Filed under: Biodiesel, Green Daily
Biodiesel is even better than we thought in 1998, now returns 3.5 units of energy
It's one of those numbers you hear a lot in green car circles: biodiesel returns 3.2 units of energy for every unit (of fossil fuel) used to produce it. That number comes from a 1998 lifecycle inventory study (PDF) by the Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Lab and the USDA. An updated study, conducted in 2007 and to be published soon by the USDA and the University of Idaho, has found that the return on energy investment is actually 3.5 units for every one used. The first obvious question is, well, why was the first study wrong? It wasn't. The biodiesel production process has changed and even though the 2007 study "extends to the energy required to manufacture the farm machinery used to produce soybeans" (according to a National Biodiesel Board release), we just get more energy from biodiesel today than ten years ago. Increased soybean yields, less herbicide and reduced energy needed to crush the soybeans means more energy in the final calculation. Get more details from the NBB and get ready to update your talking points.
[Source: National Biodiesel Board via B100 Fuel]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
meme 6:23PM (2/14/2008)
Of course, being "energy positive" is only relevant if you're using only biodiesel to power biodiesel production :) But it's still good to see that it doesn't take much energy to produce.
Reply
GreyFlcn 6:34PM (2/14/2008)
Yeah, but it also pollutes more than liquid coal.
http://greyfalcon.net/svlglca.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy
Reply
Snowdog 6:41PM (2/14/2008)
Huh,Meme??.
Being energy positive (and significanltly so) is critically important unless all you are doing is looking to create another Corn Ethanol like boondoggle of corporate wellfare escapades, moving money from taxpayers to the big farm lobby.
Personally I think any of these solutions should only get research money, absolutely no producction or sale subsidies, anything that can't be profitable on it's own merits is likely not efficient enought to produce real benefits.
Reply
meme 11:46PM (2/14/2008)
[quote]Being energy positive (and significanltly so) is critically important unless all you are doing is looking to create another Corn Ethanol like boondoggle of corporate wellfare escapades, moving money from taxpayers to the big farm lobby.[/quote]
Not really. Example: In World War II, Nazi Germany, with limited oil resources, began producing large amounts of fuel from coal liquefaction. This was very primitive coal liquefaction technology, too, so it was quite inefficient. They used many times more energy's worth of coal than they got out of it in oil -- yet it still powered the Nazi war machine. How? Because they put in something that they *couldn't* put into their tanks, and got out something that they *could*.
In the case of biodiesel, if you're putting in a lot of inputs that you *can't* put into your trucks -- for example, electricity or natural gas to run processing equipment -- and getting out something that you can -- such as biodiesel -- then it's a tenable process. That doesn't guarantee that something is a good idea, but it means that there is potential for it to be.
Reply
Snowdog 6:57AM (2/15/2008)
You conveniently ignore the number one input, which is petroleum products. Which you can put in your truck. So unless the process is energy positive, it is kind of pointless.
Reply