Another alternative
I wrote before about the false promise of ethanol. Well the Star Tribune, in a moment of clarity, points us to an alternative to E-85 that actually may have promise.
"World demand for fuel and food is projected to double in the next 50 years. Now, researchers at the University of Minnesota have concluded that corn may not be up to the task of filling both stomachs and gas tanks.
"Unless we produce food and biofuel in an efficient manner, they will be directly competing with each other," said David Tilman, regents professor of ecology at the University of Minnesota. "We will have high prices for both."
University researchers, led by Tilman, think they've found a solution -- supply the facilities that make ethanol with a diverse mixture of prairie grasses instead of corn. The grasses not only can produce more net energy per acre than corn but they also act as a sponge for greenhouse gases before being harvested, soaking them out of the air and into their roots and surrounding soil, the researchers found."
An alternative fuel that will not compete for food sources and may actually absorb greeenhouse gases? Now that is an alternative to invest in!
"Harvesting and processing a hectare (about 2.5 acres) of grasslands produces about three-tenths of a metric ton of carbon dioxide, the researchers calculated. But in the first 10 years, the grasses absorb 4.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide. In other words, the prairie grasses absorb about 14 times more greenhouse gas than is released in producing grass-based fuel."
Let's hope that our Senators and our Governor will see the potential here and give this alternative the same kind of attention that they have given to corn based E-85.
"World demand for fuel and food is projected to double in the next 50 years. Now, researchers at the University of Minnesota have concluded that corn may not be up to the task of filling both stomachs and gas tanks.
"Unless we produce food and biofuel in an efficient manner, they will be directly competing with each other," said David Tilman, regents professor of ecology at the University of Minnesota. "We will have high prices for both."
University researchers, led by Tilman, think they've found a solution -- supply the facilities that make ethanol with a diverse mixture of prairie grasses instead of corn. The grasses not only can produce more net energy per acre than corn but they also act as a sponge for greenhouse gases before being harvested, soaking them out of the air and into their roots and surrounding soil, the researchers found."
An alternative fuel that will not compete for food sources and may actually absorb greeenhouse gases? Now that is an alternative to invest in!
"Harvesting and processing a hectare (about 2.5 acres) of grasslands produces about three-tenths of a metric ton of carbon dioxide, the researchers calculated. But in the first 10 years, the grasses absorb 4.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide. In other words, the prairie grasses absorb about 14 times more greenhouse gas than is released in producing grass-based fuel."
Let's hope that our Senators and our Governor will see the potential here and give this alternative the same kind of attention that they have given to corn based E-85.
posted by The Lady Logician at
8:14 PM
2 Comments:
If you think grass is good, try the form of grass known as sugar cane, as Brazil uses extensively for ethanol. It grows as tall as 15 feet, very quickly, and has a very high sugar content.
Also, the measurement you employ for eco-friendliness is wrong. You can't compare the CO2 absorption of growth with the release of production, you have to include the CO2 produced when you BURN the ethanol. Supposedly that's many times more than it costs to produce, though some say it costs more to make the ethanol than you get back burning it. Not a good solution, really.
J. Ewing
By
Anonymous, at 7:24 AM
Ahhhh funny you should bring up sugar cane ethanol....the US Government (at the behest of certain Midwestern states) have imposed a TARRIF on that particular alternative. It seems that alternative fuels are ok only as long as they support Midwestern farmers who are supporting our Republican politicians (oh do I have a rant ready to pen on that subject).
Realize that the measurement that "I" employed came from the Star Tribune. I take no credit for anything, I simply wanted to bring this up as a subject of discussion.
By
The Lady Logician, at 10:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home