Report questions cellulosic ethanol merits

[4dsc]

A study making its way around the Agriculture Department raises doubts about the prospects for biofuels made from crop residue and other types of plant cellulose and calls for shifting the focus of government research funding.

A USDA advisory committee report suggested putting more money into algae and oil crops, which are alternatives to making ethanol from corn stalks or grasses.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101114/BUSINESS01/11140325/1001/NEWS/Report-questions-cellulosic-ethanol-merits

[truedelphi]

1. Sugar beet crops are about thirty to sixty percent more bountiful

in terms of Bio Fuel conversion.

And the Jerusalem Artichoke, which is a very hardy plant and needs little irrigation, is another way to get some nifty bio fuel conversion. it gets close to one hundred percent more bio fuel matter than our corn conversion does.

BTW, the nation of Brazil, which uses the WASTE of left over leaves (and what not) from their sugar cane, has also gotten really good at bio fuel conversion.

We have had the Corn Industry stand between us and a really good solution in terms of bio fuels from plant matter. So we do this really stupid thing of using the FOOD part of the corn to become bio fuels. How unenlightened is that?

[Confusious]

3. No food that is edible by humans should be used for biofuels.

Algae, leaves, etc. should be used as biofuels.

I don't think people should starve just so we can run our damn cars.

[DCKit]

4. While I agree, in principal, there's a lot of farmland idle - and subsidized by USDA.

There's a balance we need to meet, and none of the crops we might plant should be subsidized, either. The corn subsidies (as well as their entirely too powerful lobby) need to end. That said, sugar beets and Jerusalem artichoke (if they can be grown without NG and oil inputs or massive doses of herbicides) are both contenders.

The idea of "agricultural waste" is also an issue for anyone who understands soil health. Nearly all of the things listed as "waste" should (and could) be returned to the soil to improve its health. It is my experience that chemical fertilizers burn out the soil and leaves only sand and dust behind.

I gardened organically this past summer (for the first time, and my first garden in over 20 years) with composted manure, peat and charcoal mixed into the existing dirt, and I had incredible success... with zero chemical input. My only fights were with the weather, bugs, rabbits, groundhogs and our own animals.

There really is no such thing as "agricultural waste" in responsible farming, so I'm really torn about this issue. However, until we can pull carbon directly out of the air and combine it directly with hydrogen from water to create fuel, what are our options?

[truedelphi]

5. Welcome to the wonderful world of organics.

Our organic quarter acre would be quite well off, if not for the fact that the neighbor sprays continually some type of insect killing chemicals, early in the morning when the wind blows it our direction.

On days when he is out of town, we don't have any insects. When he is around, we have to use the hose to move the insects from our plot onward to the Open Space.

As far as Agricultural waste, like you suggest, there really shouldn't be any. The same gentleman who has a show on our local PBS station and talks about Bio Fuel Conversion and which crops are best in terms of doing that, he discusses how you can use the left over plants from your corn, sugar beet and Jerusalem artichoke plant to be both fertilizer and also pesticide.

his entire incentive seems to be to encourage farmers to get out of the commercial end of using pesticides and fertilizers from the Big Oil/Big Pesticide Commercial end of things, and use alternatives, and thus increase the profits! And of course, to have the farmers sell their bio fuel.

Sadly, since our government, on every level, has been hijacked by the Forces of the Big Money People, these types of actions are actively discouraged by the Big Money conglomerates. one of the most difficult tasks in life is to get approval from the State of California for any type of bio fuel car you create yourself. The Big Oil industry makes sure you run the gauntlet before you can get it smogged, etc.

[Confusious]

10. They've been using "chemical" fertilizers for 100+ years

Which aren't really chemicals at all, just made made recreations of the same chemical that causes land to be fertile in the first place.

If there are people who don't have enough to eat, we shouldn't be using it to run our cars.

Organic farming was the rage 150 years ago. The result? Europe was almost to the point of famine because they couldn't produce enough. Luckily, man made fertilizers came around just at that time.

It's basically the same thing that a compost heap makes, without the woo or judgment.

[NickB79]

11. Synthetic fertilizers are "basically" the same as what a compost pile makes?

Having grown up on a small family farm, all I can say is :rofl:

That's like saying a bottle of vitamins is the same as a 7-course meal.

Just google "humus" to see one of the things that farm soils fed a steady diet of synthetic fertilizers lack.

[Confusious]

12. I did say "basically" didn't I?

Should I post a definition of "basically?"

[NickB79]

13. The point I was making is that there's a lot more to compost than the active chemical compounds

That you find in synthetic fertilizers. That's why I told you to read up on humus.

Have you read up on humus, or other soil-enhancing properties of compost and green manures that are lacking in synthetic fertilizers?

[Confusious]

14. yes I did

I did read that it does make the ground healthier, which is a good thing. (actually I read more on compost)

It's great for a small garden, or a small producer, but if we are going to have enough food for a billion people, it unfortunately can't be the only thing we rely on.

[Fledermaus]

7. eight "design principles" of sustainable local common pool resource management

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x264599

Local biomass can be considered a common pool resource

Ostrom identifies eight "design principles" of stable local common pool resource management:
Elinor Ostrom (née Awan, born August 7, 1933) is an American political scientist. She was awarded the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson, for "her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons".

Ostrom identifies eight "design principles" of stable local common pool resource management

1 Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties);

2 Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources are adapted to local conditions;

3 Collective-choice arrangements allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;

4 Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;

5 There is a scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;

6 Mechanisms of conflict resolution are cheap and of easy access;

7 The self-determination of the community is recognized by higher-level authorities;

8 In the case of larger common-pool resources: organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByXM47Ri1Kc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy0yTlhKuTo&feature=rela...

[kristopher]

2. This was in Science last year - it is what they are recomending

Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol
J. E. Campbell,1,2* D. B. Lobell,3 C. B. Field4

The quantity of land available to grow biofuel crops without affecting food prices or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land conversion is limited. Therefore, bioenergy should maximize land-use efficiency when addressing transportation and climate change goals. Biomass could power either internal combustion or electric vehicles, but the relative land-use efficiency of these two energy pathways is not well quantified. Here, we show that bioelectricity outperforms ethanol across a range of feedstocks, conversion technologies, and vehicle classes. Bioelectricity produces an average of 81% more transportation kilometers and 108% more emissions offsets per unit area of cropland than does cellulosic ethanol. These results suggest that alternative bioenergy pathways have large differences in how efficiently they use the available land to achieve transportation and climate goals.

DOI: 10.1126/science.1168885 , 1055 (2009); 324Science
et al.J. E. Campbell,from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol
Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets

from last year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x196734

[ishaneferguson]

6. Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[kristopher]

9. How does that apply? nt

[joshcryer]

8. I hope we can not use vegetable oils, specficially palm oil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_palm_oil