From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Switch from corn to grass would raise ethanol output, cut emissions
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 (plus 82 percent) and grain for food (plus 4 percent), while reducing nitrogen leaching (minus 15 to 22 percent) and greenhouse gas emissions (minus 29 percent to 473 percent),” the researchers wrote in their report, published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
“Globally, agriculture contributes about 14 percent of the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming to the atmosphere,” said University of Illinois plant biology and Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) professor Evan DeLucia, who led the study with EBI feedstock analyst Sarah Davis. “The whole Midwest has been, since the advent of modern agriculture, a source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE:Experimental plots in Urbana, Illinois, include corn, switchgrass and miscanthus in side-by-side trials.Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
“According to our model, just by making this replacement you convert that whole area from a source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere to a sink for greenhouse gases from the atmosphere,” DeLucia said.
Miscanthus grows in thick stands up to 13 feet tall in test plots in Illinois. It does well on marginal land without being fertilized, so using it as a biofuel feedstock instead of corn would eliminate a major source of air and water pollution, Davis said. Nitrous oxide, a byproduct of the fertilizers used on cornfields, “is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide,” she said.
“Both switchgrass and miscanthus are perennial grasses, which means that you don’t have to till every year, you don’t have to plant every year, so there’s much less soil disturbance happening than with corn,” Davis said. “And because the root system remains in place year after year, there’s more carbon going into the soil.”
Several hurdles remain before the transition from corn to cellulosic ethanol production can occur on a commercial scale, the researchers said. Converting the sugars in corn to ethanol is easier than releasing the energy locked in plant stems and leaves.
Currently, one commercial-scale lignocellulose biorefinery is under construction in the U.S. – in Florida, the researchers said, and other facilities are in the planning stages. More research must be done to increase the efficiency of the process, the researchers said.
“We know that these grasses are enormously productive; we know the agronomy works; we know the ecology works,” DeLucia said. “So the next step is to break down the economic barriers by making an efficient conversion chain from lignocellulosics to ethanol.”
DeLucia said most scientists in the field expect this to be achieved within a decade.
DeLucia is an affiliate of the Institute for Genomic Biology at Illinois. The BP-funded Energy Biosciences Institute funded this study.
The paper, “Impact of Second-Generation Biofuel Agriculture on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Corn-Growing Regions of the U.S.,” is available online or from the U. of I. News Bureau.
================================================================
Oh gosh it’s funded by BIG OIL, quick ignore it!
Seems plausible. Corn can be grown without the industrial fertilizers and herbcides. Farms just need to be smaller, family run, and not planted right up to the drainage ditch. Smarter farming practices would be healthier for everyone. The health of the cropland should be the focus that is put in tune with the atmosphere.
Oh that’s just great. Here come the lobbyists to push for new subsidies … switch from corn to grass.
That’s all nice, but what are the ECONOMIC impacts? That is what farmers are going to look at. Oh, and there’s no economically viable conversion process, but we’re figuring to have one in 10 years or so. How long have they said that about solar?
Sounds logical, as long as the numbers stack up then sure, but if it means having to heavily “subsidise” the industry then there is no long term benefit.
Biofuel isn’t a stupid idea, however at the moment it just isn’t cost effective nor efficient, if research can find a way to make it effective and efficient then great, however till then can we just use the easy and rather cheap fossil stuff while it’s sitting there and let innovation lead the way as it has for the last 100 years.
People seem to forget that 100 years ago we humans couldn’t fly, couldn’t power our houses, couldn’t communicate easily, couldn’t transport product or people efficiently. In only 100 years we have accomplished so much, why do some tend to think that there won’t be any further innovation and therefore need to “stop” the modern world.
I for one can’t wait for the next Wright Brothers, Watt, Edison, Tesla, Bell etc.
“Several hurdles remain before the transition from corn to cellulosic ethanol production can occur on a commercial scale” and “More research must be done to increase the efficiency of the process, the researchers said”
This project looks more of a money sink than a carbon sink to me.
Good for them big oil instead of the tax tax payer is financing this venture but I will stick with plain gasoline since there are more disadvantages to ethanol even if it is blended with gasoline to E10 = 10% ethanol
http://www.fuel-testers.com/ethanol_fuel_disadvantages.html
Except that people have been trying to convert ligneous cellulose into something useful for nearly a hundred years. During all that time it has been and remains the holy grail for making almost endless supplies of fuel sometime in the future. But it is still something for the future.
I do not say it cannot be done, I only say that it has not been done yet with any success and there is no reason to suppose that it can be done cheaply enough to compete.
Kindest Regards
Sorry. Were there more words after “model”?
When you plug in the irrelevance of both CO2 and NO2 to climate, the nonsensicality of the whole exercise is painful to contemplate.
isn’t there a saying about gas, grass, or something else?
“So the next step is to break down the economic barriers by making an efficient conversion chain from lignocellulosics to ethanol.”
DeLucia said most scientists in the field expect this to be achieved within a decade.
Fine. 10 years to launch.
Another 10 years to build commercial facilities, including the crop.
Another 10 years to scale up to significant contribution.
Another 10 years to begin taking share advantage from existing oil and gas.
Meanwhile, could we build that pipeline from Alberta and drill a few oil wells on American lands?
Folks, I have two degrees from UI and presently lecture there (Agricultural & Biological Engineering). I’ve been watching the EBI goings-on for a while.
All the hoo-haa about cellulosic ethanol is just that. Breaking the covalent bonds that form the backbone of the cellulose molecule is notoriously difficult, even though termites have figured it out for millions of years. We can do it on very small batches, but the economics go all to hell in full-scale. Plus, the end-product is a low-energy-density fuel that is corrosive & cannot be transported via pipeline.
This type of news is telling: http://www.detnews.com/article/20110622/AUTO01/106220324/1148/auto01/EPA-cuts-ethanol-mandate-for-2012
To paraphrase Lincoln, Liars can model and models can lie. It’s gotten to the point that the word ‘model’ says to me WARNING! BS ahead!
Looks to me from searching micanthus on the Net that there are many varieties of it.
“DeLucia said most scientists in the field expect this to be achieved within a decade.”
According to the “progressive” website Campaign for America’s Future: “New drilling wouldn’t bring the first drop of oil to market for at least 10 years”
Let’s have a race.
“The study used a computer model of plant growth and soil chemistry”
Not with the computer models again! How about a proof of theory, like some real world experiments?
” switching 30 percent of the least productive corn acres”
They just do NOT want to let people have more corn to eat, do they? I thought they might be bright enough to suggest using marginal/noncrop land, but no, they still use corm acres. Oh well, it goes along with the fact that they do not mind raising the cost of food worldwide and probably really want to anyhow. Anything for the cause.
The problem has never been bio-fuel. THe problem has been mandated use of it, combined with subsidies for making it.
If farmers can make a buck growing grass for fuel, more power to them. Just as long as it is net economically positive in the same way drilling for oil is.
Ethanol from any source is still an incredibly poor choice as a vehicle fuel.
Not least because of its pernicious effects upon engines.
Australians found out the hard way that 20% ethanol blends dramatically shorten engine life. And then further found out, after reading the fine print, that vehicle manufacturers specifically disclaim any warranty liability when their engines have been run with previously unapproved fuel blends.
Why don’t these morons try a grass like sugar cane. That would eliminate 75% of the cost of production. We really are dealing with fools and politicians. Not that they are different. Except politicians are fools and liars.
No subsidies; neither visible or hidden (mandating ethanol mixed in fuels).
That being settled, ethanol, butanol and such products from biomass might be far better as a feedstock in creating other chemicals that are currently made from fossil fuels.
There are many advances being made like low-energy de-watering of ethanol and developing better methods of breaking the sugar from cellulose molecules and methods of using the other components of the plant. But there are lots of micro organisms that are quite happy to break down cellulose and provide us with ethanol or butanol. But this method may be overtaken by processes like pyrolysis which turn the biomass into syngas. There is a lot being done in the fields of chemistry, biology and engineering that could help make biomass harvested from marginal land or wasteland a contributor to industry. If, that is, government doesn’t decide to pick winners and punish other options through subsidies to their favorites.
[quote}
Globally, agriculture contributes about 14 percent of the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming to the atmosphere
[/quote]
That’s as may be but, it (agriculture) feeds 100% of the people (and a whole lot of animals and birds too) Obviously people are the problem…..
Its one of those statements that warmista like to throw around to make themselves look clever.
Another classic nonsense statements is the “UK has 40% of Europe’s available wind-power”
So what, fish can swim and birds can fly – it solves nothing.
To show how disconnected they and their computers are from The Real World ask them…..
What happens to the yield of Miscanthus or Switchgrass or Anything after 10/15/20 years of cropping without adding fertiliser of any sort?
Hint= Any ‘dustbowl’ predictions that other warmistas make/have made will come true but for all the wrong reasons.
Look at what the oil and gas industry has done to add real energy reserves and without any govt subsidies.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270893/fracas-about-fracking-kathleen-hartnett-white
All of the work is being done on private land where government approvals are not needed. The same can’t be said regarding public lands because of interference from the regulators, as the article points out.
Why not let the frackers produce more energy with no money needed from the government?
Seems I’ve been reading and hearing about a lack of money from the govt lately.
May I suggest people read about Poet’s Project Liberty. Poet, the largest producer of food ethanol in the USA, is now building a facility to produce commercial quantities of cellulose ethanol. The plant is due to go in to production in 2012. I suggest it would be a good idea to see whether this project is successful. Small quantities of cellulose ehtanol have been produced for years. However, doing it on a commercial scale has not yet been achieved. Range Fuels tried recently, and failed. I have no affiliation with Poet.
Eliminating the least-productive growing plots will increase the overall rate of yield? Who knew!
Seriously – was that really worth including in their findings?
The dawn of the sugar industry was a toss up of what to breed for higher sugar content, cane , beets or couch grass {bermuda grass} to American golfers. All of these started with a very low sugar content and were bred to increase it. Cane and beet won the race. But couch can be planted and harvested rotationaly and constantly removing 75% of the grass at each harvest with beneficial effects, tons per acre. Breeding couch or kikuyu up to 15% sugar would be a snap. Corn for fuel is a disgrace. Sugar to beverage or fuel is easy.
Let them eat grass.