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.
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.
“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.