Posted on 01/09/2008 10:43:39 AM PST by cogitator
LINCOLN, Nebraska, January 8, 2008 - (ENS) - Switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced five times more energy than needed to grow, harvest and process it into cellulosic ethanol, finds a large farm study by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln published Monday.
The five year study also found greenhouse gas emissions from cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass were 94 percent lower than estimated greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline production.
"This clearly demonstrates that switchgrass is not only energy efficient, but can be used in a renewable biofuel economy to reduce reliance of fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance rural economies," said principal researcher Ken Vogel, a U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service geneticist in the university's agronomy and horticulture department.
In a biorefinery, switchgrass biomass can be broken down into sugars including glucose and xylose that can be fermented into ethanol similar to corn. Grain from corn and other annual cereal grains, such as sorghum, are now primary sources for ethanol production in the U.S.
In the future, perennial crops, such as switchgrass, as well as crop residues and forestry biomass could be developed as major cellulosic ethanol sources that could potentially displace 30 percent of current U.S. petroleum consumption, Vogel said.
Technology to convert biomass into cellulosic ethanol is now at the development stage. Six small commercial scale biorefineries are being built with scale-up support from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Vogel's 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.
The study took place on 10 fields of 15 to 20 acres each with four in Nebraska near Atkinson, Crofton, Lawrence and Douglas; four in South Dakota near Highmore, Bristol, Huron and Ethan; and two in North Dakota near Streeter and Munich.
Trials began in 2000 and 2001 and continued for five years. Farmers were paid for their work under contract with the university and documented all production operations, agricultural inputs and biomass yields. The researchers used this information to determine the net energy estimates.
Switchgrass grown in this study yielded 93 percent more biomass per acre and an estimated 93 percent more net energy yield than previously estimated in a study done elsewhere of planted prairies in Minnesota that received low agricultural inputs, Vogel said.
Less land will be needed for energy crops if higher yields can be obtained.
Researchers point out in the study that plant biomass remaining after ethanol production could be used to provide the energy needed for the distilling process and other power requirements of the biorefinery. This results in a high net energy value for ethanol produced from switchgrass.
By contrast, corn grain ethanol biorefineries must use natural gas or other sources of energy for the conversion process.
In this study, switchgrass managed as a bioenergy crop produced estimated ethanol yields per acre similar to those from corn grown in the same states and years based on statewide average grain yields.
But higher yields compared to corn can be expected in the future, said Vogel, who points out that corn grain conversion technology is mature, while cellulosic conversion efficiency technology is still developing.
Vogel said he does not expect switchgrass to replace corn or other crops on Class 1 farm land. He and his colleagues are developing the grass for use on marginal, highly erodible lands similar to that currently in the federal Conservation Reserve Program. All the fields in this study met the qualifying criteria for that program.
Researchers found that switchgrass grown on the marginal fields produced an average of 300 gallons of ethanol per acre compared to average ethanol yields of 350 gallons per acre for corn for the same three states.
The researchers point out that this was a baseline study. The switchgrass cultivars used in this study were developed for use in pastures. New higher yielding cultivars are under development for specific use in bioenergy production systems.
Switchgrass yields continue to improve, Vogel said. Recent yield trials of new experimental strains in the three states produced 50 percent higher yields than achieved in this study.
Switchgrass in this study employed UNL's best management practices for switchgrass, including no-till seeding, herbicides, weed control and adaptive cultivars.
Six cellulosic biorefineries that are being co-funded by the U.S. Department of Energy also are in the works across the United States. These plants are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year.
Researchers reported their findings in the current issue of "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences," online at: Abstract
Actually, the key line is:
“In this study, switchgrass managed as a bioenergy crop produced estimated ethanol yields per acre similar to those from corn grown in the same states and years based on statewide average grain yields.”
In other words: it is currently no better than corn PER ACRE. Which - when you look at the amount of acreage required to fill our energy needs... well...
That is the only truly useful, relevant and material info born from the study at this time. However, it is not useful, relevant or material, in the long run, if land and water for food crops are diverted to ANY form of "bio-fuel". The only "increase" supplied by America's "bio-fuel", government mandated and subsidized experiments is a huge spike in inflation across the entire food supply chain. This is only in part related to "corn", as any diversion of scarce water and land for "fuel" adds to the cost of food.
The five year study also found greenhouse gas emissions from cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass were 94 percent lower than estimated greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline production.
Totally irrelevant - CO2 is not a pollutant and is not the cause/driver of earth climate cycles.
Researchers found that switchgrass grown on the marginal fields produced an average of 300 gallons of ethanol per acre compared to average ethanol yields of 350 gallons per acre for corn for the same three states....... The researchers point out that this was a baseline study..... The switchgrass cultivars used in this study were developed for use in pastures. New higher yielding cultivars are under development for specific use in bioenergy production systems......Switchgrass yields continue to improve, Vogel said. Recent yield trials of new experimental strains in the three states produced 50 percent higher yields than achieved in this study.
Less land will be needed for energy crops if higher yields can be obtained.
Won't change the fact it will still compete with food for scarce ariable land and water, even if only grassing land for cattle.
In the future, perennial crops, such as switchgrass, as well as crop residues and forestry biomass could be developed as major cellulosic ethanol sources that could potentially displace 30 percent of current U.S. petroleum consumption, Vogel said.
No hard data to support that - just a guess.
ALL BIO-FUELS are a chimera - they add to the demand of scarce ariable land and water needed for food production and their impact WILL be negative on food costs, worldwide. Fossil, nuclear and hydro-power use what would be useless/untapped resources for which there would be near zero demand if not converted to fuel. That is what has made them more economical than other sources, and it will continue to do so once we can get the politicians - and their tax-subsidized-profiteering, special-interest friends - out of the fuel markets.
Yes, it is, because per acre a lot less energy was used to produce the same amount of ethanol.
Im just curious as to what it would do to the land to be used in such a manner. Wont growing crop after crop of switch grass without allowing it to die and decompose in the field put a strain on it?
Im not a farmer so I honestly dont know...
“Third, to even come close to economically viable the cost of the biomass, switch grass, corn stover or whatever would need to be delivered to the plant site for less than $50 per ton. NO one is going to collect and transport biomass for that amount.”
Sure they will. It’s done all the time in the form of other type grasses known as hay. Hay very often sells for less than $50/ton delivered. I’ve sold a lot of it myself the past several years for much less than that.
“Fourth, if you are taking biomass from the farmers field such as corn stover, it will deprive the soil of badly needed nutrients provided by normally letting in rot in the fields.”
You could get more than one cutting off the switchgrass. More than likely what would happen is they’d take a cutting of switchgrass, allow it to regrow then move cattle in to harvest the regrowth and deposit nutrients back into the soil in the form of manure. No doubt you’re stripping nutrients but the same can be said of corn (which btw is a grass). The higher the yield the greater the nutrient loss no matter what crop you’re talking about unless it’s a legume which can fix nitrogen out of the atmosphere and even then your stripping P and K out even if you assume no N loss.
The nice thing about grasses is they can be grown on land which really isn’t suitable for row crop (marginal ground). There’s some hurdles to overcome here, but I see switchgrass as having much more potential than corn for ethanol production which should be rightly allocated to feed purposes.
Well, as you might guess, I and pretty large contingent of scientists disagree mightily with that statement.
they add to the demand of scarce ariable land and water needed for food production and their impact WILL be negative on food costs, worldwide.
Reading the news, I can't agree with that. Because of the demand for corn to produce ethanol, farmers were reported as putting fields that weren't being farmed back into agricultural production. If there's such a demand for food crops, then why weren't those fields being farmed? Furthermore, the cost of oil to produce food crops has to be factored in. If the cost of oil goes up (which it's been doing for awhile) this affects both farming and transport (plane, train, truck, and ship). So energy is a major factor in food costs, and as oil prices stay high, they put pressure on food costs.
Finally, let me point out a broad area of agreement. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and fossil fuel imports will require a full spectrum of energy sources; there is no "be-all, end-all" solution (except maybe for controlled nuclear fusion - chuckle, laugh, guffaw, riotous laughter). Ethanol and biofuels address one sector, primarily vehicular transport.
Have you ever been to say, Nevada? Or hiked BLM lands out West?
One of the main reasons that much of so called "public land", be it BLM or National Forest, is not in private hands, is that it was either far too dry, too steep, too poor of soil, or some combination of these factors combined.
Without water, the growing of any type of grass, particularly growing it 6-8-10 ft. in height, is impossible.
I know you need a lot less fertilizer to grow grass than corn.
Alcohol is CO2 neutral. An equal amount of CO2 is consumed in growing the crop.
We need to get away from corn ethanol. It requires almost as much gas to create it as is created.
Switch to the grass!!!
We need to ditch ethenol and use bio diesel.
Bio-diesel!!! YES!!!
Use the relatively useless lands in Arizona, New Mexico, or other desert areas with lots of sun and minimal water.
Bring in seawater ...and grow algae.
Algae based bio-diesel has the potential to deliver 1000 times the product in the same area as corn to ethanol.
And to enhance production of algae - put a coal burning plant near the algae ponds and run the exhaust into the ponds to scrub out some of the CO2 ...and feed the algae.
This is a “win/win/win” ...use land that is fairly useless anyway. Do scrubbing of coal buring plant exhaust. Generate bio-diesel for transportation uses.
Well.. It's good to know that when things get series, we have good ideas like that somewhere in our way back pocket. Following the money, one wonders why that isn't viable right now without subsidy or lobbiests.
This corn ethanol nonesense has to stop, immediately.
What it’s doing to food prices is thoroughly unjust.
With that much of our fuel needs dependent on an agricultural product we had better hope there is never a massive crop failure. Oil in the ground is like money in the bank. Ethanol in the field is like money in the stock market.
Totally agree with both ethonal use and _not_ using food to produce it. Our corn based ethanol (for energy) must end ASAP, how scarey that that energy consumers will use up food needed for humans to eat. The price impact alone hinders this; food prices need to be low, allow food farmers to make living but not make them rich selling food for energy!
Nah. Good conservatives use birch switches, not switchgrass switches.
That image is miscanthus, not switchgrass.
Cellulosic ethanol will require more subsidies than corn ethanol to break even.
If switch grass is not viable on a large scale, we may be stuck with corn-based ethanol, a choice that no one wants except the farm states and politicians. The corn-based ethanol industry is addicted to permanent subsidies and mandates, a recipe for a boondoggle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.