Study: Prairie Grass Produces Ethanol

Using Moderate Amounts Of Fertilizer, An Acre Of Grass Makes Roughly 300 Gallons Of Ethanol

(AP)  New research shows that prairie grasses grown using only moderate amounts of fertilizer on marginal land can produce significant amounts of ethanol.

The five-year study of switch grass done by the University of Nebraska and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service was published this week by the National Academy of Sciences.

Researcher Ken Vogel said he estimates that an acre of switch grass would produce an average of 300 gallons of ethanol based on the study of grass grown on marginal land on farms in Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota.

An acre of corn grown in those same states produces about 350 gallons of ethanol on average.

The latest study adds to the evidence supporting the development of cellulosic ethanol, Renewable Fuels Association spokesman Matt Hartwig said.

"It underscores that cellulosic ethanol production is not only feasible, it is essential," said Hartwig, whose group represents ethanol producers.

Nebraska Ethanol Board Projects Manager Steve Sorum said the industry is excited about the prospects for cellulosic ethanol because the feedstocks for it, such as switch grass, are cheaper to grow. Also, some of the byproducts created in the process can be burned to generate electricity.

The key will be developing an economic way to break down the cell walls of cellulose-based fuel sources, Sorum said.

Both cellulosic and grain-based ethanol will likely be used to meet the new federal standard for biofuel use. The energy bill Congress passed last month requires a massive increase in the production of ethanol to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.

The energy bill will emphasize cellulosic ethanol, made from feedstocks such as switch grass and wood chips, after 2015, when about two-thirds of the nation's ethanol is supposed to come from such non-corn sources.

Hartwig said there is general agreement that 15 billion gallons a year is about the most ethanol that can be produced from grain with current technology without hurting grain markets. That makes it important to develop other sources for the renewable fuel, he said.

Vogel said comparing the amount of ethanol produced by corn with the amount that could be produced by switch grass is a bit unfair because the method of converting switch grass to fuel is still being perfected.

Last year, the Department of Energy announced plans to invest $385 million in six ethanol refineries across the country to jump-start ethanol production from cellulose-based sources - a process that has not yet proven commercially viable.

But Vogel and the other researchers did develop an estimate of how much energy switch grass would produce based on current conversion rates. Switch grass produces more than five times as much energy as the amount consumed by growing the crop and converting it to ethanol, according to the report.

Vogel, a U.S. Department of Agriculture geneticist and University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor, said the switch grass research is the most extensive to date.

[oladywho]

Too bad someone hasn''t figured out a way to make fuel out of goatheads (also known as puncture vine). This plant grows in the desert conditions and is practically indestructible.

[displeased]

Why not walk to the store? Pedal to work? You would if you were as "green" as you claim to be.
Posted by MityWhity

People can only be as "green" as they''re capable. Not everybody has the conveniences of walking or biking to work. Putting cities aside, things are too spread out in the U.S., and there is no infrastructure for alternative sources, yet. As far as living green, methods are still too expensive. People won''t install $10K solar panels when they can barely make their house payments, etc...

And finally, American people just don''t like to be inconvenienced, which they will endure when they have to change their lifestyle to be green.

[sjw1253]

cyberus - your questions about the costs involved with corn vs. grass is included in the article... (the individual numbers are not as the article would be too long to read - the article is a simple summary of at least one investigative article - which could be from 10 to hundreds of pages long...)

Of course 300 vs 350/acre does not seem significant - but to a critical thinker - when you are discussing the difference as you clearly understand that thousands of acres are required to make this a viable venture...

50/acre difference x 1,000 = 50,000 (a bit more significant...)

The fact is that the processing/delivery/etc costs involved outweigh the lower # of gallons/acre.

When commenting on these articles we need to remember that all of the numbers are not realistic to include in these "reports" which are one person''s summation of a study.

aamof (as a matter of fact) - the link to the online before print publication of the article is included in the second paragraph - National Academy of Sciences - short cut - http://tinyurl.com/2ar4ss if you want to view the entire report.

You will need to download the .pdf form but should supply all of the required statistical information.

Any article of this type should include its source - which the writer for this article does include.

[sjw1253]

Hey Mitywhitey - re: your comment "Why not walk to the store? Pedal to work? ..." -

I don''t know who you addressed this to but it''s idiotic for you to assume that someone who claims to be "green" (I have not read any replies stating any claims to be "green") -

I physically can''t walk/bike but do work from home as a telecommuter - so - think before you as$-u-me...

I think most of you are too young to remember when we did have ethanol based fuel at our gas pumps - which was easily incorporated into any gas station...

I wonder if hydrogen could be incorporated the same way but do not have enough knowledge re hydrogen.

I know that many different alternatives are being explored - and when ideas are proven viable will become more popular and have potential to help with this one small spectrum of improving our environment...

For the record - I try to be green and am not close to be as green as Ed Begley et al from HGTV - but would love to - if I had the same financial and network of resources - I''d love to be more green.

Since 1986 when I bought my first house I have had an interest in wind energy and of course solar to help me not have to pay electric bills (and the great benefits of having them pay you if you use less than you generate)...

I never give up on that becoming my reality in the future but with my current financial and medical condition don''t allow me to pursue these for now.

[mitywhity]

I also don''''t think that using corn for fuel is taking corn out of anyone''''s mouth. I think we have plenty of corn crops but also have to consider the issues with...........Uninformed - The price of meat, dairy and eggs is already rising so we can try to be like Brasil. I have YET to even see ethanol where I live, so what''s the point? Why not stop the ethanol madness and pursue hydrogen?

[mitywhity]

Why not walk to the store? Pedal to work? You would if you were as "green" as you claim to be.

[rf35]

Well, it''s better than oil or corn ethanol, but it''s not the best option. Instead of finding new things to burn, we need to do away with the internal combustion engine as the power source for our vehicles. Hydrogen power is here, proven, and Honda is even selling a fuel cell car in America. I would have bought it if it had been out last year when I was car shopping. My major concern would be where to refuel it. The government needs to work on jump-starting a hydrogen infrastructure, not ethanol production facilities. Ethanol, cellulosic or otherwise, is a stop-gap measure at best, not a long-term form of renewable energy.

[cyberus-2009]

300 vs 350 hmmm.

Now where are the figures on how much fuel is needed to plant and grow those items?
How much fuel is required to harvest those acres?
How much fuel is required to transport an acre of corn vs an acre of grass?
How much fuel is required to cook and distill an acre of corn vs an acre of grass?

A single statistic of 300 vs 350 is just buzz talk IMHO.

[perrycbs1]

The real issue is where is the US going to find all of the needed acreage of various plants to be able to effectively implement this on a large scale. Virtually all worthwhile land is already in food production, and water shortages are very real (it takes water to grow stuff in areas not now being used). The only large scale available land areas are the nation%u2019s forest - which predominantly supply the nations lumber, support numerous species, and accounts for a very large recreational industry. Also, all forest land that could easily be converted to cropland already has been converted.

Overall, I do not believe that ethanol production from plant products is anywhere near a point of being able to have much impact on the US energy consumption. Not if we are going to feed our existing population.

I know that people talk a lot about the Brazil case. Brazil has a lot more viable cropland area and a relatively small population. Its climate also supports the growth of sugar cane; which can produce larges amounts of ethanol per acre very efficiently. Production is also cheap because labor is cheap. There is relatively little land area in the US that can produce sugar cane (or sugar beats) %u2013 and it is already in production to produce sugar.

[badasssss]

My, God. Playing on the ignorance of those who might believe that something as inefficient as turning corn or switchgrass into ethanol actually being a good solution to our energy crisis is just deplorable. The effectiveness of growing hemp for food, fuel, fiber, and feed is continuing to be suppressed. If we don''t wake up and realize that Big Business is trying to pull a fast one on us again, then we deserve it. Search "hemp + ethanol bcg" for the real story. 300 gal/ acre good news? I think not. Industrial Hemp produces 5 times as much and it''s getting little press. Wake up and spread the word. Politics is not a spectators sport.
By the way, one cattle carcass produces the average of
30 litres of bio-diesel. How much do you think a pork-barrel politician or media mogul would produce?