New studies show that it takes less energy to grow cellulosic crops.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
By Kevin Bullis
There's some more good news about cellulosic ethanol, a fuel derived from grasses and other nonfood sources. It's long been estimated that the amount of energy in such fuels will be much more than the energy required to make them--which is not the case with corn-grain-based ethanol. Now experimental results are in, and the ratio of energy produced to energy used is even better than expected. The renewable energy produced was 540 percent more than the nonrenewable energy used to make it. Previous studies estimated that the number would be more like 340 percent. The improvement comes, basically, from farmers using less energy than researchers thought they would to grow switchgrass, one of the proposed cellulosic sources.
The better ratio means that cellulosic ethanol could do more to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions than previously thought. That's particularly good news, since new legislation will require that some 21 billion gallons of fuel be made from such non-corn-grain sources. The trick now is to improve methods for converting switchgrass into ethanol--making the processes cheaper--and to get farmers to start growing switchgrass in large amounts.
Comments
Daniel from SA on 01/09/2008 at 4:32 AM
8
RD on 01/09/2008 at 12:58 PM
47
Scottar on 03/10/2008 at 9:53 PM
6
You are correct that more evidence is coming to light that climate change is not really driven by CO2 emissions. In fact one scientist showed that natural emission fudge uncertainties far overshadowed Anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And this scientist showed that the IPCC over- sensitized it's climate models to CO2's contribution and positive feedback elements in the climate system. I have read various other articles that support his findings:
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm
Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"
Michael Asher (Blog) - March 6, 2008 11:02 AM
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible
Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was. That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center........... Go to website for more.
So what the government and research labs should be doing is developing more efficiency in energy usage as well as alternatives and quit worrying about the AGW CO2 factor. And they should allow more drilling for gas and oil as needed to keep the economy 'oiled' and energy prices reasonable until those alternatives can be properly developed and implemented. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will the new energy economy.
From what I have read best possibilities are solar produced energy alternatives both at the consumer as well as large commercial installations, electrical and hybrid type technology, diesel ICE's, bio fuels from engineered microbes and algee sources. Lets not rule out carbon fuel cell technology to take advantage of the vast resources of coal. Wind is more of a bandaid then real power source, it would be better utilized for production of hydrogen or other liquid energy form. And there are better designs then the tower type that are less intrusive. 4th generation nuclear plants that require less enriched uranium and use helium as a coolant instead of water could also be utilized with advanced transmutation of the nuke waste into fuel and short lived waste isotopes.
When you remove the hysteria and fear mongering of the Envirocrats the energy scene becomes limitless, especially with technological innovation. It will be an ongoing diversified progression with no one winner, unless fusion becomes a viable reality.
DJTal on 01/09/2008 at 5:11 AM
108
killian on 01/09/2008 at 9:41 PM
54
(Wind is about 30,000 mi^2, more than CSP, but still much less than switchgrass, and about 95% of a wind farm can have a second use.)
NREL estimates the CSP potential in U.S. West rated "premium" or "excellent" at 1,642 TWh on 6,091 sq. mi. (they also have another 456 TWh in the "good" category). The NREL survey excludes a long list of places, including sensitive areas.
Oh, and by the way, there are only 1,137,504 mi^2 of "cropland pasture, grassland pasture and range, and forest land grazed" in the U.S. Are we going to use 60% of this land to fuel our cars? What about the species that depend upon that land?
Let's not destroy our prairies when a much saner alternative exists.
hachi on 01/10/2008 at 9:02 AM
12
killian on 01/10/2008 at 3:17 PM
54
DJTal on 01/12/2008 at 6:33 AM
108
killian on 01/18/2008 at 4:51 PM
54
DJTal on 01/20/2008 at 5:31 AM
108
killian on 01/21/2008 at 11:25 AM
54
Using 0.07/kWh, 300 Wh/mi, and 92% efficient grid, one gets 0.023/mi driving cost for BEVs. To match this driving cost, ethanol would have to have a cost of production of 0.54/gallon at 35 MPGge, and 0.92/gallon at 60 MPGge. How likely is this? I also expect the retail markup of regulated electricity to be less than that of ethanol.
Siphon on 04/01/2008 at 6:36 AM
57
Plugins can reduce automotive liquid fuel consumption up to about 80% fairly cost-effectively. Increased electric rail transportation could increase the electric portion considerably. However, this leaves little for airplaines, although high speed rail could drastically reduce shorter distance and intracontinental flights. Building the infrastructure takes a long time though.
And we still have to deal with ships.
Without algae, I'm afraid there's going to be liquid fuel problems. That leaves liquefying coal, which isn't an enticing proposition.
ronwagn on 02/20/2008 at 7:16 AM
9
I am amazed by the negativity of some comments. Is it that everyone has their favorite technology. I think we need them all, and let the natural winners evolve. Energy independence is the most important goal, to me.
killian on 04/22/2008 at 2:14 PM
54
You mention that energy independence is your primary interest. Mine is eliminating our greenhouse gas emissions. Argonne's estimate is that E85 from cellulosic ethanol is 64% lower emissions than gasoline. That's not good enough.
MakeSense on 01/10/2008 at 11:49 AM
42
Solar John on 01/13/2008 at 8:22 PM
11
sj