New Bio Fuel?

[Bob Adkins]

This report is pretty vague.



Can anyone figure out what they're talking about? It doesn't appear to be
bio diesel as we know it, but I could be wrong. They're excited about the
efficiency of producing it... whatever it is. It takes 1 unit of energy to
produce 2.2 units of the stuff. (1:2.2) Methanol is a much worse 1:1.1

Has anyone calculated the ratio of energy used/energy produced for bio
diesel and petroleum diesel?

-- Bob

 

[Anthony Matonak]

This report is pretty vague.

Even more vague when you don't include any references to it.

Has anyone calculated the ratio of energy used/energy produced for bio
diesel and petroleum diesel?

Do you count the energy used to grow the plants and/or the millions
of years it takes to convert it?

Flip answers aside, the real answer is Yes & No. They have calculated
such things but there are a lot of variables and when it comes to
biofuels one of the big variables is how and where it's grown. Crops
grown with intensive chemical fertilization and irrigation require a
lot of energy to produce and some oil fields it takes so much to get
the oil out that it's not economically feasible at current prices.

Anthony

 

[Sylvan Butler]

Biodiesel returns around 25 times the energy required to make it.

Now that is just plain nonsense.

Obviously you are ignoring solar input.

But what energy inputs are you including?

sdb

 

[Dave Hinz]

Now that is just plain nonsense.

Well, oversimplification, surely, but nonsense?

Obviously you are ignoring solar input.

Yes, he clearly is. But, if those acres aren't covered with another
energy-gathering entitiy, then it's a net gain, isn't it?

But what energy inputs are you including?

I'd like to see his figures as well.

 

[Sylvan Butler]

Well, oversimplification, surely, but nonsense?

Yup. Oversimplifed to the point of plain nonsense. If I posted here
the claim that, "fluorescent yellow is the ideal color" it would also be
plain nonsense even if in some situation that statement were true.

Yes, he clearly is. But, if those acres aren't covered with another
energy-gathering entitiy, then it's a net gain, isn't it?

Yes. However it is part of the total energy input that according to the
claim, biodiesel contains 25x as much. Since the claim did not make
clear that it was not included, when obviously it was claimed to be
included but could not possibly be so, it begs the question of what
other sources were ex/included to arrive at the given claim.

For example, some have claimed a 10x energy return, because only the
methyl alcohol and sodium hydroxide used to catalyze the vegetable oil
were purchased, and the resulting biodiesel is worth 10x as much as it
cost to acquire the supplies with their embedded energy.

sdb

 

[Bob Adkins]

Even more vague when you don't include any references to it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050603074123.htm


Here's your link. Sorry about that Anthony.

-- Bob

 

[Bob Adkins]

Biodiesel returns around 25 times the energy required to make it.

Producing biodiesel would entail making fertilizer, fuel for planting and
harvesting, electricity for processing, etc. I don't think it would be
nearly that efficient. I'm thinking more on the order of 1:2 or 1:3 at best.
For 1 thing, it takes a lot of power to mechanically and chemically separate
oil from beans and corn.

-- Bob