This is interesting information. I am saddened that my awareness doesn't include such options and it takes coming across a post like this to get thinking.

I live in India, where there is hardly any awarensss about such things. Perhaps it is time......

Thank you

Let’s pay ourselves for our energy…biofuels grown in the US.

90% of corn grown in the US is feed to cattle. Yeast converts sugars into alcohol and CO2, it does not destroy the remainder of the corn. Cattle can’t process sugars, and actually gain more weight on the mash (sugar free corn). Let’s consider ethanol as a byproduct of improving cattle feed. We can grow fuel and animal feed, and corns not a good energy producer.

I could see how this might be useful in some places. But if these developing and undeveloped countries develop, they will quickly ooutgrow their ability to produce biofuels. This is a good thing, because it means they will no longer be impoverished. And by that time, they should be able to blanket these biofuel fields in solar and wind instead, and use the electricity to manufacture their own fuels, either hydrogen or hydrocarbons. Or just use (and export) the electricity). Even 10-20% efficient solar cells capture a greater share of available energy than the most efficient plants.

Why do these kinds of articles always have to end with some kind of "this won't work to replace all of our petroleum use" when talking about biofuels. I think because they are propaganda by oil monopolies to keep their monopolistic cash cow alive, and/or political manipulation to keep THEIR cash cow alive(from the energy monopolies).

1) Not ALL petroleum is used to power vehicles. And crop land is not needed to produce ALL biofuel that powers vehicles.
Biodiesel can be produced from seawater algae in holding ponds, and is being done commercially right now in Texas. Take the need for petroleum currently used for diesel out of the equation. You are only talking about replacing a portion of the current usage, not ALL of it.

2) It does not take into account that other things would be able to replace part of the use of petroleum also. For instance, Wind and PV Solar power generation could replace oil and coal in non vehicle power generation. Even such simple things as conservation and improved planning would go a long way to reducing oil consumption. Weatherstripping and improving insulation on older houses would reduce heating oil needs and do not involve biofuel needs at all.

Also, even replacing some of the current oil use would have an effect on the oil market itself. Demand would go down, prices would go down.

Ethanol and biodiesel can be used alone or in a wide mix range to reduce oil usage, keep prices down, and improve environmental results.

The truth is, there is MORE than enough capacity to fill all of our energy needs, right now and for a LONG time to come with biofuels in combination with wind, solar and more conservative use.

Beware of all these studies that predict dire consequences like famine, or not enough fuel blah, blah, blah...........make sure that the things they look at are actually what is trying to be done. Ethanol does NOT have to replace ALL petroleum used to be successful---only the petroleum used to power gas vehicles, not even ALL the petroleum used to power ALL vehicles---biodiesel would replace a large portion of that for diesel trucks, heavy equipment and jet aircraft. And neither one would even have to replace ALL of the petroleum to be successful. E-85 is 85% ethanol, but it is still 15% petroleum gasoline.

"The potential yield could be as much as 2.1 billion tons of dry biomass, enough to produce 41 exajoules' (1 exajoule = 1 billion billion joules) worth of bioenergy -- roughly equivalent to the energy content of 170 million barrels of oil."

You do realize that current demand is a little over 85 million barrels per day, so you're only talking about 2 days worth?!?

"At best, then, this would still only supply approximately 8 percent of current global energy needs. "

Uh, not quite. First, two days worth is about 1/2 of one percent. Second, that's only for oil, not all the other energy suppies (coal, hydro, nuc, etc.)

Every time these basic math errors come up in TH articles (and it happens fairly often) it raises credibility issues. Whether the figures are directly from TH or merely an article cited by them is no matter. Spreading false information is just as bad as creating it. Giving false hope only worsens the problems down the line. I have been on TH for over 2 years and love what you guys do, but us 'greenies' are fighting an uphill battle and need to be near perfect.

Keep up the good work Jeremy, but for the umpteenth time, PLEASE check your facts/figures before publishing.

A step in the right direction. We need to invest in jatropha (thrives in marginal areas and doesn't compete for food). It could be planted in highway corridors and areas previously considered wasted space. Imagine if instead of miles of grass and weeds there was seeds for fuel. Highway departments could grow their own gas.

Wetdog: "Also, even replacing some of the current oil use would have an effect on the oil market itself. Demand would go down, prices would go down."

Actually it would increase supply which generally decreases prices ... which then causes demand to go UP.

I do absolutely agree with you on conservation, solar, wind, algae, etc. Though, without huge decreases in consumption of energy and other resources (or massive population die-off), we don't have a prayer in hell in the long run.

To quote the late, great George Carlin: "It's not 'save the earth', it's 'save the people'. Earth will brush us off like a bad cold."
RIP, George (1937-2008), you will be missed.

This is definitely a better alternative than cutting down forests or destroying existing grasslands. But, I wish most of all the unused land would be required to be conserved and restored back to its natural state. Of course, this is only wishful thinking.

------------"Actually it would increase supply which generally decreases prices ... which then causes demand to go UP."-------------------------

Greenovator---technically you are correct, however, I'm using a sort of shorthand abbreviated scenario here.(to avoid writing a whole book)

Oil/coal/nuclear is by its nature a monopolistic market. Factors of geography, technology, and capital needs prevent ordinary people or small groups/communities from making their own petroleum, to some extent coal, and completely shut them out from nuclear energy to meet small scale needs. This creates a market that tends to monopolize and has VERY rapidly over the last 20 years---witness the virtual strangle hold the energy monopoly now has on government.

Biofuels and renewable energy however, are exactly the opposite in nature. It is possible for individuals or small communities to make ethanol, biodiesel, wind, solar etc.---in fact, since they are so versitile on how they may be produced, it is actually preferable to have widespread local production than large installations requiring long distance shipping of raw materials and finished product.

Once biofuels get a foothold in the market, I anticipate that oil, in dwindling supply---requiring massive amounts of investment capital, and price undermined by biofuels produced from very cheap raw materials will eventually lose more and more market share until it simply drops to the bottom like a black Titanic.

It won't be any one thing that replaces oil/coal/nuclear---it will be a combination of things that are antithetical to the monopolistic production/market/supply system that got it where it is today.

Goliath ain't so tough, he's just big, that's all.

Now to keep the abandoned farmland out of the hands of the gigantic agri corps. With agri business actually able to a money maker again This could be very good opportunity for some of us to return to our agricutural roots.
It is interesting that most americans are four generations away from the family farm, and have no idea of the work that goes into it.

Australia has the potential space for biofuel crops, but hte majority of "abandoned" farmland is due to the huge salinity issues we face. Add to that the extended droughts most of the country has experienced and the changing rain patterns make it hard to predict good crop cycles. Also the cost of fuel is felt harshly in rural farm areas with the tyranny of distance and large farming properties is making it harder for farming families.

So I think you can rule out Australia as a big producer of biofuels in the near term.

I call shenanigans on the math in the article. They say 170 million barrels from 1.8 million sq. miles. So:

170,000,000 barrels / 1,800,000 sq. mi. = 94.4 barrels per sq. mi.
94.4 x 31 gallons per barrel = 2926.4 gallons per sq. mi.
2926.4 / 640 acres per sq. mile = 4.5 gallons per acre

4.5 gallons per acre per year? What are they doing, squeezing the oil out of the biomass by hand?

Wikipedia says Jatropha yield is about 200 gallons per acre.

Algae has a much higher yield than anything - over 10,000 gal/acre/year and the oil naturally seperates from the water, unlike ethanol which must be boiled off.

While the original study reports the numbers correctly, there is one error in how this Treehugger news story refers to the barrels of oil statistic. Otherwise the Treehugger story is quite accurate.

Here is the correct information that is in the original press release,

"But the researchers estimate that the worldwide harvestable dry biomass could amount to as much as 2.1 billion tons, with a total energy content of about 41 exajoules. While this is a significant amount of energy (one exajoule is a billion billion joules, equivalent to about 170 million barrels of oil), at best it would satisfy only about 8% of worldwide energy demand."

Here are the links to the press release and the study,

http://www.ciw.edu/news/abandoned_farmlands_are_key_sustainable_bioenergy

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/july9/biofuel-070908.html

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/asap/abs/es800052w.html