Home   |   News    |   Discussions   |   Books   |   Curiosities
Search
Custom Search
Popular Reads

Earthquakes and animal behavior
LHC may produce time travelling particles
Country boys boast bigger junk
Running the numbers on alien life
Uh-oh, placebo
Forgetful? Blame your house
Pill to blame for rise in prostate cancer?
Cat parasite has global ambitions
Carbon monoxide keeps city dwellers happy
Magnetic field alters moral judgments
Stars manufacturing organic matter?
Unnatural selection: Courtesy of The Pill
Men 2% funnier than women
Parasite rewires sexual attraction
Novel psychiatric drugs take aim at gut bacteria
Discussions
General Science

Not-Quite Science

Physics

Climate Change

Science Fiction

Past Forums

Sponsored Links
Browse

Animal Kingdom

Biology

Climate Change

Environment

Evolution

Genetics

Humans

Mind & Brain

Prehistory

Health & Diet

Health Threats

Health & Environment

Health: From The Lab

Mental Health

Reproductive Health

Energy Alternatives

Chemistry

Computing & Electronics

Nanotechnology

Pimping Nature

Robotics & AI

Physics

Space


Curiosities
Sci Shop
Peculiar and bizarre scientific stuff that you didn't even know existed and you don't need.
Books
Book Reviews
Rusty Rockets lists his all-time favorite science titles.
Archives
2012 2011 2010
2009 2008 2007
2006 2005 2004
2003 2002 2001
2000 1999 1998
Feature Archive


6 July 2005
Study Slams Economics Of Ethanol And Biodiesel
by Kate Melville

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."

Ref: Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76)
Source: Media release - Cornell University


Social

Follow Science a GoGo


Home         All The News      Science Forum         Books, Books, Books         Curiosity Shop         About

The terms and conditions governing your use of this website.
Copyright © 1997 - 2012 Science a Go Go and its licensors. All rights reserved.