Officials call new anti-biodiesel study junk science

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Aug. 10, 2005) — An American study recently trumpeted by the Ontario Trucking Association to dispute the benefits of biodiesel has been condemned by a handful of groups including the US Department of Agriculture and the US Department of Energy.

The National Biodiesel Board, along with other government and academic officials, blasted the study authored by Cornell University professor Dr. David Pimentel and published in Natural Resources Research this past March.

Pimentel concluded that turning plants into biofuel actually uses more fossil fuel energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates. He considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop, and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix.

But the NBB says the research done by Pimentel and his co-author Tad Patzek-who is director of the University of California Oil Consortium-doesn’t stand up to other more “thoroughly conducted, peer-reviewed studies that show biodiesel actually yields more than three times the amount of energy it takes to produce.”

The group cites a joint U.S. Department of Energy – U.S. Department of Agriculture study that concludes for every one unit of fossil energy used in this entire biodiesel production cycle, 3.2 units of energy are gained when the fuel is burned, or a positive energy balance of 320 percent.

“As a researcher with more than 10 years of experience in this area, I find the Pimentel/Patzak paper unconvincing,” said Jim Duffield, USDA senior agricultural economist and one of the original authors of the DOE/USDA study. “It lacks depth and clarity compared to previous studies published on this topic that clearly show biodiesel has a positive energy balance.”

Duffield added the report offers no explanation for unorthodox assumptions. Furthermore he accuses the authors of misrepresenting the DOE/USDA study-a 280-page document- claiming that Pimentel erroneously reports that the government study also concluded that the net energy balance of biodiesel was negative. “It is the prevailing study cited for biodiesel’s positive energy balance, so it is difficult to understand how it could be misrepresented,” Duffield said.

Other academic professors also piled on. “There is an internationally accepted standard method of doing such life cycle studies. Drs. Pimentel and Patzek don’t come close to meeting the standards,” said Bruce Dale, professor of chemical engineering at Michigan State University. “They don’t clearly state where their data comes from nor do they clearly state their assumptions. They cite themselves rather than independent sources for important data all the time. And they don’t submit their work for verification in recognized, peer-reviewed life cycle journals.”

The Ontario Trucking Association recently cited several points in Pimentel’s study in a letter to Ontario Agriculture Minister Leona Dombrowsky. The OTA is fighting a plan to mandate biodiesel for trucks in Ontario. Details are sketchy but reports suggest the government wants trucks to fill up with a B2 blend.

“Given that there is no scientific basis supporting the environmental benefit of using biodiesel given the introduction of clean diesel and smog free engines beginning next year, we cannot accept the imposition of the potential cost burden for the trucking industry and the Ontario economy from mandating biodiesel,” OTA President David Bradley wrote.

According to the NBB, researchers pointed out several other flaws with the Pimentel/Patzek study’s assumptions, including:

–It does not give biodiesel credit for the valuable production of glycerin, a coproduct to biodiesel.

–The study uses energy data for growing soybeans from 15 years ago when 2002 data is readily available.

— It includes the energy used to manufacture construction materials for biodiesel plants and farm equipment. “While most researchers recognize that there is energy embodied in these materials, the amount is generally not included in such studies,” the report states.