Looking Beyond Corn and Sugarcane For Cost-Effective Biofuels 242
carmendrahl writes "The abundance of shale gas in the U.S. is expected to lower the cost of petrochemicals for fuel and other applications, making it harder for plant-based, renewable feedstocks to compete in terms of price. In the search for cost-competitive crops, companies are testing plants other than traditional biofuel sources such as corn and sugarcane. In this video, you can see how a company is test-growing a relative of sugarcane, which is expected to yield 5 times the ethanol per acre compared to corn."
Sugar Beet (Score:0, Informative)
Corn and sugarcane got nothing on the sugar beet.
Video link in summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nature's solar panel (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it isn't that terrible on cloudy/rainy days. We have a solar panel installed on our house in the pacific northwest of the US, which is 100% cloud/rain in the winter months. Energy generated is 100-300 kWh per month in the winter, 500-700 kWh per month in the sunny summers. Obviously nothing in the nights. Excess production in the summer pays for the shortfall in the winter (paid by utility company), so it works out.
immediately if cost was not a factor (Score:5, Informative)
However when you include the costs of the entire system- the startup capital, intermediate fuel type and distribution- the current cost-efficiency of both become more comparable.
Re:Sugar Beet (Score:5, Informative)
Corn and sugarcane got nothing on the sugar beet.
Acre for acre, sugar beets get more subsidies [cato.org] than corn, if you include the protective tariffs on sugar imports. There is no way that beets can compete with cane in a free market.
Re:Do these take up areas that food crops grow? (Score:3, Informative)
My question: Is ground for growing food crops affected by this? If farmers all grow switchgrass/hemp/$whatever and make more money selling that for fuel, then it will spike food prices, which can cause major problems down the line (people can put up with a lot of injustice, but if they are starving, all bets are off.)
Ethically, I can't support a fuel that takes food out of people's mouths, even though ethanol has a number of decent advantages.
Excellent question, this is already subject to debate [wikipedia.org].
There are three major areas of concern here, food vs. fuel, CO2 emissions/footprint and the ecological cost of production.
In my opinion CO2 emissions [wikipedia.org] is the elephant in the room for biofuels. Extensive production and consumption of biofuels may ween us off fossil fuels but it does nothing to address just how stupid it is for us to be modifying the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
Note that the process of biofuel production does not exist in a vacuum, like any other agricultural activity it has a direct ecological impact furthermore the vast majority of current agricultural practice involves burning fuels (tractors and other farm equipment) and the use of inorganic commercial fertilizer which also has a wide variety of impacts such as the seepage of phosphates in runoff leading to downstream agae blooms. [wikipedia.org]
IMHO, the development of biofuels is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. While other alternative power sources are less efficient, more costly or less power dense the vast majority of systems that are currently in production, (wind, water, solar) are both profitable and significantly better for the environment.
Re:Video link in summary (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sugar Beet (Score:4, Informative)
I think beets get a bad name due to everyone using canned beets. I haven't prepared fresh beets myself, but I've had beet coleslaw made from fresh beets that was fantastic. Julienned beets, red cabbage, shallots, oil & vinegar, IIRC. Really pretty too.
Re:Do these take up areas that food crops grow? (Score:4, Informative)