Corn as biofuels is a waste of food source. Modern corn varieties require a lot of water, and fertilizer. The inputs needed to produce the quantity of corn needed for biofuels makes it very inefficient.The agricultural land needed for good corn production should not be wasted on corn based ethanol. Well actually I support corn ethanol, mixed with Mountain Dew.
I agree, but I believe what they're talking about here is biofuels made from the leftover plant matter after farmers harvest the corn -- not the corn itself.
You know the Germans have decided that ethanol is an expensive waste of time and effort...right? http://www.spiegel.de/international...ermany-backs-away-from-biofuels-a-545419.html
Unsurprisingly, your link does not say what you claim it says. It merely says that Germany is canceling plans to increase the amount of ethanol in its ethanol/gasoline blends because it turns out that more cars than expected -- 3 million out of Germany's 31 million vehicles -- would be unable to use it. It does mention that some German environmentalists are starting to have second thoughts about biofuels, because it has led to clearing of rainforest in order to grow biofuel crops. That's a legitimate concern, but does not add up to 'Germans have decided that ethanol is an expensive waste of time and effort." Could you for once do an *accurate* summary of the sources you link to?
Ahh, corn stover. Once again, I agree, using corn harvest residues would not be worthwhile to make cellulosic ethanol. Honestly I am not familiar with the quality of corn residue biomass to say about its biofuel potential. This I know is true.. I am a proponent of "no-till" farming (I worked with a pioneer of this method at Mississippi State University). Continual removal of residue removes soil nutrients and leaves no protection for the soil during the off season. Leaving the residue on the ground till the start of the next season protects the soil from erosion and returns nutrients back to the soil, reducing the need for additional fertilizers. If there is a plant suitable for biomass production, its either switchgrass (growable on marginal lands and soils unsuitable for regular agriculture) or pine biomass left over from timber mills (bark, top wood, chips, pellets).
Your gov'ts study, not mine. REad it and weep Dimocrat suckers! - - - Updated - - - Oh good lord, read for crying out loud. Can you read?
Most of the mill residue goes into the power plant furnaces where I live. With 20+ years between harvests, I am not sure pine in a sustainable source of biofuel. Biofuels are going to have a huge commercial scalability problem anyway and I am not sure even switchgrass is a good return on investment compared to other ag alternatives (i.e. if I can make more growing corn than switchgrass, there is no reason for me to grow grass). No till is something I am walking gently toward. I just got my farm. It is heavily compacted clay in too many places to go all in yet. It is going to take a few years of amending, tilling, amending to get those areas near to the point I could even consider jumping off that cliff. The added rain we have been having is not making it easy to even get going because that clay just takes so long to dry out. I went out this morning and was done almost as soon as I started because of it.
Taxcutter says: Producing the feedstock for ethanol costs more than producing the feedstock for gasoline. Refining the feedstock into ethanol (actually denatured alcohol) fuel liquid requires more energy than gasoline from petroleum. Denatured alcohol is a good deal more corrosive than gasoline, hence can be assumed to generate more leakage. Denatured alcohol is soluble in water. Gasoline is not. It is easy to get gasoline out of water in event of a spill. Denatured alcohol requires re-distillation. Denatured alcohol does not have the strong smell gasoline has, so if any gets in your drinking water, you won't notice until its too late.