His "study" concluded that biofuels aren't worth the effort because it takes more energy to make them than you get back from the fuel itself. The problem is that the "study" was littered with errors so egregious and so numerous that one can only conclude that the "study" itself is deeply flawed.
What makes this worse is that he has published this "study" several times - more or less on an annual basis, and people have pointed out on numerous occasions the shortcomings of the study, yet Pimentel refuses to correct his "study". This means that the errors in the "study" are also willful.
Virtually everyone else who studies biofuels comes to different conclusions than Pimentel regarding energy balance. Thus what seems clear is that Pimentel has a secret agenda. Instead of coming out and stating what his issues are, he publishes a bogus "study", which then gets lots of press coverage - far more than if he were to explain his true reasons for disliking biofuels.
Some have suggested that Pimentel is in the pocket of the oil companies, but I am not yet convinced of this. The conclusions that are reached by his study on organic farming sheds light on Pimentel's true motives - he dislikes current U.S. farming methods. Whether or not the organic farming study actually holds any water remains to be seen - my real point is that the author is perfectly willing to publish utter crap with his name on it - thus taking anything he says at face value may be dangerous.
That's pretty strong, given that you don't back it up with much. Can you point us to some evidence, please?
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7201 and http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4105
Here is the response from the NBB (National Biodiesel Board):
http://www.biodiesel.org/members/membersonly/files/pdf/071305_Pimentel_Study_NBB_Detailed_Response.p df
Here is a summary from over at www.biodieselnow.com
That's why Pimentel has no credibility in the scientific community. Unfortunately, the media doesn't care about that. Talk of his analysis has been going on all over the place - it seems that this is the start of a campaign against biofuels.
I'd prefer a referee from a more disinterested direction, myself.
And even if we discount Pimentel's conclusions re: the energy input accounting for "fuel farming," it seems to me hard to escape related conclusions based on energy density (BTU per gallon) of vegetable-derived fuel, gallons per acre of yield, and fuel consumption stats for the US. (See previous thread where the topic really was corn ethanol, gasohol, bio fuels etc). Back of envelope calcs still suggest having to turn over most food and fiber producing acreage to fuel production, which then begs the question, where does our food come from if we devote our agriculture to feeding our cars? The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
What is true is that if we were only using existing techniques and there were no major advances, biofuels would be a niche product with no capacity to outplace more than a few percent of the oil we use.
For biofuels to have a major impact in the future, significant advances are required. There are people working on such things, and some of them look promising. In time we will see where it all ends up.
As I recall, the main focus of Pimentel's recent paper was specifically corn ethanol, not "the entire thing" (the alternative fuels effort). The discussion in media coverage and here at euroboo mostly focussed on corn ethanol.
Furthermore (and this bothers me more than the specific wrangle over whether biodiesel is, or is not, cost effective and how it compares to corn ethanol) I have no evidence so far that Pimentel is in any way disrespected or marginalised by "the scientific community" (outside of a very small working group at UNH, that is). His cv lists the following appointments and distinctions
Organization for European Economic Cooperation Fellowship at Oxford University, NSF Computer Scholar. Invitational lectures at the following international congresses: Keynote Address Agroecology and Conservation Issues, Padova, Italy (1990); Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar (1990-1991); Keynote Address Energy Strategies for Sustainable Food Production, Berlin, Germany (1991); Keynote Address Reducing the Nonrenewables in Agriculture, Nova Scotia (1991); Keynote Address Council of Biotechnology Centers, Washington, D.C. (1991); 1992 Award for Distinguished Service to Rural Life, Rural Sociological Society Council; Honorary Professor, Institute of Applied Ecology Shenyang, Chinese Academy of Sciences (1995).
So I would like to see some evidence of any loss of reputation or lack of credibility in "the science community" before taking the word of a relatively less credentialled academic at a less prestigious institution, that Dr Pimentel is fulla bull and considered a whackjob wherever scientists gather :-) It is quite possible for two people in science to disagree very strongly -- to the point of barely speaking and refusing to shake hands in public -- without either of them suffering any loss of reputation among their peers. To assert that a scientist has no reputation, or has lost credibility -- that he has joined the ranks of the Lomborgs and Simons in outer darkness -- is imho a cheap propagandistic shot unless there's a paper trail to substantiate it: appointments refused, tenure denied, papers rejected, scathing Letters to the Editor in major journals, vicious book reviews, denial of membership in professional associations. Backbiting from an infuriated opponent in an ongoing debate/feud does not count imho. That's just academia at work and play.
I know that biodiesel "works" (at least, that people have successfully run diesel engines both marine and shoreside on admixtures of up to 30 pct soy or canola or waste restaurant oil-based diesel in a base of petro diesel). I know some of the side benefits and drawbacks. If we must have diesel, to be sure, let it be bio -- the more bio the better. And I know Mr Diesel himself thought that his engine might run on peanut oil (or at least, so folk history has it). What is not clear to me is why we should put any faith in some "major breakthrough" in biodiesel EROEI or energy density, any more than we should believe in the "Hydrogen Economy" or Cold Fusion (or hot fusion for that matter) to alter significantly the shape of the peak oil event.
No matter how reasonable ericy's claims may be (a niche product with no capacity to outplace more than a few percent of the oil we use) there are large numbers of Americans who read gung-ho articles about biodiesel and believe with childlike faith that this means the transport, commerce, and ag model in the US will never have to change. A year or so back I was in a televised (local) discussion about a local highway widening project that would take 20-30 years and cost (at very optimistic estimates using $30/bl oil) several $M US. I suggested that with peak oil on the horizon, public money might be better invested in rail (heavy and light) and extending and improving bus services to reduce private auto dependence. One of the politicians involved in the process laughed off this suggestion as "ridiculous". We are Americans, she said, and part of being American is know-how and can-do. We love our cars and, she said, I know my grandchildren will be driving their cars just like we do today, even if by then they are running on peanut butter.
I am all in favour of alternative fuel research. We will urgently need fuels for cooking and heating as fossil-oil gets more expensive. But imho the incautious boosterism of the biofuels cheering section only feeds complacency like that of the politician I encountered -- who cast her vote in council firmly for a 30-year public debt to build a massive state-funded project for a lifestyle and transport model which (imho) cannot continue in the absence of cheap fossil fuel, for which biofuels (peanut or any other oil) cannot substitute. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
To be clear, I am quite aware of Peak Oil, and I have no illusions about biofuels saving us from that fate. What we have ahead of us is probably lots of economic pain. Had we as a country acted 20 years ago, ..., well - too late for that.
I think that in the near term, we will have conservation forced upon us by market forces. How much that helps, I don't know - there are far too many variables.
Where we are now, we really don't know what the world will look like in 50 years. We will have 'solved' the energy problem or we won't have - if none of the developments in renewables pan out, we will be riding horses. I wouldn't advocate not trying just because we might fail.
Briggs works, not surprisingly, for the BioDiesel Group at UNH, so it's his professional turf he's defending. To me, Pimentel's cv looks more impressive than the only link I can find with publications from Briggs' group. The "group" is actually one person from Chemical Engineering and one person from Physics (Briggs), i.e. no one with any actual expertise in biology, ecosystems, or agriculture.
Should note in passing that biodiesel is believed by many Americans to be a magic bullet that is going to preserve The American Way of Life and the car culture in the era after cheap oil. Anyone who rains on that parade is likely to get some rocks thrown at them. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
If you want more, try this one on for size. It is from the USDA and DOE. The conclusions of interest are on page 59.
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/19980501_gen-339.pdf
The future of biofuels remains to be seen, but having jokers like Pimintel cook up hatchet jobs and pass them off as studies isn't helping matters any.
Your beef about this would have been more on-topic.
Here, you give the impression that you're against organic farming because someone whose science you decry (rightly or wrongly) has published a study showing it in a favourable light. If you don't want to give that impression, perhaps you could say so.
To be clear, I have nothing against organic farming at all. To the contrary, I think it is a good idea.
Where my real issue lies is with the study. I would dearly love it if the findings that he published were actually true, but since I don't view the author as trustworthy, I have my doubts about the degree to which the results are accurate. The study suggested that these results were collected over a long period of time (was it 20 years or so??), so getting someone else to reproduce these results isn't going to be easy.
