Posted on 01/22/2008 7:16:04 AM PST by saganite
At least we do not eat switchgrass...
So, “switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than needed to grow, harvest and process it into cellulosic ethanol,” eh?
What’s the number for petroleum?
Yup.
The only *real* point to corn-based ethanol fuel was to push the technology for flex-fuel vehicles.
Switchgrass and waste cellulose (use the corn *stalks* not the ears of corn) are what we’ll top up our petroleum supply with.
Back when the buffalo roamed, there was an ocean of switch grass that covered the vast Great Plains. This is natural vegetation that thrives all the way from the Dakotas to the South Plains in Texas. Ranchers could reap the benefits of having wind generators and switch grass on their land producing energy, along with their traditional cattle raising business. It would be great not to ever have to think of the OPECers again.
Well, we don’t grow oil so that’s a savings right there. ;^)
If you’re talking about Saudi oil, which costs about a buck to pump, I suppose the comparison would be unfavorable but if you’re talking about the more expensive types of oil like deepwater or shale or oil sands I suspect the comparison would be much more favorable. Still, I can’t imagine how much of the nations cropland would have to be turned over to the production of switchgrass to achieve the goals mentioned in the article.
“Switchgrass looks pretty good”
Algae is quite a bit better.
Fuel Cell That Uses Bacteria To Generate Electricity
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103101137.htm
It are one similar has been posted, however, tax payer subsidized ethanol is not the answer. Unsubsidized Bio-diesel is.
“What’s the number for petroleum?”
That number is open to interpretation. There are some people that claim as low as 300 percent. It all depends on how you turn the numbers.
You don’t eat #2 yellow corn, either.
Studies I’ve seen claim there is a net energy loss with corn based ethanol.
Yep, that’ pretty much the same article and written about the same study.
“Algae is quite a bit better.”
Has anyone actually been able to make fuel from algea yet?
Theoretically, algea can produce more biomass per unit area but from what I’ve read, they can’t keep them alive long enough to produce a significant amount of fuel.
Let's see... Taking into account achieving a 50% gain in yield per acre and a 82% energy efficiency of the core process and a production capacity of 130 million gallons that works out to just over 300,000 acres or 475 square miles of cropland. Not that awful, although 130 million gallons of ethanol is only little better than a drop in barrel of our 146 billion gallon a year gasoline consumption.
Every bit helps I suppose, although switch grass won't make a difference anytime soon.
Biodiesel Won’t Drive Down Global Warming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423080511.htm
But wouldn't it require land otherwise used for food?
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.