Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Study Shows Great Potential of Switchgrass as Biofuel Feedstock

January 15, 2008   |   24 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
24 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 24
January 15, 2008
Forget corn husking, I'd be quite proud if my native state became known as the Nebraska Grass Burners instead....
Comment
2 of 24
January 16, 2008
<p>One could also say that, assuming this study is right<br />It's EROEI is 1/3rd less than SugarCane.</p><p>So the primary question is, where is all this supposed biomass going to come from?</p><p><a href="http://greyfalcon.net/perlack" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png<br />http://greyfalcon.net/perlack</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Magic?&nbsp;</p>
Comment
3 of 24
January 16, 2008
There is a more positive and recognisable &nbsp;proof that Mr. Mosmans premise and maybe the Second Law is incorrect. It takes very little energy for me to eat something and digest it; but when I fart, all hell breaks loose.
Comment
4 of 24
January 16, 2008
How many years away is production though? I've heard as many as 10; and how much cellulase enzyme is available. I wonder if this process won't be materials limited like thin-film technology? I guess I question this type of research, which is mostly on paper. And I wonder most about water!!! It takes thousands of gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol from corn. Where's all that extra water coming from? There are still lots of questions to be answered about biofuels, but anything would probably be better than ethanol from grains and biodiesel from soy beans.
Comment
5 of 24
January 16, 2008
I believe that the cellulosic refineries are using cellulase enzyme from fungi or bacteria as the first step before fermentation by yeast and this is&nbsp;a costly and time consuming process.&nbsp; Earlier, the Q microbe was shown to be a more compact process with improved efficiency and cost.&nbsp; Anyone know what has happened to this research? TIA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Wes
Comment
6 of 24
January 16, 2008
This study contradicts the U. of MN study(Tilman, et al) which said switch grass didn't cut it.
Also I don't think any of these studies made one gallon of ethanol.
Comment
7 of 24
January 16, 2008
<p>The Gov't likes to say switch grass can grow on poor soil, which is true. IF it can produce 540x the amount of energy that corn does, then we will we no longer be growing corn anywhere in the Great Plains. That will cause significant inflation in food prices world wide which will cause massive human starvation.</p><p>Using our food producing lands for the production of fuel has some very cruel consequences. How many dead people is gasoline independence worth? 5 million people? 20 million people? per year? What will the skin color of those people be?&nbsp;</p>
Comment
8 of 24
January 16, 2008
<font size="3"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt">Mr. Mosman &ndash;</span><span style="font-size: 11pt">The energy value not included in the input side of the equation is that obtained from photosynthesis.<span>&nbsp; </span>As all solar advocates readily point out, this energy is free.<span>&nbsp; </span>If you add this free energy to the input side of the equation, then you are correct; the first and second laws of thermodynamics hold true, as always.</span></font></font>
Comment
9 of 24
January 16, 2008
<p>EPM: While there is no ref to the original article, I assume this is an EROEI calculation, based on the FOSSIL inputs and equivalent energy outputs. In this case the 540% would merely show that with perennial switchgrass you actually capture a lot of solar energy, whereas with corn you are largely turning fossil fuel into slightly more fossil fuel replacement with little gain from the solar inputs.The difference is usually&nbsp; the reduction in fertiliser and other inputs with a perennial ( where a lot of the palnt is retained) rather than an annual ( where all the plant is discarded each year)</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So the Laws of Thermodynamics are safe!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>However I havent seen the original paper , nor who funded it ( which often affects the reported results) so they may be blowing smoke.&nbsp;</p>
Comment
10 of 24
January 16, 2008
Mr. Mosman's caveat regarding cellulosic energy production, that the laws of thermodynamics prevent a net energy gain, does not apply. The sun clearly is the main input source of the energy bounty via the photosynthetic process. All combustible fuel energy, even gasoline, ultimately comes from the sun.

The statistic in the article that switchgrass-derived ethanol burns 94% cleaner is as significant as the touted 540% energy gain.
Comment
11 of 24
January 16, 2008
<p>Mr. Mosman- </p><p>Your comment is not slated to be deleted. As part of upgrades to our site, users now have the option of deleting their own comments. Thanks for noticing and I hope that explains things.</p><p>Graham Jesmer<br />News Editor </p>
Comment
12 of 24
January 16, 2008
Who places the <a href="story;jsessionid=1491C94B2999EA9EE608E5D499D72239?id=51107" target="_blank">Delete this comment</a> on my postings and why?
Comment
13 of 24
January 16, 2008
For those who support the idea that there is a positive energy balance for ethanol from switchgrass or any other source perhaps one will sit down and calculate the energy balance in a non-hydrocarbon world using only ethanol as the energy source to produce ethanol, no hydrocarbon based natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, petrochemicals for rubber, plastics, fertilizer for the transportation of seeds, planting, growing, fertilizing, harvesting, transporting the raw material, corn for instance, the production, special storage/transportation, blending and losses due to solubility in water.
Comment
14 of 24
January 16, 2008
<p> The claim that witchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than needed to grow is in conflict with the two basic laws of thermodynamics which control all processes. <br /> <br /> First Law- Energy is neither created or destroyed, it changes from one form to another. <br /> <br /> Second Law- The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% <br /> </p><p>Have the researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) actually developed a perpetual motion process, one that creates the more energy that it takes to produce? If any process produces more energy than the process uses there would be no need for government subsidies of research, development and production, the private sector would fund all future developments.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
15 of 24
January 16, 2008
What about cannabis and its seeds as a fuel source, I heard it was a particularly energy rich source of fuel?What is the best plant to use in terms of overall efficiency ,particularly in regards to amount of water required in the cultivation stage?
Comment
16 of 24
January 17, 2008
First, I would like to thank Mr. Jesmer for clarifying 'delete this comment'. Secondly a quick check with several science and engineering organzations indicates that the Laws of Thermodynamics have not been repealed or discredited by any recent studies even if claims are made that energy is created. Thirdly, Senator Schumer, a staunch supporter of energy independence from imported oil and supporter of ethanol production, is now demanding the removal of the import tariff on foreign produced ethanol since the rapid increasing cost of corn is feeding(pun intended) the inflationary increases in the costs of, not only, corn based products, but also, meat, milk,etc. Senator Schumer , while demanding energy independence for imported petroleum products is pushing the US energy market into dependence on imported ethanol.&nbsp;
Comment
17 of 24
January 17, 2008
We hear much from those who vaunt or oppose the growing of different bio fuel plants such as switchgrass, corn, etc, but what also interests me is what happens to the waste products from these plants after they have been converted from A to B:&nbsp; I am sure that we have a double edged sword here if it could be exploited: Waste not, Want not.
Comment
18 of 24
January 17, 2008
In using the&nbsp;laws of thermodynamics to discount this, remember the sun&nbsp;is providing energy input and is ultimately the source of most forms of energy.
Comment
19 of 24
January 17, 2008
History shows we cannot support our voracious energy appetite by strictly agrarian means. This was proved during the late 1800's when most of the Northeast was clear cut of vegetation for food and energy.&nbsp; Re-forestation did not begin until oil came on the scene.&nbsp; Bioenergy can help offset a small percentage of petroleum but cannot replace it at this time, and the food vs. energy debate has ethical concerns.&nbsp; We need a breakthrough technology, akin to the invention of the transistor, that can effectively and safely harness other prime and virtually inexhaustable energy sources such as the sun, the earth's magma, and the atom.&nbsp;
Comment
20 of 24
January 17, 2008
<p>If countries shifted there food-producing land to fuel-producing ones i think great problems regarding food&nbsp;availability and quantity&nbsp;will occure thus millions of persons will suffer. Look nowadays for corn and&nbsp;its prices which may proceed rising in the&nbsp;next years as we will produce more and more ethanol, many countries especially at Africa will suffer since they depend on such crop. So the solutions i think either producing such crops for fuel in non-cultivated areas under high plant density or shifting to othre alternatives such as Algae or other crops that don't occupy large areas.</p>
Comment
21 of 24
January 18, 2008
<p>The only solution is drastic demand reduction.&nbsp; Only then can we consider alternatives to meet our much reduced demands.&nbsp; We have designed a very wasteful system that becomes more wasteful every day.&nbsp; We've become dependent on ever increasing use of many finite resources - land, water, oil, etc.&nbsp; Read the Meadows report to the club of rome on the limits of growth.</p><p>One more thing.&nbsp; The vast majority of grain and soy grown in the US goes to feed livestock.&nbsp; We could achieve great increases in food system efficiency if we switched to a mostly vegetarian diet, and especially if we all had backyard gardens.</p>
Comment
22 of 24
January 18, 2008
<p>The article estimates that 30% of current gasoline demand can be met with switchgrass.&nbsp; If we ignore the impacts of using that much land to grow switchgrass, and current technological lackings in refinement... By the time they get the system up and running, demand increase&nbsp;for gasoline will have exceeded that 30% - so it leaves us no better than where we were before, only we won't actually have the same amount of gasoline we do now, because global production will be in decline due to oil field depletion.</p>
Comment
23 of 24
January 19, 2008
<p>&nbsp;When the author's write that &quot;major cellulosic ethanol sources that could potentially displace 30 percent of current U.S. petroleum consumption,&quot; it is assumed that the reference is to gasoline, not the total of petroleum products , which is approximately 20,000,000 BBLs/DAY(42USG/BBL) Gasoline consumption in the US today is approximately 9,000,000 BBLs or 378,000,000 USG per DAY.&nbsp; The study reports the ethanol yield as 300USG per acre and a yield from six proposed plants of 130,000,000USG per YEAR,&nbsp; less than one-third of one day's consumption since ethanol has only two-thirds of the energy content of gasoline in BTUs/USG.&nbsp; </p>
Comment
24 of 24
January 23, 2008
Another consideration with the use of switchgrass for energy is soil sustainability.&nbsp; Since all that is been extracted from the switchgrass is C, H and O, it should be possible to return the nutrients (N, P etc) back to the land and with the enzyme system (as opposed to the pyrolysis system) in an organic form that would enhance the soil ecosystem.&nbsp; Likely this would be more expensive in the short term than simply using chemical fertilizers but in the long term would make this system completely sustainable.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Growth Energy groSolar RBI Solar Inc. US Solar Institute Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems Apricus, Inc. HelioSage
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters