This patch of switchgrass could be turned into biofuel. But will the yield make much of a dent? (USDA)
Weeding out the hype
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ June 26, 2008 edition
In the quest to shift to biofuels, one approach that has gained a following involves growing perennial grasses on abandoned or degraded crop and pasture land. In principle, the grasses grown there can be turned into fuel without jacking up food prices or degrading the environment.
Researchers at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and Stanford University are raising a yellow flag, however. With existing technologies, don’t count on this approach to supply more than about 8 percent of global energy needs and remain sustainable – even if 100 percent of these lands worldwide grew grasses to fuel the masses.
That contribution to the energy supply could be fairly high in places like Africa, where current demand is low. But for North America, Asia, and Europe, grass power is not likely to reach 10 percent of demand, the team estimates. And for North America, the amount of available land in the study is generous; it includes land set aside for conservation, which presumably would be unavailable for biofuel feedstock.
Abandoned and degraded land are not the only options for growing plants for biofuel, the team acknowledges. But if planners aim to ramp up production beyond what these unused lands can offer, they face some difficult trade-offs. The results appear in this week’s issue of Environmental Science and Technology.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Charlotte Fairchild | 06.28.08
Counties already collect grass/lawn clippings as well as other green debris. The cogon grass would be a good target to remove for bio-fuels so that perhaps it won’t spread as much.
3. Dave | 06.30.08
It is wrong for your writer to put a negative spin on a report that shows that grass can provide 8 percent of global energy needs. Eight percent is a huge amount of energy! But he’s hardly the first “science writer” to pooh-pooh proposals for new energy sources. Why do so many analysts diminish alternative fuel options that don’t promise to replace every single gallon of oil we now use? We _should_ be looking to develop multiple fuel sources (which, incidentally, is what we have already - oil, gas and coal for various combustion uses, plus hydropower, nuclear, gas, coal, and even some solar and windpower sources for generating electricity, etc.)
4. Devin | 07.08.08
Dave is right about the necessity of multiple sources, but it is important to draw attention to the facts that the original study over-stated the potential supply and included conservation lands and potential bio-fuel sources.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. WebSpeak | 06.26.08
Yes, but this can also be used for plastic later on when the world is weaned away from the bio-fuels to more powerful and environment friendly ones.
Plus, every little bit helps and this will not endanger the environment so much.
Also why not start collecting lawn clipings etc.