# Boosting the efficiency of bio-fuel production from 30% to 100%...plausable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 13, 2007, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boosting-the-efficiency-of-bio-fuel-production-from-30-to-100-plausable/395690 "2007-03-13T01:02:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boosting-the-efficiency-of-bio-fuel-production-from-30-to-100-plausable/395690/1 "2007-03-13T01:02:57Z")
In [this](http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070312/sc_nm/biofuels_dc) article, they make a claim: > [@](#): > > Agrawal cited a recent U.S. > Department of Energy study suggesting that using conventional methods, it would take 1.366 billion tons of biomass, or about the current annual supply, to make enough fuel to supply 30 percent of the U.S. transportation system. > > Agrawal and colleagues believe that by boosting the efficiency of biofuel production through a hydrogen-carbon system, the United States could use that same amount of biomaterial to supply the entire U.S. transportation system. I realize that the method is theoretical so far (anyone know anything about this process of reclaiming lost CO2? Is it plausable in itself?), but could the entire US transportational energy needs be met by the 1.3 billion tons of biomass? For a bonus, could someone put that figure into perspective? COULD the US produce 1.3 billion tons of biomass solely for transportation? What effect would this figure have on our current food production? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boosting-the-efficiency-of-bio-fuel-production-from-30-to-100-plausable/395690/2 "2007-03-13T01:51:36Z")
Agrawal appears to be talking about a cheap way of making hydrogen gas: > [@](#): > > “The challenge, though, is to make cheap hydrogen from solar or nuclear sources.” > > That will take more research, he said. “The hydrogen economy will not happen without that,” he said. From his [Page at Purdue:](https://engineering.purdue.edu/ChE/Directory/Faculty/Agrawal.html) > [@](#): > > Professor Agrawal’s current interest and passion is in energy production issues especially from renewable sources such as solar. He has a broad experience in hydrogen production and purification technologies. This has evolved from his earlier activity in developing integration steps within coal gasification combined cycles for power as well as syngas generation. His research interests also include basic and applied research in gas separations, process development, synthesis of distillation column configurations, adsorption and membrane separation processes, novel separation processes, gas liquefaction processes, cryogenics, and thermodynamics. Once you have the hydrogen, you can make methane out of CO[sub]2[/sub], if you have the hydrogen. The article looks to me like a typical sciencey piece by an overexitable journalist. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boosting-the-efficiency-of-bio-fuel-production-from-30-to-100-plausable/395690/3 "2007-03-13T02:46:28Z")
Using better methods so that you can supply 100% of the energy needs of the U.S. transportation system instead of 30% of the energy needs is not “boosting the efficiency of bio-fuel production from 30% to 100%.” The efficiency of energy use is a technical term, and it’s utterly impossible to get 100% efficiency. That would violate various physical laws. Be more careful in your thread titles. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boosting-the-efficiency-of-bio-fuel-production-from-30-to-100-plausable/395690/4 "2007-03-13T04:01:51Z")
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner] Using better methods so that you can supply 100% of the energy needs of the U.S. transportation system instead of 30% of the energy needs is not “boosting the efficiency of bio-fuel production from 30% to 100%.” The efficiency of energy use is a technical term, and it’s utterly impossible to get 100% efficiency. That would violate various physical laws. Be more careful in your thread titles. [/QUOTE] Well an increase from 10% to 20% efficent would be a 100% increase in efficency. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boosting-the-efficiency-of-bio-fuel-production-from-30-to-100-plausable/395690/5 "2007-03-13T04:14:04Z")
But the wording is, “boosting efficiency from 30% to 100%”. Not ‘boosting it by 100%’. The former is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/boosting-the-efficiency-of-bio-fuel-production-from-30-to-100-plausable/395690/6 "2007-03-13T15:01:21Z")
lol…ok, so my OP title is incorrect. Maybe a friendly OP will come along to fix it. Just for the record, I’m aware of the mistake and didn’t mean it the way it came out. Sheesh guys. 😛 -XT