Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Switch from corn to grass would raise ethanol output, cut emissions

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 Tue Jul-12-11 05:57 PM
Original message
Switch from corn to grass would raise ethanol output, cut emissions
http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/0712switch_EvanDeLucia.html

Switch from corn to grass would raise ethanol output, cut emissions

7/12/2011 | Diana Yates, Life Sciences Editor | 217-333-5802; [email protected]

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. – Growing perennial grasses on the least productive farmland now used for corn ethanol production in the U.S. would result in higher overall corn yields, more ethanol output per acre and better groundwater quality, researchers report in a new study. The switch would also slash emissions of two potent greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.

The study used a computer model of plant growth and soil chemistry to compare the ecological effects of growing corn (Zea mays L.); miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus), a sterile hybrid grass used in bioenergy production in Western Europe; and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), which is native to the U.S.

The analysis found that switching 30 percent of the least productive corn acres to miscanthus offered the most ecological advantages.

“If cellulosic feedstocks (such as miscanthus) were planted on cropland that is currently used for ethanol production in the U.S., we could achieve more ethanol (82 percent more) and grain for food (4 percent more), while reducing nitrogen leaching (by 15 to 22 percent) and greenhouse gas emissions (by 29 percent to 473 percent),” the researchers wrote in their report, published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. thanx for posting
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You’re welcome! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. the corn lobby will spend any amount necessary to buy votes in opposition. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Long Shadow Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Ethanol subsidies are one of the many examples of how well intended program
is transformed into a gravy train full of passengers who refuse to disembark.

Besides that, the stuff costs consumes more energy to produce than it generates. And to add injury to insult, it causes damage to combustible engines.

So, switching to grass is a great idea. Just don't subsidize it or force me to put it in my car.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. well intended? Jeb Bush was the head of the ethanol "society" when his brother created the
subsidies. It was intended to go right onto Bush family deposit slips. Maybe they didn't tell us that, but that is how and why the subsidy was created.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laser_red Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-11 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. ethanol subsidies began in 1978 Jeb Bush? really? .nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Fledermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. The criteria for Federal biomass funds sould be based on increases in soil carbon.
If a biomass process can produce fuel while increasing soil carbon, then it should recive Federal help.

Insisting on one feed stock, like corn, is silly.
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, 11:19 PM
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