Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Best Crop Yet for Biofuels? — In Field Trials, Miscanthus Beats Corn, Switchgrass for Ethanol …

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 10:40 AM
Original message
Best Crop Yet for Biofuels? — In Field Trials, Miscanthus Beats Corn, Switchgrass for Ethanol …
Edited on Fri Aug-08-08 10:52 AM by OKIsItJustMe
http://www.lancasterfarming.com/node/1403

Best Crop Yet for Biofuels?

Submitted by Editor on Fri, 08/08/2008 - 11:23am.

In Field Trials, Miscanthus Beats Corn, Switchgrass for Ethanol Production

URBANA, Ill. — In the largest field trial of its kind in the United States, researchers have determined that the giant perennial grass Miscanthus x giganteus outperforms current biofuels sources — by a lot. Using Miscanthus as a feedstock for ethanol production in the U.S. could significantly reduce the acreage dedicated to biofuels while meeting government biofuels production goals, the researchers report.

The new findings, from researchers at the University of Illinois, recently appeared in the journal Global Change Biology.

Using corn or switchgrass to produce enough ethanol to offset 20 percent of gasoline use — a current White House goal — would take 25 percent of current U.S. cropland out of food production, the researchers report. Getting the same amount of ethanol from Miscanthus would require only 9.3 percent of current agricultural acreage.

“What we’ve found with Miscanthus is that the amount of biomass generated each year would allow us to produce about 2 1/2 times the amount of ethanol we can produce per acre of corn,” said crop sciences professor Stephen P. Long, who led the study. Long is the deputy director of the BP-sponsored Energy Biosciences Institute, a multi-year, multi-institutional initiative aimed at finding low-carbon or carbon-neutral alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. Long is an affiliate of the University of Illinois Institute for Genomic Biology. He also is the editor of Global Change Biology.




http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0730miscanthus.html

Miscanthus can meet U.S. biofuels goal using less land than corn or switchgrass

7/30/08

Diana Yates, Life Sciences Editor
217-333-5802; [email protected]

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — In the largest field trial of its kind in the United States, researchers have determined that the giant perennial grass Miscanthus x giganteus outperforms current biofuels sources – by a lot. Using Miscanthus as a feedstock for ethanol production in the U.S. could significantly reduce the acreage dedicated to biofuels while meeting government biofuels production goals, the researchers report.

The new findings, from researchers at the University of Illinois, appear this month in the journal Global Change Biology.

Using corn or switchgrass to produce enough ethanol to offset 20 percent of gasoline use – a current White House goal – would take 25 percent of current U.S. cropland out of food production, the researchers report. Getting the same amount of ethanol from Miscanthus would require only 9.3 percent of current agricultural acreage. (View a narrated http://www.publicaffairs.illinois.edu/slideshows/Miscanthus_Yield/index.html">slideshow about Miscanthus research.)

“What we’ve found with Miscanthus is that the amount of biomass generated each year would allow us to produce about 2 1/2 times the amount of ethanol we can produce per acre of corn,” said http://www.cropsci.uiuc.edu/">crop sciences professor Stephen P. Long, who led the study. Long is the deputy director of the BP-sponsored Energy Biosciences Institute, a multi-year, multi-institutional initiative aimed at finding low-carbon or carbon-neutral alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. Long is an affiliate of the U. of I.’s http://www.igb.uiuc.edu/">Institute for Genomic Biology. He also is the editor of Global Change Biology.




Study is here:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120119109/abstract

Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus

EMILY A. HEATON * , FRANK G. DOHLEMAN† and STEPHEN P. LONG *†‡
* Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1201 W. Gregory Drive, 379 Madigan Lab., Urbana, IL 61801, USA, †Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, 1201 W. Gregory Drive, 379 Madigan Lab., Urbana, IL 61801, USA, ‡Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois, 1206 W. Gregory Drive, Room 126 IGB., Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Correspondence: Stephen P. Long, Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois, 1206 W. Gregory Drive, Room 126 IGB., Urbana, IL 61801, USA, tel. +1 217 333 2487, fax +1 217 244 7563, e-mail: [email protected]
Copyright Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing
KEYWORDS
biomass • ethanol • feedstock • perennial • petroleum • production • switchgrass • yield
ABSTRACT

Biofuels from crops are emerging as a Jekyll & Hyde – promoted by some as a means to offset fossil fuel emissions, denigrated by others as lacking sustainability and taking land from food crops. It is frequently asserted that plants convert only 0.1% of solar energy into biomass, therefore requiring unacceptable amounts of land for production of fuel feedstocks. The C4 perennial grass Miscanthus×giganteus has proved a promising biomass crop in Europe, while switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) has been tested at several locations in N. America. Here, replicated side-by-side trials of these two crops were established for the first time along a latitudinal gradient in Illinois. Over 3 years of trials, Miscanthus×giganteus achieved average annual conversion efficiencies into harvestable biomass of 1.0% (30 t ha−1) and a maximum of 2.0% (61 t ha−1), with minimal agricultural inputs. The regionally adapted switchgrass variety Cave-in-Rock achieved somewhat lower yields, averaging 10 t ha−1. Given that there has been little attempt to improve the agronomy and genetics of these grasses compared with the major grain crops, these efficiencies are the minimum of what may be achieved. At this 1.0% efficiency, 12 million hectares, or 9.3% of current US cropland, would be sufficient to provide 133 × 109 L of ethanol, enough to offset one-fifth of the current US gasoline use. In contrast, maize grain from the same area of land would only provide 49 × 109 L, while requiring much higher nitrogen and fossil energy inputs in its cultivation.

Received 28 December 2007 and accepted 3 March 2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
moonlady0623 Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. What about HEMP?
I suppose it was completely ignored in these studies. What a shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Read the information; Miscanthus may be better
Edited on Fri Aug-08-08 10:53 AM by OKIsItJustMe
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0730miscanthus.html


“One reason why Miscanthus yields more biomass than corn is that it produces green leaves about six weeks earlier in the growing season,” Long said. Miscanthus also stays green until late October in Illinois, while corn leaves wither at the end of August, he said.



Field trials also showed that Miscanthus is tolerant of poor soil quality, Long said.

“Our highest productivity is actually occurring in the south, on the poorest soils in the state,” he said. “So that also shows us that this type of crop may be very good for marginal land or land that is not even being used for crop production.”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. vertical algae bioreactors
you attach them to smokestacks, they recap 100 percent of carbon dioxide to make 67% carbon dioxide (by weight) algae-derived biodiesel. One acre of vertical reactor produces between 33,000 and 180,000 gallons of fuel per year, depending on the algae monoculture. It's a realistic way of making the carbon credit system work, and it's self sustaining and optimally suited for non-arable land, such as desert or other arid place we shouldn't have houses or farms.

It's a C02 neutral fuel because it takes CO2 to grow the algae, it costs one fifth the converted cost-per-barrel of oil, comes fully processed in continuous production cycle that doesn't require reseeding, replanting, or harvest, AND YET, it is universally ignored.

:shrug: why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Do You Have More Information on This?
First I've heard of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. right here
http://www.google.com/search?q=vertical+algae+reactor&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

It really is amazing that it's not getting more coverage

I'm placing my bets on Valcent corporation in El Paso.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I haven't ignored them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectricGrid Donating Member (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. it wouldn't be neutral as you are still releasing the
CO2 from whatever smoke stack you are getting it from unless that stack's fuel is also nuetral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. actually - your are using the CO2 from that smoke stack
The point of carbon-neutral is you're not taking sequestered carbon out of multi-million year old fossil fuel and adding it back to the atmosphere; you are using carbon dioxide to make the fuel that you burn that releases carbon dioxide.

It's neutral because it's not puttig MORE CO2 in.

It can also be a form of sequestration if some reactors are used to produce raw protein for feed, instead of fuel. Algae :loveya: CO2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedLetterRev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. That sent my partner and me off on a flurry of research
Not only is miscanthus useful, it's also rather beautiful, often used as an ornamental. It's also rather voracious at carbon sequestration, another benefit of planting the stuff. Dave's Garden warns that it may be invasive, but then counters that it propagates best by dividing the rootballs. Huh. The seeds are rather readily available, if a bit expensive. It may spread, but it does seem to do so rather slowly. It is hardy from Zones 5 through 9. That means an huge amount of the US is eligible as growing areas; even places where corn and switchgrass may do poorly.

I've got a goodly little piece of land I'd love to put to use; both beauty and carbon sequestration are of interest to me, as well as the idea of producing my own fuel. (One can obtain a permit fairly easily to do so.) The showstopper for me is processing the biomass into fuel. There's where things go pearshaped at the consumer level.

Somebody please help me out, because I keep running into dead ends (and since I'm at work, I haven't had time to knock holes in some seeming brick walls). It appears that a lot of the chemistry is still a bit complicated and many of the yeasts currently available are GE and proprietary, only available for lease. That still leaves production of fuel in the hands of megacorporations and the very rich. To my mind, that isn't achieving the goal (immediately, anyway) of energy independence. I've been a thorn in the butt of my Reps both at state and Fed level about the loans and grants for solar and wind, which currently only available to municipalities and small businesses. I think together we can lick that problem, if we're organized and motivated enough. To wit:

While I think that miscanthus as a biomass for ethanol production is a significant find, until we wrest control of processing and production from the hands of megabusiness and bring it down to consumer level, true energy independence will still be a pipe dream. I greatly appreciate the OP for bringing miscanthus to my attention and I intend to keep researching. I hope my fellow DUers will join me in being a thorn in their own reps' butts in insisting that regular, walkin'-around people be allowed to participate in energy production and break the monopolies' strangleholds on our infrastructure.

I'm still going to grow some anyway :) It could happen that further research will open a simpler mass-to-fuel process. At the very worst, miscanthus is quite beautiful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. "Using Miscanthus in an agricultural setting has not been without its challenges …"
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/08/0730miscanthus.html


Using Miscanthus in an agricultural setting has not been without its challenges, Long said. Because it is a sterile hybrid, it must be propagated by planting underground stems, called rhizomes. This was initially a laborious process, Long said, but mechanization allows the team to plant about 15 acres a day. In Europe, where Miscanthus has been grown for more than a decade, patented farm equipment can plant about 50 acres of Miscanthus rhizomes a day, he said.

Once established, Miscanthus returns annually without need for replanting. If harvested in December or January, after nutrients have returned to the soil, it requires little fertilizer.

This sterile form of Miscanthus has not been found to be invasive in Europe or the U.S., Long said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Now... combine this research
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedLetterRev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. You're a gem
Thanks for the links. I've googly-bookmarked so I can pick them back up at home tonight.

Now remember: go easy on the organic chem. Little words work best :) I barely made it through high-school chem -- I'm an excellent farmer, a highly-experienced software engineer, and a moderately-talented creative writer/wedding officant -- but a rather poor chemist. But I'm not at all afraid of doing the homework. I did also find another article in Wired that gave some background, but zero specifics. Wiki wasn't quite helpful, either.

Now, my partner and I have been following research done in NC on several species of algae which seem promising, but there seems to be a paucity of publication just yet. At least, any I can get to in my "copious" spare time. (I'm siccing him on most of the research, poor dude. I'm mostly breadwinning and doing the sweat-labor of bringing the farm up.)

I glanced at the material at the links you provided above and didn't quite go glassy-eyed. I'm hoping that proprietary yeasts or complicated catalysis/partial combustion rigs won't be necessary. I'm going to have to fabricate what I'll need from scratch. (Of course, I'm not expecting to do so overnight.) Being a farmer entails being a bit of an engineer at times. If (big "if") I get that all figured out, permitting at the present time isn't that big of a deal. I'm growing a huge amount of fruit crops and had already investigated using the sugary waste as possible fuel-producing mass (that which wasn't already destined for recycling as compost). The rules are rather fuzzy on that, so I'm having to walk this whole project slowly as a years-long endeavor, if anything comes of it at all.

It's certainly worth serious research now. YNK what can save your ass later.

But I will take advantage of your gracious reply tonight when I get home from doing this evening's wedding. Much appreciated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. IF you want ethanol right away go with plants that produce starch or sugar and get the Micro-fueler
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/technology/27proto.html

The MicroFueler will use sugar as its main fuel source, or feedstock, along with a specially packaged time-release yeast the company has developed. Depending on the cost of sugar, plus water and electricity, the company says it could cost as little as a dollar a gallon to make ethanol. In fact, Mr. Quinn sometimes collects left-over alcohol from bars and restaurants in Los Gatos, Calif., where he lives, and turns it into ethanol; the only cost is for the electricity used in processing.

In general, he says, burning a gallon of ethanol made by his system will produce one-eighth the carbon of the same amount of gasoline.

“It’s going to cause havoc in the market and cause great financial stress in the oil industry,” Mr. Quinn boasts.

~~
~~

Mr. Quinn says that as of January this year, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, he can buy inedible sugar from Mexico for as little as 2.5 cents a pound, which puts the math in his favor. While this type of sugar has not been sold to consumers, E-Fuel says it is developing a distribution network for it.

(more)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedLetterRev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Beautiful piece of equipment
but *ouch* SO not in the budget. I'm working two jobs and still barely getting two ends to meet. Most months, that is. Since I do produce about all my outdoor-use electricity (albeit minimal), it would be possible to come in under the $1/gallon mark. "Possible" that is. I remain hopeful. A lot of folks who're a lot more gifted at organic chem than I ever will be are working on cracking that tough-nut, long molecule.

Even with this lovely-looking technology, we're still talking about proprietary/GE yeasts, though. But it is promising and should be pursued. I'm hopeful that it can be brought down to the consumer level and in the short term (within 5-10 years). I'm still more convinced that solar and wind at the individual/consumer level does and will have a better ROI for running the household, but at the end of the day, I'll still be stuck with implements that will have to run on some kind of fuel. I'm not giving up on biofuel production at the consumer level just yet. Part of the equation, regardless, must be to pressure our state and federal congresscritters to break the stranglehold of megabusiness on energy production and to give incentives to individuals to contribute to energy production. (I know, rotsaruck, but unless we bitch, they'll never move.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-08-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
12. This is the stuff Vinod Khosla has been talking about for cellulosic ethanol. Grows like hell!

this guy has a process for converting cellulose to ethanol (for $1.00/gal) and he plans to have a commercial plant (100 mgal) in place in 2010:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x166345
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC