Biodiesel: Even Better Than We Thought
by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada 
on 02.15.08
A widely cited 1998 life cycle study by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture concluded that "Biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life cycle" while "petroleum diesel yielded only 0.83 units of energy per unit of fossil energy consumed". Time for an update: A soon to be published 2007 study by the USDA and the University of Idaho finds that the energy balance of biodiesel is "a positive ratio of 3.5-to-1".
What has changed? Was the first study wrong?
The many changes that have occurred in the U.S. biodiesel and agricultural industries since the 1990s prompted researchers at the University of Idaho to update the study in cooperation with the USDA. Both the 1998 and 2007 study are based on biodiesel production from soybeans, which according to U.S. Census data is responsible for more than 80 percent of 2007 estimated biodiesel production. [...]“The bottom line is that the energy balance of biodiesel has definitely improved in the last decade,” says University of Idaho Department Head of Biological and Agricultural Engineering Jon Van Gerpen, [...] “The increase in soybean yields and a decrease in herbicide use greatly contributed to the increased energy balance. Meanwhile, energy used for crushing soybeans is significantly lower than what was reported in the NREL study.”
So that's good news! We're getting more efficient and getting more energy out of the same amount of soybeans. Of course, the best biodiesel is made from waste grease and we should do everything we can to use all of it (from restaurants and industrial food producers) and not throw it away. There's also algal biodiesel that looks promising. But it's good to learn that even biodiesel made from 'virgin' soybeans is this energy-positive (unlike corn ethanol - and it also has the bonus of fixing nitrogen in the soil).
Thanks to Collin Dunn for the tip.
::Biodiesel Yields Even Higher Energy Balance , via ::Biodiesel is even better than we thought in 1998, now returns 3.5 units of energy
See also: ::Green Basics: Biodiesel, ::i-Spec Q-100: A Biodiesel Analyzer in Your Pocket, ::Find Biodiesel With Your Cell Phone
Update: Syntec Biofuel: Closer to Fuel from Waste (with nod to commenters in this post).
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Cooking on a Budget: Use Everything
- Green Glossary: Bagasse
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Improve Air Conditioner Efficiency with 9 Cool Tips
- Don't Miss Sheryl Crow's Green Summer Tour
- Fire Up Your Metabolism and Burn More Calories with Herbs
Biodiesel is fine, as long as it is recycled from used cooking oil.
I agree and I also think that where possible the used veg oil should be used directly so when it spills or is handled there is very little impact.
This after the studies showing biofuels do more damage to the environment than help?
Why can't we move on from things that we know don't help? We're only dooming ourselves.
I find that hard to believe. Even if it is true then biodiesel and other bio fuels do increase the food prices and thereby causing problems elsewhere.
I think I'll turn in my treehugger decoder ring. With a statement(which itself is absurd) without explanations as to why he feels that way, I see that the green elite have invaded and started making their baseless proclamations concerning what the rest of humanity should do.
Bravo, I think I'll go buy a Hummer and eat some foie gras.
It all depends on what you're using as the source - If you're developing bio-diesel from Algae, then everything changes for the better.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-07/greenest-green-fuel
There are tow reasons biofuels are pursued: 1) Big agro 2) It fits seamlessly within the current fuel infrastructure.
From a physical point of view biomass is a very inefficient and cumbersome way to convert solar energy to a usable form. In the long run solar energy, wind energy and electrical cars are the only sensible solution.
Yeah, I pretty much have to agree with everyone else here...
"This after the studies showing biofuels do more damage to the environment than help?
That was mostly corn ethanol, though.
Right now the choice isn't exactly between an electric car and biodiesel, though, is it?
Of cuorse electric cars are better than biodiesel, but biodiesel can be better than regular diesel (unlike ethanol mae with corn, which isn't better than gasoline).
It seems that no matter how positive the news, there are always those to diss and hiss at it. If there is to be the quantum leap to the carbon negative fuel that Ben and TCA obviously crave, why is it I see no immediate contenders? It is often the immediate dismissals by cognescenti of anything less than optimal that causes many folks to dismiss the movement as unrealistic and continue in their usual manner.
Ben, where do you live? Getting anything off of a truck still (like the computer you're typing on), or do you live in a yurt and hunt/gather? Issues like trucking will exist for a long time and won't be solved by electrics or their ilk anytime soon. Bio-fuels are not a singular group among themselves either. TCA, how would an algal based biofuel facility effect food prices? It's the best model I've seen both in terms of footprint and it's ability to tie in to an existing CO2 emission and harness it for 20-30% increases in production. Not bad for
It's easy to put down what other folks are doing to move forwardwhen they fall short of pie in the sky. It won't all be perfect fits but it will be better than whats out there. In this case, about 4.4 times better...
The food price is way too low. It is not good in the long run.
Wouldn't it be great if we had gardens in place of unused lawns?
"From a physical point of view biomass is a very inefficient and cumbersome way to convert solar energy to a usable form. In the long run solar energy, wind energy and electrical cars are the only sensible solution."
You do realize that photosynthesis is FAR more efficient than anything humans can build right now, right?
The real issue is reducing the waste of processing that energy, something that this study clearly shows is making progress.
The study quoted by the NY Times showed that the damage caused by removing just a grassland (not even a rainforest, as we're seeing for palm oil crops in Brazil) caused 93 times the emissions you get back from a planting. Biodiesel is indeed more efficient than ethanol - but just by double or triple, not two orders of magnitude.
The problem with "fitting into our existing fuel system" is that all these other problems we need to solve are exacerbated by our fuel system. We have electric rail - that's basically the only transport-related solution we need to replace cars for 90% of uses. Everything we need to solve has existing solutions.
Far too much here I'm seeing "next year solutions" or even "next decade solutions" rather than solutions we already have. Support your local mass transit initiatives, move to a place where you can reduce your consumption, and show your lifestyle to others. If we were going to magically reduce our emissions another way, we would have by now. We have solutions now. Use them.