I think this has interesting possibilities and makes far more sense than growing corn or sugar cane for bio fuel.. It can be burned with coal or made into ethanol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscanthus Main article: Miscanthus giganteus The sterile hybrid between M. sinensis and M. sacchariflorus, Miscanthus giganteus, has been trialed as a biofuel in Europe since the early 1980s. It can grow to heights of more than 3.5 m in one growth season. Its dry weight annual yield can reach 25 tonnes per hectare (10 tonnes per acre).[2] It is sometimes called "Elephant Grass" and thus confused with the African grass Pennisetum purpureum, also called "Elephant Grass." The rapid growth, low mineral content, and high biomass yield of Miscanthus make it a favorite choice as a biofuel.[3] Miscanthus can be used as input for ethanol production, often outperforming corn and other alternatives in terms of biomass and gallons of ethanol produced. Additionally, after harvest, it can be burned to produce heat and steam for power turbines. In addition to the amount of CO2 emissions from burning the crop, any fossil fuels that might have been used in planting, fertilizing, harvesting, and processing the crop, as well as in transporting the biofuel to the point of use, must also be considered when evaluating its carbon load. Its advantage, though, is that it isn't usually consumed by humans, making it a more available crop for ethanol and biofuel, than, say, corn and sugar canes. When mixed in a 50%-50% mixture with coal, Miscanthus biomass can be used in some current coal-burning power plants without modifications.
Does it require arable land to grow it? Does it require fresh water to grow it? If either answer is yes, it competes against food crops for resources. Tell me it will grow in deserts using seawater and I'd be impressed.
This has been studied for some years now, and some real life large scale operations have been done. I know that at least one farm has been installed at a coal fired plant, but keeping the algae alive has been difficult. I wonder why Obama never brought this up until gas prices went up? Why is the government not spending R&D money on this instead of giving out subsidies to oil companies? Seems that no matter what it is always business as usual in Washington it will not ever change. The funny thing about all this posturing, the private sector is actually spending gobs of money on alternative fuels without any government involvement. Its called some CEO's who have tremendous amounts of money do have a sense that we are hurting the planet and are spending their own money on these issues. The sad part is that the government has turned its back on some promising technologies and continued the corrupt crony capitalism.
http://web.extension.illinois.edu/state/newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=18968 The Pros And Cons Of Miscanthus --Uses More Water, Leaches Less Nitrogen
I suspect we are dealing with "silo" thinking again. Each camp has picked their bio-product of choice, and haven't looked over the wall at what they don't see as "the competition" is using.
But you still have to grow it on arable land and water it with fresh water. Ergo, it competes against food crops.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://web.extension.illinois.edu/st...m?NewsID=18968 The Pros And Cons Of Miscanthus --Uses More Water, Leaches Less Nitrogen Now remember that Federal Agri Subsidies pay US farmers NOT to plant anything and it amounts to billions of dollars a year. Competing with food crops is not quite accurate.. Look at Michele Bahman's decades of Federal Cron subsidies for her family farm...
My apologies.. I don't know how I screwed that up. Here: http://domesticfuel.com/2010/09/09/the-pros-cons-of-miscanthus/ Excerpt: The study focused on two important environmental concerns surrounding biomass: water quantity and nitrogen leeching. When compared to corn, soybeans and switchgrass, researchers found that miscanthus used substantially more water but leeched less nitrogen. We found that Miscanthus tends to dry out the soil much more than corn, soybeans, or switchgrass later in the growing season, said Greg McIsaac, environmental scientist in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences. This would likely reduce runoff, stream flow and surface water supplies later in the summer and in early fall, when streams are typically at their lowest. It could reduce the amount of water available to those who are downstream in late summer and early fall. The study also looked at nitrogen loss, or how it leaches into the ground water and travels. Opponents to corn ethanol have been very vocal claiming that the nitrogen from agricultural production is a major contributing factor to the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico as well as in other areas of the ocean. (Other research has shown this is not the case.) In this case, researchers grew miscanthus and switchgrass using no fertilizer and discovered that is grew well without. They also determined that the two crops had much lower leaching than soybeans or fertilized corn. We did not apply fertilizer to Miscanthus or switchgrass because the study was designed to look at a low-input biofuel, McIsaac said. The results showed that you can get high productivity without fertilizing Miscanthus, at least for the first three to four years. It is likely that if you apply fertilizer to Miscanthus and switchgrass, there would be more leaching than what we saw in our study, with no application. But because of the root activity, I would expect fertilized Miscanthus and switchgrass to leach less than fertilized corn. To be certain, this needs further study.
How about if I told you that we could replace the entire US gasoline supply with biofuel by using just 1% of our arable land? Would that impress you? That's the difference between C3 plants, like trees, and C4 plants like Miscanthus.
When it is demonstrated with hard humbers http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...ine-4000-gallons-per-acre.html#post1060926412 http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...e-4000-gallons-per-acre-3.html#post1060961469 that Miscanthus for bio fuel is an example of corruption and cheating taxpayers on 100s of millions of dollars the same members start and continue another tread pushing the same hoax on the public. Miscanthus for bio fuel is worse than Solandra. Solandra was producing solar panels. Solandra developed technology which then was transferred to China for free. Miscanthus for bio fuel is producing only weed and bio-pollution of arable lands. The case is bigger than Solandra. Media keeps silnce. If to remove hands of overwhelming majorities of the scientific community out of pockets of the Amrican taxpayer a half of debt and deficit problems would be solved.
You want to impress us, tell us that we can go to our local gas station and fill up with 94 octane bio-gasoline that provides the same gas mileage, at $2.00 a gallon. Then, the price drops to $1.00, or less, a gallon as volume, and efficiencies increase.
1. The bio-gasoline produced from miscanthus is 106 octane. But I suppose we could de-rate it to run in your car. 2. The raw-materials cost for bio-gasoline from miscanthus is 60 cents per gallon. But I suppose we could jack the price up to meet your expectations.
Not my car, I drive a supercharged Miata. With 106 octane, I can turn the boost up. Then there is no need go government subsidies. VC's would be throwing money at development. Yet, they aren't. maybe the hype is just that.
