I do not agree with both research papers.What plants were studied? I am surprised at Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India contention.that Miscanthus is good.No Dr. Miscanthus once harvested loose the ability to provide a cover for the soil - canopy lost like.India has many plants, being tropical, that are suitable as material for biofuels stock with all the positive factors you mention with the addition that the canopy will not be destroyed at harvest.- Try Banana for instance
Also Dr, when canopied plants with long life cycles are grown they help to preserve the soil fertility, water holding capacity. Grow Banana at close spacing
I invite all to visit a sugar cane plantation that was called Kantale Sugar Industries in Sri Lanka.In that ex-plantation there is enough wind and Insolation.Both are potential sources of power. What it lacks is water and the ability for living matter to survive.All these are short term measures.The solution lies in perennial canopied plants, no where else
I invite you to read www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/tx-wind-farm.html.
Here NASA reports that wind farms cause the area to become warmer
Sorry I missed it. The reports was on Texas!!!!!!
Brazil China and India are all tropical countries.All of them have the four plants as feed stock that had been identified as a joint solution to substitute for fossil based fuels.They should lead. Unfortunately the US has the climate suitable but seem to playibg a loners game.
1)I agree cellulosic ethanol is not the solution.They in turn creates other problems, how ever much the defenders of cellulosic ethanol defends it. The solution lies in canopied plants producing first generation ethanol - ie based on starch.These plants solve almost all problems
2)Use of large amounts of diesel, furnace oil ( Bunker C) to distill ethanol is ancient and crude technology.There are more sophisticated technologies available which cuts across the use of fossil fuels in ethanol distillation, (i) reducing their requirement to less than 50% of the present usage and (ii) make the investment in refineries much cheaper and (iii)the existing refineries can up grade their output at much lower cost.Whether the subsidies persist or not the refiner can up his profit margin by figures beyond his expectation.The lead time to implement the modifications is less than 3 weeks.
coenraad-pretorius-176946" Ethanol is as terrible fuel: it absorbs moisture out of air, which not only causes corrossion, but could lead to separation. It is also a terrible ingredient for gasoline, increasing the vapor pressure, which leads to more emissions and evaporative loss. To top it off, the transportation of ethanol by truck (since it can't go in existing pipelines) can result in some rather spectaculor fires."
I do not agree with you.What you say is true when considering dehydrated ethanol (Near 99% pure), not hydrated ethanol(near 95% pure)Hydrated ethanol is the product off a rectified spirits distillery, it does not absorb moisture out of the air. I know of distilleries that use PVC based pipe lines to transfer hydrous ethanol( now do not start picking on whether use of PVC is hygienic).Ethanol over 60% catches fire - That is how the British Proof was described in the olden days. Gasoline is no exception to this rule it too catches fire. That is why you are told not to have a lighted cigarette or light a match stick or a cigarette lighter at the gasoline station.
Hydrous ethanol is used in Brazil and was used during WWII.Number of research papers had been published in the US itself on the use of hydrous ethanol as a fuel and the way to overcome the deficiencies, especially in the start up and acceleration.Then there is the question of usage, with gasoline having nearly 25% more energy. This shortcoming can be easily overcome.After all gasoline itself is not a virgin product.
The use of dehydrated ethanol as a fuel had been created by one or more groups with vested interests.
coenraad-pretorius-176946 "Producing ethanol by fermantation is a joke (slow, low yields and a dilute product requiring much fuel for distillation). Doing so using food as a feedstock is, as the UN rightly stated, a crime against humanity"
I agree that food based feed stock should not be used to produce fuel. The use of food based feed stock is something that arose due to the past experience, experience dating back to Pliny the Elder, who died during the eruption in Pompeii.
Corn sugar cane wheat rice switch grass, miscanthus giant grass etc etc are not the solution to the source of feed stock for fuel ethanol. They create more problems than the problem they attempt to solve.Canopied plants with high yields of starch is the solution. There are many such plants Fortunately They thrive in the tropics where labour is very cheap, making the end product comparatively cheaper.Is not the South US in the tropics.These plants can be grown there.Even if they are grown and distilled in Africa one should not grumble after all crude is transported across half the world in addition countries maintain navies to protect the supply routes.
Solutions had been found for slow fermentation with low yields.Slow fermentation and low yields are a matter of history.These technologies are well known.
The high usage of fuel for distillation itself can be overcome.The existing distillation technology is old and archaic.The problem is that usage of technology cannot be negatively selective.
Anumakonda (Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India. Again I disagree.Neither Agave nor the members of the graminea family is the solution. They cause environmental problems and aggravate what is there.
Please see above- canopied plants with starch is the solution. The canopies protect the soil, absorb CO2 and help to retain water.The technology of starch fermentation was known from the time of Pliny the elder.
One has to innovate ways and means of harvesting and keeping the canopies low, closer to the ground.
david-larson-57667: Hooray you have said it.short and sweet.
rolf-westgard-67277 : No body can convince you otherwise.When eventually the fossil fuels dry up or become expensive what is the alternative left, hybrids,flexi fuels all of which require fossil fuels, solar panels. None of them are going to be affordable to the average motorist in the next 75 - 100 years.
Levitation is out, if the technology was known as reported, it is lost by now.
What are the left over alternatives, bicycles, horse carts and bullock carts.