Burn Grass, Get Green Biofuel

Roland Piquepaille writes "Do you want to use an economical and environmentally friendly biofuel? Just grow grass. Burning grass pellets will produce an energy-efficient biofuel, according to Jerry Cherney, a professor of agriculture at Cornell University. In this news release, 'Grass as Fuel,' he says "Burning grass pellets makes sense; after all, it takes 70 days to grow a crop of grass for pellets, but it takes 70 million years to make fossil fuels." Unfortunately, there is nothing like a grass political lobby in Washington, so he might not be heard. But with current oil prices, more and more people will be tempted to use cheaper -- and cleaner -- sources of energy. This overview contains many more details and references about this environmentally friendly biofuel made from grass."

Comments

Roland Piquepaille

[Anonymous Coward]

Another Roland Piquepaille story
Here is what he wrote if your interested:

samedi 2 avril 2005

Burn Grass, Get Green Biofuel

Do you want to use an economical and environmentally friendly biofuel? Just grow grass. Burning grass pellets will produce an energy-efficient biofuel, according to Jerry Cherney, a professor of agriculture at Cornell University. In this news release, "Grass as Fuel," he says "Burning grass pellets makes sense; after all, it takes 70 days to grow a crop of grass for pellets, but it takes 70 million years to make fossil fuels." Unfortunately, there is anything like a grass political lobby in Washington, so he might not be heard. But with current oil prices, more and more people will be tempted to use cheaper -- and cleaner -- sources of energy. Read more...

Here is the introduction of the Cornell University news release.
Grow grass, not for fun but for fuel. Burning grass for energy has been a well-accepted technology in Europe for decades. But not in the United States.
Yet burning grass pellets as a biofuel is economical, energy-efficient, environmentally friendly and sustainable, says a Cornell University forage crop expert.
This alternative fuel easily could be produced and pelleted by farmers and burned in modified stoves built to burn wood pellets or corn, says Jerry Cherney, the E.V. Baker Professor of Agriculture. Burning grass pellets hasn't caught on in the United States, however, Cherney says, primarily because Washington has made no effort to support the technology with subsidies or research dollars.
Why is it important for environment?
Burning grass pellets makes sense; after all, it takes 70 days to grow a crop of grass for pellets, but it takes 70 million years to make fossil fuels," says Cherney, who notes that a grass-for-fuel crop could help supplement farmers' incomes.
Cherney points out that grass biofuel pellets are much better for the environment because they emit up to 90 percent less greenhouse gases than oil, coal and natural gas do. Furthermore, he says, grass is perennial, does not require fertilization and can be grown on marginal farmland.
Cherney recently presented his conclusions about grass biofuel at the Greenhouse Gases & Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry conference, held March 21-24 in Baltimore.
You can find the abstract of his talk, "Grass Bioenergy in the Northeastern USA," on this page. Just scroll a little bit or search for Cherney on the page.
If you're interested in this subject, here is a link to the July 2004 issue of the "Dairy & Field Crops digest" (PDF format, 12 pages, 728KB). The article "Grass Management for Forage or Biofuel?" appears on pages 7 and 8.
In this article, Cherney argues that "grass is converted to useable heat at over 80% efficiency, with an energy output:input ratio exceeding 10:1, compared to other bioenergy sources with typicalsystem energy output:input ratios around 1:1."
The cost-effectiveness of pelletized grass as a fuel results from:

* efficient use of low cost marginal farmland for solar energy collection
* minimal fossil fuel input use in field production and energy conversion
* minimal biomass quality upgrading which limits energy loss from the feedstock
* efficient combustion in advanced yet modestly priced and simple to use devices
* replacement of expensive high-grade energyforms in space and water heating

Cherney is convincing, but it's hard to help him while living in Paris.

Sources: Cornell University News Service, March 31, 2005; and various websites

Re:Obvious marijuana jokes aside...

[istewart]

The way I get it, it's a zero-emissions fuel in that it's a closed carbon cycle. The CO2 from burning the plant or plant derivative will be consumed and used by another plant. This is assuming that no petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, etc. are used, which would release additional carbon byproducts that were locked beneath the ground before.

Re:Obvious marijuana jokes aside...

[rewinn]

Great question. According to the article

... grass biofuel pellets are much better for the environment because they emit up to 90 percent less greenhouse gases than oil, coal and natural gas do. ..."

So while grass may not be perfect, it is 90% better than what we've got, from a carbon-release standpoint.

Another consideration is that the carbon emitted from burning grass is carbon that the grass took out of our atmosphere while growing, so there would be no net increase in atmospheric carbon from its use. In contrast, carbon released by fossil fuels hasn't been in our atmosphere for millions of years, which is why re-releasing it into our atmosphere is problematic.

Recently-Stored Carbon vs. Dinosaur Juice

[billstewart]

There are two different major issues with emissions - carbon dioxide and Nasty Stuff (particulates, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, etc.). The emissions problems with Nasty Stuff are pretty similar, and some materials are cleaner or dirty than others, and may be easier or harder to clean up. It's generally easier to clean up power plant emissions than car/truck emissions, because you have more technical choices, aren't limited by weight, can use water, etc. (Hmmm... cleaning grass smoke by bubbling through water... might be some future to that one...)

Carbon Dioxide emissions are really different, because the problem is greenhouse heating caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Burning oil and coal takes carbon that's been in the ground for a long time and pumps it into the atmosphere, which is a problem. But growing grass or trees for fuel takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, using solar energy and chlorophyll to split it up into various plant compounds, so any carbon dioxide emissions you get from burning the grass are just moving around carbon dioxide you took out of the atmosphere last growing season, so it's no problem.

ObDoperReference: Hemp is a really good grass for applications like this. It grows fast, doesn't need pesticides, you can do useful things with the seeds, the fiber can be used for cloth if you don't feel like burning it, and as a bonus you get a bunch of flowers that you can divert to other applications.

Re:70 days to grow a crop of grass?

[John Hasler]

> Don't alfalfa fields get 2 or 3 cuttings minimum
> per season?

Depends on the climate, among other things. Here in Wisconsin I get three cuttings a year of my mixed alfalfa/brome, but I am trying for an optimum combination of nutrition for horses, tonnage, and stand life. Many of my neighbor dairy farmers cut their pure alfalfa every 28 days. This gives them higher protein at the price of slightly lower tonnage and shorter stand life. If I was growing hay for fuel I would be trying to maximize dry weight without concern for nutritional value and would choose what to plant and how to harvest it on that basis.

Re:Obvious marijuana jokes aside...

[gwydion04]

I've never heard of a plant absorbing organic material from the ground, unless you consider parasitic species such as heather and mistletoe that get glucose from their host plants (glucose, not simple carbon). I believe that a sessile organism that takes organic material from the ground as its main source of food can be described as a "fungus."

In fact, this is why carbon 14 dating works - because the organic carbon present in all known lifeforms comes from CO2, which was converted to a fuel source by autotrophic plants. And on that note, I bid you all goodnight :).

Re:Less 'greenhouse gasses?' Pfft...

[Tekgno]

I think it is more of a matter of how burning grass or any bio-fuel for that matter fits in with the carbon cycle. Burning of oil, coal and natural gas releases carbon that has been locked up underground for millions of years as opposed to grass which collects it from the air and thus isn't adding any more to current amounts.

Re:"closed carbon cycle" != zero emissions

[PeterM]

To be more accurate, the idea that oil comes from 70 million year old organic matter is pretty much dead is completely false and discredited. Oil is sourced from Kerogen, an organic rich matter enbedded in source rock that undergoes a set of slow reactions in response to increasing temperature and pressure resulting from burial. This can ben conclusively proven by:

1. The existance of "biomarkers", organic molecules found within oil with clear biological precursors (e.g., pristane and phytane are derived from chlorophyll)
2. The fact that you can put kerogen in a tube in a lab, heat it, squeeze it, and get oil out
3. The utter, utter failure and wasted $$$ of fools who drill in non-organic rich areas

Sorry for the rant, but some statements are just stupid. More information can be found at Woods Hole Organic Geochemistry group ( http://dynatog.whoi.edu/ ), at the Newcastle U site ( http://nrg.ncl.ac.uk ) or on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_geochemistry )