The numbers I've read


[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Dodge Power Wagon Forum]


Posted by David Sherman [24.32.202.83] on Monday, April 26, 2010 at 19:55:43 :

In Reply to: vs Biodiesel posted by Don in Missouri [71.54.209.154] on Monday, April 26, 2010 at 19:21:45 :

More like only a 20% net energy gain for biodiesel. I suppose there's some disagreement about how to do the accounting, but I've never seen anything close to a claim for a 450% net return before. I have my doubts. As for petroleum, the net energy gain varies tremendously depending on the source. I think 20% is a fair average these days, but a nice West Texas crude from an established field near a refinery is better than that, and the Athabasca tar sands are way worse. Obviously when it take more oil or oil equivalent to extract and process a barrel of crude than we get out of it in energy content, it is no longer economical to use that oil as fuel.

By the way, your 20% loss figure for crude is equivalent to saying that for every 1 gallon lost in making conventional diesel, 4 gallons are delivered to our tank. Somehow that sounds a lot better than "20% is lost".

I really question that biodiesel figure, though. Oh, and in terms of the global trade, we're actually borrowing money from Japan (China has quit lending to us) to buy crude from Venezuela (we're their biggest customer despite the hot-headed talk from their dictator). There's nothing wrong with biodiesel, but the numbers have to work out honestly without a government subsidy for it to be worth doing.




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Message:
Optional Link
URL:
Title:
Optional Image Link
URL:


This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com