Switch to Switchgrass
Scientists have long debated whether or not ethanol makes sense as an alternative to gasoline, with some experts arguing that it takes as much energy to produce the stuff as you yield from it. In other words: No net energy, no good. But in a study published today in the journal Science, researchers from UC Berkeley claim otherwise. Quoted in the Contra Costa Times, Dan Kammen, one of the study's authors, said: "The long-standing debate over whether ethanol is good or bad on an energy basis ... we believe that 20-year-old argument is now solved. You can get more energy out. What we don't know is, is that good for the planet?"
For one thing, says Kammen, ethanol made from corn would reduce greenhouse gas emissions only marginally. And currently, thanks in no small part to the corn lobby, virtually all ethanol comes from corn. It would be far better, nearly everyone agrees, to make the stuff from no-till, high-energy crops like switchgrass, an acre of which can produce as much energy as up to 10 tons of coal. Too bad there's no switchgrass lobby.
5 Comments:
It seems almost insane not to be producing this stuff in high quantities. If it's not harmful(as if oil's not)then why did it take the president in the state of union address to figure it out. Can you say Switchgrass crops. I know its a pain to use this stuff to heat you house, but to power a station that uses coal, then use electric heat. Well that's a no-brainer. Ethanol to power my car, if one were: available/affordable/dependable
Yea in a heartbeat just (aad) it up
I also read farmers get paid not to farm their land. Just have them change crops.
Why not make paper from hemp? I don't know. After all, Henry Ford wanted to made cars out of the stuff.
But, back to switchgrass, what a surprise to hear the president actually include switchgrass in the state of the union. Last night on All Things Considered, they looked into it. Seems the mention was a last-minute addition. It was good to hear it, but the emphasis still seems to be on soy and corn and other such crops. Now the challenge (one of the challenges, anyway), will steer attention to switchgrass- and away from corn- and soy-based ethanol, which, depending on who you believe, represents either a net loss in energy or a marginal gain, at best.
One positive thing: biofuels are now being hotly debated.
thanks for commenting.
I first heard about switchgrass when attending a lecture here in Portland Oregon last year.
Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute had just produced, with funding from the Pentagon, "Winning the Oil Endgame." The whole book ($50 retail) or a slide show, is available on-line.
Lovins proposes a well-documented and prompt transition to a non-oil based economy.
Check it out.
Net energy from Switchgrass - More harm than good.
Switchgrass requires 50% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produces.
( David Pimental and Tad W. Patzek. "Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodeisel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower." Natural Resources Research Vol 14, No.1 (March 2005). http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/Biofuels/NRRethanol.2005.pdf )
Repeated harvesting of switchgrass will require massive amounts of fuel/fertilizer. Phosphate fertilizer to grow biofuel crops comes from Florida. Florida will be strip-mined to death.
In Florida PSC of Saskatchewan, Canada, plans to strip-mine 100,463 acres in a large bend of the Suwannee River. Mosaic Co. plans to strip-mine 21,000 acres on the Peace River. The Manson-Jenkins tract also represents the first of several proposed mines totaling 60,000 acres that could be permitted adjacent to Horse Creek on the Peace River.
Parts of Florida have already been devasted by phosphate mining.
Ethanol production using corn grain requires 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produces, wood biomass: 57% more. Biodiesel production using soybeans requires 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produces. Biodiesel production from sunflower: 118% more. Inefficient solar cells produce about 100 times more electricity than corn ethanol.
Many billions of dollars go to subsidizing the corn industry and ethanol production. This money would go much further if invested in the transition to conservation, efficiency, wind, solar and clean production of hydrogen (from water with wind and solar power) for transportation.
Increasing the average mileage of passenger cars and SUVs by 3-5 miles per gallon would dwarf the effects of all possible biofuel production from all sources of biomass available in the U.S. Inflating passenger car tires properly today will have more impact on the energy independence of U.S. than the 2012 ethanol production requirements.
("The Real Biofuel Cycles" by Tad W. Patzek (March 2006: http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/patzek/BiofuelQA/Materials/RealFuelCycles-Web.pdf)
Sugar cane production to meet the Brazilian government's rush to biofuels is encroaching upon the rainforest. The ethanol plants are polluting and require huge amounts of water.
In the United States, conditions for growing sugar cane are only suitable in three states, Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii (and tiny parts of Alabama, Mississippi and Texas). The land best suited to sugar cane production is already devoted to it for sugar.
People must accept that we must change the way we live.
We can't burn trees, crops, and other natural resources to make fuel. The impact on our water, soil, and environment will only be a different type of negative impact. Instead of polluting our air and fouling our land and water with the remnants of oil, coal and gas - we'll do it with chemical fertilizers, pesticides, flood irrigation and monoculture techniques.
The answer only lies in biofuel if you are an investor, lobbyist, engineer looking for the latest technology, politician, a chemical company executive, biostitute or some other person who will financially benefit from yet another hoax.
Focusing on new fuels does not solve the long-term problem we face. We need to significantly reduce our dependence on ENERGY!
Spending billions or trillions of dollars on destructive ethanol and biodiesel production is wrong and will lead to desertification in several decades.
We should build energy independent homes instead of spending money on developing new fuels. We should invest in public transportation systems that significantly reduce transportation energy needs. Why build more supply when you can invest in energy independence? Do we want to stay dependent on these fuels? What would be the motivation for that?
Moving our dependence from fossil fuels to biofuels is foolish. We must begin thinking about reducing our dependence, not switching our dependence from one fuel to another.
Conservation and "REAL" renewable energy is the answer for our planet.
We have to change our thinking, behavior and consumption. We are just not going to be able to live the way we do now any more.
The Energy Justice Network:
http://www.energyjustice.net
FACT SHEET: Biofuel: Ethanol and Biodiesel:
http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html
Feeding Cars Not People: The Adoption of Biofuels Would be a
Humanitarian and Environmental Disaster:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
Worse Than Fossil Fuel: Biodiesel Enthusiasts Have Accidentally Invented
the Most Carbon Intensive Fuel on Earth:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/
The Ethanol Subsidy Is Worse Than You Can Imagine:
http://slate.com/id/2122961/
Biofuels Destroy Ecosystems - Rainforest Destruction in South America
and Southeast Asia for fuel crops
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1001-forests_org.html
Forests Paying the Price for Biofuels
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400
Pesticides: Serious Adverse Health Effects
http://www.flcv.com/pesticid.html
Until Star Trek comes to life, we're stuck dealing with facts. Not the drivel that Patzek and Pimentel publish, but REAL facts.
If you use their method to estimate "net energy" -- a foolish term -- then then the cost of producing electricity is a NEGATIVE 239 percent. If you don't like ethanol, you must HATE kilowatts.
As uncomfortable as it is for people who want to think they are defending the environment, we must let some measure of VALUE (shudder) enter the calculus of how to produce energy to live. The good news is, we're getting better at it. And as long as you and every other American doesn't allow ethanol manufacture to die because of a dip in oil price, then we're on our way to developing that Star Trek future that most of us want to see.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main