Biofuel hopefuls tout Miscanthus . . . again.

Miscanthus x giganteus outperforms current biofuels sources – by a lot. Using Miscanthus as a feedstock for ethanol production in the U.S. could significantly reduce the acreage dedicated to biofuels while meeting government biofuels production goals, the researchers report. . .

Using corn or switchgrass to produce enough ethanol to offset 20 percent of gasoline use – a current White House goal – would take 25 percent of current U.S. cropland out of food production, the researchers report. Getting the same amount of ethanol from Miscanthus would require only 9.3 percent of current agricultural acreage. . .

"What we've found with Miscanthus is that the amount of biomass generated each year would allow us to produce about 2 1/2 times the amount of ethanol we can produce per acre of corn" . . .

In trials across Illinois, switchgrass, a perennial grass which, like Miscanthus, requires fewer chemical and mechanical inputs than corn, produced only about as much ethanol feedstock per acre as corn . . .

"One reason why Miscanthus yields more biomass than corn is that it produces green leaves about six weeks earlier in the growing season," Long said. Miscanthus also stays green until late October in Illinois, while corn leaves wither at the end of August. . .

"Keep in mind that this Miscanthus is completely unimproved, so if we were to do the sorts of things that we've managed to do with corn, where we've increased its yield threefold over the last 50 years, then it's not unreal to think that we could use even less than 10 percent of the available agricultural land,"

It isn't explicitly noted, but the data makes no sense unless it is the whole corn plant - leaves, stalks, cobs and seed - that is being evaluated since it is about lignocellulosic feedstocks. It isn't clear if the grain is included and, if so, whether the high sugar content suitable for fermentation is properly scored. It seems to be a simple biomass comparison as if all biomass was equal.

The authors allude to improved varieties of Miscanthus that might be created, but not to improved corn or switchgrass. There are many varieties of corn now, each targeting a specific purpose. Some are grown for grain yield but some are grown as much for leaf as grain. Those varieties are used for silage. The whole plant - grain, stalk cob and all - is chopped and stored compressed in an air tight container of some sort (silo, silage clamp, etc.).

If lignocellulosic feedstocks are ever in demand I suspect that varieties of corn that meet that demand can be, and probably will be, developed. It isn't as clear that improved switchgrass varieties will be bred. The Miscanthus advantage of a longer growing season seems easily met by corn. There are already many varieties that have different growth periods. They were developed to allow flexibility for farmers since sometimes the growing season is longer than others, and if mature seed was not the objective - just biomass - then it would be far easier.

The only real advantage of Miscanthus is that it is perennial, but that is also a disadvantage since it precludes crop rotation and multi-cropping.

"One of the criticisms of using any biomass as a biofuel source is it has been claimed that plants are not very efficient – about 0.1 percent efficiency of conversion of sunlight into biomass," Long said. "What we show here is on average Miscanthus is in fact about 1 percent efficient, so about 1 percent of sunlight ends up as biomass."

"Keep in mind that when we consider our energy use, a few hours of solar energy falling on the earth are equal to all the energy that people use over a whole year, so you don't really need that high an efficiency to be able to capture that in plant material and make use of it as a biofuel source," he said.

This is still far less efficient than the worst solar cells, and that is the thrust of the argument. Biomass is a laughably poor solar energy collector, even if Miscanthus is 10 times better than some other plants. The valuable part of biomass is the form that the energy is stored in - food and fiber - since living things need to eat and like to shelter themselves.

For the US to lose a significant portion of its ag land to biofuels - as has already happened with corn for ethanol - is poor policy in a world that is short of food and growing ever more so. And, ag land in general is in poor and declining condition now due to cropping without proper attention to soil management - chiefly the replenishment of organic matter. There are no true crop wastes - no excess organic matter. It is owed to the soil it came from. The fact that we often do a poor job of recycling crop residues and manure streams now does not mean that they are up for grabs. It means that we need to do a better job as growers.

Biofuel nutters need to expand their thinking to include the whole agricultural system. Liquid fuel is not our only pressing need and our policies need to help the system as a whole rather than make it worse for a short term benefit.

Update: semi-nutty

We're working on what we call second-, third- and fourth-generation fuels. Like corn-based ethanol, a first-generation biofuel, our second- and third-generation fuels start with sugar as the feedstock. But unlike it, we're making fuels that have very high energy content, don't mix with water and have very low freezing points—well under 100 degrees below centigrade. They have the potential of working in high-altitude aircraft. . .

And the fourth-generation fuels?

We're using a unique type of algae that we've genetically engineered to turn sunlight and CO2 into C8 and C10 and larger lipids. The people that initially grew algae viewed it as farming—you know, you grow a bunch of algae and then you harvest it. But it's totally different if the algae are chemical factories. Ours continuously secrete these molecules, so we get constant production of something that can basically be used right away as biodiesel. . .

Because we actually have to feed them concentrated CO2, we can take CO2 streams from power plants, cement plants and other places. People view CO2 as a contaminant—they want to bury it in the ground or pump it into wells to hide or sequester it. We want to take all that waste product and convert it into fuel.

Only the fourth-generation fuels make any sense.

This is national security. We seem to be fighting wars at least in part over oil, we're sending most of our money to the Middle East and other places, and we're investing as a nation almost nothing in alternatives.

No, it is not a national security issue. Trade is not a threat to national security. It is not possible to be isolated, to live without trade, unless a very much lower standard of living is acceptable. That is a national security issue.

Had we followed intellectually where we were back in the Carter era, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we do today. We've had a lot of short-term thinking from administrations that basically trades off the health of the planet for economic gain for the business community—and for their own re-election. We don't reward our leaders for making long-term beneficial decisions for society. It's like the stock market—all that matters is the next quarter, not where you are 10 years from now.

We'd have different problems, not no problems. This is where those who have expertise in one area embarrass themselves when venturing outside their domain. It gets worse.

Do you think there's potential for change with the current presidential candidates?

I think either candidate would be orders of magnitude better than what we had in this administration, but I think Obama would be a few orders of magnitude better than McCain. Although McCain has been a longtime supporter of changes in the CAFE standards—trying to get higher-mileage cars—and has consistently been shouted down by his colleagues.

And the failure to develop local resources is OK? This from a fellow who makes claims about national security.

CAFE standards and biofuels other than the 4th generation continuous operation type that use CO2 as a feedstock rather than biomass are merely political and economic boondoggles. They hurt the environment without helping national security, but generate lots of political capital while splashing subsidies around.

Our smartest policy would be to develop local resources now - that means drilling and mining - while developing truly beneficial alternatives. Current biofuels and regulations are just feel good wanking and corporate welfare - just low politics. The problem is that politicians - in this case Obama and the Democrats - oppose smart policies since it would alienate their base and they would be shouted down by colleagues. Pot, meet kettle.