H16400
Headlines : EnvironmentSwitchgrass-based Ethanol Shows Large Net Energy Gain
Photosynthetically-produced biofuels have been promoted as an alternative source of liquid fuel which does not lead to further global warming, but a main concern has been the high amounts of fossil fuel energy used in industrial agriculture as well as in the ethanol distilling process. This article shows that it is possible to get around that problem by using alternative crops that are grown without inputs of fossil fuels – see Organic Farming Can Feed the World for more on how to get agriculture off of fossil fuels.
Biofuels will never be able to replace the huge amounts of fossil fuel consumed in the United States, but a combination of sustainable and organic biofuel production, solar PV and solar heating, wind-generated power, energy-efficient technology and energy conservation should be able to allow all countries to survive without using fossil fuels or expanding nuclear power generation.
[Posted By neurolingo]Republished from Science Daily
Switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than needed to grow, harvest and process it into cellulosic ethanol, according to estimates from a large on-farm study by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Results from the five-year study involving fields on farms in three states highlight the prairie grass’ potential as a biomass fuel source that yields significantly more energy than is consumed in production and conversion into cellulosic ethanol, said Ken Vogel, a U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service geneticist in UNL’s agronomy and horticulture department.
The study involved switchgrass fields on farms in Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. It is the largest study to date examining the net energy output, greenhouse gas emissions, biomass yields, agricultural inputs and estimated cellulosic ethanol production from switchgrass grown and managed for biomass fuel.
Posted by neurolingo
RELATED ITEMS
- Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?
Posted by gaanjah_mama on Friday, September 22nd 2006 - The Future of Ethanol
Posted by Ryz on Sunday, April 17th 2005 - Duty-free U.S. corn imports force Mexico GMO debate
Posted by Szamko on Saturday, December 22nd 2007 - 75,000 Protest Tortilla Prices in Mexico
Posted by phoenix_rising on Thursday, February 1st 2007
Photosynthetically-produced biofuels
recent sunlight.
it pays to remember that even hydrocarbons in the form of petroleum or natural gas are the remnants of ancient sunlight, harnessed by ancient plant life through photosynthesis.
oil is ancient sunlight.
if you view the life on this planet as being regulated by the amount of solar energy that comes in, and then you take into consideration the vast amount of ancient sunlight that we were able to collect and burn in less than 100 years, then you can see why we have such an overpopulation problem amongst humans and those species we propagate (through agriculture and domestication).
you make it sound like burning biofuels doesn’t create CO2
I’m all for not burning corn
you make it sound like burning biofuels doesn’t create CO2
i hope you don’t mean me. the only biofuels i burn are logs and fryer grease. from the fry daddy to your car is one thing, but biofuels on the industrial scale is a terrible idea. not only are the pollution levels the same, there are other issues like the fact that they’re all over GMO for biofuels, and the fact that these things are often plantation crops (check out the biofuels deal Bush made with Brazil, or what’s going on in Indonesia).
I’ll get this one before Snark:
“you make it sound like burning biofuels doesn’t create CO2”
It doesn’t, net. Sure, CO2 comes out the tailpipe, but it then goes back into the crop, out the tailpipe, into the crop, etc, etc, etc. (Yes, inefficiencies in the process currently require fossil fuels; that’s a separate discussion.) Oil’s out and done. Consequently: biofuels = no net change, fossil fuels = net output.
i’m still collecting information on algaculture, but if there was a means to extract energy from bio material, it seems this could be the best route.
OPEN QUOTE
Microalgae have much faster growth-rates than terrestrial crops. The oil yield per unit area of algae is estimated to be 5,000 to 20,000 gallons per acre, per year (4.6 to 18.4 l/m2 per year); this is 7 to 30 times greater than the next best crop, Chinese tallow (699 gallons).
wiki algaculture
from the fry daddy to your car is one thing, but biofuels on the industrial scale is a terrible idea.
Terrible idea as in more terrible than fossil fuel extraction? I don’t think so. Mutli-fuel, multi-source energy is the way of the future. Thinking of biofuels as a 100% replacement for fossil fuels is thinking trapped in a paradigm where a single source (like fossil fuel) is the predominant menas of producing energy. We have to stop thinking this way.