Alternative Ethanol Sources

[GigaBuist]

Thought I'd throw this out there and see if anybody else knows something about it. 

I ran across this because it's actually a decorative grass that gets to be 12-13' tall and we have some customers looking for stuff like that.  It's called Miscanthus giganteus.  The Wikipedia page is here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus_giganteus

According to their sources you get about 3.5x the ethanol per acre when compared to corn.  Other research (from the University of Illinois) has stated it's more like 2.5x that of corn.  Sorta makes me wonder why we're not exploiting it.

- It's perennial, so once you plant you're done.
- Fares well in drought-like conditions, so I guess irrigation concerns are going to be much lower than corn.
- It'll grow on barren soil that corn won't.  Switchgrass has that benefit too but it's on par with corn for ethanol yield per acre.
- It's sterile, so there's no risk of invasion.  You can only spread it via rhizomes.

From what I gather a big problem in the US is we don't have planting equipment for it but that's being developed along with harvesting gear.  Also, I would assume ethanol plants would have to be setup differently to process this rather than corn.  So I can see why there are some practical issues standing in the way of adoption.

Well, that and nobody's really all that big on ethanol in the US outside of corn farmers and greenies.

Still, I think it's an interesting idea.  I kinda want to play with the stuff and see how it grows.

[Perd Hapley]

But the people who killed the electric car will murder you. 

[Jamisjockey]

Because the corn industry is getting kickbacks in the form of subsidies to grow the *expletive deleted*it.

[sanglant]

dangit, JJ beat me.

[Ben]

Interesting stuff. There are very large tracts of land, as in hundreds of thousands of acres, in CA right now becoming marginal for other crops because of the whole Pelosi and her bait fish cutting off water supply thing. This grass looks like it would grow well in those areas, as well as lots of other marginal farmland.

Also interesting that there's no planting machinery? It looks like it would plant just like alfalfa. I could see them having to make or import harvest equipment. From a webpage I found looking at it further, it looks like they harvest it much like hay. If they don't harvest till it's 10' tall, an alfalfa mower ain't gonna cut it (pardon the pun). It sure looks like it would be a low investment, high yield crop though.

http://columbiabusinesstimes.com/10666/2011/03/04/grass-fed-power/

[zxcvbob]

Sounds like Johnson Grass.

[Boomhauer]

Sorta makes me wonder why we're not exploiting it.

Two words- Farm Lobby.

That's why.

[GigaBuist]

Because the corn industry is getting kickbacks in the form of subsidies to grow the *expletive deleted*.

That thought entered into my mind, but I forgot about it until you posted.

So I ran some numbers after doing some websearching.

Indiana, which is apparently the Corn Capital of the US, produces about 150bu/acre.  http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.03/CornYldTrend2003.html

Right now the price of corn per bu is $6.45:  http://www.quotecorn.com/  (I read Frank W. James' blog, a farmer/gun writer and he's said recently that ethanol pushed it up from $4/bu to around $7/bu. So the number seems about right.)

Unless I'm retarded at math that means you're getting $967.50/acre out of corn on the market.  That doesn't make sh*t for sense.  Off the top of my head you get about $4k/acre out of freaking broccoli.  Hops is like $15k/acre.  I think pumpkins are in the $2k-$3k/acre range.  I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I poke into it occasionally and I've never queried up a crop and found something below $1k/acre.

Holy smokes we must be subsidizing the living SNOT out of corn.

[birdman]

Two words, cellulostic ethanol.  That is still a grass (cellulose, not short chain sugars), which means you can't mass produce ethanol from it (currently being worked), so while it has the potential, it's not there yet.

Also, even if you grew that on every acre of arable land currently being farmed world wide, you still wouldn't replace oil and gas..LoR even a large fraction of it.

[Stand_watie]

...
Unless I'm retarded at math that means you're getting $967.50/acre out of corn on the market.  That doesn't make sh*t for sense.  Off the top of my head you get about $4k/acre out of freaking broccoli.  Hops is like $15k/acre.  I think pumpkins are in the $2k-$3k/acre range.  I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I poke into it occasionally and I've never queried up a crop and found something below $1k/acre.

Holy smokes we must be subsidizing the living SNOT out of corn.

I'm sure we are, but how do labor costs factor into the equation? I'd imagine one farmer with the equipment can harvest many more acres of corn per day than the crops you listed.


edit: how do other similarly planted/harvested crops (other grains?) compare for example?

[Stetson]

Depends on what kind of swather is needed to cut this grass over alfalfa or hay grass.  I have cut 120 acres in 2 days.  Drying and raking another few days, depending on moisture.  Not sure what time it takes to process corn vs. labor and storage.

[Jamisjockey]

That thought entered into my mind, but I forgot about it until you posted.

So I ran some numbers after doing some websearching.

Indiana, which is apparently the Corn Capital of the US, produces about 150bu/acre.  http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.03/CornYldTrend2003.html

Right now the price of corn per bu is $6.45:  http://www.quotecorn.com/  (I read Frank W. James' blog, a farmer/gun writer and he's said recently that ethanol pushed it up from $4/bu to around $7/bu. So the number seems about right.)

Unless I'm retarded at math that means you're getting $967.50/acre out of corn on the market.  That doesn't make sh*t for sense.  Off the top of my head you get about $4k/acre out of freaking broccoli.  Hops is like $15k/acre.  I think pumpkins are in the $2k-$3k/acre range.  I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I poke into it occasionally and I've never queried up a crop and found something below $1k/acre.

Holy smokes we must be subsidizing the living SNOT out of corn.

Yes, yes we are.
However.  Not sure how the other crops there are harvested, but corn is typically harvested by machine (combine).  The process is pretty quick.  Cuts down on your labor costs. 

[birdman]

Before anyone really flies off the handle on this, let's look at the information:

Global arable land:
~13.5 million square km (~8.6 billion acres)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land

Ethanol production of that plant:
780 gal/acre (~3000L/acre)
NOTE: "depends on development of cellulostic technology" (which we haven't been able to scale up to mass production due to cost and throughput factors)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Efficiency_of_common_crops

So total yearly ethanol production:
25.8 trillion liters/yr

Best case energy return on investment for cellulostic ethanol (achieved in the lab combined with energy requirements of cultivation etc. for grasses) ~5.4 (as in, the energy of the ethanol produced is 5.4x the energy you need to make it, so the actual energy you get out is equal to 5.4/(1+5.4) or~84%
("A 2008 study by the University of Nebraska found a 5.4 energy balance for ethanol derived specifically from switchgrass.[13][14] This estimate is better than in previous studies and according to the authors partly due to the larger size of the field trial (3-9 ha) on 10 farms.").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance

Note, world oil production has an energy return of >36 (97.3%)

So that nets us 21.8 trillion liters of ethanol

The energy density of ethanol is ~21 MJ/l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel

So that is: 4.6x10^20 J

Crude oil has an energy density of 6.1 GJ/barrel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_of_oil_equivalent
And natural gas is 38.3 MJ/cubic meter
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html

So that amount of ethanol is equal to: 77 billion barrels of oil or 12 trillion cubic meters of natural gas.

Global oil production is 32billion barrels a year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

world natural gas production is 3.1 trillion cubic meters a year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production

That means the total gas+oil current production is equal to about 67% of the maximum theoretically possible from that grass, and closer to 100% when the conversion to heavier hydrocarbon fuels (required for >40-50% of oil and gas uses) and accounting for the greater transportation costs associated with the lower energy density of ethanol (assuming distributed production) or the greater transportation costs associated with the more spread-out feedstock (arable land is >100-1000 greater than the area we use for petroleum and gas production, so the concentration helps oil/gas in terms of transport cost)

In other words, even IF we could get cellulostic ethanol production scaled up (which, even with best possible estimates, would require a capital investment in just the refineries of 5-10 trillion dollars), AND planted that grass on every square foot of arable land ON EARTH (thus starving the entire planet...so that would probably cut down on usage, which isnt accounted for here) we would still only yield roughly the same amount of energy in the oil and gas we get TODAY.  

Basically, biofuels are a niche, that only exists due to subsidy, and can't possibly grow to meet our current, let alone future, energy needs, even with an investment of >10% of the GLOBAL GDP.

As I've said before, the only long term energy future that can accommodate growth (I hope the third world becomes more like the 1st world in economics, which would require 5-6x increase in global energy production and raise the standard of living of everyone) is safe nuclear...and it requires the least land and is 100% carbon neutral.  We also have sufficient uranium and thorium reserves at CURRENT prices, to last centuries, if not more.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 :)

[zxcvbob]

Yes, yes we are.
However.  Not sure how the other crops there are harvested, but corn is typically harvested by machine (combine).  The process is pretty quick.  Cuts down on your labor costs. 

How much ammonia (anhydrous or nitrate) does it take per acre to grow corn, and what does that cost?

[Jamisjockey]

How much ammonia (anhydrous or nitrate) does it take per acre to grow corn, and what does that cost?

Oh. That I don't know.  Nor how it compares to the other crops listed.

[birdman]

Oh. That I don't know.  Nor how it compares to the other crops listed.

$162/acre for corn
http://www.farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2011/07/forward_contract_delivery_pric_1.html

The grass mentioned in this thread requires zero, as it has a high atmospheric nitrogen efficiency, so no additional needed.

[Jamisjockey]

$162/acre for corn
http://www.farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2011/07/forward_contract_delivery_pric_1.html

The grass mentioned in this thread requires zero, as it has a high atmospheric nitrogen efficiency, so no additional needed.

Nobody is getting confiscated wealth redistributed to them to grow grass, though!

[French G.]

*Long, accurate and sometimes humorous scientific ramble redacted. 
Anyway, that's my $0.02 :)

Too bad you're not a chick, because I'm in love. Also too bad you're not in charge. I only know about 2 people that grasp the obvious truth that nuke is the only way we have until we can sustain fusion of unicorn farts or what have you. Instead our public policy makers are deliberately marching us to the dark ages by running away from the nuclear gift and towards untenable faddish technologies.

 Unlike most of these greenies I grew up in a household that pretty much lived alcohol motors for reasons other than saving the planet. When you realize how much fuel you have to burn to make the same power as gasoline the ethanol argument collapses without even getting into the wisdom of screwing up our precious farmland by growing as much corn as we can all the time. It's not quite as bad as growing cotton with the waters that feed the Aral Sea, but it's not good.

We need lots of nukes soon, or we're screwed.

[Ben]

Nobody is getting confiscated wealth redistributed to them to grow grass, though!

Actually I believe in my link they mention .gov subsidies to promote growing it.

At any rate, I've never been a fan of ethanol as a national or distributed energy source. I am a fan of ethanol, biodiesel, etc. as alternatives on a small scale, like for individuals who want to make and use them as their fuel source, or in areas where you can grow enough product locally (without displacing food acreage) for the community to use. Much the same as I'm in favor of solar on an individual user basis (like on the roof of a house), but don't see it as an efficient grid energy product (like taking up ten square miles of land to inject a relatively small amount of energy into the grid).

[Nick1911]

So how long will it take for the negative image of nuclear energy currently held in public perception to fade?

When will it become politically acceptable to promote nuclear by policy leaders?

[Jamisjockey]

Actually I believe in my link they mention .gov subsidies to promote growing it.

At any rate, I've never been a fan of ethanol as a national or distributed energy source. I am a fan of ethanol, biodiesel, etc. as alternatives on a small scale, like for individuals who want to make and use them as their fuel source, or in areas where you can grow enough product locally (without displacing food acreage) for the community to use. Much the same as I'm in favor of solar on an individual user basis (like on the roof of a house), but don't see it as an efficient grid energy product (like taking up ten square miles of land to inject a relatively small amount of energy into the grid).

Yikes!

Oh, and reconsider the personal solar thing.  Hawaii is having power grid problems because of it.  Demand goes down, the plants spool down.  Clouds move in, demand goes up, plants can't be spooled up fast enough....rolling blackouts. 

[AZRedhawk44]

Yikes!

Oh, and reconsider the personal solar thing.  Hawaii is having power grid problems because of it.  Demand goes down, the plants spool down.  Clouds move in, demand goes up, plants can't be spooled up fast enough....rolling blackouts. 

Reconsider the grid-integrated personal solar thing.

Off-grid solar with stored power via battery is just fine.

Grid integrated solar is teh suk and for stoopid people.

[birdman]

So how long will it take for the negative image of nuclear energy currently held in public perception to fade?

It will take until the general public becomes better than "absolutely horrible" at risk assessment (read: never, given our evolution), or becomes good at math and science (read: never, given our propaganda education system), or they are forced into it by excessive energy costs (read: when it is too late for the investment to occur)

When will it become politically acceptable to promote nuclear by policy leaders?

When the above also becomes true.

[StopTheGrays]

As I've said before, the only long term energy future that can accommodate growth (I hope the third world becomes more like the 1st world in economics, which would require 5-6x increase in global energy production and raise the standard of living of everyone) is safe nuclear...and it requires the least land and is 100% carbon neutral.  We also have sufficient uranium and thorium reserves at CURRENT prices, to last centuries, if not more.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 :)

This...+1.

[birdman]

Off-grid solar with stored power via battery is just fine.

Its fine, IF:
1. There is sufficient peak sunlight
2. There is sufficient average sunlight
3. There is sufficient storage capacity
4. 1 AND 2 AND 3
5. 1 AND 2 AND the average generated cost is comparable (with zero subsidy) to other GENERATION methods
6a: 5 AND the user-borne cost of running the utility lines to the grid combined with generating costs to the grid is comparable to existing power cost OR
6b: 5 and 3 is comparable to conventional remote generated power and grid
7. 6a AND The incremental cost to add to the existing infrastructure to account for load and generating peaking by the user
8. All impacted grid and/or opportunity costs are levied on the user causing the cost
9. Zero subsidy

So, 9 AND 8 AND (6b OR 7) must be true for it to make sense. (if 4 and 6b arent true, regardless of 8 or 9, the user is stupid)  The problem is 8 and 9, as our current (and likely future ) "alternative energy" pushes decouple the costs from A user and place them on the rest of their region (grid costs) or on all taxpayers (subsidy), thus penalizing the whole for the choices of a single user.  

So it's all or nothing if 8 or 9 is false, and since we can't do ALL (land area and massive cost), we should morally (on the moral code of not penalizing others to make ones self better) have to make 8 AND 9 true.