Please Freep Mail me if you'd like on/off
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
Probably not. Nukes, coal and domestic oil are merely what we need. Mountain top windmills, ethanol are much more important since they will make some of us feel so very good doncha' know? That is of course, until the average fillup hits $100, then even the loony enviros will . . . demand more taxpayer subsidized ethanol!
Algae biomass is far more likely to be viable sooner, imho. Probably 10-15 years.
Yep,
Your tax money is supporting the industry. If you are saving a nickle, you are probably paying a dime in taxes.
Turning corn into alcohol probably does not decrease oil imports anyway.
The biggest problem is that you are taking about 10 units of energy in biomass and getting about 1 unit of alcohol. We just don’t have the land to support that inefficiency. If you can use the raw biomass, you reduce the land use by a factor of 10, and dramatically decrease transportation costs. Biomass is very expensive to transport, if you can pelletize and use it directly, you just pelletize on site and send it directly to point of use.
The nice thing about switchgrass is that is actually belongs where it is. It doesn’t deplete the soil and adds tons of organics with its deep roots. It is also resistent to bugs and weeds.
Farmers around here grow hay, another grass crop. They spray for weeds and fertilize once a year and go for years without any problems.
Corn on the otherhand has minimal root systems, adds little to the soil and requires very close management.
Agree, and our company also has an interest in it, but it is having some trouble getting a foothold. I believe I heard about a proposed coal based power plant project in the Midwest that included doing research with algae and C02 emissions benefits to counteract the coal emissions, but the State EPA denied the permit.
“Agree, and our company also has an interest in it, but it is having some trouble getting a foothold. I believe I heard about a proposed coal based power plant project in the Midwest that included doing research with algae and C02 emissions benefits to counteract the coal emissions, but the State EPA denied the permit.”
What was the reason? I would think the EPA would like that...
I’m guessing they heard the first part (new coal-plant) and ignored the second part...?
The greens were rough, too.
I’ve driven out West, I know what you mean. But Switch grass grows in arid conditions and it’s made for growing in poor soil. Like I said, yields would be low but profitable I still believe.
And the reason it’s still in public hands is that the government refuses to sell.
smart a$$!
“Well, as you might guess, I and pretty large contingent of scientists disagree mightily with that statement.”
That “pretty large contingent” is dominated more by “scientists” with no expertise whatsoever in climatology or any related scientists and among climatologists themselves there is no “consensus” regarding MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING and the only “majority” viewpoint of actual climatologists is that the man-made CO2 factor is not significant enough on any scale to be the driver of any current “warming trend”.
MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING is more political science than pure science.
As for “alternative fuels” themselves, they are based on another faulty premise - that the economics of demand for fossil fuels alone will neither improve the efficiency of THEIR use or the extent and efficiency of their supply and extraction. That fits fine with “peak oil” theory which has been proven consistently wrong.
Have a nice day.
In my county, it is the riparian land that has gone into CRP. That is a very valuable program for salmon habitat conservation. It pays the farmers a long term federal lease payment and requires them not to crop or graze the land, fence it from livestock and encourage tree growth. It is not simply paying someone not to grow a crop, but to manage the land in a way beneficial to the restoration of habitat for salmonids. It is not the same amount of money as the farmer would get for cropping it, but our farmers are generally conservation minded and the lease offsets are enough to help justify such set aside.
I am interested in using wood waste to produce ethanol or alternative fuels. Because of extreme environmental nonsense here, timber projects on federal lands rarely take a tree over 20 inches in diameter. The value of larger trees helps to offset the cost of a project. The US Forest Service also believes it can pile sales with stewardship obligations to remove submerchantable trees and brush. Then the enviros insist upon prohibitively expensive helicopter harvest. Consequently, there have been many local sales that no one bid on simply because they were not economically viable.
A market for submerch. and brush with a small facility buyer close enough to overcome the cost of transport could help to offset the sost of thinning and reducing fuels needed for healthy forest management. Any carbon produced could be partially offset by the reduction in carbon from removing burnable fuel sources and crating healthy resiliient forest lands.
Chemistry, weather and market say you are correct.
Alcohol may become economically viable for the Indy 500 again if you use the element Nostalgium as a catalyst, but supplying 30% of US private auto transportation needs, no way.
In my area, switchgrass is a native grass, and CRP land is usually weeds and brush. As far as conservation goes, the land would be better off if converted to it’s native tallgrass and actively managed rather than let run wild on CRP and then burned off at the end of the contract.
As far as woodlot management, the US has a horible history of high-grading our forests. However low-grading also has it’s problems. If you take nothing but small trees, you are leaving the least productive trees in the forest. Best management techniques include removal of undesirable and mature trees. Clear cutting although unpopular is actually healthier for a forest than poor management.
The big problem with using forestry residue for the fuel market is water content. There just isn’t a good way to economically dewater wood for fuel use. You need to get moisture content down to about 12% for pellet manufacturing. Logs will never get there and chips have to be actively treated to get there. Raw lumbar carries more water than cellulose which makes it very expensive to move which means having the equipment to chip dry the wood on site. Basically, this is good if you are a big organization farming trees, difficult for small loggers.
BTW, CO2 is good for the environment. Makes the plants grow faster and keeps the planet from freezing.
“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.”
Even if CO2 is not effecting the climate—which seems like pretty shaky place to start, the perception of anthropogenic global warming makes these effiencies very relevant. Various forms of cap and trade already exist, and others are coming—so even if you are right on the science, it makes no sense to dismiss GHG emission improvements.
Please Freep Mail me if you'd like on/off
But did you find Shoeless Joe?
Thanks for the ping. HAHAHA
Your perception - re man-made GW - is just that - perception, not science,and without scientific foundation it is morally, politically and economically wasteful to participate in the fraud - the sheer political science - of man-made GW - in any manner whatsoever.
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.