quote:

Until biodiesel is produced entirely with biodiesel and other renewable energy sources then it will remain unsustainable. It does however have the greatest potential for becoming totally, renewably, sustainable and petro never will.

yes! every 'unsustainable' swayed arguement i have read leaves this very important point out.

we need a new study.

And speaking of sustainabililty. Using a biodiesel powered tractor to furrough and then plant and harvest a crop of mustard is completely sustainable.
The yield of mustard seed is around 140USgal oil/acre. It doesn't end there. The tops, mustard greens, are usable as a food source and the mulch from extracting the oil from the seeds is used as a completely biodegradable pesticide, suitable for organic farming.
The entire process only requires a decent oil press and a small biodiesel powered tractor.
The information anout mustard seed as a feedstock fro biodieel was taken from Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel "Base Oils"

quote:

consider this: biodiesel, as this forum defines it, comes from used veg-oil. The veg-oil is processed using petro and coal energy. The canola and sunflower seeds or soybeans are cultivated, fertilized, harvested, and transported to the processing plant using petro energy. Petro energy is produced at a net energy loss, about 85% as I remember. Therefore all the energy inefficiency of petro used to produce it is in every energy unit of biodiesel. Until biodiesel is produced entirely with biodiesel and other renewable energy sources then it will remain unsustainable. It does however have the greatest potential for becoming totally, renewably, sustainable and petro never will.

By that rationale, wouldnt SVO be even better energy-and-sustainability-wise? Possibly at less economic loss?

quote:

Originally posted by Greasy300TDTurbo:

quote:

SNIP

By that rationale, wouldnt SVO be even better energy-and-sustainability-wise? Possibly at less economic loss?

YES

Cross post from another VO forum on the same subject.

quote:

Look people, if we just ignore the fact that one day we WILL run out of oil and LNG and not look for replacements while we have the cushion (small as it is in the case of oil now), then when we need replacements (note the plural there, there will not be just one primary energy source in the future. It will be a mix based on what each locality or region has to use if we're smart about it), we're going to be screwed because they won't be efficient or economical.

EXACTLY!
In all likelyhood we will end up as dependent on LNG as we are on crude oil unless we invest MORE in research of RENEWABLE FUELS. The impact of a belief by the general public that such research should NOT be supported is counter productive in the long run. And technologies such as ethanol production and biodiesel production are in the stages I HOPE algal oil will be in 10 years. To encourage the furhter cutting of funding (public and private) by releasing clearly misleading information such as this report does serves no one. Or does it?

Let's see..who could possibly benefit? Hmmmm....

Currently the major (and minor) "oil companies" ar not investing in exploration near the levels of a few years ago. Why? Because the earth has been pretty thoroughly explored for oil and we know wha tis there..and where it is. They know that any money spent on exploration will be essentially wasted. And recently investors/stockholders have been relieving those few CEOs who continued to spend money on exploration of their positions.

Yet at the same time investment in "new energy" needs to be made in order to continue to enjoy the huge tax breaks that make these oil stocks so profitable to own. So where are the major areas to make such investments?

Any guesses?
That's right...alternative energy.
Oil comanies have fror years been investing in buying alternative energy related companies that have come upon hard times. In fact in several cases they have been caught red handed creating the hard times to depress the value of the companies they later buy at a bargain price. Unethical...undoubtedly.
Illegal....Uh huh.
Unusualy..not at all.
Just busniness as usual.

So did the oil companies have a hand in this report?
That's what I want to know.

But just knowing what I know now...that "big oil" is currently "cash heavy" (this means that they do not currently have a place to reinvest the largest profits ever made by any companies in the history fo the world) and making bigger than avg "investments" in determining which alternative energy companies are "available" (finacially shaky). And all it takes is a little "bad press" to make these companies a "bargain" to buy.

Can anyone say "hostile takover"?

Sorry to delve so far from the original discussion.
But...things are rarely as simple as they seem.

in today's world of A.D.D. kids and the like, a movie "the end of suburbia" directly speaks to 'peak global oil', AND it's easily understood by normal standards. it's too bad that the oil companies have board members on every news and broadcast outlet, and this movie, and those like it will never get major airplay. too bad for the human race. do we deserve it? yep, probably. sorry for the cynical post. i just get aggrivated by so much ignorance and obvious monopolistic things ruining (i mean ruling) our lives.

i'll stop now. i know i'm probably WAY off topic. but, i too want to know who is funding these 'studies'.

This paper from the Danish Folk Center examines the energy balance of Pure Plant Oil Fuel (aka. SVO)

http://www.folkecenter.dk/plant-oil/publications/energy_co2_balance.pdf

Best

Darren

The National Biodiesel Board has responded to this report with a thorough debunking. Some of the info used for the report is over 25 years old, and basically all the worst case scenarios were examined. Here's the letter from the NBB:

http://www.biodiesel.org/members/membersonly/files/pdf/...etailed_Response.pdf

And so has the enthanol industry.

A close look appears to help clear up my main question..Who paid for th estudy?

quote:

Mr.
Patzek is the director of UC’s Oil Consortium, which receives funding from the oil
industry including Chevron and Phillips Petroleum. Previous partners have included BP,
Mobil USA, Statoil and Unocal. It is clear he has an agenda.

the whole rebuttal is here.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that both the Ehanal and Biodiesel "industries" are only slightly more ethical than the fossil fuel industry. Sometimes they are one in the same. Call me cynical but I trust Arthur Daniels Midland no more than I trust Exxon. They are both looking out for their best interests which include LARGE subsidies. I will say the biodiesel industry response is much more professional and convincing than what the Ethanol industry put out, which doesn't include much in the way of *proof*.

Don't get me wrong, alternative fuel needs to be developed regardless if it's even efficient today, but I've always thought that aside from the pollution and political aspects of fossil fuels (big issues for sure) that we SHOULD deplete all our fossil fuel until something comes along which is better - after all, this stuff is just sitting there for the taking. It's litterally found energy, but of course doing it cleanly and most efficiently are still important. Who knows, maybe one day the alternative fuels can take over as transport fuel and let fossil fuel be used for manufacturing purposes (plastics, etc) - a purpose for which it might be harder to replace than as a transport fuel. After all, you can't use Nuclear, solar or wind as a component in manufacturing.

btw, just read the National Geoghraphic article on fossil fuels in this months issue and wish they had mentioned algae for biodiesel.

-Tony O

This thoughtful and open discussion reflects very well upon the quality of person engaged in the use and exploration of wvo.

What draws us all here is the common goal of 'finding another way'. Now we don't have all the answers but the intention which we display as a group makes me feel that we are doing the right thing and heading in the right direction.

I commend the open attitude with a critical view upon all sources of information that is displayed here.

Jason

The answer to making biodiesel a net energy gain, is feedstock diversity. The following considerations are some that play into the net energy gain/loss quotient. Energy used to transport feedstock and finished product, most economical crop for the climate, best oil yield of given crop, use of recycled/waste oils, energy used to create fertilizer, run farming operations, and process the fuel itself.

The answer seems to be maximize efficiency of locally available resources using local (diverse) feedstocks and more smaller scale producers. The industry is heading for a large refinery type infrastructure that isn't sustainable. Energy is wasted transporting feedstocks and finished product. Soy is forced onto those wishing to produce the fuel as the best option, (which it isn't, especially if you live in a large city where there is tons of waste oil available or if for example; Canadian canola or another more suitable crop can be cultivated), by the well entrenched soy lobby. And large players looking for a quick buck are building 5-20 million gallon per year plants that can't seem to get themselves online. There are two plants that are indefinitely delayed in Michigan alone. God bless the NBB for getting biodiesel into the mainstream, but they need to get real about the sustainability aspect of biodiesel and more agressively promote feedstock diviersity, smallel scale production and use of available and efficient resources. Otherwise the industry is headed for the 70's era ethanol scenario.

Come on guys, these reports are bought and published. By who? petroleum companies. What a coincedence to see such a report when alternate fuel research and production is at a alltime high. We are beginning to put a hurt on the petro companies. keep up the good work guys...