tobacco industry whacko's told us that cigarettes are not fattening, calm the nerves and keep colds at bay.

[MissMarple]

37. Spain uses a lot of bio fuel, doesn't it?

How does that work for them?