Key Differences between Pimentel/Patzek Study and Other Studies
- From: "Blue Ridge Clean Fuels Inc." <brcfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: biofuels-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:29:06 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Key Differences between Pimentel/Patzek Study and Other Studies
By Michael Wang
Center for Transportation Research
Argonne National Laboratory
July 19, 2005
The recent article by Pimentel/Patzek concludes that:
1. Corn ethanol requires 29% more fossil energy than ethanol contains
2. Herbaceous cellulosic ethanol requires 50% more fossil energy
3. Woody cellulosic ethanol requires 57% more fossil energy
4. Soybean-based biodiesel requires 27% more fossil energy than biodiesel
contains
5. and sunflower-based biodiesel requires 118% more fossil energy
In contrast, many other studies, including Argonneâ??s study, conclude that
corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel require less fossil energy than
each of the fuel contains. In particular, Argonneâ??s study concludes:
1. Corn ethanol requires 26% less fossil energy
2. Cellulosic ethanol requires 90% less fossil energy
In addition, NREL study sponsored by DOE and USDA in 1998 concludes that
soybean-based biodiesel requires 69% less fossil energy than biodiesel contains.
A review of Pimentel/Patzek reveals that they made pessimistic assumptions, had
double-counted certain energy costs without detailed elaboration. Below is a
quick summary of the key differences between Pimentel/Patzek and others.
A. Corn Ethanol:
1. Corn farming energy use:
a) Pimentel/Patzek conclude that corn farming requires 94,504 Btu/bushel,
with 18.2% from farmer labor and farming machinery (77,304 Btu/bushel excluding
farmer labor and farming machinery)
b) A 2002 detailed USDA analysis showed that corn farming requires 57,480
Btu/bushel (excluding farmer labor and farming machinery)
c) Pimentel/Patzek overestimate corn farming energy use (excluding farmer
labor and farming machinery) by 34%
d) It also appears that Pimentel and Patzek overestimate energy use
related to farmer labor and farming machinery
2. Ethanol production energy use:
a) Pimentel/Patzek conclude that ethanol production at ethanol plants
consumes 56,440 Btu/gal. (56,000 Btu/gal, excluding energy embedded in ethanol
plant construction materials)
b) A detailed survey of ethanol plant energy use in 2001 showed an energy
use of 48,770 Btu/gal. for dry mill ethanol plants and 54,240 Btu/gal., with an
average of 53,010 Btu/gal in 2001.
c) Recent dry mill plants (all new ethanol plants coming online in recent
years have been dry mill plants) may have energy use of 42,530 Btu/gal.
d) Pimentel/Patzek overestimate ethanol plant energy use by up to 30%
e) Pimentel/Patzek assume an ethanol yield of 2.5 gallons per bushel of
corn. Ethanol plants now produce ethanol at 2.7 gallons/bushel and they are
approaching the yield of 2.8 gallons/bushel.
3. Animal feed co-products from corn ethanol plants:
a) Pimentel/Patzekâ??s 29% increase in fossil energy by corn ethanol gives
not credit to animal feeds
b) Pimentel/Patzek acknowledge that animal feeds could have an energy
credit of 6,680 Btu per gallon of ethanol produced
c) Argonneâ??s conservative estimation shows that animal feeds and other
coproducts from ethanol plants have an energy credit of 12,030 Btu per gallon
of ethanol produced
B. Cellulosic Ethanol:
The key difference between Pimentel/Patzek and other studies is how steam and
electricity needed for cellulosic ethanol plant operations is generated.
Cellulosic biomass contains more than 25% of lignin, which may not be fermented
into ethanol. For cellulosic ethanol designs supported by DOE and others, the
lignin portion of biomass feedstocks is to be burned to provide steam and
electricity for cellulosic ethanol plant operations. In fact, cellulosic
ethanol plants will generate an excess amount of electricity for exporting to
the electric grid.
To the contrary of the commonly accepted cellulosic ethanol plant designs,
Pimentel/Patzek assume that fossil fuels are to be burned in cellulosic ethanol
plants to generate needed steam and electricity.
If Pimentel/Patzek assumed use of lignin to produce steam and electricity in
cellulosic ethanol plants, they would have had positive energy balance values
for cellulosic ethanol similar to those from Argonne and others.
C. Biodiesel:
DOE and USDA in 1998 funded a study evaluating soybean-based biodiesel. That
study concluded biodiesel consumes 69% less fossil energy. Argonne has not
evaluated biodiesel.
D. Costs Results by Pimentel/Patzek
Pimentel/Patzek present cost estimates for corn, soybeans, switchgrass, woody
biomass, soybeans, sunflowers, ethanol, and biodiesel. Argonne has not
conducted cost estimates. Argonneâ??s review of Pimentel/Patzek shows that
their production cost estimates are higher than market prices, implying that
farmers, ethanol producers, biodiesel producers are in money-losing business,
even taking into account subsidies they receive.
Argonne also found that Pimentel/Patzek cost estimates for cellulosic ethanol
contain calculation errors by using a cost of $100 per tonne for cellulosic
biomass feedstock, instead of their own estimate of $23 per tonne.
E. General Issues:
1. Though self evaluation of ethanolâ??s energy balance is easy to
understand, it does not reveal the true energy benefit of ethanol in replacing
gasoline; a meaningful way for energy policy debates is to compare ethanol and
gasoline to assess the relative merit of ethanol. It is important to put a
given energy product into a broad perspective with other energy products for
serving same functions in society.
2. Decisions on pursuing certain energy products by society have not been
based on their energy balance values. For example, even though electricity
generation has a huge negative energy balance value (2.3 unit of fossil energy
input for a unit of electric energy output in the US), we do not question the
practice of electricity generation. The quality of energy products should be
taken into account in making energy choices.
3. In conclusion, energy balance calculations for individual energy
productions in their isolations could be arbitrary; results are less meaningful
or could be misleading.
**************************VIRGINIA BIOFUELS FORUM**************************
Your email address is subscribed to the Virginia Biofuels Forum mailing list.
The list is maintained by Blue Ridge Clean Fuels Inc. (BRCFI). To UNSUBSCRIBE
go to //www.freelists.org/list/biofuels-forum and select that option from
the menu.
PRIVACY POLICY: BRCF does not sell, rent or donate this mailing list to outside
parties.
List Administrator: BRCFI@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
- » Key Differences between Pimentel/Patzek Study and Other Studies
