25% of America's Energy Could Come From 100 Million Acres of Land
by EcoGeek.org on 11.20.06
This headline, as you may have noticed, is not really good news. Sure, we at Treehugger like the idea of ethanol and bio diesel, but 100 million acres is an awful lot of land and I'm not sure that we have that much to spare. Nonetheless, this statistic, from a recent report from the University of Tennessee, is interesting and encouraging.
The report was commissioned 25x25, an organization that hopes that 25% of America's energy will come from renewable sources in the next 25 years. The report, which studies the viability of that vision, is encouraging on several fronts. First, almost all of the 100 million acres would come from rangeland, not from farmland, meaning we'll be depriving cows of their meals, not people. This, of course, is contingent on the development of inexpensive technology that can convert switch grass to ethanol. Without that, says the report, we've got nothing.
Additionally, the researchers at U.Tenn studied the economic impacts of using 100 million acres of American land for switch grass ethanol and showed that, while costs of corn, meat, wheat and soy would go up significantly, an entire new industry would be created in America that would add roughly 700 billion dollars and 5 million jobs to the American economy. Additionally, a large number of agricultural subsidies would become obsolete.
If we really can trade foreign dependence on oil for more expensive beef, then Treehugger is behind 25x25 100%.
::AutoBlogGreen ::25x25 ::Full U.Tenn Report (PDF)
At 640 acres per square mile, that is 156,250 square miles. This is roughly the size of California (158,648 square miles). I am thinking that this will significantly change the US ecosystem.
With all due respect to the Universty of Tennessee, I have read this report and find some of their conclusions questionable. They really confuse their arguments by how they analyze the overall biomass picture which includes animal waste, really they are over complicating the metrics. Pig manure is a great alternative fuel source, but why not focus on ethanol, for clarity? Maybe the fact that they are coming from traditional corporate agriculture is part of the problem.
They "project" the selling price of ethanol to be $1.76 and biodiesel $2.76 which seems unreasonably high. After all, Brazil make it for 50 cents a gallon, Vinold Kholsa estimates one dollar a gallon and ethanol currently costs about $1.50 a gallon. Very Odd.
The picture Treehugger used of a trctor with a vast expanse of exposed soil couldn't be more misleading. Not to mention the term "rangeland" is misleading and non-informative. The major advantage of biomass energy is the ability to use semi arid land which is largely non-productive otherwise. Much of this land has been damaged by the inappropriate grazing of animals which destroyed the native plants that held the top soil together and prevented soil erosion.
Most of the biomass suggested would be from native species, which would reduce the huge amount of soil loss in the prairie states from short grasses and over grazing. There are huge areas that could be cultivated with switchgrass that are now barren semi arid "dust bowls". These are areas where the native species that held the soil together were killed off. These species are never planted as crops but grown as perienials, so the soil is held intact without distructive tilling.
I find Vinod Khosla's analysis much more compelling. Youtube has a video of one of his presentations.
As for changing the US ecosystem, any time you fly over the middle of the country, it's pretty obvious that that's already been done.
Agreed that the tractor is misleading, and I apologize for the use of the word Rangeland, which here in Montana, means semi-arid land that isn't any good for crops. And no, there are never tractors on rangeland...though I imagine some kind of machinery would be harvesting the switchgrass.
i edited a report for the rand corporation. we used a computer simulation model to assess the possible impact that a 25-percent renewable energy requirement for electricity and motor vehicle transportation could have on total national energy expenditures and on carbon dioxide emissions by 2025. currently, 6 percent of u.s. energy use comes from renewable sources, including hydropower. as renewable energy supplants nonrenewable energy, demand for those fuels declines, driving down fossil fuel prices in our model. this generates savings in total energy cost that balance the higher cost of the renewable energies required to be used under the analysis' assumptions. significant reductions in co2 emissions could also be achieved with the substitution of renewable for nonrenewable energy. the report identifies potential sets of circumstances in which changes in oil, gas, coal, or renewables technology prices are found to result in a reduction or increase in total energy expenditures. if you're interested, you can download or purchase the report or a summary at http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR384/
I'm confused. You say "as renewable energy supplants nonrenewable energy, demand for those fuels declines, driving down fossil fuel prices in our model."
What is causing renewable energy to supplant nonrenewable energy, if not rising fossil fuel prices?
Am I really to understand that the majority of the world will choose to pay more for renewable energy and turn a cold shoulder to fossil fuels? Thus causing their price to fall?
I don't buy it.
Another unlikely scheme that I saw was 15,000 square miles of pondscum that would provde 100% of our energy needs. It's uglier than crops but it uses far less land.
The problem with crops is the low frequency of the harvest. Solar provides energy every moment that the sun shines and in vast areas of the country it shines a lot. Also solar installations only have to be done once whereas crops have to be done over and over. Also, crops have to be planted in arable land whereas solar is best where conditions for life are the worst.
I did a small presentation on ethanol last semester in college. A couple more advantages include value of land increase helping the economy. Plus not only more jobs in the U.S. but more jobs across North and South America including Mexico, helping ease the need for families to immigrate to the U.S. ilegally, and creating a stronger economic friend to the south to trade with helping both economies grow even more. Its the answer to many problems.. middle east, border, farm subsidies, more tax revenue for education. economy growth, cleaner environment.