cellulosic ethanol?
Can we "Just say no" to cellulosic ethanol?
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=2354471
Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, yes, no doubting that, but really, isn't "biomass" good for the soil? I mean does it really make sense to take even MORE biomass from our agricultural fields? Are we going to redistribute the bioproducts BACK on the soil? What IS left over after creating ethanol?
One ton of biomass (dry?) costs $60 to collect. One ton will produce about 80 gallons of ethanol. SO we're talking $0.75/gallon JUST for collecting the material.
I have to think it MUST be a net energy loser. I mean maybe as a "coproduct", but switchgrass is intended as a single product.
I know I can be wrong, so easy to fail to comprehend the scale of things, but overall it seems like density is the key. Biomass sunk in swamps and compressed and heated for millions of years can create a nice fuel sometimes, but when we're in a hurry it seems doubtful.
My judgement is that farms ought to keep as much materials and energy as close to home as possible, so they ought to produce their own fertilizers and energy sources. Maybe that's a false perspective, but it is a safe one - one which confinced Wendell Berry that the Amish are the only group in America with a serious plan for sustainability.
At least I agree "minimizing inputs" is good, and cellulosic ethanol might help over corn ethanol. I don't think you could possibly do much worse that corn for ethanol.
Okay, okay, keep up the studies, but let's hold back promises for subsidies. I just don't know. Of course my solution is to reduce consumption of energy, solution because it gives us time, and done by high energy taxes.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=2354471
Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, yes, no doubting that, but really, isn't "biomass" good for the soil? I mean does it really make sense to take even MORE biomass from our agricultural fields? Are we going to redistribute the bioproducts BACK on the soil? What IS left over after creating ethanol?
One ton of biomass (dry?) costs $60 to collect. One ton will produce about 80 gallons of ethanol. SO we're talking $0.75/gallon JUST for collecting the material.
I have to think it MUST be a net energy loser. I mean maybe as a "coproduct", but switchgrass is intended as a single product.
I know I can be wrong, so easy to fail to comprehend the scale of things, but overall it seems like density is the key. Biomass sunk in swamps and compressed and heated for millions of years can create a nice fuel sometimes, but when we're in a hurry it seems doubtful.
My judgement is that farms ought to keep as much materials and energy as close to home as possible, so they ought to produce their own fertilizers and energy sources. Maybe that's a false perspective, but it is a safe one - one which confinced Wendell Berry that the Amish are the only group in America with a serious plan for sustainability.
At least I agree "minimizing inputs" is good, and cellulosic ethanol might help over corn ethanol. I don't think you could possibly do much worse that corn for ethanol.
Okay, okay, keep up the studies, but let's hold back promises for subsidies. I just don't know. Of course my solution is to reduce consumption of energy, solution because it gives us time, and done by high energy taxes.
posted by Ares Olympus at 10:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home