GRASS GAS: Turning fields of switchgrass like this one in northeastern Nebraska into ethanol produces 540 percent more energy than the amount consumed growing the native perennial.
Image: COURTESY OF USDA-ARS
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Farmers in Nebraska and the Dakotas brought the U.S. closer to becoming a biofuel economy, planting huge tracts of land for the first time with switchgrass—a native North American perennial grass (Panicum virgatum) that often grows on the borders of cropland naturally—and proving that it can deliver more than five times more energy than it takes to grow it.
Working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the farmers tracked the seed used to establish the plant, fertilizer used to boost its growth, fuel used to farm it, overall rainfall and the amount of grass ultimately harvested for five years on fields ranging from seven to 23 acres in size (three to nine hectares).
Once established, the fields yielded from 5.2 to 11.1 metric tons of grass bales per hectare, depending on rainfall, says USDA plant scientist Ken Vogel. "It fluctuates with the timing of the precipitation,'' he says. "Switchgrass needs most of its moisture in spring and midsummer. If you get fall rains, it's not going to do that year's crops much good."
But yields from a grass that only needs to be planted once would deliver an average of 13.1 megajoules of energy as ethanol for every megajoule of petroleum consumed—in the form of nitrogen fertilizers or diesel for tractors—growing them. "It's a prediction because right now there are no biorefineries built that handle cellulosic material" like that which switchgrass provides, Vogel notes. "We're pretty confident the ethanol yield is pretty close." This means that switchgrass ethanol delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol according to the most optimistic studies.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is partially funding the construction of six such cellulosic biorefineries, estimated to cost a total of $1.2 billion. The first to be built will be the Range Fuels Biorefinery in Soperton, Ga., which will process wood waste from the timber industry into biofuels and chemicals. The DOE is providing an initial $50 million to start construction.
"Cost competitive, energy responsible cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass or from forestry waste like sawdust and wood chips requires a more complex refining process but it's worth the investment," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at the Range Fuels facility groundbreaking in November. "Cellulosic ethanol contains more net energy and emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than ethanol made from corn."
In fact, Vogel and his team report this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that switchgrass will store enough carbon in its relatively permanent root system to offset 94 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted both to cultivate it and from the derived ethanol burned by vehicles. Of course, this estimate also relies on using the leftover parts of the grass itself as fuel for the biorefinery. "The lignin in the plant cell walls can be burned," Vogel says.
The use of native prairie grasses is meant to avoid some of the other risks associated with biofuels such as reduced diversity of local animal life and displacing food crops with fuel crops. "This is an energy crop that can be grown on marginal land," Vogel argues, such as the more than 35 million acres (14.2 million hectares) of marginal land that farmers are currently paid not to plant under the terms of USDA's Conservation Reserve Program.
But even a native prairie grass needs a helping hand from scientists and farmers to deliver the yields necessary to help ethanol become a viable alternative to petroleum-derived gasoline, Vogel argues. "To really maximize their yield potential, you need to provide nitrogen fertilization," he says, as well as improved breeding techniques and genetic strains. "Low input systems are just not going to be able to get the energy per acre needed to provide feed, fuel and fiber."
See what we're tweeting about
128 Comments
Add CommentLet's see how fast this gets buried by the corn-based ethanol lobbyists. Wasn't it Bush himself who touted the benefits of harvesting switchgrass not too long ago? I really hope this catches on because I don't want to start paying sushi prices for a bag of nachos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 94% figure for offsetting ends upon root-system completion, given that growth is not eternal, which has already occurred in wild prairie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe food issue is not solved as "huge tracts of land" will displace food crops, given that on existing switchgrass land no offsetting will occur. This is worse than the existing situation because corn can be reallocated as food in a famine, unlike switchgrass.
The 1.2 Billion comes at the expense of research into technical improvement of wind, solar and tidal generation as well as electric vehicle technology, which require set-up emissions only. Afterwards they release no CO2.
The need of research shows that biofuels are just as technically problematic.
Soil exhaustion makes any biofuel vulnerable, as does changing weather.
Biofuels reputation may reduce the perceived need for fuel eficiency.
Biofuels are an example of people being afraid of changing from the liquidfuel paradigm to one that doesn't rely on extraction from life or fossils.
And, growing and harvesting switchgrass should not in any way contribute to the rising costs of our edible food, which corn is, and switchgrass is not! This could be win-win.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree that the money spent on researching would be better used elsewhere. This whole biofuel panacea thing is only a poultice for the gaping wound of our fossil fuel dependence. Either way you cut it biofuels raise the price of nachos, and when you get in the way of an American and his corn-based foods watch out, there will be chaos in the streets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI strongly support environmentally sourced power supplies, such as wind, solar and so on. In fact, I conduct research on solar energy professionally. The trick with these technologies, like any other, is to make them more viable, and thus more practical/economical. The problem however, is that we have a fair way to go before we arrive at an industrial level of viability in these developing technologies. But biofuels have a runway to viability of only a few years. They are a very achievable resource. You're welcome to dream about silent, clean, electrically-powered vehicles gliding around on power generated from a clear blue sky and a gentle summer breeze. That's my dream too, and in a hundred years' time, you'll probably be able to do just that. In the meantime, should we not pursue viable intermediate technologies with short-term realisation and that take advantage existing industrial infrastructure? The most sensible progress in power systems technology is available incrementally. This is evolution, not revolution. It's important to realise that a 'no compromise' approach is unachievable and fundamentally counter-productive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I love about this artical is that if you watch the history channel they talked about this in 2004 I believe. They have a great program explaining the use of this fuel compaired to other biofuels, but better late then never. Lets hope this artical gets read by people and the project gets off the ground quickly!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the comments all. A couple notes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) Yes, switchgrass is old news. Even making it into the President's State of the Union a few years back (probably the first mention of a native perennial prairie grass in a SOU ever. Unless one of the Gilded Age Presidents mentioned what the buffalo were eating,)
What is new here is that this is proof that switchgrass can be grown in the type of quantities and yield per acre that could deliver a meaningful amount of fuel. An incremental advance but a big and important one.
(2) I'm hoping that by quoting "huge tracts of land" you picked up on my Python reference. But, as the researchers are at great pains to point out, this is a crop that can be grown on land that is unsuitable for corn or soy or other food crops. Yes, if the price gets high enough, farmers will have an incentive to plant more switchgrass but I suspect that the demand for food will also remain reasonably high.
(3) Finally, the great advantage biofuels offers over the other alternatives you mention is: STORAGE. Nature has perfected an ingenious way of turning light into chemical energy and storing it up. We have yet to perfect a better trick, despite all our battery, compressed air, molten salts, whatever... tries. The sunlight and the storage are free, leaving growers to cope with seed, water, nutrient and land costs. That at least makes biofuels part of a portfolio solution to energy independence (witness Brazil) and sustainability.
Thanks again for all your comments. I guess we'll see how ADM, Cargill and other corn ethanol proponents (all Presidential candidates except for McCain) react.
With this kind of biofuel maybe we could also graze buffalo on the same land. The buffalo would help produce the needed fertilizer and buffalo meat is very nutritious. We could kill to birds with one stone, so to speak. Probably an idea to think about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Turning fields of switchgrass like this one in northeastern Nebraska into ethanol produces 540 percent more energy than the amount consumed growing the native perennial."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImpossible (as written). I don't think they counted sunlight as energy consumed though.
All subsidies to the bioethanol industry should be based on economics of getting off foreign oil and not in CO2 reduction since science is now shifting away from CO2 as a problem gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the comment again. A couple more replies:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) They did not consider the sunlight consumed Michael. It's free (or as close to free as we're gonna get thermodynamically). So for every bit of energy we put in, we get five times more back out of the plants because of the sunlight they've stored.
(2) SolarMaximus, carbon neutrality, or a close approximation thereof, will be one of the primary economic drivers of biofuels. If you think the scientific consensus has shifted away from blaming carbon dioxide, I suggest you read our IPCC coverage from 2007, stating [url http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-verdict-sc]here[/url].
The ethanol percentage wouldincrease with higher percent of brickvalue in particular grass species We have data on higher ethanol production from Napier bajra hybrids. This also would ensure low methane from animal wastes which would be green gas friendly
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow hard would it be to convert 20 acres of recently burned kudzu land in Alabama to switchgrass. The intent would be for general improvement of the land and maybe sometime in the future used for ethanol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best alternative method is already with us.... drive smaller fuel efficient cars. I usually see 1 person in a huge SUV or a truck. These people will still waste grass based fuels, our addiction to big vehicles is the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSwitchgrass is native to the midwest. A better strategy would be to convert kudzu into ethanol by combining grain and cellulosic techniques
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar to electric. Cut out all the intermediaries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt makes total sense to me, but the reality is the Midwest farmers, politicians, and lobbyists will fight it. They would rather see the corn farmers be paid to produce the less-efficient Ethanol source than do what is really in everone's true best interest. Just watch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not replacing corn, it is a fill for under or non utilized land which it natively grew before we stopped it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKudzu grows in the southeast in areas which are very difficult or impossible to cultivate and harvest. Not an option.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK! Let's get the word out! Milk, cheese, beef and corn would all be cheaper! No gov't subisidies to grow corn either! GET THE WORD OUT!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll right! Let's get the word out! Milk, cheese, beef and corn will all be cheaper! No gov't subsidies for growing corn either!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about the land along and in the medians of interstate highways? Much of that land is already in grass in the east, and mowed regularly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne point that needs to be made is that we must also REDUCE our demand for transportation energy by perhaps a factor of 8.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAddressing only the supply side and ignoring the demand side leads to The Jevons Paradox.
You might also want to read up on "The Jevons Effect".
This points out that if the demand side is not tightly controlled as efficiencies increase, the net result is an increase in entropic consumption and thus pollution. So cheaper ethanol alone will make matters worse as it will increase demand. We must, at the same time, reduce our demand for transportation energy, probably at least by a factor of 8, if we want to reduce global climate change. This is the "dirty" little secret the ethanol folks and their government sponsors have, so far, been unwilling to address. We need a new narrative here and the leadership to make it "common sense".
Now, consider that if releasing sequestered carbon into the atmosphere is life threatening, then the logical answer is to make it very unpleasant to do so. So what happens to industrial agricultural all over the world if we can no longer use fossil fuel based industrial fertilizers? What are the consequences of having to return to living within our solar energy income and the natural solar driven nitrogen cycle? We can only do this, I suspect, if we re-localize food production.
How, in all of the above, do we achieve a world that is based upon justice as fairness, ala the late American philosopher John Rawls? This is a very deep problem. It is so difficult that the reactionary forces around the world proclaim that there are no limits and no consequences. This is the only way they can argue that wealth is not a moral issue as, in a no limits world, we can all, in theory, be equally wealthy.
Once there are limits and consequences, then wealth becomes an essential moral issue. This applies just as surely to energy, which is simply another form of wealth. I have argued in the past that the true economic unit is the SOL - one solar unit of energy.
You might find it rewarding to read Tom Wessel's book "The Myth of Progress". He looks at this from the perspective of thermodynamics and complexity theory -- not politics. Very refreshing.
A further resource on the re-localization of energy can be found in Greg Pahl's 2007 book: The Citizen-Powered Energy Handbook: Community Solutions to a Global Crisis.
Another way to think about re-localization is that it returns capitalism to the model envisioned by Adam Smith and championed by most of of America's revolutionary thinkers and leaders. The re- localization of energy is simply the re-localization of wealth and economic well being as well.
But very inconvenient for unregulated, global, free market corporatism that funds our current political process.
For thermal energy, it is far better to burn the grass as pellets directly. Pellets have 14:1 net energy [See work of Roger Samson at REAP Canada]. This is a far better return on the fossil fuel investment than any of the ethanol solutions proposed so far. We should avoid as much entropy as possible. The entropy in converting a solid fuel to a liquid fuel is simply a waste we can not afford.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolid biofuels burned for heat will displace liquid fossil fuels that can then be re-purposed for transportation uses. This is a displacement strategy that trumps ethanol as a replacement strategy.
We still, however, need to substantially reduce the demand side, both for stationary thermal energy and for transportation energy.
Let’s be clear, as an Iowa grown boy, today farmers equals Archer, Daniels, Midlands et al.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most powerful institutions of our time are corporations. And the most invisible.
As a group our current version of sapiens will remain unable to make any significant changes until something equivalent to the plague takes down half the worlds population.
Or the Earth dances and all but a few thousand folks are left.
The only way up/out is evolution. Neither grass nor corn grows well under water or under snow. Life is short. We are so self-important. We have much bigger problems than carbon dioxide. No?
Yo Pellets, go watch WaterWorld, I will be glad to take what you have left when it hits the fan. Come back to the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific? American
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"it can deliver more than five times more energy than it takes to grow it"
Wow! It's better than perpetual motion...
Grass (cannabis) makes better ethanol than (switch)grass which makes better ethanol than corn. This is with out without fertilisers, cellulosic enzymes etc. Like switchgrass it uses little water (but grows better with lots) and grows on all sorts of marginal land.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy reinvent the wheel? This was the main form of biofuels into the early 1900s and Henry Ford could build and fuel your car from hemp alone (minus the engine I guess) - panels, upholstery and ethanol. It also makes great methane for SOFC (fuel cells - see the Net~Gen models at www.cfcl.com.au).
The higher THC variants are best, they sequester more carbon and the tar like substance has other properties of use to industry (as well as a fuel feedstock). Its pharmaceutical properties are indisputable but largely ignored. The fibre is far superior to cotton and clothing then also becomes a method to sequester carbon (7 billion people, 1kg hemp fibre per person....)
Dupont are out of plastics (and into bio-plastics) and cotton farmers have no clout anymore, so there is no reason to ban this plant. With schizophrenia now known to be caused by fever (mostly flu related) in the second (sometimes third) trimester and toxoplasmosis (blame your cat) there seems no reason not to proceed. If there is still some non-sensical illegality to this, then use the highly skilled hydroponic growers we now incarcerate as part of their "hard labour" sentence.
The yields are at least as high as switchgrass (flawed and political biased studies often indicate otherwise). Under hydroponic or aquaponic systems, the yields can be exceptional and the overheads minimal. Automated fodder factory systems, converted for hemp could produce 2-4 crops a year (my rough estimates make this 20-40 tonne per hectare per year)
The solution will involve many forms of sequestraton, energy conservation and energy efficiency. Efforts such as Planktos and The Ocean Technology Group (out of Sydney) are the most likely to offer mass sequestration.
In the meantime we must eliminate the footprint (solar, wind, biofules) whilst sequestering the carbon debt we have been accumulating for 200 years. Only then can we ease off to just sustainable levels, for now we must achieve a nett carbon negative footprint. We can move to this in 5 years if committed, never if it is left to politicians and business. Our choice.
vv
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds great, so far. I wonder how many decades it will take to convince the Congress that there is merit to the plan. perhaps when gasoline get over $5.00 a gallon, they will "start" to consider it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we're going to create a new cropping system for energy production, let's not establish another swath of monoculture. The incorporation of a legume or two into the mix would both reduce the need for petro-based nitrogen (though perhaps not eliminate it) and provide the resilience that greater diversity provides. Finding suitable species for a mix may be more work for the engineers, but will be more sustainable in the long run.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis sounds great we in the US just need to get off our duff and make it happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKHA
If the grass yields "13.1 megajoules of energy as ethanol for every megajoule of petroleum consumed" then it is delivering 12100% of the energy used to produce it not 540% as the story states. Right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllium makes a good point about advancing past the monoculture notion. Adding legumes and other plants which provide both soil and animal nutrients would enable that grassland to be rotationally grazed, even after the main grass crop was harvested, and it would reduce the nitrogen inputs required. The crop would then contain more protein (not just sugars for biofuel) and the processing by-products would be good for animal food, algae production, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the next article, please discuss the issues of processing (enzymes .vs. engineered yeasts, pyrolysis .vs. bioprocesses) and the economics of local, farmer's cooperative processing .vs. the "corporate" model ala ADM, Cargill, and Monsanto.
Thanks for the article.
Hmmm,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if Ted Turner, whose been buying up land and turning it into prairies, is actually investing in energy.
I agree with all of the foregoing, the Canibis sativa angle is interesting. Tommy Chong probably had something ti do with that. However, The one primary item is the release of the arabic notion of testes suspendis or the turning of the tables on them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy experience is that long term monoculture haying or grazing is not sustainable. The yield per acre goes down each year as the stand of grass or hay matures. Mainly, this because of exhaustion of nutrients and aging of the plants. Regular rotation of crops reduces the disease, insect and nutritional load. What will be the long-term prospects for disease or insect problems in switchgrass?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother consideration is harvesting and storage. Brazilian ethanol plants can only operate for six months out of the year, due to the need to transport and process sugar cane immediately after harvest. Corn-based ethanol plants run 365 days a year due to year-round feedstock delivery. Will switchgrass be economical to store, transport and process?
Also, if this crop is grown on marginal land, what will be the ecological and wildlife conservation consequences of converting that much land to a monoculture crop?
University of Maryland researchers are investigating a variety of alternative biofuels. You can read about their work at
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://agnr.umd.edu/media/Momentum/Momentum07Spring.pdf
Internal combustion motors are so not the answer to moving people and things. Wasting time trying to figure out the best fuel to put in them is pointless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this effort and money should be spent finding out how to release electricity from matter--one good battery will change everything.
Fuel shmuel.
"..that it can deliver more than five times more energy than it takes to grow it..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust wondering how this happens?? Where the extra energy comes from?
I believe that extra energy comes from the plants ability in utilizing the suns energy more efficiently and possibly that switch grass can grow denser then corn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by DeviousOverdose at 01/11/2008 7:58 AM
--
Edited by DeviousOverdose at 01/11/2008 7:59 AM
Does anybody know if switchgrass will grow in the southeast? What about growing it along highway right of ways and medians? Taxpayers are paying to mow grass in these areas anyway. Why not put that land to good use? Evidently cellulosic plants will be coming on line in just a few more years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is the US one of the countries with the lowest % of diesel vehicles in its roads? Diesel engines are about 20% more efficient than gasoline engines. Ethanol engines are about 15% LESS efficient than gasoline engines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet, the US keeps at it. Interesting.
JouniM its called THE SUN! Yeah its able to yield that much more energy, then corn, because its better at utililizing THE SUN's energy. Just a guess. It could also be that it can grow denser then corn crops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not simply burn the switch grass in existing coal-fired plants? The electricity produced could be used for overnight recharging of the soon to emerge fleet of plug-in hybrid vehicles. This gets maximum energy yield, uses existing infrastructure for conversion and distribution with the same benefits with regard to greenhouse gases. The problem with this plan is that nobody gets rich.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a scam, do the math!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake every acre of farm land in North America and plant this grass or corn for fuel. You won't make enough for U.S. passenger cars alone. Passenger car numbers increase at 8% a year and in ten years that 8% growth would use every drop of bio-fuel grown on every acre of farm land in North America. This doesn't begin to account for the rest of our life styles. Oil powers all trains, planes, ships, trucks, farm equipment and machinery for construction, we also make all plastics and fertilizer of of oil. My point being that this IS NOT an alternative to oil in any way shape or form.
P.s. I can't believe post 6. lol
bdiello: It snowed in Bagdad today for the first time in 100 years; and the southern hemisphere experienced well below average cold temps in 2007. Perhaps our entering Solar Cycle 24 is having an impact?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI stated "Shifting", not shifted. It will take time for those who have entrenched positions to have the nerve to admit perhaps they may have been wrong. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said this week he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. (It appears a little doubt is creeping into his position) "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
All things should be electric. These bio-fuels are just an attempt to be able to make money off energy, enabling manipulation of prices. If cars, for example, are fully electric, it won't matter how the energy is produced; opening the way for low cost green alternatives like wind, hydro, and solar where industry can't charge for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have often wondered why when new ideas are put forward objectors usually adopt an "all or nothing" notion. Surely for the world to move to a cleaner brighter future we should embrace many technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes energy have to be wind/solar/tidal OR bio, can we not utilize both? Does biofuel have to be corn based OR switchgrass based ,can we not utilize both?
Does it really matter if CO2 is the sole cause of global warming or if its will happen naturally anyway? This poor old planet need a good clean up anyway.
I wonder how good all the useless overgrown, non-native Kudzu that is growing all along the roadsides throughout the south and east does as biofuel? It's mostly free for the taking...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy Secretary Samuel Bodman is quoted with the statement: "Cellulosic ethanol contains more net energy and emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than ethanol made from corn."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Secretary was lucky that nobody asked the question, how a difference - in energy content and green gas emittance could have been demonstrated in a comparison of ethanol versus ethanol. (Would have been a tough one!)
The secretary most probably intended to something in the line of "Producing ethanol from switch grass results in more net energy and the process emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than producing ethanol from corn."
"If you want to explain a complex issue, you should try to do it as simple as possible, but not more simple." (A paraphrase of mine of one of the most important statements of Albert Einstein's)
I wonder who briefed the Secretary.
Posting 4 already stated that the absorption of carbon dioxide for root growth should not be included in the overall balance of cost and benefit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome elaboration may clarify the point:
Roots contain carbohydrates (and proteins and&). The groth of roots certainly does absorb an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in no other way as the growth of leaves of grass ;-) above surface does..
However, growth of grass roots deep into soil of land previousely used for other crops can only make an initial contribution to carbon dioxide sequestration, i.e., until the root system is fully developed (my guess: a few years).
However, reconverting the land to standard crops would result in a relase all this temporarily bound carbon dioxide again - to an overall effect on the carbon dioxide cycle of exactly zero.
Switch grass may have a better energy balance than corn. But ethanol is ethanol. Your headline writer needs a chemistry course. Couple of unanswered questions: How much energy does it take to convert the harvested grass to ethanol? How do you offset ethanol's natural tendency to increase automotive emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that cause ozone? How does it compare with diesel fuel from biomass?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ dbiello:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"(2) SolarMaximus, carbon neutrality, or a close approximation thereof, will be one of the primary economic drivers of biofuels. If you think the scientific consensus has shifted away from blaming carbon dioxide, I suggest you read our IPCC coverage from 2007, stating here"
I Suggest you read this:
[url http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport]U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007[/url]
or this:
[url http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm]New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability[/url]
ot this:
[url http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/]Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’[/url]
There's lots more, but you get the point. Consensus indeed.
"Driving cars with switchgrass" means to collect solar energy with plants, convert it into the potential energy of a combustible liquid, and convert it again to kinetic energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCycle (A):
Cellulose is PRODUCED by switchgrass from CO(2), water and solar energy.
Cellulose is CONVERTED by bacteria and yeast to ethanol.
Ethanol is BURNED to CO(2), water and energy.
Additionally, the needs of living organisms have to be taken into account:
Cycle (B):
Nutrients, minerals and trace elements are EXTRACTED by roots from soil.
They are used for growth, and STORED in stalks and leaves.
They must be PRESERVED during fermentation of cellulose to ethanol.
The fermentation broth with all these ingredients must be RECYCLED to the place of origin.
Numerous details in both cycles have to be addressed before efficiency and sustainability will be achieved.
As complement to financial resources, the application of human determination and persistence, creativity and ingenuity may be considered.
Making ethanol from hybrid trees (that grow 15 to 40 feet per year!!) makes more sense. Better yet for America's inner cities... Make an engine that runs on crack!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy ethanol? Butanol is a direct replacement for gasoline with none of the distribution problems associated with ethanol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.butanol.com
--
Edited by InspectorCluseau at 01/13/2008 4:04 AM
The critical words in the Vogel PNAS paper are "estimated ethanol output". Without a tested chemistry and a developed and demonstrated process, all the claims associated with a "540% more" energy are little more than wishful thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about Kudzu?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisswitch grass yields about 450 gallons of alcohol per acre, Corn about 200-400, sugar beets 400-700, sugarcane 550, cattails (wild) 1075 (managed) 2500-10000, cassava 1600-2000, sorghum 3500.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThats just a few listed in 'Alcohol can be a gas' by David Blume. page 79. It can be purchased through Knowledgepublications.com soon. It's currently out of stock do to the demand.
I am so tired of seeing all this misinformation thrown around about the yields of ethanol from corn. Not long ago I saw an "expert" on a news show saying that it would take 11 acres of corn to provide a family of 4 with enough ethanol to run their vehicles. Just go to any of the ethanol sites and/or manufacturers and you can see the output numbers for yourselves. A bushel of corn provides 2.65 gallons of ethanol for all intents and purposes at 165 bushels per acre this equals 437gallons approximately. 165 bushels is a very low number and a more realistic number is 200 bushels which equals 530 gallons of ethanol. I dont believe at this point any of the other substances can even be guestimated as of now and I don't care. I only bring it up because this fact is so EASILY checked about yields and nobody steps to the plate and says one word. And this is Scientific American. Imagine what goes on in the types of media when this discussion continues. http://grainandfeedmarkets.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisread it for yourselves, it takes about 3 secs!
Not noticed is the fact that there is an energy loss in the conversion from sawdust and switchgrass hay into ethanol. Why not burn these materials directly as a substitute for the really bad coal-fired generators?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi say stop talking and start doing before it is too late. it is sad that alternate fuel development has been held back because of the greed in big oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorn ethanol has a distinct advantage over any fiber crop at this time: infrastructure. Existing farmers have all the equipment, agronomy techniques, and byproduct usage available to produce corn right now as well as an existing market structure for maximum pricing via CBOT. Sugar crops have a similiar, but less extensive structure. It will be years before grass is a viable alternative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to address the energy problem as quickly as possible. He and stability of our current sources placed the United States the Western world in serious jeopardy. I have seen cold gasification in South Africa. The major hurdle to overcome is the concept of sunk investment by the petroleum companies and refineries and exploration. Our government has to provide incentives for alternative fuels that are greater than presently given.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjriems wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>I am so tired of seeing all this misinformation thrown around about the yields of
>ethanol from corn. Not long ago I saw an "expert" on a news show saying that it
>would take 11 acres of corn to provide a family of 4 with enough ethanol to run
>their vehicles. Just go to any of the ethanol sites and/or manufacturers and you can see the output numbers for yourselves.
There is always the chance that this “expert” was factoring in the total energy requirement to produce ethanol. Those estimates range from as low as about 20% to over 100% (e.g. it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than is in a gallon of ethonal). If one uses net energy output, then one has such a wide variety of estimates, that one could come up with an enormous range of answers. The best estimates that I’ve seen for now are in the 40%-50% range, but none of the estimates give as rigorous an analysis as I would like.
>A bushel of corn provides 2.65 gallons of ethanol for all intents and purposes at 165 >bushels per acre this equals 437gallons approximately.
That is consistent with the numbers I obtained for yield. But, one has to remember that ethanol has about 2/3rds of the energy density as gasoline, so a family which consumes 300 gallons of gas per year would consume 450 gallans of ethanol.
>165 bushels is a very low number and a more realistic number is 200 bushels which >equals 530 gallons of ethanol.
Hmm, the USDA(1) gives the following average yield numbers (in bushels/acre):
2002: 129
2003: 142
2004: 160
2005: 148
2006: 149
2007: 151
Even if one drops 2002 as an anomalously low year, the average yield is about 150 bushels/acre. So, in what context is 200 bushels/acre the most reasonable?
>I don;t believe at this point any of the other substances can even be guestimated as of >now and I don't care.
I think that decent estimations can be made from the basic chemistry of the process and from known yields. Why wouldn’t you believe in this type of analysis?
>I only bring it up because this fact is so EASILY checked about yields and nobody steps >to the plate and says one word.
I wrote a decent length blog on this on the sciam community website last month. (2) Even if you differ with my conclusions, I think you must admit that I said hundreds of words on the subject. :-)
Clearly using corn as a fuel will drive up the cost of food items. Switchgrass would seem to be a more viable alternative. The next concern is that this grass would be grown on ground formerly used for corn. The Dakota's are not a part of the corn belt, thus leading to the question of whether or not switchgrass could be grown and baled in areas less suitable for corn or other crops. Also, normally farmers rotate their crops. This being the case, could switchgrass be used as part of the rotation? I agree that other forms of energy production should be studied and/or made less environmentally dangerous. Any chemical reaction is going to have a by product, whether that is sewage produced from our own chemical/organic processes, or toxic pollution from transportation, heating, what have you. However, switchgrass would create a renewable source and a nice stop gap between petroleum and a time when completely clean energy (solar, hydro-electric, wind etc.) can be used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to congratulate the DOE for funding this sensible oportunity to develop alternative energy options without puting at risk food supliey for human consuption. RMJ
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about some numbers on the $ cost per GJ of plant capacity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGassification of the biomass followed by reforming would probably get a superior energy yield and produce less pollution. 40% of the energy would run the plant and about 60% of the energy in the switch grass would end up in the final product (methanol or dimethyl ether). But the plant cost for gassification is very high. So the problem is the $ per GigaJoule/day plant cost. For reference...
Oil refinery ~ $2000 per GJ/day of capacity
Coal Gassification ~ $8000 per GJ/day of capacity
Natural Gas Reforming ~ $2000 per GJ/day of capacity
I imagine that gassification of biomass would have a plant cost similar to that of coal gassification.
Something else worth mentioning-- if we give less money to the middle east, we won't be funding terrorism and gold plated Ferrais.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd be interested in finding investment opportunities. If anyone has a company / stock symbol please post it.
It was always obvious that using corn was not a long term solution. However, we now have infrastructure to support ethenol use in passenger vehicles as a result. Why do people jump so quickly to discount new technology rather than understanding that advances in efficiency and process will make a something that is inefficient and underdeveloped today - tommorrow's solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre we that impatient that we need constant breakthrough technologies?
Fertilizer production is very energy-expensive (e.g., the Haber-Bosch process that makes ammonia). Why not go to legumes that fix nitrogen from the atmosphere? Or mix switch grass in with one or more legumes, as is the case in native prairies. Why rely on a monoculture--i.e., one species only? Go talk to an agronomist at a state university such as Iowa State U.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://biosci2.ucdavis.edu/FacultyProfiles/BMB_GG/display_bmb_facultyprofile.cfm?ResearcherID=1832 David Wilson at UC Davis has developed a 3 enzyme process for conversion of cellulose to fuel. His grants are all from Chevron I think, and they own it. But it's ground breaking stuff that should get more press so that it doesn't get buried.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRather then convert the switchgrass to ethanol, with the cost and energy requirements to do so (maybe half the carbon lost), I wonder if anyone has analyzed just dropping the stuff into a big hole such as a former coal mine, maybe mixed with a little something (lime?) to stop decomposition. Or, perhaps just dump into giant piles within miles of where its grown and cover over. We would just have a few more hills around, I would think...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, The cost of grain and corn is driven high by subsidized alcohol production and as a result the buffalo ranchers are making money for the first time ever. On the average, we eat some healthy meat. This sounds promising. Now the plan is to drive the price of prairie grass so high the buffalo farmers have to go out of business? Swaping out food for fuel is a tricky, strategic, business and we must be carefull.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this article is very interesting. Not the least that cultivating these native prairie grasses avoid risks as reduced diversity of local animal life and that it is possible to grow it on marginal land. Since 2005 I drive a Ford FlexiFuel, The fuel I use is E85 (12,5 % gasoline, 85 % bioethanol and 2,5% other substances) where the bioethanol mainly is produced in Brazil by sugar canes. I hope I will be able to use a larger amount of domestic fuel in the near future and I think it's important that North American drivers using ethanol can do the same!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElisabeth Holmstrand Gustafsson, the Green Party, Kristinehamn, Sweden blog.mp.se/elisabethg
www.mp.se/kristinehamn
I find this article fascinating, but you overlooked one thing. That is to say, if you are going to "go green," why use synthetic fertilizers to increase production? Turning to manure and /or compost is a feasible alternative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks!
I'm wondering why noone is talking about bio-butanol? If we don't come up with a successful method of producing industrial quantities of cellulase, all this conversation is just and only that. However, if we can break down cellulose on a grand scale, why produce a low energy yielding, hydrophilic, highly volatile product like ethanol when the methods are out there to produce bio-butanol?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a disaster to all, that the one plant that can give & give & give is used only margnaly in other countrys, FORD proved its usefulness it once was law to grow it, now it is madness on agrand scale to ignore it. What plant is it ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be a good idea if SciAm would create a chart comparing the effectiveness of various biofuels, whether jatropha, algae, grass, cocodiesel, or whatever. That would be an interesting diagram to look at.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan grass be converted in industrial quantities, If so what % of sunshine does it absorb. Solar panels are topping 30% soon they will be at 50% is it really worth it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this$ 1.2 Billion. That's a lot of money to spend on alternative energy. That's about 0.04% of what we've spent on the Iraq War.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor PhotoVoltaic solar cells we only achieve high efficiencies of 40% in the lab with expensive tandem configurations. Commercial PV cells only have roughly 10%. The best PV cell is not the one with highest efficiency, but someone with the best ratio between watios/$ and today is the most expensive energy. Nevertheless is the most promising technology and it is woth to invest. With the new 3 generation of PV cell currently in development it could be the cheapest of all energy resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by mastermemorex at 03/19/2008 4:16 PM
Check out this news release:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUniversity of Maryland Newsdesk.
www.newsdesk.umd.edu
For Immediate Release
March 10, 2008
Contacts: Lee Tune, 301 405 4679 or ltune@umd.edu
UM Invention Promises Major Advance in BioFuel Production
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, third from left, and University of Maryland President C.D. Mote Jr, 2nd from right, praised Zymetis in a demonstration of the technology in College Park. Also pictured, front from left, Herb Rabin, Scott Laughlin, Zymetis founder Steve Hutcheson, Steve Davey, and, in lab coats, former UM students Dan Forrest, Kristen Goff, Elizabeth Santos.
University of Maryland research that started with bacteria from the Chesapeake Bay has led to a process that may be able to convert large volumes of all kinds of plant products, from leftover brewer's mash to paper trash, into ethanol and other biofuel alternatives to gasoline.
That process, developed by University of Maryland professors Steve Hutcheson and Ron Weiner, professors of cell biology and molecular genetics, is the foundation of their incubator company Zymetis, which was on view today in College Park for Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and state and university officials.
"The new Zymetis technology is a win for the State of Maryland , for the University and for the environment," said University of Maryland President C.D. Mote, Jr. "It makes affordable ethanol production a reality and makes it from waste materials, which benefits everyone and supports the green-friendly goal of carbon-neutrality.
"It also highlights the importance of transformational basic research and of technology incubators at the University. Partnership with the State enables University of Maryland faculty and students to commercialize new discoveries quickly."
"Today, Marylanders are leading the nation in scientific discovery and technology innovation," said Governor Martin O'Malley. "We must continue to invest in Marylanders like Steve Hutcheson and in their revolutionary ideas to protect our environment, create jobs, and improve lives."
75 Billion Gallons a Year
Click here to see video of Zymetis process
The Zymetis process can make ethanol and other biofuels from many different types of plants and plant waste called cellulosic sources. Cellulosic biofuels can be made from non- grain plant sources such as waste paper, brewing byproducts, leftover agriculture products, including straw, corncobs and husks, and energy crops such as switchgrass.
When fully operational, the Zymetis process could potentially lead to the production of 75 billion gallons a year of carbon-neutral ethanol.
The secret to the Zymetis process is a Chesapeake Bay marsh grass bacterium, S. degradans. Hutcheson found that the bacterium has an enzyme that could quickly break down plant materials into sugar, which can then be converted to biofuel.
Steven Hutcheson, professor of cell biology and molecular genetics and president and CEO of Zymetis Inc. (right), and Ben Woodard, left, director of the Mtech Bioprocess Scale-Up Facility (BSF), work in the BSF to scale up the Zymetis bacterium.
The Zymetis researchers were unable to isolate the Bay bacterium again in nature, but they discovered how to produce the enzyme in their own laboratories. The result was Ethazyme, which degrades the tough cell walls of cellulosic materials and breaks down the entire plant material into bio-fuel ready sugars in one step, at a significantly lower cost and with fewer caustic chemicals than current methods.
Hutcheson projects a $5 billion enzyme market for biofuels. The energy bill passed by the U.S. Senate in December mandates oil companies to blend in 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol with their gasoline by 2022.
Inventors of the Year
Hutcheson and Weiner won the university's Office of Technology Commercialization Inventor of the Year Award in 2007 in the Life Science category for their enzyme system invention.
Founded in 2006, Zymetis entered the university's MTECH VentureAccelerator Program, which provides hands-on business assistance to faculty and students interested in forming companies around university-created technologies. "MTECH VentureAccelerator helped us validate our market," says Hutcheson. "They found space for our company. They helped us with licensing our technology, forming financial and business plans, and establishing trademarks."
Zymetis also sought expertise from MTECH's Bioprocess Scale-Up Facility (BSF) staff to determine how to mass-produce S. degradans. The BSF is part of the MTECH Biotechnology Research and Education Program, an initiative dedicated to research, education and the development of biotechnology products and processes for Maryland companies.
08038
Check out this press release:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/sunshine.html
This sounds like another example of a "great in theory but it will never work on a significant scale" concept. We don;t know how to ferment cellulose efficiently into alcohol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTest
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood! Posting a messag worked! Sorry this is the wrong newsgroup, but I am trying to find out how to join the newsgroup about fertilizer runoff:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizer-runoff-overwhelms-streams
I could not post a message and it has zero messages. How do I get to that group? What I tried to ask about was whether the dead zone off Oregon Coast is linked to the large amounts of agricultural and forestry chemicals used there without monitoring. For example, Coburg, Oregon has had its water supply ruined. I was wondering if correlation studies have been performed to link optical (satellite) imagery with any possible ground measurements that may have been allowed in the last 20 years, of runoff activity (shallow inland water measurements). Any help in finding that message thread would be helpfull. Thanks.
Carlos Portela
There are many more sources than switch grass for feed stock and the DOE hasn't necessarily made the best choices of who to fund. There is a lot more to this than this article could cover. To answer coment 3 there is at least one company that does know how to ferment celulose. Check Verenium.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo answer Solomon there is a company that does know how to ferment celulose although its a little more complicated than that. Check out verenium.com and it can be done on a much more significant scale than ethanol than from corn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNews ! Do we want to drive or eat...? We are seeing the results...worldwide.We must change our approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[url http://www.socyberty.com/Economics/An-Abrupt-Reality-Fuel-or-Food.21327][/url]
An Abrupt Reality: Fuel or Food.
--
Edited by bfreewithrp at 04/25/2008 4:57 PM
They could plant this grass along all the roads and highways in the country where it will grow and save the farm land for food. They mow all the roads anyway. Why not put it to use????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless this story gets more visibility Monsanto will donate to politicians 9vai their PAC) so that switchgrass doesn't get off the ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with your comment because I think that there are many more ways besides switch grass. I think that all we need to do is keep our eyes open to see if there are any new ways to fix our problems with energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarcel D writes: If we find a way to grow crops on otherwise unproductive private and public wetlands, harvest them annually to contribute to the growth of cellulosic ethanol, we will greatly expand the source of this renewable input to the process without harming the environment or ecosystems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think moving vehicles on a bridge downslope can be carefully harnessed to move large turbines than a windmill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis can provide a good amount of energy !!
if swich grass is better for the economy then why don't they use it other than ethenol? Also it takes more time to plant corn (ethenol) than it would to plant swich grass. so that means more time to help the environment and the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf swichgrass is so much better for the economy, then why dont they use it other then ethinol. i mean swichgrass is a whole lot better because it takes so much more to grow corn then swichgrass, and it also gives us alot more time to help our environment, and the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf swichgrass is so much better for the economy, then why dont they use it other then ethinol. i mean swichgrass is a whole lot better because it takes so much more to grow corn then swichgrass, and it also gives us alot more time to help our environment, and the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people feel that ethanol is the answer to our energy crisis because it contains more net energy and emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than ethanol made from corn. I think that the people are correct. No we cant just make a lot of ethanol and forget about the alternative energy sources. Everyone needs different energy sources to live or grow crops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfood/fuel competition hooplah regarding corn-based ethanol sounds like corn commoditists warning about their desire to speculate the 'next gasoline' to astronomical profits. today there is an outrageous corn production surplus that we (americans) support with tax handouts to producers... greater than any other agro-product. corn bi-products have already weaseled (lobbyists->gov't incentives->rampant salesmen) into most american processed foods as 'commercial sugar' (corn syrup). the government should seek accountability for true corn supply now before this gray area is further exploited with this new energy potential. corn lobbyists will certainly seek business-as-usual so that an enron-styled production-deficit hoax can be played for higher profitability/bushel. ie higher profitability/barrel with oil now when producers decide production rates arbitrarily... and traders/speculators ...and refiners ...and distributors ...and the fuel station up the street. this is bait for profit justification that americans eat up to appear informed about their exploitation - an emporer's new clothes effect like the one that we've grown accustomed to with winter heating and summer transpo fuel costs. go to 101reasonsrepublicansupplysidebullshitissinkingthesocalled economy.com for more info :-).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of making ethanol, why not pyrolise the grass to produce hydrogen for generating electicity. The only waste products are water and charcoal, which can be used as a soil ammendment, thus effectively sequestrating atmospheric CO2! For further information : www.EPRIDA.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif they do this all the way and start to make the ethanol out of this grass then corn we might be able to have cars just run on 100% ethanol and we might only have to pay like $1 maybe not even thats since i read in another site this guy was starting it and he could get 11,500 gallons of ethanol per acre witch if he had like 1,000 acres he would get about 11,500,000 gallons witch i think is a lot but maybe not and if we went wide scale we will have as much ethanol as gas now
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDBIELLO; I have been, and still have a great interest in surface mining in eastern ky. being one of the mountain top removal first to start filling the head of hollows. over the years we have created thousands of acres of level and rolling property. this year i am trying 25 acres of switch grass. we use a few thousand acres now for cattle and hay, what is your thought. the state dept. of agriculture seems to have no interest at all. bowling_j_e@yahoo.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDBIELLO: red oak farms is located in eastern kentucky, we raise cattle and hay on land created by mt. top removal. we are going to try 25 acres of swith grass this year. you mentioned it will grow on land not suitable for corn, soybeans, etc: the atate of ky seems to have no interest. tell me what you think. the soil has beeen tested and needs lime and fertilizer..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNitrogen fertilizer runoff is horrendous for the environment, causing algae blooms and suffocating fish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNitrogen fertilizer runoff is also horrendous for the environment. It often causes algae blooms and suffocates anything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe nitrogen fertilization needed can profitably be supplied by human sewage, which contains urine (urea is the best nitrogen source available). This achieves the triple aim of refurbishing the soil, fertilizing the grass crop, and preventing environmental damage to waterways and coastal areas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA BETTER ETHANOL FROM COAL AND NATURAL GAS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal and Natural Gas produce Ethanol:
C (Coke) + CH4 (Natural Gas) = C2H4 (Ethylene Gas)+H2O= C2H5OH (Ethanol)
Both Coal and Natural Gas are abundant, and have the highest world reserves, consequently they are cheapest.
As a result product Ethanol has the lowest price, far lower than gasoline of Crude Oil, and can easily replace it.
To produce one gallon of Ethanol out of Corn, it needs about 12 lb of Corn, at the price of $ 4.00/bushel, one gallon will need $ 1.60 of Corn.
Whereas we need only 1.72 lb of Coke at the price of $0.06 and 2.3 lb of Natural Gas at the cost of $ 0.44 to produce one gal. of Ethanol, i.e. 1 gal needs only $ 0.50 of Coke and Natural Gas.
Which means that Corn Ethanol is Three times more expensive than Coal and Natural gas.
We need also to recall that Crude Oil is exhausted and the output of Crude Exploration is continuously decreasing since 1960. Many research centers question the availability of Crude Oil 15-20 years from now.
Coal and Natural Gas are the only available answer for the needs of fuels. The greatest Corn-Ethanol plant has a capacity of 100 million gal/yr which is less than 6,000 barrel/day; while the US daily consumption of Crude Oil exceeds 20 million barrel/day.
There are many resources for this subject: Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (Acetylene), Kirk and Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (Acetylene), Wikipedia (Coal), www.coalplantsengineering.com, www.coal-and-the-environment.org and many more...
A BETTER ETHANOL FROM COAL AND NATURAL GAS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal and Natural Gas produce Ethanol:
C (Coke) + CH4 (Natural Gas) = C2H4 (Ethylene Gas)+H2O= C2H5OH (Ethanol)
Both Coal and Natural Gas are abundant, and have the highest world reserves, consequently they are cheapest.
As a result product Ethanol has the lowest price, far lower than gasoline of Crude Oil, and can easily replace it.
To produce one gallon of Ethanol out of Corn, it needs about 12 lb of Corn, at the price of $ 4.00/bushel, one gallon will need $ 1.60 of Corn.
Whereas we need only 1.72 lb of Coke at the price of $0.06 and 2.3 lb of Natural Gas at the cost of $ 0.44 to produce one gal. of Ethanol, i.e. 1 gal needs only $ 0.50 of Coke and Natural Gas.
Which means that Corn Ethanol is Three times more expensive than Coal and Natural gas.
We need also to recall that Crude Oil is exhausted and the output of Crude Exploration is continuously decreasing since 1960. Many research centers question the availability of Crude Oil 15-20 years from now.
Coal and Natural Gas are the only available answer for the needs of fuels. The greatest Corn-Ethanol plant has a capacity of 100 million gal/yr which is less than 6,000 barrel/day; while the US daily consumption of Crude Oil exceeds 20 million barrel/day.
There are many resources for this subject: Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (Acetylene), Kirk and Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (Acetylene), Wikipedia (Coal), www.coalplantsengineering.com, www.coal-and-the-environment.org and many more...
A BETTER ETHANOL FROM COAL AND NATURAL GAS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal and Natural Gas produce Ethanol:
C (Coke) + CH4 (Natural Gas) = C2H4 (Ethylene Gas)+H2O= C2H5OH (Ethanol)
Both Coal and Natural Gas are abundant, and have the highest world reserves, consequently they are cheapest.
As a result product Ethanol has the lowest price, far lower than gasoline of Crude Oil, and can easily replace it.
To produce one gallon of Ethanol out of Corn, it needs about 12 lb of Corn, at the price of $ 4.00/bushel, one gallon will need $ 1.60 of Corn.
Whereas we need only 1.72 lb of Coke at the price of $0.06 and 2.3 lb of Natural Gas at the cost of $ 0.44 to produce one gal. of Ethanol, i.e. 1 gal needs only $ 0.50 of Coke and Natural Gas.
Which means that Corn Ethanol is Three times more expensive than Coal and Natural gas.
We need also to recall that Crude Oil is exhausted and the output of Crude Exploration is continuously decreasing since 1960. Many research centers question the availability of Crude Oil 15-20 years from now.
Coal and Natural Gas are the only available answer for the needs of fuels. The greatest Corn-Ethanol plant has a capacity of 100 million gal/yr which is less than 6,000 barrel/day; while the US daily consumption of Crude Oil exceeds 20 million barrel/day.
There are many resources for this subject: Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry (Acetylene), Kirk and Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (Acetylene), Wikipedia (Coal), www.coalplantsengineering.com, www.coal-and-the-environment.org and many more...
I say anything to get off the use of oil/gasoline as an energy fuel... for transportation or otherwise. We are seeing signs of intelligent life when our government is helping initiate the production of other sources of fuels. I don't believe in Socialism, but I believe a partnership between the Government and free enterprise is crucial to get off oil. I believe it's happening too slowly, but there are a lot of intelligent people chomping at the bit to make "alternative fuels" the norm.... for a cleaner, healthier world, and ultimately for our survival.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wondered by reading its capacity to produce ethanol. Is it possible to establish in India
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisright now biofuels are a lot more practical then Solar and wind. a solar panel currently requires more energy to make then it produces in its lifetime. Nanotechnology is improving this but will still need time to be efficient and economical. Electric cars currently have a larger carbon footprint then petroleum based cars because of production. Most of the electricity used for shipping, manufacturing, the batteries, and recharging the batteries comes from coal. Air compressed cars are even worse. Again (not trying to be repetitive) students from Cambridge and MIT, using nanotechnology, have produced batteries that have 10x the power output of current Lithium Ions, they have coated the electrodes and silicon with nano particles reducing self-discharge and increasing efficiency when they are recharged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSwitchgrass is much more efficient then corn, it produces 20x the energy corn-based ethanol can. However, right now refining it and turning it into ethanol is inefficient and i believe quite costly. the Lawrence Berkley Laboratory (Helios project) is currently working to create a bacteria that can be used to produce ethanol from Switchgrass. And the farm equipment needed to cultivate and harvest it can be altered and run on previously refined ethanol. Check out http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html if you are interested in reading more about Switchgrass. The article is quite interesting and gives good info.
Biofuels are a great way for us to run cars, planes, buses, etc, but we will still need petroleum for pharmaceuticals, roads, rubber, the list goes on and its not going to change. We can significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but we will still need petroleum for the vast majority of products we use.
Personally I think biofuels could give us a great future. The great thing about Switchgrass is that it can be planted on "ruined" soil. There are several research plots in the south were King Cotton was preciously grown and is pretty much barren, but since Switchgrass can grow up to 10 feet in a single year, only needs to be planted once a decade and the roots go down almost as far as the plant grows up, it replenishes the soil as it pulls in a ton of light and turns it into a lot of chemical energy. All in all, there is 80 million acres of land that can be used for switchgrass cultivation and refining, and at 11,500 gallons (i believe, not entirely sure) we could easily be energy independent.
caf057@yahoo.com, love the comment, very interesting and looks like it will make some good reading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are not running out of oil however, we are running out of cheap oil. we can produce gasoline from oil shell, oil sand (Canada produces their oil from oil sand and i think they are actually making a profit from selling the excess), and coal for around 35$ a barrel. I think crude costs about $10 dollars to produce. 35 is cheaper then what we buy it for (right now its about) $90, but that is mostly dependent on the Chinese market, if we were to spend the money creating the necessary equipment to convert coal (and the above mentioned oil sources) and China's economy collapsed, we would be paying 3x the amount for oil that we could.
If we run out of cheap oil, which we will within the next 20-30 years if our demand continues, changing to coal would be a smart move. The U.S. and China have the highest reserves. China, with producing a new coal plant weekly, could probably do it the fastest.
Changing to renewable energy sources wont be politically practical until India and China decide to, without their demand oil would probably be less than $50 a barrel. I think its easier to market fuel efficient cars there but the US probably wont spend the extra money to set up biofuel refineries, it will have to be private, which makes it even more unlikely because of the cost unless there is someone willing to back research and building costs.
Solar panels produce less energy in their lifetime then it takes to produce them. We need to find a clean energy source to produce solar panels for them to have an actual impact on helping reduce carbon footprints and greenhouse gases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt could be used, but it would be a nightmare to harvest it close to cities or anywhere that would be busy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am pretty sure they now that perpetual motion is impossible (unless you are in the movie Knight and Day, yeah, i did just watch it)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey arent counting the sun, as several people have mentioned. The total energy used to run the equipment to plant it, cultivate it, harvest it, refine it, and transport it to a station that puts it directly in your car is what is being used to determine their 5:1 ratio. The energy that can be produced from the ethanol is 5x the amount needed to produce the ethanol, NOT COUNTING THE CHEMICAL ENERGY THE PLANT PRODUCED FROM SUN LIGHT. (caps are for emphasis)
Marijuana is illegal, i am not sure, but i dont think you can get high off of switchgrass and i dont think the public would like for the president to announce the cultivation of cannabis "grass" for energy use. While i like the idea (from a non-druggy perspective) i wouldnt support it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe crop is native to the US, so it would be RESTORING the ecosystem to what it was before we turned it into farms. Switchgrass is what was around when farmers started going to Oklahoma, Texas, pretty much the entire great plains area from what i have heard and read. Switchgrass is what bison grazed on as well. Plants like tobacco and Cotton ruined the soil they were planted on. Switchgrass actually improves it because of its massive root system and the amount of sunlight it takes in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe land that would be used for switchgrass wouldnt necessarily displace any food being grown.
(this is for whoever said to graze buffalo on the grass, i have been looking for your comment again for about a half hour and im giving up) Grazing bison on the grass and using their crap to fertilize it would work, but we want as much grass as we can get for energy, not meat. It would be a good idea to do this on a reserve to replenish the buffalo count, but not for energy. Also, a manufactured chemical used to fertilize could be engineered to meet every need that the grass has. But we need to be careful because synthetics could have a lasting damage or create a big problem in the future.
I am all for just using Solar, Wind, and Hydro electric energy sources for transportation that are clean and renewable, but unfortunately, the current technology isn't around that makes them plausible. mostly because of the energy required to produce them and resulting pollution.
*I am pretty sure that the KNOW . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell...considering that there is no regulations on sunlight usage and/or capital to be gained from abundant usage of this pleantiful and life giving resource, I would have to say that usage of solar energy is probably bieng considered in this article because there can NOT be any overhead costs or detrimental ecological damages to be considered as a factor in the equation. I believe that the grasses could definatly be a positive step in the foward direction considering fuel usages are on the rise every year. Also the consumption of our earths natural resorces have battered and bruised the one place "known" in our universe that can and has so far been the place we call home and plan to continue to evolve and within. The time has come to keep the ball rolling on anything that can help our enviroment or maybe "GOD WILLING", turn back the clock a few centuries on good ole' mother earths failing health. What we need is a impossible dream as of now in this gluttonous culture we live in, a renewable, nonpoluting, cost efficiant energy souce to pull our ignorant "beat the Joneses" and our "the world isn't going to end in my lifetime" attitudes. The steps are bieng taken in the right direction for our planets survival, by a far too small amount of great scientists in my opinion, there needs to be small steps like this switch grass study and depelopment to create more methods and better sciences within the energy fields to spur a further advancment for our benefit and the earth as well. The sky is the limit and we haven't even left the ground yet... the future generations have so much potential for amazing and unforseen depelopments in technology and enviromental homeostasis because of the steps formally taken by our generation and our forefathers generations. So in conclusion, finnaly, all I have to say is "GET TO STEPPIN'!!!" and look towards the future with anticipation and hope.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso replying to the Bison feces as a fertalizer...to me that only equals lost fuel and money thrown out the window. When planting any grass crop the only fertalizing that is needed and indeed wanted is the initial boost the grass needs to ensure abundant and fast growth of root sytems. Although the chemicals now needed for this are far from enviromentaly good for or water supplies and for the soils bieng that it is once a decade it sure as heck beats the alternatives of crop fertalizing and the energy usages that come with such farming methods. Once fertalized in the planting phase there is no need for further toxic introduction of any chemicals as the grass itself can be self sustained with little more than a steady rainfall and abundant sunlight. The plant itself is a hearty species of grass and a decade long lasting species that can be harvested as much as the weather and plant growth allows, unaltered and cheap. Just think of all of the free space that could be utilized like in between food crop plots, along roadways, government owned lands stalled as nature reserves ( as that the grasses harbor many animal species and is a great ecosystem for some endangered species to begin to mount a comeback) the lands that can't provide the correct growing potentials for food crops( sandy, rocky or clay rich soils). there is so much wasted space on this earth deemed unfit or not productive enough for economical growth in the buisness of the farming of food crops. It would be nice to see some of this "unfit" space bieng used for something with any kind of potential for alternative methods of fuel sources or just utilizing what little land we have left before urban sprawl takes it all over and we are up S@!t creek without a paddle so to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe common downfall of diesel engines and thier useage in the United States to me might have to do with the exhaust fumes given off by a country full of these engines would be in my mind a smoggy and smelly atmosphere to reside in, better fuel efficiancy vs. not feeling that you are living at a highway truck stop. I'm not sayin', I'm JUST sayin' those trucks smell like s@!t and if I wanted to be around that smell all of the time I would pitch a tent right beside a running semi and such exhaust fumes for fun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been bitten by the ethanol bug and hope to open an ethanol production plant soon. The technology we plan to use allows us to produce ethanol without the use of enzymes and with equipment far less expensive. We will produce ethanol from any bio-mass available, wood, paper, dicarded syrup from soda production,fruit and vegtable matter etc. Our challenge is getting funding. Any ideas?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSwitchgrass grows on marginal lands, so it will not compete with food crops. Food crops are "heavy feeders" and require soil adjuncts to continue producing, but this isn't universally the case with plants. While a monoculture of anything tends to have drawbacks, there is a mix and/or a rotation of low-intensity crops that will produce cellulose fuels effectively and not deplete soil, but will actually build topsoil. That's not a difficult problem to resolve in agriculture, it's a political problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar, hydro, and wind power all have carbon inputs. The objects harvesting the energy have a lifespan and need to be replaced periodically. They aren't free energy. It would be nice to fund more research to make them better. However, the biological element in ethanol fuel is where most of the efficiency lies, and so far all the other alternatives are based on machines and manufacturing on a very large scale. This tends to limit their efficiency in fundamental ways.
What have you got against liquids? Liquid fuel is efficient, man! You want efficiency, why are you advocating using a battery? Those things don't work too well. Alcohol just needs a clean place to sit, and it'll stay alcohol for thousands of years. Charge a DieHard, stick it in a pyramid and see how much juice is left after 6,000 years. Alcohol wins.
Whatever the primary fuel alternative is, you're always going to hear terrible things about it. This is not an accident. Petroleum companies have a vested interest in us using their stuff, and they'll lie and distort to put down competition. But the fact is, ethanol is a good fuel source, and we should be producing it. We should just be doing it a different way than we do.
You have made many assumptions not addressed in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, you assume $1.8 Billion in investment will be offset by money invested to research sustainable energy. We don't know that will happen.
Also, you assume that there will be a land trade off, land will be used for switchgrass instead of food. However, there is land NOT being utilized because and being plowed under to protect market prices of some crops. Land may be an issue in the future, but if switchgrass makes a potent biofuel and can be grown on land where corn and soy beans won't grow, I say add it to the options along with fewer cars, more solar, more wind, etc.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
What, like in weapons? I know you didn't say that, but there is money out there if we spend wisely, and yes, it may not solve anything in the long run.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPTxS