Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Economists Caution Oregon on High Cost of Biofuel

February 2, 2007   |   20 Comments
Oregon State University study finds net energy of biofuels would come at a high price for the state.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"Biofuels and bioproducts have an important role to play in Oregon's future, but Oregon's approach will be different than the Midwest's. We need to carefully consider what bioproducts make sense in Oregon for the long-term and focus research on economically sustainable bio-based energy systems."

-- Bill Boggess, Oregon State University, executive associate dean of Agricultural Sciences
20 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 20
February 2, 2007
Be the change you wish to see in the world!
"Mahatma Gandhi"
Comment
2 of 20
February 2, 2007
We have now spent over 300 BILLION dollars on the war on terror. Just imagine what 1/3 of 1 percent of that money or about "1 BILLION" would do for the schools. But wait, we don't have that money for the schools! Well, how did we come up with 300 BILLION? This country is ass backwards!

Here's a thought! Why don't we spend a fraction of our $300 BILLION dollar Haliburton budget on solar PV and zero out the entire United States! No, we don't make much electricity directly from oil "only about 3%" but, it all trickles down to the same natural resources that often come from other countries. And now, that even includes natural gas "LNG".

As a representative of generation Y, here is my demand, "voting and paying taxes is no longer good enough! Do your part! Recycle, use American made fuel, conserve, and think about your damn grandchildren!
Comment
3 of 20
February 2, 2007
cont...
But even that's not accurate. The true cost would take into account the hospital bills for the health ailments caused by oil pollution in the environment. Also some of the cost of rebuilding after hurricanes, and some of the cost of droughts and floods should be taken into account due to the part that C02 is playing in global warming. To be fair, lets be conservative and say we pay $25 per gallon of gas.

I blows my mind that there are idiots out there trying to suppress renewable biofuels.
Comment
4 of 20
February 2, 2007
I can't resist saying a little more. We import about 2 million barrels a day from the middle east (about 2 billion barrels over the last 3 years). In three years we've spent $500,000,000+ on the wars in the middle east to protect that oil. The oil itself has averaged $60/bl during that time (a total of $120,000,000,000+500,000,000,000 = $720,000,000,000). The real cost per barrel of oil comes to $360. About 20 gallons of gas are refined from 1 barrel (42 gallons) of oil. We're paying about $18 per gallon of gas. cont...
Comment
5 of 20
February 2, 2007
I'm not liberal, but I agree with Justin. Scientific American recently had a long article discussing bio-fuels. This guy had to have been paid off by the oil companies. Everything he said was a spin to make it look bad. Now it's time to look at some facts.

1)Even if a biofuel is more energy intensive than gas, the source of that energy is what matters. More and more ethanol plants are using manure, wood chips and other biomass as the energy source for processing - that means less money for the terrorists and more jobs and money for us. Having said that, in every intance I've looked the calculations are biased. They look at the BTU's in a gallon of gas, compare it with ethanol and then calculate every bit of energy it takes from planting, fertilizer, harvesting, transport etc. and determine the ethanol comes near a loss. Here's the problem. Their looking at the BTU's in the gas - They DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT... see part two.
Comment
6 of 20
February 2, 2007
Recap! 84%, 69%, & 20% net energy is a being spun as a bad thing? Thats a very strange perspective! Though I am Liberal, lets approach this topic from a dumbed down Republican approach so that the masses can comprehend! Won't any net energy producion 1% and higher help reduce demand on foreign oil! Won't that help fight the war on oil? Won't that give us some tactical leverage in the middle east? Won't that possibly help us save some troops? Republican or Democrat, we should all be doing everything we can to help reduce demand on foreign energy and in this case, foreign OIL! As our fearless leader has quoted in the past, "YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR WITHOUT US! We should all be supporting American made fuel!
Comment
7 of 20
February 2, 2007
It is interesting to note that a small 1 MPG increase in cars has such an enormous impact on oil usage. That is why the oil companies maintain their death grip on the auto industry from day one. They know who their "daddy" is....In the mean time they will let the renewables fuel market continue to chase its own tail, while they promote sex appeal and power for poor performing vehicles.

.....Bill
Comment
8 of 20
February 2, 2007
Biofuels are a step in the wrong direction. Why invest in a technology that still produces waste products that contribute to global climate change? Investment should be in truly green technologies such as solar, wind and even using those techs to produce hydrogen as a green fuel.
Comment
9 of 20
February 2, 2007
Costs seven times higher to produce bio? Lessee, use more energy to produce less energy? ANd I'm sure the production methods are green too, right? Gimmee a break...
Comment
10 of 20
February 3, 2007
I agree with many of the above positions, especially the true cost of gas considering all energy inputs. Bottom line? Its all about sustainability. Biofuels are part of the answer, but you can't benefit from sustainable fuels and sustainable businesses in an unsustainable economic system. This one is unraveling not because capitalism is bad, but because it is being misused/abused. There is an answer:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070123/0206435.html
Comment
11 of 20
February 5, 2007
On February 2 I made a point against the oil companies. It initially posted and then was removed. I'll add it again and hope it won't be removed again.

When calculating the energy value of ethanol compared to gas, every step of the process for ethanol is taken into account: planting, fertilizer... Not so for gas. To get an accurate energy picture all the steps for energy use in producing gas, we should take into account: The energy for searching for the oil, digging the wells, pumping, transport to the refinery, refining, and transport to the gas station. If all this were taken into account, we'd see ethanol and biodeisel as a very valuable energy source.
Comment
12 of 20
February 7, 2007
If you increase the compression in an engine you will get more energy out. Ethanol will allow you to do that. What about Buttanol? Time to stand up and push for better alternatives. Oil just doesn't cut it any more. I desperately want to see my children grow up and enjoy the world. If we continue the way we are it just won't happen.
Comment
13 of 20
February 7, 2007
Sorry I meant Jersulem Artichokes (my current favourite.)
Comment
14 of 20
February 7, 2007
Corn is a terrible crop for ethanol. Great for the farmers but not so productive. Switchgrass, Jreelulem Artichokes, Jatropha Curcas are all examples of better feedstocks using much less input energy. What about reusing the heat energy that was used to distill the alcohol instead of venting it?
Comment
15 of 20
February 7, 2007
I'm glad to see Oregon taking a critical and comprehensive look at biofuels, and I hope every other alternative energy product proposed. There's too much hype and propaganda being put out by those with their hidden agendas (ADM for example). Ethanol from corn is simply a bad idea - from a pollution standpoint, from an energy standpoint, and an economic standpoint by American consumers - who will end up paying more for everything from cornflakes to corn liquor. Corn prices have already doubled, even with the piddling amount of ethanol being produced from corn today.
Comment
16 of 20
February 7, 2007
Aaron,
Very true. My problem is the comparison to gasoline which makes gasoline look like a better deal. Joseph outlined most of the costs for gasoline in comment 11, but forgot that after you find the oil, you need to kill the people that live on top of the oil you found.

Transportation is a huge cost with oil. The article says that transport of biofuel from the midwest to Oregon is a deal-breaker as far as cost. How about transportation of oil from the Middle East? You actually move it 4 times. Truck from the field to the ship (1), pump it into the ship. Ship sails to the refinery (2), pump it into a truck to go to the refinery(3), refine it, then pump the gas into a truck to a station(4). Each movement is a massive cost. I think the comments here show that many are done being tricked by the oil companies.

I would like to say that I am helping to do my part. This is a pic of the solar panels at my home. http://www.zapsys.com/solarpanels.jpg
Comment
17 of 20
February 7, 2007
Joseph,

I think the point of the article is to say that making ethanol as described in Oregon is bad policy because you lose energy in the process.

The article does not comment on making ethanol in the Midwest from corn or in Brazil from sugar cane. What is essential to remember is that what works in one place may not work in another. Each place on earth has its unique opportunities. Find out what they are and exploit them.
Comment
18 of 20
February 8, 2007
Robert has the right idea.
Oregon should also be looking into using algae for cellulosic ethanol, that stuff can grow anywhere.
Comment
19 of 20
February 9, 2007
True, there is no silver bullet, and we need a variety of renewable energy types, and I agree we could easily curtail 25% of our energy usage in the U.S. without even feeling it.

However, there IS enough unused space for wind and solar. I read that if half the roof space in the U.S were covered with solar panels, it would generate enough energy for all U.S consumption. What percentage is covered now? 0.000001%? In my state, Arizona, 44% of the land is owned by the federal govt, and 13% is state trust. Certainly we can't cover it all, but what if just 2% of that public land were solar and wind farms?

Right now, 100% of new houses sold today have indoor bathroom(s). I think a good goal is that all new houses also have enough solar or wind generation to cover 100% of their electrical needs.
Comment
20 of 20
February 9, 2007
What nobody seems to get is that there is no "silver bullet."

As fossil fuel declines, humanity will necessarily be using less energy. There isn't enough unused ground to pave with solar cells. There isn't enough wind. And if you assume our current needs continue, we'd have to almost completely supplant food production with fuel production.

We really need to figure out how to have good lives with less energy. Europeans live better (according to US stats) on less than half the energy of North Americans -- let's go further!
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

REC Solar Mannvit Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association Quick Mount PV WindPole Ventures, LLC Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency Schiller
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters